http://annarborchronicle.com/2010/04/20/building-a-sustainable-ann-arbor/
This article in the Ann Arbor, Michigan Chronicle titled “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor”, discussed the city’s focus on sustainability. The article concentrated on a recent working session attended by representatives of the energy commission, planning commission, and the environmental commissions of Ann Arbor to discuss sustainability plans which emphasize planning, energy, and the environment for the city.
The chair of each commission discussed their role within their commission as well as their vision of sustainability. Bonnie Bona chair of the planning commission stated they are responsible for the master plan and ordinance revisions related to planning but admitted her commission hasn’t given much thought to other elements of sustainability like economic vitality and social equity. Wayne Appleyard chair of the energy commission stated his commission is attempting to meet the city’s green energy challenge to use 30% renewable energy in municipal operations by the year 2010. The energy commission is also exploring the feasibility of PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) which is a program for homeowners to finance energy improvements. Steve Bean chair of the environmental commission discussed their three phased approach to their work which includes 1) looking at what the city does now that isn’t sustainable, 2) developing an environmental action plan to show how to work toward their goals, and 3) broadening the goals to include elements of the economy and social justice. Bean’s group is also working with the Transition Ann Arbor group that is focusing on transitioning the community in light of an end to cheap oil climate change and economic instability.
During the session Steve Bean emphasized the PACE program (www.pacenow.org) would be one way for homeowners to fund energy improvements and how he and Mayor John Hieftje recently visited the state capitol of Lansing, Michigan to meet with legislators asking them to approve such legislation needed to make PACE possible. Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator gave specific details of the PACE program and mentioned several other states have enacted legislation to support it. Although the PACE program would be voluntary, homeowners would receive an energy audit to determine what steps were necessary to participate in the program. Once homeowners were accepted into the PACE program they would receive loans through an agreement with the city and be able to repay the loan through an assessment on their property tax bills. Naud stated that the program is structured the right way and homeowners who are upside down on their mortgages would not qualify and the city set aside $400,000 from a federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant it received to use as a loan loss reserve fund.
The article also discussed Mayor Hieftje’s concern that sustainability can’t just stay within Ann Arbor’s city borders. Hieftje stated that not only does sustainability need to be addressed within the city limits but it requires attention on a regional and state level similar to what has been done with the greenbelt program and the Border-to-Border trail and transportation programs in Michigan. David Stead, a representative of the environmental commission echoed Hieftje’s vision on sustainability stating it is not just an issue within the Ann Arbor city limits and stated Ann Arbor should be looking at sustainability as an economic development tool. Stead believes Ann Arbor is at the epicenter as the state shifts from an industrial economy to whatever comes next and said Ann Arbor can be the model and the driver whatever next is.
Terry Alexander from the University of Michigan also attended the session and provided the university perspective on sustainability. Alexander’s plan is three fold and includes 1) establishing long term goals for the university such as establishing terms to make recommendations in seven areas: buildings, energy, land and water, transportation, purchased goods, food, and culture (changing people’s attitudes), 2) coordinating the existing 200 sustainability projects that are already underway on the campus and finding resources to complete these projects, and 3) communicating the importance of sustainability to the community, state, and nation. Alexander is also focusing on developing a living-leaning environment for the 40,000 students with the notion that making them aware of the importance of sustainability will prepare them to change the world when they leave the campus.
In the article Mayor Hieftje’s stated that sustainability can’t just stay within the city’s borders and I agree. In order to implement the aspects of this sustainability plan would require state legislation to pass specific legislation to support the plan and I believe the state of Michigan has larger concerns like their failing economy. Implementing a sustainable development plan like this also requires the cooperation and coordination of several entities which would be a large task to concur. In my opinion Ann Arbor should concentrate on parts of the sustainability plan that can be addressed on a local level to see if they can produce results. If they are successful on the local level they would have a better opportunity to convince decision makers at the regional and state level their plan is worth the attention they believe it deserves.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
NYC Sustainability
I found this article that is related to our readings this week.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/04/19/sustainability-planning-lessons-from-new-york-and-mayor-bloomberg/
The article discussed Mayor Bloomberg's approach to sustainability for New York City. Bloomberg introduced PlaNYC that provides a vision for future growth of New York City over the next 25 years. PlaNYC includes a plan to accommodate one million additional people while attempting to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent. New York City has also committed to producing annual PlaNYC progress reports with sustainability indicators, as well as annual greenhouse gas emissions inventories.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/04/19/sustainability-planning-lessons-from-new-york-and-mayor-bloomberg/
The article discussed Mayor Bloomberg's approach to sustainability for New York City. Bloomberg introduced PlaNYC that provides a vision for future growth of New York City over the next 25 years. PlaNYC includes a plan to accommodate one million additional people while attempting to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent. New York City has also committed to producing annual PlaNYC progress reports with sustainability indicators, as well as annual greenhouse gas emissions inventories.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Assignment #6
1. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 was established as a direct result of the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. The act aimed to a) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, b) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, c) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States, d) and carryout all functions of entities transferred to the Department, including by acting as a focal point regarding natural and manmade crises and emergency planning. On June 15, 2009 Representative Bennie G. Thompson introduced H.R. 2868 to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works.
This issue does stem from behavior that is fundamental to our lifestyle with a concentration on three distinct areas. First, this bill designates any chemical substance as a substance of concern and establishes a threshold quantity for each such substance and considers the potential extent of death, injury, and serious adverse effects that could result from a chemical facility terrorist incident. Second, this bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act by expanding requirements for assessments by covered water systems of their vulnerability to intentional acts of sabotage. Lastly, this bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act by requiring owners or operators that have a treatment capacity of at least 2.5 million gallons of water per day to conduct and update a vulnerability assessment of its treatment works, develop, periodically update, and implement a site security plan and develop and revise an emergency response plan for the treatment works.
2. The bill is sponsored by Democratic Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2) and has eight co-sponsors. The bill was introduced on June 15, 2009 passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on November 6, 2009 by a vote 230-193. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. On March 3, 2010 hearings were held in the Senate by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Stakeholders in this legislation include the American Water Works Associate (AWWA) who supports the bill with stipulations. The AWWA is urging members of Congress to support security legislation that applies to water utilities as long as it does not include authority to order the use of Inherently Safer Technology (IST) and provides adequate protection of sensitive information. The AWWA believes personnel who are not water system employees, their contractors, or government agents, should not have access to or be involved in the development of vulnerability assessments or site security plans.
Another stakeholder is National Grange, who is the nation's oldest national agricultural organization. National Grange opposes this bill and believes this legislation will still have detrimental ramifications to the nation’s security and economic stability. The National Grange strongly objects to the IST provisions of the legislation that would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to mandate that businesses employ specific product substitutions and processes. The National Grange is also concerned that forced chemical substitutions could simply transfer risk to other points along the supply chain, failing to reduce risk at all. Some of the proposed changes are estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars per facility and National Grange fears that these facilities will be unable to bear the expense.
3. One area of uncertainty is an attempt for the bill to impose an unproven, "one size fits all" engineering philosophy known as IST on chemical facilities, drinking water systems and wastewater treatment facilities. IST is a chemical engineering philosophy that suggests through changes in manufacturing or storage processes, modifying chemical ingredients, or through purchasing or other business practices, facilities with chemicals can reduce the number, amount, or form of dangerous chemicals used.
Under this bill, the federal government would impose mandates to adopt unproven technologies and chemical substitutions, but some believe they lack the technical and personnel expertise to evaluate whether these alternatives are effective, productive, and safe across these sectors. Members may be especially concerned about the costs of such technologies to farms, small businesses, drinking water systems, and wastewater treatment facilities.
4. The resources slated to ensure compliance with the policy design for H.R. 2868 include authorizing an appropriation of $900 million over the 2011-2013 period for DHS to regulate the security of facilities across the United States where certain types of chemicals are present. In addition, the DHS would need funding of $283 million for fiscal year 2014 to continue to carry out those activities. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, implementing H.R. 2868 would cost about $1.1 billion over the 2011-2014 period. In addition, enacting the bill may affect revenues because there would be penalties against owners and operators of chemical facilities that fail to comply.
5. The government entity responsible for implementing the legislation is the DHS and more specifically the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary is responsible for establishing standards, protocols, and procedures for security vulnerability assessments and site security plans to be required for covered chemical facilities. Some of the standards and protocols for owners and operators of chemical facilities include conducting an assessment of the vulnerability of the covered chemical facility, preparing and implementing a site security plan for that covered chemical facility, and identifying at least one supervisory and at least one non-supervisory employee of the covered chemical facility.
This issue does stem from behavior that is fundamental to our lifestyle with a concentration on three distinct areas. First, this bill designates any chemical substance as a substance of concern and establishes a threshold quantity for each such substance and considers the potential extent of death, injury, and serious adverse effects that could result from a chemical facility terrorist incident. Second, this bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act by expanding requirements for assessments by covered water systems of their vulnerability to intentional acts of sabotage. Lastly, this bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act by requiring owners or operators that have a treatment capacity of at least 2.5 million gallons of water per day to conduct and update a vulnerability assessment of its treatment works, develop, periodically update, and implement a site security plan and develop and revise an emergency response plan for the treatment works.
2. The bill is sponsored by Democratic Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2) and has eight co-sponsors. The bill was introduced on June 15, 2009 passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on November 6, 2009 by a vote 230-193. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. On March 3, 2010 hearings were held in the Senate by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Stakeholders in this legislation include the American Water Works Associate (AWWA) who supports the bill with stipulations. The AWWA is urging members of Congress to support security legislation that applies to water utilities as long as it does not include authority to order the use of Inherently Safer Technology (IST) and provides adequate protection of sensitive information. The AWWA believes personnel who are not water system employees, their contractors, or government agents, should not have access to or be involved in the development of vulnerability assessments or site security plans.
Another stakeholder is National Grange, who is the nation's oldest national agricultural organization. National Grange opposes this bill and believes this legislation will still have detrimental ramifications to the nation’s security and economic stability. The National Grange strongly objects to the IST provisions of the legislation that would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to mandate that businesses employ specific product substitutions and processes. The National Grange is also concerned that forced chemical substitutions could simply transfer risk to other points along the supply chain, failing to reduce risk at all. Some of the proposed changes are estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars per facility and National Grange fears that these facilities will be unable to bear the expense.
3. One area of uncertainty is an attempt for the bill to impose an unproven, "one size fits all" engineering philosophy known as IST on chemical facilities, drinking water systems and wastewater treatment facilities. IST is a chemical engineering philosophy that suggests through changes in manufacturing or storage processes, modifying chemical ingredients, or through purchasing or other business practices, facilities with chemicals can reduce the number, amount, or form of dangerous chemicals used.
Under this bill, the federal government would impose mandates to adopt unproven technologies and chemical substitutions, but some believe they lack the technical and personnel expertise to evaluate whether these alternatives are effective, productive, and safe across these sectors. Members may be especially concerned about the costs of such technologies to farms, small businesses, drinking water systems, and wastewater treatment facilities.
4. The resources slated to ensure compliance with the policy design for H.R. 2868 include authorizing an appropriation of $900 million over the 2011-2013 period for DHS to regulate the security of facilities across the United States where certain types of chemicals are present. In addition, the DHS would need funding of $283 million for fiscal year 2014 to continue to carry out those activities. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, implementing H.R. 2868 would cost about $1.1 billion over the 2011-2014 period. In addition, enacting the bill may affect revenues because there would be penalties against owners and operators of chemical facilities that fail to comply.
5. The government entity responsible for implementing the legislation is the DHS and more specifically the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary is responsible for establishing standards, protocols, and procedures for security vulnerability assessments and site security plans to be required for covered chemical facilities. Some of the standards and protocols for owners and operators of chemical facilities include conducting an assessment of the vulnerability of the covered chemical facility, preparing and implementing a site security plan for that covered chemical facility, and identifying at least one supervisory and at least one non-supervisory employee of the covered chemical facility.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Oil and gas lease sales vs. Climate change
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/09/09greenwire-blm-suspends-some-oil-and-gas-lease-sales-to-r-83918.html
This article was in the New York Times online edition earlier this week. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has delayed all oil and gas lease sales in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota while the agency studies their potential impact on climate change. The decision to delay sales follows a settlement the BLM signed last month that suspended 61 oil and gas leases on nearly 38,000 acres in Montana the agency sold in 2008 until it considers the greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas production.
The BLM agreed to postpone the sales while they complete reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. BLM said the extra reviews will allow it to provide assurances to industry so it can move forward with greater certainty in leasing parcels and developing oil and gas resources.
This article was in the New York Times online edition earlier this week. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has delayed all oil and gas lease sales in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota while the agency studies their potential impact on climate change. The decision to delay sales follows a settlement the BLM signed last month that suspended 61 oil and gas leases on nearly 38,000 acres in Montana the agency sold in 2008 until it considers the greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas production.
The BLM agreed to postpone the sales while they complete reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. BLM said the extra reviews will allow it to provide assurances to industry so it can move forward with greater certainty in leasing parcels and developing oil and gas resources.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Sacremento "Green" initiative
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/04/2652289/sacramento-developers-use-green.html
I thought this article was very interesting and tied into this week's readings. The article discusses Sacremento office developers initiatives to go "green" and use
sustainability as a marketing tool to attract tenants and address the large vacancy rates.
Building owners in this area are spending money to invest in heating and air conditioning technology as well as water saving devices. They're also recycling building materials, switching to fluorescent lights and low-emission carpets and paints, pushing janitorial firms to use greener cleaning materials and even buying renewable energy credits.
These building owners are using these efforts to obtain Energy Star or LEED status in order to give them an advantage in the tough commercial real estate market.
I thought this article was very interesting and tied into this week's readings. The article discusses Sacremento office developers initiatives to go "green" and use
sustainability as a marketing tool to attract tenants and address the large vacancy rates.
Building owners in this area are spending money to invest in heating and air conditioning technology as well as water saving devices. They're also recycling building materials, switching to fluorescent lights and low-emission carpets and paints, pushing janitorial firms to use greener cleaning materials and even buying renewable energy credits.
These building owners are using these efforts to obtain Energy Star or LEED status in order to give them an advantage in the tough commercial real estate market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
