• Home

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Gas from Coal? Even Dirtier!

The NRDC posted an excellent cartoon bit on the ridiculousness of the subsidies being paid to big coal companies for liquid coal to fuel technology. From the NRDC's website:

The coal industry is touting a plan to transform millions of tons of coal into diesel and other liquid fuels - an expensive, inefficient process that releases large quantities of carbon dioxide, the worst global warming pollutant, into the air. Instead of offering viable answers to the critical problem of global warming, this senseless industry "solution" would exacerbate the problem: Relying on coal-derived liquid as an alternative to oil-based fuels could nearly double global warming pollution for every gallon of transportation fuel that is produced and used.


"Coal can do anything! It's no longer just another sooty rock to burn..."


"Why, I even drink a delicious glass of Coala every morning for an extra boost of some good old fashioned coal fired energy."

"Burn it. Drink it. Dump it. We don't care what you do - just buy our coal!"

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

It's time to level massive penalties upon First Energy's Bruce Mansfield power plant


Beaver County residents who live in the area around First Energy's power plant in Shippingport, PA are coming forward with health problems that they believe are related to the black soot that has been raining down upon them for some time now. Last week KDKA news ran a story about a young girl who lost her hair after the power plant's "black rain" landed on her and the surrounding area. First Energy is typically only fined $25,000 for such infractions. Talk about injustice!

Despite spending millions of dollars on "scrubbers", the Bruce Mansfield plant in Shippingport is still among the dirtiest polluting power plants in the United States. Newsflash to the energy companies, their investors, and the politicians and regulators who continue to make excuses for harmful polluters like First Energy: COAL IS KILLING US! Burning coal has long been known to release toxic emissions such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), various oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and it is responsible for the water in our region having one of highest concentrations of mercury.



The results of coal fired power plant pollution on our health have been conclusive for a long time now, so where is the justice? The first place we need to start is a stricter regulations on power plant emissions in the Federal Clean Air Act. We need to start seeing stiffer penalties for violations of the act, but if First Energy's continuous violations only result in $25,000 fines, it is clear that the Clean Air Act needs an overhaul. The recent $5 billion settlement between the nation's biggest utility, AEP, and the EPA, 8 states, and 13 environmental groups, was monumental and it gives us some hope for sweeping changes to regulation written for the people rather than the energy industry. Let's hope this set's the stage for bigger fines and stronger regulations for power plant pollution.

It's hard to believe that we are still struggling with this issue, since the detrimental effects of coal pollution has been known for years now, but alas, thats what we get when we elect congressmen who prioritize the interests of the coal and electric utilities over the interests and health of their constituents. Please remember that we can change things by voting for and electing public servants who truly believe in their duty to perform public service. Good people who care about the environment and the need for renewable energy are running for offices statewide - let's make sure they win in 2008.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Green Day in Pittsburgh

Today we learned of more good green news for Pittsburgh. Earlier today Councilman Bill Peduto's green building incentive proposal passed with unanimous support from city council. This is a great start for Pittsburgh to regain it's status as the #1 city for Green Building. In addition to the passing of the city's first green building legislation, Peduto proposed new legislation that would require all new or newly renovated city facilities, and all development that uses tax-incremental-financing to achieve LEED Sliver certification, at a minimum.

This is huge news. Over the last two to three years a number of cities have leapfrogged Pittsburgh in the green building rankings because they have implemented the incentives and mandates that our local government has, until now, failed to provide. We have always had the leadership in the form of the councilman and the Green Building Alliance, and now with this new legislation, Pittsburgh will level the playing field. From the councilman's blog:

Green Day

Today is a historic day in the City of Pittsburgh. At 10:00 AM, I introduced legislation in City Council that requires all new construction and renovations of City owned property to receive at least LEED Silver certification. The legislation also requires any new construction or renovation project that receives Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to receive LEED Silver certification. At the same meeting, City Council took a final vote on legislation I sponsored that provides a 20% density and/or height bonus for developments in non-residential areas that receive LEED certification. Due to the fact that the City Planning Commission had given the legislation a negative recommendation, a supermajority was required, and it passed with all eight Council Members voting in favor.

Pittsburgh has been a historic leader in the environmental movement, and especially in the development of green buildings. Pittsburgh currently has the third most LEED certified buildings of any city in the United States. However, until today, local government has never taken action to support the growth of green building development. Today, City Council is putting itself at the forefront of this critical issue. Pittsburgh will be joining over a hundred other federal, state, and local governments in providing similar types of incentives.


Below is the full text of Councilman Peduto's proposal:


915.06 Sustainable Development for Publicly Financed Buildings

915.06.A Purpose
The City of Pittsburgh is committed to building and supporting sustainable developments, to yield cost savings to the city taxpayers through reduced operating costs, to provide healthy and productive work environments for all residents and employees, and to contribute to the city's goals of protecting, conserving, and enhancing the region's environmental resources. Additionally, the city shall help to set a community standard of sustainable building.

915.06.B Applicability
  1. The following development requirements apply to all new construction and renovations of City owned property in which the total project square footage includes 5,000 gross square feet of occupied space or the total project cost exceeds two million dollars.
  2. Any new construction or renovation project that receives Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

915.06.C Definitions
  • LEED Certified Building: shall mean a building certified, under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program of the United States Green Building Council, that meets LEED standards for either New Construction and Major Renovation Projects or Core and Shell Projects.
  • LEED Silver: shall mean a building certified, under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program of the United States Green Building Council, that meets LEED standards for either New Construction and Major Renovation Projects or Core and Shell Projects that receives a total of 33-38 points in the certification process.
915.06.D Sustainable Development Requirements
Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, all projects receiving Tax Increment Financing and all new construction and renovations of City owned property in which the total project square footage includes 5,000 gross square feet of occupied space or the total project cost exceeds two million dollars, must receive a LEED Silver rating level.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Book review: Supercapitalism by Robert Reich


I just finished reading Robert Reich's new book, Supercapitalism , and I highly recommend the book to anyone who wants to learn how our roles as consumers and investors have created a Democracy that is run by corporate interests and the lawyers and lobbyists that work on their behalf to shape our domestic and foreign policy.

Basically, Mr. Reich, a professor of public policy at Cal Berkley who was President Clinton's Secretary of Labor, says that we "are of two minds." On the one hand, as consumers and investors, we want the best deals. We want to purchase cheap goods we want the companies that we invest in to give us the highest returns by generating higher margins and profits quarter after quarter, year after year. This creates a conflict with the citizen in many of us. Our "wants" as consumers and investors lead to social consequences that do not support, such as jobs moving overseas, small businesses being closed down by the likes of Wal Mart, and millions of Americans who work 40+ hours a week going without health insurance.

The problem, is that our politics in Washington is run by Supercapitalism, which does not give you or me, as citizens, much of say in public policy, because we are drowned out by the money and power of corporate interests. Supercapitalism has rewarded the consumer and investor in us by creating a frenzied competition among companies to win and retain customers. This leads to better and cheaper products for consumers and higher returns for investors. Because of this intensified competition for customers and higher returns, corporations are also in competition for the influence over members of Congress, and they achieve this through their PACs and corporate lobbying offices in Washington, which spend millions of dollars on campaign donations, lunches, and consultants.

Mr. Reich goes on to provide some solutions to Supercapitalism, and believes that the key to returning power back to the people is aggressive and comprehensive campaign finance reform in addition to enforcing rules that permit only people the ability to participate in the democratic decision making process. The power must be taken away from the corporations - since corporations are not citizens.

Finally, it wouldn't be right if I didn't comment on how Supercapitalism has impacted our environment. If you have read any of op-ed pieces from scientists who claimed that Global Warming is a scam or a farce I have news for you: those "experts" were most likely paid consultants to the big energy companies.

From the book, and Exxon's own internal documents:

  • "In 1998, Exxon embarked on a campaign to give 'logistical and moral support' to any dissenter from scientific findings documenting global climate change, 'thereby raising questions about and undercutting the prevailing scientific wisdom,'"

  • In 2002 Stanford University signed a ten year deal with Exxon and other energy companies in return for $225 million for a "Global Climate and Energy Project." Following the agreement Exxon ran ads on the op-ed page of the New York Times announcing that the "best minds" at Stanford agreed with Exxon's position on climate change. One add even featured the signature of a well known Stanford professor.

  • In 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9 million to thirty-nine groups that would raise doubts about climate change.

Wow, I am shocked that Stanford "sold out" for $225 million. Haven't they made enough money off of Google and the numours alumni who have become millionaires and billionaires many times over? Shame on you Stanford. Maybe this means that the "S" in your logo should stand for "Satan"?

Then again, maybe this example is typical of how universities will operate under Supercapitalism? It is frightening to think how easily the integrity of some of our highest of higher education institutions may be "sold down the river" to the energy industry.

To read Mr. Reich's take on this subject, check out his blog entry at Why Democracy?

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Good green legislation in Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh city council unanimously approved councilman Bill Peduto's proposal for loosening building code restrictions for green certified buildings. Council Peduto has long been the green champion of the city of Pittsburgh government. The approval his green building proposal has been long over due, as Peduto proposed this legislation back in June of 2006.

From the post-gazette's June 26th 2006 article on Peduto's proposal:

Still, Pittsburgh isn't among the scores of cities with legislated incentives for environmentally friendly construction.

"It's almost embarrassing that we haven't had more leadership from local government," said Ms. Flora. Instead foundations, especially the Heinz Endowments, have led the charge.


Yes, it is about time. Just a few years back the city of Pittsburgh was ranked #1 for the number of LEED certified buildings. A number of cities have leapfrogged Pittsburgh as they have provided more incentives for green builders. I believe we are now 4th or 5th and wouldn't be surprised if we slipped even further in the ranks due to the lack of support from city government. I like this proposal because it uses a carrot besides tax abatements to spur development in the city.

From Peduto's Reform Pittsburgh Now website:

Green Building Incentive

An Ordinance sponsored by Peduto that will provide height and/or density incentives to promote green building in Pittsburgh. Although Pittsburgh is presently third in the nation in the number of green buildings, other cities, states and countries have begun to incentivize this policy. By providing over the counter variances of up to 20% for building height and/or density (the number of units), Pittsburgh could help to spur green development without using tax dollars. This Ordinance would not be permitted in residential or local neighborhood commercial districts where height is a great concern. It has been endorsed by the Green Building Alliance of Pittsburgh that was instrumental in the drafting of the legislation.


Note to Bill Peduto - I am available to work on drafting additional green legislation.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Green Building Tour this Saturday November 17th

Join me and other green activists on a tour of several green buildings here in Pittsburgh. The event is sponsored by the Sierra Club and will be followed by a reception at 4:30pm at the CCI Center (pictured) on the South Side. You must RSVP to attend the tour, the details are below.


Green Building Tour
Saturday, November 17

Learn about green building design at an area high school and convent, a residential development, and a non-profit center. Find out how you can use these principles in your own home, and how you can help stop global warming. Then, join us for a reception featuring speakers, refreshments, and an opportunity to take action!

Tour:
12:00-4:00pm
Meet at the CCI Center, 64 S. 14th St., South Side

Tour the Felician Sisters Convent and High School, the Riverside Mews housing development, and the CCI Center.

This event is free, but space is limited. Please RSVP by November 12.

Reception:
4:30-6:30
CCI Center, 64 S. 14th St., South Side

Speakers, music, and refreshments
Note: You may attend the reception and not the tour.

For more information or to RSVP, contact Randy at 412-802-6161 or randy.francisco@sierraclub.org

Friday, October 26, 2007

We put a man on the moon in 8 years. We can reach 35 mpg by 2020

This summer, members of the House and Senate each worked hard to pass energy bills. Now it’s time for Congress to finish the job and pass a comprehensive bill – one that will bring the nation’s fleet of cars and trucks to an average of 35 mpg and 15 percent of our electricity coming from renewable energy by 2020. This is a critical step in the fight to break America of its addiction to fossil fuels and a down payment in combating global warming.

This is our chance to make our country more energy independent, create good jobs, save consumers money, protect our natural resources, and reduce the growth of global warming pollution.

This legislation would be a monumental step toward stopping global warming. Unfortunately, there is a real chance it will not make it through to the final bill. Do not let Congress back down. Please go to http://www.energybill2007.org and join me in signing the petition to keep this bill alive.




Friday, October 19, 2007

Carnegie Mellon team stands out at the Solar Decathlon

The CMU team built it's solar powered modular house nicknamed TriPOD down at the Solar Decathlon in Washington DC. According to several web sites, the CMU team has been a standout in its design and also utilization of technology, such a system that runs student written software that will display energy usage information and allow automation of the house's lighting and cooling. Pretty neat. I'll post more when we find out the results but in the meantime check out CNet which has a slideshow and some video coverage of the event.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Pittsburgh residents protest their neighborhood's blight problem

I've been trying to make some noise about Pittsburgh's increasing blight problem. The week before last I sent a link to my previous blog post to Rich Lord of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Yesterday, Mr. Lord wrote a nice piece on the blight problem in Pittsburgh's Homewood neighborhood.

Roger Washington doesn't let his kids out on the front porch because of the disaster area a few feet away.

That would be 566 Rosedale St., Homewood, a building that has been condemned for 20 months and wide open for just as long, its front portal an invitation often accepted by rats, raccoons and sometimes people, according to neighbors.

"The people that come and go, they could grab one of my kids," said Mr. Washington. "[The kids] could get bit by one of the rodents."

The home became a symbol yesterday for Homewood's frustrations, as a dozen members of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, protested out front. It also served as a reminder of the city's futile attempts to catch up on its backlog of condemned buildings.

That backlog, which had hovered at 1,200 buildings, has crept up to 1,400, Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said in August. He has promised that his forthcoming capital budget will "significantly increase" demolitions.


I am glad Mr. Lord has finally brought this problem to light through the mainstream media. Blight makes our neighborhoods unsafe, unhealthy, and unlivable. Our city needs to do more about this problem, especially if they want to continue to brag about Pittsburgh being named the most livable city.



Wednesday, September 26, 2007

The need for a Clean and Green Pittsburgh - and the need to remove the blight!


Welcome to Blightsburgh. Last week I read this story about a Northside woman's struggle to deal with the mess and nuisance of the house next door. This woman's struggle has validated my feeling that the Redd Up program under Mayor Ravenstahl has been a huge disappointment. Don't get me wrong. The public works folks and the volunteers have been working really hard, as evident by the hundreds of photos on the city of Ravenstahl-burgh's website, but I've never been in a city with more abandoned houses, more overgrown lawns, and more eyes sores than the city of Pittsburgh.

This city does not have any standards. At our house in Beechview(which we still own ), we worked hard to keep our yard looking decent, but what about the house across the street(pictured above and below)? A complete disaster. On top of the house across looking street looking like a landfill, the people living there were even worse. They sell drugs, do drugs, curse all day and night at each other, and have their friends over honking the horns and playing loud music at all hours of the day and night.




This was unacceptable, and it eventually forced us to move out. We won't start a family in that environment. Hundreds of calls to the police by us and our neighbors did nothing to fix the situation. In fact, one officer, after responding to my wife's call to the police, told her that they couldn't do anything and that we were "SOL." So, the city and its police force let a house of unemployed drug users stay and in the process lost a dual income earning and taxpaying married couple. Its a shame too, because we lived on a great street with great neighbors.


But its not just Beechview. In just about every neighborhood here in the city of Pittsburgh you will see abandoned houses that have boarded up and have not had their lawn's cut in years. You will hear from friends who are living next door to someone who does not cut their lawns, who leaves garbage on their front porch and lawn, and who has zero regard for their neighbors across the street or next door to them. I know this because I lived through this the last 6 years I lived in Greenfield and Beechview. I see more and more of it every day while I've been campaigning for Mark DeSantis throughout the city. Last weekend, while we were in Point Breeze, I almost tripped and fell down a flight of stairs at a house with garbage and debris covering its front porch. This past weekend I saw more of the blight in Oakland, Squirrel Hill, East Liberty, and Highland Park. Each day I see it in other neighborhoods as I take the T into work.

So how bad are we compared to other cities? We're not the worst, but Pittsburgh does have the 5th highest rate of vacant properties per 100 residents. Additionally, the City has 200 more vacated properties than it did under Mayor O'Connor, further proof that Redd Up under Luke has a long way to go. So what is the mayor's plan? Up in Buffalo, Mayor Byron Brown has proposed an ambitious plan to spend $100 million razing 5,000 vacated homes over the next 5 years.




The city has a nice showcase of some of these properties on the website where they are trying to sell the dilapidated houses. Here are a few of houses around the city that are for sale:







































Thursday, September 20, 2007

Car Sharing with Flexcar taking off in Pittsburgh

So far so good for Flexcar here in Pittsburgh, as the service announces an expansion into Shadyside and growth to 55 cars in parts of downtown, Oakland, and now Shadyside. Click here for a map of Flexcar vehicle locations around town.


Tuesday, September 18, 2007

CMU Professor Jay Apt to speak in Pittsburgh on Global Climate Change

You are invited to join us on Thursday, September 27, 2007 from 7:30-9:00 a.m. at The Rivers Club in Pittsburgh for a special alumni breakfast presentation by Tepper professor, Dr. Jay Apt on Global Climate Change.

Jay Apt holds an undergraduate degree from Harvard and a doctorate from MIT in experimental physics. He was selected as a NASA Astronaut in 1985, and has spent more than 35 days in space on four Space Shuttle missions, and performed two space walks (one an emergency rescue of a satellite). He has been to the Russian space station Mir, and is the recipient of NASA’s highest medal. He received the Metcalf Lifetime Achievement Award for significant contributions to engineering in 2002. Dr. Apt is Executive Director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business and the CMU Department of Engineering and Public Policy, where he is a Distinguished Service Professor. He received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1971 and a Ph.D. in experimental atomic physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1976. His research, teaching and consulting interests are in economics, engineering, and public policy aspects of the electricity industry, economics of technical innovation, management of technical enterprises, risk management in policy and technical decision framing, and engineering systems design.

The event is being sponsored by the Tepper Pittsburgh Alumni Chapter and is open to all Carnegie Mellon alumni, students and guests. Attire is business casual and alumni are encouraged to bring business cards for networking.

The cost of the seminar is $20.00 which covers the cost of the hot buffet breakfast. You may register in advance online at www.tepper.cmu.edu/alumni/pit using your VISA, MasterCard or American Express Card. The cost for on-site registration is $25.00 by cash or check at the door.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Bring Streetcars back to Pittsburgh

NYU Law Student and former Southsider Michael Byrne wrote a compelling opinion piece in Sunday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on bringing streetcars back to Pittsburgh. The late Mayor Bob O'Connor had a vision for bringing back streetcars as a way to spur development and provide an affordable connection of downtown to the universities and hospitals. O'Connor was ridiculed by some of his opponents in the 2005 Democratic primary, but I'm not so sure those same people who argue against the streetcar idea after having read Mr. Byrne's piece.

I've been a proponent of extending the light rail from downtown to Oakland, but with the cost of that extension probably running in the hundreds of millions, coupled with the current North Shore Connector project that will cost at least half a billion, additional light rail extensions at this time or in the near future are not likely. Streetcars, as Mr. Byrne points out, are a very cost effective way to extend mass transit while at the same time encouraging economic development along the streetcar lines. Look at the table below of the costs of implementing streetcars in a number of cities that are already reaping the benefits of the economic development . In Portland alone there was over $2.28 billion in transit oriented development within two blocks of the street car lines. It looks and sounds like a no brainer to me too.


So what is keeping Pittsburgh from doing something like this? Right now Pittsburghers are currently suffering from a lack of forward thinking from our political leaders. Instead of expanding light rail to the masses, we're stuck digging a tunnel under the river that will connect virtually zero neighborhoods to the two stadiums and the casino. The tunnel and connector were not a prerequisite to new development - that was already happening on the North Shore, but we're stuck with it since the federal government was providing matching funds.

How would we fund new streetcar lines here in Pittsburgh? As Mr. Byrne points out, the Federal Transit Authority offers grants for smaller scale transportation projects. Known as "Small Starts", the FTA provides grants for the "capital costs associated with new fixed guide way systems, extensions, and bus corridor improvements. " This is one source of funding our congressmen should be fighting for.

Additionally, as they did in Portland, private corporations could be enticed to join in the funding effort through sponsorships. This is particular interesting here in the city of Pittsburgh, where non-profit entities make up a large chunk of our employers and take up a lot of land that could be used for tax revenue generating businesses. Today, the non-profits are contributing voluntarily to a fund that is supposed to assist in the city with its financial woes. That fund is set to expire, and if some political leaders had their way they would overturn Act 55 and force non-Profits like UPMC to pay taxes on their excess income.

Taxing non-profits is not the way to go. It only creates an us-against-them mentality while the city, UPMC, and other non-profits should be looking to form a partnership. The city should work with the non-profits in forming an annual fund where the non-profits would make investments in the city for specific infrastructure improvement or enhancement projects. A tax that goes into the city's general fund is not fair - especially when the city can use that money at its discretion. Having the non-profit contributions go towards a dedicated project that also provides some benefits to them, like steercar lines, makes the most sense to me.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Introducing EcoPulse - Pittsburgh's connection to energy and environmental resources





Last month I started receiving the Pittsburgh Technology Council's new environmental newsletter, EcoPulse. The fact that our tech council has started this initiative is signs that the intersection of business, technology, and the environment is becoming a reality here in Pittsburgh. The monthly newsletter includes a number of topics including green news, events, local company profiles, and also profiles of individuals who are making a difference here in the burgh. Please take a minute to subscribe to this monthly newsletter, hopefully you will see my mug on there in a future issue.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Cleveland - Green City Blue Lake









I came across this website on the city of Cleveland's green residential development known as the Cleveland EcoVillage. The EcoVillage is a mix of energy efficient single family homes and townhouses built on a redeveloped section of the city's west end. The village was built within walking distance of a transit station on a rail line that was supposed to be closed down.

This urban revitalization has been a success so far and is a huge win for the city of Cleveland as it makes its way back to prosperity after losing roughly half a million residents over the last 50 something years. The city, like Pittsburgh, has a green building coalition and is increasing its efforts towards becoming a sustainable city. Unlike Pittsburgh, however, Cleveland already has a pretty decent mass transit system in place, which helped rank Cleveland 28th on Sustain Lane's Green cities rankings.

This project gives hope for some of the blighted areas of Pittsburgh. There are already plans for two green housing developments in the Pittsburgh, although I don't see the transit system improving anytime soon, especially when we are spending half a billion on a tunnel to nowhere. Despite not having the transit in place, I think Pittsburgh's green movement could start to build some serious momentum if the city can work with the non-profits and transit authority to put some muscle behind an initiative like the EcoVillage.

From the EcoCity Cleveland website:

The first major development of the Cleveland EcoVillage project consists of 20 town homes on W. 58th Street just north of Lorain Avenue. The developer is the Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization. EcoCity Cleveland is providing design assistance with the support of grants from the Cleveland Foundation and the George Gund Foundation.

As of June 2004, construction of all 20 units was complete and all had been sold. The town homes average 1,600 square feet and feature the latest green building features, including energy efficiency, controlled ventilation, non-toxic building materials, and proximity to transit. The architect is Betsy Pettit of Building Science Corporation, a national leader in the design of high-performance buildings.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Beaver County Coal Plant fined $25,000 for latest Soot Incident - WHERE IS THE JUSTICE??

FirstEnergy Corporation's Bruce Mansfield plant in Shippingport, Beaver County was fined $25,000 for releasing soot that ended up covering more than two dozen properties this past June. The June incident is the second time within twelve months that FirstEnergy's plant has fined by the state's Department of Environmental Protection. The fine is the maximum allowed by our state's Air Pollution Control Act.

There are two major things wrong here. First, this plant was ranked as the 17th worst polluting plant in the United States, and it is one of the major reasons we here in Southwestern PA rank as one of worst MSAs for air particulate pollution. So why is this plant allowed to stay operational? People who work at the plant and the local small businesses who support their families obviously want the plant to stay open - even though they may not realize the detrimental effects their employer has on the health of their families. But why can't we start shutting down this dirty plants and begin putting those displaced employees to work for companies producing green energy?

The second major thing I find wrong with this incident is the lame penalty. The maximum penalty for this soot pollution offense is only $25,000 - this is not enough! The cost of reducing or eliminating this soot pollution for First Energy is probably in the millions of dollars. Since they do not fear getting shut down and they are fined a tiny amount - there is no incentive to clean up their act. We need to start replacing the dirty power and dirty jobs with green power and green jobs!

According to the Air Pollution Control Act website, the Act is in place in order to:


To provide for the better protection of the health, general welfare and property of the people of the Commonwealth by the control, abatement, reduction and prevention of the pollution of the air by smokes, dusts, fumes, gases, odors, mists, vapors, pollens and similar matter, or any combination thereof; imposing certain powers and duties on the Department of Environmental Resources, the Environmental Quality Board and the Environmental Hearing Board; establishing procedures for the protection of health and public safety during emergency conditions; creating a stationary air contamination source permit system; providing additional remedies for abating air pollution; reserving powers to local political subdivisions, and defining the relationship between this act and the ordinances, resolutions and regulations of counties, cities, boroughs, towns and townships; imposing penalties for violation of this act; and providing for the power to enjoin violations of this act; and conferring upon persons aggrieved certain rights and remedies. (Title amended Oct. 26, 1972, P.L.989, No.245)
Is it possible that this Act needs to be revamped in order to levy heavier fines on polluters such as FirstEnergy? It is time for our state congressman to step up and do something about these irresponsibile actions. It's time to shut down these dirty plants - or at least give them a deadline to get their acts together. I saw set a hard deadline and shut down the polluters who do not meet the minimum pollution control requirements. The state could create a green jobs training and placement program for the displaced workers.

To be fair to FirstEnergy, they reported that the plant's emissions scrubbing equipment had a malfunction, which caused the soot to be released into the air and onto the houses. If this is the case and they truly are trying to clean up their act - we'll see where the Shippingport plant stands when next year's dirty plants rankings are released.

(Note - as I sit here typing this post a commercial just aired claiming that coal is "securing our future" and that we have over two Saudi Arabia's of coal here in the US)

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Coal-to-liquids - a dangerous substitute for foreign oil

The coal industry has been touting coal liquification as a viable gasoline replacement for years. The industry wants us to believe that since the US already has an abundance of cheap coal, coal liquification is the fastest and most cost effective way for us to achieve energy independence. This doesn't appear to be the case when you consider the cleaner alternatives and the true costs of liquid coal - the environmental costs. Carnegie Mellon's Electricity Industry Center recently came out with a report that concluded that passenger vehicles using coal to liquids gasoline had the worst greenhouse gas emissions, and that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles had the lowest GHG emissions.

As the chart below shows, the difference in the emissions isn't even close - plug-in hybrids, when charged by coal plans using carbon capture sequestering technology, had about 1/3 the the GHG emissions as a conventional gasoline vehicle, and roughly 20% of the emissions from a vehicle fueled by liquid coal gasoline.

So why do we continue to see more subsidies targeted to liquid coal companies and alternatives such as corn based E85 when there is so much evidence out there that these solutions are not safe and smart alternatives to foreign oil? Well, the subsides give our politicians an opportunity to suck up to two very powerful industry lobbies - coal and corn. If your congressman supports these two alternative fuels - he or she is not looking out for the best interests of their constituents. They are looking out for the corporate interests. Please write, email, or call your congressman and ask them if they support liquid coal or corn ethanol based fuels. If they do, please remind them that supporting these fuels will put us on a faster path to social and environmental destruction.

More on this at the Terrapass blog.

Monday, August 20, 2007

It is time for Pittsburgh's "Green Triangle"

It is time for the city of Pittsburgh to be a leader and innovator among green cities. The city was actually ranked #1 for total LEED certified buildings back in 2005, however, other cities with more aggressive green goals have either caught up or surpassed Pittsburgh in the green building rankings. So what can we do now to stand out? How about putting green roofs on every possible building in downtown Pittsburgh? How about we transform downtown's Golden Triangle into the Green Triangle?

Imagine seeing this view as a visitor flying into town for the first time:


Personally, I find the green rooftops much more visually appealing than the typical black and gray tar and concrete rooftops. But this is not about making Pittsburgh "pretty." This initiative is about making Pittsburgh the leader in green roofs and setting an example of how going green can save businesses and government buildings in downtown districts millions of dollars in heating and cooling costs and, in addition, providing the following benefits to the general public:

  • Reduction of surrounding air temperatures
  • Improved air quality/reduced C02 emissions
  • Storm water retention/reduction of pollution in runoff water
  • A greener and more productive work environment
These are just a few examples of some of the beneifts that are listed out on greenroofs.org and greenroofs.com.

Pittsburgh currently has a number of green buildings, several of which have been around for a while including two at Carnegie Mellon University. It is too bad that this Trib Review article from two years ago mentioned the cost savings potential of green roofs yet here we are today without much progress in this green area. Since our political leaders are reluctant to take (most, with the exception of BP) a chance on something this big, it is up to us green bloggers and green advocates here in the burgh to organize and take action. Please email me if you are willing to create a task force or if you are already part of a green group that would like to round up volunteers and obtain funding to take on the work of this massive and ground breaking green project.



Pittsburgh buildings with green roofs (from greenroofs.com)

Project Year Location Roof Size

Alcoa HeadquartersCurrentPittsburgh, PA, USA13920 ft²1293 m²
Carnegie Mellon University, Hamerschlag Hall2005Pittsburgh, PA, USA4200 ft²390 m²
Children's Museum Pittsburgh2005Pittsburgh, PA, USA64 ft²6 m²
Carnegie Mellon University, Mellon Institute2005Pittsburgh, PA, USA1300 ft²121 m²
Heinz 57 Center/Gimbels Building Restoration2001Pittsburgh, PA, USA12000 ft²1115 m²
Total Queried Roof Size: 31,484 ft² (2,925 m²)




We are at the 11th Hour........


Monday, August 13, 2007

How to fund Pennsylvania's Transit and Infrastructure projects

Attention Governor Rendell and members of the PA House and Senate: A sure way to simultaneously raise revenues and increase the use of fuel efficient vehicles is to implement a program that offers rebates to buyers of fuel efficient vehicles and penalizes buyers of gas guzzling vehicles through a fuel inefficiency tax. This proposal is likely to spark a debate between the folks who claim it would provide a death blow to US auto manufacturers and those like me who believe we must take a more aggressive approach to raising the average fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleets. Recent news suggest that this is certainly not the case, as US manufacturers, led by GM, are closing the fuel efficiency gap between themselves and Toyota, the leading hybrid manufacturer.

Another potential pitfall is that some would argue that this plan would penalize small business owners who need pick up trucks and SUVs to do their work. This is indeed a fair argument, although there should be hybrid options and this new state rebate that would encourage them to drive an SUV that is not in the penalty zone. Certain vehicles should be exempted from this, and some work would have to be done to see which average mpg would be in the neutral zone - meaning your vehicle that attains average fuel efficiency would get neither a rebate or penalty.

Backing up a few steps, I want to share with you some of the logic behind this idea. First, this would not be the first time I have suggested this, as I thought of this a while back and blogged about it here on Green is Good. Recent news headlines coming out of Canada brought this idea back on my radar screen. Canada's Finance Minister is under attack by the auto unions for his proposal for a similar fuel efficiency rebate program. The current proposal is to offer rebates for purchases of certain vehicles, but the most polarizing part of the plan, the list of vehicles that will be penalized, has not been formalized. The last part, the penalty aspect, is the key, because although rebates are good, they do not get people to act as quickly as a bill in the mail stating they owe the federal government $2000 for their purchase of an inefficient vehicle.


Back to the logic behind the plan. The other day I was driving in a suburban shopping center while I noticed the size of a black Cadillac Escalade EXT. This thing was enormous - almost as big as a city bus, and it got me thinking to this idea I had a while ago - the people that drive these things are ridiculous. There is no excuse for driving a truck that big that gets close to 10 mpg. The cost of tank of gas in these things is at least $100 - yet that is not enough to get someone to drive a hybrid SUV.

Well, I have accepted that we cannot force people to change for the better of society, so if individuals want to continue to practice free choice of driving whatever they feel like driving, even though it is a detriment to us all - make them pay for it. These individuals should either pay an extra $1000 or $2000 fuel efficiency "tax" when purchasing a $70,000 Escalade or they can go ahead and purchase a Toyota Highlander Hybrid which achieves a combined 12 miles per gallon more than the standard Escalade model and comes with federal tax credits at almost half of the cost of the Cadillac. Not a bad trade off if you ask me.





2007 Cadillac Escalade AWD


2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid 4WD


2007 Cadillac

2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Compare Side-by-Side



Hybrid Vehicle




Possible Tax Incentives


New EPA MPG

MPG ratings for 1985-2007 models have been revised More information.

Premium Gasoline
12
City
14
Combined
18
Hwy

Regular Gasoline
27
City
26
Combined
25
Hwy








Now, if you ask me what the US auto manufacturers should do - they need to continue to invest in hybrid and battery technology so that every vehicle that they manufacture includes a hybrid electric system. The key roadblock to making this a reality is the high cost of the hybrid system. Even though this should only take at the most a few years to figure out, the auto industry continues to lobby the US Congress for more time - 20 more years to be more precise. We should not sit by idly waiting for them to figure it out while individuals who drive the guzzlers get a free ride to polluting our environment and contributing to to the congestion and smog in our cities.

I hope our leaders here in PA and also nationally will have the guts to implement an aggressive, sensible, and yes, controversial plan like this because just asking people to drive hybrids and more fuel efficient vehicle is not enough. The carrot and stick principle is the only way this can work.

Google