Earlier this week, I wrote that we need to change our relationship with energy. What exactly do I mean by that?
The reason for making the statement is energy generally translates into carbon dioxide emissions. The more calories we consume on a daily basis, the more carbon dioxide we contribute to the atmosphere.
But I am not just talking about "food calories." This isn't about how much we eat. Energy is required to make every product we use on a daily basis. Indeed, there is an energy quotient attached to writing these words.
We can break it down into some broad categories. In order for me to write these words, I need energy for my brain to function and my muscles to move. Yes, those are the "ordinary food calories" we use in our daily lives.
The average adult male requires around 2,500 food calories per day while an average adult female only requires 2,200. I make the distinction "food calories" because a food calorie - written Cal - is actually 1,000 calories or 4,184 joules of energy.
In any case, the energy for me to function and write is only a small portion of my daily energy requirements. But even though I might require only 2,500 Cal per day, the amount of energy embedded in that food is way more.
There is energy tied up in growing the food - in fertilizers, pesticides and such, along with watering the plants and picking the produce. There is energy tied up in sorting, packing and shipping food. There is energy tied up in the sale of food - in refrigeration, displays and heating costs. There is energy tied up in transportation - both to the store and bringing it home. And there is energy tied up in food preparation.
On the whole, it is estimated we spend some 12,500 Cal/day for the food we eat. Or put another way, there is five times the embedded energy in our food as the actual food energy itself.
To write these words, there is also embedded energy in the computer I am using. This comes in two forms. The first is the costs associated with manufacturing the machine. Call it a capital energy cost. The second is the energy demands associated with running it on a day-to-day basis. Call it the operational energy cost. Both of these energy costs must be taken into account.
The longer I use my computer, the better the capital energy costs look. For example, making my computer costs about 380 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions. If I only use it one day, it is very carbon expensive. If I use it for one year, then it is only about one kilogram per day which is more reasonable. But as I have been using this same machine for five years, it is down to only 0.2 kilograms per day.
The longer I use it, the more reasonable its carbon footprint becomes.
However, operational costs over the same life span are pretty much fixed. In B.C., because most of our electricity comes from hydro-electric sources, our carbon dioxide per kilowatt usage is relatively low. It adds up, though.
And all of this isn't taking into account that I work in a building with both capital and operational energy costs or that I drove to work this morning in a car with capital and operational energy costs or that I live in a house... etcetera.
The point of this is not to get into the life cycle analysis of every activity. Rather, my point is to illustrate the fact that our daily energy costs contain a great deal of embedded energy. Energy that is not readily apparent because it represents capital expenditures.
It has been estimated that a North American lifestyle leads to daily consumption of more than 200,000 calories. The amount we need for sustenance is a small fraction. We spend a great deal of energy everyday on the capital costs associated with our smart phones, our apparel, our cars and any number of other items.
We even have a carbon debt for infrastructure such as roads, bridges and buildings. We have a largely invisible but massive energy footprint. And as a consequence, Canadians generate a disproportionately significant amount of carbon dioxide.
It is not just the oil sands that have us near the top of the per capita rankings.
It is a lifestyle where we buy a new car every three years or a new smart phone on an annual basis. It is a lifestyle which involves importing strawberries from South America in December or mangoes from the Philippines.
I would suggest we need to consider the question: what are we willing to give up for a better future?
If the answer is nothing, then our relationship with energy won't change and we will lead the world in carbon dioxide emissions.
