Big environmental footprints: 21 percent of homes account for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions

Energy conservation in a small number of households could go a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, scientists are reporting. Their study, which measured differences in energy demands at the household level, appears in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Dominik Saner and colleagues point out that the energy people use to power their homes and to satisfy their mobility needs accounts for more than 70 percent of emissions of carbon dioxide, the main involved in global climate change. To cope with that problem, policymakers and environmentalists have focused largely on the supply side, for instance, electric power plants, heating systems and cars that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Saner and his team decided to take a close look at the other end of the equation—how energy consumption for housing and land-based mobility at the household level impacts greenhouse gas emissions.

Their study of more than 3,000 households in a Swiss town found that only 21 percent of the households accounted for almost 50 percent of greenhouse . The biggest factors contributing to a few families having a disproportionately large environmental footprint were large living spaces (which use energy for heating, lighting and cooling) and long commutes in private vehicles. "If their emissions could be halved, the total emissions of the community would be reduced by 25 percent," the scientists concluded.


Explore further

21 percent of homes account for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions

More information: pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es304084p
Citation: Big environmental footprints: 21 percent of homes account for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions (2013, July 18) retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-07-big-environmental-footprints-percent-homes.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 19, 2013
Actually, the headline is misleading. It isn't (just) the home, it is the people who own that home.

Jul 20, 2013
Before any of the normal "Global warming is a hoax" people show up I would just like to say one thing. I've said it before, but I think it's a valid point.

CO2 is bad for you. You can't breath to much of it and live. So why put it in the air we breath? Doesn't matter if it's warming the Earth, just look to your own personal health. If you think putting CO2 in the air is a good thing then let me hold you over a smoke stack of a coal burning power plant for an hour.

The same goes for all the other crap we put int he air/water/ground. We simply need to stop because none of it is any good for health and long life. I would think this point would be pretty basic but I never hear anyone make it.


But plants love it - they make oxygen out of it, which we all need. Besides, who likes flat beer?

Jul 21, 2013
Actually, the headline is misleading. It isn't (just) the home, it is the people who own that home.


Al Gore would be a good example of someone living in a large home (over 10,000 sq ft) with a huge travel carbon footprint (as he jets around in his personal/chartered planes). It's ironic that his personal actions are quite contrary to what he says we must do to survive,

And it's criminally immoral that he'd use government to force us to use less energy and what we'd use to be heavily controlled by government force, while he goes on his merry way consuming all the energy he wants, and polluting all he wants.

Jul 21, 2013
Actually, the headline is misleading. It isn't (just) the home, it is the people who own that home.


Al Gore would be a good example of someone living in a large home (over 10,000 sq ft) with a huge travel carbon footprint (as he jets around in his personal/chartered planes). It's ironic that his personal actions are quite contrary to what he says we must do to survive,

And it's criminally immoral that he'd use government to force us to use less energy and what we'd use to be heavily controlled by government force, while he goes on his merry way consuming all the energy he wants, and polluting all he wants.

Jul 27, 2013
Actually, the headline is misleading. It isn't (just) the home, it is the people who own that home.


Al Gore would be a good example of someone living in a large home (over 10,000 sq ft) with a huge travel carbon footprint (as he jets around in his personal/chartered planes). It's ironic that his personal actions are quite contrary to what he says we must do to survive,

And it's criminally immoral that he'd use government to force us to use less energy and what we'd use to be heavily controlled by government force, while he goes on his merry way consuming all the energy he wants, and polluting all he wants.

What is criminally immoral is the lie that is your alias.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more