Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Shelter at 11:05 AM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/6qbrLkOHv2c/010277.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/Db6g0AC8ZQ8/010202.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/Db6g0AC8ZQ8/010202.html#comments Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:20:25 +0000 WorldChanging Team 10202@http://www.worldchanging.com/

By Sophie Blakemore

Government sets out roadmap for ‘One Planet’ nation by 2050.

Wales has launched an ambitious sustainable development strategy to be “self-sustaining in renewable energy” by 2025, and to produce zero waste by 2050. The far-reaching targets in One Wales: One Planet place the nation streets ahead of England and Scotland, and make it one of only three countries globally with a legal obligation to develop sustainably.

If actions match ambition, “Wales will set an example for the rest of the world to follow,” says Jonathan Porritt, Founding Director of Forum for the Future and Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission.

The new scheme, set out by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) at the May 2009 Hay Festival, includes both 2025 targets

• Target: reducing reliance on carbon-based energy by 80-90%
  Vision: “the energy intensity of society has decreased significantly”
• Target: producing as much electricity from renewable sources as Wales consumes
  Vision: “a major increase in renewable energy generation, offshore and onshore”
• Target: boosting recycling rates from 36% today to 70%
  Vision: “waste – whether of energy or other resources – is taboo”
• Target: sourcing more local and seasonal food
  Vision: “a huge expansion in allotments and community gardening”
• Target: providing safer walking and cycling routes
  Vision: “the ‘school run’ has been replaced by organised school transport or group walking/cycling”
• Target: investing £190 million in public health
  Vision: “a much greater emphasis on preventative health care”
• Target: insulating and installing microgen in 40,000 new social housing homes
  Vision: “creating Europe’s first ‘low carbon region’”.

Overall, the strategy aims to transform Wales into “a One Planet nation within the lifetime of a generation”, using only its fair share of resources to sustain its population.

Forum for the Future’s Anna Birney, who is working with WAG, praised its “can-do” attitude, and its ability to link policies with implementation: “Although they have a long way to go, they are real leaders on this agenda.”

This piece originally appeared in Green Futures. Green Futures is published by Forum for the Future, one of the leading magazines on environmental solutions and sustainable futures. Its aim is to demonstrate that a sustainable future is both practical and desirable – and can be profitable, too.

Photo credit: Flickr/gordonplant, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Shelter at 11:20 AM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/Db6g0AC8ZQ8/010202.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/SiMbQNBNEGY/009963.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/SiMbQNBNEGY/009963.html#comments Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:35:02 +0000 WorldChanging Team 9963@http://www.worldchanging.com/

By Craig A. Severance

The Waxman-Markey bill has a very strong set of building efficiency codes (see Section 201, page 214 of the bill -- a big PDF). Our guest blogger, Craig A. Severance, discusses what the bill requires in a post first published on his blog. Craig, a practicing CPA and former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission, did one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country (see "Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power").

The greenhouse gas cap-and-trade title of the Waxman-Markey bill gets most of the attention, as it should, but the bill has many other provisions, some good, some lame.

It's important to "get things right" when a new building is constructed. More so than perhaps anything else we create, new buildings will be with us for a very long time.

Mistakes We Have to Live In. Our gas guzzler cars and trucks will rust away to the scrap heap in little more than a decade. Appliances and machinery share a similar fate. This quick turnover assures us our mistakes of the past will not stay with us very long.

Not so with buildings-- an energy hog building will likely still be around a hundred years from now. Thoughtlessness in design and orientation of buildings creates inefficiencies that are often impossible or prohibitively expensive to fix. As energy costs rise, such buildings will be a burden to their owners and renters.

Almost Half of Our Energy Use. While it is fashionable to talk about wind farms and hybrid cars, buildings are the "elephant in the room" seldom discussed, though they are responsible for almost half of U.S. energy use.

Climate scientists have concluded we must cut global warming emissions by at least 80% within just 40 years, or face catastrophic climate disasters. If we don't start making better buildings now, we have no hope of meeting this goal.

Stop Doing Things Wrong. For all of these reasons, strong measures are urgently needed to stop new buildings from being built the wrong way, when we know how to build them right.

I know many builders who would like to build better, more energy-efficient houses. They don't do it, because "the builder down the street" is not doing it. Most energy efficiency measures are literally invisible. Since the added advantages don't "show well", they are not perceived by buyers to add value. No builder can add extra features without recovering the cost, so we keep "building stupid buildings" even though we have known for 30 years how to build smarter.

Getting All the "Builders Down the Street" On Board. The way improvements in building technology achieve widespread adoption is through building codes. If everyone has to do it, everyone does it.

When the Waxman-Markey comprehensive energy & climate bill (which is also known for its "Cap and Trade" program for greenhouse gases) was first introduced as a Discussion Draft on March 31st, many criticized its failure to take strong action on buildings. Though the draft called for a national "model" energy building code that states should adopt, it had no teeth. An arduous campaign would have ensued for adoption in all 50 states, where special interest lobbying campaigns would likely stop or delay many. If someone like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wanted to grandstand and oppose requirements for better energy efficiency in buildings, there was then nothing in the bill that could be done about it. Pockets of America would continue with no advancements in building energy codes.

This might be acceptable if there were no overarching national and global crisis. However, global warming now threatens to inundate our coastlines and turn vast stretches of fertile American farmland into dustbowls.

The Committee "got it" and strengthened the bill. The bill (H.R. 2454) that passed the full House Energy & Commerce Committee last week no longer speaks of a national "model" energy building code. Instead, it establishes enforceable "national energy effficiency building codes" for new residential and commercial buildings. States and local governments will be required to adopt the new national codes, or codes that achieve equal or better energy savings. Noncompliance will result in loss of significant funding. If they still do not do so, the Federal government itself will step in and enforce the national energy efficiency building codes. (Nobody actually wants that to happen, but you have to be willing to do it to enforce compliance.)

In other words, if the bill becomes law in its current form, new buildings around the country will actually need to be built better, to achieve greater energy savings. It will actually happen. (The building energy efficiency codes are contained in "Section 201" of the Bill).

How Much Better Buildings? Major reductions in building energy use are required by the Bill -- over time, reaching 75% reductions from current energy use standards.

The Bill begins with "Baseline" standards which are the minimum energy efficiency requirements in the 2006 IECC code for residential, and the 2004 ASHRAE code for commercial. It then sets "Target Dates" for % reductions from these Baselines.

The Bill is complicated to read, and might give the impression of earlier action than will actually occur. Each date below is the date the Target must be set by the Department of Energy (DOE). and the national codes to enforce each Target would need to follow within one year, with state adoptions to be achieved by one year later than that. So, if you add 2 years to each date below, you will be at the probable time of actual enforcement:

• 30% reduction from Baseline - immediately upon passage of the Act. -- i.e. enforcement probably by 2012
• 50% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2014 and for commercial by 2015 -- i.e. enforcement probably by 2016 and 2017 respectively
• 55% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2017 and commercial by 2018 -- i.e. enforcement probably by 2019 and 2020, respectively


• 60% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2020 and commercial by 2021 -- i.e. enforcement probably by 2022 and 2023


• 65% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2023 and commercial by 2024 -- i.e. enforcement probably by 2025 and 2026 respectively


• 70% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2026 and commercial by 2027 -- i.e. enforcement probably by 2028 and 2029 respectively


• 75% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2029 and commercial by 2030 -- i.e. enforcement probably by 2031 and 2032 respectively


• Further reductions? - beginning in 2033, DOE is to evaluate if further reductions should be set


• Zero Net Energy buildings are to be supported by DOE efforts to support "distributed renewable energy technology" as part of this entire process

Actual Standard Set. While the Bill sets the above % Targets, the actual standard set by the Bill is the "maximum level [DOE] determines is life-cycle cost justified and technically feasible". That's a mouthful -- basically it means does it cash flow, in other words do the energy savings more than pay for the cost of doing them.

If DOE determines that greater amounts of energy savings are feasible and cost-justified, it can set new codes that achieve more savings than the above Targets.

On the other hand, if DOE determines the above Targets are not feasible or cost-justified, it doesn't have to meet them. It can instead set new codes that achieve less savings than the above Targets.

Congress is punting here to the technical experts -- setting % Targets that Congress wants to see achieved, but allowing for better or worse results if the DOE says so. I think a lot of these "technical" determinations will actually depend (more than they should) upon what political party controls the White House at the time.

Implications. The only reason I am bothering to write about a Bill that still has a very long way to go (i.e., the Senate), is because of the sweeping changes to be wrought to the energy and building industries if Section 201 of this Act actually becomes law.

Some initial impressions:

• Enormous boost to jobs related to making buildings more energy efficient -- e.g. Energy Raters, insulation contractors, blower door air leak-tightening contractors, manufacturers of high efficiency windows, high efficiency furnaces and air conditioners, high reflectance roof coatings, etc.


• Changes by lenders to incorporate energy savings may be needed. The DOE methodology will likely require boosts to energy savings if the cash flow from energy savings exceeds the extra mortgage payments to pay for it. However -- will lenders be willing to loan the extra dollars up front?


• Utility forecasts of growth in energy demand from new buildings will need to be drastically adjusted downward. This will eliminate the need for billions of dollars in new power plant construction that otherwise would have been required.


• Achieving the higher levels of savings (e.g. >50%) is likely to involve renewable energy resources such as solar hot water, and solar photovoltaics. Many of these are already cost effective so they should meet the DOE test. (More jobs - lots of more jobs - in these fields.) Also, regional differences in codes will be needed - and this is anticipated by the Act.

Something to Fear, or Promote? Change can be frightening, and this Bill will definitely require major changes in how buildings in the U.S. are designed, built, and possibly financed. There is likely therefore, to be intense lobbying against the strong provisions described in this article. Many builders will be reluctant to change practices, and fearful of how well they can prosper with the new code requirements.

Although every one of the changes will actually have zero or negative cost -- they will have a life cycle cost less than the life cycle energy savings -- the biggest fear voiced will be that these measures will make buildings cost more. Congress and the lending industry need to work together to develop solutions to this "up front cost" stumbling block.

In the end, we must keep in mind why this Bill exists in the first place. The threat of climate catastrophe from global warming is real.

Do I want my new home to be energy efficient, or under water?

This piece originally appeared in Climate Progress.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Shelter at 4:35 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/SiMbQNBNEGY/009963.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/T4S7KXUy0l8/009934.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/T4S7KXUy0l8/009934.html#comments Fri, 29 May 2009 23:21:27 +0000 WorldChanging Team 9934@http://www.worldchanging.com/

A leaked early version of the Indian Government's national solar energy plan indicates that India may be thinking more ambitiously about a "clean energy" road map than was previously anticipated.

The draft strategy, first published in The Hindu, outlines plans for a national target of 200,000 megawatts of solar generation capacity by 2050. This is 1.3 times India's current installed power generation capacity of 150,000 megawatts across all energy sectors.

Although the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change is yet to approve the plan, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has not confirmed the claim, this possibility raises important questions for India's energy future, namely: Could a large-scale transition to solar power and other renewables be economically and technically possible? And if so, what would it take?

India is home to one of the most abundant solar resources in the world, with 2.97 million square kilometers of tropical and subtropical land and an average of 250-300 clear sunny days a year. As such, solar power offers significant potential to meet a large share of the country's energy needs using both centralized and decentralized production.

Such changes, if realized, could dwarf current solar leaders Germany, Spain, Japan, and the United States in both domestic market size and export manufacturing. They would also create a hefty job market in solar manufacturing and installation.

According to the leaked document, India's "solar mission" will include measures for rapidly expanding the use of small-scale photovoltaic panels, solar lighting systems, and commercial-scale solar plants, in order to drive down costs and encourage domestic solar manufacturing. The efforts would occur in both rural and urban areas and target residential as well as commercial users. The plan also proposes scaling-up centralized solar thermal power generation, with the aim of achieving cost parity with conventional grid power by 2020 and the full necessary energy infrastructure by 2050.

With India's installed solar capacity currently at only 3 megawatts, this would be the most ambitious solar plan that any country has laid out so far. The scope of the initiative would also match and ultimately far exceed India's plans for nuclear power generation.

Several recent studies have outlined wider renewable-energy scenarios for India, including Energy [R]evolution, a report released by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council in March and Mitigation Options for India: The Role of the International Community released by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in December 2007. Both reports encourage the transition to solar power as a critical way for India to boost its energy security and help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

Both the Greenpeace and TERI studies operate from the premise that global carbon emissions must peak by no later than 2015 to avoid dangerous emission levels. They make the case that it is not only technically and economically feasible for India to make the shift to renewable energy sources (if this rollout is combined with energy-efficiency measures), but also prudent to begin this transition now.

There are several reasons for this urgency. First, the reports note that India's power-generation infrastructure is undergoing rapid expansion to meet national development objectives, with the country still facing unmet power demands that equate to as much as 80 percent of current installed capacity. Second, they point to rising energy security concerns as energy prices go up and supplies shrink, making it a ripe time to shift to a new model of energy production.

Crucially, however, once the high upfront investment costs have been circumnavigated, the shift to renewables would actually be cost positive, the reports conclude. "The fuel savings up to 2030 would amount to $2,170 billion, seven times more than the additional investment costs," said Sven Teske, an author of Energy [R]evolution. "Over 30 years, India would make money."

Both reports offer recommendations for how such a shift could happen. Proposed steps include a widespread scaling-up of both decentralized energy production and centralized renewable energy production (particularly solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, wind, and biomass); the use of combined heat-and- power systems at the point of generation; the decarbonization of transport fuel (with an emphasis on electric vehicles and other sustainable forms of transportation); an increase in research and development across energy segments; and improvements in the energy efficiency of buildings, transport, appliances, industrial processes, and power transmission.

They also suggest granting priority access to the grid for renewables, creating an innovative legal structure for incentivization and taxation, and rallying both public support and international technological and financial assistance to accelerate fast and effective change.

The reports differ in their approach to nuclear energy, with TERI stating that nuclear will play a key role in India's power sector in the medium to long term, and the Greenpeace study not including it at all.

According to both reports, the primary obstacles facing India's rapid shift to renewable energy are the upfront investment costs required and the need for strong political will.

On the issue of investment costs, TERI found that a shift to a 92-percent renewables share in India's energy supply would result in a doubling of domestic carbon emissions by 2031 (compared with a seven-time increase under the current trajectory) and would cost an estimated 457 trillion Rupees (US$9.6 trillion). This is contrasted with a 75-percent renewables share, which would result in a tripling of emissions by 2031 and cost an estimated 260 trillion Rupees ($5.4 trillion).

Solar would be pivotal in both cases, with concentrated solar power alone making up 61 percent and 31 percent of the total mix for the two scenarios, respectively.

Energy [R]evolution concluded that it is possible for 69 percent of India's electricity and 70 percent of India's heating and cooling needs to come from renewable sources by 2050 - but capturing this opportunity "would require at an additional investment of $154 billion," Teske said.

Meanwhile, the government's leaked national solar strategy proposes investments amounting to some 85,000-105,000 Crore Rupees ($18-22 billion) over this same period. This would clearly fall far short of the estimated funding needs for such a massive and rapid rollout of solar energy, if compared with the estimates above.

Both Greenpeace and TERI suggest the use of international financing mechanisms to bridge the cost gap, a proposal in line with the Indian government's rhetoric in the ongoing international climate negotiations. These proposals include the full utilization of a carbon-credit mechanism such as the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as well as the establishment of a $200 billion international fund "supported by a feed-in tariff mechanism," according to Energy [R]evolution.

"The proposed feed-in law structure, which would be combined with an emission trading mechanism, allows for the upfront investment costs to be met and for planning from local project developers, thanks to a fixed-return guarantee," Teske said.

With regard to the need for political will, there are certainly signs that change is afoot. In addition to the government's potential new solar target, initiatives under way across India include the development and implementation of energy-efficiency improvements for appliances, buildings, power generation, and industry; a revised national policy to upgrade and "smarten" much of India's power grid; a growing portfolio of CDM projects; and emerging leadership in states like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Rajasthan to adopt and implement progressive renewable energy policies.

Civil society and the private sector are increasingly active in implementing renewables and smart energy projects across many parts of the country as well. However, some observers remain skeptical about the feasibility of India's energy transition plans, with concerns running deeper than the need for finance and strong policy frameworks.

V. Subramanian, former Secretary of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, said the strategy outlined in Energy [R]evolution would face significant implementation challenges. "The government of India does not currently have the machinery to implement such a strategy at a national level," said Subramanian, who now serves as CEO of India's Wind Energy Association. "This has to be done by state governments, and as yet the engagement between the two on this is not strong."

In Mr. Subramanian's view, financing is not the key issue. "If India leveraged 1 paise, or one-hundredth of a rupee, on every kilowatt hour generated by coal-fired utilities, we would have enough money to implement all renewables here in India," he said.

It is clear that changes toward a renewable energy future are under way in India - but is the current pace fast enough? Many environmentalists argue that it is still not in line with the stated need and opportunity, and that some barriers are not being addressed. Targets such as those outlined in the leaked solar energy report and recommended in the recent renewables studies would raise the bar of opportunity for scale, pace, impact, and actionable political will. However, India would need a significant machinery overhaul to implement such a change, relying upon the support of international collaboration.

Anna da Costa is a Worldwatch Institute Fellow based in New Delhi. This article is a product of Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute's online news service.

Photo credit: Flickr/World Resources Institute Staff, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Shelter at 3:21 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/T4S7KXUy0l8/009934.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/-0AsFiGO6us/009933.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/-0AsFiGO6us/009933.html#comments Fri, 29 May 2009 22:39:48 +0000 Green Futures 9933@http://www.worldchanging.com/

By Anna Pigott

North Kesteven District Council in Lincolnshire is to become the first local authority in the UK to use straw bales to construct social housing, when they begin a pilot project of two semi-detached properties in West Grove, Martin, this May.

The bales will provide the main structure of the three-bedroom homes, which are described by the council as “typical, affordable, council houses”. But there’s nothing typical about the amount of energy they’ll save: swapping bricks for straw will increase insulation by up to three times more than building regulations require, so these houses won’t need heating systems. They’re anticipated to cost less too: the council has budgeted £110,000 per house – £20,000 less than the equivalent brick-build. And in the future, thanks to the experience gained through this project, future costs could be lower still.

The houses are designed by Amazonails, who are also behind the country’s first two-storey straw bale home, recently built in Somerset [see Landmark for straw]. Manager Emma Appleton believes straw bale homes could be part of the answer to housing shortages. They are simple to construct, easy to modify and can last upwards of 200 years. “We get the impression that other UK councils are certainly interested in using straw bales, but are waiting to see how North Kesteven gets on.”

In order to generate capacity and skills for any future straw bale projects in the area, the council will select and train a local contractor for the job, and residents and organisations will be invited to watch the building process. Once completed, in approximately six months’ time, potential tenants will apply through the normal council housing allocation scheme.

This piece originally appeared in Green Futures. Green Futures is published by Forum for the Future, one of the leading magazines on environmental solutions and sustainable futures. Its aim is to demonstrate that a sustainable future is both practical and desirable – and can be profitable, too.

Photo credit: Flickr/fishermansdaughter, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Green Futures in Shelter at 2:39 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/-0AsFiGO6us/009933.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/UxOI82YdJ6I/009923.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/UxOI82YdJ6I/009923.html#comments Thu, 28 May 2009 00:26:48 +0000 WorldChanging Team 9923@http://www.worldchanging.com/

By Suzanne Goldenberg

Renovation scheme will replace windows, insulation and light bulbs in ageing and neglected low-income housing stock.

The Obama administration unveiled a $4bn (£2.5bn) plan to upgrade public housing for low-income Americans today, as part of an ambitious green job-creation project.

Obama sent the vice-president, Joe Biden, and other senior officials to Denver for a formal announcement of the renovation scheme, which will replace windows, insulation and even light bulbs in ageing and neglected housing stock.

The labour secretary, Hilda Solis, was also expected to announce $500m to train up workers for the new jobs. Of those funds, $50m will be directed to regions that have been hardest hit by the recession – such as the rustbelt state of Michigan where the unemployment rate is now 12%.

The funds mark the first phase of the green job creation plan envisaged in Obama's $787bn economic recovery plan. Officials said that attempts would be made to train local people for the work.

"This president is committed to literally millions of jobs in this sector over the course of his term," Van Jones, the White House adviser on green jobs, said. Jones was also expected at the meeting in Denver. He said the renovations of public housing stock would account for about 40% of the funds set aside by Obama to improve energy use in government buildings.

"This is not some abstract, theoretical thing. By the end of the year you are going to see people who have no jobs, high-energy bills and no hope get jobs and see opportunity," he said.

The administration envisages a plan where home owners will arrange to have their homes retrofitted for greater energy efficiency simply by ticking a box on their utility bill, and then have the cost of the renovations factored into their bills.

The plan's high-visibility roll-out is part of a strategy by the Obama administration to put green job creation at the heart of its economic recovery plan, and to broaden support for its economic and green agenda. America has gone farther than Europe to bring its strategy for economic recovery in line with longer-range plans to build a cleaner energy future and address global warming. A report by the HSBC estimates that $94bn of Obama's $787bn is devoted to green measures, spread across building energy efficiency, low-polluting vehicles, water and electricity systems, mass transit and renewables.

As with the public housing renovation announced in Denver, much of that spending is just beginning to be spent. However, the administration has already allocated $3.3bn for the smart grid.

Officials repeatedly have claimed that the new jobs will be on par with the so-called "legacy" jobs of the vanishing auto industry and manufacturing sector, in paying union scale wages and benefits.

This piece originally appeared in The Guardian.

Photo credit: Flickr/Giles Douglas, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Shelter at 4:26 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/UxOI82YdJ6I/009923.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/lEIGhkl2UJA/009833.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/lEIGhkl2UJA/009833.html#comments Thu, 07 May 2009 00:39:57 +0000 WorldChanging Team 9833@http://www.worldchanging.com/

By Roger Valdez

The Clean Energy Fund targets 500 energy efficient retrofits by 2010.

We’ve been writing about some of the ways that federal stimulus funding has been misallocated to projects that would increase greenhouse gas emissions and aggravate our addiction to gasoline.

But there is some good news from Portland. The City of Portland and Multnomah County in partnership with Energy Trust and Shorebank Enterprise Cascadia have created the Clean Energy Fund which will use stimulus money to retrofit 500 homes in the greater Portland area.

It’s a pilot project that will allocate $2.5 million of stimulus money for the retrofits, starting with 10 homes this month and completing another 490 retrofits in the next two years. A bill expanding a similar state program, the Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Technology Act of 2009 (HB 2626 or the EEAST Bill), is pending in Salem.

If it passes it will add more resources to Oregon’s retrofit effort.

What’s important about the Clean Energy Fund project is that it provides reasonable financing terms for improvements that will yield energy savings and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The financing spreads out the costs of the improvements over time, which is important because it is these costs that often discourage homeowners from making energy efficiency investments. Favorable financing means that dropping $1,400 for new insulation won’t devour a family’s cash supply.

There are some really great things about this program. First, Energy Trust will have a budget to walk homeowners through the initial steps of assessing which improvements would yield the most savings, essentially an energy audit.The City's FAQ calls this “handholding” which is an important step for a new program that might be confusing to some.

Second, the loan payback is “on bill,” which means that the three local utilities -- NW Natural, Pacific Power, Portland General Electric -- will incorporate the payback of the loans in the regular billing they send out to customers. For example, payments for that $1,400 insulation project would be spread out over time and would show up on regular energy bills. The monthly energy savings would likely be enough to offset the monthly increase to pay for the loan. This makes payback easy and essentially invisible, although initially there may be a slight increase in the homeowner energy bill.

Third, because the number of participants is small at first and the pilot is well resourced it should be relatively easy to evaluate over the next year. Project partners can identify and fix problems before it is expanded.

Last, but certainly not least, the project puts stimulus money into a local partnership that can create work for people in Oregon where the unemployment rate is 12.9 percent at last count.

The bigger challenge, however, is figuring out how to get these kinds of programs into multi-unit housing where split incentives keep owners and tenants from seeking energy savings. This program now seems to favor the owners of single family homes for whom energy savings and capital improvements are a sure way to increase the value of their asset. Some might argue that these kinds of improvements should be done by homeowners anyway, without all the extra help.

I don’t want to be overly critical. The Clean Energy Fund is a great program that will have a small but positive effect on reducing climate changing emissions and will generate useful information on how to construct financing for energy efficiencies that is easy and affordable.  But it’s important, as the project moves ahead, to use incentives where the market is stuck. And right now, the biggest market failure is happening in multi-unit rental housing.  It’s also possibly where the greatest benefits from motivating energy efficiencies can be found, both for energy savings and economic justice. We know the benefits of compact communities with lots of multi-unit housing. Expanding the program into multi-unit housing would benefit lower income people and support density.

So the Clean Energy Fund is a great start, but it shouldn’t stop with single family homes.

This piece originally appeared in Sightline Institute's blog, The Daily Score.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Shelter at 4:39 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/lEIGhkl2UJA/009833.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/4gNLP1NB664/009714.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/4gNLP1NB664/009714.html#comments Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:50 +0000 Julia Levitt http://www.greendesign.com/2009/04/08/canadas-largest-green-roof/

You know an innovation has hit its stride when it becomes scalable. When we first started writing about green roofs, they were typically boutique projects -- and convincing city governments and developers to invest in their large scale production seemed like a major challenge. But decision-makers have gotten the message, and green roof design has risen to the occasion. Case in point: the new Vancouver Convention Centre, a major civic project which officially opened this past weekend, boasts the largest non-industrial roof in North America.

The six-acre rooftop garden is crafted as a habitat for the 400,000 native plants and grasses growing there, as well as for birds and bugs (it houses hives for 60,000 bees).

The building, designed by Seattle-based LMN Architects, in collaboration with Vancouver firms MCM and DA, is expected to achieve LEED Gold designation and incorporates significant green building technologies. Among them: natural daylighting, seawater heating and cooling, natural ventilation, and on-site blackwater treatment and desalinization systems that will reduce potable water use by as much as 60-70 percent (compared to similar-sized convention centers).

Another admirable detail: the center was designed to link visually and literally to the existing waterfront, providing usable public space instead of just swallowing it up. It adds 130,000 square feet of new waterfront promenade, and 120,000 square feet of new public plazas that flow into Stanley Park, Vancouver's well-used waterfront gem.

The convention industry is notorious for waste and excess, and for intrusion into the surrounding urban community. With its thoughtful design, the Vancouver Convention Centre (which will be used as the broadcast media center for the 2010 Olympics) sets a precedent for re-imagining convention culture as one that uses land and resources responsibly, and gives back to the immediate community -- in this case, in the form of attractive public outdoor space, and the stormwater management and temperature control power of its massive rooftop garden.

(Thanks to Cary for the tip!)

Image credit: LMN Architects

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Julia Levitt in Shelter at 4:00 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/4gNLP1NB664/009714.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/4gNLP1NB664/009714.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/4gNLP1NB664/009714.html#comments Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:50 +0000 Julia Levitt 9714@http://www.worldchanging.com/

You know an innovation has hit its stride when it becomes scalable. When we first started writing about green roofs, they were typically boutique projects -- and convincing city governments and developers to invest in their large scale production seemed like a major challenge. But decision-makers have gotten the message, and green roof design has risen to the occasion. Case in point: the new Vancouver Convention Centre, a major civic project which officially opened this past weekend, boasts the largest non-industrial roof in North America.

The six-acre rooftop garden is crafted as a habitat for the 400,000 native plants and grasses growing there, as well as for birds and bugs (it houses hives for 60,000 bees).

The building, designed by Seattle-based LMN Architects, in collaboration with Vancouver firms MCM and DA, is expected to achieve LEED Gold designation and incorporates significant green building technologies. Among them: natural daylighting, seawater heating and cooling, natural ventilation, and on-site blackwater treatment and desalinization systems that will reduce potable water use by as much as 60-70 percent (compared to similar-sized convention centers).

Another admirable detail: the center was designed to link visually and literally to the existing waterfront, providing usable public space instead of just swallowing it up. It adds 130,000 square feet of new waterfront promenade, and 120,000 square feet of new public plazas that flow into Stanley Park, Vancouver's well-used waterfront gem.

The convention industry is notorious for waste and excess, and for intrusion into the surrounding urban community. With its thoughtful design, the Vancouver Convention Centre (which will be used as the broadcast media center for the 2010 Olympics) sets a precedent for re-imagining convention culture as one that uses land and resources responsibly, and gives back to the immediate community -- in this case, in the form of attractive public outdoor space, and the stormwater management and temperature control power of its massive rooftop garden.

(Thanks to Cary for the tip!)

Image credit: LMN Architects

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Julia Levitt in Shelter at 4:00 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/4gNLP1NB664/009714.html/feed/ 0 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/k2jy9lvl5E8/009600.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/k2jy9lvl5E8/009600.html#comments Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:43:11 +0000 Cameron Sinclair 9600@http://www.worldchanging.com/

I'm currently on a 10 year anniversary tour to talk about the role of design and architecture and its' impact on society. Tomorrow I speak at University of Miami and early this week at Rice University both with the titled talk 'When sustainability is a matter of survival'. With this as my context It was a chance visit a few weeks back in Southern Illinois that has stuck in my head.

In late February I got the opportunity to go to the University of Southern Illinois - Carbondale, a rural university that has one of the newest architecture programs in the country. Unknown to most of the world Carbondale, Il was the home of famed visionary R. Buckminster Fuller and his wife Anne from 1960 to 1972. Brought in by pioneering University President Delyte Morris, they lived in a leafy neighborhood just off campus. With the help of a local contractor they built a one bedroom bucky ball to live and work in. It was during the couple's twelve years in southern Illinois that his work and theories shot onto the national spotlight. He was commissioned to design the US pavilion at the Montreal Expo; he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and was featured on the cover of Time Magazine. Almost every exhibition on his work leads us to this small town in the heart of America.

Recognized by the state of Illinois as a building of historical importance and included on the American Institute of Architect's top buildings the dome he called home has not weathered well over the years. With all the accolades and the exhibitions recently, it is a shame that only a few people over the last decade have stepped in to restore and preserve this piece of US history. This country was founded on the principals of innovation and a renegade attitude that pushing the envelope is as important as financial success. It is a primary reason why I moved here and many other entrepreneurs have crossed the oceans in order to call America home.

With the great interest in sustainability right now it is amazing that no-one has thought about turning the home into a regional green jobs training center or a living museum on Bucky's tenure in Illinois. Just look at the funding allocated by the current stimulus package - if I know a building that needs weatherization, this is it. If only we knew of an Illinois based politician whose focused was on creating green jobs and preserving and honoring American ingenuity. While a dedicated group of unpaid volunteers keep the torch alive let's hope that it doesn't get snuffed out by further neglect.

Get your Bucky fix from the Buckminster Fuller Institute
More on the Dome Home at Buckys Dome
Watch the dome get covered on youtube

This piece originally appeared in The Huffington Post.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Cameron Sinclair in Shelter at 12:43 PM) ]]> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/worldchanging_fulltext/~3/k2jy9lvl5E8/009600.html/feed/ 0