Into the Details A one-layer-deeper look into what we can and are doing about climate change.

Six months ago, as my town was reviewing its town plan, I delivered a passionate (but somewhat limited in effect) public comment asking them to address climate change in our upcoming town plan. As projects wrapped up in the ensuing months, I had more time to think about how we as a town can be proactive in doing our part to prevent climate change, and I kept coming to the same conclusion - limit the usage of fossil fuels in new construction buildings.
Over time I’ve learned that many cities/towns and even several states have passed laws requiring renewable or clean energy be used in any new buildings built. These include California, New York State, Colorado, Montreal, Quebec, and many others. These places see how much easier it is to build without fossil fuels in comparison to retrofitting existing buildings, and they see great benefit in being proactive. Burlington and South Burlington in Vermont have passed similar laws, but the state as a whole remains silent on how we build our buildings. (Vermonters are of course known for being both stubbornly independent and intentionally considerate – two competing & complementing elements in this decision).
Over time I’ve gotten to know the stories of Seattle WA, Beacon NY, and South Burlington as citizens have enacted change in their cities. Those stories proved inspiring, and so I teamed up with my neighbor Maeve to give this a shot. In December we held a pot-luck for anyone curious about the conversation, and to our amazement, about twenty people showed up, of different ages, political parties, and knowledge levels on the issue. We shared a rough plan, designed in imitation of South Burlington: require that 85% of heating and water needs in a new building can be met with renewable energy (effectively that means installing heat pumps). Engaging discussion left us motivated to continue, and connected us with folks on the Planning Committee and Affordability Committee.
In January I presented to the Jericho Affordability Committee – 30 minutes on the costs of new construction with heat pumps (in most cases there’s small savings, in almost no cases is it an outsized expense), and another 30 minutes of discussion with committee members. Some folks found it hard to believe that a heat pump is 300% or more efficient, while others had already gone fully-electric and were happy to share their experiences with the technology.
From there we went to discussions with the Jericho Energy Task Force (which I’m a member of), where we met up with Andrew Chalnik from South Burlington to learn from his experience, and even one of our district’s house-members stopped by.
At this point, the Planning Commission has agreed to a joint meeting between them, the Jericho Energy Task Force, and the Affordability Committee. Scheduling is to be determined. If that goes well, the Planning Commission would hold a series of public hearings, and eventually update our zoning.
I’m eager to see where this goes, have met many lovely people, and have immensely enjoyed the process so far. There’s so much that I’ve learned about climate-friendly technology over the past year, so it’s gratifying to find that there are many folks who are eager to learn what steps are feasible for them to take as the whole world muddles through that same question.


This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pehrlich.substack.com

From growing up on a small farm in upstate NY, I have vivid memories of holding the blow-torch for my dad on a plumbing project when I was probably 10 years old.  He did all the work on the house himself (with the occasional help from an offspring), and so when it came time to electrify my house, I decided to DIY it as well.  Here's how it went.
The Stove
We have a propane stove.  Perhaps some love them, but for me it means a dose of asthma and venting all the heat out of the house.  Fortunately, there's one very simple solution I got from a friend - we bought a couple of $50-$100 induction hot-plates online, and placed them on top of the stove.  They serve most of our cooking needs, and give us a chance to learn what pots work (cast iron: yes, enamel and steel: yes, glass and aluminum and copper: no).
In some respects this is a poor facsimile to a proper induction stove-top, however.  The burners, although more responsive than either "classic" electric or propane, are still small.  At some point, we hope to finish our upgrade, either to a normal induction stove (perhaps keeping our propane camp-stove around in-case of multi-day power outages), or getting one of those swanky stoves with a built in battery and a 110V hookup which avoids requiring any electrical work.
The Water Heater
We looked at our water next.  It was right before summer, and some A/C in the house would be a nice perk.  Besides that, ditching our propane water heater in favor of one with a heat pump would save us money - $300-$400 or so a year, and so we wanted to start saving right away.
Out-of-pocket cost was around $2k, with a few hundred more for tools.  We went from a 50-gallon tank to a 65-gallon one.  The small price difference seemed worthwhile to make sure we had a good experience with the new technology.  The heater comes with four buttons, which let you change modes from full heat-pump (most cost efficient, but puts out cold air you might not want in the winter) to full classic/resistance electric (more expensive, but doesn't remove heat from the house).  We've found the cooling effect to be mild.
If I were to do this again, I would consider getting one of Rheem's 110v versions instead of a hybrid on 240v.  That wouldn't have the classic/electric heating element, but we've been fine only using the heat-pump mode, and that would have saved us the extra wiring as well as valuable space in our circuit-breaker box.
Heating our House
The trickiest job, saved for the end.  Our home has a wood-stove on one end, and a propane monitor on the other.  To do this by the book, one would first weatherize the home, and then have mini-splits installed to replace the propane, while leaving the wood-stove for backup.  We decided to take the Window Dressers approach for weatherization, and move on.
We gathered a few quotes for the mini-split, which ranged about $6k-$7k, without including wiring from one end of the house to the other.  While I was obsessing over the technicalities, I discovered that Senville makes a decent cold-climate rated heat pump, available online.  (Note: make sure any heat pump you consider in this area is rated for full heat output at -13°F or below). (Second note: the current Senville heat pumps are unfortunately significantly less cost-effective to run than the Mitsubishi, Fujitsu, Daikin, and others. Typical COP of 2 vs 3).
Joining forces with a friend, we undertook the significant task of teaching ourselves to become amateur HVAC technicians.  On the plus side, we'd get heat pumps for one third the cost for both of our homes.  On the downside, we would not have warranties on the completed projects, and if we messed up, we would run the risk of destroying the units, or venting refrigerant into the atmosphere with thousands of times the Greenhouse Warming Potential of CO2.
After about a month of prep, $600 in tools, and a couple of days' install per-house, we have two units installed and holding strong as the winter

Six months ago I woke up at four AM, unable to sleep due to an overabundance of worrying about emissions.  That became a blog post on carbon pricing systems which taught me that there are more than sixty national & regional programs which exist in the world today.  
Through writing that post I also discovered Citizens’ Climate Lobby, which exists to forward carbon pricing programs in the U.S.  Their approach intrigued me for being outspokenly civilized: bi-partisan, respectful, and earnestly valuing relationships over demands.
As a CCL member, I recently made a trip to join a thousand other volunteer lobbyists on our annual visit to the offices of our Senators and House-members in Washington D.C.  Until talking with congressmen myself, I couldn't fully understand why we were invited back year after year to visit with red and blue representatives alike. After participating in our democracy for the day, I feel we played some small part in moving a constructive dialog forward in our country’s national decision making body: the U.S. Congress.
Carbon Fee & Dividend
Citizens’ Climate Lobby was founded in 2007 with the goal of advocating for one simple policy: put a fee on carbon emissions at the source: be that a coal mine, an oil-well, or a port-of-entry.  The funds raised will not go to the government but would be returned to citizens by a monthly check.
This is carefully designed as bi-partisan through years of work to hear concerns across the political spectrum: the price on carbon is about as free-market as can be, leaving it up to businesses to transition fuel sources in the least wasteful (and most cost-saving) way possible. At the same time, the dividends go back to the American people rather than growing the size of government programs.
There's a brilliant simplicity to the model.  Of course a fee on energy stands to increase the price of all goods which are transported or grown with energy.  This causes not only a push towards a clean energy transition, but also incentivizes domestic and local economies, narrowing the wealth gap.  While prices rise, citizens get checks to help offset these costs. The majority of Ameicans use below-average amounts of energy: the wealthiest Americans fly and consume many times more, and can more afford the increased costs of those things.  The majority of American households benefit under a Carbon Fee & Dividend.
This model has been well proven time and again.  British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008, and has a well studied small economic gain relative to other Canadian provinces.  Alaska has a similar program whereby fees from oil leases are returned to Alaskan citizens by check.  New energy projects require predictable economic models in order to make large long-lead investments – such as Arkansas's investment into "green" Steel.  A price on carbon protects new businesses which are developing cleaner manufacturing techniques.
Carbon Fee and Dividend is shown to be an incredibly effective climate policy.  Those curious about the science behind it can start with the MIT modeled EN-Roads online simulator of global temperatures.
The EN-Roads simulator.  The black line represents our current future with no policy intervention of any sort, and the blue with a price on carbon.
You may be concerned about countries without a carbon price undercutting the U.S. domestic market - and rightly so.  Europe, with one of the strongest carbon prices, is solving this by introducing in 2024 a tariff on imported goods according to their "embodied" carbon, which matches their domestic carbon price.  
This is already having a pronounced effect.  The U.S. congress is considering its own Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in response, with some groundwork being laid out in the PROVE-IT act in the Senate. 
The People of Citizens’ Climate Lobby
I find that one of the many valuable qualities a person can have is the ability to think about how the smallest details of a

Hello! Welcome back to Into the Details.
When I first started this blog, I did not have a clear single idea of how I wanted to be spending my time. But I figured if I tried enough different things, one clear motivating concept would show up – and it has.
Over the past few posts I’ve enjoyed researching and writing about climate & energy. What I’ve enjoyed even more has been the numerous one-on-one discussions which have resulted as folks come with their own ideas and are happy to have someone to conference with.
It has made me wish I could do a deep dive into each new technology, policy piece, or climate business idea which begins making waves - but there’s no way I could have time for that. But I can do something better: write a software platform — and build a community around it — which enables people to turn their own climate frustration into high-impact action on climate change.
Three Hurdles of Personal Action
There are three major hurdles which must be crossed before someone takes action on climate change. And because almost everyone uses fossil fuels to heat their home and move them around our planet, almost everyone must face these hurdles in the coming years.
* Social acceptance: Will my neighbor or family judge me? And will I have the facts I need to stand up to scrutiny if necessary?
* Time: Do I have time to learn what the problem is and how to fix it?
* Finances: Can I afford the changes? What will I be giving up?
The Zero Percent Club
The Club fosters a community base which starts with social acceptance. When taking steps towards personal net-zero, it is easiest to move ahead with those who are already mission-aligned, rather than moving forward alone, or by trying to convince some who happens to be nearby, but not care as much. The Zero Percent Club will facilitate this by allowing the creation of small “accountability groups” of 5-10 people to support one-another as they learn about climate change, their impact, and their personal solutions.
Many “personal infrastructure” projects are major projects like buying a new car, with the added difficulty of an entirely new set of evaluation metrics. Here we speak in terms of kWh instead of mpg, CO2 efficiency instead of fuel efficiency, and investment instead of cost. Both technology and regulation are changing rapidly, highly localized, and filled with mis-information and the fear of mis-information. In many cases, the best way to navigate these challenges is directly with the help of someone you know and trust who can share the load, coupled with access to the best resources available.
We want the work you put in to have the largest decarbonizing impact possible. This can be done by showcasing your progress towards zero and helping others along the same journey. We’ll have a personal tracker you can share with friends, encourage members to write guides as contributions to a common knowledge base, and will even have lawn signs available to showcase your mission and the work you’ve done.
Finally, changing personal infrastructure can sometimes be prohibitively expensive or require ownership of a residence. Our mission is to include everyone with a mission of decarbonization, even if they don’t have the means to do all of the upgrades, or even any of the upgrades, in rapid order.
There are many ways in which a group of mission-aligned people, especially when sufficiently localized, can have a much larger impact that any one person could alone. Whether this means changing banks, having solar pay for itself, or showing up at your town council meeting with a voice for — and knowledge of — decarbonization, there are ways for everyone to make a dent.
Demo Time
Enough talk - let’s do a demo of the tracker. Here I show an example of what a personal tracker can look like.
That’s it for now! A big shout-out to Ben Eidelson and Jordan Angerosa for numerous brainstorming sessions around this concept.
Next we’re getting

Welcome to Into the Details. My name is Peter Ehrlich, and in this post, I talk about when climate change became “real” for me, before going in depth on my everyday experience in 2022 as an EV driver, and how I carbon-offset flights. I wrap up with a related note on policies of austerity, and how the concept updated the way I understand the world. In the following posts, I’ll talk about decarbonizing personal finances and dwellings, and touch on some of the groups working to make the process easier.
Also: I work fully remotely, and often miss many of the casual in-person interactions to be had among new faces and old. I invite you to book time on pehrlich.com/meet, or simply drop in and say hello on our brand new Discord Server.
A Personal Note
How my eyes were opened to the effects of Climate change.
I was astonished when I visited a glacier in Alaska while on vacation in 2018. The following story made a huge impression on me at the time, and has stuck with me ever since.
At the Harding Ice Field, my partner and I parked our rental car in the tidy National Parks lot, slathered on sunscreen on a hot July day, loaded up our Nalgene water bottles, and started our hike out from the trailhead. We were excited for our first chance to walk on a real glacier, but it wasn’t yet anywhere to be seen. Instead was a thick forested path, some typical Alaskan bear warnings, and a small wooden sign labeled “1926”. “That’s odd” I thought, and kept walking.
About a half mile later, we passed another sign, this time labeled “1951”. Our perplexion led us to check the visitor’s pamphlet, which described the trail we were walking on as the old area of the glacier. The signs indicated how far the glacier had extended on a given year. The path was miles long. We continued walking, passing more signs, sweating, listening to the cicadas, and eventually wound up in the hills finally sighting the snow and ice. The next day we went on kayaks around the other side, and watched at a distance as blocks as big as buildings broke off and fell into the ocean every few minutes.
Ever since then, I’ve been struck by the immensity of the problem before us. Is this proof of human-made climate change? Of course not. But it is proof of warming in this part of the world, which I regard as a tragedy and a personal responsibility not to be side-stepped.
Today’s post is the first in a series on what I’ve found since 2018 which a person can do to impact climate change positively.
The process at its core is very simple: find everything you do which emits greenhouse gases either directly or indirectly, and find an alternative to replace it. With this guide, you can personally hit net-zero far before the 2040 or 2050 national timelines. It falls on those who are already thinking about these issues to lead the way by showing this can be done. It is my hope that you will join me for the journey.
Electric Cars - What’s on the market?
If you, like many people, are considering the jump from an internal combustion (ICE) vehicle to an electric one, it is most likely you are considering one of two philosophies.
1) The two-car mindset. In this case, buy a lower-cost EV for daily use. Save money on lower range and slower charging, but maybe fall back to internal combustion for longer trips. The car will still be comfortable and nice to drive.
2) The one-car mindset. Pay 50-100% more for an EV which does “all the things” - long range, super fast charging, spacious, handles terrain, and whatever your requirements may be.
To evaluate a vehicle, you will likely have to learn at least one new term: Level 3 “DC fast charging”. Level 3 charging works at a rate of more than 150kW, and can probably get your car charged in 20 minutes. Both car and charger need to support it, and vehicles supporting this are rare outside of Tesla today, as is the charging infrastructure. Level 2 chargers and car combinations are typically around 50-

In Part I of this series, I talked about the European Union, their moderating effect upon Ukrainian corruption, and their carbon tax implemented as an Emissions Trading System about 10 years ago. Today I go on to discuss the surprisingly advanced state of carbon taxation around the world, including the US. As a reminder, ETS systems are a “Cap & Trade” — a budget for carbon emissions by industry.

Emission Trading Schemes Go Global
I’ve found the scale of Emissions marketplaces and carbon taxes to be surprising in scope. According to the 2022 World Bank Report, there are 68 (!) programs implemented today, covering 23% of global emissions, including a giant spike in 2021 as China’s program came online covering 5% of global emissions. Although the U.S. is not present nationally, New England (RGGI) and California each have their programs, as well as Canada. (Of course, this still leaves 75%+ of emissions as not-yet covered).

In no cases are emissions credits fungible (exchangeable) between programs. I expect that will come much later, once the world has worked out practical and effective standards of quality.
There is a wide range in prices (cost per ton CO2 emitted), but most fall short of the $50-100/ton estimated as necessary to hit net-zero 2050. For example, presently RGGI in New England comes in at $13/ton emitted, where it is capped. Compare that to Sweden and Switzerland’s >$100/ton prices, and the EU-ETS market price of about €90. Note that Germany also has a standalone ETS program, which additively covers land transport, which are not covered by EU-ETS.


And here is the 2022 coverage map:

Although ETS programs are slow to claim victory (conservatively, the price point needs to be $50-$100 in order to hit 1.5°. Estimates go as high as $100/ton), there are some little wins. In countries which are even considering starting a Carbon Tax or ETS program, companies are five times more likely to implement an internal corporate carbon price. The United States is leader in number of companies implementing or planning internal pricing.
This is of course not the end of the picture. US H.R.2307 proposes a revenue-neutral carbon tax, and is advocated for by Citizens Climate Lobby. There are many more regional, state, county, and city resolutions as well - but will have to wait for a followup post.
I thought this state-of-global-ETS overview given on a webinar for Indonesian climate policy was quite good: Video from Ernst & Young - April 2022. If you are surprised to see Indonesia here, it might be helpful to know that they burn a lot of coal, process on-site many raw materials necessary for batteries, and are, as an island nation with a high ratio of coastal to land area, going to be one of the nations most effected by climate change.
The report also acknowledges both that both explicit policy as we’ve been discussing so far and implicit policy affect the carbon prices. Fossil fuel subsidies are one example of an implicit policy. A 2021 study published by Nature Finance shows how different country’s COVID stimulus packages have affected “green” goals.
The Catch - International Trade
Everything discussed so far has had to do with counties or regions enacting regulation within their own borders. This a powerful lever, and can have international leverage as well. For example, Ukraine has built its own ETS compliance with EU standards.
However, Carbon Taxes & Marketplaces can be their own ruin if not balanced against foreign competition. As local taxes go up, business will leave the region. This effect, known as “Carbon Leakage”, is minimal so far as taxes are light, but in order to reach necessary levels, the effects must be stronger.
Now like me you might be wondering: why in the heck would a country tax their own businesses when they could sling down a protective tariff which taxes everyone else instead? This has been discussed in some depth in a This 2010 World Customs Journ