Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Conserve, NOW!: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Environmental Costs

Expand Messages
  • Mike Neuman
    CONSERVE, NOW! REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS BY OFFERING FINANCIAL INCENTIVES THAT REWARD LESS DRIVING, FLYING AND HOME
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      "CONSERVE, NOW! REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS BY OFFERING FINANCIAL INCENTIVES THAT REWARD LESS DRIVING, FLYING AND HOME ENERGY USE"

      "For all practical purposes, there is today only one world suitable
      for man. Measured by nature's standards rather than by those of
      historical man, it is at present a delicately balanced, highly
      perishable world that has evolved over long geologic epochs of
      environmental change. And man, acting as if he owned this world, or at
      least had come into leasehold possession of it, has played his role as
      lessee very indifferently…" (Lyton Caldwell, 1971)

      Summary

      This paper provides the framework for offering temporary positive
      voluntary financial incentives for reducing automobile driving,
      airplane travel, and annual home energy use. While the paper is mostly
      focused on reducing energy use in the State of Wisconsin, the
      methodology could be applied nationally, or even worldwide.

      In general, the main source of funding for the financial incentives
      would be the savings in user fee revenue generated by not having to
      build the additional highway, airport and energy plant capacity
      expansion projects.

      The federal transportation fund, the aviation trust fund and public
      and private energy utility accounts would fund the program.

      After significant reductions in public motorized travel and home
      energy use occur, "transportation fees", as defined in this paper,
      could be charged on commercial and industrial goods shipped long
      distances (by truck, air or plane - thus burning up considerable
      fossil fuels), and the revenue generated from that source could also
      be used to fund the program, if necessary.

      Finally, and ideally, it would be good, and right, if all investments
      in military preparedness, throughout the world, could be phased out,
      and eventually eliminated. This "phase out", should begin no later
      than the end of 2001. Complete abandonment of national militaries
      should be scheduled for January 1, 2005.

      The money generated by the phase out of military operations throughout
      the world should be used to fund the Conserve, NOW! Program; thus
      providing ample world financial resources to eliminate all world
      hunger, world poverty, disease and ignorance (due to limited family
      funds for education), for all the world's citizens, and the world
      society as a complete whole.

      Offering world citizens and families "financial incentives" for low
      annual driving miles traveled on highways, whether they choose to
      drive at all or not, and for low (or no) annual flying miles traveled,
      and for using less than typical therms of energy in their households,
      as defined in this paper, would greatly reduce worldwide greenhouse
      gas emissions to the atmosphere, by at least 25%, on a yearly basis.

      Bringing into fruition a worldwide environmental mitigation strategy,
      such as the strategy outlined in the text below, would help humankind
      deal not just with one problem, but with many problems. The problems
      are interrelated, to some degree, but not so much by the commonality
      of the trouble they cause; but more importantly by the commonality of
      the solution needed to abate them. Rather, than deal with each
      particular problem and issue by itself, the Conserve, NOW! proposal
      would bring forth a multifaceted, but uniform, attack on the many
      interrelated problems that have grown and grown over time in the
      world, and now threaten to annihilate the world, in its entirety.

      Rapid Global Heating

      Global warming of the Earth is now a certainty. Earth's temperatures
      are rising, faster and faster each year. The reason is too much fossil
      fuel burning by a growing and ever more energy-dependent human population.

      Burning fossil fuels for energy releases greenhouse gases (carbon
      dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, others) to the air, which contributes
      to the growing stockpiling of those gases in the Earth's atmosphere.
      The increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
      ultimately increase the ability of the Earth's atmosphere to capture
      and hold the Sun's heat. And since many of the greenhouse gases remain
      in the atmosphere for centuries, their concentrations continue to
      increase as more and more fossil fuels are burned on Earth, resulting
      in a stronger and stronger "greenhouse effect" in the Earth's
      atmosphere, over time.

      Each gallon of gasoline (or diesel fuel) combusted either in cars,
      trucks, boats, planes, recreational vehicles, equipment, etc., adds 22
      additional pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere's
      stockpile of greenhouse gases, where it will remain upwards of 120
      years (Worrest, 2000).

      Each ton of coal combusted in power plants or other furnaces adds
      7,320 pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth's stockpile of atmospheric
      greenhouse gases, where it also will remain upwards of 120 years.

      Each therm of natural gas combusted in furnaces or appliances adds 11
      pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth's stockpile of greenhouse gases,
      where it, too, will remain upwards of 120 years.

      Scientists now say global warming has actually been in progress for
      several decades already, but that various measurement complexities
      have prevented them from actually proving it. The rate of global
      warming has accelerated since the mid-1950s when it was first
      predicted. The continuously growing stockpile of greenhouse gases
      being added to the Earth's atmosphere is making Earth's atmosphere
      much more effective in "trapping" the Sun's energy.

      And scientists now say the rate at which Earth's atmosphere is heating
      up is reason for worldwide concern; they are sounding the alarm for
      urgent, major action to slow global warming down, because the ultimate
      effect of continued global warming could conceivably be catastrophic
      to all Earth's life forms.

      There is only one widely known and currently available method for
      slowing global warming down, immediately. That method is energy
      conservation. Energy conservation methods might include driving less;
      flying less, buying more energy efficient (and smaller) homes,
      automobiles and appliances; buying locally produced goods whenever,
      and wherever, possible; and greatly reducing (or eliminating)
      participation in recreational sports or activities that burn fossil
      fuels for energy.

      Many energy conservation methods were employed by the public, with
      considerable success, in the-mid 1970's and early 1980's, in response
      to the "energy crisis" and relatively high fuel prices. Energy
      conservation was also successful during time of World War II, when
      conservation of fuel was necessary for the war effort. Energy
      conservation was successful then, and it can be successful now, to
      reduce the threat of continued global warming.

      Energy conservation is the only realistic and economically feasible
      option for conserving energy in the next several years. The risk of
      humans failing to successfully slow global warming today far exceeds
      any imaginable or real economic or convenience losses that might have
      to be borne in the short term by today's populous.

      In time, alternative technologies are likely to be developed and
      available that will allow humans to use energy, without emitting
      dangerous levels of greenhouse gases to the Earth's atmosphere. But
      that time has not yet arrived. Consequently, conservation of energy
      must begin immediately.

      The effects of continuing to release substantial quantities of
      greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels or
      consuming electricity
      produced through fossil fuel burning, are cumulative and irreversible.
      "Reducing emissions is the most important action we can take now to
      minimize damage to people, ecosystems, and economies" (Bloomfield, 2000).

      Increases in Automobile Driving in Wisconsin and U.S.

      The population of the State of Wisconsin increased from 4.4 million in
      1970 to 5.2 million in 1998, an 18% increase (Wisconsin Legislative
      Reference Bureau, 1999). The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on
      Wisconsin highways increased from 21.9 billion VMT in 1970 to 50.4
      billion VMT 1998, a 132% increase. (Table 1).

      To view tables, please see Appendix A in document at:
      http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf

      The average family of 4 in Wisconsin traveled 19,880 miles in 1970. In
      1998, they traveled 39,000 total miles, a 96% increase.

      The per capita vehicle mileage that Wisconsin residents traveled in
      1980 (including children and adults choosing not to drive) was 6,358
      miles per capita. By 1998, this had increased to 9,680 miles per
      capita (excluding heavy trucks). Result: the average Wisconsin
      resident traveled 52 percent more miles in a vehicle in 1998 than the
      average Wisconsin resident traveled by auto in 1980.

      The total highway vehicle passenger miles traveled in the U.S.,
      excluding miles counted for heavy truck and bus travel, is estimated
      to be 3.8 trillion miles per year. The total VMT in the U.S. is
      estimated to be 2.36 trillion miles per year. (U.S. Department of
      Transportation (1997).

      Costs of Providing for Increased Automobile Driving in Wisconsin and
      the U.S.

      In 1999, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation proposed a plan to
      provide for the projected motor vehicle driving needs in Wisconsin
      through 2020 called Wisconsin State Highway Plan 2020 (WisDOT, 1999).
      The plan recommends $20 billion be spent on new state highway
      construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation and maintenance through
      2020. The plan proposes approximately one third of the $20 billion
      ($7.3 billion) be used for new highway capacity expansion projects,
      for the purpose of accommodating increased driving by Wisconsin residents.

      The cost of the plan is to be paid by users of the state and local
      highway system through fuel taxes and annual vehicle license fees.

      The $7.3 billion is the monetary cost of building the new highway
      capacity expansion projects. It does not cover the cost of maintaining
      those new highways, nor does it cover the non-monetary "environmental
      cost" of building the new highways. The environmental cost of new
      highway development can be substantial.

      New highway building generally creates a direct environmental cost as
      highway corridors often must be built through farmland, wildlife
      habitat, wetlands and other valuable natural and productive landscape.
      Indirect costs from improving travel on the highway are many and
      diffuse. They include: more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
      (from increased auto emissions); more vehicle travel noise, roadkills
      and possibly more human injuries and fatalities (because of increasing
      traffic levels), and, of course, more urban sprawl development.

      Urban sprawl development is really nothing more than misplaced urban
      development. It is facilitated by improved highways because the added
      auto accessibility the improved highways provide makes longer auto
      commutes simpler, safer, and, of course, quicker.

      Improved highways make it easier and safer for people to live outside
      of cities, yet retain reasonable access to the amenities and the
      services that cities traditionally provide (jobs, entertainment,
      shopping, etc.). In essence, improved highways enable commuters to
      take advantage of the city's benefits, regardless of whether they
      reside or pay property taxes in the city, and irrespective of the
      environmental costs their automobile driving has on others in the
      afflicted communities along the way, or the Earth's environment in
      general.

      The quantity of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by
      automobiles traveling in Wisconsin was 17.6 million tons in 1970
      (Table 2). In 1998, it was 26.0 million tons, an increase of 47%. For
      the foreseeable future, it will continue to increase with increasing
      levels of traffic.

      The increased use and expansion of Wisconsin's highway system through
      2020, as approved by the Wisconsin DOT, will increase the quantity of
      greenhouse gas emitted to the atmosphere even more, since it removes
      impediments to driving more miles on the highway system. This method
      of addressing travel "needs" (building in more highway capacity) has
      traditionally been the most popular approach to dealing with
      increasing traffic problems in the United States (and elsewhere). But
      it clearly has come at considerable economic, social and environmental
      cost.

      In contrast, providing incentives to bring about reductions in
      automobile travel would reduce traffic levels (estimated by up to
      25%), negating the need to build more highway infrastructure, and
      reducing the environmental and social costs of continuously increasing
      automobile and SUV driving throughout the state.

      Financial Incentives for Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled in Wisconsin

      Rather than spend $7.3 billion on highway capacity expansion over the
      next 20 years, the State of Wisconsin could establish a program that
      provides financial incentives to Wisconsin households who voluntarily
      limit their motor vehicle travel in a year. The source of funding for
      the financial incentives program would be the portion of the gas taxes
      and annual vehicle license fees that would have otherwise been paid
      for the $7.3 billion worth of new highways. Since the projected number
      of vehicles operating on the highway system will have been reduced by
      less driving, the need for building more capacity into the highway
      system will have been effectively eliminated, making it possible to
      return those funds to the public.

      Following is an example of how the VMT reduction plan would work:
      A family of four with two drivers voluntarily enrolls in the program
      by driving its car(s) into the local Department of Motor Vehicles
      office, paying $30 in administrative fees, and getting the mileage on
      their vehicle's odometer(s) officially recorded. Alternatively, DOT
      offices could be staffed with employees or volunteers who would travel
      to neighborhoods to officially record the participating households'
      vehicle(s) odometer mileage. [Technology also is now available,
      patented through the auto insurance industry, that enables vehicle
      mileage of many vehicles to be monitored, and recorded, from a central
      location. This would eliminate the need for manual checking of vehicle
      odometers.]

      After a year goes by, (based on participant's day of choice), the
      participant(s) would receive a $400 check if the participant's
      odometer(s) showed less than 13,500 miles for the preceding year
      (Table 3). If the family participant managed to lower the household
      vehicle mileage traveled to 9,000 miles over the year, they would earn
      $1,200.

      The fewer miles the family drives in a year, the more money it could
      earn as a reward for "driving less" for that year. Households not
      owning or driving personally registered cars would be eligible to
      receive a maximum of $2,800 for that year, as a payment, (or reward),
      for not contributing to the financial, social, or environmental costs
      of automobile driving borne by everybody.

      Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing Total VMT

      The methodology used for computing the financial incentives for low
      annual VMT is as follows:

      Total Household Mileage Threshold/Year

      == x + Dx + Px

      Where x == 1,000 (1…6) household vehicle(s) miles;
      D == Number of Additional Drivers (.75)
      P == Number of Persons in Household (.25)

      A 25% reduction in vehicular travel is postulated with full
      implementation of the plan, at a cost of $810 million a year. Using an
      average reward of $400 for each Wisconsin household each year: $400 X
      2,026,000 HH (Wisconsin Bureau of Energy, 1999) == $810,400,000.

      After 10 years of awarding the financial incentives, the program could
      be ended, since the behavioral change resulting in reduced driving
      will have become permanent, eliminating the need to continue offering
      the incentives. If their was a need to continue the program after 10
      years, to maintain the financial incentives program for reduced
      driving, a supplemental tax on the price of gasoline could be levied
      to continue with the funding on the program.

      By offering financial incentives to households who record low annual
      motor vehicle miles traveled in a year, this transportation
      alternative would encourage people to make more informed choices about
      where to live relative to where they need to travel. When they do need
      to travel, the financial incentives would encourage them to choose
      more environmentally friendly means of travel (bicycling, walking,
      taking a bus, carpooling), over driving environmentally harmful and
      greenhouse gas emitting automobiles. Table 4 lists other ways to
      reduce vehicular travel on public highways. Table 5 provides the
      corresponding modal energy efficiencies relative to automobile
      transportation.

      Increases in Air Travel

      At an international aviation conference held recently in Chicago,
      United Airlines chief James Goodwin was reported (Associated Press,
      1999) as saying the projected increases in air traffic in the U.S. are
      "frightening", and that "the skies are crowded and getting more so
      every day". According to the report, Goodwin warned, "the global skies
      are teeming with so many planes that the entire airline industry is
      near crisis".

      The U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics' data shows U.S.
      enplanements on scheduled domestic flights increased from 297 million
      emplanements, in 1980, to 634 million in 1999 (a 114 percent
      increase). The U.S. Census Bureau reports the U.S. population
      increased 21 percent from 1980-1999, from 226 million to 274 million;
      therefore, the effective airline emplanement increase, exclusive of
      population increases from 1980 to 1999, was 93%. This means the
      average U.S. citizen today flies twice as many times a year as the
      average U.S. citizen did in 1980.

      The U.S. commercial airline industry burned 10.7 billion gallons of
      fuel in domestic and international operations in 1979 (@ $.58/gal). By
      1999, the industry burned 19.6 billion gallons (@$.53/gal), an
      increase of 83 percent over the amount of fuel burned in 1979. The
      effective increase in gallons of fuel burned in airlines from 1979 to
      1999 was 62 percent.

      In servicing the increasing number Americans who chose to travel by
      airplane in 1999, American airplanes discharged 215.6 million tons of
      carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere.

      Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing AMT

      The methodology used for computing the financial incentives for low
      annual airplane miles traveled (AMT) is as follows:

      Airplane Mileage Threshold/Year/Person == y

      Where y == 100 (1…6) miles flown in an airplane

      A schedule for providing financial incentives for encouraging U.S.
      citizens to fly less is provided in Table 6.

      The reward threshold is not increased for families having more than 5
      persons.

      No exclusions would be allowed for business trip mileage. This would
      provide added incentives for business to minimize employee air travel
      requirements.

      How the program would work:

      Any person over 18 years of age who chooses to enroll in the AMT
      reduction rewards program would need to file a one-time application
      with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), along with a nominal
      administrative fee. That person would then be registered for the
      program for life, and therefore eligible for annual rewards each year
      that he or she commercially flies less than the amount of threshold
      miles specified in Table 6.

      The FAA would require that each commercial airline document the annual
      mileage flown by all registered AMT participants using its service.
      Each airline service would be required to prepare and forward
      individual mileage summaries for each registered AMT participant to
      the FAA by the end of the calendar year. The FAA would summarize the
      total annual miles flown for each AMT participant and issue the
      incentive payments based on the amounts specified in Table 6.

      Funding for AVT Reduction Incentives

      Some of the money to fund the financial incentives would be available
      from the money saved by not having to build additional airport
      runways, taxiways, terminals, and to employ additional airport
      personal to service the otherwise projected increases in the number of
      flights. Environmental savings would result from reduced greenhouse
      gas emissions, reduced air pollution, reduced noise, less air traffic
      congestion, and less wildlife habitat and farmland loses from airport
      expansion projects.

      The remainder of the funds would be provided from federal taxes levied
      on the price of aviation fuel, as a fixed percentage of each gallon of
      aviation fuel combusted, in commercial and non commercial aircraft
      (excluding only military aircraft). If one dollar in tax were charged
      for each gallon of aviation fuel used by airlines in the U.S., this
      would generate $20 billion to help fund the program.

      Congress recently authorized nearly $10 billion for airport
      infrastructure development over the next 3 years (GAO, 2000). This
      amount, coupled with the $20 billion in fuel tax revenues over the
      next 3 years would be enough money to provide financial incentives of
      an average of $1,000 per year for 23,000,000 adults in the U.S., or
      more than 11% of the country's total adult population.

      Currently, aviation fuel is purchased and combusted by the airline
      industry to power its planes, tax-free.

      Financial Incentives for Encouraging Household Energy Conservation

      Just as positive incentives can be used to encourage reduced fossil
      fuel burning dependent automobile and airplane travel, so too can
      positive financial incentives encourage reduced energy use in homes.
      Utilities could offer financial incentives to encourage people to use
      less energy in heating, cooling and lighting their homes, and for
      minimizing uses of other forms of electricity in their daily lives.
      This would reduce cumulative power demands, reducing the need to build
      more power plants, transmission lines, fuel lines and other
      expenditures and environmental costs associated with increased
      capacity demands.

      Depending on the amount of the reductions, significant cutbacks in
      global greenhouse gas emissions might be possible from power plants
      that burn fossil fuel for electricity, or from other utilities that
      distribute fuel and natural gas for direct burning in household furnaces.

      Wisconsin's per capita (per individual) resource energy consumption in
      homes in 1998 was 404 therms (Table 7). A 4-person household in
      Wisconsin uses, on average, 1,600 therms of energy in the home for
      heating and electrical conveniences (4 X 400 therms).

      Financial incentives for encouraging energy conservation in homes
      would work similar to the systems used for encouraging people to
      reduce their driving and flying. That is, households using low per
      family size annual energy amounts could be eligible to receive
      monetary returns at the end of the year for conserving energy (Table 8).

      Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing Total
      Energy Use

      The methodology used for computing the incentives for low energy use
      is as follows:

      Total Household Energy Use Threshold/Year

      == z + Rz

      Where z == 100 (1…6) therms

      R == Number of Additional Residents X .25

      No additional credit is provided for more than 5 person residing in
      the household, and the enrolled persons must occupy the home at least
      90 percent of the total number of days in the proposed year of enrollment.

      There are many things homeowners and renters could do to improve
      energy efficiencies in their homes and reduce overall fuel and
      electricity consumption.

      Appendix B identifies some ways to reduce energy use in the home and
      recreation activities that burn fossil fuels that should be avoided.

      The state could also subsidize consumer's purchase of energy efficient
      compact flourescents. At least one consumer still uses some of the
      less energy efficient condescends simply because the initial purchase
      price of compact flourescents is several times as costly as the less
      energy efficient alternatives.

      Funding for Low Home Energy Use Incentives

      Assuming 25% of reductions in energy use could be achieved without
      cost to the economy (DeCanio, 1997), the amount of money that would be
      needed on an annual basis for this household energy conservation
      measure would be the same as that required for the VMT reduction
      incentives ($810 million, annually).

      The money to fund the financial incentives would be available from the
      money saved by not having to build additional power plants, transmission
      lines and power stations in the future, money that therefore becomes
      available because of the reduced energy demands.

      For example, Wisconsin Energy Corporation has proposed to spend $6
      billion to build three new power plants in Wisconsin and upgrade other
      WEC power generation facilities to accommodate projected public
      demands for more power. The plans call for a new power plants in Port
      Washington (gas-fired); Oak Creek (coal-fired) and another coal-fired
      plant in an undetermined location in Wisconsin.

      As to the nation as a whole, USA TODAY (article by Fred Bayles,
      9/11/00), following their review of utility industry projections,
      suggests the cost of building new power facilities to meet growing
      demands will approach $80 billion during the next two decades. That
      amount would fund an annual average financial incentive of $155 per
      year for 25% per cent of U.S. households, who might be expected to
      apply for the low energy use financial incentives (by such measures
      listed in Appendix B.)

      Additional non-monetary environmental savings would result from
      reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced air pollution, less wildlife
      habitat and farmland loss from building more power plants and
      transmission lines in those areas, and reduced discharges of excess
      cooling water, since less cooling water would be needed for reduced
      energy generation.

      An additional method of funding financial incentives for environmental
      conservation, which would itself help reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
      would be the adoption of a "transportation tax" on raw materials and
      products requiring transportation over a certain distance. This would
      lead to reductions in the amount of energy used in transporting products.

      The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) should be given the
      authority to collect a "transportation tax" on all raw materials and
      products sold in the United States, that are transported over 50
      miles, whether the transportation is via land, water or air. The tax
      would be applicable to all raw materials, intermediary and final goods
      commercially transported over 50 miles, at a cost of 10 cents per
      item, 10 cents per pound weight, or 10 cents per cubic foot, whichever
      unit amount is higher. The total transportation tax for a shipment
      would thus be the sum of the applicable per unit tax of the products
      that are shipped, multiplied by the number of miles the products are
      shipped (from origin to destination).

      The USDOT would collect the money in this program and place it into a
      "transportation tax fund" (TTF). The money that accumulates into the
      TTF would be used to provide financial incentives to the public to
      reduce driving, flying and energy consumed in homes.

      Other sources federal surpluses available should be used for this
      purpose as well, since the beneficiary of conserving energy and
      reducing greenhouse gas and other emissions will spread to all U. S.
      citizens, and the U.S. economic system should provide higher rewards
      for environmentally conscientious decisions than is now provided.

      Conclusion

      Major new highway, airport and power plant investments require
      billions of public dollars to build, their construction causes major
      and significant environmental disruption, and their end uses create
      significant air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and other adverse
      environmental consequences. Government has the responsibility to
      protect and uphold the general welfare of its citizenry. Ensuring
      positive financial incentives are provided to the public, to
      discourage overuse of highways, air space and energy resources, and
      thereby to reduce the need to build new highways, airports and power
      generating infrastructure, is an appropriate and worthwhile function
      of government.

      Continuing to burn vast quantities of fossil fuels (coal, oil,
      gasoline) on Earth for energy is increasing average global
      temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. Studies show Earth's air,
      land and water temperatures are rising, at rates some scientists say
      are alarming, greatly exceeding the more conservative predictions made
      only a few years ago.

      Many scientists throughout the world are saying it is urgent that
      worldwide actions be undertaken, immediately, to curb, and reduce
      (some say by 80%!), the increasing quantities of greenhouse gas
      emissions. Moreover, many scientists concede the potential for
      worldwide cataclysmic calamity related to global warming is possible,
      not just in eons, but in centuries and perhaps even decades!

      To this call for urgency, the global warming "skeptics" continue to
      demand proof. Before the skeptics (who's numbers are dwindling
      rapidly) agree fossil fuel burning should be cut, they want to see
      proof global warming is occurring, that fossil fuel burning is the
      main cause of it, and that the costs of increasing global warming
      exceed the costs of slowing it down.

      Scientists claim the buffering characteristics of Earth's natural
      resources (cool oceans and permafrost store carbon), which have
      historically kept Earth's atmospheric gases in check, could ultimately
      become unbalanced by global warming, increasing the potential for a
      "runaway greenhouse effect" to occur on Earth. If a runaway greenhouse
      effect got started on Earth, Earth's surface temperatures could
      increase dramatically. Grinspoon (1997) speculates this could have
      been what happened to Earth's twin planet, Venus, which now has an
      average surface temperature of 864 degrees, Fahrenheit (water boils at
      212 degrees F.; steak broils at 550 degrees F.).

      Grinspoon claims the temperature on Venus is much higher than it
      should be, relative to the planet's mass and distance from the Sun,
      and that the reason for the hotness is that Venus experienced a
      runaway greenhouse effect early in its existence:

      "That brings us to the question of water. Evolutionary models suggest
      that if Venus started out with an ocean of water, it could have been
      lost early in the planet's history by a "runaway greenhouse effect".
      Water vapor is a powerful infrared absorber. A little water in the air
      can heat things up a lot. But in the presence of liquid water, if the
      air gets hotter, more water will evaporate. This creates the
      possibility of a powerful positive feedback loop: evaporating water
      increases the greenhouse effect, making the atmosphere so hot that
      more water evaporates, and so on. Any physical system like that,
      dominated by positive feedback, is inherently unstable. Once it gets
      going, there is no stopping it. Venus may have had oceans that simply
      boiled away, leaving large amounts of water vapor high in the
      atmosphere where solar ultraviolet radiation split up the molecules,
      allowing the hydrogen to escape into space" (pg. 149).

      A Call for Action

      When it comes to the long-term sustainability of our planet, it's much
      better to be conservatively safe, than deeply sorry. Being "deeply
      sorry", when Earth's populous might have done something to change a
      final negative outcome is not only being insincere, but even worse:
      unconcerned and callous.

      Necessity now demands everyone accept responsibility for making energy
      conserving sacrifices, right away. Greenhouse gases accumulate in the
      Earth's atmosphere, over time. Therefore, they remain in the Earth's
      atmosphere long after the time of their release, warming the planet
      for those who had nothing to do with their release.

      Due to recent (since mid 19th century) and an ever increasing reliance
      on fossil fuel burning by humans, the Earth's atmosphere has become
      more saturated with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The
      concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has gone from a
      preindustrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to a present day
      level of 365 ppm+ (and increase of 30%+ over preindustrial levels).
      The current concentration level of CO2 in the atmosphere is already
      outside the bounds of natural variability seen in the climate record
      of the last 160,000 years. "If the world proceeds on a "business as
      usual" path, atmospheric CO2 concentrations will likely become more
      than 700 PPM (an increase of 150% over preindustrial levels) by 2100,
      and they will still be rising." (Executive Office of the President, 1997).

      The balance between the Earth's greenhouse and non-greenhouse gas
      concentrations has clearly been thrown out of kilter in the last 150
      years. This imbalance is likely to grow significantly larger over
      time. Even in the very unlikely event that increases in greenhouse gas
      emissions from human activity cease, the concentration levels of
      greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to increase, since
      there remains no other place for them to go.

      And, now, with the world's population having doubled since 1960, and
      expected to increase to 9 billion (by 2054 - Table 14), the potential
      for reducing - let alone slowing - annual global greenhouse gas
      emissions, and therefore global warming, has become exceedingly difficult.

      Scientists the world over are now claiming, with increasingly serious
      overtones, that major and significant worldwide action must be
      initiated, now, to reduce the volumes of greenhouse gases being
      injected into the Earth's atmosphere. To do so will require a dramatic
      and abrupt change in humankind reliance on fossil fuel burning.

      To be unresponsive to the now almost unanimous scientific community
      call for immediate (not 15 years from now), and drastic (not just
      slowing the rate of increase) is not prudent. For the world's
      population to dramatically increase fossil fuel burning and greenhouse
      gas emissions, with minimal attempts being made to conserve energy in
      travel, recreational and home energy use, is tantamount to global
      genocide.

      In conclusion, the time is now already overripe to drastically cut
      energy use in homes, cars, planes, trains and trucks. This paper
      offers an approach to accomplishing that, devoid of instituting
      regulatory controls over people's everyday lives.

      Governmental officials should, without delay, create programs that
      offer financial incentives to the public to encourage environmental
      conservation and minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Nonessential and
      all recreational uses of energy derived from the combustion of fossil
      fuels should be greatly reduced, starting immediately, so that the
      Earth's environment continues to remain habitable, indefinitely, by
      all forms of life.

      Acknowledgments

      I wish to credit my brother, Patrick J. Neuman, for his careful review
      of this paper throughout its many iterations of development, and to
      thank him for his personal support as well, without of which this
      paper would not have been completed.

      References

      Ackerman, A.S.; Toon, O.B.; Stevens, A.J.; Heymsfield, V.; Ramanathan,
      E.; Welton, J., May 12, 2000, "Reduction of Tropical Cloudiness by
      Soot", Science, Vol. 288.

      Associated Press, December 7, 1999, "Airline Head Warns of Crowded
      Skies".

      Bayles, Fred, September 11, 2000, "Can Expansion Cure Airport
      Gridlock?", in USA TODAY.

      Bloomfield, Janine, 2000, "Wake Up to Global Warming Threat, U.S.
      Warned", Environmental News Service,
      http://www.ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2000/2000L-06-12-08.html.

      Boulding, Kenneth E., 1968, Beyond Economics: Essays on Society,
      Religion and Ethics, The University of Michigan Press.

      Boulding, Kenneth E., 1971, "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship
      Earth", an essay in Problems of the Modern Economy: Pollution,
      Resources, and the Environment, edited by Alain C. Enthoven and A.
      Myrick Freeman III, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc..

      Caldwell, Lyton, Keith, 1971, Environment: A Challenge to Modern
      Society, Chapter 4, Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New
      York.

      DeCanio, Stephen J., 1997, "Prudent CO2 Emissions Cuts Make Economic
      Sense", Excerpted from the testimony of Stephen J. DeCanio before the
      Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the U.S. House Committee
      on Science, October 9, 1997, in The World Environment & the Global
      Economy, Gary E. McCuen Publications Inc., Hudson, Wisconsin.

      Executive Office of the President, 1997, Climate Change: State of
      Knowledge, Office of Science and Technology Policy.

      Foley, Jonathan, June 3, 2000, personal communication. Gumbu, Phinjo,
      March 18, 2000, "Smog Kills 1,000 Annually in Toronto, Study Shows,
      Toronto Star newspaper.

      Government Accounting Office (GAO), August 2000, Aviation and the
      Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present
      Environmental Challenges.

      Grinspoon, David Harry, 1997, Venus Revealed: A New Look Below the
      Clouds of our Mysterious Twin Planet, Helix Books, Addison-Wesley
      Publishing Company, Inc..

      Intergovernmental Panel of Climate on Climate Change, 1996c, Climate
      Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change,
      contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of
      the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed. James P. Bruce,
      Hoesung Lee, and Erik F. Haites, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

      Iltis, Hugh, Wisconsin Public Radio Interview with Tom Clark, April
      22, 2000. King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1998, The Autobiography of Martin
      Luther King, Jr., edited by Clayborne Carsen, Intellectual Properties
      Management, Inc., in association with Warner Books.

      McCullough, Jennifer, December, 1999, YES! A Journal of Positive
      Futures, "Are You Kyoto Cool?.

      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000, finding of NOAA
      scientists reported by H. Josef Herbert, Associated Press, in
      Wisconsin State Journal, March 24, 2000, pg. 6A.

      Neuman, Michael T., June 6, 2000, E-mail Memo to globalwarming@....

      Neuman, Patrick J., June 8, 2000, Calls for Global Warming Awareness,
      Chanhassen Villager.

      New Dream, June 2000, "Cold Wash and Line Dry", Step by Step No. 9,
      http://www.newdream.org.

      Newman, Judy, May 18, 2000, "Alliant Reflects on a Positive Year with
      Eyes to a Global Goal", Wisconsin State Journal.

      Population Reference Bureau, June 16, 2000, e-mail memo from Zuali
      Malsawmal, to author.

      Ruckelshaus, William, D., September 1989, "Toward a Sustainable
      World", in Scientific American, pages 166-174.

      Schipper, Lee; Steiner, Ruth; Meyers, Stephen, 1993, "Transportation
      and Global Climate Change", American Council for An Energy-Efficient
      Economy, Washington D.C..

      Shindell, 2000, in Wisconsin State Journal, May 22, 2000, Section 11A
      Wampler, Allen, J., 2000, in Wisconsin State Journal, May 22, 2000,
      Section 11A.

      U.S. Department of Energy, May 31, 2000, "Energy Efficiency Tips",
      Internet, www.doe.gov/tipsheet.htm.

      U. S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
      Statistics, 1999 and 1997 Washington D.C..

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Internet,
      www.epa.gov/globalwarming.

      Worrest, Robert C., 2000, U.S. Global Change Research Information
      Office, E-mail to Michael Neuman, 27 March 2000.

      Wills, Diane, 2000, E-mail to Michael Neuman, 6 June 2000.

      Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 1999, Wisconsin State Highway
      Plan 2020.

      Wisconsin Energy Bureau, 1999, Wisconsin Energy Statistics.

      Wisconsin Energy Bureau, no date, bookmarks, "10 Energy Saving Tips".

      Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, 1999, "1999-2000 Blue Book".

      U.S. Department of Energy, 2000, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
      Program, Oceanic Properties, http://www.arm.gov..

      Appendix A: Tables

      For Appendix A, please go to document at:
      http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf


      Appendix B: Transportation, Home and Recreation Energy Conservation
      Measures

      Energy Using Transportation Reduction Measures

      1. Take vacations near home.

      2. When you must drive to get necessities, plan errands to minimize
      driving. Plan shopping so you can get all your groceries in one week.

      3. Buy a fuel-efficient car. Better yet, buy a bike - and use it
      regularly, or wake or take a bus when it is important that you travel
      longer distances.

      4. Move closer in to where you normally must travel to, so you can
      either bike safely or walk more places more often.

      5. Don't move far away from your family if you are close to them, so
      you don't have to fly in during holidays to see them every year. Or if
      you are far away from them, consider moving back to where they are.

      6. Buy liquids in condensed forms when possible. It saves room in the
      refrigerator, and limits the amount of trips necessary to the grocery
      store.

      7. Avoid purchasing products such as bottled water, beer, pop, liquor
      and other commodities in non-recyclable plastic containers. Not only
      is excess energy burned in transporting the water in those products to
      the grocery store, but there is also energy burned in producing the
      plastic containers for these products, and in transporting and
      disposing of the containers.

      Conserving Energy in the Home: Lighting and Windows

      Install screw-in fluorescent bulbs (compact fluorescent), where
      practical.

      Replace two 60-watt incandescent bulbs with one 100-watt bulb (same
      amount of light).

      Clean light fixtures (dirt reduces light output).

      Turn off lights in parts of the house not in use.

      Limit number, number of days used, and duration of operation of
      holiday/festival lights.

      Long-life incandescence is less efficient than standard incandescence.
      Use "task lights" to provide light where you need it; reduce
      background light levels.

      Chose light colored rooms and ceilings over dark colored ones; white
      ceilings reflect light back into room.

      Use natural daylighting; one 3' by 5 ` window can let in more light
      than 100 standard 60-what bulbs.

      Organize rooms for maximum use of daylighting to reduce need for
      artificial lighting.

      Ways to improve the energy saving potential of older windows include
      caulking, weather-stripping, replacing sashes and re-glazing.

      Increasing the number of "glazings" (layers of glass) increases the
      energy saving potential.

      Adding plastic film to the outside of windows, or insulated window
      coverings to the inside of windows, increase the energy saving potential.

      New windows should have at least an R-3 insulating value.

      Awnings, overhangs and sunscreens reduce summer heat gain through
      windows by up to 90 percent, while still letting in light. Drapes left
      open around windows where the sun shines into homes (south and
      west-facing side of house) can make air conditioners work 2 to 3 times
      harder.

      Shut air conditioning vents and close doors in areas not in use, or
      used infrequently.

      Change air conditioner and furnace filters when dirty. Turn off lights
      when not needed for considerable length of time (longer period okay
      for florescent lights, but turn off overnight).

      Conserving Energy in the Home: Remodeling and Building Decisions

      Make sure there is sufficient levels of insulation: at least R-44 in
      roof or attic; R-23 in outside facing walls; R-19 in box sill; and
      R-10 around foundation.

      Install a continuous air infiltration barrier.

      Design rooms to take advantage of daylighting.

      Install energy efficient fluorescent light fixtures, where possible.
      Build vestibules for outside doors. Install high efficiency condensing
      furnace with outside combustion air and exhaust.

      Select an insulated outside door of R-5 or greater.
      Choose low-E glass for the windows.

      When landscaping, consider planting trees to shade house in summer,
      and to serve as windbreaks (especially north side of house) in winter.
      [Trees also sequester carbon dioxide, a "greenhouse gas", from of the
      Earth's atmosphere.]

      Choose an appropriately sized home for the number of persons who
      will live in the home 12 months out of the year. Avoid building and
      buying a home much larger than needed for the residents to live
      comfortably.

      Avoid building and buying a home on a much larger sized lot than is
      needed by the persons who plan to live in the home. More energy will
      be required to maintain the property (cut lawn, bushes, etc.); and the
      placement of numerous homes on large lots ultimately contributes to
      unnecessary and energy inefficient "sprawling out" of neighborhoods,
      cities and villages.

      Conserving Energy in the Home: Appliances and Heating/Air Conditioning

      When (or before) hot water heater needs replacing, install a natural
      gas water heater with an energy factor of greater than 0.58.

      When (or before) furnace needs replacing, install high efficiency
      condensing furnace with outside combustion air and exhaust.

      When (or before) appliances need replacing, purchase (or ask landlord
      to purchase) high efficiency appliances.

      When (or before) air conditioner needs replacing, install a high
      efficiency air conditioner (if air conditioning considered necessary).

      When washing clothes, wash dark and colored clothes in cold water (to
      avoid using energy for heating the water).

      When drying clothes, line dry them to avoid using the energy in drying
      them in the dryer.

      When conditioning the air, use portable, ceiling and/or whole house
      attic fans for cooling over air conditioning, whenever possible. Less
      electricity is used in operating fans.

      Insulate water heater, insulate pipes, install low-flow shower head,
      set water heater temperature at 120 degrees F.

      In summer, do not run the air conditioner when no one is at home, and
      when someone is home, run the air conditioner only when necessary and
      turn it off completely on cooler nights.

      In winter: keep the thermostat below 60 degrees F. when you are no one
      is home, and turn it down for nighttime hours. Make sure all the
      windows and doors are sealed, and cover the air conditioner with
      plastic or remove it from the window completely. Wear sweaters to
      allow for lower comfortable temperature settings during the daytime hours.

      Participate Only in Low-Energy Consuming Recreational Activities

      1. Choose recreational activities that do not rely heavily on burning
      of fossil fuels or electricity consumption. If one want to be truly
      energy wise and slow global warming for everyone, the following
      heavily energy depended recreational activities should be avoided
      completely: snowmobiling (for recreation purposes); all terrain
      vehicle riding; motor boating; jet skiing; motorcycle riding;
      recreational flying; going on heavily energy using carnival rides.

      2. Avoid participation in activities or sports that require lots of
      travel. If travel is required, it is usually more efficient to travel
      by bus or train, then to fly or take personal transportation. If
      personal transportation is required, coordinate rides to insure the
      minimum number of vehicles are taken to any recreational event.

      Do not cater to events or festivities that burn large amount of energy
      for primarily enjoyment viewing. Examples of these activities include
      auto racing, motorcycle racing, boat racing, airplane shows, tractor
      pulls and fireworks displays.
    • Mike Neuman
      The following may also be read as a file document. (Click on Files , left column to the left.) CONSERVE, NOW! REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND OTHER
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        The following may also be read as a file document.
        (Click on "Files", left column to the left.)

        "CONSERVE, NOW! REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND OTHER
        ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS BY OFFERING FINANCIAL INCENTIVES THAT REWARD LESS
        DRIVING, FLYING AND HOME ENERGY USE"

        "For all practical purposes, there is today only one world suitable
        for man. Measured by nature's standards rather than by those of
        historical man, it is at present a delicately balanced, highly
        perishable world that has evolved over long geologic epochs of
        environmental change. And man, acting as if he owned this world, or at
        least had come into leasehold possession of it, has played his role as
        lessee very indifferently…" (Lyton Caldwell, 1971)

        Summary

        This paper provides the framework for offering temporary positive
        voluntary financial incentives for reducing automobile driving,
        airplane travel, and annual home energy use. While the paper is mostly
        focused on reducing energy use in the State of Wisconsin, the
        methodology could be applied nationally, or even worldwide.

        In general, the main source of funding for the financial incentives
        would be the savings in user fee revenue generated by not having to
        build the additional highway, airport and energy plant capacity
        expansion projects.

        The federal transportation fund, the aviation trust fund and public
        and private energy utility accounts would fund the program.

        After significant reductions in public motorized travel and home
        energy use occur, "transportation fees", as defined in this paper,
        could be charged on commercial and industrial goods shipped long
        distances (by truck, air or plane - thus burning up considerable
        fossil fuels), and the revenue generated from that source could also
        be used to fund the program, if necessary.

        Finally, and ideally, it would be good, and right, if all investments
        in military preparedness, throughout the world, could be phased out,
        and eventually eliminated. This "phase out", should begin no later
        than the end of 2001. Complete abandonment of national militaries
        should be scheduled for January 1, 2005.

        The money generated by the phase out of military operations throughout
        the world should be used to fund the Conserve, NOW! Program; thus
        providing ample world financial resources to eliminate all world
        hunger, world poverty, disease and ignorance (due to limited family
        funds for education), for all the world's citizens, and the world
        society as a complete whole.

        Offering world citizens and families "financial incentives" for low
        annual driving miles traveled on highways, whether they choose to
        drive at all or not, and for low (or no) annual flying miles traveled,
        and for using less than typical therms of energy in their households,
        as defined in this paper, would greatly reduce worldwide greenhouse
        gas emissions to the atmosphere, by at least 25%, on a yearly basis.

        Bringing into fruition a worldwide environmental mitigation strategy,
        such as the strategy outlined in the text below, would help humankind
        deal not just with one problem, but with many problems. The problems
        are interrelated, to some degree, but not so much by the commonality
        of the trouble they cause; but more importantly by the commonality of
        the solution needed to abate them. Rather, than deal with each
        particular problem and issue by itself, the Conserve, NOW! proposal
        would bring forth a multifaceted, but uniform, attack on the many
        interrelated problems that have grown and grown over time in the
        world, and now threaten to annihilate the world, in its entirety.

        Rapid Global Heating

        Global warming of the Earth is now a certainty. Earth's temperatures
        are rising, faster and faster each year. The reason is too much fossil
        fuel burning by a growing and ever more energy-dependent human
        population.

        Burning fossil fuels for energy releases greenhouse gases (carbon
        dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, others) to the air, which contributes
        to the growing stockpiling of those gases in the Earth's atmosphere.
        The increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
        ultimately increase the ability of the Earth's atmosphere to capture
        and hold the Sun's heat. And since many of the greenhouse gases remain
        in the atmosphere for centuries, their concentrations continue to
        increase as more and more fossil fuels are burned on Earth, resulting
        in a stronger and stronger "greenhouse effect" in the Earth's
        atmosphere, over time.

        Each gallon of gasoline (or diesel fuel) combusted either in cars,
        trucks, boats, planes, recreational vehicles, equipment, etc., adds 22
        additional pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere's
        stockpile of greenhouse gases, where it will remain upwards of 120
        years (Worrest, 2000).

        Each ton of coal combusted in power plants or other furnaces adds
        7,320 pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth's stockpile of atmospheric
        greenhouse gases, where it also will remain upwards of 120 years.

        Each therm of natural gas combusted in furnaces or appliances adds 11
        pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth's stockpile of greenhouse gases,
        where it, too, will remain upwards of 120 years.

        Scientists now say global warming has actually been in progress for
        several decades already, but that various measurement complexities
        have prevented them from actually proving it. The rate of global
        warming has accelerated since the mid-1950s when it was first
        predicted. The continuously growing stockpile of greenhouse gases
        being added to the Earth's atmosphere is making Earth's atmosphere
        much more effective in "trapping" the Sun's energy.

        And scientists now say the rate at which Earth's atmosphere is heating
        up is reason for worldwide concern; they are sounding the alarm for
        urgent, major action to slow global warming down, because the ultimate
        effect of continued global warming could conceivably be catastrophic
        to all Earth's life forms.

        There is only one widely known and currently available method for
        slowing global warming down, immediately. That method is energy
        conservation. Energy conservation methods might include driving less;
        flying less, buying more energy efficient (and smaller) homes,
        automobiles and appliances; buying locally produced goods whenever,
        and wherever, possible; and greatly reducing (or eliminating)
        participation in recreational sports or activities that burn fossil
        fuels for energy.

        Many energy conservation methods were employed by the public, with
        considerable success, in the-mid 1970's and early 1980's, in response
        to the "energy crisis" and relatively high fuel prices. Energy
        conservation was also successful during time of World War II, when
        conservation of fuel was necessary for the war effort. Energy
        conservation was successful then, and it can be successful now, to
        reduce the threat of continued global warming.

        Energy conservation is the only realistic and economically feasible
        option for conserving energy in the next several years. The risk of
        humans failing to successfully slow global warming today far exceeds
        any imaginable or real economic or convenience losses that might have
        to be borne in the short term by today's populous.

        In time, alternative technologies are likely to be developed and
        available that will allow humans to use energy, without emitting
        dangerous levels of greenhouse gases to the Earth's atmosphere. But
        that time has not yet arrived. Consequently, conservation of energy
        must begin immediately.

        The effects of continuing to release substantial quantities of
        greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels or
        consuming electricity
        produced through fossil fuel burning, are cumulative and irreversible.
        "Reducing emissions is the most important action we can take now to
        minimize damage to people, ecosystems, and economies" (Bloomfield,
        2000).

        Increases in Automobile Driving in Wisconsin and U.S.

        The population of the State of Wisconsin increased from 4.4 million in
        1970 to 5.2 million in 1998, an 18% increase (Wisconsin Legislative
        Reference Bureau, 1999). The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on
        Wisconsin highways increased from 21.9 billion VMT in 1970 to 50.4
        billion VMT 1998, a 132% increase. (Table 1).

        To view tables, please see Appendix A in document at:
        http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf

        The average family of 4 in Wisconsin traveled 19,880 miles in 1970. In
        1998, they traveled 39,000 total miles, a 96% increase.

        The per capita vehicle mileage that Wisconsin residents traveled in
        1980 (including children and adults choosing not to drive) was 6,358
        miles per capita. By 1998, this had increased to 9,680 miles per
        capita (excluding heavy trucks). Result: the average Wisconsin
        resident traveled 52 percent more miles in a vehicle in 1998 than the
        average Wisconsin resident traveled by auto in 1980.

        The total highway vehicle passenger miles traveled in the U.S.,
        excluding miles counted for heavy truck and bus travel, is estimated
        to be 3.8 trillion miles per year. The total VMT in the U.S. is
        estimated to be 2.36 trillion miles per year. (U.S. Department of
        Transportation (1997).

        Costs of Providing for Increased Automobile Driving in Wisconsin and
        the U.S.

        In 1999, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation proposed a plan to
        provide for the projected motor vehicle driving needs in Wisconsin
        through 2020 called Wisconsin State Highway Plan 2020 (WisDOT, 1999).
        The plan recommends $20 billion be spent on new state highway
        construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation and maintenance through
        2020. The plan proposes approximately one third of the $20 billion
        ($7.3 billion) be used for new highway capacity expansion projects,
        for the purpose of accommodating increased driving by Wisconsin
        residents.

        The cost of the plan is to be paid by users of the state and local
        highway system through fuel taxes and annual vehicle license fees.

        The $7.3 billion is the monetary cost of building the new highway
        capacity expansion projects. It does not cover the cost of maintaining
        those new highways, nor does it cover the non-monetary "environmental
        cost" of building the new highways. The environmental cost of new
        highway development can be substantial.

        New highway building generally creates a direct environmental cost as
        highway corridors often must be built through farmland, wildlife
        habitat, wetlands and other valuable natural and productive landscape.
        Indirect costs from improving travel on the highway are many and
        diffuse. They include: more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
        (from increased auto emissions); more vehicle travel noise, roadkills
        and possibly more human injuries and fatalities (because of increasing
        traffic levels), and, of course, more urban sprawl development.

        Urban sprawl development is really nothing more than misplaced urban
        development. It is facilitated by improved highways because the added
        auto accessibility the improved highways provide makes longer auto
        commutes simpler, safer, and, of course, quicker.

        Improved highways make it easier and safer for people to live outside
        of cities, yet retain reasonable access to the amenities and the
        services that cities traditionally provide (jobs, entertainment,
        shopping, etc.). In essence, improved highways enable commuters to
        take advantage of the city's benefits, regardless of whether they
        reside or pay property taxes in the city, and irrespective of the
        environmental costs their automobile driving has on others in the
        afflicted communities along the way, or the Earth's environment in
        general.

        The quantity of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by
        automobiles traveling in Wisconsin was 17.6 million tons in 1970
        (Table 2). In 1998, it was 26.0 million tons, an increase of 47%. For
        the foreseeable future, it will continue to increase with increasing
        levels of traffic.

        The increased use and expansion of Wisconsin's highway system through
        2020, as approved by the Wisconsin DOT, will increase the quantity of
        greenhouse gas emitted to the atmosphere even more, since it removes
        impediments to driving more miles on the highway system. This method
        of addressing travel "needs" (building in more highway capacity) has
        traditionally been the most popular approach to dealing with
        increasing traffic problems in the United States (and elsewhere). But
        it clearly has come at considerable economic, social and environmental
        cost.

        In contrast, providing incentives to bring about reductions in
        automobile travel would reduce traffic levels (estimated by up to
        25%), negating the need to build more highway infrastructure, and
        reducing the environmental and social costs of continuously increasing
        automobile and SUV driving throughout the state.

        Financial Incentives for Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled in Wisconsin

        Rather than spend $7.3 billion on highway capacity expansion over the
        next 20 years, the State of Wisconsin could establish a program that
        provides financial incentives to Wisconsin households who voluntarily
        limit their motor vehicle travel in a year. The source of funding for
        the financial incentives program would be the portion of the gas taxes
        and annual vehicle license fees that would have otherwise been paid
        for the $7.3 billion worth of new highways. Since the projected number
        of vehicles operating on the highway system will have been reduced by
        less driving, the need for building more capacity into the highway
        system will have been effectively eliminated, making it possible to
        return those funds to the public.

        Following is an example of how the VMT reduction plan would work:
        A family of four with two drivers voluntarily enrolls in the program
        by driving its car(s) into the local Department of Motor Vehicles
        office, paying $30 in administrative fees, and getting the mileage on
        their vehicle's odometer(s) officially recorded. Alternatively, DOT
        offices could be staffed with employees or volunteers who would travel
        to neighborhoods to officially record the participating households'
        vehicle(s) odometer mileage. [Technology also is now available,
        patented through the auto insurance industry, that enables vehicle
        mileage of many vehicles to be monitored, and recorded, from a central
        location. This would eliminate the need for manual checking of vehicle
        odometers.]

        After a year goes by, (based on participant's day of choice), the
        participant(s) would receive a $400 check if the participant's
        odometer(s) showed less than 13,500 miles for the preceding year
        (Table 3). If the family participant managed to lower the household
        vehicle mileage traveled to 9,000 miles over the year, they would earn
        $1,200.

        The fewer miles the family drives in a year, the more money it could
        earn as a reward for "driving less" for that year. Households not
        owning or driving personally registered cars would be eligible to
        receive a maximum of $2,800 for that year, as a payment, (or reward),
        for not contributing to the financial, social, or environmental costs
        of automobile driving borne by everybody.

        Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing Total
        VMT

        The methodology used for computing the financial incentives for low
        annual VMT is as follows:

        Total Household Mileage Threshold/Year

        = x + Dx + Px

        Where x = 1,000 (1…6) household vehicle(s) miles;
        D = Number of Additional Drivers (.75)
        P = Number of Persons in Household (.25)

        A 25% reduction in vehicular travel is postulated with full
        implementation of the plan, at a cost of $810 million a year. Using an
        average reward of $400 for each Wisconsin household each year: $400 X
        2,026,000 HH (Wisconsin Bureau of Energy, 1999) = $810,400,000.

        After 10 years of awarding the financial incentives, the program could
        be ended, since the behavioral change resulting in reduced driving
        will have become permanent, eliminating the need to continue offering
        the incentives. If their was a need to continue the program after 10
        years, to maintain the financial incentives program for reduced
        driving, a supplemental tax on the price of gasoline could be levied
        to continue with the funding on the program.

        By offering financial incentives to households who record low annual
        motor vehicle miles traveled in a year, this transportation
        alternative would encourage people to make more informed choices about
        where to live relative to where they need to travel. When they do need
        to travel, the financial incentives would encourage them to choose
        more environmentally friendly means of travel (bicycling, walking,
        taking a bus, carpooling), over driving environmentally harmful and
        greenhouse gas emitting automobiles. Table 4 lists other ways to
        reduce vehicular travel on public highways. Table 5 provides the
        corresponding modal energy efficiencies relative to automobile
        transportation.

        Increases in Air Travel

        At an international aviation conference held recently in Chicago,
        United Airlines chief James Goodwin was reported (Associated Press,
        1999) as saying the projected increases in air traffic in the U.S. are
        "frightening", and that "the skies are crowded and getting more so
        every day". According to the report, Goodwin warned, "the global skies
        are teeming with so many planes that the entire airline industry is
        near crisis".

        The U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics' data shows U.S.
        enplanements on scheduled domestic flights increased from 297 million
        emplanements, in 1980, to 634 million in 1999 (a 114 percent
        increase). The U.S. Census Bureau reports the U.S. population
        increased 21 percent from 1980-1999, from 226 million to 274 million;
        therefore, the effective airline emplanement increase, exclusive of
        population increases from 1980 to 1999, was 93%. This means the
        average U.S. citizen today flies twice as many times a year as the
        average U.S. citizen did in 1980.

        The U.S. commercial airline industry burned 10.7 billion gallons of
        fuel in domestic and international operations in 1979 (@ $.58/gal). By
        1999, the industry burned 19.6 billion gallons (@$.53/gal), an
        increase of 83 percent over the amount of fuel burned in 1979. The
        effective increase in gallons of fuel burned in airlines from 1979 to
        1999 was 62 percent.

        In servicing the increasing number Americans who chose to travel by
        airplane in 1999, American airplanes discharged 215.6 million tons of
        carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere.

        Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing AMT

        The methodology used for computing the financial incentives for low
        annual airplane miles traveled (AMT) is as follows:

        Airplane Mileage Threshold/Year/Person = y

        Where y = 100 (1…6) miles flown in an airplane

        A schedule for providing financial incentives for encouraging U.S.
        citizens to fly less is provided in Table 6.

        The reward threshold is not increased for families having more than 5
        persons.

        No exclusions would be allowed for business trip mileage. This would
        provide added incentives for business to minimize employee air travel
        requirements.

        How the program would work:

        Any person over 18 years of age who chooses to enroll in the AMT
        reduction rewards program would need to file a one-time application
        with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), along with a nominal
        administrative fee. That person would then be registered for the
        program for life, and therefore eligible for annual rewards each year
        that he or she commercially flies less than the amount of threshold
        miles specified in Table 6.

        The FAA would require that each commercial airline document the annual
        mileage flown by all registered AMT participants using its service.
        Each airline service would be required to prepare and forward
        individual mileage summaries for each registered AMT participant to
        the FAA by the end of the calendar year. The FAA would summarize the
        total annual miles flown for each AMT participant and issue the
        incentive payments based on the amounts specified in Table 6.

        Funding for AVT Reduction Incentives

        Some of the money to fund the financial incentives would be available
        from the money saved by not having to build additional airport
        runways, taxiways, terminals, and to employ additional airport
        personal to service the otherwise projected increases in the number of
        flights. Environmental savings would result from reduced greenhouse
        gas emissions, reduced air pollution, reduced noise, less air traffic
        congestion, and less wildlife habitat and farmland loses from airport
        expansion projects.

        The remainder of the funds would be provided from federal taxes levied
        on the price of aviation fuel, as a fixed percentage of each gallon of
        aviation fuel combusted, in commercial and non commercial aircraft
        (excluding only military aircraft). If one dollar in tax were charged
        for each gallon of aviation fuel used by airlines in the U.S., this
        would generate $20 billion to help fund the program.

        Congress recently authorized nearly $10 billion for airport
        infrastructure development over the next 3 years (GAO, 2000). This
        amount, coupled with the $20 billion in fuel tax revenues over the
        next 3 years would be enough money to provide financial incentives of
        an average of $1,000 per year for 23,000,000 adults in the U.S., or
        more than 11% of the country's total adult population.

        Currently, aviation fuel is purchased and combusted by the airline
        industry to power its planes, tax-free.

        Financial Incentives for Encouraging Household Energy Conservation

        Just as positive incentives can be used to encourage reduced fossil
        fuel burning dependent automobile and airplane travel, so too can
        positive financial incentives encourage reduced energy use in homes.
        Utilities could offer financial incentives to encourage people to use
        less energy in heating, cooling and lighting their homes, and for
        minimizing uses of other forms of electricity in their daily lives.
        This would reduce cumulative power demands, reducing the need to build
        more power plants, transmission lines, fuel lines and other
        expenditures and environmental costs associated with increased
        capacity demands.

        Depending on the amount of the reductions, significant cutbacks in
        global greenhouse gas emissions might be possible from power plants
        that burn fossil fuel for electricity, or from other utilities that
        distribute fuel and natural gas for direct burning in household
        furnaces.

        Wisconsin's per capita (per individual) resource energy consumption in
        homes in 1998 was 404 therms (Table 7). A 4-person household in
        Wisconsin uses, on average, 1,600 therms of energy in the home for
        heating and electrical conveniences (4 X 400 therms).

        Financial incentives for encouraging energy conservation in homes
        would work similar to the systems used for encouraging people to
        reduce their driving and flying. That is, households using low per
        family size annual energy amounts could be eligible to receive
        monetary returns at the end of the year for conserving energy (Table
        8).

        Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing Total
        Energy Use

        The methodology used for computing the incentives for low energy use
        is as follows:

        Total Household Energy Use Threshold/Year

        = z + Rz

        Where z = 100 (1…6) therms

        R = Number of Additional Residents X .25

        No additional credit is provided for more than 5 person residing in
        the household, and the enrolled persons must occupy the home at least
        90 percent of the total number of days in the proposed year of
        enrollment.

        There are many things homeowners and renters could do to improve
        energy efficiencies in their homes and reduce overall fuel and
        electricity consumption.

        Appendix B identifies some ways to reduce energy use in the home and
        recreation activities that burn fossil fuels that should be avoided.

        The state could also subsidize consumer's purchase of energy efficient
        compact flourescents. At least one consumer still uses some of the
        less energy efficient condescends simply because the initial purchase
        price of compact flourescents is several times as costly as the less
        energy efficient alternatives.

        Funding for Low Home Energy Use Incentives

        Assuming 25% of reductions in energy use could be achieved without
        cost to the economy (DeCanio, 1997), the amount of money that would be
        needed on an annual basis for this household energy conservation
        measure would be the same as that required for the VMT reduction
        incentives ($810 million, annually).

        The money to fund the financial incentives would be available from the
        money saved by not having to build additional power plants,
        transmission
        lines and power stations in the future, money that therefore becomes
        available because of the reduced energy demands.

        For example, Wisconsin Energy Corporation has proposed to spend $6
        billion to build three new power plants in Wisconsin and upgrade other
        WEC power generation facilities to accommodate projected public
        demands for more power. The plans call for a new power plants in Port
        Washington (gas-fired); Oak Creek (coal-fired) and another coal-fired
        plant in an undetermined location in Wisconsin.

        As to the nation as a whole, USA TODAY (article by Fred Bayles,
        9/11/00), following their review of utility industry projections,
        suggests the cost of building new power facilities to meet growing
        demands will approach $80 billion during the next two decades. That
        amount would fund an annual average financial incentive of $155 per
        year for 25% per cent of U.S. households, who might be expected to
        apply for the low energy use financial incentives (by such measures
        listed in Appendix B.)

        Additional non-monetary environmental savings would result from
        reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced air pollution, less wildlife
        habitat and farmland loss from building more power plants and
        transmission lines in those areas, and reduced discharges of excess
        cooling water, since less cooling water would be needed for reduced
        energy generation.

        An additional method of funding financial incentives for environmental
        conservation, which would itself help reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
        would be the adoption of a "transportation tax" on raw materials and
        products requiring transportation over a certain distance. This would
        lead to reductions in the amount of energy used in transporting
        products.

        The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) should be given the
        authority to collect a "transportation tax" on all raw materials and
        products sold in the United States, that are transported over 50
        miles, whether the transportation is via land, water or air. The tax
        would be applicable to all raw materials, intermediary and final goods
        commercially transported over 50 miles, at a cost of 10 cents per
        item, 10 cents per pound weight, or 10 cents per cubic foot, whichever
        unit amount is higher. The total transportation tax for a shipment
        would thus be the sum of the applicable per unit tax of the products
        that are shipped, multiplied by the number of miles the products are
        shipped (from origin to destination).

        The USDOT would collect the money in this program and place it into a
        "transportation tax fund" (TTF). The money that accumulates into the
        TTF would be used to provide financial incentives to the public to
        reduce driving, flying and energy consumed in homes.

        Other sources federal surpluses available should be used for this
        purpose as well, since the beneficiary of conserving energy and
        reducing greenhouse gas and other emissions will spread to all U. S.
        citizens, and the U.S. economic system should provide higher rewards
        for environmentally conscientious decisions than is now provided.

        Conclusion

        Major new highway, airport and power plant investments require
        billions of public dollars to build, their construction causes major
        and significant environmental disruption, and their end uses create
        significant air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and other adverse
        environmental consequences. Government has the responsibility to
        protect and uphold the general welfare of its citizenry. Ensuring
        positive financial incentives are provided to the public, to
        discourage overuse of highways, air space and energy resources, and
        thereby to reduce the need to build new highways, airports and power
        generating infrastructure, is an appropriate and worthwhile function
        of government.

        Continuing to burn vast quantities of fossil fuels (coal, oil,
        gasoline) on Earth for energy is increasing average global
        temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. Studies show Earth's air,
        land and water temperatures are rising, at rates some scientists say
        are alarming, greatly exceeding the more conservative predictions made
        only a few years ago.

        Many scientists throughout the world are saying it is urgent that
        worldwide actions be undertaken, immediately, to curb, and reduce
        (some say by 80%!), the increasing quantities of greenhouse gas
        emissions. Moreover, many scientists concede the potential for
        worldwide cataclysmic calamity related to global warming is possible,
        not just in eons, but in centuries and perhaps even decades!

        To this call for urgency, the global warming "skeptics" continue to
        demand proof. Before the skeptics (who's numbers are dwindling
        rapidly) agree fossil fuel burning should be cut, they want to see
        proof global warming is occurring, that fossil fuel burning is the
        main cause of it, and that the costs of increasing global warming
        exceed the costs of slowing it down.

        Scientists claim the buffering characteristics of Earth's natural
        resources (cool oceans and permafrost store carbon), which have
        historically kept Earth's atmospheric gases in check, could ultimately
        become unbalanced by global warming, increasing the potential for a
        "runaway greenhouse effect" to occur on Earth. If a runaway greenhouse
        effect got started on Earth, Earth's surface temperatures could
        increase dramatically. Grinspoon (1997) speculates this could have
        been what happened to Earth's twin planet, Venus, which now has an
        average surface temperature of 864 degrees, Fahrenheit (water boils at
        212 degrees F.; steak broils at 550 degrees F.).

        Grinspoon claims the temperature on Venus is much higher than it
        should be, relative to the planet's mass and distance from the Sun,
        and that the reason for the hotness is that Venus experienced a
        runaway greenhouse effect early in its existence:

        "That brings us to the question of water. Evolutionary models suggest
        that if Venus started out with an ocean of water, it could have been
        lost early in the planet's history by a "runaway greenhouse effect".
        Water vapor is a powerful infrared absorber. A little water in the air
        can heat things up a lot. But in the presence of liquid water, if the
        air gets hotter, more water will evaporate. This creates the
        possibility of a powerful positive feedback loop: evaporating water
        increases the greenhouse effect, making the atmosphere so hot that
        more water evaporates, and so on. Any physical system like that,
        dominated by positive feedback, is inherently unstable. Once it gets
        going, there is no stopping it. Venus may have had oceans that simply
        boiled away, leaving large amounts of water vapor high in the
        atmosphere where solar ultraviolet radiation split up the molecules,
        allowing the hydrogen to escape into space" (pg. 149).

        A Call for Action

        When it comes to the long-term sustainability of our planet, it's much
        better to be conservatively safe, than deeply sorry. Being "deeply
        sorry", when Earth's populous might have done something to change a
        final negative outcome is not only being insincere, but even worse:
        unconcerned and callous.

        Necessity now demands everyone accept responsibility for making energy
        conserving sacrifices, right away. Greenhouse gases accumulate in the
        Earth's atmosphere, over time. Therefore, they remain in the Earth's
        atmosphere long after the time of their release, warming the planet
        for those who had nothing to do with their release.

        Due to recent (since mid 19th century) and an ever increasing reliance
        on fossil fuel burning by humans, the Earth's atmosphere has become
        more saturated with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The
        concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has gone from a
        preindustrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to a present day
        level of 365 ppm+ (and increase of 30%+ over preindustrial levels).
        The current concentration level of CO2 in the atmosphere is already
        outside the bounds of natural variability seen in the climate record
        of the last 160,000 years. "If the world proceeds on a "business as
        usual" path, atmospheric CO2 concentrations will likely become more
        than 700 PPM (an increase of 150% over preindustrial levels) by 2100,
        and they will still be rising." (Executive Office of the President,
        1997).

        The balance between the Earth's greenhouse and non-greenhouse gas
        concentrations has clearly been thrown out of kilter in the last 150
        years. This imbalance is likely to grow significantly larger over
        time. Even in the very unlikely event that increases in greenhouse gas
        emissions from human activity cease, the concentration levels of
        greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to increase, since
        there remains no other place for them to go.

        And, now, with the world's population having doubled since 1960, and
        expected to increase to 9 billion (by 2054 - Table 14), the potential
        for reducing - let alone slowing - annual global greenhouse gas
        emissions, and therefore global warming, has become exceedingly
        difficult.

        Scientists the world over are now claiming, with increasingly serious
        overtones, that major and significant worldwide action must be
        initiated, now, to reduce the volumes of greenhouse gases being
        injected into the Earth's atmosphere. To do so will require a dramatic
        and abrupt change in humankind reliance on fossil fuel burning.

        To be unresponsive to the now almost unanimous scientific community
        call for immediate (not 15 years from now), and drastic (not just
        slowing the rate of increase) is not prudent. For the world's
        population to dramatically increase fossil fuel burning and greenhouse
        gas emissions, with minimal attempts being made to conserve energy in
        travel, recreational and home energy use, is tantamount to global
        genocide.

        In conclusion, the time is now already overripe to drastically cut
        energy use in homes, cars, planes, trains and trucks. This paper
        offers an approach to accomplishing that, devoid of instituting
        regulatory controls over people's everyday lives.

        Governmental officials should, without delay, create programs that
        offer financial incentives to the public to encourage environmental
        conservation and minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Nonessential and
        all recreational uses of energy derived from the combustion of fossil
        fuels should be greatly reduced, starting immediately, so that the
        Earth's environment continues to remain habitable, indefinitely, by
        all forms of life.

        Acknowledgments

        I wish to credit my brother, Patrick J. Neuman, for his careful review
        of this paper throughout its many iterations of development, and to
        thank him for his personal support as well, without of which this
        paper would not have been completed.

        References

        Ackerman, A.S.; Toon, O.B.; Stevens, A.J.; Heymsfield, V.; Ramanathan,
        E.; Welton, J., May 12, 2000, "Reduction of Tropical Cloudiness by
        Soot", Science, Vol. 288.

        Associated Press, December 7, 1999, "Airline Head Warns of Crowded
        Skies".

        Bayles, Fred, September 11, 2000, "Can Expansion Cure Airport
        Gridlock?", in USA TODAY.

        Bloomfield, Janine, 2000, "Wake Up to Global Warming Threat, U.S.
        Warned", Environmental News Service,
        http://www.ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2000/2000L-06-12-08.html.

        Boulding, Kenneth E., 1968, Beyond Economics: Essays on Society,
        Religion and Ethics, The University of Michigan Press.

        Boulding, Kenneth E., 1971, "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship
        Earth", an essay in Problems of the Modern Economy: Pollution,
        Resources, and the Environment, edited by Alain C. Enthoven and A.
        Myrick Freeman III, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc..

        Caldwell, Lyton, Keith, 1971, Environment: A Challenge to Modern
        Society, Chapter 4, Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New
        York.

        DeCanio, Stephen J., 1997, "Prudent CO2 Emissions Cuts Make Economic
        Sense", Excerpted from the testimony of Stephen J. DeCanio before the
        Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the U.S. House Committee
        on Science, October 9, 1997, in The World Environment & the Global
        Economy, Gary E. McCuen Publications Inc., Hudson, Wisconsin.

        Executive Office of the President, 1997, Climate Change: State of
        Knowledge, Office of Science and Technology Policy.

        Foley, Jonathan, June 3, 2000, personal communication. Gumbu, Phinjo,
        March 18, 2000, "Smog Kills 1,000 Annually in Toronto, Study Shows,
        Toronto Star newspaper.

        Government Accounting Office (GAO), August 2000, Aviation and the
        Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present
        Environmental Challenges.

        Grinspoon, David Harry, 1997, Venus Revealed: A New Look Below the
        Clouds of our Mysterious Twin Planet, Helix Books, Addison-Wesley
        Publishing Company, Inc..

        Intergovernmental Panel of Climate on Climate Change, 1996c, Climate
        Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change,
        contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of
        the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed. James P. Bruce,
        Hoesung Lee, and Erik F. Haites, Cambridge: Cambridge University
        Press.

        Iltis, Hugh, Wisconsin Public Radio Interview with Tom Clark, April
        22, 2000. King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1998, The Autobiography of Martin
        Luther King, Jr., edited by Clayborne Carsen, Intellectual Properties
        Management, Inc., in association with Warner Books.

        McCullough, Jennifer, December, 1999, YES! A Journal of Positive
        Futures, "Are You Kyoto Cool?.

        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000, finding of NOAA
        scientists reported by H. Josef Herbert, Associated Press, in
        Wisconsin State Journal, March 24, 2000, pg. 6A.

        Neuman, Michael T., June 6, 2000, E-mail Memo to globalwarming@...

        Neuman, Patrick J., June 8, 2000, Calls for Global Warming Awareness,
        Chanhassen Villager.

        New Dream, June 2000, "Cold Wash and Line Dry", Step by Step No. 9,
        http://www.newdream.org.

        Newman, Judy, May 18, 2000, "Alliant Reflects on a Positive Year with
        Eyes to a Global Goal", Wisconsin State Journal.

        Population Reference Bureau, June 16, 2000, e-mail memo from Zuali
        Malsawmal, to author.

        Ruckelshaus, William, D., September 1989, "Toward a Sustainable
        World", in Scientific American, pages 166-174.

        Schipper, Lee; Steiner, Ruth; Meyers, Stephen, 1993, "Transportation
        and Global Climate Change", American Council for An Energy-Efficient
        Economy, Washington D.C..

        Shindell, 2000, in Wisconsin State Journal, May 22, 2000, Section 11A
        Wampler, Allen, J., 2000, in Wisconsin State Journal, May 22, 2000,
        Section 11A.

        U.S. Department of Energy, May 31, 2000, "Energy Efficiency Tips",
        Internet, www.doe.gov/tipsheet.htm.

        U. S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
        Statistics, 1999 and 1997 Washington D.C..

        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Internet,
        www.epa.gov/globalwarming.

        Worrest, Robert C., 2000, U.S. Global Change Research Information
        Office, E-mail to Michael Neuman, 27 March 2000.

        Wills, Diane, 2000, E-mail to Michael Neuman, 6 June 2000.

        Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 1999, Wisconsin State Highway
        Plan 2020.

        Wisconsin Energy Bureau, 1999, Wisconsin Energy Statistics.

        Wisconsin Energy Bureau, no date, bookmarks, "10 Energy Saving Tips".

        Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, 1999, "1999-2000 Blue Book".

        U.S. Department of Energy, 2000, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
        Program, Oceanic Properties, http://www.arm.gov..


        TO ACCESS APPENDIX A, PLEASE CLICK "FILES", LEFT COLUMN

        Appendix A: Tables

        Appendix B: Transportation, Home and Recreation Energy Conservation
        Measures

        Energy Using Transportation Reduction Measures

        1. Take vacations near home.

        2. When you must drive to get necessities, plan errands to minimize
        driving. Plan shopping so you can get all your groceries in one week.

        3. Buy a fuel-efficient car. Better yet, buy a bike - and use it
        regularly, or wake or take a bus when it is important that you travel
        longer distances.

        4. Move closer in to where you normally must travel to, so you can
        either bike safely or walk more places more often.

        5. Don't move far away from your family if you are close to them, so
        you don't have to fly in during holidays to see them every year. Or if
        you are far away from them, consider moving back to where they are.

        6. Buy liquids in condensed forms when possible. It saves room in the
        refrigerator, and limits the amount of trips necessary to the grocery
        store.

        7. Avoid purchasing products such as bottled water, beer, pop, liquor
        and other commodities in non-recyclable plastic containers. Not only
        is excess energy burned in transporting the water in those products to
        the grocery store, but there is also energy burned in producing the
        plastic containers for these products, and in transporting and
        disposing of the containers.

        Conserving Energy in the Home: Lighting and Windows

        Install screw-in fluorescent bulbs (compact fluorescent), where
        practical.

        Replace two 60-watt incandescent bulbs with one 100-watt bulb (same
        amount of light).

        Clean light fixtures (dirt reduces light output).

        Turn off lights in parts of the house not in use.

        Limit number, number of days used, and duration of operation of
        holiday/festival lights.

        Long-life incandescence is less efficient than standard incandescence.
        Use "task lights" to provide light where you need it; reduce
        background light levels.

        Chose light colored rooms and ceilings over dark colored ones; white
        ceilings reflect light back into room.

        Use natural daylighting; one 3' by 5 ` window can let in more light
        than 100 standard 60-what bulbs.

        Organize rooms for maximum use of daylighting to reduce need for
        artificial lighting.

        Ways to improve the energy saving potential of older windows include
        caulking, weather-stripping, replacing sashes and re-glazing.

        Increasing the number of "glazings" (layers of glass) increases the
        energy saving potential.

        Adding plastic film to the outside of windows, or insulated window
        coverings to the inside of windows, increase the energy saving
        potential.

        New windows should have at least an R-3 insulating value.

        Awnings, overhangs and sunscreens reduce summer heat gain through
        windows by up to 90 percent, while still letting in light. Drapes left
        open around windows where the sun shines into homes (south and
        west-facing side of house) can make air conditioners work 2 to 3 times
        harder.

        Shut air conditioning vents and close doors in areas not in use, or
        used infrequently.

        Change air conditioner and furnace filters when dirty. Turn off lights
        when not needed for considerable length of time (longer period okay
        for florescent lights, but turn off overnight).

        Conserving Energy in the Home: Remodeling and Building Decisions

        Make sure there is sufficient levels of insulation: at least R-44 in
        roof or attic; R-23 in outside facing walls; R-19 in box sill; and
        R-10 around foundation.

        Install a continuous air infiltration barrier.

        Design rooms to take advantage of daylighting.

        Install energy efficient fluorescent light fixtures, where possible.
        Build vestibules for outside doors. Install high efficiency condensing
        furnace with outside combustion air and exhaust.

        Select an insulated outside door of R-5 or greater.
        Choose low-E glass for the windows.

        When landscaping, consider planting trees to shade house in summer,
        and to serve as windbreaks (especially north side of house) in winter.
        [Trees also sequester carbon dioxide, a "greenhouse gas", from of the
        Earth's atmosphere.]

        Choose an appropriately sized home for the number of persons who
        will live in the home 12 months out of the year. Avoid building and
        buying a home much larger than needed for the residents to live
        comfortably.

        Avoid building and buying a home on a much larger sized lot than is
        needed by the persons who plan to live in the home. More energy will
        be required to maintain the property (cut lawn, bushes, etc.); and the
        placement of numerous homes on large lots ultimately contributes to
        unnecessary and energy inefficient "sprawling out" of neighborhoods,
        cities and villages.

        Conserving Energy in the Home: Appliances and Heating/Air Conditioning

        When (or before) hot water heater needs replacing, install a natural
        gas water heater with an energy factor of greater than 0.58.

        When (or before) furnace needs replacing, install high efficiency
        condensing furnace with outside combustion air and exhaust.

        When (or before) appliances need replacing, purchase (or ask landlord
        to purchase) high efficiency appliances.

        When (or before) air conditioner needs replacing, install a high
        efficiency air conditioner (if air conditioning considered necessary).

        When washing clothes, wash dark and colored clothes in cold water (to
        avoid using energy for heating the water).

        When drying clothes, line dry them to avoid using the energy in drying
        them in the dryer.

        When conditioning the air, use portable, ceiling and/or whole house
        attic fans for cooling over air conditioning, whenever possible. Less
        electricity is used in operating fans.

        Insulate water heater, insulate pipes, install low-flow shower head,
        set water heater temperature at 120 degrees F.

        In summer, do not run the air conditioner when no one is at home, and
        when someone is home, run the air conditioner only when necessary and
        turn it off completely on cooler nights.

        In winter: keep the thermostat below 60 degrees F. when you are no one
        is home, and turn it down for nighttime hours. Make sure all the
        windows and doors are sealed, and cover the air conditioner with
        plastic or remove it from the window completely. Wear sweaters to
        allow for lower comfortable temperature settings during the daytime
        hours.

        Participate Only in Low-Energy Consuming Recreational Activities

        1. Choose recreational activities that do not rely heavily on burning
        of fossil fuels or electricity consumption. If one want to be truly
        energy wise and slow global warming for everyone, the following
        heavily energy depended recreational activities should be avoided
        completely: snowmobiling (for recreation purposes); all terrain
        vehicle riding; motor boating; jet skiing; motorcycle riding;
        recreational flying; going on heavily energy using carnival rides.

        2. Avoid participation in activities or sports that require lots of
        travel. If travel is required, it is usually more efficient to travel
        by bus or train, then to fly or take personal transportation. If
        personal transportation is required, coordinate rides to insure the
        minimum number of vehicles are taken to any recreational event.

        Do not cater to events or festivities that burn large amount of energy
        for primarily enjoyment viewing. Examples of these activities include
        auto racing, motorcycle racing, boat racing, airplane shows, tractor
        pulls and fireworks displays.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.