Promoting sustainable shelter in Alaska
From the Washington Post on Saturday, January 24, 2009:
Frugality is finally showing up in new home developments.
Although the number of new single-family houses sold this year will probably be down about 68 percent from the peak of almost 1.3 million sold in 2005, there will still be about 420,000 households buying new homes this year, according to the National Association of Home Builders.
Click here to read the whole article.
From www.thegreenguide.com (sponsored by the National Geographic Society), retrieved on Monday, January 26, 2009. A day-by-day guide to “greening” your life:
You could decide to lose weight—again—or this year you could resolve to lighten the load you leave on the planet. To help, we’ve outlined a series of small changes that add up to big results and divvied them up by time frame—tasks you can complete today, in the next week, during the next month and over the course of the next year. Breaking your efforts into smaller, more manageable tasks isn’t a cop-out: By following this plan, each small step adds up to changes that will benefit the health of the planet—and, yes, even your own health—immediately and in years to come.
Click here to see the whole guide.
From npr.org on Wednesday, January 21, 2009:
With awareness of global warming rising, going “green” and reducing one’s “carbon footprint” have become pop culture catchphrases. But addressing climate change on a global, governmental level is still a matter of heated debate.
With potentially staggering costs involved, are efforts to make major reductions in carbon emissions even worth it? Would the money be better spent elsewhere? Or, does the amount of money involved become less important when considering the possible consequences of climate change?
A panel of experts recently took on these questions in an Oxford-style debate. The motion for the Jan. 13 debate, part of theIntelligence Squared U.S.series, was: “Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions Are Not Worth the Money.”
Click here to read the summary and listen to the broadcast.
From The Hill on Tuesday, January 20, 2009:
“Greenwash” describes a practice employed by businesses to market products as green even if they really aren’t, in order to appeal to conservationists who could be customers. With Democrats emphasizing the environment as they write an economic recovery plan, some environmental groups say greenwashing has moved from an advertising ploy to a lobbying tool.
“Green is in style,” said Deron Lovaas, transportation policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Anyone who says they are a green project is seen as worthy of something.”
The trouble, Lovaas says, is that green isn’t a style. It isn’t the new black. It is a science. And he disputes the way some groups are using green to push projects that, scientifically speaking, aren’t very green.
Click here to read the whole article.
From the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner on Monday, January 19, 2009:
The first proposed grants from a $100 million state renewable energy fund would boost wind farm efforts in Healy and Delta, as well as other local projects.
The state released a list of 77 projects covering all regions of Alaska Friday for consideration by a legislative committee.
Click here to read the whole article.
From the Chicago Tribune on Friday, January 16, 2009:
Plans to build the nation’s first offshore wind farm in the waters off Cape Cod cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning environmental approval from a key federal agency.
The proposal has sparked a bitter public fight begun more than seven years ago.
The new Obama administration will decide the project’s fate. President-elect Barack Obama, who wants to double alternative energy production over the next three years, was visiting an Ohio company that makes parts for wind turbines on Friday. He takes office Tuesday.
Click here to read the whole article.
From the transcript of a video interview with Carol Browner, proposed assistant to the president on energy and climate, the Washington Post on Thursday, January 15, 2009:
LR: What Bush initiatives do you have your eye on to roll back?
CB: Unfortunately, the list is rather long. . . . The Supreme Court ruled almost two years ago now that the EPA has some authorities to look at greenhouse gas emissions. . . . The current administration declined to do that.
and …
LR: How do you get the American people to change the way they do business?
CB: I don’t doubt that somebody will say, “Oh my gosh, they’re talking about we are never going to be able to drive our cars again.” We are not talking about not driving cars. We are talking about driving different cars . . . cleaner cars. We recognize that, for many Americans, cars are an important part of how they get to work. . . . It’s about figuring out ways to make our lives better. . . . It’s a win-win.
Watch the whole interview here.
From the New York Times on Wednesday, January 14, 2009:
Lisa P. Jackson, chosen to head the Environmental Protection Agency, said at her confirmation hearing Wednesday morning that her first task would be to restore scientific and legal integrity to an agency battered by charges of political interference and coziness with industry.
Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times
“If I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity of E.P.A.’s technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes.” LISA P. JACKSON
But she evaded questions on whether as administrator of the E.P.A. she would immediately grant authority to California and 16 other states to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions, promising only a speedy review of the issue. Nor did she directly answer questions on whether and how the agency would address regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, an authority granted the E.P.A. by the Supreme Court in 2007.
Click here to read the whole article.
From The Hill, published in May, 2008, and retrieved on Monday, January 11, 2009:
Together, China and the United States produce 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Their actions to curb or expand energy consumption will determine whether efforts to stop global climate change succeed or fail. If these two nations act to curb emissions, the rest of the world can more easily coalesce on a global plan. If either fails to act, the mitigation strategies adopted by the rest of the world will fall far short of averting disaster for large parts of the earth.
These two nations are now joined in what energy analyst Joe Romm has aptly called “a mutual suicide pact.” American leaders point to emissions growth in China and demand that Chinese leaders take responsibility for climate change. Chinese leaders counter that American per capita greenhouse gas emissions are five times theirs and say, “You created this problem, you do something about it.”
Click here to read the whole report.
From the Washington Post on Tuesday, January 121, 2009:
President-elect Barrack Obama’s nominee for Energy secretary, Steven Chu, walked a fine line today between his strong views on the need to combat climate change and the concern of some senators about Chu’s past criticism of coal use, endorsement of gasoline taxes and tepid embrace of a cap-and-trade system for limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
Chu, who appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was asked about a comment he once made that “coal is my worst nightmare.” Chu told the committee that “if the world continues to use coal the way it is using it today, not only in the United States but in Russia, India and China, it is a pretty bad dream.” But he added that he does not favor a moratorium on coal and said he would seek and fund research on technologies so that the United States could continue to tap its abundant coal reserves.
Click here to read the whole article.
