Monthly Archives: June 2007

H.R. 6: CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 – is it enough?

Multiracial buy cheap celexa people have been pathologized throughout history by society, labeled as estrace vaginal cream without prescription confused, and likened to unnaturally bred animals. These strategies appear buy cheapest cialis online generally safe for people with Parkinson's disease, but rTMS is buy generic levitra not suitable for people who have a pacemaker or experience buy generic lasix seizures. If you have unused medication that has gone past clozapine for sale the expiration date, ask your pharmacist how to dispose of clonidine from india it correctly. A person with CPTSD typically experiences symptoms of methotrexate prescription PTSD, such as flashbacks and responses to environmental triggers, as order asacol no prescription required well as symptoms similar to those of BPD, such as buy viagra canada emotional dysregulation and disrupted beliefs about themselves. This is true for.

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Automakers had to know they were in serious trouble when Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat with deep blue-collar roots, announced that she had lost patience with their annual objections to higher gas mileage rules.

“When automobile manufacturers told me they could not meet the increased standards, I listened,” said Ms. Mikulski, who said she had always been swayed by the potential loss of middle-class manufacturing jobs. “I listened year after year, and now I have listened for more than 20 years. After 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change.”

Bolstered by such converts as Ms. Mikulski, the Senate just before midnight Thursday approved an energy bill that would for the first time in more than two decades require auto companies to produce cars and trucks that get substantially more out of a gallon of gas.

But that was about the only industry it took on. The measure, approved on a bipartisan 65-to-37 vote, essentially spared oil and gas companies and major utilities and fell short of goals initially set by supporters in areas like renewable fuels.

cea2007.png

Jan 18, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 264 Ayes, 163 Nays, 8 Present/Not Voting. View Votes (roll no. 40)

cea2007senate.png

Jun 21, 2007: This bill passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals were 65 Ayes, 27 Nays, 7 Present/Not Voting. View Votes (roll no. 226)

Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] In a flurry of activity, the U.S. Senate voted down two amendments yesterday that would have created $32 billion worth of energy tax incentives and a National Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPS) requiring utilities to generate 15% of electricity from renewables by 2020. Later that same evening however, the Senate passed H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, 65-27.

The Clean Energy Act of 2007 is designed to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.

But two key amendments that would have provided billions of dollars worth of incentives and revenue for the U.S. renewable energy industry were rejected. The Energy Tax Package—approved by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee and House Ways & Mean committee earlier this week—contained a five-year extension of the tax credit for the production of electricity from wind, geothermal, biomass as well as the solar ITC extension.

Bill Status

Having passed in both the House and Senate, the bill may proceed to a conference committee of senators and representatives to work out differences in the versions of the bill each chamber approved. The bill then awaits the signature of the President before becoming law.

[NYTimes, RebewableEnergyAccess, www.govtrack.us]

Pascal Arquitectos : CC Pedregal

7.jpg

For those of you who have been following the site for a while now, Pascal Arquitectos should be becoming fairly familiar. For those of you who haven’t, well…don’t sleep!

Founded by Carlos & Gerard Pascal [brothers] in 1979, the firm has received critical acclaim for a number of their projects, including multiple IIDA Interior Design Magazine [Chicago] Awards, and the National Award IMEI [Mexico] for their work on Hotel Sheraton Centro Historico, Mexico City.

9.jpg

Featured today we have the Pedregal Shopping Centre, located in Mexico City – a 7.000.00 square meter project currently being developed by the firm [all following text provided by Pascal Arquitectos].

This project comes to set a new architectural statement in the Pedregal area of Mexico City which has been neglected, because nothing new and important had happened since its beginnings when “Cuidad Universitaria” was built. Nowadays the real-estate pressure and the need of services are beginning to promote significant changes.

12.jpg

The way that this building relates with its context is by breaking up with what is common to the zone, which are big houses in big areas surrounded by very high stone walls which do not let anybody know what is happening outside and vice versa.
pedregal-plantabaja-pres-lamina-01.jpg

This goal is achieved with the main facade that consists of two elements: one of them linen with a zinc plate with large irregular perforations to which a different shades of yellow and translucent laminated glass section is inlay. It allows the view of the interior event from the outside, and at the same time allowing the view of the exterior event from the inside; in such way the public social spaces mix and the limits within the urban and the private become frontiers.
3.jpg

This is a sustainable and intelligent development project with an automation and control system that contemplates passive and active energy saving resources: lighting and extraction control, opening and closing façade rolling doors, air conditioning, security and control access, prevention signage, CCTV, all of them scheduled and synchronized.

pedregal-cortes-1-pres-lamina-07.jpg

::all images and text [other than my brief intro] provided by Pascal Arquitectos – thanks again Amanda!::

Eating Radiation: A New Form of Energy?

In a bizarre alternative to photosynthesis, some fungi “eat” radiation–with the role of chlorophyll taken by melanin, a chemical also found in human skin.

The uses of this discovery could range from a disposal method for nuclear waste to a food source for long space voyages during which fungi could grow using radiation from outer space, although future astronauts may not find fungi very appetizing. Dadachova suggests that the fungi might be used as a biofuel to be grown in high-altitude regions where radiation is prevalent and nothing else can grow. Does this mean that one day huge fungi farms on the slopes of the Andes or the Himalayas will provide us with fuel for our cars, along with fungi steaks for astronauts heading to Mars?

[MIT Technology Review]

Tesla’s got some competition

Of course, the Tesla isn’t the only high-performance EV out there, nor was it the first (see Venturi Fetish, Wrightspeed X1), but it certainly was the first to capture the attention of the mainstream media.  Undoubtedly, it has changed many people’s perceptions of what an electric car can be.

Lucky for Tesla, the car pictured above, the Lightning GT, will be staying on the other side of the Atlantic.  Made by the Lightning Car Company, and using Altairnano NanoSafe batteries, the 700bhp coupe is now available for pre-order, with the first deliveries arriving in 2008. The coupe will also be available with a range extender (think the Chevy Volt).  The chassis is made of a carbon fiber/aluminum honeycomb composite monocoque, but its actual weight has not yet been disclosed.
The Lightning GT uses four 120kW wheel motors made by PML Flightlink.  These Hi-Pa Drive motors were also used in the 640hp EV Mini Cooper featured on green.mnp a few months back.  Lightning writes on its website that “all of the power is generated at the wheel, the point at which it is required, which eliminates mechanical complexity and power losses experienced in standard sports cars.  These lightweight and ultra powerful motors do not add significant extra unsprung weight and are therefore ideal in that position.”  A few days after the Lightning started making its rounds on the internet, the Director of Public Relations at Tesla addressed such hub-mounted motors on the company’s blog:

Without digressing too much, I’d like to tackle a reoccurring question because it dovetails perfectly with a discussion of driving dynamics. “Would four hub-mounted motors have made for a better Tesla Roadster?” In a word: no. Four hub-mounted motors would work great in an electric off road vehicle or rally car – power to each wheel could be controlled for mud, ice, and gravel along with the hill control feature used in off-roading. In a sports car, the added weight and complexity would have compromised the driving enjoyment that makes a sports car a driver’s delight.

The weight that engineers most worry about is rotating mass. In other words, anything that goes round and round as the car moves. This includes components like the wheels, tires, brake rotors, and even the lug nuts. Besides the gyroscopic forces that a spinning wheel assembly represents as a car turns, this is mass that needs to be spun up to speed for acceleration and slowed back down again for braking. More mass here means relatively slower acceleration and braking.

So who’s right?  We’ll have to wait for each car to reach production.  In all likelihood, each is probably right to some extent – almost every car company out there has a different philosophy in terms of engines (i.e. displacement vs. forced induction; inline 6′s vs V-6′s, and let’s not forget about horizontally-opposed boxer engines either), and engine placement and weight distribution (front-engine rear wheel drive vs. mid-engine rear wheel drive vs. rear-engine, rear wheel drive vs front-engine all-wheel drive…)  The real issue is how the individual manufacturer executes their philosophical belief in the specific model.

The other thing to consider; price.  The Tesla is going to retail for a little shy of $100,000, whereas the Lightning GT will cost almost three times that (£150,000).  We already know Tesla has big plans for EV’s, and is trying to bring them to mass-market, with plans for a dealer network and a sports-sedan.  Perhaps Lightning is set on becoming and remaining a boutique EV manufacturer…

More at the Lightning Car Company

SAVE OUR PLANET – ACT TODAY

Photo: REGIERUNGonline/Bergmann

Photo: REGIERUNGonline/Bolesch

During last week’s G8 Summit held in Heiligendamm, a the luxurious German resort town, the leaders of the 8 richest countries in the world got together to schmooze and talk about some pretty serious global issues – “The framework conditions for the global economy, involving the largest emerging economies in the system of global responsibility, climate protection issues and African development will be key focuses of this year’s G8 Summit in Heiligendamm.” Judging from the pictures from the event, everyone was getting along and having a great time. But did they actually accomplish anything? Since this is green.mnp, we’ll just focus on the “climate protection issues” at the moment. All 8 of the countries’ leaders agreed to hold UN talks on climate change later this year, which is a promising step toward making real goals. However, predictably, the US was the only country to refuse a fixed emissions reduction target.

Photo: REGIERUNGonline/Bergmann
Photo: REGIERUNGonline/Bergmann

Avaaz.org, a global action web community that puts together campaigns on “major global issues like poverty, climate change, human rights and global security”, organized a petition to bring to the G8 Summit. Here is a blog entry on the results of the petition, their experience at the Summit, and the future of the global climate issue:

06/11/07

Let’s become unstoppable

365,000 of us stood together at the G8 summit to save our planet. 200,000 of us added our voices to the global chorus in the last 10 days alone.

Gazing out on the Baltic, amazed, tired and humbled, taking a deep breath. You’re here too.

Overhead, the police helicopters still circle. Down on the beach, the media are getting massages. Beyond the fence, clowns and water cannons. It’s a circus, but the power is only too real.

We can’t stop now. The coming weeks and months are crucial. In the summit chambers, the G8+5 polluters have agreed on the global climate talks we demanded – but the kind of deal is still up for grabs. Will it be enough, fast enough?

Just in the last few days, Europe, Japan and Canada started to converge on a global goal of 50% or greater emissions cuts by 2050. In the end the US was the only G7 dissenter, Russia standing on the sidelines. So the summit’s tortured language speaks of “substantial emissions cuts” and goals without numbers. But the process we demanded – UN talks in Bali this December – looks strengthened.

President Bush only conceded global warming might be real in January. But this week his government felt compelled to shift, even if it’s trying wrecking tactics too.

That sabotage can’t succeed if we the people stand up for the right path, all around the globe. Bush is increasingly isolated even in his own country – the American public and the US Congress are coming behind bold action on climate change.

And he’s isolated in the world – he can’t rely on other big polluters like China and Brazil, now moving faster than expected toward the climate savers’ camp. The “plus 5″ big developing countries said they wanted a stronger statement from the G8. A big international poll just showed 65% of Chinese people and 62% of Indians support requiring their governments to act as well.

It’s more than watch this space. Let’s fill this space. To stop climate catastrophe, we need a massive global effort from every corner of the world over the coming weeks, months and years.

Let’s become unstoppable. We won’t stop now – let’s grow our petition even further before December’s summit.

365,000 and counting…

You can hear Ricken Patel talking about Avaaz’s G8 climate campaign on the global affairs magazine openDemocracy’s podcast here.

Next climate stop: Live Earth. 7th July, 2007.

g8collage.jpg

green.mnp encourages you to sign the petition (if you are into that kind of thing) and check out the other campaigns Avaaz.org has in the works.

[Avaaz.org, g-8.de]

The shoes – part II

keep1.jpg

Well, the folks over at Inhabitat are far more expeditious than we (I) here at green.mnp, and they already followed up on their interview with shoe designers Terra Plana before I had the chance to post my entry on it. Their new post is an interview with Una Kim, the founder of another dope shoe company, Keep. I will let you read the interview and decide for yourselves how you feel about the greenness of Keep’s practices. I have to say that I appreciate the honestly with which Kim responded to Inabitat’s difficult questions – even when they were not necessarily the answers we would like to hear. I do believe the companies labor practices are on point and they are moving in the right direction in terms of environmental practices.
That said, Keep won me over quite easily with their mission statement. It speaks not to the green, but to the lady in me:

We do Keep for all the women who have their game tight, who work hard to make things happen, who spread positivity and energy around them, who take care of their loved ones and most importantly take care of themselves. We make Keep shoes for those women who are tired of clown shoes, too many bells and whistles, and the misappropriation of the color pink.

keep3.jpg

keep2.jpg

Inhabitat

Green chemistry from across the pond

greenbeaker.jpg

Check out http://greenchemtech.blogspot.com/ for some interesting perspectives on green chemistry coming out of the UK.

The excellent and informative Richard Van Noorden, writer for Chemistry World magazine this week delved into recent criticisms of green chemistry – in terms of criticisms on the quality of some research and many other contentious issues.

I believe that this is due to the overly politicised nature of the “green” agenda in the US and also primarily since the “green chemistry” programme (in its origins, began with the US EPA through the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act) has ironically not made as much impact in the US educational system as it has in Europe or Asia and elsewhere. For this reason many, many misconceptions are around on the western side of the Atlantic, as to the fundamental nature of Green Chemistry. This is slowly turning, although marketing (see: Joel Makower’s recent post of green marketing and green consumerism), has slowly caused a small level of erosion as to the quality and meaning of the term “Green”, people believe and possibly are correct that its some sort of spin and by attaching the label too widely we are causing a devaluation to the term.

Indeed the fact that people think that green means essentially no impact and that this could ever be the case, is not all that surprising. We have to think relativistically, there are shades of green and its up to the skilled chemist – skilled Green Chemist to think strategically and make the right choices or come to the correct conclusions.

greenchem.jpg

http://greenchemtech.blogspot.com/

The shoes are fly – but are they as eco-friendly as they claim to be?

shoes.jpg

tp3.jpg

terraplana2.jpg

Green fashion has become all the rage lately. It is finally becoming possible for people to be sustainable and stylish at the same time. It is even becoming trendy. Unfortunately, trends are all to often exploited by companies trying to make a buck. It is going to become critical for us conscious consumers to pay attention to the origins of our clothes and how they are made, just as we have learned (or are still learning) to do with our groceries.

Our ninja friends over at Inhabitat report extensively on eco-friendly fashion designers and companies. They also do a great job of digging deep into the sustainable nature of these companies to ensure that we are getting what we pay for – a truly green product. As Inhabitat highlights in a recent interview with two of these eco-friendly companies, Terra Plana and Stewart & Brown, it is not always black and white to be green:

INHABITAT: As we move forward with the merging of commerce and sustainability we may see a “fractured environmentalism”. Organic cotton good, carbon produced in shipping all the way from China, not so good. I would argue that t-shirts and shoes are going to be made in China anyway, so an organic t-shirt or recycled shoe is at least a step in the right direction. However, I would also argue that a shirt made locally in Chinatown of conventional cotton may be just as sustainable. It is likely impossible to dot all the ‘i’s and cross all the ‘t’s in sustainability. What do you think the biggest issues are in moving sustainability forward in the apparel industry?

TERRA PLANA: THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY ANSWER THESE VICIOUSLY DOUBLE AND TRIPLE EDGED DEBATES IS TO DO ACCURATE LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS. I.E. SCIENTIFICALLY MEASURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL (AIR POLLUTION, WATER POLLUTION, BIO DIVERSITY LOSS, DE ESIFFICATION ETC…) IMPACT OVER EVERY RAW MATERIAL, EVERY PROCESS, ENERGY CONSUMPTION, PRODUCTION, PACKAGING, USE, END OF USE ETC… BUT THIS IS STILL PROBLEMATIC AS WE DON’T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT ARE THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENDERS.. IS IT WORSE TO CREATE AIR OR WATER POLLUTION FOR EXAMPLE? BUT FROM THESE MATRICES THAT ARE ALREADY APPEARING IN A LOT OF INDUSTRIES WE WILL ALREADY BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHERE THE SPIKES ARE – AND THEN SHOULD FOCUS ON THOSE. I.E. IF SHIPPING IS REALLY THE BIG OFFENDER THEN I’M SURE LEGISLATION AND TAXES WILL START TO REFLECT THAT AND MORE REGIONAL PRODUCTION MODELS WILL QUICKLY APPEAR…

THE MOST PRACTICAL SHORT TERM STEPS ARE: INDUSTRY WIDE ECO LABELING (WHICH IS PROVING CHALLENGING AS NO SEEMS TO AGREE ON WHAT THE STANDARDS SHOULD BE) SO A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE ACTING ON HUNCHES IN A VERY COMPLEX FIELD.

ECO SYSTEMS AND NATURE GIVE US A LOT OF GOOD WORDS IN THE MEANTIME:
APPROPRIATENESS (TRAINERS MADE IN UK ARE NOT PRACTICAL – AS NO 2ND TIER SUPPLY BASE INFRASTRUCTURE),
EFFICIENCY (ORGANICS ARE VERY INEFFICIENT USING LOTS OF WATER AND LOTS OF ENERGY TO PRODUCE),
DURABLE (A SHOE THAT LASTS A LONG TIME AND IS GOOD TO WEAR – IS BETTER THAN AN ORGANIC SHOE THAT YOU HAVE TO THROW AWAY ETC…)
SIMPLICITY (MINIMUM COMPONENTS ETC…)

The interview covers several other interesting topics with Terra Plana and Stewart & Brown. There may not be a simple formula for making sustainable fashion, but these two companies are making efforts to be friendly to the planet and its people, and they are clearly open to critique – which may the most important factor in beginning an evaluation.

Credit to Terra Plana for all these super-fly kicks.

shoess.jpg

shoesss.jpg

shoesies.jpg

Inhabitat

Jacques Ferrier : Hypergreen

ferrier-2.jpg

The Hypergreen tower, designed by Jacques Ferrier for a competition in Paris, is a 250 meter / 60 storey tall mixed-use ‘green’ building [hence ‘hypergreen’]. The building’s structure emerges as an intricate concrete lattice system, wrapping the facade in the woven pattern and allowing for the floorplates to be nearly column free. This structural system also creates an interesting intermediate space between the building’s glazing, where Ferrier has apparently planned for some exterior gardens / greenery.

ferrier-1.jpg

What makes the Hypergreen tower green, you ask [other than the name]? How about its:

  • geothermal heat pumps
  • photovoltaic panels
  • integrated wind turbines [seen at the top of the building]
  • earth cooling tubes
  • vegetated sky lobbies
  • a roof garden
  • rainwater recovery system

…and the aforementioned flexible / adaptable column-free floor plates.

ferrier-3.jpg

ferrier-5.jpg

::images from Jacques Ferrier Architecte, project via Jetson Green::

::listen to the podcast::