The first innovative step towards stacking cars was the parking structure, where layers of cars could be stacked upon each other. The next innovative step is to actually stack cars up against each other to reduce the absurd amount of space we require for vehicular parking. The concept is a hybrid of car sharing systems, spatial planning, alternative fueling systems, and personal convenience.

Developed by MIT Media Lab students from the Concept Car Design Workshop sponsored by GM, the key behind this concept is the redesign of the wheel and axel. Rather than having a rigid axel, it will actually fold in a way that will allow the car to rotate upwards 90 degrees. In this, the long dimension of the vehicle is perpendicular to the ground while parked. Since each car has the same form and design, they perfectly nest together to reduce surface space consumption. The stackable car will be able to reduce required curbside parking space by about a third to a half. This allows for more sidewalk space, biking lanes, and comfortable city conditions.

Due to the small dimensions, the stacks of cars will be conveniently placed in locations all over the city- where you would normally come out of a building and hail a cab; you can jump in an electric city car and advance to your next desired location. The concept City Car system includes solar paneling on the rooftops of buildings adjacent to the stackable parking depositories. These panels will be the power supply to charge the electric cars while parked.

This car-sharing concept is a solution to the missing link between public transportation and the front door. Often people don’t use public transit due to the time necessary to switch from the subway to the bus to the next bus. Now people can commute into the city, get off the train, jump in a city car, and drive that extra three to ten miles to the office. This is a reasonable solution to a very prevalent problem. Instead of unnecessarily consuming a parking space while in the office all day long, you can use a city car in the morning and evening, while others use it all afternoon; and the convenience of hopping in a city car is what will make this work. In addition, since these cars aren’t personal vehicles and people will be in them on an average of five to thirty minutes, hopefully the new system will encourage people to share rides across town thus influencing our sense of community, status, and ownership.

Since 1998, Rev. Charles Morris has been on a mission to make his church a sustainable place to worship, and the results are quite impressive. St. Elizabeth’s Church, in Wyandotte, Michigan, is not only a place of God, but a place of innovation as well. It has taken Rev. Morris almost ten years, and over $150,000 to make his church a beacon of both religion and sustainability, two things he believes go hand in hand.

It all started with a heightened awareness of the harms of global warming, mixed with a responsibility to to his faith. The more educated the Reverend became about peak oil and depleted natural resources, the more worried he became about the prospects for future generations. At the same time, he could not help but feel that every bit of energy wasted was somehow connected to God. As he put it, "I was worried about our relationship to energy, and about our relationship to God… he is the creator of all everything, including life and energy." Instead of preaching from the pulpit, the Michigan priest got involved.

And the result? St. Elizabeth’s is one of the most environmentally comprehensive churches in the United States. On the roof of the building are solar panels and a wind turbine that provide the electricity for the community rooms and for the basement of the church. There is also a solar collector that provides the building with hot water. Moreover, the roof is home to a solar fan, which removes the hot air from the attic of the church.

But, the innovations do not stop there! The church’s 1,400 square feet of stained glass windows are covered with a solar netting that regulates the inside temperature: it retains heat in the winter, and lowers cooling costs in the summer. The church also boasts compact fluorescent bulbs and LED lighting technology throughout the building. Pretty impressive, huh?

Like I mentioned before, the environmental overhaul cost the church about $150,000. While this may sound like a ton of money (which it is!), it is the money saved that made this project economically feasible. Currently, the church is saving about $20,000 per year on energy costs, which means it cut its former energy costs by over half. If you project those savings through ten years, the church will not only make its money back, but it will have saved over $50,000 in utility expenses.

Aside from what he sees as a responsibility to the Lord, Reverend Morris has some pretty persuasive reasons for going green. As he told me, "we have a responsibility to the next generation, and to the generations after that. To ignore the current state of the environment is not only reckless, it is negligent." Sometimes, it seems as though it is the people with the largest sense of imperative that make the biggest changes for what they believe in.

Becoming sustainable has not exactly been a crystal stair for Reverend Charles Morris, though. When asked about the biggest challenge in the greening of both his church and his life, the Reverend tolds me, "lethargy — it is easy to lose momentum when undertaking such a large task. Also, bad habits. I am no different than anyone else: I have parts of my routine that I need to change to reflect my belief [in sustainability]."

Lethargy and bad habits are just the beginning of what Father Morris has had to overcome to get to where he is today. One of the things he claimed posed the biggest hurdle for him, in terms of achieving a higher level of sustainability, was a lack of support and education. When undertaking something like an environmental overhaul, there will always be people who don’t get it, which is why we need to construct an atmosphere that encourages people to try new things, and to take risks.

According to Father Morris, "We must create the conditions that foster green lifestyles, and education is a good place to start." Reverend Morris is a staunch advocate on environmental education and sees it as a necessary step to making this country more sustainable.

When asked what the biggest environmental harm resulting from the way most Americans live their lives, the Reverend responded quickly:

The poor, the invisible people of this country who suffer the most from the destruction of the environment. It is the people suffering from asthma, heart attacks and other health problems. We, as a country do not acknowledge these people. Because of our consumer culture, they are isolated and the only way to fix that is through education

Education is not the only way in which we can decrease our environmental impact though. The Reverend believes that business must step up and take a leadership role in the greening of this country. He explains,

Businesses need to take charge. They need to not only green their own practices and act as a model for the rest of the country; they must provide the capital and incentive to get us to the next level. We are on the cusp of the ‘next phase,’ but businesses must realize that going green can be profitable. When this happens, you will see a shift in the market and the increased affordability of green technology.

While not all of us may have the resources to undertake a environmental overhaul anytime soon, Reverend Morris has some good advice for those people just getting started greening their lives. "Start reading! It is easy to look at your environmental impact and go from denial to despair. Instead, you must go to decision. You need to figure out what you can change, make the necessary modifications and then celebrate your victories." And celebrate he does. Father Charles Morris is not only a wonderful example of what can be accomplished with a little determination; he is man who truly practices what he preaches.

Photo credit: Detroit MetroTimes

Powered entirely by the sun, these high-tech homes that exhibit superior efficiency are “likely to help shape America’s clean energy future,” states a press release from the Department of Energy. The first Solar Decathlon was in 2002. I am partially inspired by this event as my old alma mater, the University of Michigan, competed in the 2005 competition. Although Michigan is not competing this year, many of the students from participating schools and prospective schools took notes on the flaws present in 2005, and went home to improve, reinvent, and discover new technologies for this year’s event.

As a result of seeing the 2005 University of Michigan MISO (Michigan Solar) home, I can tell you that these teams are consciously composed. With students from disciplines ranging from Engineering, Architecture, and Design to Urban Planning andEnvironmental Studies, these projects are guaranteed to be well-conceived. “These solar homes are powerful, comfortable, and stylish. They are relaxed, elegant, wasting neither space nor energy.” Since these projects come from an academic setting, a place where exploring concepts and visions for the future is fostered and encouraged, these homes are creative, innovative, and surprising.

Not only is this an opportunity for students to learn, explore, and experience solar home construction; it is also an occasion for the public to come view the solutions and learn about the best in energy efficiency and home design. If you are in the DC area and have a chance to stop by, the exhibition hosts an entrée of tours, seminars, workshops, and talks by students and professionals. Starting this Friday October 12, the exhibition is open to the public. Next Thursday, October 18 is a day devoted to building industry professionals, and the official awards ceremony is next Friday October 19. Enjoy!

The utilities involved have more than 20 million customers and cover 22 states: Con Edison (ED), Edison International (EIX), Great Plains Energy (GXP), Duke Energy (DUK), Pepco Holdings (POM), PNM Resources (PNM), Sierra Pacific Resources (SRP), and Xcel Energy (XEL). Up until now, the only utilities that want to grow profits through energy efficiency investments have been in California.

The move by these utilities comes at a time when demand is growing, concerns and lawsuits about emissions abound, and global warming is a hot political and business issue.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to cut global warming emissions, and the utilities agree: ” …we share a common belief that energy efficiency is the greatest untapped resource in addressing global climate change in the near-term.” Here are the major elements of their plan:

• Boost investments in energy efficiency projects to $1.5 billion per year in the next 10 years.

• Create a national institute for electric efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Institute will work on regulatory policy models, notably how utilities can make money when customers use less energy rather than more. It will be formed within the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned utilities.

Innovation and multi-party collaboration will be needed to craft policies that allow companies to profit from investing in efficiency. Utilities could profit from replacing inefficient air conditioners and light bulbs, for instance. Great Plains hopes to get legislation passed in Kansas and Missouri that would allow them to earn a higher return on efficiency investments than what would be made investing in traditional power plants. The utility could install smart electricity meters that tell customers when electricity prices are highest and even allows the utility to adjust the operations of appliances in customer homes. Michael Chesser, Chairman and CEO of Great Plains, said that energy efficiency, “with the right incentives,” could take care of all the growth in electricity demand between 2010 and 2017.

The business community was also interested by the announcement. The Dow Jones Wire commented:

It’s a sign of how quickly energy efficiency has taken center stage in the utility industry’s growth plans. Even in states where rates are low, power companies increasingly see efficiency investments as an inexpensive way to satisfy growing electricity demand and boost revenue without provoking the public opposition that usually dogs proposals for new power plants and transmission lines.

The utilities are working in partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative, backed by former President Bill Clinton’s foundation.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

Kansas City Star
Dow Jones Wire
Yahoo Finance

Believe it or not, there was a time when restaurants did not exist in the form we know them today. At their advent, restaurants were not establishments often frequented by locals. What we know as the modern-day restaurant sprung from early inns and taverns, catering to weary travelers looking for a quick bite to eat on their journey. In fact, the typical restaurant format- where customers request specific food, made to order off a menu- did not appear in the West until the 18th century.

Today there are over 935,000 restaurants in the United States, which should hit $537 billion in sales for the 2007 fiscal year.(National Restaurant Association 2007 Restaurant Industry Forecast.) If all goes as planned, the restaurant industry could account for up to 6% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product this year.

Because of the economic importance of the restaurant industry, coupled with its significant social value, it has become important for both consumers and restaurant owners to take note of the impact the industry has on the environment.

Coming from a family of restaurant owners, I have the opportunity to act as a catalyst for more sustainable practices within our business. In order to better understand how to make my restaurant more sustainable, I have identified some areas that beg for an eco-upgrade.

One of the areas with greatest need for an eco-upgrade is energy use. Although the restaurant industry comprises around 6% of the national GDP, it accounts for nearly 33% of all U.S. retail electricity use, making it the #1 consumer in retail sector. A restaurant can greatly decrease the consumption of energy in two easy steps…

Outfitting a restaurant with new, longer lasting lighting is a quick and simple fix for a major environmental faux pas. According to ECO Elements, “A compact fluorescent light using 16 watts of energy replaces a 60-watt incandescent bulb. The life of this bulb is 10,000 hours or approximately 10 times longer than an incandescent bulb, saving $35 worth of energy over the life of the bulb. This eliminates the emission of 1300 pounds of carbon dioxide and 26 pounds of sulfur dioxide from a coal fired plant-producing electricity”. Because these light bulbs are not necessarily considered a hefty investment, they serve as an extremely accessible way to reduction energy consumption.

Similarly, installing Energy Star appliances can do wonders for energy efficiency. According to Pacific Gas and Electric’s Food Service Technology Center, “80 percent of the $10 billion annual energy bill for the commercial food service sector is expended by inefficient food cooking, holding and storage equipment”. By installing energy saving appliances, such as coolers, holding cabinets and fryers, a restaurant can increase its energy efficiency, while decreasing its costs over time.

The reduction of water use is another way a restaurant can achieve an easy eco-upgrade. The average restaurant uses over 300,000 gallons of water a year. For you visualphiles, that is equivalent to about 9 in-ground, outdoor, home swimming pools

To reduce the amount of water used, a restaurant should install low-flow pre-rinse spray nozzles in both the dish tanks and the glass washers. This not only reduces the amount of water needed in the wash cycle, but eliminates the need for the pre-rinse cycle all together (Helpful Tip: Always run a full load of dishes, as it takes as much heated water to wash a partially full dishwasher as it does a fully loaded one).

The last way a restaurant can take a small step toward in a big direction is to eliminate the use of polystyrene. According to The Green Seal Report, each American throws away an average of 100 polystyrene cups each year; the expected lifetime of each cup is over 500 years. Further, EcoElements states that, “one polystyrene cup contains one billion molecules of CFC’s and a single CFC atom may remain in the atmosphere for up to 100 years before it becomes harmless”. Considering that many restaurants are still using polystyrene cups by the case, eliminating them from the inventory can be considered a major accomplishment.

In the end, it is important for the restaurant industry to focus on attainable steps towards the long-term goal of environmental sustainability. Making the transition from old practices to eco-practices can be a daunting challenging that, without proper perspective, can seem too overwhelming to achieve. By enacting these eco-upgrades and other easily accessible improvements, restaurants everywhere can begin down the road to eco-friendly business.

1. Spending on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency Programs
2. Energy Efficiency Resource Standards
3. Combined Heat and Power
4. Building Energy Codes
5. Transportation Policies
6. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards
7. Tax Incentives
8. State Lead by Example and Research & Development

The “State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 2006” found that states are spending three times as much money on energy efficiency programs as the federal government. They’re also far ahead on appliance standards and building codes.

By documentng best practices and leadership across the county, a roadmap is created for states and other entities to learn from each other and work off of each other. Not to mention encouraging (perhaps) the federal government to catch up. The researchers at ACEEE found these states to have the best investment and policies on energy efficiency programs, codes, and standards in 2006:

1. Vermont, Connecticut, and California (tie)
2. Massachusetts
3. Oregon
4. Washington
5. New York
6. New Jersey
7. Rhode Island, Minnesota (tie)

ACEEE Acting Executive Director, Bill Prindle, described energy efficiency as a “first fuel” in the transition towards a clean energy economy. That is, the cheapest and cleanest energy is the energy we never have to use:

“Unless we accelerate the pace of efficiency investment, no clean energy strategy will work.”

Maybe Congress is taking some small steps: On Tuesday, the U.S. House voted 312-111 to increase programs that make cars and buildings more energy efficient, along with boosting research and development of clean energy. The vote count would in theory be large enough to overturn the promised veto by President Bush, who wants 4 percent less for the programs covered by the bill. The extra money in the bill would go towards research in wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower power, as well as ethanol and biodiesel. It doesn’t include anything about the new, sturdier nuclear warhead Bush wanted included.

ACEEE
Associated Press, via Yahoo! News

The New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) is a 10-year, $400 million program of the California Energy Commission to encourage energy efficiency and solar power in new home construction. Specifically, the NSHP works with builders and developers to install 400 megawatts (MW) of solar energy on energy-efficient CA homes in the next ten years. The Partnership focuses on new single family homes, multi-family homes, and affordable housing construction.

The NSHP officially began on January 2 of this year, and it just crossed a milestone with its first approval of a new home community. The subdivision of Wisteria in Rocklin, California is made up of 60 homes, 35 of which will all have solar power systems that come standard, totaling 82 KW of renewable energy. Christopherson Homes is building the community.

Solar power may be exciting, but California energy policy puts greater emphasis on efficiency because it is the most cost effective way of cutting emissions. By combining efficiency with solar, the NSHP can help ensure that the projects are as affordable as possible.

The Partnership’s incentives encourage homes to be 35-50 percent above current efficiency standards.
The NSHP hopes that the Wisteria project will be the beginning of a self-sustaining market and that 50 percent of all new homes by 2017 will be super energy-efficient and solar powered.

Go Solar California!

Solar Buzz

This week brings a lot of renewable energy news from the states. So instead of covering just one, here’s a run down on the big legislative action that’s been going down. Do you know what’s going on in your state?

• Hawaii became the 2nd state in the nation, after California, to pass a statewide cap on global warming emissions. On July 1 the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2007 took effect, which aims to bring emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020. A 10-member Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Task Force will develop a plan by the end of 2009 for “maximum practicality and technically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” by 2009.

• Florida is set to enact tough new emissions standards for air pollution that will attempt to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. New limits would go into effect for automobiles and trucks, toughen energy efficiency goals and require that state-owned vehicles use cleaner fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. Electric utilities would also be required to cut emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and generate at least 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources.

• Missouri Governor Matt Blunt signed legislation to increase the use of renewable energy from sources such as wind, hydroelectricity, solar power, hydrogen, and biomass. Specifically, utilities must get 11 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Not as aggressive of an objective as other states, but it’s a start. Also, at least 70 percent of the state’s fleet of new vehicles must be flex fuel.

• New Jersey passed a global warming law this week that requires the state to cut global warming emission to 1990 levels by 2020.

CBN News
CNNMoney.com
Environment News Service
Renewable Energy Access

The Office of Energy Independence is charged with weaning the Hawkeye state off of foreign oil by 2025 – no small feat considering that Iowans use 78 million barrels of oil each year.

But put down your muskets for this revolution – Governor Culver is looking for anyone already working to research, develop, commercialize, or implement new methods of reducing our dependence on oil through renewable energy, biofuels like cellulosic ethanol, and energy efficiency. He’s currently interviewing about 50 candidates, with a Director expected to be named by the end of the month.

When describing the Office of Energy Independence, Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy put it like this: “We are going to do for biomass what George Washington Carver did for the peanut, and it won’t be for peanuts.”

(Carver was a famous scientist who attended and taught at Iowa State, and developed multiple uses for the peanut, including peanut butter)

Ahem.

The director will be expected to provide an Iowa energy independence plan and release an annual report each year on the state’s progress. The creation of the Office of Energy Independence complements the establishment of a climate change emissions inventory and registry, as well as the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council to determine the best strategies for reducing climate change emissions.

Office of the Governor
RE-AMP RoundUp
U.S. Department of Energy

The bills include a requirement for an economy-wide climate change action plan to be submitted to the state legislature by February 1, 2008. The plan must provide a roadmap to cut emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. A Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group was recently created by Pawlenty and charged with developing and presenting this plan to lawmakers.

In addition, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is directed to estimate and factor in the costs of future federal CO2 regulation (for example, a carbon tax) when it examines proposals for a new power supply.

Energy efficiency – the cheapest, fastest, easiest way to cut emissions – finally got its due with a law that calls for increasing efficiency 25 percent by 2025. Pilot projects are planned that encourage energy savings without loss of revenues for utilities (i.e. a “decoupling” strategy that aims to make a utility indifferent to selling less energy because of restructured rates). In a news release from Clean Energy Minnesota, Sheldon Strom of the Center for Energy and Environment pointed out:

“We’ll reach Minnesota’s global warming goals in large part through saving, rather than consuming, those kilowatts of electricity or therms of natural gas…It is the most consumer-friendly way to fight global warming.”

Michael Noble, Executive Director of the nonprofit energy policy organization Fresh Energy, explained to me why it’s important for states to take action on a global problem:

“With the U.S. on the sidelines, global action on the climate warming problem is stalled. To get the U.S. government moving, innovation must percolate up from the states. State action on global warming is reaching a tipping point, and major changes seem increasingly inevitable. Minnesota is the latest example of states setting the bar higher.”

This global warming and efficiency legislation wraps up a banner year for Minnesotans. Earlier this spring, lawmakers also passed and Governor Pawlenty signed a Renewable Energy Standard requiring 25 percent of the state’s energy to come from renewables sources by 2020.

Clean Energy Minnesota
Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group
Wikipedia

• Plan a workshop to determining the most expeditious way to achieve energy efficiency savings from new and existing residential and commercial/public buildings.

• Hold a forum on transmission needs to accommodate the integration of large amounts of renewable generation in the Western power system.

• Work with federal agencies to identify and mitigate the risks associated with carbon sequestration and develop a pipeline transport system that can move CO2 to enhanced oil recovery and sequestration areas.

• Work with federal agencies to secure funding for near-zero emission coal pilot facilities (i.e. coal plants) and examine accelerating the deployment of near-zero emissions coal technology.

• Determine the most effective way to use federal funds to research and develop technologies that would reduce the cost to develop solar, wind, geothermal, bio-fuel and biomass projects.

I wouldn’t use the term “clean energy” in this resolution. Perhaps cleaner is a better term, as coal should certainly not be lumped in the same category as wind, solar, and geothermal power that emit no global warming emissions.

Notably, the Western Governors Association did come out against Congressman Nick Rahall’s bill that threatens to slow and complicate the progress of wind power.

Thanks to Jon over at Loon Commons for the heads-up on this announcement.

Hog House Blog
Western Governors’ Association

So I spoke with Genesys’ Executive Vice President of Global Marketing, Denise Persson, on May 30th.

Green Options: Why is Genesys Conferencing focusing so many resources on efficiency?

Denise Persson: It all started about five years ago. As a European company, we are more environmentally conscious. I’m Swedish, and in Sweden we recycle every single thing. We would never dream of throwing a piece of paper in the trash. So this direction for the company was very natural for a lot of us. We wanted to do all that we could to make it more efficient and more responsible in terms of climate change.

GO: Tell me more about this global certification program and how Genesys is involved.

DP: The Environmental Management Systems is a certification process that we are working towards for all of our European, North American, and Asian-Pacific offices. We are focusing on energy savings and waste reduction, like computers that turn off automatically, recycling programs, and efficient lighting. We even make sure our cleaning company recycles.

GO: Does Genesys participate in any green power programs?

DP: No we do not – we don’t own our building. However we make sure that we are as efficient as possible in other areas.

GO: Let’s face it, energy efficiency isn’t sexy – how did you sell this initiative to your shareholders or management?

DP: It’s really amazing; we didn’t have to “sell” anything. We are seeing more and more RFPs [requests for proposals] from customers that ask about environmental management plans. In fact, our customers are hearing questions about efficiency from their customers. So we want to implement even more telecommuting options so our customers can reduce their carbon footprints. It’s a very bottom-up initiative and a reason we went for the Environmental Management Systems certification.

GO: What other energy-related measures is Genesys working on?

DP: So far we’ve developed a cost calculator on our website that includes the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions customers save by using our web conferencing services instead of flying to meeting locations. Our customers love that tool.

We’re also doing a lot of surveys of customers' needs. Our next major step is certification by the end of this year, and we also want to educate more of our customers. We want to help them figure out how to implement even more telecommuting practices that cut down on pollution, time, and cost.

I’m so excited about these initiatives. I’m very proud of my organization because we’re doing everything we can on this issue. It’s wonderful to be able to combine something that’s important to me with my job. It’s so important to work for a global company that takes this [climate change] problem seriously.

Genesys Conferencing
ISO 14000/14001 Environmental Management Guide
Office of the Federal Environmental Executive

That’s right; the average Californian emits fewer CO2 emissions than people in all other states except Idaho, Vermont, and Rhode Island. According an Associated Press analysis of 2003 data (the latest U.S. Department of Energy numbers available), Californians are responsible for about 24,000 pounds of CO2 per person per year. In comparison, Wyoming emits 276,000 pounds per capita annually.

True, California has less heavy industry that many other states, and mild weather means residents aren’t blasting the heat or air conditioning as often as others. But although Californians drive just as far, live in homes just as big, and have just as many gadgets, the analysis found that policies put in place in the last 30 years have made the Golden State more efficient than almost any other.

Since the oil embargo of the 1970s, lawmakers have barred utilities from buying power from highly polluting plants, required more renewable energy, and have enacted energy-efficiency standards for new homes and buildings. The state has considered banning traditional incandescent light bulbs and creating fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, although the latter idea has been tied up in the courts. Last year, California became the first to require a statewide cap on climate change emissions, cutting them 25 percent by 2020.

Claudia Chandler, assistant director of the California Energy Commission, told the AP that these energy efficiency measures have eliminated the need to build 20 large power plants. Other estimates have shown that the average California family spends about $800 a year less on energy than it would have without these efficiency improvements.

Associated Press, via the Daily Breeze
Washington Post

This announcement seemed to come out of thin air to me. But apparently these talks stem from the North American Energy Work Group (NAEWG) that was formed in 2001 to improve transparency and regulatory compatibility, promote the development of resources and infrastructure, increase cooperation on efficiency standards, and address challenges on the demand side. The NAEWG began as a place to generate ideas, but has since evolved into developing plans for concrete results and the exchange of information and technology.

Energy efficiency was the top priority because of volatile natural gas and oil prices. Efficiency is also the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to cut global warming emissions. The three nations will work together to expand the U.S.’s Energy Star program and share best practices and technologies in areas like fuel efficiency and biofuels, which have also been identified as high priorities. The plans specifically intend to benefit businesses, making it easier for those that manufacture appliances, lighting products and electrical equipment to do business across the continent.

More details of a cohesive energy efficiency plan are expected in June, with talks on other energy areas to follow.

Cross posted at Maria Energia

United Press International
U.S. INFO
The White House

They sure can. Although the old-fashioned incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, the test subjects in the Popular Mechanics study couldn’t see any significant difference. In fact, when it came to the overall quality of light, every single CFL scored higher than the incandescent: “In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren’t just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light.”

To track the results, PM used a Konica Minolta CL-200 chroma meter to measure color temperature and brightness, and a Watts Up? Pro ammeter to track power consumption. They performed a double-blind test with three Popular Mechanics staffers and a lighting expert from Parsons The New School for Design in Manhattan. They put the participants in a color-neutral room, turned on the light, and asked them to examine colorful objects, faces and reading material, then rate the bulb’s performance.

The N:Vision Soft White bulb got the highest score of an “A.” The study found it to be “one of the top bulbs for reading and illuminating faces, the best-in-test N:Vision was noticeably ‘slow to warm.’ Still, it was ‘nice, pleasing and good overall.” The N:Vision has an average cost of $5.97 each.

CORRECTION: I had previously noted that the Sylvania Double Life Soft White was the lowest rated CFL. This is incorrect: The bulb is not a CFL but the incandescent against which the other CFLS were measured. It received the lowest score of all bulbs.

The lowest rated CFLs were the GE Soft White (which produced “accurate” color but made details hard to distinguish) and the Westinghouse Soft White (which was an average scorer overall but hurt one person’s eyes while reading). Both bulbs earned a B+.

I regret the error.

See a comparison of all the CFLs tested here.

Popular Mechanics

When a customer buys a carbon offset, Carbonfund.org purchases and then retires the carbon, taking it out of circulation.

Eric Carlson is the Executive Director of Carbonfund.org, and co-founded the company with his wife, Lesley. Eric has more than 15 years of experience in energy efficiency and global warming policy and project work. He was worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program and has advised companies like Gillette, AT&T, and IBM on energy and money saving opportunities. Carbonfund.org’s motto is: “Reduce what you can, offset what you can not.”

I spoke with Eric by phone on March 23rd.

Green Options: There are a lot of companies and organizations out there selling carbon offsets, or Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). What makes Carbonfund.org different?

Eric Carlson: Our distinction is that we’re a nonprofit and that we let our customers decide for which projects their money is used. We also retire the carbon credits that we buy for our customers. Some companies buy them and then trade them, which doesn’t reduce the overall amount of carbon dioxide.

GO: What sorts of choices do your customers have?

EC: We offer three types of projects from which customers can buy RECs: renewable energy, energy efficiency, and reforestation.

GO: By the way, how do you “retire” carbon?

EC: We often just ask that our account with a particular project be closed, so that credits we’ve bought can never be used again.

GO: There’s a lot of discussion around the term “additionality” and carbon offset projects. Can you explain what that is?

EC: If a project would not have happened without someone buying the RECs to support it, then it is considered additional and a meaningful carbon reduction.

GO: How important is additionality to Carbonfund.org?

EC: We absolutely make sure that projects are additional. At the same time, I’m afraid that the controversies around additionality are slowing people down from just doing the right thing and reducing their carbon impact.

When you buy a REC, you are buying the environmental attributes of that electricity. There are so many variables that go into renewable energy projects, like leasing costs, interest rates, etc. RECs are a part of that, and by purchasing credits, you’re telling the market to buy and set up more renewable energy, and that’s additional.

Carbonfund.org cares a lot about additionality, we work on it every day, but we can’t let it get in the way of the prize.

GO: Some carbon offset companies don’t consider reforestation additional, or even a valid carbon offset.

EC: A tree is 100 percent additional. We buy that tree, so it would not have been planted without someone buying it. The Kyoto Procotol allows for reforestation as well, as does the Chicago Climate Exchange and tens of thousands of scientists around the world have endorsed reforestation as a meaningful way to cut CO2 pollution.

GO: Can you explain that a bit more?

EC: Think of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and reforestation all working together, playing distinct roles. Energy efficiency first brings down the demand for energy, then renewable energy ensures that the energy we need is clean and nonpolluting. Finally, reforestation sucks the carbon dioxide that’s already in the air back down and into its roots. It all has to work together.

GO: That’s the best argument for reforestation that I’ve heard yet.

EC: I just perfected that argument, actually.

GO: With so many renewable energy projects going up, how do you make sure yours are additional?

EC: Renewable energy is only 2 percent of our total energy – or, 98 percent of all new electricity generated since 1997 has been nonrenewable. So we can assume that 98 percent of the RECs out there are additional also, because if renewables could have happened without the RECs, we would have more than 2 percent renewables. So most renewable energy can be considered additional.

GO: How many customers does Carbonfund.org have?

EC: Over 22,000 people, plus over 160 companies and nonprofits.

GO: Have you ever been approached by a traditionally unlikely company wanting to buy carbon credits?

EC: Absolutely. We’ve worked with a large trucking company and even a private jet company, for example. These are not your typical “green” companies. They emit a lot of carbon dioxide and so this is a big financial commitment for them. These particular companies also don’t have big advertising budgets to talk about how green they are, so they weren’t just doing it for good PR.

GO: What are the questions people should be ask when looking to offset their carbon emissions?

EC: First, they should make sure that the projects are certified, verified or audited by a third party. At Carbonfund.org, we support Green-e and Environmental Resources Trust (ERT) certified renewable energy projects, our energy efficiency offsets are certified by the Chicago Climate Exchange and ERT. Our reforestation projects and methodologies are audited by ERT (in lieu of a certification standard) and our entire portfolio is audited by ERT to ensure we are offsetting what our supporters are asking us to. Our 2004 audit is up and our combined 2005/06 will be up in the next week.

After making sure the projects are certified, verified or audited, determine the cost per ton of CO2. The Chicago Climate Exchange’s website shows what companies, nonprofits, cities, and the State of New Mexico pay.

After pricing, decide on the project type from which you want to buy the offset, like renewable energy, efficiency, or reforestation.

GO: Speaking of pricing, there’s a lot of talk about why the price of carbon varies so much. Why do different companies charge so differently?

EC: Carbon doesn’t cost a lot and it doesn’t need to be painful. The cost varies according to the type of project. If you want to support solar energy in Seattle, then it’s going to cost you more than a wind farm in Kansas.

At Carbonfund.org, you know exactly what our markup is. Right now, carbon is being sold for $3.50 on the Chicago Climate Exchange. We sell the carbon credits for $5.50, while other companies charge up to $10 or $12 a ton. You’re getting the exact same product but are paying more for it.

GO: So why are some folks paying more for the same carbon credits?

EC: There’s a lack of education out there, and the media is often not clear about how this all works. But I think people are beginning to pay attention and understand it better.

In the end, the real cost of cutting CO2 is less than zero because it’s saving money. For example, you buy an efficient, compact fluorescent light bulb for $5 but you save $40 over its lifetime. So the bulb costs nothing. It is profitable to cut CO2 and we’re going to see more and more individuals and companies taking advantage of that.

Authored by Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) and co-authored by more than 100 House members (so far all Democrats), the PROGRESS Act is designed to complement the House Democrats’ Rural Working Group’s Biofuels Plan. Representative Hoyer explained:

“Fostering a safer, cleaner, and more prosperous America requires that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is past due time to achieve real progress for America. I hope to work with my colleagues in the new Congress as well as with President Bush to pass this critical legislation and take action once and for all to achieve energy independence that strengthens our national security, boosts our economy, creates more jobs, and protects our environment for future generations.”

The PROGRESS Act includes five major proposals:

• Establish a National Energy Security Commission that would bring together government, industry and academic leaders to develop national goals and recommendations that Congress would have to act upon under expedited rules.
• Establish a National Biofuels Infrastructure Development Program that would include development of retail pumps, tanks, etc for biofuels.
• Promote Transit Use & Develop a Rail Infrastructure Program that would create a stimulus package to promote public transit and upgrades to the freight rail system to get an affordable and reliable supply of biofuels to market.
• Ensure Federal Government Leadership in the Use of the Alternatives to Oil by increasing the use of alternative fuels in federal and state fleets, developing biofuel plants in every region of the country, and speeding development of biofuels standards to promote use.
• Establish a New Manhattan Center for High Efficiency Vehicles to develop and promote technologies to double the average vehicle efficiency, diversify fuels, and continue to develop fuel cells and hydrogen.

All of the proposals appear to be a strong step forward, although it’s unfortunate that the last one is named “the New Manhattan Center.” Alluding to the development of the atomic bomb doesn’t really inspire me as much as, say, “the New Apollo Center” would. And it’s ironic that Toyota – a Japanese automaker – blazed the trail for efficient hybrid vehicles, and we’re now trying to surpass them with a program name connected with their nation's destruction!

Although the bill failed in last year's Congress, Rep. Hoyer is hopeful that it will get to the House floor this year with such strong support.

Congressman Steny Hoyer
Southern Maryland Online

This idea got a lot of discussion going in the blogosphere, as you can imagine. Readers debated everything from the size of the average monitor to whether reading white on black is really easier than black on white. Mark Ontkush, the author of the piece, did a follow up post on EcoIron here.

Although the math can be debated, this idea is a good example of how efficiency is the cheapest, easiest, and fastest way for us to cut our global warming emissions. It's not about shivering in dark; it's about doing what we're already doing faster, easier, better.

EcoIron
cmh blog