<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
  xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  >

<channel>
  <title>Green Options &#187; regulations</title>
  <link>http://greenoptions.com/tag/regulations</link>
  <description>Posts tagged 'regulations'</description>
  <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:20:16 +0000</pubDate>
  <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
    <title>Bush versus Everyone on Endangered Species Act</title>
    <link>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/27/bush-versus-everyone-on-endangered-species-act/</link>
    <comments>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/27/bush-versus-everyone-on-endangered-species-act/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:20:16 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Joshua S Hill</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Liberal]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/27/bush-versus-everyone-on-endangered-species-act/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[</p>
<p><a href="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/08/375162515-db03a6a894.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px 5px 5px 0px" height="160" alt="375162515_db03a6a894" src="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/08/375162515-db03a6a894-thumb.jpg" width="240" align="left" border="0" /></a> In the wake of the <a href="http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/18/the-proposed-neutering-of-our-endangered-species-act/comment-page-1/" target="_blank">decision by the Bush administration</a> to try and neuter the Endangered Species Act, environmental groups across America have come out in opposition to the plans. The latest, the Ecological Society of America, has come out hitting hard. </p>
<p>&#34;The concept of independent scientific review has been in practice since the 18th century and is crucial to ensuring that ideas and proposed work are scientifically sound,&#34; said Alison Power, president of the Society and professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. &#34;This overhaul of the Endangered Species Act would place the fate of rare species in the hands of government stakeholders who are not qualified to assess the environmental impacts of their activities.&#34;</p>
<p><a href="http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/27/bush-versus-everyone-on-endangered-species-act/" class="more-link">Read more of this story &#187;</a></p>
]]></description>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/27/bush-versus-everyone-on-endangered-species-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Small Homes Banned</title>
    <link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/17/small-homes-banned/</link>
    <comments>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/17/small-homes-banned/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:53:46 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Philip Proefrock</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Rocky Mountains]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Site &amp; Development]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/17/small-homes-banned/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://greenbuildingelements.com/files/2008/06/schoolhouse.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-473" src="http://greenbuildingelements.com/files/2008/06/schoolhouse.jpg" alt="Schoolhouse Park Subdivision" width="270" height="202" /></a>Smaller homes are more energy efficient generally, and consume fewer resources for their construction.  In the United States, the average house size has been <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283">skyrocketing in the past few decades</a> from 983 square feet in 1950 to almost 2,350 square feet in 2004.</p>
<p>Smaller buildings are potentially <a href="http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/10/green-homes-made-affordable/">more affordable</a>, are better suited to <a href="http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/05/06/traditional-neighborhood-development-and-leed-go-hand-in-hand/"> livable neighborhoods</a>, and serve the needs of smaller families (while our houses have more than doubled in size since 1950, the size of the average family has actually decreased in that same period).  There are already <a href="http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/12/green-builders-inc-bringing-green-homes-to-the-masses/">developers who understand this</a>, but sometimes, the municipalities make it impossible to build smaller homes.</p>
<p>Marty Pieroni, a developer in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuna,_Idaho">Kuna, Idaho</a> was turned down on his request to build some houses smaller than the 1,400 square foot minimum set by the city.  With rising energy costs and the current housing credit crunch, there is an increasing demand for smaller, more efficient houses.  But the city government (whose tax base is determined by the value of the developed property within its bounds) does not want to allow smaller properties and has turned down the request.</p>
<p><a href="http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/17/small-homes-banned/" class="more-link">Read more of this story &#187;</a></p>
]]></description>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/17/small-homes-banned/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Tangled Up in Green: NAFTA&#8230;Only If We Absolutely Hafta</title>
    <link>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/13/tangled-up-in-green-naftaonly-if-we-absolutely-hafta/</link>
    <comments>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/13/tangled-up-in-green-naftaonly-if-we-absolutely-hafta/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:34:20 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Ranjit Arab</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[US Election]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/13/tangled-up-in-green-naftaonly-if-we-absolutely-hafta/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><a title="nafta-flag.jpg" href="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/03/nafta-flag.jpg"><img src="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/03/nafta-flag.thumbnail.jpg" alt="nafta-flag.jpg" align="left" /></a>I don&#8217;t know if you caught it, but the whole Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama flap over NAFTA exposed a dirty little secret: The North American Free Trade Agreement isn&#8217;t about American jobs or cheap Mexican labor—it&#8217;s about Canadian oil.</p>
<p>Think as far back as two weeks ago. I know you can do it. Remember, Britney&#8217;s dad started taking control of her life… everyone you know bugged the hell out of you by constantly saying: <em>&#8220;I drink your milkshake…&#8221;</em></p>
<p>Anyway, back then, Hillary and Obama were campaigning among blue-collar crowds in Ohio when news broke out that someone from the Obama camp called <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080312.NAFTA12/TPStory/National">the Canadian government </a>and reassured them that the tough talk on NAFTA was all just an act. Later, it was revealed that Hillary probably made a similar call.</p>
<p>All of which begged the question: Why would they care so much about Canada if this was about NAFTA? Hasn&#8217;t <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs">Uncle Lou </a>told us time and time again that NAFTA is all about Mexico: its cheap labor, and its non-existent regulations, which entice American factories to relocate south of the border?</p>
<p><a href="http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/13/tangled-up-in-green-naftaonly-if-we-absolutely-hafta/" class="more-link">Read more of this story &#187;</a></p>
]]></description>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/13/tangled-up-in-green-naftaonly-if-we-absolutely-hafta/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Prohibited Green Technologies</title>
    <link>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/</link>
    <comments>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:48:54 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Philip Proefrock</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p> <img src="/files/111/waterless_main.jpg" align="right" height="194" width="259" /><br />
Green technologies make good sense to most of us, but incomplete or uncoordinated implementation can lead to circumstances where green technologies are not able to provide the full benefits that they can.  In some instances, regulatory requirements can even lead to making green technologies counterproductive.</p>
<p><a href="http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/" class="more-link">Read more of this story &#187;</a></p>
]]></description>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://greenbuildingelements.com/2007/10/22/prohibited-green-technologies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- 117 queries in 0.327 seconds. -->