Differences in US/Euro temps and carbon footprint?
May 30, 2010 11:00 AM Subscribe
How much of the difference between US and European carbon footprints is due to differences in climate?
I mean, if the average temperature in winter is 22 degrees F (Stockholm), it's going to produce fewer carbon emissions than if it's 6 degrees F (northern Minnesota). And living without air conditioning in summer? In Rome (85 degrees), sure. In Phoenix (105 degrees), not so much. Do these differences in heating and cooling output make up a significant part of the difference?
I mean, if the average temperature in winter is 22 degrees F (Stockholm), it's going to produce fewer carbon emissions than if it's 6 degrees F (northern Minnesota). And living without air conditioning in summer? In Rome (85 degrees), sure. In Phoenix (105 degrees), not so much. Do these differences in heating and cooling output make up a significant part of the difference?
How about looking for carbon footprints per US state and European country? That way you can compare similar climates.
posted by atrazine at 12:07 PM on May 30, 2010
posted by atrazine at 12:07 PM on May 30, 2010
Sure it makes a difference. Heating and air conditioning are sizable chunks of building energy demand. You can measure the climate's influence on energy demand by the number of "degree-days", e.g. variance from the base temperature. Example: US heating degree-days by region. More extreme climates = more heating and/or more cooling = more energy = more carbon. Based on this U.S. data heating and cooling is on average half of residential energy demand and about a third of commercial which makes it around 15% of total national energy demand. On pure speculation I could easily imagine this being cut in half for a small country with a moderate climate.
Actually answering your question is a bit trickier. I am comfortable with a linear mapping from energy demand to carbon footprint for rough estimates, but bear in mind also that this mapping changes by country depending how they get their energy. Sweden for example uses a lot of energy for heating, but most of that comes from district heating (municipal pipes carrying hot steam) which they get from incinerating biomass, an overall carbon-neutral method. Also think about how common air conditioning is in Europe, even in really hot climates: pretty rare, much more so than in the US. The effect is there and teasing it out is possible but a bit complicated. Maybe emissions might change by 3% to 5%, something on that order?
posted by PercussivePaul at 12:28 PM on May 30, 2010
Actually answering your question is a bit trickier. I am comfortable with a linear mapping from energy demand to carbon footprint for rough estimates, but bear in mind also that this mapping changes by country depending how they get their energy. Sweden for example uses a lot of energy for heating, but most of that comes from district heating (municipal pipes carrying hot steam) which they get from incinerating biomass, an overall carbon-neutral method. Also think about how common air conditioning is in Europe, even in really hot climates: pretty rare, much more so than in the US. The effect is there and teasing it out is possible but a bit complicated. Maybe emissions might change by 3% to 5%, something on that order?
posted by PercussivePaul at 12:28 PM on May 30, 2010
You won't really be able to compare like with like. There are so many other factors - things like wealth, fuel prices, lifestyle, energy sources, even architecture and town/city planning that will come into play.
Around Europe I've seen very little air conditioning outside hotels and shops; instead, in many places, everything shuts for the hottest part of the day, and people work, shop and socialise long into the evening. In other words, Europeans have adapted their societies to the climate over generations, whereas in the US, towns and cities have spread quickly into not-particularly-hospitable places via the magic of near-universal air conditionioning.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 12:49 PM on May 30, 2010
Around Europe I've seen very little air conditioning outside hotels and shops; instead, in many places, everything shuts for the hottest part of the day, and people work, shop and socialise long into the evening. In other words, Europeans have adapted their societies to the climate over generations, whereas in the US, towns and cities have spread quickly into not-particularly-hospitable places via the magic of near-universal air conditionioning.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 12:49 PM on May 30, 2010
To start off, your comparisons are a bit uneven: Stockholm is a bit of an anomaly, in that it is quite temperate and often has weather similar to Berlin or Warsaw. A better comparison would be northern Scandinavia, where the average annual temperature is around freezing, and is about as empty. Phoenix's 105 degrees are a lot, but Nicosia's average high in the summer is 98F.
All that said, Europeans tend to live smaller: smaller cars, shorter distances to work, smaller homes and apartments. More Europeans live in cities, close to each other. A lot of that is due to the relative scarcity of land and higher energy prices, but at the end of the day, it's a lot less wasteful to heat a 8 unit apartment building than it is to heat 8 free-standing homes.
posted by jedrek at 1:02 PM on May 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
All that said, Europeans tend to live smaller: smaller cars, shorter distances to work, smaller homes and apartments. More Europeans live in cities, close to each other. A lot of that is due to the relative scarcity of land and higher energy prices, but at the end of the day, it's a lot less wasteful to heat a 8 unit apartment building than it is to heat 8 free-standing homes.
posted by jedrek at 1:02 PM on May 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Sweden for example uses a lot of energy for heating, but most of that comes from district heating (municipal pipes carrying hot steam) which they get from incinerating biomass, an overall carbon-neutral method.
Well, not really true. The majority of homes outside the city are heated by oil or electricity or "bergvärme" which is a heat pump with a sink 300-500m down in the granite. Awesomely efficient on a small scale.
Also there was a protest last week here in Stockholm regarding the amount of coal being burned by the "fjärrvärme" plant in Värtahamn (which provides heat for this part of town). The central heating system that pumps hot water under the streets for the buildings to tap off from is WAY more efficient than individual heating units, but yeah, living in a cold climate requires heat. A lot of it. I agree with jederk that the temperature is generally moderate, but here it is May 31 and the heating system is still on......
And proper construction. My building from 1885 has triple pane windows - original - and walls 1m thick. Unlike when I lived in London, it is always warm inside when it is cold outside.
On the other hand no air conditioning. In 15 years the temperature outside my window has only once reached 28C degrees and then only for a few hours. In the winter we pre-freeze everything outside before putting it in the icebox to save energy.
posted by three blind mice at 3:53 PM on May 30, 2010
Well, not really true. The majority of homes outside the city are heated by oil or electricity or "bergvärme" which is a heat pump with a sink 300-500m down in the granite. Awesomely efficient on a small scale.
Also there was a protest last week here in Stockholm regarding the amount of coal being burned by the "fjärrvärme" plant in Värtahamn (which provides heat for this part of town). The central heating system that pumps hot water under the streets for the buildings to tap off from is WAY more efficient than individual heating units, but yeah, living in a cold climate requires heat. A lot of it. I agree with jederk that the temperature is generally moderate, but here it is May 31 and the heating system is still on......
And proper construction. My building from 1885 has triple pane windows - original - and walls 1m thick. Unlike when I lived in London, it is always warm inside when it is cold outside.
On the other hand no air conditioning. In 15 years the temperature outside my window has only once reached 28C degrees and then only for a few hours. In the winter we pre-freeze everything outside before putting it in the icebox to save energy.
posted by three blind mice at 3:53 PM on May 30, 2010
"Stockholm is a bit of an anomaly, in that it is quite temperate and often has weather similar to Berlin or Warsaw. A better comparison would be northern Scandinavia"
Except that 3.5 million people live in Minneapolis, and I don't think Northern Scandinavia is all that populated. Perhaps more to the point, if we're comparing along the same latitude, Minneapolis is on roughly the same latitude as Turin, Italy; Chicago is on the same latitude as Rome, but has weather fairly comparable to Moscow's, which is 14* further north. (Stockholm is latitudinally near Anchorage, Alaska.) The vast center of the US, between the Rockies and the Appalachians, is a continental climate, which means hotter summers and colder winters. Most of Western Europe is a coastal climate, which is far more moderate; large bodies of water provide moderation of temperature, warming the air in the winter and cooling it in the summer. (This happens on a small scale too -- the Great Lakes do it -- but they're too small to significantly impact the temperature of a large land region the way oceans do.) The midwest and great plains states (I included Pennsylvania and Texas for my Q&D back-of-the-envelope calculations), which definitely have a continental climate, account for nearly 40% of the US population.
I think it definitely makes a difference -- witness how many European cities there are north of the 50th parallel -- Stockholm, St. Pete, Oslo, Edinburgh, Copenhagen, Malmo, Newcastle, Belfast, Manchester, Berlin, Amsterdam, Warsaw, Southhampton, Krakow -- vs. how many North American cities are north of it -- Edmonton, Anchorage, Regina, Fairbanks, Whitehorse, Yellowknife. Those include great European capitals; the North American list is mostly small, cold places that aren't near much else. Because Western Europe is almost entirely in a much, much milder climate than much of North America. (And many of North America's great population centers, like New York City, are on the East Coast, where the oceanic effect is minimal. Those in California receive the benefit of the oceanic effect, but not so much in New York. If we count in the East Coast, it'd be much higher than 40% of the US population in these more extreme climates.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:09 PM on May 30, 2010
Except that 3.5 million people live in Minneapolis, and I don't think Northern Scandinavia is all that populated. Perhaps more to the point, if we're comparing along the same latitude, Minneapolis is on roughly the same latitude as Turin, Italy; Chicago is on the same latitude as Rome, but has weather fairly comparable to Moscow's, which is 14* further north. (Stockholm is latitudinally near Anchorage, Alaska.) The vast center of the US, between the Rockies and the Appalachians, is a continental climate, which means hotter summers and colder winters. Most of Western Europe is a coastal climate, which is far more moderate; large bodies of water provide moderation of temperature, warming the air in the winter and cooling it in the summer. (This happens on a small scale too -- the Great Lakes do it -- but they're too small to significantly impact the temperature of a large land region the way oceans do.) The midwest and great plains states (I included Pennsylvania and Texas for my Q&D back-of-the-envelope calculations), which definitely have a continental climate, account for nearly 40% of the US population.
I think it definitely makes a difference -- witness how many European cities there are north of the 50th parallel -- Stockholm, St. Pete, Oslo, Edinburgh, Copenhagen, Malmo, Newcastle, Belfast, Manchester, Berlin, Amsterdam, Warsaw, Southhampton, Krakow -- vs. how many North American cities are north of it -- Edmonton, Anchorage, Regina, Fairbanks, Whitehorse, Yellowknife. Those include great European capitals; the North American list is mostly small, cold places that aren't near much else. Because Western Europe is almost entirely in a much, much milder climate than much of North America. (And many of North America's great population centers, like New York City, are on the East Coast, where the oceanic effect is minimal. Those in California receive the benefit of the oceanic effect, but not so much in New York. If we count in the East Coast, it'd be much higher than 40% of the US population in these more extreme climates.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:09 PM on May 30, 2010
Most energy use in the US is due to transportation. So the difference due to temperatures is likely small. The difference due to distance may be arguable, though.
posted by DU at 4:57 PM on May 30, 2010
posted by DU at 4:57 PM on May 30, 2010
According to this site, about 22% of Anerican energy consumption goes to homes, and 19% to commercial buildings (transportation is 28% of consumption by comparison). About half of commercial and residential consumption goes to heating and air conditioning, so roughly 20% of energy consumption overall. If you could find similar stats for Eurppe you'd have an answer.
posted by miyabo at 6:15 PM on May 30, 2010
posted by miyabo at 6:15 PM on May 30, 2010
« Older How can I find a nice apartment in Cordoba... | How do I find information about cat personality... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by davidjohnfox at 11:53 AM on May 30, 2010