The Carbon Conundrum: Part Two

The Culprits

We here in the Gunnison Valley are heavy hitters when it comes to CO2. It may come as a surprise, after all, townies rule the streets much of the year, hitchhiking is acceptable, and free buses run around Crested Butte and up and down the mountain. Many mountain bikers ride to the trailhead instead of driving; and backcountry skiing appears to be going off and growing exponentially each winter. But it’s not enough, not even close.

In the first segment of the Carbon Conundrum Series, it was made clear that the road to reducing carbon emissions is paved with dollar signs. The more funding that’s available, the more likely we are to reach a 20 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020.
According to Roger Hudson, business professor at Western State College who published a paper on the challenges associated with meeting the 20×20 goals, it also has a lot to do with location. He says the carbon intensity for Gunnison is roughly 40 percent higher than for the state of Colorado and the United States. “Gunnison leaves a heavy carbon footprint due to its climate, with roughly 40 percent more heating and cooling days than Denver, and because almost all goods and services are trucked in over long distances and fuel-hungry mountain passes.”
Before we dig any deeper into the emission matrix, it’s important to have a baseline. The 2005 baseline inventory for CO2 emissions in the Upper Gunnison River Watershed (UGRW), which includes the city of Gunnison, Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte and the unincorporated area of the UGRW, was published in 2008. The inventory was administered by the Office for Resource Efficiency and authored by George Sibley.
This wasn’t a countywide inventory, in part because, as the report explains, the Somerset portion of the county presents an intimidating greenhouse gas challenge.
Methane has 21 times the capacity of carbon dioxide for trapping heat in the atmosphere, so the amount of methane is multiplied by 21 to determine its carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Two coal mines operating in that part of the county (the West Elk and Oxbow’s Elk Creek Coal Mines) produce massive amounts of methane—a combined total estimated at 1.5 million tons CO2e.
The methane emissions of the West Elk Coal Mine alone, according to a recent EIS completed by the mine, constitute more than 1 percent of the entire state of Colorado’s “carbon footprint.” Inclusion of those emissions plus the electricity used in the mines would quadruple the greenhouse gas emissions of the Upper Gunnison River Watershed alone.

Breakdown—Buildings and Transportation
The inventory indicates that overall, in 2005, UGRW residents and their activities emitted 512,218 tons of greenhouse gases. Here is the breakdown—residential and commercial buildings are the greatest carbon culprits by far, with the exception of the unincorporated area of the Upper Gunnison River Watershed, where transportation trumps building emissions.
The amount of greenhouse gas emissions in or attributable to the city of Gunnison totaled 115,839 tons of CO2e in the baseline year of 2005. Buildings were accountable for 94,388 tons, or 81.5 percent of the city’s total. Meanwhile transportation generated 17,824 tons of CO2e, or 15.4 percent.
Mt. Crested Butte totaled 47,930 tons, and residential and commercial buildings were responsible for 42,903 tons of CO2e—89.5 percent of the town’s total CO2 emissions. Transportation totaled 2,590 tons, or 5.4 percent.
The town of Crested Butte emitted 40,970 tons of CO2e total, 31,009 tons for buildings, which equated to 76 percent of total emissions. Transportation totaled 5,073 tons, or 12.4 percent. Worth noting—waste/landfill emissions were a close third at 4,878 tons, or 11.9 percent.
Meanwhile, human activities in the Unincorporated Area of the Upper Gunnison River Watershed generated 307,476 tons CO2e in the baseline year of 2005. This is the one area where transportation emissions trumped buildings, accounting for 175,084 tons of CO2e (57 percent of the total 307,476 tons), compared to 92,665 tons for buildings, which makes up 30 percent.
For the incorporated areas, buildings are breaking the emissions bank. According to Phillip Supino, town of Crested Butte sustainability coordinator, “Buildings account for 76 percent of Town emissions, and it is the sector with the greatest potential for reductions. There are a number of steps property owners can take to improve building efficiency on their own, and there are also some feasible government and private sector financing schemes for more capital intensive improvements like solar panels and improved insulation. Also, much of the energy use in buildings can be reduced through behavioral changes such as turning off unnecessary lights and turning down thermostats.”
The Office for Resource Efficiency is playing a pivotal role in increasing energy efficiency up and down the valley. Supino salutes ORE’s efforts at providing multiple avenues for reducing CO2 emissions. He says, “The ORE Better Buildings program, which was modeled in part on the Town of Crested Butte’s Residential Energy Efficiency Program, is a great example of the growing availability of building efficiency financing and retro-fit opportunities to property owners.”

Power Production Problem
Cutting down on consumption locally is one of the tools in the CO2 emissions reduction toolbox; reducing dependence on coal for generating electricity is another. Much of our electricity—at least 72 percent—is generated by burning coal.
Chris Menges, climate and clean energy director for High Country Citizens’ Alliance, explains, “Addressing how the electricity we consume is produced is one of the most substantial ways to reduce GHG emissions and likely the only way to achieve our 20 percent by 2020 target goal. In a conversation with Roger Hudson, he agreed with me that according to the results of his published paper, the only way to achieve the County’s reduction target would be through a significant transition in how our electricity is produced.
“Essentially, this means that to have a real chance of meeting the target, Tri-State would need to generate more electricity with cleaner alternatives like renewables or natural gas, and/or that GCEA (Gunnison County Electric Association) would need to develop significant local renewable capacity. Tri-State’s power mix is heavily coal based: 72 percent coal, 13 percent purchased power (coal or natural gas depending on market prices), 1 percent intermediate and peaking resources (I believe this is also coal), 13 percent hydro and 1 percent renewable. Tri-State’s chart shows 14 percent renewable, but of this, 13 percent is Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) hydro, which many do not consider renewable.”
Menges continues, “The bottom line here is that not only does Tri-State’s energy mix make it nearly impossible to achieve our local GHG reduction goals (as well as Colorado’s State goals as outlined by the CO Climate Action Plan) but it puts local electric ratepayers at financial risk. Tri-State needs to diversify its system to hedge the risk of skyrocketing energy prices, if and when legislation is passed to reflect the environmental and health costs of coal fired power, or if caps/prices are established on emissions.”

In the next segment of the Carbon Conundrum series, we look at the real and potential impacts of human-induced climate change in the Upper Gunnison.