Jonathan Koomey and Florentin Krause

Applied Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720
July, 1990

This paper compares the cost of sequestered and conserved carbon from rural tree planting, urban tree planting, and efficiency improvements, from the perspective of an electric utility and its ratepayers. Of these three options, energy efficiency appears to be the most widely applicable and attractive carbon mitigation measure from the utility's perspective. The majority of the demand-side resources we consider would allow carbon savings at negative net cost, while rural trees almost always have positive net cost to the utility. Urban trees can in many cases be comparable in cost to conservation, but are subject to a larger number of constraints (particularly in siting). For example, conservation can work in almost every type of building, while urban trees are most likely to be successful for some fraction of residential and small commercial buildings. Rural tree planting, both in the US and abroad, is an important tool in combating global warming; however from the utility's perspective, this option appears to be less cost-effective than conservation or urban trees under a wide variety of different assumptions.

To order a paper version of this report, Email to and state the report number and title.

This report is also available on-line in .pdf format.

Energy Star energy conservation energy savings energy efficiency environment climate change weatherization solar energy appliances energy audit energy tools efficient buildings energy education heating cooling heat pumps furnaces boilers air conditioners insulation ducts skylights windows thermostats fuel switching mechanical ventilation water heater water heating refrigerator freezer dishwasher clotheswasher clothes dryer miscellaneous energy home energy comfort remodeling residential energy.