In 2007, a whitewater rafting and environmental education center in Coloma, California, set a goal of reducing the carbon emissions created by its business operations by 20% by 2012; 40% by 2020; and 80% by 2050. By the end of the first year of action, 2008, great strides were made towards that goal, actually reducing total carbon output by 30%.
However, as many of our public leaders have discovered, there are always unforeseen complications associated with reducing carbon emissions. In 2009, great advances were made in terms of greening the infrastructure of this company, such as: installation of solar panels, start-up of a used vegetable oil refining system and conversion of vehicles for its use, elimination of bottled water, among others. improvements. But while total carbon output fell by 1 percent in 2009, output per person actually increase. How could this be? It turns out that a care arrangement had been made with a family to live on the property for six months. This had a much larger impact on total carbon output than had been anticipated.
Hard work went into building new, energy-efficient infrastructure and harnessing renewable energy sources at this 12-acre campground. In addition to many improvements made in 2008, such as a used vegetable oil refining system, the conversion of a school bus to run on WVO, and passive and active solar systems for the kitchen, bathrooms, and showers, two new solar thermal hot water In 2009 heaters were added, a new minibus that will run on used vegetable oil and some new photovoltaic solar panels. The garden was also considerably enlarged after the installation of a solar-insulated flower bed. Great results were expected when calculating total carbon production for 2009, or at least a significant reduction in production from 2008.
But alas! When the numbers were run, total carbon output per person for 2009 had increased by 13.7%. To be clear, that’s No total carbon output overall, which actually decreased by 1 percent since 2008, but total carbon divided by the number of people who participated in programs, people who lived, worked and played here. How, after spending so much time and money improving infrastructure, was there actually an increase in carbon output per person? The news was shocking because a dramatic decrease was expected in all items, especially in propane, after having installed the new solar water heaters.
Well, as the numbers were crunched, an explanation emerged. The number of people arriving in the center of the river in 2009 had declined since 2008, as would be expected in the down economy. But because a family of caretakers lived on site for six months, overall overall energy use did not decrease significantly on the property. Although the vehicles’ fuel use decreased, thanks to the WVO systems, the use of electricity and propane increased. It was shocking to see how deeply a household, living in a house that has not been retrofitted for energy efficiency, can increase overall energy use. It’s not terribly bad on the electrical side, but the propane needed to heat the house during the winter is substantial. This brought to mind some facts found in last year’s investigation, in particular that The carbon footprint of just heating and cooling an average American home is about 15 tons, about half of Midriver’s total carbon footprint. So while the family living on the property was more conscious of their energy use than the average American household, the fact remains that the daily carbon emissions from heating and cooling a home really do pack a punch.
Moving forward into 2010, it’s exciting to have an increasingly detailed understanding of how a business uses energy and how it can improve.
