Green Sexy

Saving Energy in Schools

Today the lights went out in the hallways in my school at 11 a.m.  Students and teachers alike peered into the hallways, wondering what malfunction had occurred.  Students everywhere buzzed about the possibility of school being let out early due to a power failure.  However, once I checked my email, I learned that the hall lights were turned off from 11-12 a.m. in an effort to save energy costs.  This decree was handed down from one of the powers that be in Albany.  Oddly enough, a follow-up email from my administrator made it seem like this would be an isolated event.  So, what would be the actual savings if they made this a daiy event in all school districts in New York state?  It's hard to tell, but let's take a look at some Minnesota schools to see what they're doing to save on their energy costs.

In some Minnesota school districts, students, teachers, administrators and custodians have taken the initiative to turn off lights in rooms that are empty, turn off computers when they're not in use, and to turn their thermostats down to 68 degrees in an effort to save energy and money.  According to the Southwestern Review News, "The costs of lighting, heating and cooling schools are so vast in school districts that the cost of energy is second only to staff salaries, and exceeds the cost of supplies and books." 

Many Minnesota schools have implimented the SEE Program (Schools for Efficient Energy), which focuses "on low and no-cost energy efficient strategies, the districts enrolled in this program strive to reduce their energy use by 10 percent and achieve 'Energy Star' status. The 'Energy Star' award program is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. District 197 received 'Energy Star' status in 2004; it was the first to receive this award in Minnesota and the 10th in the nation."

By following the guidelines of the SEE program, "the West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan district has saved $330,000 in energy costs. This past spring, the district saved $34,000 in a single quarter, of which $10,000 came just from Heritage Elementary."  Sounds like a pretty bright idea.

Where the Candidates Stand On the Environment

It seems like all the talk lately has centered around our nation's ailing economy and not much else.  An issue like the environment has become a second-tier issue in the minds of many financially-struggling households.  In light of immediate financial concerns, it may be easy to lose sight of the bigger picture---all of the money in the world won't make a bit of difference if we don't have a planet to spend it in.  Also, all the money in the world can't cure all of the Earth's problems, but adequate funding, paired up with the proper legislation can truly make a difference with our environment. 

I've been combing through a zillion articles on the candidates' stances on the environment and energy policies, and I have struggled mightily with how to convey all of this information in a way that could be easily digested.  Finally, after much searching around, I finally found what I was looking for!  I found this handy-dandy chart on the wonderful site grist.org that really breaks down what the candidates' positions are on various environmental issues.  Not only is the information presented precisely and concisely, but also it highlights the oft-overlooked fact that there are other candidates out there besides just Barack Obama and John McCain---imagine that!  The chart details what the candidates have proposed for:  cap-and-trade programs for greenhouse-gas emissions, offshore drilling, fuel-economy standards for automobiles, renewable energy, biofuels, coal and nuclear energy.  You simply must check out this chart today! 

While I have previously expressed my views about John McCain's voting record on environmental issues and the Republican Party's seeming aversion to supporting environmental legislation, you must ultimately vote your conscience when you step into the polls on Tuesday.  Cast your vote for yourself, your family and for the mother of us all, the Earth.

Goats Graze in Downtown Los Angeles!

California is one of the most environmentally-conscious states in the union, and the Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency has continued the trend by hiring 100 goats to clear brush in a downtown Los Angeles plot.  Los Angeles residents and downtown workers alike marveled at this unlikely scene.  Sam Vera, an auto repairman, remarked as he snapped a photograph, "This is absolutely beautiful. It's a wonderful contrast to the big buildings around here."  The Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency head Cecilia Estolano said that she could rent the 100 goats for $3,000, as opposed to the $7,000 it would cost to hire men with gas-powered trimmers.  Another advantage is that goats are an environmentally-friendly way to clear away brush that is not only unsightly, but could also be a potential fire hazard.  Anyway, goats are also so darn cute, so who could resist?   

Hiring goats to clear brush---now that's one Green Sexy idea!

Bipartisan Support For the Environment---April Fools!

A recent 60 Minutes interview and profile of Al Gore opened up with how he is trying to dispel the current climate of partisan politics in regard to the environment.  By pairing up oppositional figures such as Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich or Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson in p.r. ads for the environment, Gore is hoping to change the hearts and minds of a very politically-divided country. 

While there have been some positive changes in regard to recent green legislation (increase in fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, creation of the world's largest Marine Conservation in Hawaii), let's face it, when it comes to which party's members typically vote for or against environmental legislation, it's still a very partisan affair.  The League of Conservation Voters recently released their 2007 Environmental Scorecard that details the voting records of Congressional members (to see how this year's presidential candidates scored, click here).  In both the House and Senate, Democrats largely outranked Republicans on the 2007 Environmental Scorecard.  In the 110th, First Session U.S. Senate, Democrats had many members above 80%, while Republicans had many members in the single digits, and 9 members who scored a 0%!  The scores in the 110th, First Session U.S. House reflects largely the same trend, with Democrats scoring very high, and Republicans scoring very low, with 47 members at 0%! 

It is funny how partisan the voting records are when it comes to the environment, and not funny "ha ha".

Is the EPA M.I.A. On Regulating Vehicle Emissions?

The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, is charged with protecting the environment, per their name, no?  That's why I'm totally puzzled why the EPA has failed to comply with the April 2007 Supreme Court directive that the agency determine whether carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles pose a danger to public health and whether these emissions should be regulated.  You see, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases.  EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson claimed, in an exchange with Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, that he didn't know how many people at the EPA were "directly working on the issue now". 

Why is the Environmental Protection Agency not living up to their namesake?  Does this agency not want to be burdened with the task of regulating vehicle emissions, even if the public health or welfare is endangered?   Perhaps there are more nefarious forces at work here.  The Bush Administration, true to form, has claimed for years that carbon dioxide need not be regulated because it is not identified as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  Could it be that George Herbert Walker Bush has influenced the EPA to "stonewall" (as Senator Feinstein accused Stephen L. Johnson of doing) on this issue, hoping that they would somehow be absolved of this great responsibility?  Is the Bush Administration afraid of the potential costs of having to regulate vehicle emissions?  Well, they never seemed to have much issue with dropping billions into other foolish ventures, so there's no need to be Scrooge-esque here, eh?

I'm no scientist, but it is difficult to deny, with tangible evidence like the smog in Los Angeles, that emissions from vehicles have negatively affected the health and welfare of that city's residents to an extreme degree, despite recent efforts to improve the situation by California politicians.  With the driving culture that we have here in the United States, we should be proactive about vehicle emissions so that we don't create more smog-choked urban areas, and one of the keys to moving forward in this venture is to have the EPA leading the charge.  Hopefully they'll stop dragging their feet and quicken their pace to help clean up the air we breathe!    

Vote Green '08!

Which candidate would be the best President for the environment?

Clinton?

               

Edwards?

         

Obama?

Let Your Voice Be Heard---VOTE NOW!!!

Making cars greener?

Automakers now have to tell New York State drivers the environmental information of the new cars and trucks they buy thanks to legislation signed by Governor Eliot Spitzer today.  The Global warming index sticker which is required for the 2010 model year will provide details of the greenhouse emissions on a sticker. The stickers will detail carbon dioxide, a major contributor to warming temperatures worldwide, in addition to methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Can you read that sentence out loud without your tongue tripping up?  They just sound like sinister things that would mess with whatever or whomever touches them.  Full details can be found at Governor Spitzer's web site.

Of course, California has a similar measure in place that take effect a year before the New York plan.  While California and New York are probably some of the "greenest" states in the nation we are probably also two of the largest population powerhouses of the country, so it is only natural for us to lead the green charge with such legislation. 

This means we will be seeing the emission information for those cute little buggies that have been popular in Europe, the smart car.  Mercedes' little brain child will be available in the US next year.  They are tiny, they are light, they only hold 2 people and they get 40 miles to the gallon.  WOW, right?  Is that really a wow?  My Scion XB gets 34 miles to the gallon and I can hold 4 passengers plus the driver and I have cargo space. They are great for urban spaces but I don't think I would want to drive it on the interstate. It seems like a fender bender might not be a small deal for this baby.  I don't see them being very practical for middle America, nothing more than a novelty.

Now if only automakers were required to cut those emissions significantly by 2010. There will be a bit of competition among vehicle models...the stickers  "(1) compares the emissions of global warming gases from the vehicle with the average projected emissions from all vehicles of the same model year, and (2) identifies the vehicle model within its class with the lowest emissions of that model year."  -- from Governor Spitzer's press release.