Category Archives: Copenhagen Accord

Gulf Of Mexico Oil Crisis Ends – The Oil Spew is over because BP is sucking on a straw.

Posted on by
Reply

That’s right besides the 40 million gallons of oil lurking in mats 1,500 feet above the ocean floor trapped by dispersants and getting ready to wash into the Atlantic and the continued wash of 40, 000 barrels of oil per day, the crisis is over and we here at CES are going to celebrate Norwegian Independence Day. Why? Because it is neither the day of the actual Norwegian Independence nor is it celebrated for the actual year of their Independence. We feel this is fitting.

http://open.salon.com/blog/norwonk/2009/05/17/independence_day_in_norway

Like Americans, Norwegians love to celebrate what is normally translated as Independence Day. Actually, though the day commemorates the events of May 17, 1814, Norway didn’t really achieve independence until 1905. In Norwegian it is sometimes called Constitution Day, which is more accurate – although there is a problem with that as well.
These confusing facts require some explanation. From 1380 to 1814, Norway was united with Denmark. However, as Denmark was an ally of Napoleon, the great powers of Europe decided that her punishment would be to lose Norway to Sweden (slippery as ever, the Swedes had joined the allies at the opportune moment). When the Norwegians were informed that they were now Swedes, they decided they didn’t like that one little bit. Rather than accepting the news, they elected a national assembly to work out a constitution for an independent Norway (at least, it was supposed to be national; the representatives from the northernmost province had such a long way to travel that they came too late to participate). On May 17, 1814 this first Norwegian parliament elected the Danish Crown Prince, Christian Frederick, as their king.

Unfortunately, that didn’t work out at all. The Swedes had the support of Russia, Britain, Austria and Prussia, and no one cared much for the opinion of the Norwegian people. Long story short: the Swedes invaded, and after a short campaign Christian Frederick renounced his throne and went back to Denmark, leaving Charles XIII the new king of Norway and Sweden. That union would last until the Norwegian parliament declared independence (again) in 1905.
All this made Christian Frederick a rather unpopular man in Norway, but in time it was realized that he had actually made a pretty good deal. In return for giving up the crown, he had convinced the Swedes to accept the new Norwegian constitution which parliament had adopted (confusingly enough on May 16, which really ought to have been our national day, but never mind). That was a huge bonus. The constitution, which is still in place, was among the most democratic in Europe at that time.

:}

So basically like the oil companies, these folks have 2 or 3 Independence Days (Yaaa we are free) every year and the first one lasts a month. It involves children with flags, students dressed in funny costumes according to their profession, and reenactors dressing up in very old clothes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Norway

The young king and Norwegian officials tried to find international backing for their bid for Norway as a sovereign state throughout spring and early summer of 1814. After failing to secure the support of Great Britain, war with Sweden became unavoidable. The Swedish Campaign against Norway was short and decisive. However, while badly trained and equipped, the Norwegian Army put up a determined fight, holding the Swedes back at Kongsvinger and securing a tactical victory at the battle of Langnes. This enabled the King to avoid an unconditional surrender as he was forced into negotiations with the Swedes, leading to the Convention of Moss.

Putting the strategic situation and his own abdication to good use, he persuaded the Swedish crown prince Carl Johan (the former Marshal Bernadotte of France) to let the Norwegians keep their constitution. The Swedish crown prince wanted to appease the Norwegians and avoid a bloody continuation of the war. Realizing that a forced union with himself as ruler of a conquered and hostile country would be very uneasy, he accepted the Norwegian proposition. Norway then entered into a personal union with Sweden with only such amendments to its constitution as were necessary to form the Union between Sweden and Norway. On October 7, an extraordinary session of the Storting convened, and king Christian Frederik delegated his powers to the parliament and abdicated on October 10. The Storting adopted the constitutional amendments on November 4 and on the same day unanimously elected Charles XIII king of Norway, rather than acknowledging him as such, thus reinforcing the concept a King by the will of the people.

Dissolution and the second King

The union amendments were revoked after the dissolution of the ninety-one-year-old union in 1905. The question of a King was again considered, and the Storting elected to offer the throne to the 33-year-old Prince Carl of Denmark, married to Maud of Wales, the daughter of King Edward VII. By bringing in a king with British royal ties, it was hoped that Norway could court Britain’s support. Prince Carl was however well aware of a surge of republicanism in Norway and of the constitutional situation of the Norwegian throne. He insisted that he would accept the crown only if the Norwegian people expressed their will for monarchy by referendum and if the parliament then elected him king. On November 13, the Norwegian votes decided on monarchy with a 74 percent majority, and Carl was elected King by the Storting, taking the name Haakon VII of Norway.

Several other amendments have been adopted since 1814, the most recent on February 20, 2006. After World War II and the restoration of peace and constitutional rule, there was much debate on how to handle the events of the previous five years. None of this led to any changes in the constitution; it had withstood the test of hard times.

:}

Of Course lots of drinking and eating herring also ensues. This guy gets to celebrate 4 Independence Days the US, Italy and 2 for Norway.

http://www.lawzone.com/half-nor/crispo.htm

First, by way of background, Norway was ruled by the kings of Denmark from the 12th century until early in the 19th century (1814).

In 1814, Denmark was penalized for its support of Napoleon by giving Norway to Sweden. Before the transition was carried out, Norway declared itself independent on May 17, 1814. A degree of independence was retained even after Norway became subject to the Swedish Crown.

In 1905, on May 17, Norway declared its complete independence.

In 1914, World War I began. Norway remained neutral, but many of its ships were sunk.

In 1940-1945: when World War II began, Norway again proclaimed its neutrality. However, on April 9, 1940, Nazi forces invaded the two neutral nations of Norway and Denmark under the guise of protecting them against an “Anglo-French Occupation” and “To Protect Their Freedom and Independence.”

Oslo wired Berlin:

“We will not submit voluntarily; the struggle is already underway.”

At the time of World War II, Norway was just beginning to realize its industrial potential when Germany invaded. Five years of German occupation and a burn-and-retreat strategy in the final weeks of the war, left the nation ravaged. But, after the war, the Norwegians, known for their determination and tenacity, returned to rebuild their homes and villages. Finally the flags of freedom were again flying over Europe and Trygve Lie of Norway was elected as the first secretary general of the United Nations.

It is no surprise that Norwegians eat, drink and make merry during the month of May in celebration of this most significant month in their history.

:}

So we say to BP. Job well done Brownie.

For the real scoop go to:  http://www.leanweb.org/

:}

Cap And Trade This Year – I know this seems like a little off topic

Posted on by
Reply

We will get back to energy use and Healthcare tomorrow. This is such an obvious linkage that I thought I would put it up.

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2259898/obama-healthcare-victory-clears

Obama’s healthcare victory clears path for climate change bill

As Democrats secure historic healthcare reforms, fresh details emerge of proposed climate change bill
James Murray, BusinessGreen, 22 Mar 2010
President Obama

The chances of US climate change legislation passing this year received a major boost after President Obama secured victory in his historic battle to pass healthcare reforms late last night.

The successful House vote on the legislation following over a year of intense and fraught negotiations will clear a path for the administration to turn to its next large piece of administrative business: climate change.

Some senior Democrat Senators have suggested that following such a long battle to pass healthcare legislation the Senate will have “no appetite” to deal with a climate change bill that is likely to prove equally contentious.

However, both the administration and Democrat leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives remain adamant that they want to pursue a vote this year and with the party still behind in the polls ahead of November’s mid-term elections the race is now on to move the legislation forward as quickly as possible.

The key healthcare vote comes just days after the compromise version of the climate change bill being prepared by the bi-partisan trio of Senators Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham, and independent Joe Lieberman, received a further boost when both environmental and industrial groups signaled their support for the proposed legislation.

In a surprise move, Bruce Josten, the top lobbyist at the US Chamber of Commerce, told reporters last week that the work being done by the three senators was “largely in synch” with the business group’s views.

Josten stopped short of fully endorsing the bill, but following a meeting with the Senator’s last Wednesday he struck a markedly different tone to the outright opposition to previous versions of the bill that the Chamber adopted last year.

“The fairest comment would be, directionally speaking, the way they are trying to conform and shape this bill I would suggest is largely in sync with what most people in American industry think is the direction you are going to have to go if you are going to have a successful program,” he told reporters.

:}

Healthcare Bill PASSES – But does it save energy

Posted on by
1

Yes I know I am a google whore. It’s been said before. Here is the deal however. If the Healthcare Industry…and that is what it is, an Industry, cut their energy cost tomorrow, they could pass that savings on to you and “bend the healthcare curve down”.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/health/health_howuseenergy.htm

EALTH CARE BUILDINGS

How do they use energy and how much does it cost?

Total Energy Use by Fuel Type

Reference 1:  What is a Btu?

Health care buildings account for 11 percent of all commercial energy consumption, using a total of 561 trillion Btu of combined site electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, and district steam or hot water.  They are the fourth highest consumer of total energy of all the building types (see total energy figure on home page).

Natural gas and electricity are the predominant fuels used in health care buildings, with natural gas used a bit more than electricity.  Health care buildings are more likely to use district heat than most building types.

Site electricity is the amount of electricity consumed within the building; electricity use can also be expressed as primary electricity, which includes the energy consumed in generating and transmitting electricity.  Health care buildings used 637 trillion Btu of primary electricity, which brings the total energy consumption for health care buildings up to 987 trillion Btu, or 9 percent of total primary consumption for all commercial buildings.

:}

Some estimates put it as low as 9%, but that would be real savings.

http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/mhe/Exclusives/Healthcare-facilities-account-for-9-of-energy-cons/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/569619

Employees and executives are being called upon to assist as organizations implement “green” systems within healthcare facilities. The term “green building” or “sustainability” can mean a variety of things. Commonly, however, “green” design and construction includes:

  • promoting a healthier, more productive build environment;
  • increasing energy efficiency;
  • increasing efficiency in the use of water and other scarce resources;
  • reducing the project’s impact on the surrounding environment; and
  • decreasing liquid and solid wastes, building emissions, and other adverse impacts of the building’s operation on the broader environment.

Sustainability has particular resonance for healthcare facilities because improved indoor environmental quality demonstrably improves the health of patients, professionals, staff and visitors. Further, healthcare facilities are major generators of waste and are substantial consumers of increasingly energy and water.

Healthcare facilities generate more than 2 million tons of solid waste annually, which accounts for the majority of hospital waste disposal cost. Given a likely increase in waste disposal costs, designing or renovating a facility to more efficiently handle waste is an economic necessity.

Additionally, equipment-intensive facilities use several times more energy than office buildings, while hospitals typically use 90 to150 gallons of water per bed per day. In fact, healthcare facilities account for 9% of all commercial energy consumption in America, according to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration.

:}

Physician heal thyself

:}

David Gergen Supports Alternative Energy And The Green Economy

Posted on by
Reply

Well this brings this blog and blogger right to the environmental focus we had hoped for. I saw this Sunday in the Parade Magazine. I knew I had to post it.

http://www.parade.com/news/2010/03/14-back-page-how-america-can-create-new-jobs.html

Back Page

How America Can Create New Jobs

by David Gergen
published: 03/14/2010
Technicians install a solar panel in Malibu, Calif.

‘Our company is like many other big ones in this country,” a CEO told me recently. “We expect to create plenty of jobs in coming years, but guess what: They won’t be in the U.S.”Welcome to the “new normal.” For more than five straight decades after World War II, the Great American Job Machine cranked out jobs at a phenomenal pace—22 million in the 1990s alone. But since December 1999, there has been zero net job creation—nada, zippo. Coming out of recession, one in six Americans is now unemployed or can’t find full-time work. Worse still, some economists say we won’t be back to pre-recession levels until 2016!

What can be done? Sadly, not much in the short term. Washington can and should pass bipartisan programs that create infrastructure jobs, ease the pain of unemployment, and hasten lending for small business. But progress will be painfully slow for millions of families.

The bigger challenge is whether we rally and renew for the long run. We are facing the toughest international competition in our lifetimes, and we are no longer winning. The signs are all around us. Who can believe that the first 20 floors of the new World Trade Center will be wrapped in glass made in China? Or that the new 28-foot statue of Martin Luther King Jr. will be coming to the Mall in Washington from Chinese workshops? These should be made-in-America jobs.

It is easy to get mad; great nations get even. We shouldn’t erect trade barriers—those helped to spark the Great Depression. We have to remember what made us the most dynamic nation in the world and can do so again: education and innovation.

In their new book, Harvard economists Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz point to the fundamental truth that the U.S. became the world’s richest nation at the beginning of the 20th century because we educated  more of our kids than anyone else. Generation after generation, children finished about two more years of schooling than their parents. We created the top research universities. But then we slowed down and others sped up. In the 1960s, the U.S. had the top high school graduation rate in the world; by the early 2000s, we were 19th. Our college graduation rates of young people have fallen into 12th place. To reignite job creation, Goldin and Katz say, we must once again be the best at educating our kids.

Fortunately, we’re finally firing up on education reform. Cities like New York, Chicago, Houston, and, yes, New Orleans are pushing reforms. Arne Duncan is a first-class Secretary of Education. More than 40,000 college seniors applied this year to Teach for America, the volunteer teaching corp. Even unions are getting the message. We are far, far from where we should be—but at last there is fresh hope.

The second fundamental truth is that scientific and technological research is key to job creation. MIT president Susan Hockfield notes that investment after World War II created waves of new industries and jobs in electronics, nuclear power, aerospace, communications, and computing. Yet again, we’ve slowed relative to other hungry nations. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman points out, we have only a tiny handful of the top 10 global companies in emerging green industries.

Relentless global competition is here to stay. We shouldn’t be scared nor discouraged. That’s not who we are as Americans. As my favorite preacher, Peter Gomes, says about how one should handle adversity in life, “Get used to it, get over it, and get on with it.”

David Gergen is a professor of public service at Harvard and a senior political analyst at CNN. He serves on the board of Teach for America and has advised four Presidents.

:}

More next time.

:}

What Your House Should Have Looked Like In The First Place – Last day of residential efficiency meditation

Posted on by
Reply

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gpdz8INFBg

So we end this meditation where we have been for 3 days on building a house that does what it should, make your life cheap and comfortable. This all started with an Energy Audit. Could that get you to build a better home in the future? Sure it could. It just depends on how important the planet Earth is to you. It is very important to me. Other people think of it as their personal toilet.

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/your-future-homes-roof-will-be-eco-friendly-too

Your Future Home’s Roof Will Be Eco-Friendly Too

BY Kit EatonFri Oct 9, 2009

Scientists at MIT have invented a smart roofing material that takes a new thermal-management approach to eco-design. It’s a different approach to previous efforts, of which there are many. We’ve rounded them up for you, starting with the latest, below.

thermeleon

MIT’s Black and White Solution

MIT’s Thermeleon material is a composite of layers that makes it thermochromic–on exposure to heat it changes color from black to white. It works by sandwiching a common polymer between flexible plastic layers, with a black one at the back–when cold the polymer solution stays dissolved and the black rear face shows through, and when it heats up the solution condenses to form light-scattering droplets.

The upshot is that when the sun is shining a roof tile covered in the material is white-colored, scattering up to 80% of the sunlight back and thus keeping the building beneath the roof cooler. The result is a 20% reduction in cost to keep the interior at a comfortable temperature in the summer, a figure which also comes with an eco-friendly drop in the electricity supply demands. During winter, of course, you’d prefer your roof to capture as much heat as possible from the sun, which is where the black coloring is handy–the tiles scatter just 30% of incoming solar radiation then.

The team’s working on micro-encapsulating the chemicals, so that in future they may work as a paintable or spray-on coating, and then if the prices drop to match the innovation, the tech could also find much use in the developing world

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs8HcICxzAU&feature=related )

Why haven’t we done things like this for years:

Dow Chemicals’ Covert Solar Tiles

If your house design calls for a shingled roof instead of a tiled one, and you live in an area where theft of expensive roof-top solar panels is a problem, then Dow Chemicals has a neat trick.

Its Solar Shingles use thin-film copper indium gallium diselenide technology to make them cheap and light, and they’re designed to be intermingled with traditional asphalt roof tiles on a roof. That makes for easy installation, and lower visibility to street-level thieves.

solar roof shingles

And there you have it: Proof positive that in the future, our building roofing will do much more for us than keeping the sun, wind, and rain off our heads. They all make good sense, of course, since traditional roofs spend all their time staring at the sun rather than harnessing its rays for energy. Now if there were only a clever hybrid of all these different ideas…

:}

With credits to:

http://www.physorg.com/news174209373.html

and

http://www.physorg.com/news174209373.html

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQyt_xy2mMQ&feature=related )

Then there is the really far out stuff:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3351863/Eco-tree-houses-the-homes-of-the-future.html

Eco tree houses – the homes of the future

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 5:00PM BST 16 Sep 2008

A model of the proposed tree house (left) and an illustration of how one might look (click to enlarge)

Tree houses grown specifically for modern living could be the eco-homes of the future.

Scientists from the US and Israel have developed the trees that can be shaped into the structure of innovative homes.

The ingenious tree houses naturally provide shade and can also be used to process waste and reduce carbon emissions.

The researchers at Tel Aviv University and a branch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are confident the first prototype home could be ready in just ten years.

Plantware, the organisation behind the technology, have already built bus-shelters, park benches and traffic lights using the advanced techniques of airoponics, where plants are grown without soil.

Now they have built a model for a tree house to be used in cities.

The extraordinary structure is build from actual tree roots that are grown to be mallable and then hardened into a structure like steel girders. The houses can be equipped with solar panels and wind turbines to generate electricity and even convert human waste into valuable nutrient for the living tree.

Different species of trees could be chosen for different environments so for example, willows could be used in England and giant American redwoods in California.

However at the moment the tree homes would be prohibitively expensive to all but a few.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqUTB5bflCM&feature=related )

This is a really long article so I will get you started and list the 3 architects. Watch out the prices will kill you, but you can do the same things without the expense.

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/new_homes/article3203472.ece

From The Sunday Times
January 20, 2008

Building the future: eco-architecture

Home gave three leading eco-architects different budgets and one brief: to create a sustainable urban family dwelling. Our correspondent is impressed by the result

Brooke Coombes House

So, you want a stylish green home, but think it will cost the earth? Think again. Home asked three leading exponents of sustainable design to come up with the ultimate green new-build house to suit three very different budgets – and the results were spectacular.

All had the same brief: to design a home for a young part-time teacher and her husband, an IT specialist. The imaginary couple have two children, aged nine and seven, and own an end-of-terrace plot on a tree-lined street of Victorian houses. The house can’t be taller than neighbouring three-storey homes, and must be as green as possible.

Dan Burr, 40, an associate partner at Sheppard Robson, which has offices in London and Manchester, has come up with a three-bedroom, 1,500 sq ft home costing £250,000 (plus land costs). Burr was the design director on Britain’s first zero-carbon house, the Lighthouse, built in Watford last year. The building meets level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, with which all new homes in Britain will have to comply by 2016.

Justin Bere, 48, principal of the north London-based firm Bere Architects, designed a four-bedroom, 1,800 sq ft home costing £400,000 (plus land costs). His residential projects include Focus House, built in 2006 in Finsbury Park, north London, which won the Riba London Region Award 2007, among other prizes. His practice is a devotee of PassivHaus, an established German style of energy-efficient construction.

The third property is a five-bedroom, 2,500 sq ft home costing £600,000, designed by the husband-and-wife team Catherine Burd and Buddy Haward, both 41. Based in northwest London, they devised the low-energy Brooke Coombes House, in Ealing, west London, which in 2002 won the Riba Manser Medal, and are designing 600 sustainable homes in the Rochester Riverside scheme at Thames Gateway.

Their EZ House has three key principles: its construction must incorporate local materials from sustainable sources and low-energy build methods; it must consume little or no energy, so conserve or generate it on site; and the flexible design must have non-load-bearing internal walls, so that it can be adapted to the changing needs of the occupants

The sectional house
£250,000

Sheppard Robson: 020 7504 1779, www.sheppardrobson.com

The PassivHaus
£400,000

bere:architects: 020 7837 9333, www.bere.co.uk

The EZ House
£600,000

Burd Haward: 020 7722 0788, www.burdhaward.com

:}

Next week I go back to the environment. So much has been happening on the energy and the environment front that I have been dieing to print but…well meditations go where ever they will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7pHo9amiZY&feature=related

:}

After The Energy Audit – All of the things that I suggested that you do

Posted on by
Reply

All of those things could have taken SEVERAL Years to complete.You have to ask yourself, “How badly must my house have been designed for me to have to do all this work”? The answer is VERY badly. The big housing push in post WWII America led to many bad practices. But let’s face it our population went from 60 million to over 325 million in 3 decades and energy was a nickle or less a kilowatt. That is just an excuse I know but it is all I got. Hostility to our environment is a genetic trait for Americans. Having a Capitalistic Economy does not help because it has a total disregard for the environment. It is in fact dismissed as an externality.  Is Capitalism psychotic? Look at how it treats the only home we have got. It defiles it.

So hear is a look at more earth friendly models.

http://scienceray.com/biology/ecology/three-extreme-eco-friendly-houses-of-the-future/

Three Extreme Eco-friendly Houses of the Future

Published by Nelson Doyle
November 9, 2008, Category: Ecology

The most extreme eco-friendly houses of the future reduces the environmental impact on the planet and demonstrates how less means more quality living.

With so much attention being drawn towards the perils of our planet and the environmental impact that a global population is causing on natural resources, some forward-thinking companies and individuals are developing new ways to solve our housing needs and the future impact to the environment once built. It requires creative people like these to develop solutions to solve critical issues like the ones we have to deal with in today’s environment.

The majority of eco-friendly houses share similar engineering characteristics such as; smaller living spaces and recycled building materials incorporated into the design. Some houses incorporate solar panels, wood-burning stoves or other energy-saving heating and cooling appliances. The potential costs saving on utility bills, property taxes, home maintenance, and furniture would more than make this kind of living ideal for single or duel family housing.

Ewok-Style Tree House

:}

I could post the photos but out of respect I will say please see the article for more.

:}

This Ewok-style tree house designed by Canadian carpenter Tom Chudleigh saw the future and built it.

Portable Martin House-To-Go

Honestly, this has to be the most practical house on the planet that is eco-friendly to the extremes. Live anywhere and change your scenery when the mood strikes in your own portable house. The Martin portable house-to-go is built to the highest building standards and is weatherproofed with NASA-approved insulation to endure in extreme weather conditions.

Dome House

The Japanese are amazing engineers in both housing and technology, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that a prefab home manufacturer Japan called “Japan Dome Housing Co., Ltd., developed an amazingly energy-efficient, extreme weather durable, Styrofoam expandable modular igloo-shaped kit house. Oh, yes, it’s true. The house of the future that can be purchased and assembled by you and two or three of your friends in just a matter of 3-days if you work around the clock or about a week if you take your time.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Insulation – What a way to end the week

Posted on by
2

It is Jam Band Friday – ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JW-OU3LkM8 )

Humans burn at 98.6. If we lived in a perfectly insulated and airtight world we would have to vent our homes in the winter. Some people in colder climates have those homes, but us’ens in the uninsulated leaky drafty Midwest don’t. I tell people to put as much insulation WHEREVER they can.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6x8GGXrCFQ )

These people favor fiberglass and are trying to dis’ cellulose:

http://www.naima.org/pages/resources/faq/faq_home.html

FAQs About Residential and Commerical Insulation

What does insulation actually do for my home?

What areas of my home should be insulated?

How do I know how much insulation I need for my home?

What is R-value?

Where do I find R-value information when I go to buy insulation?

What are the options when choosing insulation?

How can I be sure I’m getting the best performance from the insulation in my home?

Are there rebates available for installing insulation?

If I am adding more insulation to my home do I need to remove what I already have?

What Kind of Insulation Do Builders Use on Their Own Homes?

What does insulation actually do for my home?

Fiber glass insulation keeps your home cool in the summer and warm in the winter, because insulation resists the flow of heat. Heat is a form of energy and always seeks a cooler area – flowing out of the home in the winter and into the home in the summer. By reducing heat flow, a properly insulated home uses less energy for heating and cooling.

In addition to being an energy saver, fiber glass insulation also acts as a sound absorber. When installed in walls and ceilings, it can reduce the transmission of sound from one room to another or from the outside. In today’s noise-laden environments, more and more homeowners are soundproofing their homes.

A well-insulated home increases the overall comfort of the home and adds to its resale value. Whether your home is new or old, it pays to insulate.

What areas of my home should be insulated?

Insulation is not just for attics and outside walls. Insulation should also be installed in other areas of your home such as ceilings with unheated spaces, basement walls, floors above vented crawl spaces, cathedral ceilings, floors over unheated garages or porches, knee walls, and in between interior walls (especially bathrooms), ceilings or floors for extra sound control.

How do I know how much insulation I need for my home?

The amount of insulation in a home varies depending upon where you live. NAIMA has developed recommended levels of insulation for various climate zones. These recommendations are based on recommendations from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the International Energy Conservation Code which is the model building code for the United States.

Click here to visit SimplyInsulate.com to learn about what zone your home is in and how much you insulation you need.

What is R-value?

Insulation is identified and labeled by R-value. “R” stands for resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power.

Where do I find R-value information when I go to buy insulation?

Insulation is identified and labeled by R-value. “R” stands for resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power. Manufacturers of insulation products print R-values of their products either on the bags or on the labels. In most cases, R-values are also printed on the facings of fiber glass batts and rolls.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJCTrolF3CY )

You can use just about anything as insulation.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/new-home-improvement/choosing/insulation-sealing/materials/khi-insulation.cfm?attr=4

The Proper Choice of Insulation

The proper choice of insulation depends on its final use. In most applications, good resistance to heat flow is not the only thing you will have to consider. In specific situations, insulation may also need some of the following properties:

  • resistance to high temperatures
  • resistance to moisture flow (can it reduce the movement of water vapour?)
  • resistance to air movement (can it act as an air barrier?)
  • a fire-rated protective covering

Once you have matched the material properties with the specific application, consider the following installation factors:

  • Is it relatively easy to install?
  • Is it the best buy for the space available (either high insulating value per dollar if you have lots of open space, or high insulating value per thickness if space is restricted)?
  • Is it available locally?
  • Will it be easy to install the insulation to fill the space completely?
  • Can it conform to surface irregularities?
  • Is it rigid enough to provide support for finished materials or resist pressures against its surfaces?
  • Does one insulation require more accessory products than another (fire protection, framing, air and vapour barrier)?

In short, the choice of insulation will largely depend on how it will be used. Different types of insulation are commonly used for insulating walls, basements and attics. Fortunately, particular insulation jobs will quickly eliminate some materials, making the choice much easier.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_kez7WVUU )

Batt or Blanket Insulation

Loose-Fill Insulation

Mineral Fibre

Cellulose Fibre

Glass Fibre

Mineral Wool (Slag and Rock Wool)

Vermiculite

Rigid Board Insulation

Glass-Fibre Boards

Expanded Polystyrene

Extruded Polystyrene

Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Boards

Phenolic Foam Boards

Spray-Foam Insulation

Polyurethane Foam

Semi-Flexible Isocyanurate Plastic Foam

Phenolic Foam

( http://www.youtube.com/user/thepurplechannel?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/2/1Xm4os2ugaA )

:}

Just copying all the types of insulation tuckered me out.

( http://www.youtube.com/user/thepurplechannel?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/3/wok0fV4Fp7w )

:}

Rep. Joe Barton – You can’t regulate God

Posted on by
1

But you CAN regulate the airlines, the world’s Air Forces, the Coal companies, and the water born freight business. You can regulate the Navy and you can regulate the 500 largest point of source polluters. But trying to regulate Al Gore proved difficult:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqUHM2gf5g4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Barton

Barton was born in Waco, Texas to Bess Wynell Buice and Larry Linus Barton.[1] He graduated from Waco High School. He attended Texas A&M University in College Station on a Gifford-Hill Opportunity Award scholarship[2] and received a B.S. in industrial engineering in 1972. An M.Sc. in industrial administration from Purdue University followed in 1973. Following college Barton entered private industry until 1981 when he became a White House Fellow and served under Secretary of Energy James B. Edwards. Later, he began consulting for Atlantic Richfield Oil and Gas Co. before being elected to Congress in 1984.[3]

Barton was elected to represent Texas’s 6th congressional district in his first attempt, defeating Democratic opponent Dan Kubiak with 56% of the vote in a contest to succeed Phil Gramm, who left his seat to run for the United States Senate that year. He was one of six freshmen Republican congressmen elected from Texas in 1984 known as the Texas Six Pack. He received 88% of the vote in 2000, 71% of the vote in 2002 against Democratic challenger Felix Alvarado, and 66% of the vote in 2004 against Democratic challenger Morris Meyer.[citation needed]

In 1993, Barton ran in the special election for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the resignation of Lloyd Bentsen, who became Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration. Barton finished third in the contest and missed a runoff slot.[citation needed]

Congressman Barton is the Ranking Minority Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee.[

:}

Rep. Barton has been regarded as a climate change denier[5] and his opposition to addressing global warming has been consistent and long-term. As a chairman with primary responsibility over the energy sector, Barton has consistently acted over the years to prevent congressional action on global warming.[11] In 2001, Barton declared, “as long as I am chairman, [regulating global warming pollution] is off the table indefinitely. I don’t want there to be any uncertainty about that.”[12] Barton led opposition to amendments that would have recognized global warming during consideration of the Energy Advancement and Conservation Act in 2001, opposing an amendment to require the President to develop and implement a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels as called for by the non-binding United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the U.S. is a party to.[13] In 2003, Barton again opposed amendments that would have recognized global warming during consideration of the National Energy Policy Act of 2003, opposing a nonbinding amendment that would have put Congress on record as saying that the U.S. should “demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in reducing the health, environmental, and economic risks posed by climate change.”[14] In July 2003, Barton offered an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act to remove language that both recognized global warming and called on President Bush to reengage with the international community to find solutions.[15] In addition, Barton has consistently opposed proposals to reduce the nation’s dependence on oil.[16][17][18]

In 2005, prompted by a February 2005 Wall Street Journal article,[19] Rep. Barton has launched an investigation into two climate change studies from 1998 and 1999.[5] In his letters to the authors of the studies, he requested not just details on the studies themselves but significant information about their entire lives and previous studies. This has been widely regarded as an attempted attack on the scientists rather than a serious attempt to understand the science,[20] although some view it as a normal exercise of the committee’s responsibility and an effort to make possible scientific debate on a subject within its jurisdiction.[21][22] The Washington Post condemned Barton’s investigation as a “witch-hunt“.[23] Environmental Science & Technology, an obscure policy journal often cited by politicians, including Barton, reported what it said was scientific proof that global warming science is wrong.[24] See also Barton’s own response to this controversy in The Dallas Morning News.[25] The dispute expanded with Sherwood Boehlert‘s House Science Committee taking a strong interest.[26]

In 2006, Barton earned two “environmental harm demerits” from the conservative watchdog group Republicans for Environmental Protection, the first “for derailing floor passage of a sense of the House resolution … acknowledging climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”; the second, “for holding hearings, in his role as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, designed to intimidate climate scientists and raise doubt about the impacts and causes of climate change.”[27] The hearings were held by Barton’s committee on July 19, 2006, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations; there, several skeptics testified regarding the hockey stick graph.

During Former Vice President Al Gore‘s testimony to the Energy and Commerce Committee in March, 2007, Barton asserted to Gore that “You’re not just off a little, you’re totally wrong,”[28] thus reinforcing his denial that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global climate change.

:}

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/15

The Inquisitor
Rep. Joe Barton
Republican, Texas

As ranking Republican on the House energy committee, Barton is a mini version of Sen. James Inhofe. In his view, the climate is changing for “natural variation reasons,” and humans should just “get shade” and learn to adapt. “For us to try to step in and say we have got to do all these global things to prevent the Earth from getting any warmer is absolute nonsense,” he insists. “You can’t regulate God.”

During the Bush era, Barton bottled up all climate legislation and pushed to open up public lands for drilling by private interests. He also targeted leading climate scientists, demanding that they provide Congress with detailed documentation of their financial interests. (Barton himself has received $1.4 million from oil and gas donors, plus $1.3 million from electric utilities.) The inquisition drew sharp rebukes, even from Barton’s fellow Republicans. Your “purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them,” then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert told Barton. The effort “to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific debate” is “truly chilling.”

:}

With liars like this can the republic survive?

:}

Dick Gephardt – He pollutes minds as well as the air

Posted on by
Reply

This pains me almost as much as Mary Landrieu. I never worked for Dick but he was always good on so many issues. C’est la vie…sigh

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/jones

Dick Gephardt’s Spectacular Sellout

By Sebastian Jones

This article appeared in the October 19, 2009 edition of The Nation.

September 30, 2009

In March, months after the government gave an unprecedented $85 billion to AIG, the insurance giant released a list of counterparties, exposing some of the world’s top financial institutions as the real recipients of the bailout. First among its peers, Goldman Sachs got a whopping $12.9 billion, despite having claimed in September to be insulated from AIG’s troubles. Based on these revelations, Maryland Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings, who had dogged the financial industry since the crisis began, told his staff to prepare a letter calling for an investigation.

Two Congressional staffers familiar with the matter told The Nation that a draft was circulated to House members on March 23. Within hours, Cummings’s office had received a phone call from a lobbying firm hired by Goldman Sachs, making an “insistent but polite” request for a meeting. Cummings, intending to send the letter regardless, granted the audience, and so it was that top Goldman executives like president Gary Cohn and CFO David Viniar arrived the next day. They brought someone else too, a big-name Democratic politician with serious populist credibility: Dick Gephardt.

:}

But the real issue here is pollution.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/9

The Arm Twister
Dick Gephardt
CEO, Gephardt Group

The former House majority leader now uses his considerable political clout as a lobbyist for Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private-sector coal company. Working behind the scenes on Capitol Hill, Gephardt has emerged as the most credible proponent of “clean coal” — an imaginary technology being touted by the industry as an alternative to limits on carbon pollution. (“Clean coal is like healthy cigarettes,” says Al Gore. “It does not exist.”) In July, Gephardt was the keynote speaker at the Clean Coal Technology Conference, an honor bestowed after he helped win $1 billion in stimulus funding for FutureGen, a “clean coal” boondoggle promoted by Peabody. That’s a significant return on the $1.7 million that Peabody and the FutureGen Industrial Alliance have invested in Gephardt Group’s services since 2007. His firm also lobbies for Ameren, the nation’s fourth-dirtiest utility, as well as for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The head of Peabody’s Washington office, Fred Palmer, marvels at the access the ex-congressman still enjoys on Capitol Hill: “I can meet with a lot of people, but I’m Fred Palmer. He’s Dick Gephardt.”

:}

So to Dick we must say – Smoke gets in our eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTxZOEdEE8I

:}

Marc Morano – There is a name that few people will recognize

Posted on by
Reply

I have been posting for the last 8 or 9 days about the article below and the related book Climate Killers. Please read them so you will know who the enemy is and what to do about it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns/

:} 

He is the master of the bad word. He sits around and thinks up phrases like Nature Nazis, Envirowussies, and the “fear promoting business”. He hides behind the skirts of his right wing masters. You never see him in public and if only he had a last name like Drudge….but he doesn’t…he sounds like a quarterback and looks like a pug.

Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming in Tim Dickinson’s “The Climate Killers.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/6 

The Drudge of Denial
Marc Morano
Founder, Climate Depot

Morano, who worked for Sen. James “Global Warming is a Hoax” Inhofe, left Congress last year to set up shop as the Matt Drudge of climate denial. Today he runs Climate Depot, a website whose sponsor is funded by oil heir Richard Mellon Scaife. A private version of a congressional blog that Morano ran for Inhofe, the site serves as a clearinghouse for climate kooks. “He’s a central cell of the climate-denial machine,” says Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace. “He’s been very effective in delaying action on this crisis.”

Morano says climate scientists are in the “fear-promoting business” and accuses them of waging a “war on modern civilization.” But it’s Morano who trafficks in wild claims, routinely distorting the work of climate scholars and charging that “proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 billion.” A former producer for Rush Limbaugh, Morano gained fame as one of the first to trumpet Swift-boat lies about John Kerry’s military record. Andrew Watson, a British climate professor who recently debated Morano on the BBC, said it best in a whispered aside at the end of the show: “What an asshole.”

:}

Should be Dan Morono, don’t you think? 

:}