Rebuilding Green: The Next Revolution

Rebuilding Green: The Next Revolution by Erica Gies
When a tornado flattened Greensburg, Kan., in May 2008, the city vowed to rebuild -- with a twist. All new municipal structures would be built "green," with businesses and homeowners encouraged to follow suit. Likewise, in New Orleans, where Brad Pitt's Make It Right foundation is constructing new, affordable green homes for Ninth Ward residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

Such projects have decisively moved green building from the exclusive realm of the wealthy into the affordable mainstream. But you don't have to see your home flattened by a natural disaster or be part of a community-wide initiative to build green.

Many Americans -- spurred by the need to save money and energy or to create a healthier indoor environment -- are incorporating green building concepts into existing homes and businesses, either through small upgrades or major renovations.

The truth is that most of our country's buildings just aren't very efficient. Forty percent of all U.S. energy goes to heat, light, and cool buildings, hitting all of us in our wallets and generating 43 percent of our nation's carbon dioxide emissions.

So how does each one of us join the green rebuilding revolution? An energy audit -- often offered free by a local utility -- is the place to start. It shows where air and energy dollars are leaking from your building and makes recommendations to staunch that flow. Surprisingly, you can improve energy efficiency by at least 30 percent with minor upgrades whose costs are recovered within a single year, according to Brendan Owens, a vice president at the U.S. Green Building Council.

Such upgrades can include resealing seams around doors and air ducts, tuning up mechanical systems, and switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs. You can see additional savings from installing double- or triple-paned windows, good insulation (using recycled materials), or energy-efficient appliances (see the federal EnergyStar website). All these paybacks start immediately: when I replaced my old, inefficient windows with double-paned glass, I saw a 40 percent reduction on my next energy bill.

Conserving water is also vital to our communities and saves money. Flow restrictors on showerheads and faucets, while not very glamorous changes, are cheap and reduce water consumption dramatically. Newer dishwashers, low-flush or dual-flush toilets (offering half-flush and whole flush options), and front-loading washing machines save multiple gallons. On demand water heaters can also save water and energy. Family health concerns are another reason to go green. Indoor environments frequently exude toxic chemicals found in many modern building materials. Even small projects like painting or replacing carpet or furniture are opportunities to make less toxic choices and to protect children who like to taste-test their surroundings.

When painting, use low- or no-VOC (volatile organic compound) paints. These are widely available and look just as good as old-style paint. Carpet now comes in nontoxic, recycled squares so you can take them up one at a time for washing or replacement.

As you tackle green projects, consider construction waste disposal. Doors, windows, cabinets, shutters, appliances and more can be reused, recycled, or given to neighbors, salvage yards, antique dealers, or groups like Habitat for Humanity. Some materials can even be sold for a small profit on websites like Craigslist. Finding new homes for old materials will also reduce your dump or trash fees. Also consider quality, reused materials for your green project; they're typically less expensive than new and are sometimes of better quality.

There are many more green retrofit possibilities. The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED checklist (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) can help guide you. You don't need to pay for LEED certification; simply look at USGBC's web site and take tips that make sense for your project. Or read Living Like Ed: A Guide to the Eco-Friendly Life, a book by actor and activist Ed Begley Jr. that conveniently catalogs green retrofits, starting with the easiest and least expensive, and progressing from there.

How much will your personal effort benefit our nation and world? Green architect Ed Mazria, founder of the nonprofit group Architecture 2030, estimates that for every $21 billion invested in the energy efficiency of our buildings, we could close 22 coal-burning power plants, reduce natural gas use by 204 billion cubic feet per year, cut oil use by 10.7 billion barrels a year, and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 86.7 billion metric tons. We'd also save consumers $8.46 billion a year, and create about 216,000 jobs.

If that sounds like a lot of light-bulb changing and window replacing, don't be daunted. Just remember: You don't have to do it all at once. Start small. Learn by doing. Every little bit helps.

Fact-Checking Conservative Outrage Over STD Prevention Provision In Economic Recovery Package

Fact-Checking Conservative Outrage Over STD Prevention Provision In Economic Recovery Package
Another day, another shrill Drudge headline. On Monday, Drudge put up an unflattering picture of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), accompanied by the headline, “PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY.” His conservative fans in Congress, of course, quickly went on the attack against the sensible family planning provision in the House economic recovery package, and in an effort to compromise, President Obama agreed to drop the provision.

Drudge’s newest attack today focuses on the legislation’s provision to help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases:

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the “job stimulus” — but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

The House Democrats’ bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.



Aside from the fact that many conservatives are squeamish about giving money to anything associated with sex, they seem unable to grasp the concept of preventive care and how it can help lower government health care spending. The $335 million provision to help stop the spread of STDs is part of a Prevention and Wellness Fund in the economic recovery legislation.

In 2006, CAP President and CEO John Podesta and Jeanne Lambrew — who is now a top health care adviser in the White House — proposed a similar idea. This fund would support clinically-proven prevention and wellness strategies that, in the end, would not only improve Americans’ health and productivity, but also lower U.S. health care costs. As Podesta and Lambrew explained:

Preventive health care service could reduce government spending on health care. If all elderly received a flu vaccine, health costs could be reduced by nearly $1 billion per year. Over 25 years, Medicare could save an estimated $890 billion from effective control of hypertension, and $1 trillion from returning to levels of obesity observed in the 1980s.

Some reasons that increased funding for STD prevention specifically will ultimately save the United States money:

– Increase workforce productivity. More than 56,000 people become infected with HIV/AIDS each year. The CDC estimates that the new infections cost the country $56 billion in medical care and lost productivity.

– Lower health industry costs. STDs, some of the most preventable diseases, cost the U.S. health care system as much as $15.3 billion annually.

– Lower federal government costs. The federal government is expected to spend $12.3 billion on HIV/AIDS-related medical care in 2009.

What’s more disturbing is that a new report by the CDC finds that the spread of the most common STDs — which are more likely to hit women and minorities — are on the rise. Obama has made clear that the economic recovery package is about getting people back to work; it’s hard for people to work if they’re struggling to get care for an infection.

The Legacy of Republican Rule

US roads, water and basic systems earn 'D' grade
America's roads, public transit and aviation have gotten worse in the past four years. Water and sewage systems are dreadful. The basic physical backbone of American society is barely above failing, a report by top engineers says.

It'll cost $2.2 trillion to fix America's ailing infrastructure, according to highlights of a report being released early, just as the House of Representatives readies its first vote on President Barack Obama's call for a massive economic stimulus spending package.

The country's roads, dumps, dams, bridges, schools and rail systems need lots of that money, say the engineers, who would get a piece of the pie in working on the repairs. Government officials are already aiming billions of dollars at those physical needs as part of what at the moment is a $825 billion economic stimulus package. But the engineers say that's not enough.

Overall, the American Society of Civil Engineers gives the U.S. physical backbone for everything from schools and parks to dams and levees a D. That's the same overall grade as the last time the group gave a report, in 2005, but it really is slipping from a "high D" to a "low D," said report chairman Andrew Herrmann.

Herrmann, an engineer with the New York firm Hardesty & Hanover, said his group is issuing the highlights of the report -- the full document won't be out until late March -- "to be relevant ... investing in our infrastructure will create jobs."

Of the 15 areas the engineers looked at, three got worse and only one got better. The three that worsened were all transportation oriented: aviation dropped from a D+ to a D; so did public transit; and America's intricate roadway system potholed from a D to a D-. Only the energy system improved, from a D to a D+.

In 2005, the engineers said it would cost what would be $1.7 trillion in current dollars to fix what's broken. Now the pricetag is up to $2.2 trillion.

"That just goes to show that waiting has cost money," Herrmann told The Associated Press on Tuesday evening. "We haven't made any progress in four years. If my kid came home with 11 Ds and 4 Cs, I know I wouldn't be happy."

America's solid waste system was the only C+ on the report card. Bridges got a C; parks and rail systems managed C-. The only D+ plus was for energy. Solid Ds went to aviation, dams, hazardous waste, schools and public transit. The worst grades, D-, went to drinking water, inland waterways, roads and sewage systems.

"That absolutely makes sense," said Granger Morgan, head of Carnegie Mellon University's engineering and public policy program and an expert who wasn't part of the 28-engineer panel that handed out the grades. Morgan said just traveling the world shows that American infrastructure, especially in transportation, "is certainly not in the same league as parts of the developing world and parts of Europe."

But just because the federal government is handing out lots of money and society's physical backbone needs plenty of repairs, that doesn't automatically mean the government should spend most of its dollars on things such as new roads and power plants, Morgan said. Often, building newer roads doesn't fix congestion, yet building better public transit would pay off more, he said. And spending on energy efficiency more than physical power plants makes sense, he added.

"One really needs to make these choices on a bit of solid engineering economics as opposed to emotion and rhetoric," Morgan said. "We've got an enormous pent-up need. The only message is: `Let's be careful to the extent that we can in the manner we spend the money.'"

And even though the pricetag to fix America's physical needs is $2.2 trillion over five years, it's really only half that bad because $1.1 trillion of that is already being spent or planned, Herrmann said. The biggest "gap" between what's being spent or planned and what's needed is an additional $548.5 billion in roads and bridges, the report said. Second is $189.5 billion for public transit.

"Do you realize we're driving on a lot of roads that were built during the Eisenhower Administration," Herrmann said.

The report, the first one issued since Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, added America's 100,000 miles of levees as a new area of failing infrastructure. Levees, which hold back floodwaters, get a D minus grade, with the report saying, "The risk to the public health and safety from failure has increased."