News and Updates

Guest Post from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Court Rules Against Automakers; Defends California Tailpipe Law
Fed Court Rules States Can Regulate Tailpipe Emissions BERKELEY, California (December 12, 2007) — Today a federal judge threw out an auto industry challenge to a California law requiring automakers to cut vehicle global warming pollution. Federal District Court Judge Anthony Ishii in Fresno rejected U.S. automakers’ claims that federal law pre-empts the state standards.

“Three strikes and you’re out,” said Patricia Monahan, deputy director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “With today’s decision, three federal courts have now ruled against the auto industry’s bogus claims.”

“This historic ruling comes on the heels of two other recent court decisions supporting the regulation of vehicle global warming pollution. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vehicles’ global warming emissions are pollutants that can and should be regulated. In August, a federal judge in Vermont ruled against the automakers by upholding states’ rights to regulate vehicle global warming pollution.

Regardless, the Bush administration has stepped up its efforts to undermine federal and state efforts to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. Most recently, the administration has threatened to veto energy legislation that directs the Department of Transportation (DOT) to raise fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The administration claims that these fuel economy standards would conflict with existing efforts to regulate vehicle global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act.”

Great job - lets continue to push the envelope to reduce our VMT as well as improve our efficiency!

The ULI does it again in this piece from their annual meeting held in the urban sprawling metropolis of Las Vegas…

http://thegroundfloor.typepad.com/the_ground_floor/2007/10/gen-y-and-housi.html

The first observations are interesting to note. I don’t know where they obtained these data and how valid they are, but I can relate to what these data indicate. The vast majority of my colleagues and friends desire similar such areas to find a home.

Some takeaways from this session:

What Gen Y members don’t want: big houses on big lots, isolated from everything.

What they do want:
housing that fulfills their need for instant access and convenience.

With the oldest members of Generation Y (those in their mid-20s)
starting to enter the housing market, the characteristics of this
demanding, strong-willed generation provide many clues to their
preferences in living arrangements.
For instance, they:

    Favor the quirky, unique and different.
    Seek diversity in all aspects of their lives.
    Prefer urban over suburban environments.
    Multi-task (One observation: “Most don’t wear watches because watches only do one thing.”

The second interesting observation is the change in demographics - changing households from couples, young males being replaced by single-women households.

One key signal of a housing shakeup resulting from Gen Y: changes in
household formation and more single Gen Y women entering the housing
market. In the years ahead, look for the decades-long prevalence of
married couples with children to be increasingly replaced with
single-women households. With more women than men now graduating from
college, women in many markets will soon be making more than men,
placing women in a position of affluence and authority that will affect
housing decisions. Because they will likely delay marriage to pursue
careers, their housing choices will be far different than those made by
their baby boomer mothers. The likely favorite: close-in multifamily
rental or for-sale units in mixed-use communities that emphasize
communal space and social interaction. “This bodes well for urban
communities,” one panelist said.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Recent news from the Environmental Building News bringing new studies to light regarding the full emissions profiles of Green Buildings - with the focus on Transportation.

That’s right—for an average office building in the United States, calculations done by
Environmental Building News (EBN) show that commuting by office workers accounts for 30% more energy than the building itself uses. For an average
new office building built to code, transportation accounts for more than
twice as much energy use as building operation.

LEED buildings - while a great step, and with recent advances in viable buildings with minimal GHG footprints - transportation remains the biggest hurdle to develop sustainable, green buildings. The article describes eight key factors that contribute to the energy intensity of buildings… “D-factors,”
including density, distance to transit, diversity of uses, and design
of streetscapes.

Given recent documented improvements in building efficiency can be done economically and marketed

The answer: for newly built multifamily housing, virtually all of it.
At the annual ULI Shaw Forum (endowed by the late Charlie Shaw) held
last week, Solara,
an affordable housing development in San Diego with 56 units and a
2,100 square foot community center, was showcased; its operating carbon
footprint has been reduced by 95%.

We still need to be aware of the location of our new buildings….

Powered by ScribeFire.

article from Env. News Network
Regulation key to greener buildings

this is the news of the Day - Vermont has the ability to set Emissions Targets!

Article - Courtesy of the Union of Concerned Scientists

September 12, 2007

Federal Court Rules Automakers Have Technology to Makes Cleaner Cars
Court Upholds State Tailpipe Standards to Curb Global Warming Pollution

WASHINGTON (September 12, 2007) - A federal judge in Vermont today ruled that states can regulate vehicle global warming pollution, rejecting U.S. automakers claims that they don’t have the technology to meet the new standards and that they are pre-empted by federal law.

Related Links

UCS Vanguard

UCS Vanguard Brochure (pdf)

Technical Report (pdf)

The judge, William K. Sessions, reviewed analysis by Union of Concerned Scientists when making his deliberations. Earlier this year, UCS unveiled a vehicle design, dubbed the Vanguard, which would exceed the state standard by cutting global warming pollution by more than 40 percent using conventional, off-the-shelf technology.

Below is a statement by Michelle Robinson, director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“This stunning ruling will be seen as a turning point in the fight to protect Americans from the worst consequences of global warming. Judge Sessions affirmed what we at the Union of Concerned Scientists have been saying for years: Automakers have the technology today to meet this global warming pollution standard in a cost-effective way. Vermont and 11 other states have been leading the way by adopting this standard that originated in California, and now the federal government should adopt a standard that is at least as stringent.

“Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency now has no excuse to stand in the way of state implementation. If the agency granted the necessary waiver, the dozen states that have adopted the standard would be able to cut as a much as 100 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020.”

The Douglas administration has formed the Vermont Climage Change Commission tasked with evaluating a number of alternatives meant to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted by the State of Vermont. The Commission has been instructed to prepare a Climate Change Action Plan to the Governor no later than September 1, 2007. However, based on the recent updates to the site, it looks as if the Commission will not meet their target deadline.

This is all well and good if it means that a solid Climate Change Plan can emerge!
One of the sections of analysis include: Transportation and Land Use.

Thus far the section includes an initial evaluation of a number of scenarios that were developed that can reduce the amount of GHS’s emitted. The Commission has prepared a .pdf that highlights the initial drafts of these scenarios.

Thus far the two with the most significant potential to reduce GHG emissions are: Compact and Transit-Oriented Development Bundle and Vehicle Emission Reductions Incentives, which are estimated to reduce Million Metric Tonnes of CO2 (MMtCO2) between 2008 and 2028, 10.88 and 7.73 respectively.

You can read more about the Commission here.

Hello All -

This weekend we have a big event going on nationwide - calling for a 80% reduction in Carbon emissions by 2050! Now - that is a big goal - but hey - lets start big for two reasons (1) We need to in order to minimize the already catastrophic effects of Global Warming (2) If you start with a grand goal - perhaps we can get close to it!

Go here to find out more: http://stepitup2007.org/index.php

For all of those reading this Blog from the good state of Vermont there are something like 65 or so events planned all over the State!

I will be attending the one in Burlington on the 14th. That is if the winter weather doesn’t destroy the whole thing and Senator Sanders can come and participate. Vermont Actions.  The local Burlington Step It Up Site:

In other news:
The City of Burlington is starting to put some additional measures into effect to help curb the Carbon emissions from our tailpipes with the recent proclamation by the Mayor on an Anti-Idling Campaign. The Burlington police will now begin enforcing a law that has been on the books for the past several years.

Well - it may be no surprise when an organization defends their business model - however - to fund illegitimate arguments on global climate change and pass it off as science is completely a new low. Today the Union of Concerned Scientists released their report titled: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change –

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

The link to the UCS website is here.

A recent article posted by the New York Times columnist Andy Revkin discusses a very disturbing issue that is developing within the climate change circles- Can the costs of climate change be quantified? And then can we do a cost-benefit analysis on the efforts needed to halt the process?

This neoclassical approach to the problem presents us with a very complex problem. We may be able to quantify some impacts of global warming, but many others may be simply (thought I find it hard to admit) outside the realm of economics. How for instance should be able to quantify the costs of moving all the residents affected by rising sea waters out of their homes into a new town, new state, or even a new country.

here in Vermont we have our own issues with Climate Change. Perhaps we can value the impacts that a reduced maple sugaring season, less annual snowfall, more rain, a longer growing season, and reduced fall foliage may have on our economy. Perhaps a C/B ratio could work out for Vermont - However. Would it capture the costs that we Vermonters would endure to have to move from our great state to another area in order to enjoy the ability to make a living because our old way is no longer available? I think not…

Lets all be proactive and work for an improved environment in order to keep our excellent Vermont way of life.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/science/earth/energy.html