0

Climate Bill Through the Eyes of Utilities

I came across a great article on the energy blog Master Resource (of which I have become a regular reader) by Robert Peltier that focuses on some of the intricacies that may result from an eventual passage of H.R. 2454. Peltier notes on how remarks of opposition from the energy industry have been few and far between so far in the discussion of Waxman-Markey and that perhaps, for some, their end of the deal is not quite that bad. One could think the large energy providers will need to shoulder a great deal of burden towards reducing our carbon footprint, but the key of how newly distributed carbon allowances actually get doled out brings a great deal to bear on how how utilities will be affected. The give and take of Capitol Hill negotiating may have left some hands far from empty. Three of Peltier’s seven points include:

  • Given that existing plants will be given new allowances for free, new plants face a considerable barrier to entry in the marketplace having to purchase new allowances in order to gain a permit to build. Existing owners and operators could cement their place on the high ground for years to come.
  • Nuclear providers could end up with amazing benefit given that allowances are doled out in response to the percentage of national generation. Since nuclear provides nearly 20% of our nation’s power they could wind up with 20% of the carbon allowances that are unneeded and could be resold. As Peltier puts it, “For utilities with a lot of nuclear generation, these allowances are a gift.”
  • Original distributions of allowances to older coal plants could encourage them to remain open given that the allowances could be worth more than the plants themselves. As long as a utility provider can keep the plant open (and continue to be spewing carbon) long enough for allowances to be doled out, they will be handed a nice, tax-payer sponsored retirement plan.

I encourage the reading of the entire article.

Even staunch environmentalists like Joe Romm consider this a flawed bill and it is wrought with concessions and exceptions that help make its passage plausible, but in the end it may be worth it. Though large nuclear owners do not need any extra money, rewarding their low-carbon model is not exactly counter-productive (besides the fact that they produce some of the most hazardous material known to mankind.) If entry into the energy market for high carbon producers is more expensive, that seems fine as well. We should be discouraging carbon-intensive models for power. Giving allowances to coal plants on the verge of decommissioning is a more difficult one to swallow given that coal is already responsible for pollution in the country that has either been suffered or needs to be repaired. The notion of buying out the problem leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, but how much can we expect from American legislators.

Peltier does a great job in giving an overview of the issue. Being an advocate for sustainability reform is one thing, but being an educated advocate raises the likelihood of making notable progress. Though some of the contributors and frequent readers of Master Resource may not share my position of the severity of a more sustainable economy, their knowledge of the energy markets is thorough and often provide much-needed points to ground the aspirations of new technologies and bold, but sometimes half-baked, claims.

Political 
0

Corporate Green Efforts Yield Mixed Results

Recycled Paper

In an international landscape, many claim that sustainable measures in the U.S. lose their steam if the industrial economies of China and India are not on board. Similarly, within the U.S., efforts of individual citizens need to be paired with corporations doing their part to change the course of business to greener ends. A recent study suggests that some large corporations are beginning to alter their daily operations to align themselves with greener options of stocking their paper products. According to the Green Grades report of twelve companies, conducted jointly by the Dogwood Alliance and Forest Ethics, corporate powerhouses like Fed-Ex and Office Depot are on the path to a more sustainable paper trail while others still have a long way to go.

The Green Grades study looked at six areas of sustainable paper usage including FSC certified products, avoiding paper from endangered forests and recycling policies. Fed-Ex stood at the head of the class, earning an “A-“ from the study for excelling in responsible sourcing of materials and using FSC certified products. They are not a bad company to be leading the pack as not only one of the largest shipping companies by the owners and operators of one of the largest copy-center chains as well. Followed by Staples, Office Depot and OfficeMax, some of the bellwethers seem to be catching on.

On the other hand, not every company can join Bank of America  and its One Bryant Park as the epitome of environmental reform. Some companies have yet to even scratch the surface. I was surprised by some of the laggards. Amazon.com and Costco received failing grades, followed closely by the “D+” rankings of Target and Wal-Mart, all apparently suffering from sourcing their paper products from endangered forests and questionable suppliers.

There is a lot to be said for targeting paper products as a component of our waste stream. According to the EPA, in 2007 paper and paperboard comprise a third of our waste— 83 million tons. The negative effects of the paper industry are also relatively immediate and encompassing. Illegal logging in both Asia and South America lead the destruction of rain forests and risk removing entire ecosystems of life around the planet, not to mention the tremendous carbon sinks that old growth trees provide.

But the largest waste source is also one of the easiest to fix. Sustainable forestry is growing in popularity as organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council gain exposure and notoriety. As digital media continues to advance, numerous extraneous paper habits can be replaced with a bit of foresight and focus. For the material that has to still be printed, paper is also one of the easiest products to recycle.

I was not surprised at the deficiencies in recycling which comprised the lower marks of even the highest ranking companies. Years ago, a discussion I had with Tom Rhoads of the Onondaga Country Resource Recovery Agency in Syracuse, New York, he told me that when it came to recycling many residents were already on board, earning Syracuse one of the highest recycling rates in the state. But it was the businesses that were notoriously hard to convince. Here in Manhattan the field is much the same.

It is markedly easy for a slightly educated consumer to contribute to more sustainable paper purchasing. Whether it is essentials like paper plates, toilet paper and paper towels or supplies like printer paper, purchasing FSC certified or recycled content is a small added price to pay (perhaps an extra dollar) while the effects are far reaching. The more responsible materials we can purchase, the more that the rise in demand will shift jobs from older corners of the industry to their more responsible counterparts until a new standard is fully implemented and better practices are commonplace. Less consumption and waste all lead to fewer landfills, lower costs of removal, more efficient manufacturing and healthier ecosystems to reduce the carbon pressure on the environment.

Economic 
5

Sustainable by Proxy: New Avenue for Greening the Economy

Vote GraphicThey are hidden amongst the mail, often getting tossed aside for the Economist, Business Week or the new IKEA catalog. “Proxy Information Enclosed” often lays printed across the front as a faint reminder to the stock purchase that was made days to months ago. These often-ignored ballots of corporate policy could offer a new alternative to government intervention for spreading sustainability through the upper echelon of our corporate landscape.

For those like me, proxy statements often get a quick look at best. A glance almost always reveals that I have never heard of any of those running for board positions, nor know enough to vote for or against any of the resolutions. However, a new trend is forming that has investors of public companies using proxy resolutions to drive upper management towards sustainability planning. While this has been slowly happening over the course of the past few years, the change in the game is that it is starting to work.

A blog post by Marc Gunther points to a proxy vote for utility company IdaCorp, based in Boise, Idaho, where investors drew together a 51.2% majority in favor of the company adopting greenhouse gas emission targets—despite the resistance from the company’s management. The win could mark a new trend of American equity owners forcing sustainability up through individual companies.

Of the conservatives that I often pair words with, one of the greatest oppositions to the green lobby is not that they disagree with the need to address climate change, but that they dislike the method of using government intervention to “restrict choices” of citizens to only those considered to be more sustainable. Right-wingers would rather see a free market option that facilitates the opportunity to change lifestyle rather than mandating it. Gathering support for green-goal investing could create a new way to incite change within the framework of capitalism that our country has come to rely on so heavily.

Some could argue that individual investors would be muscled around by larger institutional investing groups, keeping them from achieving results—especially on larger companies that are responsible for more considerable portions of waste production, pollution and energy use. But IdaCorp’s example shows that individuals are joined by non-profits and new funds, adding strength to proxy movements.

Groups like Ceres help coordinate efforts to promote change within company policy. Ceres states its mission as “Integrating sustainability into capital markets for the health of the planet and its people” and operates as a network of environmental organizations, public interest groups and an investor network that collectively manage over $7 billion in assets. That is a number that can be a substantial presence in a larger range of companies. According to Ceres:

A record 68 climate-related shareholder resolutions were filed by investors this year, of which 31 were withdrawn after the companies agreed to positive climate-related commitments.

For conservatives, this should be a win-win. On one hand, it promotes Americans to reinvest their money back into our own businesses, helping to bolster an economy that is in dire need of it. It also acts on a case-by-case basis as the result of nothing more than investors exercising their rights as owners of a company—potentially downplaying the amount of effort needed from Capitol Hill. If the support for green efforts is as strong as polls like Zogby International’s recent inquiry is saying, then private investing dollars could help battle inefficiency and accountability from the private sector side.

Strength in the movement could not have happened at a better time. With many people believing that the worst of the recession is behind us, long term trends in the market are likely bullish, prompting more people to stay invested in companies that have a better chance of turning a profit. Conversely, if this kind of success had happened three years ago, the effort could have faced a devastating setback by numerous investors working to change companies only to see their assets cut in half.

Economic 
1

Road to Recovery Paved with Green

Given the current economic landscape, the American Clean Energy and Security Act is likely getting a different reception than it would have three years ago. With unemployment still at a twenty-year high, preserving economic stability and preventing job losses is one of the more popular methods of targeting the bill for flaws. While opponents to the bill have claimed that the resulting rising costs of the legislation could add financial burden to families and sacrifice American jobs, the truth is that sustainability is the best source of economic rejuvenation that the country has and according to recent polling, the number of naysayers are dwindling.

Job Poll Graph

According to a  poll released by Zogby International, when likely voters were asked how climate efforts will affect American jobs, 51% believe that new job creation will result while an addition 17% believe it will have no positive or negative affect. More impressively, those who believe that American jobs would be sacrificed were in the minority in all age and income groups, speaking to a sentiment brewing uniformly throughout the population. Numbers like these make me wonder if the range of benefits that sustainability can bring is becoming clearer to more people in the U.S.. Wishful thinking perhaps, but it is a good place to start.

My own goals for helping to spread that kind of knowledge were bolstered in 2007, when I sat in a conference hall with 8,000 others listening to Bill Clinton give the keynote speech at the Greenbuild Expo in Chicago, hosted by the USGBC. The former President spoke at length about the progress made by the Clinton Climate Initiative and their future goals, but in speaking about sustainability’s affect on the economy, Mr. Clinton had a quote that has stayed with me:

“For all the skeptics, I think this is the greatest opportunity our country has had to generate broad-based prosperity since we mobilized for World War II.”

It struck me because it was the first time I had heard a politician asserting the latent job value in sustainability and what it could produce for our country. The result could be a reversal of the exodus of industrial jobs that has plagued America for decades and its opportunities for implementation are widespread leaving few pockets of the economy without a chance for benefit. New job prospects can emerge from three lines of national intervention: restoration, innovation and conversion—all equally necessary and co-supportive.

Restortation – As a society, we we have only recently begun to fully realize how interconnected the workings of the planet truly are, and as a result, the full effect that our actions impose on our surroundings. Naturally, such a realization brings some grim findings. 11 million people live within a mile of over 1,300 Superfund Sites in the U.S., catagorized by the Environmental Protection Agency as some of the worst toxic hazards sites in the country. A proactive, rather than cursory, approach to remedying our own mistakes could sprout a formative industry of trained, specialized workers. Everyday brings new environmental violations released by the EPA, so having supply problems for work in this arena is likely a ways off. The rewards for such efforts are far reaching. Beyond a more healthy natural landscape, the reduction in pollution-damaged land would parallel a reduction in health problems rising from contamination, especially our drinking water–effectively curbing our medical spending while increasingly our livelihood.

Innovation – Our country still operates as a world-renowned center for technological excellence, though perhaps not as uncontested as we once were. Meeting the future’s needs for renewable energy, water purification, recycling, building technology, waste treatment and transportation will take nothing less than technological excellence. In the end, it will get done—the only question is whether we will do it, or pay someone else to do it. Amidst its seemingly endless string of needless opposition, the Cape Wind Project and its resulting turbine factory was slated to create between 600 and 1000 pre-operational jobs and 150 permanent jobs during operation for 420 megawatts of wind energy. We need closer to 200 gigawatts and just as much solar. Creating a new source of American jobs while weening ourselves off of oil and coal offers fewer violated ecosystems, cleaner air, cleaner water and  increased national security.

Global Warming GraphConversion – Numerous parts of our infrastructure are reaching the crest of their lifecycle curve, marking the transition from an asset to a liability for the economy. Power generation, roads and railways, power conveyance and water systems all comprise lingering costs that will eventually become outmoded. Creating a new life for these pieces of infrastructure can allow us to draw out new kinds of latent value from systems that we have already paid for. This is perhaps one of the largest sources of environmental resistance. What are we going to do with all the oil and coal jobs in the country? We will turn them into something else that will evolve into a new staple of the American economy. One 54-year-old plant on the Ohio River is being converted to burn grass and wood cubes to produce 312 megawatts of power, leaving it as one of the largest biomass plants in the country. The retooling of the plant will purportedly turn 105 local (coal) jobs, into green jobs.

Serious Materials became the most recent epitome of scanning the landscape for conversion opportunities before wasting time, money and energy building new facilities. The California-based company produces high efficiency building products like high performance windows and doors as well as insulating drywall. They represent the transition into the next generation of the building industry which new standards will be crafted around. Their search found a recently closed window factories in Chicago, Illinois and Vandergrift, Pennsylvania and purchased their facilities, hiring back workers that would have otherwise remained laid off. Retooled and retrofitted, the plants continue to function producing better products and sustaining employment.

To date, the climate bill is the fastest way to begin the transition to an economy supported by an Environmental Industry base. Environmental commentator Joe Romm recently said that although he gives the bill a “B-“ as an emissions bill, he gives it an “solid A” as a renewable energy bill. The Zogby poll claimed that 71% supported ACES Act passed by the House of Representatives. 22% believed that Congress is doing an adequate amount to address climate change, with 45% saying they are doing too little. Less than a third of respondants (28%) believe that Congress is doing too much.  We will see if growing public sentiment seeps its way into the Senate.

Economic 
3

Anti-Climate Lobby Loses Ammunition

us capitolThe conservative lobby struggling to derail the American Clean Energy and Security Act has recently been accumulating roadblocks to their progress. The bill, which now remains on the floor of the Senate, passed in the House by a slim margin and stands as the most aggressive piece of climate legislation in the country’s history. Opponents to the bill have argued that the goal of regulating carbon–either through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system–would place an undo stress on the economy, adding thousands of dollars to utility bills. Naysayers also claim that there is a large portion of dissenting public vote for the bill. As it seems now, those two lines of critique are waning.

A new report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has determined that the bill would indeed raise costs of electricity and gasoline in the country, but the change would be minimal. The estimated increase for the cost of power over the next 11 years was between 3 to 4 percent, far below the claims of middle class power bills being thrust into the stratosphere. Gas prices are estimates to rise 23 cents (only due to the bill, not fluctuations in oil prices) and given that we pay less for gas than most of the world, the addition is negligible.  The EIA becomes the third administration after the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office to affirm the low public cost of this bill which seeks to lower emissions 17% by 2020 and nearly 80% by 2050 from 2005 levels.

The other gut shot that sank into opponents of Waxman-Markey was the uncovering of forged letters written to congressmen to urge them not to vote for the bill in the House. With the guise of minority, public interest groups, the letters took on the form of copied letterheads and phantom signatures to stir opposition for the bill. Kate Galbraith notes that apparently the letters originated from D.C. lobby consulting firm Bonner and Associates who was in turn working for another firm called the Hawthorn Group. The kicker comes from the final client, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, and suddenly the whole thing makes all too much sense. Of course, blame is claimed by no one, but placed on the lone acts of a purported temporary employee at Bonner who has since been released from duty. Regardless of whose fault it actually is, at worst the event was blatantly dishonest and crippling to the credibility of the lobby. At best, it is an embarrassing scar on the face of the camp.

In this case, I think the damage actually goes beyond the factual events. If the contra-lobby to environmental legislation finds itself in need of lying and fabricating faulty evidence then it must mean that they are short on real reasons for why climate legislation is not a good idea (not that this is altogether surprising.) For those trying to find their way to an opinion about the Climate Bill, think about the danger of a position that needs to use more than the truth to win your vote, and is willing to do it.

Photo Credit: Flickr Truly_U

Political 
8

The Dawn of Liquid Solar Power

As our technological boundaries continue to be conquered and redrawn, there are some on the bleeding edge of innovation that seem to blur the line between technology and magic. What Cambridge, Massachusetts based Joule Biotechnologies is claiming to have accomplished seems nothing short of magical: putting organisms, sunlight and carbon dioxide into a box and making a viable petroleum substitute appear. No drilling, no burning off waste. According to the company, that has been operating in stealth mode for nearly two years time, they are ushering in the new standard of fuel as essentially, liquid solar power.

“There is no question that viable, renewable fuels are vitally important, both for economic and environmental reasons. And while many novel approaches have been explored, none has been able to clear the roadblocks caused by high production costs, environmental burden and lack of real scale,” said Bill Sims, president and CEO.

If correct, their plan can take two of the most abundant things on the planet—photons and carbon dioxide—and circumvent the need to be drilling more wells searching for oil. Their “black box” is dubbed a Solar Converter, which reportedly uses proprietary organisms to induce photosynthesis, creating a hydrocarbon liquid the company calls SolarFuel. Simms points out that this separates them from a biofuel process, like ethanol, which uses a plant base for its feed stock.

SolarFuel

The prospect of sun fed fuel could impressively leap-frog the ethanol industry, replacing it as the renewable fuel of choice given that its carbon footprint could vastly outperform ethanol’s much debated, corn-based and energy intensive process. Eventually, such a model could propose to achieve the impossible: bring the use and production of our country’s fuel to a level of stasis with the net input of carbon equaling the net output of its use.

Joule Biotech says they can create 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre at roughly $50 a barrel with current subsidies, certainly a competitive price point out of the box. Furthermore, the fuel is purportedly going to be compatible with existing engines for diesel and gasoline, wiping out the potential snag of retooling an industry. With a pilot plant scheduled to come online in 2010, their next milestone could be a ramp up for commercial scale production in 2012 with additional investing. Despite not knowing how cleanly the fuel burns in comparison to ethanol or conventional gasoline, the prospects of carbon improvement on the national scale are far-reaching.

So where is the downside? I had trouble finding one myself. Though I have to admit that the claims bring to mind another magical fix that spawned years ago called Thermal Conversion Process (TCP) technology developed by a company called Renewable Energy Solutions.

Their process claimed to make synthetic petroleum from super-heating agricultural and industrial waste such as tires, plastics and paper. The idea seemed attractive when they claimed their only by-products were fuel gas (butane, methane, propane mix), synthetic oil and water. The prospects seemed to offer a solution to not only our foreign oil dilemma, but a significant portion of our waste issue as well with (similarly) a virtually unlimited feedstock. Unfortunately, it seems no new plants other than the pilot plant in Carthage Missouri have been constructed and for some reason, they have not catalyzed a new standard in fuel production. Hopefully, we will be hearing much more from Joule Biotech in the near future.

Economic 
4

U.S. Renewable Power Reaches 11%

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) the U.S. is making strides on its goals to bolster its renewable power portfolio. In their recently released Electric Power Monthly, an overview of our country’s sources and usage, the EIA reports that renewable energy, including hyrdoelectric sources, have jumped to 11.1% of our total production. Of the individual sources, wind power posted the largest gain with a 34.8% increase. Hydroelectric power increased 18.4% The news is complimented nicely by a slide of 13.9% in coal power production, leaving it as producing 46.1% of our total power needs. The rise of cleaner energy sources has positive timing with the Waxman-Markey bill that recently passed through the House and is now being ravaged on the floor of the Senate.

Renewable Energy Production

However, the news does bear some caveats. The EIA said that total consumption by the nation declined 4.6%, undoubtedly linked to the recession and decreases in industrial and manufacturing draws. The same reason was used to explain the notable decreased in coal power with more factories producing less and thus using less energy. As a result, a recovery in the economy could add some strength back to coal’s share of the pie.

Nevertheless, the footnotes do not diminish the weight of the opportunity. Keep in mind that these figures come without money coming from stimulus funding or anything related to the Waxman-Markey bill, should it survive its journey through Congress. Moreover, it could be a blessing that more coal plants are running idle when jobs are tight and investments are low, leaving the possibility of having cleaner options to choose from when we have the reason to turn more switches back on. With all hope, we may be able to replace, or at least deter the new construction of, coal plants by buoying the power supply with new investment in green power. The more dollars that can be diverted to sustainable power creation is more jobs that the industry can tote creating as well as working to lower the prices of technology and its resulting kilowatt hours.

Infrastructural 
2

A New Life for Aging Infrastructure

Visions and promises for the “new standard” are becoming a daily attraction. Enough people have realized that for an advanced society many of our vital networks are often outmoded prompting plenty of innovators to work on replacement parts. Energy production, transportation, waste disposal, utility conveyance; all show signs of promising upgrades over the next half-century towards the endgame of efficiency. But for all the thought devoted to the new infrastructure systems, what should we be doing with the old ones?

Sustainable societal innovation is a two-sided coin. Defining a better standard should be paired with ways to allocate our existing landscape for new uses rather than simply calling it trash. Over the past century trillions of dollars have been used to construct the vast, national networks that we rely on implicitly. All of that is now latent value that should not be squandered. Like anything other byproduct of our economy these systems hold possibilities for new lives and uses along side their replacements.

Not long ago I sat in a conference room at the Green Buildings New York exposition listening to an engineer talk about improving efficiency through water reclamation and reuse. His name was Edward Clerico and he worked for Alliance Environmental as part of their team specializing on water efficiency—coincidentally, he is reportedly participating in efficiency work for One Bryant Park. From behind a wooden podium with a grainy microphone carrying his voice over worn carpet and faded ceiling tiles, he spoke with excitement about the growing trends of onsite water treatment and reuse. He pointed out that if more people take advantage of things like greywater systems and green roofs then our demand for water (and its disposal) may drop to the point that our infrastructure may no longer be completely necessary. Reservoirs, aqueducts and huge pipelines guiding water to major cities could wind up as over-built, archaic achievements of a different age. Could these things have another use in the face of drastic improvements of water efficiency? It occurred to me the design problem extended far beyond simply water.

With all hope, the future of distributing power will only hold a pale comparison to our current methods. Technologies like Smart Grid systems or completely decentralized systems can begin to shape how our new power grid could work. New steps in transporting power like high voltage superconducting lines could remove high tension wires and the scars that they cast across our landscapes. There must be countless uses for the metal of those giant towers while the land beneath them can return back to the forests, plains and wetlands that they disturbed upon construction.

coal plantPower production is another scenario where some of the oldest methods of generation are also the least sustainable—namely coal. Some of our oldest coal plants have already seen their 50th birthdays and are prime targets for retirement. Being one who completely supports ridding our country of coal-fired power, I am often asked what happens to the jobs and facilities at existing plants. Not a problem, we can still use them! Complete conversions of coal plants to accept new feedstocks, namely biomass, is already underway. Cleveland.com recently posted an article describing how FirstEnergy Corp released its plans to convert a 54-year-old plant on the Ohio River to burn grass and wood cubes to produce 312 megawatts of power, leaving it as one of the largest biomass plants in the country. The retooling of the plant purportedly saves 105 local jobs.

highline 1Perhaps my favorite candidate for infrastructural reuse is our road and railway systems. In response to the industrial boom, the first half of the twentieth century brought tens of thousands of miles of paved highways and metal track carving through cities across the country. The eventual decline of industrial production and shipping in the U.S. evaporated the necessity for many rail lines, so too providing an opportunity of reuse for these aging strips of land. The first section of The Highline opened only last week in Manhattan providing the first realization of a project that has been pursued by local residents for years. The elevated tracks snaking through the city’s west side that once carried freight trains up and down an industrialized Manhattan coastline now support a growing garden and a unique urban park. Having personally experienced the Highline since it’s opening, I can attest to its outstanding realization of an amazing urban project. Likewise, retired grade-level track beds are becoming perfect locations for bike and running trails, generating ties through existing communities. The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy is one of the movement’s strongest proponents.

Strides in mass transit could help bring about the same opportunities for our aging highways and viaducts. The Toronto Sun reported on the results of a conceptual design for the city’s Gardenier Expressway. Grown from the same seeds at the vision for the Highline, the “Green Ribbon”, designed by Les Klein of Quadrangle Architects, proposes to reclaim the elevated roadway for use as gardened parks and bicycle paths. The hypothetical model includes small wind and solar arrays to create power for the lighting systems of the gardenway. With an estimated price of $500-600 million (which is likely low), it is far from modest, but the figure becomes more plausible when one considers the estimated cost of $300 million just to tear it down.

The benefits to reuse are clear. Massive waste streams would be averted as well as the pollution and energy that is wasted on demolition. New visions mean more work, and work means jobs—which everyone loves. And new infrastructural archetypes can indirectly contribute to energy production, food growth and water management while still providing public amenities. All we need is a broader view of opportunity. Solely devoting focus to what we can create can raise the risk of forgetting what it is we already have.

Highline Photo Credit: David Berkowitz

Power Plant Photo Credit: Cleveland.com

Urban Planning 
11

Tax Greenfields, Subsidize Infill

suburban sprawlA number of government sponsored initiatives are targeting sustainable technologies that want to provide an easy fix to climate change (renewable energy, fuel cells, energy efficient home upgrades.) But when it comes to sustainable progress, if we are going to delve into the policy game then we should be including measures that actually change the way we are doing things, not merely advance the technology that allows us to do things the same. As a result, I would suggest taxing the development of greenfield sites and, conversely, offering incentives to redeveloping existing buildings or property near town and city centers.

Sprawl is a familiar term in design and planning used to describe our common pattern of expansion and construction over the past half century. As the impressive nature of high-rise steel faded in the 1950’s, Americans were less concerned with making gleaming spires of progress and turned instead to cheap tracks of untarnished land. We saw the rise of the residential development and the suburban office park—blemishes on our built environment that result from a top priority of low-cost, speedy construction. Under the proposed plan, developers of such plots would be taxed, effectively making their construction more expensive.

Perhaps the biggest challenge is the fact that fighting against greenfield development is fighting against decades of cultural norm. In a paper titled Greenfield Development Without Sprawl the Urban Land Institute’s Jim Heid writes:

“From the start, greenfield development has promised ordinary Americans a way to enjoy the best of city and country, and remarkably often this mix of utopia and pragmatism has delivered.”

Undoubtedly, building on the edges is building cheaper. The land often goes for a song. Labor is less expensive. Access to sites is easier and building codes are less stringent. But the cheaper choice for builders can be more expensive for municipalities (and we know where their budgets comes from.) Sprawling development is notoriously inefficient; each an oasis of occupancy connected by thin veins of pavement that make car travel a considerable portion of daily life. May it be plains, farmland or forests, virgin land is mindlessly swallowed for the sake of inexpensive elbow room. Greenfield development can mean funding for new power lines, new sewers and new roads for a relatively small group of new citizens. It expands the coverage areas for maintenance crews, emergency vehicles and mail delivery that can drastically offset the incremental rise in tax revenue. All of this is only clearer in our current economic crisis where municipalities are being pushed closer to Chapter 9 (municipal bankruptcy) as budgets cannot meet costs of daily routine. Suddenly the cheap route can get pretty expensive. Taxing this kind of sprawling development may help curb its growth in the country.

Most importantly of all, there is no need for greenfield building. We have loads of existing space in close proximity to transportation and infrastructure. Moreover, the timing could not be better for instigating a switch. The Wall Street Journal reported that the recession has prompted a jump in vacancy rates around the country even as rental rates are falling. The article reports that the average vacancy rate in the top 79 markets in the U.S. rose to 7.2%.

On the other side of the tax lie subsidies to shift new construction and home ownership to areas with an existing populace. New homes and offices can benefit from utilities and services that residents have already paid. In addition to possibly being cheaper than new construction, reusing existing structures drastically reduces waste from demolition and construction and negates the need for the production of new virgin materials. All of it points to lower carbon footprints and lighter lifecycle costs. Subsidizing infill development could help take the edge off of the costs needed to upgrade existing properties and make buyers think twice about their location. Remember, the goal is not for less development, merely shifting it for a smarter solution. Reinforcing our town and urban centers would support a critical mass of residents that breeds efficiency where fewer services could reach more instead of wasting more taxpayer dollars on diluted redundancy.

At a local level, some places have taken an initial step of intervention. The WSJ’s Jim Carlton highlights how the city of Arcata, California purchased a 175 acre redwood forest for $2.05 million in order to curtail development. These kinds of efforts affect where developers will put new buildings which will, in turn, affect how suburbanites live. Carlton goes on to say that some experts believe that 10% of the country’s existing forests will likely be developed by 2030. While only a first step, it does demonstrate how development patterns can be guided in the responsible direction.

As I have said before, I believe sustainability is a concept that encompasses more than a technological fix. It is an understanding of balance and stasis that has to be experienced as way to live rather than inventions that supplement wastefulness. If we are going to use the government as a tool to help make sustainable decisions (I think we are already there) then we should be doing something to address the roots of the problem. This kind of legislation would create no less development, no fewer jobs and, when combined with the municipal money it would save through efficient building and planning, may largely pay for itself.

Photo Credit: http://www.plannersweb.com/sprawl/place-nj.html

Political 
1

Green Buildings NY: Highlights

On Tuesday I trekked over to the Javits Center on the West Side to spend the day at the Green Buildings NY expo. Overall it was an interesting collection of professionals and products that focused on managing and fitting buildings for sustainability. I had the chance to talk to a number of people and sit in on some conference sessions. Here are some of the highlights that the expo had to offer:

Efficiency through Water Reuse

AllianceEnvironmental_LogoI find it fascinating how seasoned professionals of any industry can create a presentation to highlight all of its environmental short comings. Edward Clerico of Alliance Environmental LLC painted a bleak picture of our water infrastructure. In his efforts to promote on-site filtration and reuse, he began in saying that our system of water supply and disposal uses 8 quads (that’s quadrillion BTUs) of energy every year. At the same time he pointed to how far on-site filtration systems have become and how greywater could become increasingly common. Uses such as site irrigation, cooling tower make-up and laundry washing can help buildings like the Solaire and One Bryant Park cut their water usage and discharge in half.

Green Demolitions

Based out of New England, Green Demolitions offers free demolition and removal of kitchens and bathrooms so that they can be completely reclaimed and resold for use in new projects. The prospective client can enjoy a sizable tax deduction instead of a hefty contractor bill for the removal. Speaking with John Green, manager of their Bethel, NY store, I learned the company donates all of its projects to Recovery Unlimited—a non profit dedicated to helping with substance abuse. Consumers can regularly spend 50%-80% less for a new kitchens, bathrooms or appliances. Their cause has lead them to not only provide a charitable source of income, but divert tons of material from landfills as they promote reuse.

Greenpatch Pavement

Greenpatch is one of the players exploring the new realm of cold asphalt pavement. Hearing “green” and “asphalt” next to each other was surprising to me, but the product specializing in filling potholes and repairing roads has numerous sustainable benefits. Not only does the asphalt require no heat to be applied (which saves a generous amount of energy) but it can also be manufactured at lower temperatures (which saves even more.) Its mix contains 40% recycled asphalt and no petroleum solvents. Unlike other cold-patch products, Greenpatch contains zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) that normally can leech into the ground or off-gas into the air. Even their packaging is recyclable. Overall, it was an impressive product.

JM Insulation

int_head_logoJohns Manville is a producer of many building products, one of them being fiberglass insulation. Again, normally the term causes environmentalists or green building proponents to roll their eyes and turn back towards soy-based, blow-in alternatives. But these guys are making an attempt to give fiberglass a better name. Their insulation uses 25% recycled glass with 20% being post-consumer glass (more than any other manufacturer.) They actually claim that fiberglass insulation is the largest secondary market for recycled glass. Their new line has removed all formaldehyde, a common ingredient in bonding agents, from their insulation to help with indoor air quality.

Retro-Commissioning

Allan Skodowski gave an enlightening talk on the importance of retro-commissioning. Any building seeking LEED certification is familiar with commissioning, a process that tests the designed systems of a building to make sure they function as intended and with peak efficiency. But Skodowski, who helps commission buildings for Transwestern, says that existing buildings should also be commissioned to ensure their systems are not falling into lethargy and negligence. As technologies improve and systems wear down, most buildings can run at around 78% of average energy costs through commissioning—a number that can drop to 60% with dedicated, consistent study.

Architectural