Calling themselves “Clean Energy Patriots,” dozens of environmental leaders today asked the U.S. Senate to quit serving the interests of “Big Oil” and take action on behalf of Americans who want clean energy and climate solutions.

The leaders from nearly 50 environmental and social responsibility groups signed a declaration at the U.S. Capitol. It demands  that the Senate quit stalling on climate action, and kicks off a 40-day countdown until Earth Day, which celebrates its 40th anniversary on April 22.

They urged citizens to join in what they are calling the Earth Day Revolution.

“The first Earth Day was a success because 20 million Americans demonstrated an urgent need for environmental protection and action,” said Kathleen Rogers, President, Earth Day Network. “Together, we can make the 40th anniversary of Earth Day a pivotal moment in the environmental movement. We will use the next 40 days to build momentum around a demand for comprehensive climate legislation…”

Clean energy legislation would not only protect the environment, it would create jobs and improve national security, the leaders said.

“For too long Big Oil and their special interest allies have stood in the way of a clean energy revolution. It’s time for lawmakers to listen to the millions of citizens who will recognize this Earth Day by demanding the Senate gets working to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation,” said Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters. “We need more Clean Energy Patriots this year. We need an Earth Day Revolution, not just another celebration.”

The campaign will wind up with a Climate Rally on the Sunday after Earth Day, on April 25.

The following groups have signed the Earth Day Declaration:

1Sky

Audubon

American Hunters and Shooters

American Rivers

American Values Network

Campus Progress

Center for American Progress Action Fund

Clean Water Action

Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Climate Protection Action Fund

Climate Solutions

Defenders of Wildlife

Democracia Ahora

Earth Day Network

Environment America

Environmental Defense Action Fund

Environmental Law and Policy Center

Green for All

Hip Hop Caucus

Interfaith Power and Light

La Onda Verde

League of Conservation Voters

National Catholic Rural Life Conference

National Wildlife Federation

NWF Campus Ecology

Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund

Oceana

Operation Free

Rock the Vote

Sierra Club

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

SACE

Southern Energy Network

StudentPIRGs

SustainUS

Truman National Security Project

Union of Concerned Scientists

Veterans for Common Sense

Voces Verdes

World Wildlife Fund

The Wilderness Society

In Durham, N.C., homes will get an energy retrofit. In Salt Lake City, they’ll develop a plan to reduce auto pollution.  In Sacramento, they’ll be improving the landscape around a river to reduce pollution runoff. And in Denver, they’ll be looking at a little bit of all that — energy efficiency for homes and businesses, bike sharing and renewable energy.

It’s all being made possible by $10 million from the EPA’s Climate Showcase Community Grants, set up to help communities develop their plans to reduce greenhouse gases and lighten their carbon footprint.

Durham, N.C.

Retrofiting by insulating pipes in Durham, N.C.

In the city and county of Durham, N.C., the community will use the grant to retrofit homes in selected neighborhoods. Tobin Freid, sustainability manager, says one of the most effective ways to change behavior is to see that everyone else “is doing it.” In other words, if the neighbors are all getting retrofitted, the mentality is “I should do that, too.”

The federal grants will have a double benefit by providing much needed green collar jobs for those employed by the program.

“We are starting with 2,000 square-feet or less homes, all of which are single story and free of un-vented combustion appliances.
The houses in these neighborhoods tend to be similar, three to four styles,” says Freid, and by beginning with simple designs, “it is more efficient to quickly assess [the retrofitting needs].”

Single story homes are easier to retrofit because the duct work is all on one level. The other advantage is that the smaller homes are a good training ground for the retrofitters before embarking on larger projects in the future, Freid said.

The Durham crew is not doing an energy audit on each of these homes, instead, “we are focusing on four retrofits: a programmable thermostat, sealing air ducts, adding insulation and sealing leaks/cracks in floor boards. Most houses need these.”

The homes to be retrofitted will be selected this spring and the work will begin in July. Currently, Freid says, “volunteers are going door to door to educate homeowners on energy savings and tax incentives. We will also have workshops on easy energy fixes such as caulking windows or wrapping hot water pipes.”

The homes chosen will be tracked for energy use, before and two years after, the retrofits. “We realize energy consumption changes depending how many people live in a house. For example when a child is born, energy usage goes up; or when a child goes off to college, energy usage should go down.”

Residents will pay $300 to participate; the grant will provide up to $1,200 per home. Depending on what a family’s income is, they may qualify for the federal weatherization program. In which case, they will be encouraged to do so. A family of four earning $44,000 or below, would qualify.

Salt Lake City

In Salt Lake City, the EPA grant is being used to figure out how to make sustainable transportation a priority — and for good reason.

Bike racks at the new Salt Lake City transit center

“Salt Lake City experiences very poor air quality, especially in winter,” says the city’s environmental manager, Renee Zollinger. This is due to an air inversion that sets in and traps pollutants in the valley. Air quality isn’t much better in the summer due to ozone production. “We frequently have the worst air quality in the nation, which is clearly a health concern. About half of the pollution that accumulates during those periods is from vehicle exhaust. These vehicle emissions also include a lot of greenhouse gases. “

To combat the air quality issue, the Salt Lake has initiated several outreach campaigns to reduce community vehicle emissions. Zollinger says that while these have been successful, “we felt that these programs…would benefit by stepping back and taking a holistic approach to identifying our audiences and their respective priorities, and then developing very tailored messaging that brings those groups into the effort.”

That’s where the EPA grant come into play, she says.

“The grant will allow us to collect data from surveys and focus groups to identify the perceptions of different audiences, especially those that have been difficult to reach so far,” Zollinger says.

The problem that Salt Lake City has is not different from many other communities. “We are still a very car-oriented population. The goal of the grant is to create more behavior changes. We have the infrastructure…We need to study the things that will change behavior,” she says.

Salt Lake City has a well-regarded light rail system, as well as heavy rail that runs north and south along the Wasatch Front, a robust bus system, and bike paths, she says. The city is building a bicycle transit center that will be located where the light and heavy rail intersect and will include showers, lockers and a bike repair shop.

If Salt Lake City can identify the triggers that make people change their environmental behavior, Zollinger believes that this data could help other communities with similar demographics.

Denver

In Denver city and county, the EPA grant will fund the Neighborhood Climate Prosperity Project. It is a four-pronged project that will target residential energy efficiency; small business energy concerns (mom-and-pop pizza shops don’t usually consider energy efficiency a top priority); sustainable transportation options such as bike sharing; and renewable energy challenges that include using wind and solar energy through local utility companies.

“We’ve already done some residential energy outreach,” says Matthew Marshall of the city’s Environmental Health Department. “We want to focus on low-income housing” so the project is sending out volunteers to go door to door, giving residents free street trees, CFL porch bulbs and information on recycling. The volunteers also are letting residents know about free programs such as the federal weatherization program. In some cases, they may be eligible for a new refrigerator and/or furnace.

The stimulus package gave Denver a good boost, Marshall says, but the grant money enables the city and county to provide even more services to its residents.

The Department of Environmental Health accomplishes its goals with the help of nonprofits such as Groundwork Denver and the Mile High Youth Corp to get the word out and in some cases, to do the energy retrofits needed. Groundwork Denver organizes the door-to-door effort. The Youth Corp trains young adults in job skills, in this case, green job skills, that enable them to do in-home energy audits that include installing low-flow toilet and faucet fixtures.

Sacramento

In Sacramento, the EPA grant will go to expanding river-friendly landscaping. Jeanette Watson, the lead environmental specialist with the Sacramento County Storm Water Program, and Dave Tamayo, the technical environmental specialist, were  both involved with the

River-friendly landscaping curbs run off in Elk Grove, near Sacramento

grant application. Sacramento already had a storm water project in the works. It focuses on reducing pollutants in storm water that come from landscaping. The project takes a holistic approach by coordinating with the different aspects of water pollution: solid waste, water conservation and air quality.

“The EPA grant will demonstrate the benefits of river-friendly landscaping,” says Watson. It will  focus on greenhouse gas reduction in terms of water conservation and better management of green waste, says Tamayo, noting that, “Water takes energy to deal with. If you save water, you save energy.”

By designing river-friendly landscaping, homeowners and businesses can control green waste, he says. For example, by reducing the turf area of a lawn and using plants that don’t require a lot of trimming, a resident can create a more energy efficient landscape. Gardening without the use of a lot of machinery is preferable. Shipping out yard waste – such as grass cuttings in the summer or leaves in the fall – requires energy. It also takes energy to process and then more energy to sell it back as compost or mulch.

“Leaving grass cuttings on the lawn, benefits the soil; and instead of raking and removing leaves, leave them on site and use as mulch for shrubs and trees. The leaves will also crowd out the weeds, retain water and reduce soil erosion,” he says.

“We realize, especially in Sacramento, the city of trees, that all leaves can’t be left on site. But if we can just establish practices. Whatever you can do, will make a significant improvement.

“Looking at the right design and maintenance practices, such as using the right plant in the right place,” makes a difference, he says.

Roger Dickinson, a Sacramento county supervisor, has been involved with lobbying for the creation of the Climate Showcase Community Grant from the start. Bringing more resources to the local level is key, he says. This is where actions need to be taken.

“Think globally, act locally” is his motto. “We’re very excited about this,” he says. “Climate change is the quintessential issue. Hopefully, [these grants] will be very smart for the environment.” Using basic landscaping and gardening techniques to reduce waste make sense, he says. “Our approach is to demonstrate techniques that work in reducing greenhouse gases and use this as a foundation for others who are building in the future.”

Congresswoman Doris Matsui (D-Sacremento) is very pleased with the EPA grant. “This federal funding will support our efforts to continue reducing our community’s greenhouse gas emissions and thus serve a broader purpose in helping to preserve our local natural resources, improve the community’s health, and bolster our regional economy,” she says.

Cincinnati

The city of Cincinnati also will be augmenting an existing program, started in 2008 and called the Green Cincinnati Plan (GCP). Larry Falkin, director of the city’s Office of Environmental Quality, describes it as a road map to making the city more sustainable. The EPA grant will help fund the outreach and education elements of GCP, he says. “The grant will help us with the leg work to communicate the plan and help motivate participation.”

The GCP offers many recommendations to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions and improve the environment and human health — and save residents money.

“We need to rely more on renewal energy, reduce the number of miles we drive, be conscious of land use such as living closer to our destinations, focus on reducing the landfill and look at our dietary choices and how they impact greenhouse gases,” Falkin says.

Like many of EPA communities, the GCP relies on voluntary measures to achieve its objectives, and counts on participants to act both altruistically and pragmatically.

The EPA created the competitive grant program in 2009 to help communities establish and execute climate change goals. The agency’s hope is that the grants will inspire others to replicate these models and find cost-effective methods to curb greenhouse gases. The first round of grants ($10 million) went to 20 communities, with five more communities to come, pending final review. An additional $10 million in funding will become available later this spring.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Even after monumental clean-ups that rescued the Great Lakes from acid rain and industrial dumping in the 20th Century, these national water resources continue to suffer environmental assaults.

Sewage overflows into the lakes — some 25 billion gallons of untreated sewage from 20 cities in 2008 — have resulted in waters that periodically test positive for dangerous levels of E coli in 2008, according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Asian Carp (Photo: US Fish and Wildlife Service.)

Lately, too, the lakes are under threat from the large and destructive Asian carp, an invasive species that has been making its way up rivers to Lake Michigan, where scientists say it could annihilate whole populations of native fish, creating havoc in the Great Lakes, and depleting food and fishing jobs. (The carp were imported decades ago by catfish farmers to clean their stock ponds; they escaped during Midwestern floods.)

Today, the EPA officially unveiled a five-year plan to help restore the Great Lakes, which supply 30 million people with water and support billions in fishing and recreational businesses.

“We have an historic opportunity to restore and protect these waters. This action plan outlines our strategy to protect the environmental, human health, and economic interests of the millions of people who rely on the Great Lakes,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We’re committed to creating a new standard of care that will leave the Great Lakes better for the next generation.”

State governors were, predictably, pleased. Said Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, co-chair of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, “Wisconsin is defined by the Great Lakes, and one of our greatest responsibilities is to preserve this important freshwater resource for future generations. This action plan sets a strong course of action as we confront tremendous challenges to not only protect, but also restore the Great Lakes.”

“We must protect and preserve our lakes for our families and outdoors enthusiasts, as well as the industries that rely on the waterways to transport their goods around the world,” added CGLC co-chair  Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, in the same news release.

The five-year action plan was developed by 16 federal groups on an inter-agency task force headed by Jackson. It will have five areas of focus, according to an EPA news release:

• Protection and cleanup of the most polluted areas in the lakes: The task force will work with state and municipal partners to clean up toxic hotspots so that critical “working waterways” are reclaimed for healthy fishing and recreation.

• Combating invasive species: The plan will take a “zero tolerance” approach toward invasive species, such as the Asian Carp, to keep them out of the lakes.

• Protection of high priority watersheds and reduced runoff from urban, suburban and, agricultural sources: Reducing runoff and pollution to help clean up Great Lakes beaches.

• Restoration of wetlands and other habitats: Restoration work will begin with an assessment of the entire 530,000 acre Great Lakes coastal wetland, which has never been done before, to help the task force identify and restore affected areas for healthier wildlife and habitats.

• Implementation of accountability measures, learning initiatives, outreach and strategic partnerships: The task force will work closely with the Great Lakes states, non-profits, stakeholder groups and Canada to protect and restore the lakes.

The initiative is slated to be funded with $475 million for a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative proposed this month by President Barak Obama. If approved, it would be the most significant investment in the Great Lakes in two decades, according to the EPA.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and the state’s Attorney General and Agriculture commissioner, announced Tuesday that the state will challenge the EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gases are endangering human health.

Texas has filed a Petition for Review of the EPA’s finding with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit , questioning the science behind the EPA’s finding and whether the agency should be allowed to regulate industries’ greenhouse gas emissions.

The move follows a similar one by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last week, when the Chamber filed a petition against the EPA to stop the agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The Chamber says it favors greenhouse gas reductions, but that giving the EPA the authority to assess fines against polluters is the “wrong way” to do it.

The EPA responded to the Texas filing with this statement from Dr. Alfredo “Al” Armendariz, EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6:

“Todays action is not surprising. Texas officials have repeatedly expressed opposition to the EPA’s common sense approach to begin reducing harmful greenhouse gases. Texas, which contributes up to 35 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by industrial sources in the United States, should be leading the way in this effort. Instead, Texas officials are attempting to slow progress with unnecessary litigation.

“EPA is confident the endangerment finding, which was issued as a result of a 2007 Supreme Court decision, will withstand legal challenge.”               

Both the Texas petition and the one filed by the U.S. Chamber express concern that regulating greenhouse gases — or in the case of the Chamber’s suit, assessing fines to violators –  will be costly for businesses.

Perry’s suit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, specifically cites industries that depend on fossil fuels and the livestock industry.

“This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas’ freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach,” Perry said in a news release.

The EPA officially deemed greenhouse gases to be a threat to human health in 2009 after the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Bush Administration’s reasons for not regulating these pollutants to be insufficient. The EPA is charged with regulating air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Environmental Defense Fund Texas Regional Director Jim Marston said Gov. Perry’s action against the EPA represents a step backwards for Texas.

“The lawsuit filed by Governor Perry is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. vs. Massachusetts. Their action invokes memories of a sad time in Texas history from the ’50s, when Texas politicians sought to nullify decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only is it legally unsound, it puts Texas on the side of the 1950s economy, against the clean energy economy of the future.”

Perry and his co-filers, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, criticize the EPA’s “endangerment finding” on greenhouse gases, saying that the EPA wrongly relied heavily on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has recently come under fire for having miscalculated or exaggerated some of the effects of global warming. For instance, a finding that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in a few decades turned out to be based on one scientist’s estimation, and not any peer-reviewed study.

Leaders with the global alliance of scientists, however, have defended the panel’s basic conclusion that the world is warming, pointing to Arctic ice melts and rising seas.

But Texas Attorney General Abbott says that controversies around the IPCC call into question the EPA’s greenhouse gas position.

“With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy,” Attorney General Abbott said.

According to the Texas news release,  “the International[sic] Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)… has been discredited by evidence of key scientists’ lack of objectivity, coordinated efforts to hide flaws in their research, attempts to keep contravening evidence out of IPCC reports and violation of freedom of information laws.”

The EDF defends the EPA, however, saying the agency drew on science from many sources, such as NOAA and the USDA, not just the IPCC.

“Some of the challengers have claimed that the scientific underpinning for EPA’s action is weak. In fact, EPA’s decision is based on a two hundred page synthesis of major scientific assessments by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Research Council, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, CNA Corporation, and others.”
(The EPA “Technical Support Document for the Findings” is available at the EPA website on climate change.)

The EDF statement also notes that the U.S. Chamber has fought the Clean Air Act before, in 1997, when the EPA moved to regulate particulate and ozone pollution.

Then, the Chamber claiming that it would harm manufacturers, farm interests, cement makers, auto manufacturers, the pulp and paper mill industry, petroleum refiners, iron and steel firms, home builders, mining interests, and power companies, the EDF said.

“Today, millions of Americans have been protected with healthier air and the science is only more compelling in documenting the harm from particulate and ozone pollution.”

In its current petition against the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, the Chamber says it would favor a Congressional bill on climate change over direct government regulation.

“The right way” to regulate carbon pollution, according to the Chamber’s news release “is through bipartisan legislation that promotes new technologies, emphasizes efficiency, ensures affordable energy for families and businesses, and defends American jobs while returning our economy to prosperity. ”

The House of Representatives passed a bill to address climate change last summer, but the Senate has remained stalled on the issue for months.

If you had the money and connections, you could build a snappy green house these days. Sink a geothermal heat pump to tap Mother Earth’s energy, slap up some solar panels, finish it out with non-toxic drywall, cork floors, denim insulation, recycled glass countertops and floors made from sunken ship decking.

Green house (Image: Axepin/dreamstime.com)

But does a green house a green home make? The answer to that is….of course not. Green builders, and those who live in green houses, soon bump up against what some land planners have known all along: It takes a village to bring green to its fullest expression.

Sure it’s cool that net zero houses can push the meter backward. But it is far better to have that household ticking away in a neighborhood where the kids walk to school, mom and pop hop a train to work, and gramps shops for pickles down the street – when the community garden’s cukes have been exhausted. The whole works would be powered by clean energy, connected to local food sources and friendly to local wildlife.

This is not a vision that most of us live, or even recognize, especially those of us in sprawling suburbs, where the tomatoes come from diesel trucks, work is over the horizon and our ‘hood was built to the unwritten specs of tract housing — build first, ponder later.  We are stranded us in spots that fail to take advantage of solar or wind power, in subdivisions isolated from basic services; where getting to the “corner store” can require a two-mile drive and you couldn’t get there greenly anyway because no one saw the need to install a bike lane, trolley or bus system.

But new, more sustainable living arrangements needn’t be unattainable. We can’t roll up the suburbs. But with the right community leadership, open-minded homeowners and creative developers, they can be reshaped to be more green, and we’re not talking about the lawns. All these engines of change are engaged in hundreds of projects across America that will — if circumstances favor their development — create new paradigms for the 21^st Century of community sustainability.

The very best designed green neighborhoods may still be on the drawing board, evolving, but striving projects are on the ground right now.

Suburban green, bringing it home in St. Charles Maryland

Head south of the nation’s capital into Maryland and you see a rolling mix of  rural communities and tract housing  interspersed with McMansions encased by private turf fiefdoms.

About 22 miles south of the capital off U.S. Highway 301, an aging middle-class development of traditional houses appears. This master planned community launched in the 1960s and known as the St. Charles community has neither the glitz of the mansions nor the quaint appeal of surrounding towns, but its density, once something shunned as suburbanites spread their wings, has made it prime for new life as a green town.

The St. Charles plan calls for large work zones and schools close to housing

Developer ACPT is building an adjacent community of 11,000 new homes that will be green from the ground up, while also offering the existing 13,000 homeowners energy retrofitting assistance.

This grand vision byACPT calls for new housing units to be connected to centralized solar and geothermal power stations and form the center of one huge affordable, regenerating oasis of sustainability.

Make that salable sustainability, too. CEO Steve Griessel wants to provide something average Americans can afford, and he’s nearly certain that customers won’t be able to resist the triple appeal of reasonable upfront costs combined with ongoing energy-savings, enhanced by nearby schools and work centers.

“Until now, everyone looks at this stuff, anything green — the first assumption is that it’s interesting but expensive and people are not willing to pay the premium,’’ Griessel says. “Our entire thesis here is to say that’s just not true.”

Actually, St. Charles is joining a list of green building enclaves, some more green than others, that are finding that eco-friendly can be wallet-friendly, from the spare but elegant homes replacing lost houses in parts of New Orleans to the prairie versions popping up in Greensburg, Kansas.

Griessel’s determined to prove the economics can work. He’s worked out a plan that will save the development money by recycling natural resources at every turn and employing the latest technology. Dirt from prepping house sites will be folded into road beds instead of being trucked out. Felled trees will be chipped and reused on site. Software for the entire project will streamline the building process, helping contractors avoid costly mistakes and duplication. Just the new software alone will save 22 percent on what builders call the “horizontal infrastructure” costs – the initial phase of putting in the houses’ foundations and setting plumbing access, Griessel says.

Sketch of a home planned for the St. Charles community

Homes will be built by known builders in the area, such as Ryan Homes and Richmond American Homes and frankly, won’t look much different from other suburban dwellings. Some green building experts would say that ACPT is missing a beat by not orienting the houses to passive solar building standards that can absorb and retain the sun’s heat.

Michael Kinsley, a development expert with the Rocky Mountain Institute says that every municipality and developer should be looking at orientation today, or risk muffing an opportunity to conserve energy. When sustainable siting is not considered “that’s a deficiency on the part of the developer and the local authority” that is “committing the residents to much higher energy costs for generations, when a very simple regulatory change could have avoided that.”

Kinsley, however, speaks highly of communities that pursue retrofitting of homes and businesses. Greening the community is win-win, he says, because it “plugs a leak” in the local economy by putting the building trades to work and keeping more dollars in the pockets of homeowners. “Any community where the building trades are out of work, they should be emphasizing energy efficiency…the markets are right there. You have a low risk, high return opportunity and it’s largely ignored by economic authorities.”

From that perspective, St. Charles’ above-average energy aspirations will help provide. The community will need just about every trade and building expert imaginable to finish the gargantuan neighborhood which will be powered by a 75 acre, 10 MegaWatt solar farm, an underground geothermal plant, and a nearby natural gas plant (which Griessel endorses because it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels). The houses will have Smart Meters and Energy Star appliances. They will be LEED-certified and right-sized for families (starting at 1,650 square feet), enabling residents to save money on electricity, commuting and mortgages.

The community will incorporate several schools (up to nine), within walking distance of homes, and a job center where businesses will be offered incentives to congregate. All of this will cut down on the St. Charles community’s carbon footprint, improve the quality of life and reduce commute times and energy costs. Wild lands will be preserved on the community perimeter, adding another livability element, and keeping to the spirit of St. Charles 1.0, it is expected to house 40 percent of the county’s population on two percent of its land.

Master planned communities of the past took some of these matters into account, earmarking spots for gas stations and grocery stores, but rarely, if ever, did they seriously, let alone simultaneously, address energy efficiency, restrain sprawl and pursue work major work centers.

St. Charles will be different. “Ten years from now people will be living in homes they can afford. Their children will be going to school down the road,” Griessel said. “They’ll be closer to work and there will be less need for a second motor car… And this will also come with 50 percent smaller utility bills.”

When President Barack Obama was sworn into office just one year ago, he promised hope to a country in the midst of economic, environmental, and political turmoil. Environmentally, however, the Obama administration that promised “change” has fallen a few cents short, according to the environmental group, The Center for Biological Diversity.

The administration’s actions (and inaction) are speaking louder than its words, in the view of the center’s Obama Administration First-Year Report Card. Obama’s overall grade:  a “C” in protecting (and failing to protect) the environment.

The report cites multiple contradictory environmental actions from this past year. While the administration has reinstated the Clinton-era Road-less Rule that protects millions of federal acres from development, it allowed the logging of road-less areas in Alaska to proceed. Also, while the current administration continued to grant permits and leases for fossil fuel exploration and extraction, it has also offered several tax credits and subsidies for improving energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

The Center for Biological Diversity faults the administration in five areas:

Endangered Species – C

• Only two new species were protected as endangered (fewest since the Reagan administration)
• Weakened protection for gray wolves and polar bears

Energy – C

• For authorizations of mountain removal
• New coal-mining leases
• Approved offshore oil exploration

Climate – C-

• Failed to enact legislation regarding U.S. emission targets
• Proposed GHG emission targets far below necessary levels at Copenhagen

Public Lands – B+

• Authorized logging in Alaskan road-less areas
• Continual issuing of oil and gas and coal-mining leases

Oceans – B-

• Offshore oil drilling off the Alaskan coast
• Reduced protection for endangered sea turtles near Hawaii

The Obama administration has taken positive environmental steps that are praiseworthy, according to the center’s report card. Notably:

• Officials issued a finding under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, setting the stage for stricter regulation/
• It began addressing ocean acidification under the Clean Water Act.
• It did away with the Bush administration’s weak rules on national forest management and is developing new regulations.
• It  proposed removal of 1 million acres of land around the Grand Canyon from uranium mining.

Others might add to that list, remembering that the Obama Administration immediately pushed for and won higher fuel efficiency standards for cars.

But then that was one project, and as the Center for Biological Diversity reminds us, they all count.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

As mascots go, the U.S. Bald Eagle has been much beloved, but not always well tended. Once prolific in the U.S., the population wavered and fell dramatically in the 20th Century — until biologists discovered that DDT and other pollution was impairing the bird’s ability to reproduce.

Bald Eagle (Photo: National Wildlife Federation.)

That was one big canary in a coal mine.

With DDT now banned, the Bald Eagle has rebounded, and was removed from the Endangered Species list in 2007. Where once the U.S. Bald Eagle numbered only several hundred breeding pairs, there are now an estimated 9,000 or more Bald Eagles living in the wild, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The National Wildlife Federation, knowing that familiarity breeds fondness (at least when it comes to wildlife), is asking Americans to celebrate the return of the Bald Eagle by going bird watching.

NWF compiled this list of places in the U.S. where one is likely to spot the national emblem in its winter habitat.

Bald eagles can be seen in every state except Hawaii, according to the NWF. The group’s list includes an Eagle-inhabited spot in every state, but notes that some state’s enjoy larger winter congregations of the birds, while others may support just a few breeding pairs.

The places to visit:

Alabama
Lake Guntersville State Park, (256) 571-5440 or

Alaska
Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, (907) 465-4563 or

Arizona
Mormon Lake, (928) 527-3600

Arkansas
Beaver Lake, (479) 636-1210

California
Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, (530) 667-2231

Colorado
Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge, (719) 589-4021 or

Connecticut
Connecticut River Shepaug Eagle Observation Area

Delaware
Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, (302) 653-9345

Florida
Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area: Prairie Lakes Unit, (407) 436-1818

Georgia
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, (912) 496-7836

Hawaii
Bald eagles are found in every state but Hawaii.

Idaho
Lake Coeur d’Alene/Wolf Lodge Bay, (877) 782-9232 or

Illinois
Cedar Glen Eagle Roost

Indiana
Monroe Lake, (812) 837-9546

Iowa
Keokuk Riverfront Area and Lock and Dam 19, (800) 383-1219

Kansas
Perry Reservoir, (620) 672-5911

Kentucky
Ballard Wildlife Management Area, (502) 224-2244

Louisiana
White Kitchen Preserve, (225) 338-1040

Maine
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, (207) 454 -7161

Maryland
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, (410) 228-2677

Massachusetts
Quabbin Reservoir, (413) 323-7221

Michigan
Erie Marsh, (517) 316-0300

Minnesota
Voyageurs National Park, (218) 283-6600

Mississippi
Nelson Dewey State Park, (608) 725-5855

Missouri
Sandy Island Natural History Area, (314) 968-1105

Montana
Hauser Lake, (406) 454-5840

Nebraska
Kingsley Dam, (402) 471-0641 or

Nevada
Lake Mead National Recreation Area, (702) 293-8906

New Hampshire
Adams Point Wildlife Management Area, (603) 271-2461

New Jersey
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, (570) 426-2452

New Mexico
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, (505) 248-6911

New York
Mongaup Falls Reservoir, (845) 557-6162

North Carolina
Jordan Lake State Recreation Area, (919) 733-4181

North Dakota
Riverdale Wildlife Management Area, (701) 328-6300

Ohio
Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, (419) 898-0014

Oklahoma
Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge, (580) 626-4794

Oregon
Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge, (530) 667-2231

Pennsylvania
Middle Creek Wildlife Management Area, (717) 787-1323

Rhode Island
Scituate Reservoir, (401) 222-6800

South Carolina
ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge, (404) 679-7154

South Dakota
Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, (605) 487-7603

Tennessee
Reelfoot Lake State Park, (731) 253-9652

Texas
Lake Fork Reservoir

Utah
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, (435) 545-2522

Vermont
Harriman Station, (603) 448-2200

Virginia
Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge, (703) 490-4979

Washington
Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural Area, (360) 445-4441

West Virginia
South Branch of the Potomac River, Potomac Eagle Scenic Railroad, (304) 424-0736

Wisconsin
Nelson Dewey State Park, (608) 725-5374

Wyoming
Buffalo Bill State Park, (307) 587-9227

For more information on the recovery of the Bald Eagle, see these resources:

The Eagle Institute, based in the Northeast U.S.

The National Eagle Center in Wabasha, Minn.

Where Would They Be Now?, an article published by NWF about species brought back from the brink of extinction.

World Wildlife Fund announced today that Earth Hour 2010 will take place on Saturday, March 27, from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., with many of the nation’s most iconic landmarks dimming their lights for one hour in what is expected to be the largest call for action on climate change in history.

WWF said the initial list of U.S. landmarks taking part in the event includes Mount Rushmore, Empire State Building, the “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” sign, Harrah’s Caesar Palace and the MGM Mirage on the Las Vegas Strip and San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge. New Earth Hour participants in 2010 will include Montezuma Castle National Monument in Arizona and the Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Indianapolis. Other local landmarks taking part include Atlanta’s Bank of America building and the Pike Place Market sign in Seattle.

This year’s event follows a U.S. government report from June 2009 that found that every region of the nation is experiencing significant, adverse impacts from climate change including droughts, floods, heat waves and wildfires. A study released in November 2009 by WWF and the insurance company Allianz SE warned that by mid-century, rising global sea levels caused by climate change could increase risks to more than $7 trillion in buildings, transportation infrastructure, and other assets in major U.S. coastal cities, including Boston, Houston, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco.

Organizations that have also pledged their support for Earth Hour include Goddard Systems, Inc., HandsOn Network, American Federation of Teachers, NAACP, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Park Service’s WebRangers, American Bird Conservancy, Jane Goodall’s Roots & Shoots, Focus the Nation, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Association of Student Councils, National Honor Society, National Junior Honor Society, National Science Teachers Association, National Association of Neighborhoods, Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington and Reverb, a non-profit organization that greens concert tours.

The two week summit on climate change in Copenhagen wound to a close Saturday with the United Nations issuing a news release that many nations had agreed upon the issues that need to be addressed.

The agreement, seen either as a foothold or a failure in the fight against climate change, fell far short of the hoped-for signed treaty that would have included firm commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the countries around the world.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called it “an essential beginning.”

“The importance will only be recognized when it’s codified into international law … We must transform this into a legally binding treaty next year,” he told the BBC.

The accord provides for industrialized nations to commit to specific emissions reductions targets by stating them within the agreement by the end of January, 2010. The top GHG-polluting nations include China, the United States, Russia, India and Japan, followed by Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Iran.

Here is the news release from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the arm of the UN that oversaw talks:

Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference ends

with political agreement to cap temperature rise, reduce emissions and raise finance

(Copenhagen, 19 December 2009) The United Nations Climate Change Conference
in Copenhagen ended today with an agreement by countries to cap the global
temperature rise by commiting to significant emission reductions, and to
raise finance to kickstart action in the developing world to deal with
climate change.

At the meeting, world leaders agreed the ‘Copenhagen Accord’, which was
supported by a majority of countries, including amongst them the biggest
and the richest, and the smallest and most vulnerable.

“We have sealed the deal,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.
“This accord cannot be everything that everyone hoped for, but it is an
essential beginning,” he said.

The Copenhagen Accord recognizes the scientific view that an increase in
global temperature below 2 degrees is required to stave off the worst
effects of climate change.

In order to achieve this goal, the accord specifies that industrialised
countries will commit to implement, individually or jointly, quantified
economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, to be listed in the accord before
31 January 2010.

A number of developing countries, including major emerging economies,
agreed to communicate their efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions every
two years, also listing their voluntary pledges before the 31 January 2010.

Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support are
to be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and
capacity building support from industrialised nations.

“We must be honest about what we have got,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary
Yvo de Boer. “The world walks away from Copenhagen with a deal. But clearly
ambitions to reduce emissions must be raised significantly if we are to
hold the world to 2 degrees,” he added.

Because the pledges listed by developed and developing countries may,
according to science, be found insufficient to keep the global temperature
rise below 2 degrees or less, leaders called for a review of the accord, to
be completed by 2015.

The review would include a consideration of the long-term goal to limit the
global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees.

Heads of state and government also intend to unleash prompt action on
mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, reducing emissions from
deforestation in developing countries and capacity-building.

To this effect, they intend to establish the “Copenhagen Green Climate
Fund” to support immediate action on climate change. The collective
commitment towards the fund by developed countries over the next three
years will approach 30 billion US dollars.

For long-term finance, developed countries agreed to support a goal of
jointly mobilizing 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs
of developing countries.

In order to step up action on the development and transfer of technology,
governments intend to establish a new technology mechanism to accelerate
development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation.

119 world leaders attended the meeting, the largest gathering of heads of
state and government in the history of the UN. “Climate change is the
permanent leadership challenge of our time,” said UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon. “I therefore urge world leaders to remain engaged,” he said.

“We now have a package to work with and begin immediate action,” said
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. “However, we need to be clear that
it is a letter of intent and is not precise about what needs to be done in
legal terms. So the challenge is now to turn what we have agreed
politically in Copenhagen into something real, measurable and verifiable,”
he added.

The next annual UN Climate Change Conference will take place towards the
end of 2010 in Mexico City, preceded by a major two week negotiating
session in Bonn, Germany, scheduled 31 May to 11 June.

(The UNFCCC has membership of 194 nations and the group that ratified the Kyoto Protocol, signed by 190 of the UNFCCC
Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized
countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market
economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction
commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will
prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.)

Reaction to the Copenhagen Accord from environmental and humanitarian groups blasted through Copenhagen like an icy wind this evening, with several groups expressing bitter disappointment, and decrying Obama for abandoning his pledge to fight climate change.

Others, however, praised the forward motion of the summit’s final day, when President Obama and other heads of state reached an agreement to try to hold global carbon emissions to a level that holds climate change to two degree increase.

Protest outside the Bella Centre, (Photo: Ainhoa Goma, Oxfam)

Collected here are some of the responses to Obama’s announcement of the agreement this evening in Copenhagen.

(We’ll add more as they arise.)

Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International:

“This agreement barely papers over the huge differences between countries which have plagued these talks for two years.

The deal is a triumph of spin over substance. It recognizes the need to keep warming below 2 degrees but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash.

Millions of people around the world do not want to see their hopes for a fair, binding and ambitious deal die in Copenhagen. Leaders need to get back round the table in early 2010 and take the hard decisions they copped out of in Copenhagen.”

————————————————————————————–

Bill McKibben, American environmentalist and founder of 350.org:

“This is a declaration that small and poor countries don’t matter, that international civil society doesn’t matter, and that serious limits on carbon don’t matter. The president has wrecked the UN and he’s wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it’s at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon henhouse without any oversight.”

————————————————————————————–

Carl Pope, president of the Sierra Club:

“The world’s nations have come together and concluded a historic–if incomplete–agreement to begin tackling global warming.  Tonight’s announcement is but a first step and much work remains to be done in the days and months ahead in order to seal a final international climate deal that is fair, binding, and ambitious.  It is imperative that negotiations resume as soon as possible.

President Obama and the rest of the world paid a steep price here in Copenhagen because of obstructionism in the United States Senate.  That a deal was reached at all is testament to President Obama’s leadership–all the more remarkable because of the very weak hand he was dealt because of the Senate’s failure to pass domestic clean energy and climate legislation.  Now that the rest of the world–including countries like China and India–has made clear that it is willing to take action, the Senate must pass domestic legislation as soon as possible.  America and the world can no longer be held hostage to petty politics and obstructionism.”

————————————————————————————

Asher Miller, executive director of the Post Carbon Institute:

“Despite dire warnings from his own national leading scientists, and over the cries of millions of voices in hundreds of countries across the globe, US President Barack Obama has chosen political expediency over truth and justice.

The so-called Copenhagen Accord is merely the repackaging of old and toothless promises, which holds no one accountable and utterly fails to reflect the urgency of the moment at hand.

Less than one year ago, President Obama took the oath of office on a cold winter day in our nation’s capital, calling upon each of us to summon a new spirit of patriotism, of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.

Now, on another cold winter day, our President appears to be more concerned about saving face and avoiding sacrifice than honoring his own lofty words.

It is now time for the American people to lead, to demand action, and to show the way, as Obama himself said block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

The world can no longer wait.”

———————————————————————————–

Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity:

“We all know what we must do to solve global warming, but even the architects of this deal acknowledge that it does not take those necessary steps. Merely acknowledging the weaknesses of the deal, as President Obama has done, does not excuse its failings. If this is the best we can do, it is not nearly good enough. We stand at the precipice of climatic tipping points beyond which a climate crash will be out of our control. We cannot make truly meaningful and historic steps with the United States pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by only 3 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The science demands far more.

The people of the United States voted for President Obama based on his promise of change and hope. But the only change today’s agreement brings is a greater risk of dangerous climate change. And the only hope that flows from Copenhagen stems not from the president’s hollow pronouncements but from the birth of a diverse global movement demanding real solutions and climate justice — demands made with a collective voice growing loud enough that in short order politicians will no longer be able to ignore it.”

—————————————————————————————-

Gillian Caldwell, 1Sky Campaign director(from Dec. 19):

“Events continue to unfold as we speak, but it is clear that the Copenhagen talks will not result in the fair, ambitious, and binding global treaty that the world desperately needs. The 1Sky campaign pushed hard for President Obama to join the Copenhagen negotiations and we were pleased that he did, but unfortunately the proposals offered by the Obama Administration fell short of what was needed. The hopes of grassroots advocates and civil society leaders for a successful outcome have been dashed largely because the U.S. has yet to take bold action to tackle the climate challenge.”

“Our work is clearly not done yet — the science calls for much more urgent action than what we’ve seen to date, and President Obama has acknowledged that. Delay only benefits the fossil fuel industries that are reaping record profits while destroying our future. We call upon President Obama and the Senate to take bold action as soon as possible in 2010 to secure our future.”

“…the U.S. Senate’s failure to pass a strong climate bill in 2009 presented a significant roadblock to progress in Copenhagen. Every day the U.S. Senate delays undermines the U.S.’s negotiating position and diminishes our potential to lead the way in the clean energy economy of the future. President Obama must step up to the challenge and rally the American public behind bold climate legislation and secure a strong bill from the U.S. Senate. The longer we wait, the worse it gets: the International Energy Agency tells us that every year of delay costs $500 billion.”

(1Sky is a collaborative national campaign for strong federal action to tackle global climate change and invest in building the clean energy economy of the future with 540 allied organizations.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

As the Copenhagen climate talks moved into high gear on Tuesday, preparing for the heads of state to join the talks, the AP released a poll showing that more Americans believe action on climate change will help the U.S. economy than hinder it.

The Associated Press-Stanford University Poll found that 40 percent of Americans said that action to slow global warming would create jobs, and 46 percent said it would “boost the economy.”

Less than one-third of respondents felt that controlling climate change would hurt the economy.

Republicans opposed to a national climate bill have argued that curbing global warming will be expensive, raise energy costs and hurt the U.S. economy. A delegation of these climate action opponents plans to visit the Copenhagen Climate Conference in Denmark this week.

The AP’s story about the poll quoted one responder as saying that the Republicans “are wrong.” Under climate action, Americans will shift to new jobs, the Seattle man said.

Another man, from Connecticut, told the AP that he saw a green revolution as promising jobs for those in need of work.

“I don’t know if anybody has looked around lately, but the economy is dead,” said Jake Berglund, a home-improvement contractor from Portland, Conn. “We are in a sinking ship, and Obama has bought us enough life rafts to keep on going. But we need to figure out how to build a new boat when we are still on the water.”

But while those polled were mostly in favor of green jobs, they were not as enthusiastic about  a carbon cap-and-trade market, if it meant their energy bills would be higher.

A majority of those polled, 59 percent, said they would not support a cap-and-trade system if it meant they would have to pay $10 extra a month for electricity.

Two prominent environmental groups have proposed a direct approach to controlling carbon emissions that doesn’t require a new climate law, or even a cap-and-trade agreement.

The strategy: Use the U.S. Clean Air Act.

On Wednesday, the Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to set national limits for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The petition asks that greenhouse gases be classified as “criteria” air pollutants, which would trigger national caps under the law, and that atmospheric CO2, be capped at 350 parts per million (ppm) which is the level that many scientists now believe is required to avert the worst impacts of global warming. Carbon is the most prevalent GHG, and is produced, in large part, by burning fossil fuels. Coal-fired power plants are the single greatest carbon emitter. Transportation and oil-burning manufacturing activities also contribute.

“The science, unfortunately, is all too clear,” says Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org. “350 ppm is the most CO2 we can have in the atmosphere if we want a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed. …Ninety-two national governments have endorsed it as a target. Now it’s time for the nation that invented environmentalism to use its most progressive set of laws in the same effort.”

Most recently, the Obama administration proposed emission reduction targets of just 3 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is much less than the cuts of about 45 percent that are necessary to return to 350 ppm.

Today, the current atmospheric CO2 level is about 385 ppm.

The Clean Air Act petition notes that the Obama administration already has the legal tools it needs to greatly reduce greenhouse emissions. The work can proceed with or without a cap-and-trade bills.

But why file the petition now, on the eve of the Copenhagen talks that could solidify new emissions reductions?

“We filed the petition now,” says Kassie Siegel, an author of the petition and director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, “to make the point that Obama already has the tools he needs to agree to deep, rapid, and science-based emissions reductions in Copenhagen, and to then achieve those reductions. His excuses for failing to do so are unfounded.”

In other words, President Obama doesn’t have to beg off strong emissions targets just because Congress has aimed low with the climate bills under consideration. He doesn’t have to tell his counterparts in Copenhagen that all he can offer is what Congress will allow. The Copenhagen Climate Conference, which brings together negotiators and heads of state from around the globe to try to forge an accord on emissions reductions, runs from Dec. 7-18. Obama has announced he will attend early in the conference, and several U.S. cabinet members are participating, including the EPA’s Lisa Jackson, Department of Energy chief Steven Chu and Carol Browner, head of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

The Clean Air Act’s provisions have worked for 40 years, Siegel notes.

“This law has protected the air we breathe – and it’s done that through a proven , successful system of pollution control that saves lives and creates economic benefits vastly exceeding its costs,” she says.

Among others supporting the petition are the UN’s chief climate scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA’s top climate scientist, James Hansen. Both agree on the need to reach 350.

“The Clean Air Act is a bipartisan bill signed by a Republican president,” says McKibben. “Leading scientists at NASA and around the world say we need to get to 350 ppm. This petition simply asks EPA to do its job as science, the law and common sense require.”

By filing the petition now, says Seigel, the environmental groups such as hers, are trying to prove that “Obama’s hands are not tied, as he claims, by Congress’s abysmal response to the climate crisis.

Obama promised to lead the way to a science-based solution. Were he to do so as our petition requests, such leadership could still allow real success at the Copenhagen climate talks.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media