One-Stop Report Reiterates Business Case for Energy Retrofits

This newly released report “Energy efficiency and real estate: Opportunities for investment” from Ceres and Mercer is pretty good in that it combines case studies from REITs to institutional portfolios as well as surveys and data from sources such as RREEF, McKinsey and several universities. Ceres is a coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change. Mercer provides consulting, outsourcing and investment services.

Here are some excerpts:

-A 2009 Maastricht University study found rental premiums of 3.5 percent on US office properties, a six percent increase in occupancy for “ENERGY STAR” buildings and a 16-17 percent premium on sales prices per square foot.

–For instance, in 2008 financial services giant TIAA-CREF established a goal of reducing energy use in its real estate portfolio 10 percent by 2010, and the company is well on its way to meeting that goal. The effort is already yielding $4 million a year in reduced energy costs across the portfolio, and all new buildings TIAA-CREF develops will be LEED certified.

–The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the world’s largest pension fund, is also on target to meet a 20 percent energy use reduction goal in its real estate by the end of this year, “As fiduciaries, focusing on energy efficiency in our real estate portfolios just makes sense,” said CalPERS CEO Anne Stausboll. “CalPERS invests in millions of square feet of real estate,” said Stausboll, “so cutting back on energy use and lowering operating costs can only boost the value of the properties in our portfolio, while also contributing to climate change mitigation.”

No talk of religion, politics, money OR carbon cuts

After developing nations walked out of the Copenhagen Climate Talks yesterday amid disagreements over which countries pollute and which countries should pay to cover the impacts of climate change (the developed nations), a new draft of a U.N.-sponsored international climate change agreement is circulating today. Most notably, it takes both questions off the table–long-term emission reduction goals and long-term cleanup financing.

According to Bloomberg:

With China and India seeking at least $200 billion a year for developing states, envoys at the climate talks in Copenhagen bargained over several options for funding starting after 2012. No amounts were pledged, according to a draft accord today. The talks among 193 nations end Dec. 18, and poorer countries say they’ll reject an accord that offers no money.

“This is eyewash — it’s a paper tiger,” Quamrul Chowdhury, a Bangladeshi envoy who coordinates the group of Least Developed Countries on finance issues, said in an interview. “There is nothing in terms of long-term finance.”

Carbon Dioxide Declared Danger to Public Health

At the global climate summit in Copenhagen today, the Obama Administration declared carbon dioxide a threat to public health, leaving the door is open for the EPA to regulate emissions from vehicles, factories and power plants.

American business groups, including U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Edison Electric Institute oppose the declaration, saying it will place undue costs on an already struggling economy.

Despite such dire predictions, there is some good news today on the carbon capture front. It comes from the National Coal Council, a federal advisory committee to the U.S. Secretary of Energy. Today the NCC presented the U.S. Department of Energy with recommendations for broad deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 with sustained economic and employment growth.

The study found that extensive deployment of coal-based generation with carbon dioxide capture and storage over the next 40 years would increase U.S. GDP by $2.7 trillion, create 28 million job-years over four decades from new construction, and support 800,000 permanent jobs related to operation and maintenance of these facilities. The analysis also found that related enhanced oil recovery projects utilizing the captured CO2 could help extract more than 2 million barrels per day of domestic oil.

“The technologies to deploy coal-based power generation with carbon capture and storage are available now, subject to establishment of the proper financial, regulatory and liability framework,” said NCC Study Chair Fred Palmer, senior vice president of government relations at Peabody Energy.

Meanwhile, back in Copenhagen, talks of carbon trading are heating up. According to MarketWatch:

The value of the global carbon trading market could rise from roughly $118 billion in 2008 to nearly $2 trillion by 2020, although it currently remains frozen in the headlights pending safe passage of U.S. emissions trading legislation.

Global Warming: Coming to a Television Set Near You

Global Warming: Coming to a Television Set Near You

Have you heard about global warming? If you watch television, you likely have. With that in mind, if you are currently unfamiliar with global warming, you will likely have multiple chances to familiarize yourself with it. This is because global warming is an issue that is seeing an increase in media time.

If you are interested in learning more about global warming through your television set, you will find that you have a number of different options. Of course, you can always sit down and watch the news. Many around the clock news channels mention global warming at least once a day. Even your local news is likely to touch on global warming in a newscast, especially the local affects of it.

In addition to traditional newscasts, many around the clock news stations are also starting to create their own specials. For example, CNN developed their own series on global warming, titled Planet in Peril. These types of special programs are often advertised during traditional newscasts. The good news with around the clock news stations is that many of these special programs are later repeated, many times later at night.

In addition to national news channels, there are many more stations who are starting to use their airwaves to help combat global warming. One of these stations is that of The Weather Channel. In addition to mentioning global warming in passing on traditional programming, The Weather Channel is also known for its specials, which may include specials on global warming. The line of Discovery Channels may also have global warming programs available as well.

Another one of the many ways that you can learn about global warming right from your couch is through movies, namely documentaries. There are a number of documentaries on global warming, the science behind it, and its affects. In fact, there are many more documentaries expected to come in the future. When it comes to global warming documentaries, you will find that you have a number of options. Many can be purchased locally or online, as well as rented.

In keeping with global warming documentaries, you will want to examine An Inconvenient Truth and 11th Hour. These two environmental documentaries are more well know for the people who stand behind them. When many think of global warming, Al Gore is often the first person that comes to mind. His An Inconvenient Truth documentary is not only backed with scientific proof and resources, but it also an award winning piece. As for 11th Hour, having Leonardo DiCaprio has a co-producer and co-writer also helps to bring much needed attention to this important issue.

As nice as is to know how you can go about using your television to learn more about global warming, you may be wondering why you should. Although global warming is an issue that is widely debated, many believe what they hear. If you are one of those individuals you will want to educate yourself on the subject as much as possible. After all, knowledge is the best way to fight a problem, such as global warming.

As outlined above, you have a number of different options when looking to use the television as a way to learn more about global warming. With most news reports, television specials, and documentaries lasting less than two hours, you have nothing to lose by taking to the time familiarize yourself with global warming.

10 Things You Should Put in Your House in 2010

The last thing home builders should want is a reputation for turning out substandard houses loaded with the cheapest materials they can find. Sure, the company might make money for a while, but in the end, the negative word-of-mouth will spread faster than you can say “class action lawsuit,” and everyone knows where that could lead.

Conscientious builders, instead, try to turn a profit but looks for ways to make houses more energy-efficient, more durable, more attractive, and cheaper to operate. Simply put: They look for ways to make houses better.

There are different ways to build a better house, of course. Using tried-and-true techniques that work should be the first option. But because building scientists and manufacturers have learned much in the last 25 years, there are a variety of ways builders can improve their products.

Last year, BUILDER Online wrote about 10 ways to improve the perceived value of homes in “10 Things You Must Put in Your Next House.” This list recommended items such as inexpensive butcher block countertops, but it also included products that could be deemed “green” such as dual-flush toilets and tankless water heaters. “Is it me or were 9 of the 10 of these green-oriented products?” one reader commented. “Maybe the title should have been ‘Go Green in 2009.’”

You can call these products green if you like, but that’s not our intent. People mistakenly associate products that improve performance or save money with the green movement. In the old days, it was merely called Yankee thrift, good building practices, or simply common sense. Sometimes a better product is not about green; it’s simply about being, well, better.

Having said that, we’ve compiled another list of products. It does contain products that will help homeowners lower their energy bills, but it also consists of offerings that will last longer and perform better than conventional choices.

As is the case with many high-performing products, some of these will have a higher initial cost, but they save money in labor, maintenance, energy, or replacement. Use one or use them all if your budget allows. Feel free to call them green if you like. But regardless of what you call them, any of these products will improve your houses and your reputation with your buyers in the New Year and beyond.

Credit: Georgia Pacific

Radiant Barrier
A radiant barrier is simple: It’s just a structural panel with a reflective material (usually aluminum) laminated to one side that installs foil side down on a roof deck to reduce heat gain in warm climates. Manufacturers say the panels can block up to 97% of heat transfer through roof sheathing, which lowers attic temperatures and consequently reduces cooling costs by 5% to 10%. Studies say the material ranges from 15 cents to 75 cents per square foot, but you have to install roof sheathing anyway, so why not get one with the foil attached?

Credit: Dow Building Solutions

Foam Board Insulation
Insulation on the interior is a no-brainer, but a house also will see additional benefits from rigid foam board insulation installed on the exterior wall or roof deck. In addition to boosting thermal resistance, the product adds to a house’s structural strength and reduces conduction through elements such as joists and studs. Boards range in R-values from 3.8 to 8 per inch of thickness.

Credit: Marvin Windows and Doors

Better Windows, Better Placement
Energy Star-qualified windows were more than adequate a short time ago, but with the development of better glazing technology, they are no longer good enough. If the budget permits, get the best climate-specific window you can. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 offers homeowners a tax credit for using replacement windows with a 0.30 U-factor and a 0.30 solar heat gain coefficient. And remember, where you put the windows (and their shading) is just as important as the products themselves.

Credit: ARXX Corp.

ICF Foundation
It’s pointless to improve the energy efficiency of your houses only to neglect the basement walls. Houses leak here too. Building with insulating concrete forms (ICFs) is a smart way to go. ICFs are lightweight rigid expanded polystyrene or extruded polystyrene foam forms that hold concrete in place during the curing process but are left in place to serve as thermal insulation for the walls. In addition to possessing insulation values ranging from R-17 to R-26, ICF foundation walls are fast and easy to construct.

Credit: Follansbee Steel

Metal Roof
Asphalt dominates the residential roofing category, but more green building advocates are recommending metal roofs as an energy-efficient improvement. Available in aluminum, stainless steel, copper, or zinc, metal is a durable, lightweight material that’s extremely fire-resistant. No wonder it’s the material of choice for so many agriculture buildings. Considered a “cool” roof, a metal roof reflects heat, lowers energy use, and helps reduce the heat island effect. The product is pricey—especially copper, zinc, and stainless steel—but it has a low lifecycle cost, and some states offer lower home insurance premiums for homes with metal roofs.

Credit: AZEK Building Products

Cellular PVC Trim
Wood, the old standby, is a good choice for exterior trim. But unless you’re using durable species such as mahogany, teak, or cedar, millwork will eventually succumb to Mother Nature. Available as trim, sheets, and corner boards, cellular PVC lumber can be cut and nailed like wood, but it’s resistant to moisture and insects, which means a homeowner will not have to replace it—at least not anytime soon. It can be painted, but manufacturers say there’s no need.

Credit: TruStile Doors

Solid Core Doors
A hollow-core door may look acceptable, but homeowners will soon notice how flimsy they feel and how little soundproofing and privacy hollow-core doors truly offer. But, then again, what do you expect for a $30 slab? Solid-core doors are much better. Not only do they sound and feel more substantial to a homeowner, they also exhibit excellent sound transmission properties. They last longer too. Considering that the average new home in 2007 measured 2,407 square feet and had 8.6 interior passage doors, solid core doors will seem pricey at $100. The good news is that the homes that are being built–and sold in the downturn–are smaller and likely have fewer doors. Using solid-core doors only for bedrooms and main bathrooms will also lower costs.

Credit: Resolute USA

Better Light Fixtures
There are a handful of areas where it can be painfully obvious that the builder took the cheap way out. Inferior lighting is one of them. Here are a few tips: Don’t try to get too fancy. Don’t get brass. Do go for something simple and elegant, whether it’s traditional or contemporary. If money is an issue, focus on a living space that everyone sees, such as the dining room/kitchen or great room. Keep in mind that low-cost and cheap aren’t the same things. You can often find a nice simple light for just a few dollars more than your original choice and get a priceless “wow” factor in the process.

Credit: Lutron Electronics

Dimmers
Say you haven’t bought into the energy efficiency hype of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs, and your pockets aren’t deep enough for light-emitting diodes (LEDs). For you, incandescent is the one true light. Fair enough, but at least install a few dimmers so your buyers can save some bucks by lowering the intensity of the light output as needed. Dimmers allow homeowners to save energy, extend the life of light bulbs, and gain more lighting flexibility in their home. Again, think strategically and install dimmers just in the kitchen, living room, and maybe the dining room if margins are tight.

Credit: RAIS

EPA-Certified Wood Stove
Strictly speaking, a freestanding wood-burning stove will not improve your house–although if you select one of those really handsome European numbers, it will certainly add to your home’s aesthetics. But the beauty of a wood stove goes deeper than the unit’s cast iron or soapstone skin. Unlike a fireplace, a wood stove performs a slow controlled burn that produces substantially less smoke. The product also is an excellent source of supplemental heat, which is radiated to a house long after the fire dies away. Consequently, a properly sized wood stove can heat up to 4,000 square feet.

Forget Fed Legislation—Building Energy Code Has Already Been Decided

I’d really been focused on the potential impact of federal climate legislation. So I don’t know how I missed the fact that when governors of 50 states accepted $3 billion in stimulus money in February in the form of state energy grants from the Department of Energy that they were also agreeing to adopt and enforce building energy codes that meet or exceed ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. This model code covers new buildings and existing buildings with major remodeling, equipment replacement or renovations.

By taking the money, about $1.5 billion of which has been so far dispersed, the governors also agreed to be 90% compliant with the latest energy code by 2017.

Uncertain as to what it meant, I rang up Jeffrey P. Harris, vice president for programs with the Alliance to Save Energy based in D.C. (more…)

Political Divide on Climategate

As a liberal Democrat, I was a little disconcerted when I took a look at the web site for the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The problem? All of the controversy about climategate and the recent damning emails were addressed by phrases such as “the majority” and thoughts such as “How dare we question our government—NASA after all put a man on the moon.”

In a balanced story posted on CNN I read two views:

Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin said the e-mails in question poke a hole in the conclusion that the question of human influence on climate change is settled. The Republican said the E-mails “read more like scientific fascism than scientific process.”

Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, called the focus on the e-mails a distraction from the “catastrophic threat to our planet.”

But on the Web site of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, the highlighted videos presented only one view: the issue has been decided. Despite my liberal leanings (I am from the South where my mother ran away from boarding school to go freedom riding with Dr. King), I don’t believe that we are the sole “intellectual elite” when it comes to science. Whatever the truth about the many causes of global warming, I think there are enough intellectually elite people like John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, who question the science. They say what everyone should be saying—let’s bring it all out in the open and have a debate. If the temperature has been rising at an alarming rate for 50 years and the consequences could be catastrophic, surely Congress could take a few months to hear both sides and come to a real consensus.

Climategate: CRU Head Steps Aside Amid Investigation

As internal investigations get underway, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, has stepped aside. Jones was among the scientists in the hacked emails who allegedly discussed the destruction of data subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

See update in WSJ: Climate-Change Scientist Steps Aside Amid Probe

Global Warming And The Impact on Wildlife

When it comes to global warming, much of the focus is placed on how it can impact us, personally, and future generations to come. As important as this is, it is also important to remember that global warming stretches far beyond human impact. Wildlife will also be affected by global warming as well. In fact, the affects of global warming on wildlife often have a direct relation to the human affects.

What we need to remember about global warming is that it is causing a slight rise in the earths temperatures. Although scattered, many cities and towns on the ground are experiencing an increase in temperatures as well. In fact, many record high temperatures are being shattered. While this may leave us, humans, feeling hot, uncomfortable and wanting to spend all day in the pool, it is having an even bigger impact on wildlife.

For starters, it is important to examine polar bears. In fact, when many individuals think of global warming and wildlife, polar bears are the first thought that comes to mind. This is due in part to the media attention that is circulating them. Many environmentalists and wildlife experts feel that polar bears will become extinct in certain areas of the world, due to melting ice. This ice melting is directly related to the earths increase in temperatures. Unfortunately, polar bears rely on ice shelves when hunting. Many are unable to swim long distances without them. If polar bears do not perish because of the extended swims, they will because of the lack of food in the area.

Birds are another form of wildlife that can be impacted greatly by global warming. As our temperatures increase, birds are starting to change their migration paths. These migration changes are expected to increase in numbers in the future. While this may seem like an exciting prospect for birdwatchers, it can have negative consequences on the birds themselves. Many birds, especially migratory birds, have a set pattern that they follow. This pattern also depends on their ability to get food. The changes in this pattern can lead to trouble for many migratory birds, who essentially travel too far as the weather misleads them.

Bird and polar bears are not the only forms of wildlife that will be affected by global warming. Insects, mice, and other rodents will also change their habitats. You will see that if the conditions are right, many will stay on the move. Unfortunately for us, rodents and many insects, such as mosquitoes often bring diseases along with them. Yes, many of these diseases are treatable, but it will take time to adjust. In fact, a wide spread panic may ensue if area that was previously disease free starts to see changes. In this aspect, global warming can cause harm to both humans and wildlife.

If you are an animal lover or if you value your health and the health of your future family members to come, you may want to take action. In fact, that is why global warming is seeing an increase in media coverage, as many scientists and wildlife experts want you to take action. A few of the many ways that you can help, not just wildlife, but the planet in general, is by reducing the carbon dioxide emissions that you release into the earths atmosphere, whether it comes from your home, car, or place of business.

Climategate: Flawed Science, Secrets and the Great Debate Over Global Warming

Remember post 9/11 when there was a certain faction in U.S. society that said people who didn’t wear a flag pin on their lapels were un-American? That analogy may be appropriate for the debate on global warming–or rather the lack of debate. People who did not buy into the theory that global warming is manmade were virtually shunned by all “thinking” society.

So now an inconvenient truth of another sort appears to be in the making as a result of leaked documents and hacked emails written by scientists at Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., the most influential and most-oft quoted institution on the global warming front.

How, society–maybe even the U.S. Congress–is probing a little deeper. It’s a firestorm that is gathering air—did scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia prevent data contrary to their views from leaking out to the public? Did they blackball opposing scientific analysis and present flawed data to support their theories on global warming?

One email string entitled Harry Read Me has been particularly worrisome because it implies that the data that supports global warming by manmade causes is severely flawed.

On RealClimate, a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists, recently posted a letter from Peter Laut, professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark and former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency.

I’ll share the first few paragraphs here–Laut makes a compelling argument:

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 the nations of the world will discuss possible ways to slow down global climate change. The main goal will be to organize a coordinated reduction of man?made greenhouse gas emissions. With all nations contributing according to their ability.

But: Is global warming perhaps caused by the sun?

An important question concerns the physical cause of global warming. Is it primarily caused by changes in solar activity or by man?made greenhouse gasses? The answer has enormous consequences for the way mankind should react. If the dominant cause for global warming is solar activity, then there is no reason for mankind to waste resources in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And no reason to have the climate conference in Copenhagen. If, however, the dominant cause is man?made greenhouse gasses, then a reduction of emissions may be absolutely necessary in order to prevent a global climate catastrophe.

The overwhelming majority of scientists, represented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has for many years collected and analyzed observational data and carried out model simulations in order to resolve this question and has arrived at the conclusion that the results overwhelmingly point at the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as the cause. There are practically no observations which render it probable that solar influences play more than a minor role.

Now, in spite of the almost unanimous message from the world’s scientific community, there is a small group of scientists who try to promote the solar theory. They are supported by a massive network of journalists, film makers, TV producers, authors, politicians and grass roots. This group is centered around two Copenhagen climatologists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis?Christensen.

The real crime here is that there has been no opportunity for an open debate. That is not to say that the planet does not need a good scrubbing down or that non-sustainable resources should not be protected and used with the utmost care. What it does say is that as the planet warms, we should devote our limited financial, intellectual and governmental resources to technology and policies that will actually make a difference.

« Previous Page — Next Page »