The main problem with lowering the carbon level is down to individuals, to behaviour, to good citizenship and that is the biggest challenge of all... how many times to you see careless behaviours? how do you change that?

I just had to respond. I think this attitude is the best way to make sure that end in the end, nothing good happens. I'm reprinting my comment on the topic below, unedited (even though you all know about passive houses already).

My response

Individual action will not solve the problem. For example, my hobby horse is highly energy efficient buildings such as the Passive House approach. They use 80-90% less energy than a conventional house, at typically 5-10% higher cost to build. Simply building only passive houses and remodeling to the passive house standard for the next ten years would reduce the U.S.'s carbon footprint by at least 20%. In fact, because the energy use is so low, there will be lots of excess solar electricity generated, so our carbon footprint might even go lower due to the compounding effects.

But people won't build them without a) a large-scale education campaign for both builders and home buyers, b) incentives for builders and owners from cities, counties, and states, and c) a compelling business case for the suppliers of the highly efficient windows and mechanical systems required.

Passive Houses "tunnel through" the efficiency cost barrier to achieve their benefits at a relatively low additional cost. But even though they have a great cost/benefit ratio, they're not going to take off without those structural changes. That's why, instead of becoming a builder of passive houses, I'm becoming a lobbyist for passive houses. Builders can make a difference of 2-5 houses a year. As a lobbyist, I can make a difference of 100-1000 houses a year, or more.

Individuals weatherstripping their houses, and taking shorter showers, can slow down CO2 growth a bit, but turning it around takes large structural changes. Yes, those are driven by individuals, but they are not individual changes.

I use passive houses as an example, but there are lots more in other areas. Same is true for car use - it will take structural changes for people to be able to live nearer where they work. Or for food energy use - most people are not going to be able to garden enough to make a difference in the U.S.'s agricultural energy footprint - that's going to take big changes in commercial ag. Some of those changes are happening, and that's awesome, but it's not going to happen by you putting in a garden, no matter how good and useful a step that is.

We get a lot of kale in our CSA box of veggies (image by terren in Virginia, CC 2.0 license)

There's a perception that green is more expensive and less convenient, and, truth to say, that's sometimes true. It is more expensive to buy your groceries at Whole Foods. And putting solar panels on your roof doesn't really save you money for many years, if at all, (although it's still less than buying a new car).

But on the other hand, we know that there are lots of green things you can do that actually save money - replacing your incandescent lights with compact fluorescents is one familiar example. And if you're building a house, putting in lots more insulation than is required by code can save a huge amount of both money and energy, while making your home more comfortable.

Sometimes it's small changes that can flip this perception. I have a recent example from my own life that brought this home to me (so to speak):

A few years ago we signed up with a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program to get a box of organic veggies every other week. Essentially, we were contracting with a farmer out in the country to grow stuff for  us to eat, and bring a box of it into the city every other week. CSA programs have clear benefits - in particular, they're a cost-effective way to be sure you're eating good quality, fresh, healthy, local food, and CSAs directly support small, family-run sustainable farms.

But, we stopped our box after a few months. The big problem? The farmer dropped off all the boxes for our part of town on a particular day at a house where we had to go to pick up ours at a particular time. This turned out to be just difficult enough that it became an obstacle to us being able to stay in the program. Effectively, it was a type of "privation" - we had to do a little bit more to be green and healthy than was convenient for our life.

The good news is that we just joined another CSA. Almost exactly like the first one, with one key exception: They deliver to our house. We don't even have to be here. Every two weeks we get a big box with a giant variety of vegetables.

Even though I know that I should be able to pick up a box of vegetables at some random person's house every two weeks, and that by doing so I'll be saving the planet and being organic and supporting family farms, I just couldn't do it. But with one small change, I'm back in the game.

What small changes have you experienced that made it easier to "do the right thing?" What could green suppliers, green builders, car companies, the government do to make "green" easier? Let me know your thoughts on this - I'd love to hear what you think.

Espresso: Gets you going, gets your car going (image by Demion, CC 2.0 licensed)

I thought this was a fun one. Last month Science Daily reported that researchers in Nevada found that diesel oil could be recovered from used coffee grounds.

Spent coffee grounds contain between 11 and 20 percent oil by weight. That's about as much as traditional biodiesel feedstocks such as rapeseed, palm, and soybean oil.

Growers produce more than 16 billion pounds of coffee around the world each year. The used or "spent" grounds remaining from production of espresso, cappuccino, and plain old-fashioned cups of java, often wind up in the trash or find use as soil conditioner. The scientists estimated, however, that spent coffee grounds can potentially add 340 million gallons of biodiesel to the world's fuel supply.

U.S. diesel usage is around 40 billion gallons per year for on-road transportation, so at 340 million gallons, biodiesel from coffee grounds represents just a drop in the coffee cup. I wonder if it makes your exhaust smell like a Peet's Coffee shop?

Beatiful kale,not from a factory farm (photo by terren in Virginia, CC 2.0 licensed)

Nicholas Kristof in his NY Times op-ed today urges Obama to appoint a Secretary of Food:

A Department of Agriculture made sense 100 years ago when 35 percent of Americans engaged in farming. But today, fewer than 2 percent are farmers. In contrast, 100 percent of Americans eat.

The interests of big agriculture - the "factory farmers" - are really opposed to the interests of people. The "food" they raise wastes energy, causes huge environment damage, makes us unhealthy, and even leads to antibiotic resistant diseases.

On the other hand, real family farmers, who grow non-factory food on relatively small farms, are good for us, good for the environment, and good for our health.

If you feel this is a good cause, check out the online petition at www.fooddemocracynow.org, which calls for a reformist pick for agriculture secretary — and names six terrific candidates, including Chuck Hassebrook, a reformer in Nebraska and Fred Kirschenmann, an organic farmer and researcher in Pocantico Hills, NY.

For more on food policy and its relation to health, environment, and policy, check out Michael Pollan's "Open Letter To The Next Farmer In Chief" in the October 12 New York Times Magazine. Eye-opening and inspiring, like all of his work.