Green Building: It’s not pretty, but it runs clean

Power stations need fuel efficiency standards, argue greens.
New power stations in the UK should be required to comply with a tough greenhouse gas efficiency standard, according to environmental campaigners.
Toyota promises plug-in hybrid vehicle by 2010.
Toyota is introducing a plug-in hybrid with next-generation lithium-ion batteries in Japan, the U.S. and Europe by 2010.
Diesel Cars- Finally for Everyone in the US, or Too Late to the Party?
Conflicting forces buffet the world of diesel-powered cars just as their greatest fuel efficiency successes are achieved.
Science academies urge 50 pct CO2 cuts by 2050
Major economies should aim to halve world emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 and work out ways to bury gases in a wider assault on climate change, the science academies of 13 nations said on Tuesday. “Progress in reducing global greenhouse gas emission has been slow,” the academies of the Group of Eight (G8) nations and China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa said in a statement targeting leaders at July 7-9 summits in Japan.
Is LEED green enough? Conversations from Dwell on Design LA 2008
At this past week’s Dwell on Design LA conference and expo, one of the most striking conversations centered on whether LEED standards are enough to meet the growing climate challenge. Energy consumption by buildings contribute to almost half of carbon emissions in the U.S. As a result, many city governments, including Los Angeles, have created ordinances for new buildings to comply with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards.
Legislating home-grown electricity.
Less than 12 years from now, California home builders could be forced to construct only houses, condominiums and apartments that supply their own power.
The Triac: An Affordable Electric Car
California based company Green Vehicles recently began selling an affordable $20,000 electric car called the Triac. The small but efficient 3-wheeled car has a range of 120 miles and can travel up to 70mph on the highway. Charging the lithium-ion batteries that power the 20kw electric motor takes about 6 hours, and there is [.]
Press Release: 2008 Farm Bill A Disappointment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Sean Crowley – (202) 550-6524-o, scrowley@edf.org
Sara Hopper – (202) 572-3379–o, shopper@edf.org
 
(Washington D.C. - May 21, 2008) – The 2008 farm bill that Congress is nearly certain to enact into law over a presidential veto provides some badly needed new funding for conservation programs over the next five years, and makes improvements to some of these programs. However, these benefits are overshadowed by the lack of meaningful subsidy reform, the addition of an environmentally damaging new subsidy program and last-minute changes made to the bill by the conference committee that undermine the effectiveness of the bill’s conservation provisions, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). 
 
The House this afternoon voted 316-108 to override the president’s veto of the bill earlier today and the Senate is expected to follow suit tonight or tomorrow.  The Senate originally passed the bill by an overwhelming margin of 81 to 15.
 
“The good news is that the 2008 farm bill includes $4 billion in new money for conservation, and makes changes to some conservation programs that will make them more effective in helping farmers deliver environmental benefits like cleaner water to the public,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney with EDF who was a staff member of the Senate Agriculture Committee during the 2002 farm bill.  “The bad news is that the bills that both the House and Senate passed last year provided more money and included stronger conservation policies.  Unfortunately, the conferees worked behind closed doors to make this a weaker bill for the environment.” 
 
Like the versions of the farm bill passed by both the House and Senate last year, the final bill makes important improvements to, and increases funding for, two programs that help farmers improve stewardship of working agricultural lands. It also retains a new initiative designed to assist groups of farmers willing to work together to address specific environmental issues and leverage the resources of states, local government and other partners. 
 
Unfortunately, the conference committee reduced the size of programs that reward farmers for taking environmentally sensitive lands out of production and restoring wetlands.  Conferees also added new provisions to restrict participation in existing conservation programs that were not originally included in either bill. Finally, they gutted a “Sodsaver” provision included in both bills that would have barred crop insurance and disaster payments to any producers who plow up native grasslands in order to plant crops. 
 
The House and Senate versions of the farm bill each included approximately $5 billion in new funding for conservation, but conferees reduced this amount, in part to pay for a new, environmentally damaging “permanent disaster” program.  Both the Government Accountability Office and USDA’s Economic Research Service have found that disaster payments provide incentives to convert grassland to crop production. 
 
“Cutting conservation spending to help fund a new subsidy program that will encourage intensive crop production on grasslands and other environmentally fragile lands represents a double blow to the environment,” concluded Hopper. 
 
In addition to providing $3.8 billion for the new disaster program, the 2008 farm bill increases support levels for some crops, adds new crops to the subsidy roll, and fails to make any significant reduction in direct payments.  Direct payments will cost over $5 billion a year for the next five years and mostly flow to producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice regardless of how high prices are or whether the farmer needs the assistance.
 
President Bush cited these increases in farm subsidies when he vetoed the 2008 farm bill today. 
 

Green Building: It’s not pretty, but it runs clean
Anyone who thinks all green buildings are shimmering towers of glass and steel can be forgiven for that mistake. Landmarks for the movement, after all, are soaring temples of natural daylight and engineering wizardry.But experts say most U.S. commercial buildings can be turned green without spending tons of money, bringing in construction cranes or making any change that can be seen from the street.
Bloggers Unite for Human Rights
Amnestry International and BlogCatalog are sponsoring today as a day to focus on human rights around the world.I’ll add a few personal thoughts in support of this effort. First, I would like to emphasize the value of people’s lives, no matter what they believe and where they live. When the historical changeover occurred [.]
Press Release: EPA Misusing Science, Jeopardizing Childrens Health, Testifies EPA Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee Member

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Contact:
 
Sean Crowley – (202) 572-3331-o, scrowley@edf.org
Dr. John Balbus – (202) 572-3316–o, jbalbus@edf.org
 
(Washington, D.C. – May 7, 2008) The senior leadership at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “has repeatedly chosen to stray from the clear and science-based recommendations of expert advisory panels, public health organizations and advocates, and in some cases even its own career staff scientists, in order to make policies and decisions that fall short of adequately protecting children as well as the general public.” 
 
That was the conclusion of testimony today by a member of the EPA Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee before the Senate Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children’s Health Protection Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
 
“In some cases, EPA policies and decisions are justified on the basis of arguments that run counter to established scientific principles and the judgments of the most prominent experts in the country,” said Dr. John Balbus, chief health scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund. “In other cases, EPA policies and decisions are made with little justification whatsoever. Greater transparency in agency decision-making and greater adherence to the recommendations of the agency’s scientific experts will help bolster public trust in the agency and lead to greater protection of the public’s health.”
 
Over the past four years, the EPA Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee has made recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a number of science issues regarding the protection of children that have not been followed by the agency. These include recommendations for setting the level of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter (microscopic-sized soot that permeates lung tissue) and ozone, relying on a voluntary program to obtain critical information on children’s risks through the Voluntary Children’s Chemical Evaluation Program, and implementing EPA’s 2005 Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens in an expeditious and health-protective manner. 
 
“The final particulate matter standards selected by the Administrator for annual and daily concentrations of fine particulate matter were well above those recommended by the EPA Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, and indeed, above the range recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the federal committee charged with evaluating EPA’s assessment of the science behind the standards,” Balbus testified. “EPA ultimately set standards that do not provide an adequate margin of safety for infants and children.”
 
“The EPA Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee noted that a number of child-specific outcomes were omitted from consideration of the benefit of reducing the ozone standard, including school absences, doctor visits, medication use, and decreased resistance to infections,” Balbus testified. “[Yet] the Administrator, going against the recommendations of the leading air quality and public health experts on his advisory committees, concluded that the substantial body of evidence from epidemiologic studies showing ozone effects at levels below 0.075 parts per million could not be trusted. This results in a standard in which there is no margin of safety to protect children from ozone’s damaging effects.”
 
“There is insufficient rigor in EPA’s efforts to protect children’s health,” testified Balbus. “The EPA does not appear to be placing adequate priority on assembling the scientific data needed to determine and then act upon chemical risks to children.”
 

Comments are closed.