Is Springfield A Green City? Depends on how you define change

Oh you thought I was going to say green didn’t you? Here’s how the story played out in an article by one of Springfield’s best writers:

http://www.sj-r.com

Springfield to use ‘green list’

ranking to attract visitors


By TIM LANDIS

BUSINESS EDITOR

tim.landis@sj-r.com

Springfield made a top 50 list of the nation’s greenest cities for the second year in a row in 2008 thanks partly to construc­tion of a clean-coal power plant, plenty of trees and a smoking ban that took effect before a statewide prohibition. But will the No. 29 ranking by “PopSci” — an online edition of Popular Science magazine — bring the tourists in?

The state’s top tourism offi­cials, and Mayor Tim Davlin, said Thursday they certainly plan to make the attempt. “We’re going to put on a cam­paign this year. We should be doing a lot better,” said Davlin, pointing out that Springfield ranked 12th when the city broke onto the PopSci list forthe first time in 2007. Davlin said he believes the city could have made it into the top 10 last year, but a citywide smoking ban did not take effect until September. A statewide ban took effect on Jan. 1 this year. PopSci uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Geographic Society’s Green Guide to award cities up to 10 points for green uses of electricity and transportation, and up to 5 points for green liv­ing (parks and preserves) and recycling.

And now, the Springfield re­sults:

     Electricity: 5.3.

    Transportation: 3.0.

    Recycling: 4.2

.    Green living: 3.2.

    Total score: 15.7.     

No city earned a perfect 30. Portland, Ore., scored 23.1 to top the list, while Greensboro, N.C., came in at 50 with a score of 10. Joliet, 40, and Chicago, nine, also made the list.

While families aren’t likely to make a day of it at the City Water, Light and Power genera­tion plant on Lake Springfield, Illinois deputy director of tourism Jan Kostner said “green travel” is one of the fastest-growing seg­ments of the tourism industry.

But she said there also needs to be industry standards for awarding a “green” tourism des­ignation.

“One of the problems we have is there’s no gold standard for the industry. You can say you’re green when maybe you’re not,” said Kostner, who was in Spring­field for the annual Illinois Gov­ernor’s Conference on Tourism.

Tim Landis can be reached at 788-1536.

Tim writes more about the Environment and Energy Issues more better than anyone else in the area. But here is the actual lead on the story:

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/americas-50-greenest-cities

 America’s 50 Greenest Cities

Want to see a model for successful and rapid environmental action? Don’t look to the federal government—check out your own town. Here, our list of the 50 communities that are leading the way. Does yours make the cut?

In the international alliance to fight climate change, the United States is considered the sullen loner. But in the seven years since we rejected Kyoto, changes have begun. Not at the federal level, however. It’s the locals who are making it happen.

Note the not so subtle difference in the leads. President Bush sucks on the environment. Everyone in the world including President-to-be Putin knows that. You’d think with a name like Bush (think: beer commercial Buusssssssh)  he’d be better than that. But more than that – the question Tim asks is “how can we exploit this rating”? So what has to change? Well: 

1. Springfield’s inability to criticize anybody degrading the environment (by the way according the Pope it’s now a sin).

2. Understanding that exploitation is at the heart of the problem.  
< In everything from emissions control to environmental stewardship,  cities across the country are far ahead of the federal government, and they’re achieving their successes with ready-made technology. Austin has pledged to meet 30 percent of its energy needs with renewable sources by 2020, aided by planned wind-power installations that will surpass their predecessors in efficiency. Seattle has retrofitted its municipal heavy-duty diesel vehicles with devices that will reduce particulate pollution by 50 percent. Boulder has enacted the country’s first electricity tax to pay for greenhouse-gas emission reductions. Something about the comparative speed of city government—a city-council member can greenlight a project and be cutting the ribbon a year later—leads to bold action, and as cities trade ideas, a very positive sort of mimicry is spreading.The 10 trailblazing civic projects profiled in our list of the top green cities in America are among the most impressive success stories to date—examples of what’s possible when elected officials and local business leaders back up their green visions with scientific know-how, clout and creative funding.

 

Nor does Tim’s article mention what a real green city would look like:

1. Portland, Ore. 23.1

  • Electricity: 7.1 Transportation: 6.4 Green Living: 4.8 Recycling/Perspective: 4.8

America’s top green city has it all: Half its power comes from renewable sources, a quarter of the workforce commutes by bike, carpool or public transportation, and it has 35 buildings certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.

2. San Francisco, Calif. 23.0

  • Electricity: 6.8 Transportation: 8.8 Green Living: 3.5 Recycling/Perspective: 3.9
  • See how San Francisco turns wasted roof space into power, here.

3. Boston, Mass. 22.7

  • Electricity: 5.7 Transportation: 8.7 Green Living: 3.4 Recycling/Perspective: 4.9
  • CASE STUDY: Grass Power
    Boston has preliminary plans for a plant that would turn 50,000 tons of fall color into power and fertilizer. The facility would first separate yard clippings into grass and leaves. Anaerobic bacteria feeding on the grass would make enough methane to power at least 1.5 megawatts’ worth of generators, while heat and agitation would hasten the breakdown of leaves and twigs into compost.

<

Taylorville Energy Center Is A Bad Idea – What are we to do when our protectors betray us

Where I come from most Environmentalists and Energy Advocates would be filing lawsuit after lawsuit against any Toxic Deep Well Injection Site proposed in their area. Yet in an amazing sellout the organizations that could stop this are ADVOCATING For It. This is a sad and tragic turn of events.

This from Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center had this to say:

http://www.elpc.org/news/statementfuturegensiteannouncement.php

elpc_logo_protecting.gif

ELPC > Newsroom

Statement of Howard A. Learner on

 FutureGen Site Announcement

Contact: Shannon Rooney(312) 795-3720
Srooney@elpc.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 18, 2007

 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD A. LEARNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER
FUTUREGEN SITE ANNOUNCEMENT

CHICAGO, IL – Illinois scored a major victory with today’s announcement that Mattoon, Illinois has been selected as the first site for the experimental FutureGen “clean coal” plant. It is designed to test an innovative carbon capture and sequestration approach to burn coal without emitting carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere.

“Illinois is now positioned to be an advanced clean energy technology leader. The proposed FutureGen technology, if it works, is the Holy Grail enabling the economic boost from using Illinois coal while avoiding global warming pollution that harms our environment,” said Howard A. Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “We look forward to continuing to work as a member of the FutureGen coalition to help this project succeed.”

The FutureGen plant is expected to begin operation in the fall of 2012.

The Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) is the Midwest’s leading environmental, legal advocacy and eco-innovation organization. For more information go to www.elpc.org.

                                                                            ###

And then there’s this Letter To the Editor from Dave Kolata, Executive Director of the Citizens Utility Board, published in Springfield’s State Journal-Register.  It’s bad enough that he publishes this in the Illinois State Capital, but their web site claims he published something similar, in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, though their web site refused to give up the actual text.

 www.citizensutilityboard.org

February 28, 2008

State needs to get on with clean coal plans

We applaud your editorial supporting the Taylorville Energy Center (“A clean coal plant may yet be built in state,” Feb. 7). We agree wholeheartedly that despite the disappointing loss of FutureGen, Illinois still has a chance to show leadership on clean coal.

Using cutting-edge technology that gasifies coal to remove pollutants, the privately financed Taylorville project would be the cleanest coal plant in the world, dramatically reducing the exposure to harmful environmental triggers of asthma and lung cancer. At the same time, this $2.5 billion facility would create thousands of jobs, provide Illinois with a needed source of power, and reduce consumers’ energy costs by using coal instead of expensive natural gas to produce energy.

Indeed, the Taylorville plant could provide a badly needed boost to the state’s coal industry. Illinois is home to the second largest coal reserves in the nation, but with FutureGen off the table and our state having recently suffered the shutdown of the Crown II and Monterey mines, the Illinois coal industry needs a shot in the arm that only Taylorville can provide.

As your editorial points out, last year legislation that would have allowed the project to proceed got caught bogged down in Springfield and no final action was taken. Unlike FutureGen, the Taylorville plant is 100 percent within our state’s control. We urge the Illinois General Assembly to act quickly to secure our state’s energy future while doing right by consumers, the economy and the environment.

Phil Gonet President  Illinois Coal Association

David Kolata Executive Director Citizens Utility Board

Michael Carrigan President, AFL-CIO

Angela Tin  Director Environmental Programs American Lung Associationof Illinois


I mean really, you want to threaten downstate aquifers so the air can stay clean?  Where is the outrage here. And what is Angela Tin thinking? That us downstaters will trade Lung Cancer for Stomach Cancer when we drink polluted water? This is crazy, but even the Sierra Club gets into the act
 >.http://illinois.sierraclub.org/ >

December 18, 2007 Sierra Club Statement on FutureGen Siting
No New Coal Plants Until Technology Proven

Statement of Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, in response to today’s announcement that Mattoon in East Central Illinois was picked as the site for the $1.8 billion FutureGen project — an experimental coal plant that would capture and store its carbon.

“If coal is to remain a part of our energy future, it must be mined responsibly, burned cleanly and not contribute to global warming. FutureGen will allow the coal industry to determine whether or not it is technologically and financially feasible to continue to burn coal without accelerating global warming

“It will still be years before we see if the highly experimental FutureGen project is successful in capturing and safely storing its carbon emissions–until then it is critical that no additional coal plants are permitted and constructed in the United States. We need to continue to invest in the demonstrated clean energy alternatives that are available today and don’t contribute to global warming, like wind power and energy efficiency.  

“We can expand our energy choices beyond the limited, unhealthy options of the past. We should be offering incentives for alternatives to coal that can meet our energy needs and save us money while boosting the economy, improving public health and combating global warming. Illinois and many other states are already reaping the benefits of transitioning to cleaner energy. While we continue to look for cleaner ways to use existing energy sources, we should also be investing and supporting alternative, renewable sources of energy and increasing efficiency.”

 ###

  

>This is heinous. There is no other word for State based groups selling out their own.
>

FutureGen Is A Very Bad Idea – sounds like ideas from the past

How have humans gotten rid of their nasty waste in the past? Well it has always been out of sight out of mind. In the early cities they threw stuff in the river and made piles of it “out in the country side”.

My 2 most favorite modern examples are: 1) the Steel Barrels of Radioactive waste tossed in the ocean off  San Francisco. Barrels that would- get this – never rust.

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/farallon/radwaste.html

Farallon Island Radioactive Waste Dump

“There is intense public and media interest in this issue, and we need to have the best information available when we respond to inquiries or participate in discussions on the issue of radioactive waste dumped near the Farallones.”–Barbara Boxer; United States Congress (D-California). June, 1990

Issue

More than 47,800 drums and other containers of low-level radioactive waste were dumped onto the ocean floor west of San Francisco between 1946 and 1970; many of these are in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. 

and 2) The “reef” they tried to build out of used rubber automobile tires off the cost of Florida which has created a oceanic desert devoid of any life. It is now being cleaned up by volunteer divers.

Idea of making reef from tires

 backfires

Four decades later, Florida now considers removing up to 2 million tires

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – A mile offshore from this city’s high-rise condos and spring-break bars lie as many as 2 million old tires, strewn across the ocean floor — a white-walled, steel-belted monument to good intentions gone awry.The tires were unloaded there in 1972 to create an artificial reef that could attract a rich variety of marine life, and to free up space in clogged landfills. But decades later, the idea has proved a huge ecological blunder.Little sea life has formed on the tires. Some of the tires that were bundled together with nylon and steel have broken loose and are scouring the ocean floor across a swath the size of 31 football fields. Tires are washing up on beaches. Thousands have wedged up against a nearby natural reef, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life. 

 070216_tirereef_hmed_1p_hmedium.jpg

So what does that have to do with FutureGen?

Thursday, February 7, 2008


THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER


 


 

FutureGen developers

hope to revive plan


 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS____________

MATTOON — Developers hop­ing to build an experimental central Illinois power plant

say they’ll try to work with the White House and the Department of Energy to get

the project back on track.

The power and coal companies known as the FutureGen Alliance also will work with Congress

to get money for the $1.8 billion project, said Paul Thompson, chairman of the developers’

group.‘We always want to keep the door open,” FutureGen chief exec­utive officer Mike Mudd said

Wednesday after two days of al­liance board meetings in Mattoon. “If that does not come to a

fruitful conclusion, we will work with Con­gress.”

Those talks aren’t happening

right now, Mudd and Thompson said. Thompson said he requested early in January to meet

with Ener­gy Secretary Samuel Bodman but has gotten no response.

Bodman, meanwhile, faced ques­tioning from Congress on Wednes­day about the agency’s

decision last week to pull out of the project, tak­ing with it its commitment to fund three-quarters

of the cost.

A DOE spokeswoman said the agency was willing to talk with the FutureGen Alliance about

its plan to restructure FutureGen, which it an­nounced last week. The agency has so far asked

for industry feedback on what it says could be several power plants across the country.

‘While the department continues to maintain open lines of communi­cation on this important

 matter, we believe the decision to restructure

FutureGen is the best path forward to demonstrate and commercialize advanced carbon capture

 and stor­age technology,” spokeswoman Julie Ruggiero said in an e-mail.

She did not address Thompson’s request for a meeting with Bod­man.

FutureGen is intended to prove a power plant can use coal to gener­ate electricity while

capturing the carbon dioxide in the fuel and stor­ing it underground to keep it out of the

atmosphere.

Government and industry, until last week, had worked together, with the DOE covering 74 percent

of the cost and the FutureGen Al­liance covering the other 26 per­cent and building the plant.

The alliance chose Mattoon in December over three other sites — Tuscola, just north of Mattoon,

andtwo sites in Texas. The project would create thousands of jobs dur­ing construction, and 150

once the plant opens.The DOE and the alliance say they talked about the project’s es­calating costs

 much of last year.

When announced by the govern­ment in 2003, FutureGen was billed as a $950 million project,

meaning the Energy Department obligation was $800 million.

The current price tag, the al­liance says, is due to the rising cost of building materials. (emphasis added)

>

>

Well this is the ultimate out of sight out of mind solution. The form of carbon seqestration that they have proposed to use is dangerous. Deep Well Injection (DWI, all pun intended) may work in some instances. The best proof for DWI is when pumping the poisons into an already proven and toxic well like a deep and depleted oil field. Other than that DWI is a total crap shoot.

http://www.pollutionissues.com/Ho-Li/Injection-Well.html

Injection wells use high-pressure pumps to inject liquid wastes into under-ground geologic formations (e.g., sandstone or sedimentary rocks with high porosity). Many geologists believe that wastes may be isolated from drinking water aquifers when injected between impermeable rock strata. However, injection wells are still controversial and many scientists are concerned that leaks from these wells may contaminate groundwater. As of 1994, twenty-two out of 172 deep injection wells contaminated water supplies. 

This applies to the Taylorville Energy Project as well, but more on that later. Shouldn’t we really be asking ourselves why we would be reverting to Gasification, an ancient and obsolete technique, instead of solar, wind, hydro and tidal power. Gasification presents a serious problem. But first what is in coal that makes it obsolete and then why gasification is dangerous.

Pete Seeger Says It All – We just got one place to live

 We just keep screwing it up. Stop lighting things on fire. Stop burning things up. We don’t need to do that anymore.

http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/

Please see this new publication – as the heat turns up. 

The Energy Market has Always Been About Fraud, Ripoffs and Scams

From the very first shallow pit coal mines to the monumental fraud that is nuclear generated electricity, the history of the energy markets is the same. It’s filled with, fraud, schemes, lies and a 1000 year history of wasted money and burst bubbles.

See for instance, There Will Be Blood

www.paramountvantage.com/blood

or any history of the energy biz:

http://austin.about.com/cs/bushbiographies/a/bush_background.htm

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012650

But when energy prices skyrocket like they are now the cheap hucksters ooze out of the woodwork. I am not even going to put this frauds web page up here for the curious. This was the first page up in a google search of Useful Energy Practices…Shame on google.

FOR THE RECORD YOU CAN NOT USE WATER IN A GASOLINE POWERED INTERNAL COMBUSTION  ENGINE! 

This page may not function properly in Internet Explorer

 – please switch to Firefox
 

Do You Want To Know

RIGHT NOW How You

Can Drive Around Using

WATER as FUEL and

Laugh At Rising Gas

Costs, While Reducing

Emissions and Preventing

Global Warming?

100% water cars are still on the drawing board – but I’m excited to show you

how you can start RIGHT NOW to…

 
 
 

  Convert Your Car to

BURN WATER as well

as Gasoline – to Double

Your Mileage!

Did you know that you can convert your car to a water-burning car (Water Hybrid)?

 This is a Do-It-Yourself, affordable and SIMPLE technology.

 Water is supplemental to gasoline – I have doubled fuel economy in my Toyota Corolla 99 shown below (61 MPG).
 

SIMPLE to install/remove: the solution you’ve been looking for!

 Boost performance while preventing smog.

 You’ll discover how to generate free energy in your car.

 Here you will find testimonials of happy customers.

 You will find out how it works and get your questions answered:

  • Won’t it damage my car/my warranty?

>

>

>

 Not only that but according to MythBusters you can not do it by Electrolisis either. There is no such thing as free energy.

 http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html

When you type in Hydrogen From Water, the first 4 pages are these type scams…SHAME on google again!

Local Conservation Folks – google your own up today!

I rarely do retail outlets because there are 1000’s of them in any one state but a random google search turned up these 2:

http://energyimprovements.net/

phonenum.gif

graphic1a.gif

  • Reflects up to 97% of the radiant energy striking your home

  • Reduces electric and gas bills drastically year round
  • Increases the comfort level of your home
  • Is patterned after high-performance space-age technology used by N.A.S.A.
  • The least expensive energy improvement you can
    make to your home

  • Increases the efficiency of A/C and Heating unit
  • Maintenance free
  • Guaranteed for life
  • Never insulate again

The above is only a facsimile of the site but its headquarters are in Tyler Texas and the 800 telephone number should suffice for contact.

http://www.energyimprovements.com/

logo.gif

Welcome-

Energy Improvements, Inc. – energyimprovements@comcast.net
1-800-497-4293 – Route 106, PO Box 4085 – Concord, NH  03301

The funny thing to me is how they are battling over the domain name energyimprovements when they are very local contractors…some things never change. 

The Results of the Bali Summit on Climate Change

The reporting about the Climate Change Summit in Bali was atrocious. That is why I held off writing anything about it until the dust had started to settle. I hate “horse race” style reporting where there is “almost an agreement”, then a suprise compromise, then a new wrinkle, finally an extended meeting that leads to A BREAK THROUGH! I do not mean to poopoo the accomplishments of either Kyoto (I lobbied for it) or even Bali, but it was clear that all the Bush administration wanted was to push the whole thing off until the next administration. He accomplished that, signed the Energy Bill and then turned around and used the bill to block California’s attempt to crack down on tailpipe toxins. And he did it with that gotcha smile of his. He knows that California will win its suit to do just that, because of the waivers they have gotten in the past and because the SUPREME COURT has always said they can. Again that will be on someone else’s watch…what a prick!

http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

As you can see, all the fuss was about 5 pages of text.

Advance unedited version

Decision -/CP.13

Bali Action Plan

The Conference of the Parties,

Resolving to urgently enhance implementation of the Convention in order to achieve its

ultimate objective in full accordance with its principles and commitments,

Reaffirming that economic and social development and poverty eradication are global

priorities,

Responding to the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that delay in

reducing emissions significantly constrains opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels

and increases the risk of more severe climate change impacts,

Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and emphasizing the urgency1 to address climate change as

indicated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

1. Decides to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained

implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in

order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session, by addressing, inter alia:

(a) A shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for

emission reductions, to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention, in accordance

with the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principle of

common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and taking into

account social and economic conditions and other relevant factors;

(b) Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including,

inter alia, consideration of:

(i) Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation

commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction

objectives, by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability of

efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national

circumstances;

(ii) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the

context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology,

financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable

manner;

(iii) Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing

emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and

1 Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Technical Summary, pages 39 and 90, and Chapter 13, page 776.

Advance unedited version

2

the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of

forest carbon stocks in developing countries;

(iv) Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, in order to enhance

implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention;

(v) Various approaches, including opportunities for using markets, to enhance the

cost-effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions, bearing in mind

different circumstances of developed and developing countries;

(vi) Economic and social consequences of response measures;

(vii) Ways to strengthen the catalytic role of the Convention in encouraging

multilateral bodies, the public and private sectors and civil society, building on

synergies among activities and processes, as a means to support mitigation in a

coherent and integrated manner;

(c) Enhanced action on adaptation, including, inter alia, consideration of:

(i) International cooperation to support urgent implementation of adaptation actions,

including through vulnerability assessments, prioritization of actions, financial

needs assessments, capacity-building and response strategies, integration of

adaptation actions into sectoral and national planning, specific projects and

programmes, means to incentivize the implementation of adaptation actions, and

other ways to enable climate-resilient development and reduce vulnerability of all

Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing

countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change,

especially the least developed countries and small island developing States, and

further taking into account the needs of countries in Africa affected by drought,

desertification and floods;

(ii) Risk management and risk reduction strategies, including risk sharing and

transfer mechanisms such as insurance;

(iii) Disaster reduction strategies and means to address loss and damage associated

with climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly

vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change;

(iv) Economic diversification to build resilience;

(v) Ways to strengthen the catalytic role of the Convention in encouraging

multilateral bodies, the public and private sectors and civil society, building on

synergies among activities and processes, as a means to support adaptation in a

coherent and integrated manner;

(d) Enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation

and adaptation, including, inter alia, consideration of:

(i) Effective mechanisms and enhanced means for the removal of obstacles to, and

provision of financial and other incentives for, scaling up of the development and

transfer of technology to developing country Parties in order to promote access to

affordable environmentally sound technologies;

(ii) Ways to accelerate deployment, diffusion and transfer of affordable

environmentally sound technologies;

Advance unedited version

3

(iii) Cooperation on research and development of current, new and innovative

technology, including win-win solutions;

(iv) The effectiveness of mechanisms and tools for technology cooperation in specific

sectors;

(e) Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action

on mitigation and adaptation and technology cooperation, including, inter alia,

consideration of:

(i) Improved access to adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources and

financial and technical support, and the provision of new and additional

resources, including official and concessional funding for developing country

Parties;

(ii) Positive incentives for developing country Parties for the enhanced

implementation of national mitigation strategies and adaptation action;

(iii) Innovative means of funding to assist developing country Parties that are

particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change in meeting the

cost of adaptation;

(iv) Means to incentivize the implementation of adaptation actions on the basis of

sustainable development policies;

(v) Mobilization of public- and private-sector funding and investment, including

facilitation of carbon-friendly investment choices;

(vi) Financial and technical support for capacity-building in the assessment of the

costs of adaptation in developing countries, in particular the most vulnerable

ones, to aid in determining their financial needs;

2. Decides that the process shall be conducted under a subsidiary body under the

Convention, hereby established and known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative

Action under the Convention, that shall complete its work in 2009 and present the outcome of its work to

the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its fifteenth session;

3. Agrees that the process shall begin without delay, that the sessions of the group will be

scheduled as often as is feasible and necessary to complete the work of the group, where possible in

conjunction with sessions of other bodies established under the Convention, and that its sessions may be

complemented by workshops and other activities, as required;

4. Decides that the first session of the group shall be held as soon as is feasible and not later

than April 2008;

5. Decides that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the group, with one being from a Party included

in Annex I to the Convention (Annex I Party) and the other being from a Party not included in Annex I to

the Convention (non-Annex I Party), shall alternate annually between an Annex I Party and a non-

Annex I Party;

6. Takes note of the proposed schedule of meetings contained in the annex; 7. Instructs the group to develop its work programme at its first session in a coherent and

integrated manner;

Advance unedited version

4

8. Invites Parties to submit to the secretariat, by 22 February 2008, their views regarding the

work programme, taking into account the elements referred to in paragraph 1 above, to be compiled by

the secretariat for consideration by the group at its first meeting;

9. Requests the group to report to the Conference of the Parties at its fourteenth session on

progress made;

10. Agrees to take stock of the progress made, at its fourteenth session, on the basis of the

report by the group;

11. Agrees that the process shall be informed by, inter alia, the best available scientific

information, experience in implementation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, and processes

thereunder, outputs from other relevant intergovernmental processes and insights from the business and

research communities and civil society;

12. Notes that the organization of work of the group will require a significant amount of

additional resources to provide for the participation of delegates from Parties eligible to be funded and to

provide conference services and substantive support;

13. Strongly urges Parties in a position to do so, in order to facilitate the work of the group,

to provide contributions to the Trust Fund for Participation in the UNFCCC Process and the Trust Fund

for Supplementary Activities for the purposes referred to in paragraph 12 above and to provide other

forms of in kind support such as hosting a session of the group.

Advance unedited version

5

ANNEX

Indicative timetable for meetings of the Ad Hoc Working Group on

Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention in 2008

Session Dates

Session 1 March/April 2008

Session 2 June 2008, in conjunction with the twenty-eighth sessions of the subsidiary

bodies

Session 3 August/September 2008

Session 4 December 2008, in conjunction with the fourteenth session of the

Conference of the Parties

– – – – –

That is it! Yes there are 13 other COP 3 documents, 11 othe CMP documents and 1 AWG 4 documents, but the above is the heart of the agreement. It would have been nice if someone in the press would have published it and not left it up to the U.N.

I have been saying this for 35 years and it still needs to be done…Big Sigh

Energy-neutral products take homeowners to the next level for eco-friendly additions


By KETBO EDITORIAL SERVICES

With the “green” trend con­tinually growing, many home­owners are swapping old air conditioning units, heaters and appliances with more en­ergy efficient models. While purchasing Energy Star appli­ances and green rated prod­ucts is a major step forward in being environmentally con­scious, there are additional options for homeowners to take eco-friendly living to the next level.

Energy neutral upgrades and products, ranging from awnings to radiant barriers, provide an additional reduc­tion in cooling energy con­sumption and costs associat­ed with even the most energy-efficient appliances.

According to futurist Mark Justman of Social Technolo­gies, a global research and consulting firm, there is a growing nucleus of home­owners who value ethical consumption, but often con­sider a big appliance pur­chase the only solution.

“While investing in an En­ergy Star appliance or green product is extremely benefi­cial for energy consumption, there are many additional en­ergy-neutral products that are just as economical,” said Just­man. “To top it off, they also have benefits beyond energy efficiency like convenience or aesthetics, making it more of an investment rather than an expense.”

Energy-neutral home solu­tions that Justman recom­mends include:

Awnings – when added above a window or door, an  awning reduces the amount. 0f heat that enters a home by blocking the sun’s rays from
penetrating the glass. Keep­ing excess heat out reduces the load on the air condition­er, allowing the unit to cool the space more efficiently.

Learn more at: www.awningstoday.com/reVenergyneutral.htm 

Solar window screens – screens that install on the outside of windows, allowing protection from the sun’s heat and a little added privacy.

    Radiant barriers – struc­tures made of highly reflective material, typically installed in attics, that reflect radiant heat upward, prevent­
ing it from entering trie home.

   Conservation landscaping- includes planting of shade trees or hedges near a house to block sun from penetrating windows during the summer.
Conservation landscaping can also act as a windbreak, pro­tecting homes from icy winds in the winter.

   Caulking and weather stripping – when installed around windows, doors and cracks, it reduces air infiltra­tion, keeping cool air in

dur­ing the summer and out during the winter.   Programmable thermo­stats – they automatically ad­just a home’s temperature settings, allowing homeown­ers to save energy while away
or sleeping. Programmable thermostats are better for the environment, since using less
energy helps reduce green­house gas emissions associat­ed with energy production.

With heating and cooling accounting for about 56 per­cent of the energy used in a typical U.S. home, according to the U.S. Department of En­ergy, homeowners are able to utilize energy neutral prod­ucts to improve their home’s energy efficiency.

“Solar radiation through glass is responsible for nearly 20 percent of the load on an air conditioner,” said Michelle Sahlin, managing director of the Professional Awning Manufacturers Association. “Awnings have the ability to limit the sun’s rays through glass, which directly reduces the impact of global warming from greenhouse gas emis­sions. In addition, if a neigh­borhood collectively uses awnings, it reduces the over­all demand on the energy in­frastructure, subsequently preventing blackouts