When you think of New York, you can’t help but think of the Empire State Building.  But what doesn’t pop into your head is the iconic building’s inefficient insulation or its $11 million annual utility bill.
Luckily, the building’s windows (all 6,514 of them) are being refurbished with the goal of reducing the Empire State Building’s energy use by 38%. An innovative company called Serious Materials is doing the work (we had a chance to meet one of their reps at a CCX meeting). They have a $20 million budget that should pay for itself within a decade or so.
This is a big step for New York City, which was recently named one of the greener cities in the US by the Natural Resources Defense Council.  The effort, along with investments in wind power and an outreach program for business owners, should help the city reach its goal of a 30% reduction in emissions by 2030. Even more importantly, this renovation is proof that our country can retain its history and lifestyle without sacrificing the environment.

The US Chamber of Commerce, an organization representing thousands of American businesses, has started litigation to sue the EPA for continuing with its GHG emissions reporting requirement, claiming that the regulation is too burdensome on small companies.  Similar to its stance against the federal moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf, the Chamber argues that the EPA is prioritizing regulation over job creation, which is a huge faux pas in our country’s poor economy.
The US Chamber of Commerce represents thousands of businesses throughout the US.  So—assumedly—the Chamber’s decision to start litigation must be a reflection of the opinions of its members. But is that really the case? Do American companies really want to fall behind the EU’s and China’s environmental monitoring standards, a decision that could severely impact business opportunities in the future?
Is your company part of the US Chamber of Commerce? Let us know if you agree or disagree with the Chamber’s proposed legal actions against the EPA!

On Monday, the US government released environmental guidelines that could affect future deep and shallow water oil and natural gas drilling operations. 
Many oil companies have relied on “categorical exclusions,” or exemptions from environmental regulation, in order to start drilling. This includes BP’s Deep Horizon project that resulted in 4.9 million barrels of oil being released into the Gulf of Mexico. On top of that, BP’s categorical exclusion for the project was based on environmental exemptions dating back from the 1980’s and did not consider previous BP accidents that had occurred in non-American waters.
The current six-month moratorium on deep-sea drilling in the Gulf will not be extended; our economy needs the jobs and natural resource wealth that comes from offshore drilling. Instead, these federal guidelines, originating from a report by the Council of Environmental Quality, will require reviews of all categorical exclusions by the new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation.  Additionally, shallow water drilling projects will be scrutinized more heavily than in the past.
These are necessary steps that our government must take in reaction to a huge environmental disaster. But the legislation and regulations to create safer drilling were already in place years ago.  While increased media coverage and new governing bodies may help to reduce the risk of a future oil-related catastrophe, we cannot forget that our government did have the power to prevent what happened this summer long ago.

When the America Power Act was first introduced in mid-May by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, it was a serious bill.  It tackled offshore drilling, clean coal technology, voluntary carbon markets, nuclear energy, and a comprehensive cap and trade system for CO2e emissions. But with support of anything climate change related waning in Congress, Kerry and Lieberman have issued a new draft of the bill.

The main focus is placing regulations on utility companies.  Since electricity generation is responsible for over 30% of America’s emissions, and the US is one of the top GHG emitters in the world, it is logical to create a cap and trade system for this industry over any other. But even with the shock of the BP oil spill still reverberating in our public conscious and economy and the potential promise of thousands of “green-collar jobs” that could appear from domestic investment in alternative energy, there is doubt as to whether even this scaled-back bill may pass. If the re-tooled bill does pass, carbon credit permitting would make utility companies reduce emissions by 17% by 2020, with the possibility for companies to invest in carbon sequestration project to further offset emissions. With previous promises from President Obama to make climate change a priority, as well as the tension-filled climate talks to take place in Mexico in November, the US needs to take some sort of legislative action to mitigate global warming, and fast.

Last Thursday, BP placed a cap over the leak despite the risk that bottling up the oil could cause cracks in the ocean floor and more complicated leaks further away. However, surveillance shows minimal oil detected anywhere else, meaning that the cap may be the solution.
If this really the beginning of the end of the 3-month disaster, what has America learned? Hopefully, our country can reconcile the current moratorium on offshore drilling with the economic impacts, both on domestic workers and on oil prices. Perhaps the oil spill will be able to shock us out of the “business as usual” mentality on multiple fronts: fossil fuel dependence, GHG emissions, general pollution. An optimist may even believe that the spill has spurred our government into enforcing laws more consistently, and even forced domestic corporations into considering the repercussions of cost-cutting actions.
There is some hope; on Monday, the White House announced the future formation of the National Ocean Council, a new body that will help clarify the many different laws applying to our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes. There will be representatives on the Council from a variety of different federal agencies who will be burdened with the task of measuring the different demands our country puts on its marine resources, without the power to pass any legislation.  People  hope that the task force will bring more science-based decision making to the government, which has the stereotype of passing laws with only the bottom line in mind.

The eastern half of the country can breathe easier; President Obama proposed new air-quality rules under a federal court order.  These regulations will reduce soot and smog emissions from coal-fired power plants through the installation of scrubbers and other technologies, and replace faulty rules passed by President Bush that were based on flawed scientific conclusions. Although it is expected to cost $2.8 billion annually, these new rules will save an estimated $120 billion in health costs every year.
The EU is also passing laws to clean its air.  By 2016, all major polluters in the EU will have to limit their emissions of sulfur dioxide, dust and nitrogen oxides, while power plants relying on coal or oil have until 2020 to comply (or, as a previous blog mentioned, these power plants do not have to change anything as long as they will be shut down by 2023).
So will this wave of stringent air pollution regulations lead to a comprehensive federal management system of greenhouse gas emissions? With the EPA starting to crack down on industrial emissions and State Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act, maybe regulations of carbon emissions is (hopefully) not too far off.

Recently, Greenpeace released a report – Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook – in which it outlined how the world can rely on 95% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050.  Through a combination of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, creating binding emissions targets, and setting strict efficiency standards, the $18 trillion worldwide investment would result in 12 million jobs and a peak in CO2 emissions in 2015.
The main goal of this report is to show that climate change legislation is a feasible option, even with the global economy still in a recession. The green energy industry already generates over $100 billion annually, so investment in renewable energy sources is economically and environmentally sound. With talk of China possible adopting climate change regulations before the US, as well as the Gulf oil spill’s demonstration of our huge reliance on oil, these investments would also bring political benefits.
How believable are Greenpeace’s claims? The first version of the report, which came out in 2007, estimated renewable energy could provide 156 MW by the end of 2010; by mid-2009, the sector produced 158 MW of energy.  But to reap full economic benefits, Greenpeace says that legislation has to be put into place. The bottom line is that switching to renewable energy and cutting our carbon emissions by 85% needs community, governmental and global support.

Overall, President Obama’s speech on Tuesday night about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico left people unsatisfied.  At only 18 minutes, the speech addressed the current clean-up efforts and future plans for compensation, but critics say there was a lack of specifics as to how all of this would be achieved.  Bringing in new leadership to increase industry regulation and creating a third party to manage the damage payments from BP are good ideas, but citizens in the Gulf and around the country do not feel reassured. The President also used the opportunity to push for clean energy alternatives.  Although he did not mention efforts to cut back specifically on carbon emissions, an aide recently stated that “no traditional ‘energy only’ bill [without climate-change provisions] meets their sense of what’s credible as a response to BP, or the president’s own 2008 rhetoric.” The federal government hopes the silver lining of this disaster will be a national awareness of energy use and foreign oil dependence, which will spur support of legislation for more efficiency, alternative energy, and climate change regulation. But with many people blaming the government for allowing the spill to occur and not responding adequately, is it possible to trust Obama to properly regulate climate change?

US energy secretary Steven Chu recently announced $980 million in public and private investments for carbon capture and storage projects. The projects, located in Texas, Illinois and Louisiana, will hopefully be prototypes for future carbon capture and storage in certain industries, like methane and ethanol plants; the government has a goal of 5-10 working operations by 2016. The three projects will divert up to 6.5 million metric tons CO2 from the atmosphere.  This a small fraction of the 5.8 billion metric tons CO2e emitted in the US every year, but the potential for more cost-effective methods in the future makes carbon capture and storage a possible option for reducing industrial emissions.
The projects will use technologies that force the collected CO2 into confined spaces such as saline reservoirs and oil fields in which the gas may help move previously unreachable oil to the surface.  The pressure and depth of these storage areas, as well as secure capstones, prevent the CO2 from reaching the atmosphere.  Although these projects do make manufacturing less cost and energy efficient, the government hopes that the net reduction on CO2 emissions will make it worthwhile.
A similar project was recently declared a success in France, where over 120,000 metric tons CO2 were stored in a depleted natural gas reservoir, so maybe the government’s high expectations for industry-based carbon sequestration are not unwarranted.

An important part of doing something good for the environment is recycling.  Recycling programs are funded on a regional level and can vary greatly depending on where you live; Fresno, CA features recycling containers in its parks and has a motor oil recycling program, whereas Houston, TX recycles less than 10% of its waste and has curbside recycling available to less than a quarter of its residents.

Instead of skimping on recycling programs, many cities are now creating incentives for citizens to recycle.  Some towns have rewards programs that give discounts at participating stores based on the weight of recycled items.  Certain states provide tax exemptions for the use of recycled machinery or converted furnaces that use recycled oil or Freon.

Cities outside of the US are taking even bigger steps to increase recycling.  In Edmonton, hundreds of recycling bins are equipped with motion-activated sound devices that sing blues songs about proper recycling materials.  Whole counties in the UK allow citizens to earn up to £135 every year for at-home recycling efforts.

Overall, these efforts have increased the amount of waste diverted from landfills. And if manages correctly, city recycling programs can actually cost less than traditional waste management.