What's the Difference?

Being energy efficient means getting the same job done but expending less energy while doing it. Energy use is simply a measure of the amount of energy spent, whether or not work is getting done. So if you are sitting on the couch staring at the TV (which is highly unlikely considering the fact that you're reading this), you're not using much energy, but you're also not being very efficient (unless, of course, you. re watching that delightful Oprah Winfrey). If, however, you somehow managed to run a marathon and sculpt a full-size replica of the Pieta without expending more energy than it took to sit on the sofa, that would be incredibly efficient. And newsworthy.

Both are Necessary Measures

Efficiency and energy use are both necessary measures of the sustainability of a product. Just like our couch potato marathon-running Renaissance man, a product may use a ton of energy, but do so efficiently because it is doing a lot of work. On the other hand, a product may not use very much energy at all, but it can still be very inefficient. Just like your Uncle Lou.

As it stands today, we have a lot of room for efficiency improvements in this country. Currently, 84% of commercial energy is wasted in the United States.5 Often energy efficiency upgrades pay for themselves in short order just with the money saved on energy bills.

Energy efficiency labeling is often the first and only indicator a consumer has as to a product's environmental impact. Looking for the Energy Star label is a good rule of thumb to ensure that the product you are buying is among the best in its class. But if you buy an air conditioner with the Energy Star label, that does not give you the whole story on that product's true environmental impact. You also need to look at energy use. If you run said air conditioner 24 hours a day until the inside of your apartment feels like Fargo, ND, in February, you're still using a lot of energy. Thus, in trying to make better day to day decisions, you need to be armed with information about both energy efficiency and energy use.

You will notice that our product database calculations deal mainly with energy use and emissions, not efficiency. We felt that this would make the link between everyday decisions and actual emissions amounts more tangible. (See calculations)

Efficiency Resources

Organizations like ACEEE (EEEE!) and programs like EPA/DOE's Energy Star® have done a great job of getting the message out on energy efficiency. It is always a safe bet to pick products with the Energy Star label, and ACEEE's Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings is a must-read for any aspiring eco geek.

Why those gases?

As we put together our database of products and air emissions, we wanted to be comprehensive in our air emissions reporting, but we also had limitations of scope--it's hard enough to report on 7 pollutants much less 700. Since there are only 24 hours in a day and human beings need sleep in order to survive, we decided to draw some lines in the sand. We wanted to deal with the gases that cause urban air pollution, acid rain, and global warming. We therefore picked the criteria air pollutants CO, NOx, SO2, Pb, PM2.5, and VOCs. We did not include the criteria air pollutant PM 10, because PM 2.5 is a proxy for that, and it is believed that the smaller particles are the more damaging ones.

In terms of greenhouse gases, there are 6 main greenhouse gases that are identified in the Kyoto Protocol, but of those CO2 accounts for 82% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.6 Because we emit so much more of this pollutant than any other, we only included CO2 in our data. The other gases are important in their own rights, but when talking about the day to day decisions of individuals, highly potent gases emitted in small amounts--such as SF6, which is used in insulating electrical equipment and has 24,000 times higher global warming potential than CO27--are not as representative.

Source: US EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions/us1999/1999-inventory.pdf

Why are they only talking about air pollution and not other types?

Alright, we know what you true eco geeks are thinking, "Sure, improving air pollution is all well and good, but what about land and water? And where are my Birkenstocks?" We know, we know. A truly sustainable product should have zero impact on all environments--land, water, and air--as well as all species. Moreover, it should promote economic and social justice and equality. Unfortunately, there are very few products that we consume that meet all (and, frankly, there are precious few that meet any) of these requirements. Interestingly, air is one of the only substances that we all consume that meets all of these prerequisites for sustainability.

The simple answer as to why we are focusing on air is that we had to start somewhere, and this is an area where a lot of information is available. Air pollution science and policy are at a very interesting point in their history, and their future is rife with possibility. With emissions markets developing, the potential exists for small consumers to get emissions credits for the lifestyle choices they make. These credits can then be aggregated and used for economic development and as incentives to encourage future environmentally sound choices. That's right. We're not above bribery. (See above) Because these potentials exist foremost today with air pollution and not with water or land pollution, we started there.

Please note, however, that we would welcome any potential partnership that would allow us to expand our database to include the land and water effects of products. If you're looking for a partner (or just a casual friend to spend your weekends with) feel free to give us a call.

5. Miller, G. Tyler. .Living in the Environment. New York: Wadsworth Publishing International.,1998. P398
6. US Environmental Protection Agency. "Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-1998." April 2000. http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions/us2000/index.html (December 6, 2000). P. ES-3
7. Trexler and Associates. "Shaklee Corporation's Application for Climate Neutral Enterprise Certification (Public Distribution Copy)" Approved by the Environmental Review Panel March 17, 2000.