The Green Curmudgeon

With 2007 coming to a close, we thought it time to review how the Curmudgeon family did in its efforts during the year to reduce our large footprint on the world.

Electric Consumption

We did best in reducing our consumption of electricity. With our solar panels at work for the full year, we generated roughly 2600 kilowatt hours of emission-free renewable solar power, offsetting between 20-25% of our electricity needs.

We also had the first full year of benefit from our other conservation measures, including replacement of most of our light bulbs with compact fluorescents and turning off most of our electronics when not in use. Those measures--which cost a lot less than putting in solar panels--had about the same impact, reducing our consumption by about 2800 kilowatt hours.

All in all, we reduced our electric consumption by a third, from 15,800 kwh in 2006 to 10,400 kwh in 2007. Even more impressive is that since 2004 we have reduced consumption by TWO-THIRDS, from 29,400 kwh to 10,400 kwh. One key: in 2004 we had an electric heater in our greenhouse that used roughly 10,000 kwh by itself, just to keep a little room at about 55 degrees. We replaced the greenhouse with a very well-insulated sunroom, which is pretty much paying for itself in energy savings. (That's our greenhouse effect.)

A word to the wise: if you are using electric heat anywhere in your house, it's probably costing you a bundle. We have some friends in Scarsdale, NY, who had an enormous electric bill, and discovered one of the prime reasons was the electric heating in their garage.

It will be difficult for us to reduce electric consumption much further, absent a new, more efficient air conditioner. One of our a/c units is pretty old, so that upgrade may not be too far off.

Natural Gas Consumption

We've also made some progress in reducing our consumption of natural gas, which we use for hot water, heating, cooking and fireplaces.

In 2004-05 we averaged 2350 Therms of gas use, whereas in 2006-07 we averaged 1960 Therms, a nearly 20% reduction. We've done that without making our home uncomfortable--we keep the thermostat at 71 degrees, lest Mrs. Curmudgeon complain.

The keys, so far: turn down the thermostat when out of town; put in a storm door; turn down the heat in unused zones of the house (like the guest bedroom).

We need to do more, and are thinking of the following: programmable thermostats (to turn down the heat late at night) and replacing our older windows with today's double-paned energy efficient versions. Both of those steps will probably cost a good deal more than the savings they will generate, however (we have four thermostats and lots of old windows). We could also get a more efficient hot water heater, although hot water only accounts for about 150 Therms per year, so there's no big savings to be had there.

The good news is that natural gas is a very efficient energy medium for the uses to which we've put it--heating--so we're doing pretty well even without additional reductions.

Gasoline

Our progress in reducing gasoline consumption has been slow because we haven't replaced any cars in the last three years. We estimate that we have reduced consumption by about 10% by changing our driving habits--more coasting to stop lights, slower acceleration, better highway speeds.

In 2008 we may replace one car, and in 2009 the lease will be up on the Curmudgeon's Acura. We hope to get much more efficient replacements for both, but we can't be too radical--we still have to ferry two boys and all their stuff--and the occasional friends--all over creation. And we're pretty sure that "travel soccer" will result in an increased carbon burden as we travel farther afield to get to the games.

Solid Waste

We made good progress this year in boosting our recycling and reducing our garbage/trash. We are now meticulous about what goes into recycling--not just newspapers and magazines, but mail, school flyers, cereal boxes, other food containers. We also save all those plastic bags that the newspapers come in, along with the ones from stores, and put them into the plastic bag recycling at the grocery store. That has probably resulted in a couple thousand less plastic bags at the landfill from us this year. And we're religious about recycling cardboard, plastic bottles, metal cans--anything that is eligible for recycling.

We've also started doing some composting, but we could do better. So far, we're probably only fattening up our local squirrels, but a resolution for the new year is to come up with a good system to maximize composting.

Still, we put a lot of trash out each week. It'd be nice to reduce it further.

Water

Water is not energy per se, but it is a precious resource and it takes a lot of energy to get it to and from your home, so it's worth looking at how much you're using. We just started looking into this, creating a baseline of water use over the past three years so we can figure out whether we're making any meaningful reductions.

With this summer's drought, we certainly wished we'd had some rain barrels. Typically, a barrel will hold 50 gallons of water, and even a small rain storm will re-fill it. We could easily put out four rain barrels--one on each corner downspout--and with re-fills get several thousand gallons of water over the course of the spring/summer/early fall watering season.

Sustainability

Organic products and other renewable products obtained from sustainable practices also reduce energy needs and conserve the environment. We are gradually adding more organic products to our diet--eating out less would help(!)--and trying to incorporate sustainability into our purchasing decisions. It ain't easy, though.

Our bottom line: we made terrific progress in 2007, but we've probably harvested all the low-hanging fruit. It's doubtful we'll make as much progress in 2008, but our hope is that we will continue to reduce our collective Curmudgeon-household footprint as we go forward.

Energy Tip: Don't Run The A/C All The Time

There's an urban myth that it's less expensive to simply run your air conditioning all the time during the summer as opposed to turning it on and off when the house is empty or the temperatures are mild.

The fact is, you'll save plenty by turning off the A/C--or turning up the thermostat--when your house is empty, or on nights like we've had of late when humidity is low and temps are mild.

For example, if your house or apartment is empty all day while you're at work, etc, turn off the A/C, or turn up the thermostat. When you get home, it will cool off pretty quickly and will not use nearly the energy it would if you left it on all day. (Better yet, install a timer so you can arrive home to a cooled environment.)

On nice nights, turn off the A/C and open a few windows. You'll be more comfortable, your home will air out and you'll save plenty on electricity.

Dry, Sunny May Sets Stage For Great Solar Month

May turned out to be a terrific month for our solar panels and our overall electricity consumption, with dry, sunny but not too hot days throughout the month.

Our net electric consumption for the month was only 338 kilowatt hours--our lowest total yet, beating what had been an already terrific April when we used 406 kwh.

Our total electric consumption--before factoring in the contribution from solar panels--was 718 kwh, a significant reduction from 1026 a year ago, showing that our conservation measures also continue to pay off.

In May, our solar panels contributed 380 kwh--more than half our consumption and a big jump from April's 251 kwh.

Alas, the outlook for June is not so, er, sunny. With the advent of summer humidity and temps approaching 90, we've turned on the A/C (although trying to go without it at night), and June is likely to be hazier than May, making for a little less productivity out of our solar panels. May will surely be our low water mark, in terms of net electric consumption, for the next few months.

We, of course, like to pat ourselves on the back for our reduced electric consumption. But we'd be the first to say that being green goes well beyond electricity, and the first to admit that, on other fronts (heating, auto gas mileage, water conservation, food, clothing) our progress has been much slower. Gives us something to work on.

Blame OPEC, Blame Exxon; Blame Bush, Blame Pelosi; Blame Iraq, Blame Iran; Just Don't Blame Me

Americans are fed up with high gas prices, but they aren't prepared to do anything about it.

According to a Washington Post survey ("Tipping Point Shock"), gas prices would have to rise another buck, to $4.38 ($5.12 out West) before a majority of motorists would change their driving habits.

Instead, Americans prefer the blame game, ascribing "fault" for high gas prices to oil companies, the Iraq war, politics, OPEC, etc.

Only two percent of drivers in the Post survey blamed "market forces."

In other words, blame anyone else, just don't blame me.

Yet the fault lies at home. Americans love their big SUV's, complete with the smug little "support the troops" yellow ribbon. They love their exurban homes. They love their summer driving vacations.

They don't love mass transit. They don't love trains. They don't love hybrid cars. They say they want good mileage, but what they really mean is they want a vehicle that will defy physics--a monster truck that will get 50 mpg.

The fact of the matter is that despite the higher gas prices, consumption of gasoline in the U.S. was about 2 percent higher last week than the same week a year ago. That's supply and demand.

Until people begin to change, expect prices to continue to rise. And don't expect change to come quickly--the blame game is much easier to play.

Don't "Do" Anything About High Gasoline Prices

With gas prices creeping up again, politicians of all stripes--especially Democrats--are proposing to "do" something about it.

Last time gas prices spiked, after Katrina, it was the Republicans making silly proposals, including one to send $100 to every American family, like some kind of holiday bonus from Congress.

Now Speaker Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are the one demogaguing gas prices, raising their typical bogeyman, the big bad oil companies.

While it's true that oil companies benefit from the high prices, we don't see any evidence that they've engineered it this way. The real culprits are tight refinery capacity, increased global oil demand and, despite higher gas prices, increased U.S. demand for gasoline. If Democrats are serious about the price issue, they'll figure out a way to get some new refineries built.

In the meantime, higher gasoline prices are a good thing. Americans still guzzle gas like there's no tomorrow, and if we keep doing so, there really won't be a tomorrow. At some point, higher prices will stifle demand, and, at a minimum cause more and more Americans to switch to vehicles with greater fuel efficiency.

Sustained higher prices will also light a fire under Detroit's automakers to get going on better models. For years, GM and Ford, in particular, have complained about proposals to raise fuel economy standards while they built an unsustainable business model around selling gi-normous SUV's and pick-up trucks. Now, they'll have to scramble regardless of what our ineffectual Congress does.

Higher prices will also encourage entrepeneurs, who have some great ideas about alternative ways to make cars run, and help them attract capital. (We read recently about one inventor who's come up with an ingenious way to use steam to boost the output of the standard four-stroke auto engine by nearly 40 percent.)

Ultimately, the challenge for congressional Democrats is not to bring gas prices down--not that they can anyway. Rather, it is to craft a truly comprehensive energy/environmental bill that will get us on the right path. We're waiting.

What Cost Carbon?

The cost to control carbon emissions is manageable--that's the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In IPCC's latest report, the authoritative panel estimates that we could stabilize the level of greenhouse carbon emissions by 2030 at a cost of roughly $100 per ton of carbon. To translate that into a meaningful figure, it would add about a $1 to the price of a gallon of gas. (See Washington Post story here.)

Of course, the Bush administration immediately reacted in knee-jerk fashion, declaring that such a cost "would of course cause a global recession."

What are these guys (i.e., the Bushies) smoking? The price of gas already went up a $1 a gallon in the past couple of years and guess what--no recession. Moreover, IPCC calculates the cost of the $100/ton of carbon as equating only 0.12 percent annually of global output.

Let's compare that to say, the cost of the War in Iraq, or the cost of rebuilding New Orleans (which will only flood again).

If anything, the Bush administration should hail the IPCC report as good news, declaring that "yes, this is something the U.S., at least, can and should afford."

In related news, the Senate Energy Committee is considering a new lighting standard, as part of a broader energy bill to be pushed by Democrats, that would effectively phase-out the standard incandescent light bulb in about 10 years. This would be a welcome development.

Philips Electronics, the largest European light bulb manufacturer, estimates that replacing all the incandescent bulbs in the U.S. would eliminate the need for 23 electric power plants of 1000 megawatts each, while saving $14 billion in electric bills.

(Some reports state that compact fluorescent bulbs cost more than incandescent bulbs. That's really not true. They cost more at the check-out counter, but the fluorescents last 5-8 times as long and recoup their cost in saved electricity, so they actually cost a LOT less than incandescent bulbs.)

Let's hope this measure--still being hammered out between environmental groups and bulb manufacturers--passes this year. It will then give builders of the millions of new homes, condos and apartments over the next decade a powerful incentive to install the right kind of lighting and bulbs, while everyone else retrofits.

Coming Next Week: Jamestown at 800--what will Virginia look like in 400 more years (feel free to comment with your suggestions).

Sunny Delight

Speaking of energy conservation (see post below), the new electric bill just arrived and April was our best month yet.

With our solar panels kicking in a solid 251 kwh, and our other conservation measures in full swing, we reduced our electric consumption by more than 50% compared to last year, from 856 kwh in April '06 to just 406 kwh in April '07. (Our bill was about $40.) We're particularly pleased that our solar panels contributed fully 38% of our power needs in April, despite a long stretch of cloudy, yucky days.

That will probably be our high water mark (or low water mark, as the case may be), at least until October, since pretty soon the Curmudgeon's family will demand running the air conditioning as the usual heat and humidity settle in.

For more on our solar panels and conservation measures, see:

http://xcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2006/11/solar-energy-good-feel-bad-deal.html

http://xcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2006/11/easy-way-to-save-energy-and-money.html

http://xcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/02/energy-conservation-works-how.html

Our Shrinking Electric Bill

As we've been reporting since installing solar panels and instituting some conservation measures (notably replacing most of our lights with fluorescents and completely turning off all our electronics each night), our electric bill has declined dramatically.

March continued the trend, with our lowest monthly power bill ever, just 520 kilowatt hours (about $50 at Dominion's rates). That was 45% less than last March, and a mere one third of March 2005.

In March, the solar panels finally kicked in a significant share, knocking 202 kwh's off our bill (thus contributing about 30 percent of our electric needs for March), while conservation measures accounted for the rest.

We think we can do even better in April, with the solar panels contributing a bit more, and lighting needs being lower (last April was our lowest month before the latest round of savings' measures). We'll let you know.

Check out our archived posts for more info on the solar panels and the conservation measures we've instituted.

Dominion Re-Regulation Bill Amendments--A Start In The Right Direction

Governor Kaine made some important amendments to the Dominion Re-Regulation Bill passed by the General Assembly. For stories from the Washington Post and Richmond Times-Dispatch, see here and here. (The Times-Dispatch story has more detail.)

In a nutshell, Governor Kaine has strengthened provisions promoting greater energy conservation and increasing investment in renewable energy sources, which is certainly to the good.

Notably, the Governor raised from 5% to 10% a goal for reducing energy consumption through conservation measures between 2006 and 2022. (Still too modest a goal, but we can work to increase it further in the future.)

In addition, the amendments increase the incentives to invest in renewables such as wind, solar and hydro. Other provisions also provide incentives for "clean coal" and, more importantly, reduce the profit that can be made from conventional coal-fired electric plants. (National cap and trade legislation may further discourage new construction of conventional coal plants.)

Kaine also smartly decided to exempt large industrial consumers of electricity in the state from requirements that they help cover the "costs" to utilities if those consumers fund their own investments in renewable energy generation. (More on this below.)

Finally, the Governor tinkered with some other provisions to provide marginally greater protection to consumers from large rate increases.

We share the disappointment of the Piedmont Environmental Council and other conservation groups in the state that the Governor didn't do more on the environmental front, especially while he had clear leverage over Dominion since it desperately wants this bill. (Indeed, Dominion's spokespeople voiced support for the Governor's amendments, meaning plenty was left on the bargaining table.) (But, just imagine where we'd be on this if Republican Jerry Kilgore had defeated Kaine.)

That said, the amendments are a good step forward. We've never believed for an instant that Virginia will suddenly become a green mecca, a' la California. Rather, it will take a sustained effort over many years to make good progress. It will help if Democrats continue to gain seats in the Assembly, as we expect they will, and it will also help when farmers, fishermen, hunters, coastal residents and others realize they have a big stake in all this and become more natural allies on these types of measures.

The good news is that between the conservation/renewables provisions of the re-regulation bill and the energy bill passed last year, there is ample room for small, incremental amendments over the next few years to further boost conservation and renewable investment.

We also want to say a word about the provision that allows large industrial users to invest in renewable energy without compensating Dominion for the "cost" of opting out. This is an excellent amendment. We want to encourage the largest power users to search out and invest in renewable sources of electricity to service their needs. As a practical matter, today that means mostly wind energy, because it is economical, but the mix may change down the road.

In any event, it is a myth that there is somehow some "cost" to Dominion, or to other ratepayers, when large consumers decide to generate their own electricity from renewables. Quite the contrary, those investments reduce the need for Dominion to build new plants to meet growing demand, reduce the need for new high voltage lines, help distribute the energy load more efficiently around the state, help reduce the cost down the road for medium and smaller consumers to invest in renewables (by developing the technology infrastructure and expertise), and force Dominion to keep its prices competitive or lose customers.

For all those reasons, we should encourage the largest power consumers to "go for it" on renewable energy, and that's what Governor Kaine's amendment will do.

Now, the one thing we can't yet figure out is whether Dominion will be required to offer its "Greenpower" program--available in North Carolina--to Virginia consumers. That program allows a consumer to pay a premium for electricity generated from clean sources--in essence to help fund increased renewable generation. Getting that program to Virginia consumers is one of our priorities.

GM's Can't Do Attitude

Can General Motors successfully do anything other than sell behemoth SUV's that are moving toward extinction?

GM's CEO, Richard Wagoner, testified at a House hearing yesterday that it would cost GM as much as $44 billion to meet higher gas mileage standards Congress is considering imposing. He (and to be fair, other automakers) were there to oppose even President Bush's modest proposal to boost fuel economy by 4 percent a year over the next ten year, arguing they just can't get it done.

What bunk! GM has had 40 years--since the oil crisis in the 1970's--to come up with better technology. And yet they're basically selling the same thing now as they did back then--giant gas guzzling cars and trucks that aren't particularly well made and, by and large, aren't particularly stylish.

Fortunately for us, it doesn't matter that much what Congress decides to do--like it or not, GM will be forced by higher gas prices to compete on fuel economy.

If GM wanted to be a leader in the coming decade, if it wanted to show the way on reduced carbon emissions, it could do so. But that would take a corporate brain transplant from the can't do attitude that permeates its management today.

It's sad to see the American automotive industry continue its worldwide decline through a lack of leadership and innovation.

We Like Your Plan, Mayor Fitch!

The Mayor of Warrenton, a town of maybe 10,000 nestled in the foothills of western Virginia, has a plan to make his burg energy independent and virtually carbon neutral. (See Washington Post story here.)

George Fitch, the Mayor, wants to build a $30 million plant at the county dump to convert waste into electricity and ethanol. And, he thinks he can do it without raising taxes or taking on debt.

We sure hope he succeeds. What a fabulous precedent that would set for other communities across the nation!

Fitch and his allies in Warrenton are not exactly pie-in-the-sky liberals. (According to one of Fitch's fellow town council members, they aren't "environmentalists" because that would be "somebody who wears Birkenstocks and carries a knapsack and too-long hair and spends his free time working for the Sierra Club." Guess the Curmudgeon's not an environmentalist either--phew!)

Instead, they offer up the possibility of a mainstream conservative vision of energy conservation, independence and environmental stewardship. (This is quite a contrast to the complete lack of vision espoused by hard-right conservative Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, in an insipid op-ed piece in the Post a couple weeks ago, about which we've already commented.)

What Fitch recognizes is that turning garbage into energy simply makes eminent sense as an example of good government. If adopted as a widespread model, it also makes everyone more secure both by reducing reliance on imported oil and by widely distributing electric production facilities (which makes the grid less vulnerable to terrorism).

We just hope Fitch's vision doesn't cause Warrenton to be overrun by long-haired Birkenstock-clad backpackers in Prius's covered with Sierra Club stickers.

Environmental Fixes For Dominion Re-Regulation Bill

Governor Kaine has his plate full with the defective, but still fixable, transportation bill sitting on his desk.

That leaves little time for him to focus on an equally important bill dumped in his lap by the General Assembly, which would dramatically change the way electric utilities--particularly Dominion Virginia Power--are regulated in the Commonwealth.

Among other things, the bill is an environmental disaster. Here, we explore some ideas for improving the bill on the environmental side. However, the entire bill needs careful consideration--which it did not get this term. The Governor should veto it so that he, the Attorney General and the General Assembly can more carefully consider these important issues next year.

Others have done an excellent job of detailing the way Dominion rammed this bill through the General Assembly this term without anyone really understanding what it will do to electric power consumers in the state.

Our focus today is on the environmental side. For all practical purposes, Dominion is the only electric utility in the state of Virginia. We are fortunate that it is a well-managed company that has kept electricity rates relatively low.

Dominion, however, is behind on the environmental curve, and it won't even try to catch up unless the legislature, Public Service Commission, Governor and Attorney General force it to.

Dominion badly wants new legislation that will change the way it is regulated and allow it to raise the capital needed to meet Virginia's future power demands. That puts the state in an excellent bargaining position to obtain some key environmental concessions.

First, Dominion should be required to offer its Greenpower program--which is available in NC--to Virginia customers. This program, similar to programs offered by other utilities around the country--allows a customer to pay a bit extra to obtain his or her power solely from renewable resources, such as wind energy. These programs incentivize utilities like Dominion to expand their investments in renewable energy.

Second, Dominion should be required to expand its net metering program in Virginia by providing a set amount of financing for consumers who want to install their own renewable energy generation onsite. This further encourages development of wind and solar energy in the state. At present, there is a cap on the amount of net-metered energy that Dominion must accept, equal to 0.1% of its total energy demand in Virginia. The cap should either be removed, or raised to at least 5%. There is some other tinkering that can be done with the net metering provisions to further encourage individuals and businesses to develop their own alternative sources of renewable electricity.

Third, Dominion should be required to make aggressive investments in conservation. There are ways to structure regulation that will give Dominion appropriate incentives to promote electricity conservation programs. We should study successful programs from other states and implement them here. Remember: a 100 megawatt reduction in electric demand is just as good as building a new 100 megawatt powerplant. There is plenty of room for Virginians to reduce their consumption without any impact on lifestyle. (I have detailed on my own blog how I reduced my power bill by as much as 30 percent in some months by taking simple steps that don't require any sacrifice.)

[One way to improve conservation is to raise rates. We note that higher rates does not necessarily mean higher bills: if rates go up 25% but as a result you use 25% less energy, your total bill will stay the same. Californians use, on average, almost half the electricity of Virginians. Their electric rates are higher, but their total electric bills are not.]

Fourth, we need to explore incentives to discourage Dominion from building new coal-fired power plants in Virginia (or elsewhere for purposes of supplying Virginia). With prospects high for the enactment of national legislation to discourage carbon emissions, it would be economic folly for Dominion to commit the state to new generation from coal. In any event, it is environmentally irresponsible. Virginia has a long and sensitive coastline that is vulnerable to rising sea levels and increased storm activity. We can ill afford to endanger our historically significant and economically vital coastal communities through such short-sighted actions as building new coal electric plants. If anything, we should be looking for ways to retire the existing ones.

With its good management and sound financial base, Dominion could, with the right incentives, become an environmental leader that would do Virginia proud. Now is the time to make sure those incentives are put in place.

Governor Kaine should veto the bill hastily pushed through the General Assembly this term, followed by a commitment to work with Dominion, environmental groups and consumer advocates for a bill that suits all Virginians in the next term. (We might add that Attorney General Bob McDonnell is at grave political risk on this bill, since his office undertook to study and attempt to modify Dominion's original draft bill. Unless he wants to be known as "Dominion Bob" when he runs for Governor, McDonnell should support efforts to bring in a wider array of citizens groups to meld a better bill in a future term.)

Gore's Energy Consumption Is An Issue

While we like former Vice President Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth campaign to educate the public of the global warming peril, we are disappointed to learn of the massive electric bill at his Nashville home.

The fact that the initial report came from a right-wing Tennessee political organization (not a "think-tank" as some media reported it) doesn't change its significance.

It appears undisputed that Gore's home used approximately 221,000 kwh's of electricity last year. That is a LOT. Comparing Gore's use to the average American home--which uses roughly 10,500 kwh's per annum--is probably unfair. Certainly Gore's home is larger than average.

It appears to us, however, that Gore's energy use far exceeds what even a larger home, even a mansion, should be using. There may be some extenuating circumstances: for example, the Gore household has some security features that no ordinary home would have. There could be other factors as well. For example, we learned that an old electric greenhouse heater we inherited from the previous owners of our home was gobbling up 12,000 kwh's of electricity a year--nearly half our total--before we replaced it. Since we can't imagine how Gore could use such a vast amount of electricity absent some extraordinary circumstance, we'd be curious to hear the full story.

What we can't accept, however, is the argument of some Gore supporters sho say that whatever his electric consumption, it's ok, because Gore is enrolled in the GreenPower program of his local utility. Under such programs, consumers opt to pay a premium to their utility in exchange for a promise that the utility will obtain that electricity from renewable sources (usually wind).

The problem we have with this argument--i.e., that enrolling in GreenPower exempts Gore from scrutiny--is that it kind of assumes unlimited renewable resources. Gore is using up a lot of wind and solar, which means less to offset the carbon emissions of others. Wind and solar are better than oil and coal, but they still consume other resources, such as steel. There's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy.

That's why we harp on conservation here. We're in favor of reasonable energy conservation--that is measures that don't significantly reduce our standard of living--combined with heavy investment in and development of renewable energy sources.

As we've reported here before, the Curmudgeon household has significantly reduced it's electricity consumption through a combination of conservation measures and installation of solar panels. In February, we reached a new monthly low of 625 kwh's, which is darn good for a house as large as ours. (That's almost half our usage in February '06, which was 1115 kwh's--most of the savings is from fluorescent lighting and simply turning our electronics off each night.) While that's a good start, we're still concerned that our carbon footprint (from our natural gas usage, cars, beef consumption, etc.) is still quite massive.

Gore says that he, too, is renovating his house to make it more energy efficient, and that he plans to add some solar panels to his home. By our calculation, he'd have to install more than 1000 of the Curmudgeon's 190 watt Evergreen panels--at a cost of more than a million dollars--to offset his current use of electricity. We doubt if his roof is big enough for that.

Gore can't just talk the talk. He needs to walk the walk. Home is a great place to start.