A (sensible) government regulation is keeping me from installing solar

My house is old. It was built before McKinley was shot...that's how old. Back then they used a phenomenal quality of wood to build things, they kept ceilings high, and they installed almost no insulation. (So that last one may be too general, but they certainly installed none in my house.) On the whole, home building is different than it was 120 years ago, but it's not better or worse on the whole...just different.

That said, building codes have changed drastically in the past 100 years. When my house was built, the structure holding the roof was perfectly logical, and given that it has survived 100 years, seems to have been particularly effective. Today, we would use a different system for the roof structure, and our codes reflect the knowledge we have gained from the past to establish a roof that will provide us safe shelter.

And that's where what killed my home solar project.

Without getting into too much detail, the roof structure used on my home would not meet today's building code, the law that establishes the minimum building practices that architects and builders have to follow to provide a safe and healthy home. Under normal circumstances, I am not required to redo my roof to meet the new code, however, if I decided to add weight to the roof...say through the installation of solar panels...then I would have to make sure my roof met the same level of integrity as the code-compliant roof does. Although this regulation affects my ability to put solar on my house, it makes complete sense to me.

As I previously noted, at the subsidized prices offered by the Solar Chicago program, my cost to generate would be less than utility, and it would be locked in for the life of the panels. Bringing my roof to compliance would negate that benefit. Economically speaking, it would not make sense to do solar on my house now. Some might argue that reinforcing the roof makes sense anyway and I should not consider it part of the cost of solar, but this ignores reality. When I set out to improve my home and my relationship with energy, waste, water, and other aspects of sustainable living, I promised that I would do things only if it was reasonable for anyone to do them. I could pay more for solar just to say I have solar, but then widespread adoption would rely on everyone to pay more for solar, which will not happen.

In addition, with solar now more expensive than utility-based electricity - at least until panel prices continue to drop and utility prices increase - it makes more sense for me to use the resources I would have put toward the project to better use improving the efficiency of the home. Installing a ground source heat pump system to replace my aging boiler might make more sense than solar, or replacing the upper-story windows, or looking at innovative ways to insulate the walls of the house. Any of these might be better uses for my investment...both economically and environmentally.

I am still committed to installing solar on the house one day. If a lighter-weight panel type comes along, or the price of the panel plus structural work drops below the price of utility, I will be the first in line. Until then, I will find the most economical - and legal - way to minimize how much grid energy my house needs.

Friday Five: August 22, 2014

There are times when corporations do attempt to do the "right thing" even if that means adding costs. Note, that the only thing that drives this is consumer demand. When facing a threat of extinction, a company will do what it has to in order to survive. That process, however, takes decades, and not every issue has that long.
Nestle imposes animal welfare standards for suppliers
"'We know that our consumers care about the welfare of farm animals and we, as a company, are committed to ensuring the highest possible levels of farm animal welfare across our global supply chain,' said Benjamin Ware, manager of responsible sourcing for Nestle.
The commitment by the world's largest food and beverage company could potentially ripple across the industry and force smaller firms to adhere to the same practices, animal advocates said."

More often, companies will do whatever is most expedient to achieve or increase profitability (note: that is not a disparaging remark, for in our society and economy, that is precisely all we currently as of business, and all they are good at doing), regardless of the environmental impact. Only when the purchasing power of those affected reaches a critical mass will the companies act...or when something large enough to affect its business acts (hint: that's government).
Frackers are sending sludge to the Mitten State
"Now, the radioactive sludge that was being turned away by Pennsylvania was on its way to Michigan, home to 84 percent of the country’s aboveground freshwater supply. LuAnne Kozma began to do some digging. She had begun studying up on and organizing against Michigan’s nascent fracking boom two years ago, after hearing ominous stories from family in New Jersey. This was a new wrinkle."

Too often, governments require a catastrophe in order to see the need for action. Even then, as this case exemplifies, many favor taxpayer-funded solutions for the mistakes of the shareholders and managers. Letting companies off the hook for their mismanagement - and frankly, their negligent endangerment of people - is something we would never allow in treating an individual person who jeopardized the life of another. We should not tolerate it of companies.
NC lawmakers pass coal ash legislation; adjourn after very long short session
"Rep. Paul Luebke argued that state leaders needed to say, loud and clear, that Duke and its shareholders – not its customers – should at least pay to clean the highest-risk sites by removing the ash to a lined landfill, by using it in certain construction projects or by installing a liner beneath the ash.
“If they’re high risk now, it means for a long time they were risky to the public. For a long time the public was hurt by contamination in groundwater,” the Durham Democrat said on the chamber floor.
In response, Rep. Mike Hager, Republican majority whip, pointed out that the N.C. Utilities Commission would handle any request for a rate increase, with opportunity for the public to have its say."

One of the more broken features of the current utility model (especially in states where utilities still own electricity generating or energy producing assets) is that these monopolies have been allowed to assume that any cost associated with a current asset can be passed onto their rate payers (citizens who have no choice but to pay them or do without power). Kudos to OPU for demanding that the utility consider all alternative investments to the status quo...both to protect rate payers and public health.
Oregon Public Utilities Commission increases scrutiny on Pacific Power's coal plants
"In 2012, the Oregon PUC disallowed $17 million dollars that PacifiCorp was seeking from its customers for expensive retrofits on its aging coal plants without first fully vetting the alternatives. During the deliberations on their 2013 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) they were warned by the commission that they were headed for a 'trainwreck of a rate case' if they continued to invest heavily in out-of-state coal plants without first presenting their plans to the PUC for proper analysis. In July of this year, the PUC refused to acknowledge Pacific Power’s expenditures at two units at the Jim Bridger coal plant in Wyoming and one unit at the Hunter plant in Utah, a strong signal that the company will have a difficult time recouping those expenses, protecting Oregon customers from higher rates."

The great thing about analyzing the German governments three-year plan for energy transition, and debating some of its many shortcomings is...THEY HAVE A PLAN!!!!
There's a reason that countries like Germany and China will fly past the US economically if we do not act soon...they recognize the impact that energy has on their economy, and Germany specifically is doing something about it. I would LOVE to be debating the shortcomings of US energy policy....but we do not have one, so I cannot.
German government’s three-year Energiewende plan
"Germany could easily do more, as could the EU. Brussels repeatedly calls for greater cross-border power trading, but where is the call for EU transport policy? I can’t take a night train, say, from Frankfurt to Rome or Madrid. Trains continue to be stuck in national systems, and no one is complaining. Instead, Switzerland is the driver behind overnight trains with its City Night Line, but it has been reducing the number of connections in recent years, not increasing them.
So yes, the chart above does have a wide scope. But it is not exhaustive. There is still a lot of room for improvement."

Happy Friday!

Friday Five: July 25, 2014

We hear politicians rail against regulation and how much it can harm business. I think we forget that we are a "nation of laws, not men" and that regulations play an important role in expressing our communal desires. We organize businesses to get things done with the least risk possible, and having an equally robust definition of what we will accept as a country and society does nothing to impair that...in fact, without it, business will not always do what is in the best interest of the people.
Proposed oil train safety rules include lower speeds, improved braking
"In any case, the outcome is likely to force the retirement of at least 35,000 of the nation’s estimated 98,000 tank cars that haul flammable liquids, according to Brigham McCown, former chief of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
In addition to the tank-car standards, the regulations would impose new speed restrictions on trains carrying crude. One option would reduce oil train speeds to 40 mph nationwide, while two others would impose limits only in certain urban areas. The speed limits could broadly affect all freight movements because the oil trains would effectively hold back other traffic, rail experts have said."

No one would accuse Germany - with all of its regulation and popular expression of the role of business and government - of being an inefficient economy that delivers a low quality of life. In fact, with the same global economic constraints, it has pushed forward on both improved quality of life and improved economic footing.
Study ranks Germany as the world's most energy efficient economy
"On a more serious note, Ackermann added that Germany is proud of its efforts to improve energy efficiency and lower its carbon footprint – all while growing its economy. "We all agree, I think – the cheapest energy in the energy you don’t have to produce in the first place. Our long term goal is to fully decouple economic growth from energy use," he said."

We see the worst of this clash of business and community will play out in the small towns most hit by the franking boom. Through every manner of pandering and strong-arming, companies are trying to work their way around the will of the people to not have fracking fields in their backyard. If government were not available as a tool to help give these people voice, how would they defend themselves?
Living next to natural gas wells is no fun
"Colorado has relatively stringent requirements for air quality reporting, but they rely on companies to do the reporting themselves. There is also the issue of access to the wells, which of course the gas companies do not grant to independent researchers. Nonetheless, a 2012 study by the University of Colorado-Denver School of Public Health found VOCs in Garfield County five times above the EPA’s Hazard Index level."

The only time we really understand the benefit of robust, enforced, and reasonable regulation is when a disaster strikes. Do we need another Texas chemical factory to explode, or another North Dakota train derailment, or a Three Mile Island failure to remind us that oversight that has both the capability and the strength to match up with business actually makes our lives...and business for that matter...better.
US nuclear power agency still playing with fire
"Beginning in the early 1990s, studies revealed that some types of material used for electric cable insulation, called fire wraps, did not meet the 1980 standard's requirement to withstand a fire lasting as long as three hours. To compensate, many plant owners began to use measures -- particularly what the industry calls 'manual actions' -- that the NRC had not approved or authorized. For example, if a fire damaged primary and backup system cables, the plant would dispatch workers to manually turn on pumps, close valves, or take whatever steps necessary to control the situation. NRC regulations permit manual actions, but only when they have been formally reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis."

Now is the time to have a debate about the role energy will play in our lives, and specifically the institutions we have enshrined in law to deliver energy to our lives. They have outlived their usefulness in the current model, and if we do not act soon, we will be left behind in the world economy.
Dismantling the utility model is the fastest path to a cleaner electricity infrastructure
"Utilities have come under increasing pressure from constituents, customers, and politicians in recent decades. Grueling battles are fought over how fast to reduce the industry’s air pollution, how much to spend to reduce water use, what generation plants should be built, and how progressive utility rates should be. Many of these issues have migrated from the states to Washington for resolution, and national politicians find themselves in increasingly uncomfortable and untenable positions."

Happy Friday!

Scott Morgan/AP

Carbon rules are coming...and they will be easy to meet

Today, the President Obama and the EPA – bolstered by recent court rulings - will announce rules for carbon dioxide emissions targets.  Reports vary from 20% reduction by 2020 to a 30% reduction by 2030.  Regardless of the actual target chosen, we should all remember one thing…

We will beat that target easily.

Politics, we should all remember, has as its foundation the “art of the possible”.  Most everyone in industry, except for those whose commodities will have less value because of reduced demand for carbon-based fuels, recognizes that energy efficiency and renewable energy have a better economic trajectory than fossil fuels or even nuclear.  In setting this goal, the current administration simply identifies where industry easily thinks they can get.  Just as they did with the automobile efficiency standards, they have put in place a benchmark that we will meet far before the target date.

Lest pure political analysis prove unpersuasive, consider the economic argument.  For years, analysts claimed that we needed to tax fossil fuels in order to capture externalities and make renewable energy more competitive.  What we got instead was an energy market that remained depressed by a combination of stagnant demand and temporarily increased supply.  That should have spelled a death knell for renewable energy.  Instead, we have seen wind and solar have their most successful years economically in a time when low energy prices should push them out of the market.  Recent long-term contracts and court rulings in the Midwest have bolstered this fact that even as of today, renewable energy-based electricity generation betters coal and nuclear, and competes with natural gas.

On the technology front, current building codes currently restrict energy use in new buildings to levels about half of what they were a decade ago.  Over the next ten years, we will see this decline even further, and that will carry over into the existing building marketplace.  We will see even more efficient use of energy in buildings (a sector that uses about 1/3 of the energy in the economy), and continued reduction in vehicle emissions.  Industrial use (the final 1/3) already has stagnated as industry continues to find excellent investments in efficient ways to update equipment and processes to use less energy.  Our economic growth no longer relies on increased energy use, and in fact, we may see the opposite hold true for decades to come.

On an even more important front, most politicians recognize that energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies create more jobs per dollar than the fossil fuel industry.  Few groups take the “sky is falling” approach to carbon regulation, but the some continue to flap their wings and claim that regulating carbon will cause economic collapse.  Thankfully, most recognize that pollution limits actually create jobs by shifting capital (human and financial) from extractive industry to productive ones.  Spending money on new wind turbines, smart-grid technology, weatherization of homes, or pollution capture technology…these all put people to work and shift expenses from one sector to another, but it does not threaten the economy as a whole.

One need look no further than the acid rain policies of the 80s and 90s to see a parallel.  Back then we sought to reduce sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants because these reacted with the atmosphere to produce rain that damaged crops, buildings, and communities.  Industry predicted it would create a $1,500 per ton drag on the economy.  What happened instead was that it cost only $250 per ton, and the savings from increased property value, reduced medical expenses, and job creation more than paid for the investment.

For years, we have had to choose between the more economically stable sector and the higher-priced, but better-for-us sector.  Especially in tough economic times, asking anyone to make that choice is tough.  Now, we have reached a tipping point where we do not have to sacrifice anyone’s quality of life in order to cost-effectively provide the energy that supports our lives.  Challenges lie ahead, but we should take solace in the fact that the Obama administration is taking this step today.  If there’s one thing we know about politicians….

They rarely stick their necks out unless they’re certain of the outcome.

Friday Five: May 16, 2014

Locally, we have heard much about a proposed "super-agency" that would handle public transit issues across the entire Chicago metro region. The article notes a prime reason why that would make sense: suburban and urban communities have differing value systems related to transit, often resulting in bad decisions.
Cities to suburbs: Where's the transit love? Suburbs to cities: Where's the bus?
"Like a lot of other cities in this country, Seattle’s public transportation story is a sad tale of post-recession budget shortfalls, outdated urban planning, and a not-so-efficient bus system with a PR problem. And like a lot of other cities, its problems run deeper than just figuring out how to keep the buses running."

We continue to pay for two generations worth of those bad decisions. The concentration of emissions represented by freeways creates pollution issues that extend beyond the vehicles traveling along the route. These areas typically house those of more limited means, increasing the social inequity associated with fossil fuel usage.
Air quality monitor near I-5 Anaheim finds higher pollution level
"Monitoring instruments have typically been placed away from major roads and pollution sources because they are intended to gauge regional air quality. Now, the EPA is ordering local regulators to measure and factor in the dirtier air being breathed by tens of millions of people across the country who live within a few hundred feet of a major road.
The data will be valuable to local planning officials, who must consider the environmental impacts of siting developments near traffic, and give more leverage to clean air advocates."

An increasingly disturbing trend is that those who can least afford to drive their own vehicle, must now do so because of the push to gentrify urban areas and displace local inhabitants instead of building with them. As the poor get forced to suburbs with less availability for public transit, this will only get worse.
The demographic paradox of who bikes and walks to work
"The report, based on some of the ACS questions that critics want the Census to drop, identifies some other expected patterns: The South has particularly miniscule numbers for both biking and walking to work (likely a product of both climate and sprawl). Men are more likely to bike to work than women. And those who do bike tend to leave for work later than other commuters, and they need less time to get there (19.3 minutes on average, compared with the typical 26-minute commute for most of the rest of us)."

Thankfully, in addition to requiring the monitoring of roadways, the EPA has received legal reinforcement of its plans to regulate emissions as a path to improving public health. There is hope that sanity may yet prevail.
Another big EPA court victory - this time on soot pollution
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the EPA acted properly in 2012 when it further restricted allowable soot emissions. It was the Obama administration’s third big environmental legal victory in a month. And experts say that bodes well for the administration’s efforts to clamp down on climate-changing emissions from power plants."

I find it heartening that although embroiled in a bitter re-election campaign, the governor of Illinois continues to move on greening and local food movements, even drawing attention to the issues through the governor's mansion.
Chickens winging it at Illinois governor's mansion
"The chickens, which peck at flowers, recycle plant waste and provide manure for the gardens, live in a donated coop that's inside a fenced-in enclosure. The poultry's part of an ongoing sustainability effort."

Happy Friday!

We the People: Our Constitution and our quality of life (Part 1: Establish Justice)

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States does not hold any legal authority, so we cannot turn to it for redress.  However, it gives us great insight into the intention of those who founded this country, and the goals they hoped to achieve through the alliance of states that they wished to form one nation.  The Constitution and its Preamble predate the major impacts of the industrial revolution. In light of what we now know about those impacts, and looking back on both the last forty years worth of remedies to those ills and the last decade's attempts to reverse these remedies, I want to examine each of the major tenants of the Preamble to see what it might say to us about what obligations we have as a nation to each other through our utilization of natural resources.

"Establish Justice"

Most everyone in my generation can recite the Preamble almost word for word thanks to Schoolhouse Rock.  (They left out one phrase in order to fit the rhythm, so many of us miss that in recitation.)  Politically speaking, the first words: "We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union" speak volumes about the writing of the Constitution; namely, that the document would join the people of the country together as one, and not just the states as previous attempts had done.  Although interesting, I will start with what that unified people purported to do with this new alliance.

The people of these new United States first sought to establish justice.  Although we know that in preserving slavery, this goal had only limited meaning, within that limited meaning, it meant that full citizens had a right to fair treatment before the law, and most importantly consistent treatment.  This implied that whether you lived in Massachusettes or Georgia, that you would reasonably have some consistency before the law.  It did not require equal or similar laws, that still remained the prerogative of the state.  It did, however, seek to place a check on the states to ensure that they provide a just foundation to society.  It also recognized that prior to independence, we lived in an unjust society - at least according to the founders.  The political-economic system that extracted wealth from the colonies without fair representation drove the otherwise loyal and content to join forces with those wishing religious freedom to create the groundswell that fed our fledgling nation.

In addition to this reigning-in of the heretofore inconsistent justice provided by the states under the Articles of Confederation and prior to that the colonies under English rule, the concept of establishing justice also suggested the idea that where activities (mostly commercial) crossed state lines, that a federal government would provide clear guidance that gave business a foundation on which to operate.  This manifests itself in the commerce clause of the Constitution that gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commercial activities.  The first "free trade" agreement of our country...in fact, in combination with the "general defense" (to be discussed later), the primary drivers of our union...this necessity to pool disparate strengths and resources for greater commercial benefit was a stroke of foresight because it laid the groundwork for the development of infrastructure (rail and eventually telegraphs and roads) that would define the economy for most of the second half of our country's existence.

These primary interpretations of "establishing justice" have great impact when analyzing the mechanisms we employ to maintain society in the industrial age.  As part of the "deal with the devil" we make to power our economy with dirty fuels, we marginalize those who cannot afford to move away from industrial production sites (power plants, mines and wells, and chemical facilities) providing them less of a quality of life than those who can afford to choose areas far from these hazards.  Our economy does not reflect the true cost of the damage caused by these operations, but instead externalizes them from the price that customers pay for the end product (whether it be plastics, energy, or processed materials).  We see these costs only marginally through taxes paid for government cleanup or healthcare programs that pay to treat the diseases brought on by the pollution. More importantly, we as consumers do not see these costs in the prices we pay so that we might make the choice both economically and morally.  If we truly want to realize this goal of establishing justice, we must fix our economy and ensure that we include all of the costs - human and economic - in the prices paid for goods.  A good or service that increases one person's quality of life does not have value if it degrades the life of another in the process of production.

Another area of import, and one just recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court, covers the idea of regulation of the combined atmosphere and waterways we share.  Weather patterns and natural water flows mean that air and water in one state will likely flow to another.  Anything that industrial production does to pollute one state will result in damage to another.  If a "downstream" state chose to make environmental improvements, but could not reap the improved quality of life that would result because an "upstream" state continued to pollute, then that would violate the precept of justice. In the 1970s, we enacted the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts precisely for this purpose: so that we as a nation could recognize the importance of both to our continued existence and success.  We have cleaner air and cleaner water because of them, and this smart regulation has provided a clear and common foundation from which businesses can sprout and thrive.  The founders never considered a country where localized anarchy ruled, and where one community or state had no redress against another.

Establishing justice requires us to both seek out and eliminate environmental degradation that harms the life of another.  Whether that person lives near us, or simply downstream of an industrial operation on which we rely, we cannot ignore the suffering our actions cause regardless of how remote to our lives.  Our Constitution created a civilization based on "laws not men" so that we might have the freedom to better ourselves as a nation.  We have reached the point where that bettering has to apply to all, and not just to some.  We finally have the ability to deliver justice, and now we have the obligation.

Thanks to the Heritage Guide to the Constitution for some of the historical context.

Friday Five: May 2, 2014

This week we learned a great lesson of economics: it is not a predictive field of study, only a reactive one.  As much as we like to think we can foretell the future, when it comes to basing our quality of life on the availability of limited commodities, we build our houses on sand instead of rock.
Factbox: Energy Future Holdings' road to bankruptcy
"Energy Future Holdings filed for Chapter 11 protection on Tuesday, seven years after it was taken private in the largest-ever leveraged buyout. Over the last five years, the company used a number of financial maneuvers to manage a significant debt load, but ultimately could not convince its many and disparate creditors to restructure its balance sheet outside of bankruptcy court."

Case in point...six years ago when several of us were talking about the looming horizon of grid-parity for solar, the vast majority did not believe. Now, it is a reality. Next up: buildings that need no outside energy source other than what's available on site. They will be so widely available that they will be a code requirement within 10 years.
When it comes to solar power, the market is finally making environmentalism easy
"Little Sun is a good example of how the market and environmentalism don’t have to compete: Both the company and its evangelists are motivated to propagate an affordable form of non-polluting energy. The economics are working in concert with solar’s advantages of sustainability and independence over traditional power sources. And, suddenly, that intersection of efficacy and impact is making solar power as a whole more desirable than it’s ever been before."

One of the greatest challenges to a clean energy economy has come from unchecked conservatism. Conservatism that demands proof before implementation provides great value to society; conservatism that in the face of science, economics, and law holds onto a harmful status quo has no place in our society.
WSJ overruled by Supreme Court on clean air laws
"The regulations of smog and soot pollution will yield up to $280 billion in health benefits nationwide by preventing hospital visits and avoiding lost work days, according to the EPA's cost-benefit analysis. The human benefits are just as stark, with The American Thoracic Society estimating the new transfer rule could prevent upwards of 40,000 premature deaths annually."

I believe this in large part because of the bad business decisions that such extreme conservatism begets. Utilities can play a strong and stabilizing role in the transition to a clean energy future. However, as long as their leaders cling to the entitlement that they deserve guaranteed return on bad investments, we will continue to threaten the quality of our existence.
What future role for today's utilities
"Maybe our current utilities will provide enabling infrastructure, or maybe they will become insignificantly small players – or disappear. After all, the grid as enabling infrastructure might get smaller, and communities can own the grid and provide other enabling services – storage comes to mind. In the end, what is at stake in the energy transition is not just a choice between various low-carbon sources of electricity. It is also a choice between 1) corporations promising consumers low energy prices (and you can go to hell if you don’t want the giant project near your home) and 2) local renewables that may look more expensive, but you pay those higher prices back to you and your neighbors – and you have input into what gets built in your community."

Sound business thinking not only recognizes and accepts, but fully embraces, the limitations of the natural systems that underpin our entire existence. Requiring business leaders to act responsibly when it comes to protecting our quality of life does not place unreasonable obstacles in the way of progress any more than requiring a credit check places an unreasonable restriction on borrowing money. We need to mandate a minimum amount of protection to continue our existence, and not allow irresponsible behavior to jeopardize our future.
The one thing every business dies without
"So take a day this week to think hard about how the planet underpins the business, and how your company and sector should deal with that reality. Consider three steps. First, ask some leading questions: What do climate change and extreme weather mean for your business, your customers, and your supply chain? How do growing resource constraints like water shortages, or rising commodity prices, affect your value chain and your margins?"

Happy Friday!

(Photo: raulbaenacasado/Shutterstock)

Without regulation, we might have Metropolis

A large portion of the building market these days centers around three types of structures: hospitals/health care, universities, and high-rise residential.  Among the potential market sectors, these have the most capital on hand, the most demand, and the greatest buying power.

And they still mostly do the bare minimum when it comes to human health.

As long as we continue to develop new buildings that require fossil energy inputs, someone’s life will suffer to provide comfort to another.  If three of the most well-capitalized market sectors cannot choose to build in such a way as to alleviate this condition, then the market will not ever achieve a socially just outcome on its own.  The best we can hope for, with no other intervention, is a world where one class of people has comfortable, life-supporting infrastructure, and another class deals with the impacts of that lifestyle.

We have the knowledge and ability to change this.  We know how to design buildings so that they use only the energy naturally occurring on the property.  We have technologies that eliminate waste and instead recycle nutrients into another process.  We developed transportation technologies and strategies that nearly eliminate the negative impacts of the energy use.

But the market alone will not bring these into wide acceptance.

For at least a decade, we have had vehicle technologies that improve miles per gallon by twenty to thirty percent at almost no additional cost.  It took a projected change to the CAFE standards to force vehicle manufacturers to incorporate those technologies into their current offerings.  We will see the 2025 target for average fuel efficiency by the year 2020 because we already knew how to make it happen, we just needed a push.

The same is true for buildings.  If today, we established in law that any new building built in 2025 had to use no fossil fuel energy sources for its operation, we would easily achieve that by 2020.  This would happen for two reasons.  First, many designers and builders already know how to make this happen, and the investors who want to gain first entry into the market will find them and make it happen.  Second, everyone else will know that any building they build in the next decade will eventually have to compete with a building that has no energy cost.  Even though energy costs fill a relatively small portion of an organization’s budget (5-12%), that difference creates enough competitive edge to change the market.

I do not want my children living in a world like the movie Metropolis (or for those who are a little younger, The Hunger Games).  I want everyone to have an equal chance at high quality of life, and I want no one to have to suffer because of the comfort of another.

We know better, and should expect better.