Cars.com recently released its second Green Cities Index, ranking cities on their interest green vehicles. The list was calculated by evaluating the number of hybrid searches as a percentage of overall car searches in each market, then ranking them.

West Coast buyers, particularly the Pacific Northwest, showed the greatest interest in hybrid vehicles. Eight of the top 10 cities on the list are in Oregon, California or Washington, with Eugene, Ore.; Portland, Ore.; and Santa Barbara, Calif., taking the top three spots.

“What’s interesting to note is, aside from the cities on the West Coast that one might guess would have a very strong interest in hybrid technologies, college towns rank high on the list for their interest in hybrid technologies,” Cars.com senior editor Joe Wiesenfelder said in a statement. “Among the top 15 cities on the list are a group of smaller cities with large state universities where hybrids are very popular, including Charlottesville, Va., home to the University of Virginia; Gainesville, Fla., home to the University of Florida; and Madison, Wis., home to the University of Wisconsin.”

The Cars.com Green Cities Index monitors hybrid-vehicle shopping in all 210 designated market areas across the country. Here are the complete rankings:

RANK CITY
1 Eugene, Ore.
2 Portland, Ore.
3 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-San Luis Obispo,
Calif.
4 Monterey-Salinas, Calif.
5 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, Calif.
6 Charlottesville, Va.
7 Medford-Klamath Falls, Ore.
8 Chico-Redding, Calif.
9 Juneau, Alaska
10 Seattle-Tacoma, Wash.
11 Boise, Idaho
12 Eureka, Calif.
13 Gainesville, Fla.
14 Austin, Texas
15 Madison, Wis.
16 San Diego, Calif.
17 Phoenix, Ariz.
18 Butte-Bozeman, Mont.
19 Salt Lake City, Utah
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, Calif.
21 Lexington, Ky.
22 Denver, Colo.
23 Honolulu, Hawaii
24 Helena, Mont.
25 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.
26 Glendive, Mont.
27 Idaho Falls-Pocatello, Idaho
28 Rochester-Mason City, Iowa-Austin, Minn.
29 Portland, Maine
30 Fairbanks, Alaska
31 Burlington, Vt.-Plattsburgh, N.Y.
32 Billings, Mont.
33 La Crosse-Eau Claire, Wis.
34 Duluth, Minn.-Superior, Wis.
35 Cedar Rapids-Waterloo-Iowa City-Dubuque, Iowa
36 Missoula, Mont.
37 Reno, Nev.
38 Bangor, Maine
39 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville), N.C.
40 Palm Springs, Calif.
41 Washington, DC (Hagerstown, Md.)
42 Springfield-Holyoke, Mass.
43 Columbia, S.C.
44 Tucson (Sierra Vista), Ariz.
45 Lafayette, Ind.
46 Lansing, Mich.
47 Boston, Mass. (Manchester, N.H.)
48 Bend, Ore.
49 Fresno-Visalia, Calif.
50 Tallahassee, Fla.-Thomasville, Ga.
51 Ft. Wayne, Ind.
52 Spokane, Wash.
53 Los Angeles, Calif.
54 Kansas City, Mo.
55 Yakima-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick, Wash.
56 Sioux Falls (Mitchell), S.D.
57 Casper-Riverton, Wyo.
58 Harrisonburg, Va.
59 Charlotte, N.C.
60 Nashville, Tenn.
61 Wilmington, N.C.
62 Great Falls, Mont.
63 Bowling Green, Ky.
64 Anchorage, Alaska
65 Louisville, Ky.
66 Syracuse, N.Y.
67 Las Vegas, Nev.
68 Albuquerque-Santa Fe, N.M.
69 Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney, Neb.
70 Greenville-Spartanburg, S.C.-Asheville,
N.C.-Anderson, S.C.
71 Omaha, Neb.
72 Terre Haute, Ind.
73 Fargo-Valley City, N.D.
74 St. Louis, Mo.
75 Cincinnati, Ohio
76 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y.
77 Jacksonville, Fla.
78 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, Mich.
79 Wausau-Rhinelander, Wis.
80 Ft. Myers-Naples, Fla.
81 Des Moines-Ames, Iowa
82 Champaign-Springfield-Decatur, Ill.
83 Columbus, Ga.
84 Green Bay-Appleton, Wis.
85 Tulsa, Okla.
86 Springfield, Mo.
87 Topeka, Kan.
88 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, Fla.
89 Panama City, Fla.
90 Roanoke-Lynchburg, Va.
91 Charleston, S.C.
92 Mankato, Minn.
93 Indianapolis, Ind.
94 Oklahoma City, Okla.
95 Ft. Smith-Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers,
Ark.
96 Chattanooga, Tenn.
97 Rochester, N.Y.
98 Milwaukee, Wis.
99 Colorado Springs-Pueblo, Colo.
100 Dayton, Ohio
101 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce, Fla.
102 Providence, R.I.-New Bedford, Mass.
103 South Bend-Elkhart, Ind.
104 Knoxville, Tenn.
105 Peoria-Bloomington, Ill.
106 Columbia-Jefferson City, Mo.
107 Hartford-New Haven, Conn.
108 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News, Va.
109 Richmond-Petersburg, Va.
110 Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson (Williston), N.D.
111 Evansville, Ind.
112 Pittsburgh, Pa.
113 Lubbock, Texas
114 Joplin, Mo.-Pittsburg, Kan.
115 Dothan, Ala.
116 Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota), Fla.
117 Binghamton, N.Y.
118 Columbus, Ohio
119 Macon, Ga.
120 Jackson, Tenn.
121 Bakersfield, Calif.
122 Biloxi-Gulfport, Miss.
123 San Angelo, Texas
124 Rockford, Ill.
125 Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas
126 San Antonio, Texas
127 Abilene-Sweetwater, Texas
128 Johnstown-Altoona, Pa.
129 Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York, Pa.
130 Salisbury, Md.
131 Davenport, Iowa-Rock Island-Moline, Ill.
132 Greenville-New Bern-Washington, N.C.
133 Buffalo, N.Y.
134 Birmingham (Anniston and Tuscaloosa), Ala.
135 Grand Junction-Montrose, Colo.
136 Columbus-Tupelo-West Point, Miss.
137 Sioux City, Iowa
138 Baltimore, Md.
139 Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem, N.C.
140 Atlanta, Ga.
141 Philadelphia, Pa.
142 Augusta, Ga.
143 Chicago, Ill.
144 Marquette, Mich.
145 Toledo, Ohio
146 Wichita Falls, Texas-Lawton, Okla.
147 St. Joseph, Mo.
148 Watertown, N.Y.
149 Traverse City-Cadillac, Mich.
150 Utica, N.Y.
151 Twin Falls, Idaho
152 Presque Isle, Maine
153 Memphis, Tenn.
154 Erie, Pa.
155 Little Rock-Pine Bluff, Ark.
156 Wichita-Hutchinson, Kan.
157 Elmira, N.Y.
158 Cleveland-Akron (Canton), Ohio
159 Tri-Cities, Tenn.-Va.
160 Huntsville-Decatur (Florence), Ala.
161 Quincy, Ill.-Hannibal, Mo.-Keokuk, Iowa
162 Sherman, Texas-Ada, Okla.
163 Amarillo, Texas
164 Ottumwa, Iowa-Kirksville, Mo.
165 Paducah, Ky.-Cape Girardeau, Mo.-Harrisburg,
Ill.
166 Rapid City, S.D.
167 Youngstown, Ohio
168 Wilkes Barre-Scranton, Pa.
169 Parkersburg, W.V.
170 Savannah, Ga.
171 Flint-Saginaw-Bay City, Mich.
172 Tyler-Longview (Lufkin & Nacogdoches), Texas
173 Hattiesburg-Laurel, Miss.
174 Cheyenne, Wyo.-Scottsbluff, Neb.
175 Houston, Texas
176 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
177 Mobile, Ala.-Pensacola (Ft. Walton Beach),
Fla.
178 New York, N.Y.
179 Charleston-Huntington, W.V.
180 Detroit, Mich.
181 Baton Rouge, La.
182 Myrtle Beach-Florence, S.C.
183 Clarksburg-Weston, W.V.
184 Lima, Ohio
185 Yuma, Ariz.-El Centro, Calif.
186 Montgomery-Selma, Ala.
187 Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas
188 Waco-Temple-Bryan, Texas
189 Odessa-Midland, Texas
190 Monroe, LA-El Dorado, Ark.
191 Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill, W.V.
192 New Orleans, La.
193 Jackson, Miss.
194 Wheeling, W.V.-Steubenville, Ohio
195 Jonesboro, Ark.
196 Shreveport, La.
197 Lafayette, La.
198 Corpus Christi, Texas
199 Zanesville, Ohio
200 El Paso, Texas
201 Albany, Ga.
202 Lake Charles, La.
203 Alpena, Mich.
204 Alexandria, La.
205 Victoria, Texas
206 Meridian, Miss.
207 Greenwood-Greenville, Miss.
208 Harlingen-Weslaco-Brownsville-McAllen, Texas
209 North Platte, Neb.
210 Laredo, Texas

MORE FROM GRN

It’s already mid-March and that means the snows will melt and if the ground’s not too saturated farmers will soon be planting seeds for the food that will feed us this year.

Since time immemorial farmer’s markets have been with us: farmers harvest, bakers bake, dairy farmers milk their cows and they all meet at a central location where there’s lots of foot traffic … and they sell. The common theme: the food is fresh.

In addition to the standard organic fruits, vegetables and eggs, farmer’s markets offer items you wouldn’t usually consider: hand-made brooms, herbs, bath and body care products, lobster rolls, wine, organic teas and “traditional handcrafted leather goods and repair”, rabbits, natural and dyed yarn and spinning supplies, photographs of local scenes, elk and moose meat, organic spice blends and increasingly, fresh fish.

1. It’s locally grown

Most but not all Farmer’s Markets in the US require vendors to have grown, produced or crafted what they sell at the market. Most vendors are small, one- or two-person operations and they grow only what they can manage. They grow what’s in season and it’s local. Ask the farmer if they grew what they’re selling, ask if it’s organic. Don’t buy until you’re satisfied with their answers.

2. You know the farmer personally

You know where the farm family lives; you’ve seen their farm, your children go to school with their children, you see each other at church or at Little League games or at a movie. You know the farmer and you trust him. He’s a neighbor.

3. It’s where the chefs and restaurateurs shop for fresh produce and baked goods

Patrick Soucy, chef at a Portsmouth, N.H. restaurant that specializes in New American cuisine, buys at the local farmer’s markets because of the “better health, better quality” of the food.

“And the produce defines ‘tree-ripened’. It’s fresh. ”

Raj, chef at an Indian restaurant in southern Maine, buys there “because it’s local, within a 20-mile radius. It didn’t come here from California. Also, I support the local community.”

4. Prices are often cheaper than supermarkets

… but not always. Organically-grown and the small-operation produce is very labor-intensive. Individually planted by hand, individually nurtured during the growing process and then individually harvested by hand obviously takes a tremendous amount of time. But the local farmer doesn’t have the tremendous labor, mortgage, transportation and other expenses of a supermarket, so cost comparisons show that all-in-all the farmer’s market sells food for less than a supermarket.

5. There’s less of a carbon footprint: field to farm

What about the bananas at a supermarket in America that come from El Salvador, the berries from Chile, and the kiwis from Australia … how can they possibly be their freshest when they were harvested so early in their growth process and they grew older on their journey? Local produce usually travels less than 10 miles from field to market. Take a bite from a store-bought peach and then take a bite from a locally-grown peach. As chef Patrick Soucy says, “I needed five napkins to wipe my mouth after biting the locally-grown peach”.

President Barack Obama today ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to review its previous refusal to allow California and more than a dozen other states to raise emissions standards above and beyond the national standard. The Bush administration had denied the requests.

“Instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in their way,” President Obama said. “The days of Washington dragging its heels are over.”

And in what he called “a down payment on a broader and sustained effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” President Obama directed the Department of Transportation to establish higher fuel efficiency standards for carmakers’ 2011 model year. The standard, known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), was established in 1975 in the wake of the Arab Oil Embargo.

Here are states that are seeking to regulate auto emission standards, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the National Resources Defense Council:

California – On July 22, 2002, former Governor Gray Davis signed AB 1493, a pioneering measure to protect California’s health and environment by reducing global warming pollution from all new cars and trucks sold in the state, America’s largest automobile market.

New Jersey – On January 14, 2004, Governor James E. McGreevey signed legislation that adopted California’s vehicle emissions standards to automobiles sold in New Jersey.

Connecticut – On May 4, 2004, Governor John G. Rowland signed the Clean Car Act, PA 04-84, requiring the Department of Environmental Protection to adopt regulations implementing California’s vehicle emissions standards, and to keep the Connecticut regulations current with changes California makes.

Oregon – In December 2005, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) adopted temporary rules requiring Oregon to meet California’s vehicle emissions standards. On June 22, 2006, the EQC permanently adopted rules requiring all new motor vehicles sold in Oregon to meet California’s vehicle emissions standards.

Washington – On May 6, 2005, Governor Christine Gregoire signed HB 1397, adopting California’s vehicle emissions standards for Washington, conditional on Oregon’s adoption of the standard.

Rhode Island – On October 13, 2005, Governor Don Carcieri announced Rhode Island’s intention to adopt California’s vehicle emissions standards. The standards were officially adopted on December 22, 2005 with approval of Air Pollution Control Regulation no.37, Rhode Island’s Low Emission Vehicle Program.

Vermont – On November 7, 2005, the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division adopted a rule amending its low emission vehicles regulation to be identical to that of California’s vehicle emissions standards.

New York – On November 9, 2005, the New York State Environmental Board approved State regulations that require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles by adhering to California’s vehicle emissions standards.

Maine – In December 2005, the Board of Environmental Protection adopted amendments to Chapter 127, New Motor Vehicle Emission Standards, which incorporated California’s vehicle emissions standards for new motor vehicles sold in Maine.

Massachusetts – On January 9, 2006, Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Stephen R. Pritchard announced the state’s adoption of California’s vehicle emissions standards, designed to produce cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts. The standards take effect in Massachusetts starting with 2009 model year vehicles.

Arizona – On September 8, 2006, Governor Janet Napolitano signed Executive Order 2006-13, which directs the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to coordinate with the Arizona Department of Transportation to adopt and implement California’s vehicle emissions standards.

Pennsylvania – On September 19, 2006, Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Board approved the Clean Vehicles Program, a plan to meet California’s vehicle emissions standards. On November 2, 2006, the state’s Independent Regulatory Review Commission approved the implementation of the plan. Despite support from Governor Edward G. Rendell, in late 2006, the Pennsylvania General Assembly debated SB 1025, a rollback bill threatening to block the state from implementing the Clean Cars Law. On November 22, 2006, however, Pennsylvania concluded its ‘lame duck’ session without having voted on the SB 1025.

New Mexico – On December 28, 2006, Governor Bill Richardson issued executive order 2006-69, establishing goals and timetables for steps the state can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including adopting California’s vehicle emissions standards. The New Mexico Environment Department is charged with submitting a proposal to the Environmental Improvement Board no later than January 1, 2008 to implement a state clean car standard consistent with California’s. In November 2007, the Albuquerque-Bernalillio Air Quality Control Board and the Environmental Improvement Board adopted the vehicle standards

New Jersey – On January 14, 2004, Governor James E. McGreevey signed legislation that adopted California’s vehicle emissions standards to automobiles sold in New Jersey

Utah – In May 2007, Utah joined the Western Climate Initiative, a joint effort to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. Other members include Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba. By agreeing to the Initiative’s regional goal, members commit to adopt California’s GHG standards for vehicles.

Florida – On July 13, 2007, Governor Charlie Crist signed Executive Order 07-127, requiring the Florida Secretary of Environmental Protection to develop rules adopting California’s vehicle emissions standards.

Colorado – On November 7, 2007, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter released Colorado’s Climate Action Plan, under which the Governor will issue an executive order directing Colorado’s Air Quality Control Division to propose clean car standards.

Sources: Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the National Resources Defense Council

If skiing or snowboarding is your brood’s idea of the perfect family vacation, then ask yourself: What could make it even ”more” perfect?

Powdery white slopes and alpine valleys? Maybe a white Christmas? Chances are when you think of skiing, you think of things white, not green. But the green-ski movement, prompted by U.S. groups like the Ski Area Citizens Coalition (SACC), an outgrowth of nonprofit Colorado Wild, and National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) “Sustainable Slopes” program, is changing that – little by little.

A fairly young endeavor (SACC started in 1999; Sustainable Slopes in 2000), the movement’s emergence reminds us that as healthy and nature-loving as this sport might be, it hasn’t been known for its environmental sensitivity.

Big-development resorts often gobble up entire mountains, says SACC’s ski-area coordinator Hunter Sykes – carving roads out of virgin wooded areas, replacing dense aspens and birch with Green, Blue and Black ski runs. And most large lodges, hotels and condo complexes have anything but a small carbon footprint.

But there’s a way to figure out who’s green and white, and who’s just plain white before booking your ski holiday this year. Every November, SACC posts a list of the 10 Best Ski Areas and the 10 Worst in the Western United States, based on skier scorecards that grade everything from the resort or ski operator’s impact on local and regional water sources, old growth forests and wildlife, to how the resort or operator deals with environmental policies. Does it recycle? Does it use biodiesel for its vehicles? Does it tap into alternative energy?

Other good sources for assessing how green your favorite snowy, white retreat is are the Ski Green Guide and the NSAA’s Green Room.

The SACC’s top ten for 2007-2008, with their rankings on a 100-point scale:

1. Aspen Mountain Ski Resort, Colorado – 88.9 % (pictured above)
2. Buttermilk Mountain Ski Resort, Colorado – 88 %
3. Park City Mountain Ski Resort, Utah – 81.3 %
4. Sundance Resort, Utah – 79.1 %
5. Aspen Highlands Ski Resort – 76.4 %
6. Mount Bachelor Ski Area, Oregon – 74.7 %
7. Alpine Meadows Ski Area, Californian – 73.8 %
8. Telluride Ski Resort, Colorado – 73.3 %
9. Bogus Basin Mountain Resort, Idaho – 73.3 %
10. Alta Ski Resort, Utah – 72.2 %

For those who’ve never heard of it, SACC is composed of nonprofits from three Western states: Colorado Wild, the Crystal Conservation Coalition (Washington), Friends of the Inyo (California) and the Sierra Nevada Alliance (California). Last year, the group added Canadian ski areas to its Skier Area Environmental Scorecards rating program, through the research group Under the Sleeping Buffalo based in Banff, Alberta. Its 225-point scoring criteria is extremely detailed and is broken down into two parts.  As the SACC reports on its site, the scorecard “strives to differentiate between those ski areas that engage in environmentally sound practices on the ground versus those that merely claim to do so.”

Going Green Means Saving The White Fluffy Stuff

A couple of major factors are fueling the need for a ski-green movement, says Sykes of SACC and Colorado Wild: Fewer people are skiing these days, so big developments are constantly pushing to expand their acreage into pristine alpine areas – which has environmentalists, and pro-green ski operators, on the offensive. And a greater number of people have become eco-conscious and are trying to lessen their impact on wilderness areas.

“It’s not that you shouldn’t be skiing,” Sykes explains, “but that you should be choosing the places where you ski more carefully.

While the world waits for Washington to act on one looming crisis – the Wall Street mortgage debacle – states in the Western U.S. acted today on another crisis, announcing a plan to reduce emissions to combat global warming.

The Western Climate Initiative, a collaborative of seven Western states and four Canadian provinces, agreed to try to reduce carbon emissions to 15 percent lower than 2005 levels by 2020.

The plan, based on a regional cap-and-trade market and efforts to support clean energy and other green technologies, would be “the most comprehensive carbon-reduction strategy to date” covering 90 percent of the region’s emissions, according to the news release on the agreement.

It would target emissions from electricity generation, industry, transportation and residential and commercial use. Under the cap-and-trade program, those emitting greenhouse gases would be capped at a certain level and would have to buy permits to cover their pollution or find the best market solutions to reduce their emissions.

The WCI is one of many regional cap-and-trade programs being developed around the world, including two others in the U.S.: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the Northeast, and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord in the Midwest.

Cap-and-trade programs are expected to give green energy and clean-tech businesses a big push, but many who’ve lauded the regional efforts say they are a clarion call to the federal government, which failed earlier this year to pass a proposed comprehensive climate change bill.

In the absence of federal legislation, however, many climate watchdog groups believe  regional pacts such as the one announced today will help shift the nation toward a green economy and spur green job growth.

Christopher Busch, a climate economist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that analyses conclude that Western region’s economy would benefit from investments in global warming solutions. Improved energy efficiency, for instance, can reduce electric bills and save drivers money at the pump and other changes would help create new jobs, he said.

But he warned: “There’s a right way and wrong way to do cap and trade. Doing it the right way means making sure that the program speeds the transition to a clean energy economy in a way that protects consumers. “The UCS believes “the right way” involves limiting the use of carbon offsets, which allow polluters to basically pay others to “offset” or reduce their emissions. It is better to encourage real gains in pollution reduction and to that end the UCS supports auctioning of permits to polluters. That sets up a market for the permits, with pollution-reduction programs achieving real market value which in turn “allows states to spend money on projects that can further reduce pollution and benefit their residents.”

The WCI agreement does limit the use of carbon offsets and allows for states to set even tighter limits on offsets, according to the UCS analysis.

The Western Climate Initiative, launched in February 2007, is composed of the governors of the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Utah; and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Summer’s ending and school’s recommencing — and along with the sound of bells ringing comes the simultaneous groan of kids nationwide. But this year, more American students than ever will return from vacation to a new backdrop, a green schoolhouse.

Yep, the little red school-house of yesteryear is getting a redo, making way for a 21st-century incarnation. Of this country’s 100,000 private and public schools, approximately one a day are now registering for LEED certification, according to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).

These little green schoolhouses still teach the “Three R’s” (reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic), but they’ve added three more – “Reduce, Recycle, Reuse.” And they’re doing it not just through energy-efficient building principles or water-conserving whiz-bangs, but through curricula, community-outreach projects, cafeterias, landscaping, new buses and transportation policies. One school in Oregon, Clackamas High School, has a city-wide cellphone battery recycling program and last year planted its own orchard.

The greening of America’s schools is a phenomenon to behold. Less than four years ago, Arizona and Washington state were two of the first to require all new public building construction meet LEED Silver requirements. Now dozens of states have green ground rules for schools. New York prohibits the use of non-green cleaners, while its neighbor New Jersey has mandated that all new schools be built to LEED specs. The 58 member schools of the Kentucky Green and Healthy Schools Program marked the project’s first anniversary this year (Kentucky made national news when it banned the sale of non-cafeteria foods on campus a couple of years ago).

Even foot-dragging Washington D.C. has gotten involved. The U.S. House Representatives created a Green Schools Caucus last November and now has more than 50 members. Earlier this summer, the House passed a bill that, if dovetailed with a similar Senate one, would fund $20 billion over the next five years. Known as “the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act,” it would help states construct new schools or renovate existing ones to make them healthier, more energy efficient and better for the environment.

But the numbers say it all. Since 2007, when the USGBC launched its LEED for Schools –- which has additional specs for things like acoustics and mold control (see USGBC for specs)– more than 78 schools have been certified and more than 750 have registered for certification. Its Green Schools Map illustrates how wide-spread the greening of America’s schools has become.

One of the first was the 220,000-square-foot Desert Edge High School campus (pictured left), part of the Agua Fria school district outside of Phoenix, in the burb of Goodyear. Built in two phases between 2002 and 2005, with the second, complementary phase turning out its first graduates in 2006, Desert High was the first school in Arizona to receive a LEED Silver rating, the fourth in the country and, according to multiple sources including the U.S. Department of Energy, the fifth in the world.

Since then, Agua Fria has built a second, even greener school, Verrado High (pictured right and far top), which opened in 2006 and is awaiting its LEED approval. (No problem, says the district’s assistant superintendent John Schmadeke. “We’re certain that will be another one.”)

In fact, since undertaking the Desert Edge extension, the entire school district has greened up its act and is waiting for the funds to build a third uber-green (LEED Silver) high school in 2009 or 2010. Already, Desert Edge has received kudos nationwide, such as The Green Guide’s most recent “Top Ten Greenest Schools” (2006), as well as special recognition from Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano.

“All that’s really cool,” adds Schmadeke, who was in on the ground floor of his community’s ambitious mission. “I mean, these things kind of come and go, but we’re really in it for the kids. We keep making it better for them –- the best we can. But what matters is graduation rates and kids getting a good education in a healthy environment.”

Though it was an odd thing to call a “groundbreaking” — the act involved no shovel stuck in soil, but rather the placement of a panel on a metal stand — a ceremony alongside an Oregon highway this month inaugurated what Governor Ted Kulongoski calls “the nation’s first solar highway project.”

Speaking in a promotional video made at the event, Kulongoski was joined by Transportation Commission chair Gail Achterman, who explained that the solar panel being mounted was the first of 594 that will soon cover 8,000 square feet alongside the right-of-way at the interchange of Interstates 5 and 205 south of Portland. Achterman said those panels would generate roughly a third of the energy needed to power the street lamps, signage, and other electric devices at the interchange.

No batteries are involved: Power will flow from the panels into Portland General Electric’s grid during the day, and PGE will “return an equivalent amount of power” at night when it’s needed. This installation is the first step in an ambitious plan to generate up to 2 megawatts of power on land owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation.

A proudly “all Oregon” project (with materials, design and installation coming from local companies), it will chip away at the electric needs of the state’s transportation system, which amount to 45 million kilowatt-hours each year. But it does rely on one factor beyond the state’s control, as ODOT’s announcement admits near the end:

“ODOT is acutely aware of the Dec. 31, 2008, sunsetting of the 30 percent federal investment tax credit; a successful procurement is dependent on extension of this tax credit.” (While public agencies aren’t taxed, their private financiers are and would qualify for the tax credit.)

Congress has tried numerous times to pass bills that would extend tax credits for green energy projects, but without success.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media