- USGBC Now Allows Cradle to Cradle (C2C) Points under LEED Innovation in Design Category.
- Britain Assesses the Pros and Cons of Green Homes.
- Baltimore is One Step Closer to Becoming Next City to Require Developers to Incorporate Green Building Standards into Projects.
- New Exelon HQs Becomes Largest Office Space in the World to be LEED-CI Certified at the Platinum Level.
At some point over the past year, the American population surpassed 300 million, and if we continue as expected, we’re going to have another 92 million people over the next 34 years. That’s a lot of people and they’ll need places to live. Over that period of time, it’s real important that we get planning right. The problem is, however, planning decisions are made by thousands of different people with thousands of conflicting interests. The gist, though, is that sprawl isn’t green. Here are ten good reasons to back that up.
- Sprawl development contributes to a loss of support for public facilities and public amenities.
- Sprawl undermines effective maintenance of existing infrastructure.
- Sprawl increases societal costs for transportation.
- Sprawl consumes more resources than other development patterns.
- Sprawl separates urban poor people from jobs.
- Sprawl imposes a tax on time.
- Sprawl degrades water and air quality.
- Sprawl results in the permanent alteration and destruction of habitats.
- Sprawl creates difficulty in maintaining community.
- Sprawl offers the promise of choice while only delivering more of the same.
I’m a child of sprawl. I’ve seen the effects of it. I’ve personally experienced #3, #4, #6, #9, and #10. Every smart person in this country needs to realize the effect of various policy and regulatory decisions and find a way to dig out of the mess we’re in. If not, sprawl will continue to hamper us more and more in the future.
Is there a silver bullet to fixing the problem? That’s tough. There is a temporary solution for some people: live near your work, church, and family. It will make your life more abundant when the places you go are close. Just find a way to live near the places you frequently go.
This list was created by James M. McElfish, Jr., Director, Sustainable Use of Land Program, Environmental Law Institute.
Dual Flush Toilets, Nevada's Green Incentives, New York's Green Improvements, + William McDonough on Earth Day (WIR)
- If Your Toilet was Installed Before 1994, it probably Accounts for 40% of Household H2O…Dual Flush Toilets are Newest Way to Save Water.
- Patagonia’s LEED Gold Distribution Center Gets 50% Real Property Tax Abatement of Next 10 Years, Proves that Nevada is Only State to Offer Green Building Incentives.
- New York’s Home Performance with Energy Star Program has invested $100 million to Improve the Energy Efficiency, Comfort, Health, and Safety of More than 13,600 Homes.
- For Earth Day, William McDonough Asks us to Celebrate the Abundance of Solar Income and Commit to Cradle to Cradle Principles.
Well, it looks like a courageous Palo Alto lawyer has decided to escalate the conversation as to whether LEED ordinances, city ordinances that require developers to build green, are lawful or not. Here’s the background story. Currently, Palo Alto requires public projects of 10,000+ sf to be certified under the USGBC guidelines, but they’re considering a mixture of alternatives that would require private developers to build to USGBC standards. Generally speaking, there are two ways to get private developers to go green:
- Carrot Incentives – provide utility rebates, design allowances, floor area ratio increases, density increases, fast-track permits, etc.
- Stick Regulations – charge a "green fee" for developments that aren’t green, deny site plan or building permit approvals, or require LEED for approvals.
Palo Alto City Attorney Gary Baum warned that green building requirements (i.e., stick regulations) have no legal basis. Further, it’s in the city’s best interests to incentivize rather than restrict. Let’s get legal, though. What differentiates standard building codes with green building codes? There’s a legal basis for adherence to standard building codes, but there’s no basis for green building codes? Is it the police powers? Where’s the argument for "no legal basis?" I’m not saying I disagree, because personally, I think it’s more effective to go with option #1, carrot incentives. But let’s enunciate the argument for there being no legal basis to adopt a LEED ordinance.
There’s a philosophical component to the situation and I see three general options: wait on the free market, incentivize the market, or regulate the market. The free market would likely be against both the second and the third, because incentives also interfere with market economics. The incentivizer would say the free market never comes around and the regulator is a pain in the butt. The regulator would say the free market is weak and slow and the incentivizer trades money for cooperation, the wrong way to make sure something gets done. What do you think? Free market? Incentivize? Regulate? LEED Ordinances are illegal?
- Duke Energy Donates $80,000 to The Nature Conservancy for Shareholders Choosing Paperless Delivery of Annual Report
- S. California "Green Schools" Light Bulb Exchange Program Enables Students to Reduce their Families’ Home Energy Bills
- The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled 5-4 that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by Declining to Regulate New-Vehicle Emissions Standards to Control the Pollutants that Contribute to Global Warming.
I love blogging, I really do. Blogging enables me to connect with and learn from some really smart people. For example, last week I posted that I’d be in Washington, D.C., and I received a flood of suggestions and ideas for enjoying the greener side of the city. My friends at Edelman (Tristan + Kate) lined up a meeting with small-wind expert, Ron Stimmel, at the American Wind Energy Association’s Headquarters. It was awesome. I was able to sit down with Ron and talk about a pretty big development in the small-wind industry right now.
Recently, Senators Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) introduced legislation ("Rural Wind Energy Development Act" (S. 673)) that would allow purchasers of a small wind system to receive a credit on their taxes for a portion of the turbine’s total cost, or $1,500 per 1/2 kW of capacity. The five year credit would apply to all wind systems with capacities of under 100 kW used to power homes, farms or small businesses. The same day I was in town, a similar version of this legislation was also introduced in the House, H.R. 1772, by Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Tom Cole (R-Okla.). According to current estimates, small wind is suitable for about 15M homes and 1M businesses in America. If you want to get involved, Stimmel recommends calling your representative and asking them to co-sponsor the legislation. Get it moving.
According to Stimmel, "This would be the first federal incentive in 20 years to help individuals – homeowners, farmers, and small business owners – buy a small wind turbine." I asked him about some of the hurdles the industry is going through and he was positive about the direction small wind is going. Small wind needs reputable companies manufacturing the turbines and installers need to be well-trained to make sure the turbines get the best wind. Maybe in the near future, there could be some type of certification system for installing small wind, which could be a significant boost to the technology. At least for the moment, having these tax credits puts small wind within reach for many homeowners, farmers, and small business owners that could desperately use the technology.