Hope For Renewable Energy Policy At State Level

With the on-going political gridlock in Washington, the focus of clean energy policy has shifted to state level. A total of 29 states and Washington DC now have renewable standards and another 8 have set renewable energy goals. The standards require electric utility companies to produce some of their power from renewable sources. These have put an obligation on companies to reach a set target, and when the goals are voluntary, some states often use incentives to ensure these are met.

Residents have already seen benefits from these standards. Not onlyare they now seen as an effective way to lower carbon emissions and improve public health, but they also are helping to create local clean energy economies. For example, in 2012 nearly 195,000 people worked in the solar and wind industries. In some states this impact is larger than others. For example, in Texas there are now more people who work in the solar industry than who are ranchers.

With this also comes greater investment in the economy. In fact over the past decade $100 billion has been invested as a result of renewable energy standards. Unsurprisingly, this means that they have attracted the support of business and industry.

Farmers have also benefitted from renewable energy development. This is largelybecause they receive royalties from having wind turbines on their farms. These are not only an important source of income but as many renewable energy projectspay taxes, they help to support the local community as well.

These benefits now mean that state renewable energy laws are increasingly hard to repeal. Over the past year there has been a big push from conservative groups such as ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and the Heartland Institute to weaken/repeal these laws. However, they have been unsuccessful; in the 13 states where they attempted to do so, not one bill was passed.

One example of where this occurred was in Kansas. Here a bill delaying renewable energy requirements failed in the House committee. This is mainly because local manufacturers of wind turbines joined farmers in the opposition of the bill. This support among different interest groups means that even Republican strongholds like Kansas are more supportive of renewable energy than before.

There is still some way to go before renewable energy gets the same kind of national support. This is partly because it is still quite small economically: it provided just 5% of the nation’s electricity in 2012. However, this is growing fast. State level standards are expected to add 76,750 megawatts of new renewable power capacity by 2025, which is enough to power 47 million homes.

This means that hopefully more people and interest groups will be in favour of these laws and there will be more opportunity to enact meaningful change.

Could the Price of Climate Change REALLY Be $60 Trillion?

Great article by Craig Shields. It really touches on the heart of the problem in the US; the conflict between the power of the corporations and the need for mass participation to overcome the biggest issue for our day…

Related articles

• Climate Change’s 60 Trillion Dollar Cost (guardianlv.com)
• Climate economist warns of impact of climate change (abc.net.au)

Can You Make A Green Skyscraper?

When the Bank of America Tower opened in 2010 it became the third tallest building in NYC at 1,200 feet. At the time the media praised it for being one of the world’s “most environmentally responsible high-rise office building[s].” On the surface the building seemed to be “green”. It had rainwater harvesting, daylight dimming controls and a Platinum LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification.

However, a recent article by the New Republic has called this into question by saying that it is actually New York’s “biggest energy hog”. This is based on evidence that was released last year. It shows that the Tower actually uses more energy per square foot and releases more greenhouse gases than any similar sized office building in Manhattan.

This emphasises two main issues about “green” office buildings.

Firstly, it has proven that eco-skyscrapers don’t have to be new. The Bank of America Tower actually uses twice as much energy as the Empire State Building after its new redesign. This $100 million eco-upgrade has included fitting double hung operable windows, rain harvesting and an energy efficient heating system. As a result they should save $4.4 million in energy costs. They are also likely to become carbon neutral as they have agreed to purchase enough renewable energy to power the whole building. This means that as much effort needs to be made to improve existing building than building new ones. This is especially important as the average age of a New York skyscraper is 32 and, apart from the new World Trade Centre Towers, there are no large projects in the pipeline.

Secondly, it highlights the faults with the LEED certification system. Originally the system was seen as beneficial because it created a new market for sustainability that wasn’t there before. But now building developers have in some cases manipulated the system. They have done this by using small adjustments which make little impact, such as educational displays, to move up through the LEED rankings.

There is also another problem as the certification is usually produced during the design process, rather than when the building is inhabited. This is one of the reasons why the Bank of America Tower produced far more energy than predicted due to the nature of the tenants operations. For instance, the large trading floors and the servers that support them take up nearly one third of the building.

There is also another problem as the certification is usually assessed during the design process, rather than when the building is inhabited. This is one of the reasons why the Bank of America Tower produced far more energy than predicted due to the nature of the tenants businesses. For instance, the large trading floors and the servers that support them take up nearly one third of the building’s floor space. As a result, if this isn’t changed it will be increasingly hard for LEED certifications to make a meaningful impact.

Consequently, these problems highlight how whilst there is an increasing desire for buildings to be sustainable and resilient, ultimately there needs to be the right level of certification in place for this to be achievable. This can only come from bridging the gap between the design and actual usage of these skyscrapers, and by pushing the need for all skyscrapers to become sustainable rather than just the new developments. Only then will we truly see a green skyline in the Big Apple. 

Related articles

• Bank of America’s Toxic Tower (newrepublic.com)
• When Sustainability is not Sustainable (coyoteblog.com)
• The Greenest Skyscraper in NYC Is Actually a Total Energy Hog (gizmodo.com)

The Problem of Landfill

Freshkills in Staten Island, New York, was once one of the largest landfill sites in the world before it was closed in 2001.  Landfills are not only unsightly but they are also bad for the environment. For example, landfill releases toxic substances, which leach into the soil and ground water, and they release high greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane. Consequently, finding a solution is important to New York and the USA as a whole.

Solutions to this problem in New York are often varied. For instance, the non-profit Terreform has formulated a plan, through its Rapid Re(f)use project, where the future New York is made from its own landfill, from places like Freshkills. This would be done by automated robots who would sort through the material and find and build those suitable for construction.

On one hand, this may seem to be too far-fetched to actually occur in reality. Technically there are limitations due to the limits of the technology required to compact and strengthen the materials during the construction process. Moreover, the idea of building robots on such a large scale seems slightly too futuristic for the immediate problems being faced today.

However, there have already been other projects like this, albeit on a smaller scale, which have succeeded in this goal. For instance, in 2011 a UK recycling company was the first in Europe to achieve 100% materials reuse in a landfill recovery scheme. As most of the landfill was actually turned into building material for their new plant, it suggests that a future of mass material recycling actually may not be too far off.

In addition, there are projects who tackle the problem the other way round by diverting waste from landfill sites. For example, Build It Green! NYC diverted 1,200 tons of reusable building materials from landfill by selling salvaged building materials. Moreover, the localised nature of the project within New York means that it has a special impact in trying to make life more affordable and greener for the 190,000 they have helped since 1994.

Currently Freshkills is being reclaimed and the government is turning it into a park three times the size of Central Park. This suggests that a culture of environmental sustainability is beginning to occur. However, perhaps more importantly it also highlights the importance of local projects and participation in achieving environmental goals and developing solutions to complex problems, both to combat landfill and also other problems. Therefore, be it on a large or more localised scale the key to the success to many green solutions is through participation and debate.

Related articles

• Landfill Sites Find Reuse as Locations for Solar-Power Plants (solarquestpower.wordpress.com)
• Household waste is diverted from landfill (nanaimodailynews.com)
• Repeal of landfill restrictions gets first Senate nod (wral.com)
• Amazing ERO Concrete-Recycling Robot Can Erase Entire Buildings (inhabitat.com)