Link to the Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=59438
Article Title: Paying for clean energy just got easier
Article Summary: The city of San Francisco has created a new program called GreenFinanceSF. It is a financing program that breaks the cost barrier for the water-savings, energy efficiency, and renewable energy projects. The city pays for the upgrade, and you pay off the loan over 20 years through property taxes.
Article Analysis: According to the Energy Information Administration every day, the average American uses about as much energy as is stored in seven gallons of gasoline. Together, homes and building consume more than a third of the energy used in the United States today. Any place where people live is considered a residential building. Commercial buildings include offices, stores, hospitals, restaurants, and schools. Residential and commercial buildings are grouped together because they use energy in the same ways—for heating and cooling, lighting, heating water, and operating appliances.
Almost half of San Francisco’s greenhouse gas emissions come from energy usage in local buildings. At the same time, excessive water usage in buildings strains California’s water resources. Currently, the largest constraint to San Francisco’s buildings becoming more efficient in their use of energy and water is the large up-front cost of these improvements. In response to this challenge, San Francisco has developed an accessible financing program that residential and commercial property owners can use to finance sustainable building improvements. This effort coincides with efforts across California and the United States to establish similar financing programs.
The high up-front cost of energy and water conservation improvements is a barrier that prevents San Francisco homes and buildings from becoming more efficient.
GreenFinanceSF breaks this barrier for private property owners by providing financing to install energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation measures. Participants repay the up-front financing of the projects over a period up to 20 years through an annual special tax on their property tax bills.
GreenFinanceSF is available for interested home and business owners to finance privately-owned energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation improvements. The repayment obligation is attached to the property, rather than the individual, and is paid back through property taxes over the life of the financing.
GreenFinanceSF is an example of a global problem being solved at a local level. According to Wheeler, 2004, long-term planners need to assess how near-term actions can lead to long-term goals. A long-term perspective also means being able to look at small, incremental changes, in the present and to see how they can interrelate and reinforce one another to build a more sustainable society in the future. GreenFinance SF is a great example of using a small, incremental change which could have a potentially huge payoff (if the program is successful) in the future for the City of San Francisco.
One of the reasons this program is successful and implementable in San Francisco, is because sustainability is a huge ticket item on the City’s agenda. They have made a commitment to decrease their energy consumption and the public generally supports this decision. This program may be hard to implement on a national level, because a lot of the voters and citizens are not necessarily on board with green energy policies. The economy and job creation has taken a forefront to many other policy issues.
If these policies were to be implemented at a national level, equity concerns could arise. Some areas (small towns) may not have the technology to implement this policy. For example, solar panels are a fairly new (mainstream) technology that not a lot of persons outside a large city have the knowledge to install. It would be hard to garner support from those persons living in these smaller communities.
I think it would have improved environmental quality if policy makers had tried to implement this issue at the national level because it would help the United States conserve energy and not be so dependent on non-renewable resources. Perhaps if this program is successful in San Francisco, the federal government could adopt such initiatives. In order to get people on board with these policies at a national level, the government will have to prove (by measurable results) that the cost is worth it and that the U.S. as a whole is becoming “greener”.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Side Effects of Chemicals
Here is an interesting article I just found in the AZ Republic. It shows an important example of new techonogies and chemicals which are produced to help people, but because the effects of the substance are unknown, sometimes the side effects cause more harm than good. It is releveant to reading Cohen and how difficult implementing environmental policies can be.
Feds probe chemical used in
home products
by Lyndsey Layton - Apr. 11, 2010 12:00 AM
Washington Post
WASHINGTON - The Food and Drug Administration said recent research raises "valid concerns" about the possible health effects of triclosan, an antibacterial chemical
found in a growing number of liquid soaps, hand sanitizers, dishwashing liquids,
shaving gels and even socks, workout clothes and toys.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency say they are taking a fresh look at
triclosan, which is so ubiquitous that it is found in the urine of 75 percent of the
population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The reassessment is the latest signal that the Obama administration is willing to re-
evaluate the possible health impacts of chemicals that have been in widespread use.
In a letter to a congressman that was obtained by the Washington Post, the FDA said that recent scientific studies raise questions about whether triclosan disrupts
the body's endocrine system and whether it helps to create bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. An advisory panel to the FDA said in 2005 that there was no evidence the antibacterial soaps work better than regular soap and water.
The FDA was responding to Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who has been pushing federal regulators to restrict the use of triclosan and other chemicals that have been
shown in tests to interfere with the delicate endocrine system, which regulates growth and development.
"The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is
literally in almost every type of product - most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys," Markey said. "It's in our drinking water, it's in our rivers and as a result, it's in our bodies. ... I don't think a lot of additional data has to be collected in order to make the simple decisions about children's toys and soaps that people use. It clearly is something that creates a danger."
Markey wants triclosan banned from products for children and products that
come into contact with food, such as cutting boards. Other countries, including European Union members, have banned or restricted the use of the chemical.
Brian Sansoni of the Soap and Detergent Association, which represents the $30 billion U.S. cleaning-products industry, said concerns about triclosan are unfounded.
"These products and ingredients have been reviewed, regulated and researched for
decades," he said. "We believe the science strongly supports the safety and efficacy of these products. It's more important than ever that consumers continue to have
access to these products. It's a time of increased threats from disease and germs."
Triclosan was developed as a surgical scrub for medical professionals. It is also used in pesticides. In recent years, it has been added to a host of consumer products to kill bacteria and fungus and prevent odors. It can be found in such products as kitchen cutting boards and shoes, often packaged with labels that tout "anti-bacterial" properties.
Most hand sanitizers, such as Purell, use alcohol and do not contain triclosan.
Sarah Janssen, staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Fund, which joined with several other environmental groups last year to petition the FDA to restrict the use of triclosan, said the soap industry was taking advantage of consumer fears. "Especially with the H1N1 outbreak, people get really scared and think they need to take extra precautions without thinking that soap and water works just as well," Janssen said.
Because it is found in so many types of products, triclosan is regulated by three
federal agencies: the FDA, the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But
the FDA, which oversees its use in personal-care products, medical devices and
products that come into contact with food, has been working for 38 years to establish rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed that task.
The FDA is committed to issuing the rules quickly and is working with the EPA to review the most recent data on triclosan, said Doug Throckmorton, acting director of the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. He said the FDA is also revisiting the 1997 approval it gave for triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste because at the time, scientists had not raised concerns that triclosan could disrupt the endocrine system.
"For triclosan, the science is changing," Throckmorton said. "Based on what we know,
we don't have evidence to suggest this chemical is a threat to human health. However, we have to understand better the health effects, and we have to work with
other agencies to collect that information and then decide whether or not we need to
change how it's regulated."
Feds probe chemical used in
home products
by Lyndsey Layton - Apr. 11, 2010 12:00 AM
Washington Post
WASHINGTON - The Food and Drug Administration said recent research raises "valid concerns" about the possible health effects of triclosan, an antibacterial chemical
found in a growing number of liquid soaps, hand sanitizers, dishwashing liquids,
shaving gels and even socks, workout clothes and toys.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency say they are taking a fresh look at
triclosan, which is so ubiquitous that it is found in the urine of 75 percent of the
population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The reassessment is the latest signal that the Obama administration is willing to re-
evaluate the possible health impacts of chemicals that have been in widespread use.
In a letter to a congressman that was obtained by the Washington Post, the FDA said that recent scientific studies raise questions about whether triclosan disrupts
the body's endocrine system and whether it helps to create bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. An advisory panel to the FDA said in 2005 that there was no evidence the antibacterial soaps work better than regular soap and water.
The FDA was responding to Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who has been pushing federal regulators to restrict the use of triclosan and other chemicals that have been
shown in tests to interfere with the delicate endocrine system, which regulates growth and development.
"The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is
literally in almost every type of product - most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys," Markey said. "It's in our drinking water, it's in our rivers and as a result, it's in our bodies. ... I don't think a lot of additional data has to be collected in order to make the simple decisions about children's toys and soaps that people use. It clearly is something that creates a danger."
Markey wants triclosan banned from products for children and products that
come into contact with food, such as cutting boards. Other countries, including European Union members, have banned or restricted the use of the chemical.
Brian Sansoni of the Soap and Detergent Association, which represents the $30 billion U.S. cleaning-products industry, said concerns about triclosan are unfounded.
"These products and ingredients have been reviewed, regulated and researched for
decades," he said. "We believe the science strongly supports the safety and efficacy of these products. It's more important than ever that consumers continue to have
access to these products. It's a time of increased threats from disease and germs."
Triclosan was developed as a surgical scrub for medical professionals. It is also used in pesticides. In recent years, it has been added to a host of consumer products to kill bacteria and fungus and prevent odors. It can be found in such products as kitchen cutting boards and shoes, often packaged with labels that tout "anti-bacterial" properties.
Most hand sanitizers, such as Purell, use alcohol and do not contain triclosan.
Sarah Janssen, staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Fund, which joined with several other environmental groups last year to petition the FDA to restrict the use of triclosan, said the soap industry was taking advantage of consumer fears. "Especially with the H1N1 outbreak, people get really scared and think they need to take extra precautions without thinking that soap and water works just as well," Janssen said.
Because it is found in so many types of products, triclosan is regulated by three
federal agencies: the FDA, the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But
the FDA, which oversees its use in personal-care products, medical devices and
products that come into contact with food, has been working for 38 years to establish rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed that task.
The FDA is committed to issuing the rules quickly and is working with the EPA to review the most recent data on triclosan, said Doug Throckmorton, acting director of the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. He said the FDA is also revisiting the 1997 approval it gave for triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste because at the time, scientists had not raised concerns that triclosan could disrupt the endocrine system.
"For triclosan, the science is changing," Throckmorton said. "Based on what we know,
we don't have evidence to suggest this chemical is a threat to human health. However, we have to understand better the health effects, and we have to work with
other agencies to collect that information and then decide whether or not we need to
change how it's regulated."
HR 2300 Environmental Framework
Bill HR 2300 is based on behaviors fundamental to our current lifestyle. Energy consumption and costs are important to Americans because of the lifestyle we have grown accustomed to. The new “green” movement has caused energy policies to slide to the forefront of the environmental agenda. Since, energy is an essential component of our economic and personal well-being Americans must find new ways to decrease their dependence on fossil fuels.
If a new energy policy is to succeed Americans may need to change some of their values. We must find alternative ways of producing energy. New technologies will need to be developed in order to produce energy in mass quantities. One of the issues with the development of new energy technology will be the tradeoff between ecological well-being and human well-being. An example of this trade-off will become evident as land is developed into wind energy and the natural habitat of the environment is destroyed, which will have impacts on the food chain and the ecology of the area. In order to properly address the energy crisis Americans need to modify their values and put more resources into finding new ways to enjoy the benefits of economic development without destroying the earth.
HR 2300 represents a complex political issue. Rising energy costs, our concern for national security, and the current economic state have caused politicians to focus on finding new ways to provide energy to Americans. Due to the concern of the general population regarding this issue, politicians cannot afford to take a back-seat to solving the energy crisis. If politicians running for office have little to say about the current energy policy debate, they will not win. The energy consumption issue is closely related to many different issues and a vote to avoid the subject would be career suicide at all levels of government (local, state, and federal). The level of controversy surrounding this issue is high and the consensus is that changes need to occur. The conflict is over which changes to make as both political parties have taken strong sides in regards to energy policy formulation.
HR 2300 will be an interesting way to watch entrepreneurship and technology advancement occur. The policy design of this bill will encourage research and development of more efficient technologies in regards to energy production. It will facilitate data collection and analysis which will help streamline a more comprehensive energy policy package in the future. In addition, it will establish national best management practices as recommended guidelines for energy technology. The results of this new program will help promote technological advances to address pressing issues and provide dramatic improvements in energy efficiency on a national scale.
Bill HR 2300 will provide incentives to influence behavior to reduce damaging the environment by providing permanent tax credits to those who participate in the development of a less dependent America in regards to their use of non-renewable resources. Other incentives include monies allocated for research activities, pollution abatement equipment, the manufacture of natural gas-powered vehicles, nuclear power manufacturing and construction projects, and carbon dioxide capture from industrial sources. The policy design reflects strategic thinking, but is also in line with current stakeholder considerations. The regulated community understands what they are being asked to do and are generally supportive of making these changes. The support is due to America's focused determination in becoming a greener nation.
The management components relevant to HR 2300 show that the organizational capacity already exists to utilize the use of technology or other strategic plan elements needed to prevent the environmental problem. American constituents are on-board and have shown that energy production and crisis management is important in terms of prioritizing issues. The quality of leadership in the organization implementing this program is strong, because of the drive the general population is producing. Most public utility programs are developing newer and greener ways to produce energy and car manufacturers have been responsive in developing new models that consume less gas. Energy policy debates are one of the oldest environmental issues, so the support for change is large.
If a new energy policy is to succeed Americans may need to change some of their values. We must find alternative ways of producing energy. New technologies will need to be developed in order to produce energy in mass quantities. One of the issues with the development of new energy technology will be the tradeoff between ecological well-being and human well-being. An example of this trade-off will become evident as land is developed into wind energy and the natural habitat of the environment is destroyed, which will have impacts on the food chain and the ecology of the area. In order to properly address the energy crisis Americans need to modify their values and put more resources into finding new ways to enjoy the benefits of economic development without destroying the earth.
HR 2300 represents a complex political issue. Rising energy costs, our concern for national security, and the current economic state have caused politicians to focus on finding new ways to provide energy to Americans. Due to the concern of the general population regarding this issue, politicians cannot afford to take a back-seat to solving the energy crisis. If politicians running for office have little to say about the current energy policy debate, they will not win. The energy consumption issue is closely related to many different issues and a vote to avoid the subject would be career suicide at all levels of government (local, state, and federal). The level of controversy surrounding this issue is high and the consensus is that changes need to occur. The conflict is over which changes to make as both political parties have taken strong sides in regards to energy policy formulation.
HR 2300 will be an interesting way to watch entrepreneurship and technology advancement occur. The policy design of this bill will encourage research and development of more efficient technologies in regards to energy production. It will facilitate data collection and analysis which will help streamline a more comprehensive energy policy package in the future. In addition, it will establish national best management practices as recommended guidelines for energy technology. The results of this new program will help promote technological advances to address pressing issues and provide dramatic improvements in energy efficiency on a national scale.
Bill HR 2300 will provide incentives to influence behavior to reduce damaging the environment by providing permanent tax credits to those who participate in the development of a less dependent America in regards to their use of non-renewable resources. Other incentives include monies allocated for research activities, pollution abatement equipment, the manufacture of natural gas-powered vehicles, nuclear power manufacturing and construction projects, and carbon dioxide capture from industrial sources. The policy design reflects strategic thinking, but is also in line with current stakeholder considerations. The regulated community understands what they are being asked to do and are generally supportive of making these changes. The support is due to America's focused determination in becoming a greener nation.
The management components relevant to HR 2300 show that the organizational capacity already exists to utilize the use of technology or other strategic plan elements needed to prevent the environmental problem. American constituents are on-board and have shown that energy production and crisis management is important in terms of prioritizing issues. The quality of leadership in the organization implementing this program is strong, because of the drive the general population is producing. Most public utility programs are developing newer and greener ways to produce energy and car manufacturers have been responsive in developing new models that consume less gas. Energy policy debates are one of the oldest environmental issues, so the support for change is large.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)