Montgomery County, Maryland, is moving toward a stronger building code, with requirements for new homes to meet the Energy Star home building parameters. This is the type of measure rapidly implementable across the country to help foster the move toward a more sensible building infrastructure such as envisioned by Architecture2030 (which has a plan to a deCarbonized building infrastructure by 2030).
The move to Energy Star construction, as the minimum standard, will mean a reduction of energy consumption by at least 15 percent over existing building code.
But they’re being opposed in their efforts by … [drumroll] … the Bush administration.
Being skeptical about Global Warming skeptics’ arguments has proven, to date, to be a healthy and sensible way to deal with their truthiness claims and arguments. The Heartland Institute’s distribution of a list of scientist supposedly doubting Global Warming yet again verifies the value of being skeptical about Global Warming skeptics.
The Heartland “article purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.”
“DeSmogBlog … emailed 122 of the scientists … calling their attention to the list.”
“in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery’s conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.”
Two Washington Post articles in the past week provide an interesting little localized contrast of the challenges related to finding a path toward an Energy Smart future. (more…)
The Astroturf Organization Formerly Known As ABEC has come out with a doozy of a first ad.
In the battle to protect our future, the alphabet list of astroturf organizations working to undercut a habitable tomorrow is an ever-growing soup. Tracking the $35 million+ associated with “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices provided easily full-time employment for some dedicated people.
When you hear/see that term, think Clear Skies and other Bushisms … “Clean Coal” is a euphemism for Sort-of Less Dirty Coal, Somewhat Less Polluting Coal, Supposedly Less Deadly Coal.
For several years now, various agencies of the US government have been sponsoring a monthly evening lecture series on energy issues: The Energy Conversation. Held in Crystal City, Virginia, these lectures (conversations?) bring together an eclectic mix of people who generally share a passion about one issue: concerns about the US approach to energy and a desire to see a shift toward more sensible approach toward energy within the United States (and globally).
Sitting down for these “lectures” (at round tables, normally, to facilitate conversations rather than passive listening) is somewhat different than at many other professional events. Beside you, on one side, might be an officer from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, on the other side, an activist from an environmental organization. Others at your table might include an executive from a renewable energy technology firm and someone from the oil industry … The eclectic nature of attendess (of participants) promotes an interaction, an Energy Conversation if you will, that might not occur otherwise.
Around the world, albeit not aggressively enough, governments are taking actions small and large to change our paths when it comes to energy and resource use. For example, multiple governments have taken action to reduce or eliminate disposable plastic shopping bags. Ireland, for example, has come close to eliminating plastic bags. In Ireland, businesses and interest groups fought the policy but …
Today, Ireland’s retailers are great promoters of taxing the bags. “I spent many months arguing against this tax with the minister; I thought customers wouldn’t accept it,” said Senator Feargal Quinn, founder of the Superquinn chain. “But I have become a big, big enthusiast.”
There is a debate, subdued at times, between various approaches toward changing the planet to the better. In many ways, my viewpoint (on the optimist side) tends toward the ‘enviro-capitalist’, thinking that we can work to structure the economy to make the right choice, the easy (and preferred) choice. There is a challenge between using financial mechanisms as a tool to move toward a A Prosperous, Climate-Friendly Society and going overboard.
The line can be thin … or thick.
Spend a few minutes to watch GreenSumption and decide whether to laugh or cry.
And, then, ask the question of yourself and society:
Yesterday’s House Principles on GW Legislation focused on a wording, a framing issue with the opening letter. One that is serious but, as well, quite likely one that the three signatories might well agree with on ‘principle’. There are, however, there are elements of the House “prinicples” that violate core GW principles.
Principle #1: Scientifically Sound. That is core to me. Whatever Congress does should be in line with what the scientists say. As Representative Waxman says, “We must listen to the science .” Sadly, however, the letter to Nancy Pelosi seems to fly in the face of this imperative.
Representatives Markey, Waxman, and Inslee released Principles for Global Warming for Earth Day. This press release includes a letter that they jointly sent to Speaker Pelosi today. While there is much tremendous and substantive material within this release, one has to wonder about some of the messaging. To this reader, it seems off-target and to miss core messages in some arenas. This post will take an initial look at this package.
George W. Bush’s sad parody of energy policy as enunciated in his press conference yesterday and providing a sad parody of sensible energy concepts on the opinion pages of The Washington Post.
is 
Being skeptical about Global Warming skeptics’ arguments has proven, to date, to be a healthy and sensible way to deal with their truthiness claims and arguments. 
