In the past few months, we have seen an explosion of online web calculators that model a plethora of sustainability-related issues, from carbon to water and beyond. The calculators typically enable users to enter data, and out pops some sort of metric, or number of the impact of their actions, lifestyle, or event. This post is the beginning of a series of posts referring and reviewing web calculators. Given the wide variety of topics and depth of these calculators, we will do our best to highlight the good, the bad, and the backbone of these web-tools. We would love to have your feedback, and of course any additional links that are relevant to the calculator. Happy Calculating!
For our first post on this thread, we are looking at the Community Footprint Tool, an online carbon mapping tool from JustEnvirons, a consulting firm run by C. Scott Smith. This tool allows people to enter a place in California (address, city, zip code, etc.) and examine the corresponding zip code’s carbon footprint in a variety of dimensions. For example, if I look up the new CTG office’s zip code (94612) in Oakland, I get this little map of downtown Oakland with the area code highlighted:
You also can use the “map indicator” pull-down menu to compare how each California zip code fares among 7 dimensions to the California Average. For example, if I pull down “Household electricity usage”, I get the following map, with big orange “+” signs for where electrify usage is above average, and big blue “-“ symbols where it is below the state average:
I also get an interesting table that enumerates the “map indicators” down to metric tons of CO2 equivalents (mTCO2e).
Why is this so interesting? For a number of reasons … first, it is a great introduction to per capita carbon footprints, and brings it down to a local level. People can connect to their zip code (not in a fuzzy way, the same way they connect to Pandas (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_megafauna), but we write it all the time (or at least we enter our zip code into a web page frequently). Second, this breakdown can show people what really goes on in their city. I had no idea that Oakland (or at least 94612) had so much carbon associated with manufacturing and driving – I assumed I lived in a more commercial, transit oriented city, with the double fists of ACTransit and BART crisscrossing the city. Lastly, and most importantly, these data illustrate how people can cut down on their Carbon footprint. Manufacturing notwithstanding, reducing driving and electricity conservation matter, and are tangible components of reducing one’s footprint.
How did JustEnvirons do this? They took advantage of the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics and the rich data sets available by the California Energy Commission. The upshot is that this kind of easy interface can be generated easily for California, which is not only the fourth most energy efficient state but one of the most populous. Most of these numbers can be generated for all of the US, with the exception of the Manufacturing, Commercial goods, and Agricultural data. Many, but not all, states record these data. It would be great if these results could be compiled for cities, which they could; it is just a matter of time and effort. Also it would be great to compare two places side-by-side, adding on to other resources for relocating and quality of life (see http://www.bestplaces.net/city/). If you had the choice to live in a below-average carbon zip code, would you?
-Noah
Noah Goldstein is CTG’s Director of Spatial Analysis and Director of CTG’s new Oakland office
Posts
