A recent op-ed published on Environment 360 (the website for Yale University’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies) brings to light a timely and interesting climate change debate highlighting the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy legislation: carbon tax or cap-and-trade? Many politicians, economists, scientists and educators believe one method, or the other, will bring the greatest benefit, but TWaxman-Markey Clean Energy legislation leaves much to be desired.
Last week Massachusetts passed the Stretch Code, which allows municipalities to adopt more stringent building codes than the state requires. Current building requirements are set by Massachusetts Building codes and have to be updated every three years to meet the international ICC building standards.
The new stretch code standards would require a Home Energy Rating System (HERS) rating of 60, which means about 40% lower energy use than a standard built home. Modeling experts estimate that the extra construction cost an additional $8,100 (above the base code), which translates to $530 a year over a 30 year mortgage. But annual energy costs would be reduced on average by $1,360, for a net savings to the homeowner of $830 a year— a net savings of approximately $300 per year. In addition, many of the additional construction costs will be covered by subsidies from the utilities.
Home renovations would require a HERS rating only when feasible and for new commercial buildings there are several options for meeting the Stretch Code. Commercial renovations, commercial buildings under 5,000 square feet, and specialty commercial buildings under 100,000 square feet (supermarkets, laboratories, warehouses) are all exempt from the proposal.
This is an excellent opportunity for communities like Cambridge, MA to forge ahead and adopt standards that will help it to meet its climate reduction targets. Buildings contribute to 80% of the total greenhouse gas emissions produced in Cambridge, MA. Adopting the stretch code could help Massachusetts communities reduce its emissions and save money that would otherwise go towards inefficient heating, cooling, and electric building needs.
The city of Berkeley, California has raced ahead in deploying solar capacity through an innovative approach that finances solar arrays for any home or business by including a surcharge to the owner’s property tax bill for 20 years to recoup the cost. If the home or business is sold, the assessment rolls over to the new owner. This innovative solution to the challenge of financing the high upfront costs of renewable energy projects has resulted in 626 solar installations; generating 2.9 MW or reducing CO2 emissions by 2,300 tons/yr.
The city of Cambridge is also deeply committed to reducing its carbon emissions and has set a goal to reduce its emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and obtain 20% of its municipal electricity load from renewable sources by 2010. Cambridge now has 33 solar PV systems installed, generating 267.171 kilowatts of clean, renewable energy generating capacity.
The potential for additional pv projects in Massachusetts looks sunny, with the passage of Global Warmning and Energy Bills that might also generate the type of demand experienced in Berkeley, California. At a recent Net Metering workshop presented by Larry Chretien, CEO of the Mass Energy Consumers Alliance, he shared how the Green Communties Act will open the way for Neighborhood Net metering projects that potentially will allow consumers to buy into their own renewable energy cooperateives. To learn more, you can access the Net Metering Power Point Presentation at http://www.massenergy.com/News.PR.html.
But if you are not ready yet or do not have the financing for investing in PV’s, you can support renewable energy now for a small monthly fee ($5- $12+/ month on average) by making a donation to the New England Wind Fund or signing up to NSTAR Green’s renewable energy program.
Yesterday another Global Warming news story made the headlines about a New York-sized ice shelf collapsing off Antarctica— a grave reminder of the growing impacts of climate change. The Wilkins Ice shelf in Antarctica is destabilizing and this month’s ice loss is the latest of 10 shelves on the antarctic peninsula to retreat with more melting expected. On a positive note, the US is finally moving forward on Climate policy with the Environmental Protection Agency recent finding that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare, which now moves to a public comment period.
In addition, Congressman Henry A. Waxman and Congressman Edward J. Markey released the American Clean Energy and Security Act that requires emissions to be reduced 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, while Mr. Obama’s plancalls for a 14 percent reduction by 2020. Both would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050. The bill would also require every region of the country to produce a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal by 2025.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act currently lacks sufficienct votes for passage, but with the global warming crisis intensifying and the time horizon for effective action closing, it is imperative that we take local actions to reduce our carbon emissions and also support renewable energy projects in our own communities.
Recently, we’ve begun some efforts to analyze and map energy use data in the City, and a volunteer created this compelling graph that roughly demonstrates how far Cambridge is from meeting its goal to reduce emissions to pre-1990 levels. Of course the graph actually plots electricity use, and not emissions but the two are well correlated, and we hope to have a more complete graph of emissions including natural gas in the future.
Cambridge's Efficiency Goal Gap
Note: Due to limitations in the available data, energy use for some apartments is included in “Commercial.”
If you’d like to learn more about improving energy use in your home or office and receive an audit visit the Cambridge Energy Alliance.
Cambridge, MA-Friday, April 24: Over 300 people, including your faithful Warm Home Cool Planet correspondent, assembled in Walker Memorial Hall at MIT to hear from some of the major players and most provocative thinkers in the field of sustainability. Unlike the content you’ll find here, which stretches all the way from global energy policy to insulating your water pipes, the Sustainability @ MIT conference was exclusively focused on the big picture.
The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has recently determined that greenhouse gasses(GHG) pose a danger to public health and welfare. This weeks announcement by the EPA enables the agency to put the Clean Air Act into action. The act defines the responsibility of the EPA as protecting and improving the nations air quality. There is a 60 day public comment period which will be documented in the federal registrar. Once the public comment period closes, the EPA will be required to take some sort of action.
In addition, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, is being reviewed in the house and hopefully will gain the traction needed to pass as the nation’s first commitment to reduce its GHG emissions. The bill calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% by 2030, and 83% by 2050. If the EPA were to enact this legislation, it would most likely address emissions from automobiles, power plants, and major industrial sources.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-17-epa-moves-toward-regulating/
Al Gore has aligned with Repower America to ask everyone throughout the US to send a message to their local congressman to support the energy legislation currently before the House. The Repower folks have made it easy too. All you have to do is add your email address and zip code. They’ll make sure it gets to the right politician.
From the New York Times Green Inc. blog an article on the options being debated for either totally replacing the current carbon cap and trade system or tweaking our current set-up. On one side of the argument, many are saying that giving carbon emission credits to big business amounts amounts to rewarding polluters. (Given the fact some companies have been selling off carbon credits they got for free, it’s not hard to see that point.)
Some environmental groups favor a ‘carbon tax’ which would be applied to all non-renewable carbon-based energy sources. The revenue generated from levying this tax would be used to fund renewable energy development and offset current tax burdens.
There is no doubt a carbon tax would have an immediate effect on the behavior of the business community (and consumers who would end up paying the tax in the form of increased prices for all products and services using CO2 emitting fuels in their manufacture or provision.)
A carbon tax, while it is working in places like the UK, has always had a difficult time getting support in the US Congress due to the unknown impact it would have on our economy in the short term. The Obama Administration has put it back on the table, however. In the end it might be used to negotiate lower cap limits and perhaps charge for the carbon credits the government is currently handing out for free. Read the comments section on the NY Times article for other perspectives on this issue.
From the Brasilian magazine Brasileiros comes this provocative promotional video. Look at it a couple of times to see the relationships between CO2 emissions, oil, terrorism and hunger.
You might also be interested in World Mapper.