Category Archives: why the U.S. is behind

True High Speed Rail – Could make the trip from Chicago to St. Louis in 2 hours

Posted on by
Reply

OK, so we spent the last 30 posts showing what the rightwing and the leftwing talking heads have been talking about. Now onto real news. This was forwarded to me by Andy Martin of Phat Andy’s Barbecue fame. Thanks for that man.

http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/amtraks-high-speed-rail-vision-for-2040-new-york-to-washington-in-96-minutes/11144/

Amtrak’s high-speed rail vision for 2040: New York to Washington in 96 minutes

By Andrew Nusca | Sep 30, 2010 | 37 Comments

Amtrak on Tuesday unveiled its vision for high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor by 2040, and it’s a doozy.

According to the train operator’s “A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor” report (.pdf), progress in the next 30 years could bring trips from New York City to Washington, D.C. in 96 minutes and trips from Boston to New York in just 84 minutes.

Amtrak is thinking “world class” rail, and the plan involves speeds of up to 220 miles per hour (about 354 kilometers per hour) that, all said and done, would slash existing commute times between the aforementioned cities in half.

But no plan is without a price tag, and Amtrak hangs that vision on a peg of $117.5 billion.

Here’s a statistical rundown of how that adds up on the ground:

  • Deadline: 2040.
  • Ridership by 2040: 18 million.
  • Capacity to expand beyond that: up to 80 million annually.
  • Frequency: one to four trains per hour in each direction, with additional trains for peak demand. Today: 42 per day. Tomorrow: 148.
  • Plan would generate an annual operating surplus (yes, you read that correctly) of about $900 million.
  • More than 40,000 full-time construction jobs each year for 25 years’ worth of building track, tunnels, bridges and stations.
  • More than 120,000 permanent jobs benefit from “improved economic productivity” along the corridor
  • $4.7 billion investment each year over 25 years, or $117.5 billion in total.

:}

Next up, cheaper more efficient solar pane. More tomorrow.

:}

Howard Dean And Energy Policy – This is an old piece

Posted on by
Reply

But it doesn’t matter because Howard is pretty left. He is actually kind of the beginning of the left in the world but in the US that is pretty leftwing. I am only going to put up so much of this interview because it is really long.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Howard Dean on Energy & Oil

Former VT Governor; Former Democratic Candidate for President

Raise CAFE standard from 27.5 mpg to 37.5, including SUVs

Q: Would you increase the required automobile fleet average of 27.5 mpg; and SUVs and pickups averaging 20.7 mpg?

A: I support an across-the-board corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 37.5 mpg by 2015. This would apply to all passenger vehicles, and would require a closing of the SUV loophole.

Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, “Fuel Efficiency” Jan 25, 2004

Global warming is most important enviro problem we face

Q: As Governor you signed a regional pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Should the nation adopt the same goals?

A: We should find a way to sign Kyoto. It is not perfect and we must include the developing nations, such as Brazil & China, and require them to reduce greenhouse gasses as well. But in the end global warming is the most important environmental problem we face. We can’t follow the head-in-the-sand view of the Bush administration on global warming. We have to deal with it.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

No new nuclear plants until waste disposal is safe

Q: Should we build more nuclear power plants?

A: We can not build any new nuclear power plants until we have a satisfactory way of disposing of the waste. At present, significant questions have been raised about the safety of Yucca Mountain, the disposal site in Nevada. Unless those safety questions are resolved Yucca cannot be opened and new plants must not be built.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

Help developing countries reduce greenhouse gases

Instead of rejecting the Kyoto agreement, renegotiate it so China and other developing countries have more time to reduce greenhouse gases or enlist the G-8 countries to help with the costs of environmental cleanup. Source: New America Foundation/Atlantic Monthly Public Policy Forum Jan 14, 2003

Our energy policy is one of our biggest security threats

One of our biggest security threats is our energy policy. The money which helped finance Osama bin Laden’s attacks was our money. Because of our dependence on Middle East oil, the US sent money to Saudi Arabia, which was used in part to fund the fundamentalist Islamic schools in Pakistan and elsewhere which teach hatred of Christians, Jews and Americans. These schools have become fertile recruiting territory for Al Qaeda.

In Vermont, we have the highest rate of energy conservation in the US America needs an energy policy which stresses conservation and renewables, including wind, biomass, ethanol and solar. Not only is renewable energy good for the environment, it is a core pice of a smarter foreign policy.

Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, “On the Issues” Nov 30, 2002

Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically.

Dean adopted the National Governors Association policy:

    Considering the evidence and the risks of both overreaction and underreaction, the Governors recommend that the federal government continue its climate research, including regional climate research, to improve scientific understanding of global climate change. The Governors also recommend taking steps that are cost-effective and offer other social and economic benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the Governors support voluntary partnerships to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while achieving other economic and environmental goals.
  • The Governors are committed to working in partnership with the federal government, businesses, environmental groups, and others to develop and implement voluntary programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in conjunction with conserving energy, protecting the environment, and strengthening the economy.
  • The Governors urge that those who have successfully achieved reductions of greenhouse emissions receive appropriate credit for their early actions. The Governors strongly encourage these kinds of voluntary efforts.
  • The Governors believe that federally required implementation of any treaty provisions, including those that mandate limits or reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, must not occur before the U.S. Senate ratifies an international agreement and Congress passes enabling legislation.
  • The Governors support continued federal funding for research and development technology in this area. They also believe it is essential to engage the private sector by fostering technology partnerships between industry and government. Public-private partnerships serve to achieve desired environmental goals, speed the introduction of new technologies to the marketplace, and meet consumer needs and product affordability goals, while avoiding market distortions and job losses.

Source: NGA policy NR-11, Global Climate Change Domestic Policy 00-NGA3 on Aug 15, 2000

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Helen Thomas And Energy Policy – I found a massive void

Posted on by
Reply

I know what it is like when Steven Hawking discovered Black Holes. Helen Thomas was a journalist for 55 years. The dean of the Washington Press core. The author of several books and a columnist for the Hearst Press Organization. To top that off – She IS Lebanese or more properly of Lebanese extraction. She is also very outspoken as a result about the middle east. You would expect that the word oil or the word energy would have been penned by her at some point. However I spent 2 hours looking and this column on the auto industry was all I found. There were thousands of articles about her “anti-semitic” remarks and her resignation. Even articles about politics but nothing else and I wouldn’t  have even found this is if it wasn’t for the nice gentleman at Slate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2080034/

It is not even really on topic because she doesn’t even mention CAFE standards or electric cars. But it is all I got.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/19067580/detail.html

Obama Tough On Automakers, Workers

Wall Street Higher Priority For President

Helen Thomas, Hearst White House columnist

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama seems to be more interested in propping up Wall Street than saving the car companies and the auto workers in Detroit.He displayed his “get tough” side when he laid down the law to General Motors and Chrysler, whose restructuring plans had displeased the White House auto task force.The president gave the car makers a choice of coming up with tougher plans or face bankruptcy. GM was given 60 days to produce a plan for Obama, who has never ran a company, and Chrysler was given 30 days, with a threat to end its federal aid unless it merged with Fiat, the Italian automaker.

Bailout funds were Obama’s price for their concessions.Although he has allowed a few financial institutions such as Lehman Brothers to go down the drain in the current economic crisis, the administration’s financial advisers said other banking houses were too big to be allowed to fail

If only the Obama administration also had said that the thousands upon thousands of jobless auto workers and suppliers were too important to be allowed to drift into poverty.The bankers and big investors are taking big bailouts while the blue collar workers are left out in the cold. So what else is new? In an extraordinary government intervention, Obama forced Rick Wagoner, GM’s chief executive, out of the company as a symbol that times were changing, dramatically.Though he was picked to take the fall, Wagoner won’t go hungry. His retirement package at G.M. is reportedly worth more than $20 million as he heads out the door.

In rejecting General Motor’s proposed make over, Obama’s auto task force said GM had been “far too slow” to adapt and needed a more aggressive restructuring blueprint.Obama, who wants it both ways, said GM ’s proposed plan wasn’t tough enough but that he was “absolutely confident that G.M. can rise again.”The White House’s handling of the auto situation raises the question of whether the government has a role in dictating to business in a free society. In my opinion, the current state of the economy calls for more regulation of banks and businesses, if only to save them from their own rapacious stupidity.

If the Obama administration has its way, GM will have a new look. The giant company would have fewer models, brands and dealers. Thousands more jobs would be cut and more concessions will be asked of the thousands of bondholders and the United Automobile Workers union.

The 100-year-old once-mighty GM may be reduced to producing only Chevrolets and Cadillacs. Its European division may have seen its last days. James Womack, chairman of the Lean Enterprise Institute of Cambridge, Mass. — a company that promotes efficiency — declared: “The old GM is dead and that needs to be said.”

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Christiane Amanpour Chats With A General – Candidly or not

Posted on by
Reply

This speaks for itself, but is this leftist?

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/gen-hugh-shelton-bush-administration-offic

October 25, 2010 03:00 AM

Gen. Hugh Shelton: Bush Administration Officials Pushed to Go to War With Iraq ‘Almost to the Point of Insubordination’

This Week’s Christiane Amanpour talked to former Joint Chief Chair Gen. Hugh Shelton about the rush to invade Iraq by members of the Bush administration which he described as “almost to the point of insubordination.” Color any of us that were paying attention at the time not surprised by this latest revelation. The PNAC crowd surrounding him in the White House were pushing to invade Iraq long before Bush was selected by our Supreme Court to be president or becoming members of his Cabinet.

AMANPOUR: Let’s go back to when you were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and even slightly afterwards, when President Bush decided to go to war in Iraq. You talk about it was based on faulty intelligence and indeed on lies and deceit, but you also say something about insubordination. You say, for instance, during meetings, “some people were kept on after Bush had tendered his opinion and issued an instruction based on that opinion. Yet certain strong-willed individuals seemed to disregard him and forge ahead with their own agendas, almost to the point of insubordination.” That’s a very strong indictment.

SHELTON: Well, there was a very strong push in those days for us to go into Iraq, and there was absolutely no intelligence, zero, that pointed toward — pointed toward the Iraqis. It was all Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden. And yet there was an element there that was — that was pushing to go into Iraq at the same time.

AMANPOUR: But what do you mean by insubordination?

SHELTON: The fact that the president says himself, we’re not going to do that right now, let’s focus on Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Yet below the surface, we still had the sentiment that said, let’s keep planning for Iraq just in case we can convince him that we can go.

AMANPOUR: And you think they could have convinced him?

SHELTON: Not at that time. I think that, as President Bush told me at Camp David, you know, I just don’t see it. You know, we may go get Saddam and take him out, but it will be at a time and place of our choosing. It won’t be as a part of the Afghanistan operation. He got it from day one. When he was briefed by the CIA…

AMANPOUR: So you’re saying he was pushed into it?

SHELTON: I think eventually that that same drumbeat continued, and Afghanistan, remember, was going very, very well. The drumbeat back here in Washington was still pushing, coming out of the Pentagon, let’s go to Iraq, let’s get — take him out. And he finally said, let’s go. We walked out on the limb before we could build a coalition of the — either the United Nations or NATO, one of the two.

AMANPOUR: You’re very — you have some harsh words about then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Is he part of the group that you are targeting here?

SHELTON: Well, I personally like Secretary Rumsfeld, but he was part of the group, he and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, that continued to push to go into Iraq. And I think that’s been documented on a number of occasions.

And making me wonder how much this interview was edited, I transcribed the portion of the video above. It’s not included in ABC’s transcript. The portion below however, is in ABC’s transcript but missing from the video.

AMANPOUR: But you also say that in terms of dealing with defense secretaries that Secretary Rumsfeld was more in the (INAUDIBLE) mold, which you said was, you know, based more on sort of heavy pushing and on those kinds of relationships.

SHELTON: And those were my observations. I’ve had the opportunity to work for a number of secretaries of defense while I was in Pentagon. And, for example, Secretary Bill Cohen, great team-builders, tremendous leader, (INAUDIBLE), made you want to do things because they were the right things to do and because we all pulled together to get it done.

But the leadership that Secretary Rumsfeld brought was totally different.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Robert Samuelson And Energy Policy – It is just pork

Posted on by
Reply

That is right, spending public money to make public transport via trains more effective and competitive is just government waste and fraud. Kinda like the 500 billion $$$ we spend on the military every year or the billion $$$ we just waste on the high tech wall for the Mexican Border.

From here:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/01/robert-samuelson-on-high-speedTo here:

To here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103104260.html

 

 

Monday, November 1, 2010

Somehow, it’s become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help “save the planet.” They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs – schools, defense, research.

Let’s suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration has already committed $10.5 billion, and that’s just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco. Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach $200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government at some level. What would we get for this huge investment?

Not much. Here’s what we wouldn’t get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil consumption or imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can understand why.

High-speed inter-city trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles per hour and are most competitive with planes and cars over distances of fewer than 500 miles. In a report on high-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles or fewer with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched to trains, the total number of daily airline passengers, about 2 million, would drop only 2.5 percent. Any fuel savings would be less than that; even trains need energy.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

God Bless You Martin Luther King – You gave your all

Posted on by
Reply

Where ever you are Martin, thanks so very much for your legacy. You will always be remembered.

http://www.writespirit.net/inspirational_talks/political/martin_luther_king_talks/nobel_prize_acceptance_speech

Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

Martin Luther King – Nobel Prize Speech

Martin Luther King’s Acceptance Speech, on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Peace Prize in Oslo, December 10, 1964

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when 22 million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award on behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice. I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeking to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation. I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.

Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleagured and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.

After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time – – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood, If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama, to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity. This same road has opened for all Americans a new era of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights Bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a super highway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems.

I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

:}

Go to the site to read the rest. More Tomorrow.

:}

John Stossel And Energy Policy – He fosters the misuse of the word independence

Posted on by
1

All right wing conservatives have to pick there own facts or their own definitions to win arguments. Winning on the merits is never an issue. Family values of course has nothing to do with modern families. It is only about modern christian families. In this Stossel piece, independence is replaced by dependence on the cheapest source. What he side steps is the idea that a country with a balanced portfolio of wind, solar, geothermal, micro hydro, bio and natural gas energy sources is both its own producer, so it is independent from foriegn manipulation and independent in that it is not overly depended on one source of energy, thus insulated from natural interruptions.

August 20, 2008

The Idiocy of Energy Independence

By John Stossel

It’s amazing how ideas with no merit become popular merely because they sound good.

Most every politician and pundit says “energy independence” is a great idea. Presidents have promised it for 35 years. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were self-sufficient, protected from high prices, supply disruptions and political machinations?

The hitch is that even if the United States were energy independent, it would be protected from none of those things. To think otherwise is to misunderstand basic economics and the global marketplace.

To be for “energy independence” is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer’s floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving “energy independence” would expose us to unnecessary risks — such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn — and ethanol — shortages.

Trade also saves us money. “We import energy for a reason,” says the Cato Institute’s energy expert, Jerry Taylor, “It’s cheaper than producing it here at home. A governmental war on energy imports will, by definition, raise energy prices”.

Anyway, a “domestic energy only” policy (call it “Drain America First”?) is a fantasy. America’s demand for oil is too great for us to supply ourselves. Electricity we could provide. Not with windmills and solar panels — they are not yet close to providing enough — but coal and nuclear power could produce America’s electricity.

But cars need oil. We don’t have nearly enough.

That doesn’t keep the presidential candidates from preying on the public’s economic ignorance.

“I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project — named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before,” John McCain said. “This nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025”.

Barack Obama, promising to “set America on path to energy independence,” is upset that we send millions to other countries. “They get our money because we need their oil”

:}

Wonder who is picking up his tab. More tomorrow.

:}

Cleanest Places On Earth – I promised I would follow up

Posted on by
Reply

I had my doubts on Friday whether I would find any lists of the cleanest anything. But if a polluter advocate like Forbes has them, everyone must.

Environment

The Cleanest Countries In The World

Christopher Helman, 04.21.10, 12:00 PM EDT

Europeans getting a shower of ash might disagree, but researchers rate Iceland tops in environmental performance.

Iceland is the cleanest country in the world. This may be hard to believe right now, what with the clouds of volcanic ash grounding flights across northern Europe, but according to researchers at Yale and Columbia universities, the Nordic island ranks first out of 163 countries on their Environmental Performance Index.

Researchers ranked countries based on 25 indicators, including water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of the environment on the health of the population. (For more detail on the methodology, click here.) A score of 100 is excellent. Sierra Leone ranks at the bottom of the list with a score of 32. The U.S. ranks in the middle of the pack with 63.5. Iceland took top honors with a score of 93.5 thanks to ample clean water, lots of protected nature areas, good national health care and a plenitude of usually clean geothermal power.

Slideshow: The World’s 10 Cleanest Countries

Will Eyjafjallajokull wreck Iceland’s rating the next time the academics run the numbers in 2012? The answer is no. “We do not score natural disasters,” says Daniel Esty, a professor of environmental law at Yale who heads up the EPI and wrote the acclaimed book Green to Gold. The index is weighted to metrics that track how governments are performing relative to environmental policy goals, such as access to adequate sanitation and water, habitat protection and industrial emissions. The amount of sulfur dioxide released from fuel usage counts, not what’s put out by volcanoes.

There are two paths that can take a country to the top of the EPI rankings. First, a country could be gifted with a rich endowment of clean water, diverse biology and not have sullied it with rampant industrialism. That’s how Cuba, Colombia and Costa Rica placed so high.

Alternatively, a country could have industrialized and polluted its environment, but eventually gotten rich enough to start cleaning it up. That’s the case with the European countries that make up more than half of the top 30.

:}

More Tomorrow

:}

I Promised Will Reynolds This Post – I saw Will last night at Jim’s thing

Posted on by
Reply

Jim Johnston and Sustainable Springfield had the Smart Growth panel last night and I saw Will. A head slap moment occurred immediately, so here are the photos from the HIGH Speed Rail Corridor community input session on MAY 7!!!!! Yup 2 months late.

:}

Sorry for the size issues but it makes the map readable

:}

There is the whole thing. Then there were the key areas of concern. In nor particular order as they say.

:}

This is the last today…the post is getting long and I am still learning the new Word Press system for handling pictures…

:}

More tomorrow Will

:}

Carbon Neutral Is Different Than Energy Neutral – The difference is subtle but real

Posted on by
1

Energy Neutral is different from Carbon Neutral. Energy Neutral means it produces as much energy as it consumes. Carbon Neutral takes into account all carbon used to make the place and its usage.

http://www.jetsongreen.com/2008/02/lighthouse-uks.html

Lighthouse, UK’s First Zero-Emission, Carbon Neutral Home

Lighthouseuk

In England, a handful of efficient demonstration homes have been built on the grounds of the Building Research Establishment Ltd, including “The Lighthouse,” which is the first net zero carbon house in the UK.  The house is also the first to attain level six in the Code for Sustainable Homes, which indicates that it is carbon neutral. The two-bedroom house is only 93.3 square meters (barely over 1000 sq. ft.) in a 2-1/2 story building.  The building has solar panels and evacuated solar tubes on its roof, as well as making use of passive measures with ventilation chimneys.  It also incorporates rainwater catchment as part of the building design.

The materials used include highly insulated, airtight building fabric which has been designed to provide generous daylight levels and includes effective solar control, together with integrated building services based around a platform of renewable and sustainable technologies. These include water efficiency techniques, renewable energy technologies, passive cooling and ventilation, as well as mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR).

:}

http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/11/25/how-to-build-a-carbon-neutral-home/

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

How To Build A Carbon Neutral Home

Written by Reenita Malhotra
Published on November 25th, 2008

Is it possible to build a carbon neutral home? Apparently so says the Australian Home Lifestyle TV show. Watch this segment about green building construction.

Tweet This Post

0diggsdigg

:}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/08/japans-carbon-neutral-hom_n_111519.html

Your request is being processed…

Japan’s Carbon-Neutral Home: Leave Your Carbon Footprint At The Door

Wall Street Journal:

As leaders of the world’s most powerful nations discuss climate change at the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan, Japan’s big tech companies are displaying some of their most cutting-edge solutions in a nearby “zero emissions house.”

The single-story, 2,152-square-foot house generates all the energy required for a family of four, therefore eliminating carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the Japanese government. Products inside, many already on sale in Japan, include a washer that requires no water and an air conditioner that senses where people are in a room and automatically sends cool air in their direction rather than cooling empty space. Yet the eco-friendly products also carry a steeper price tag than traditional appliances.

The house uses a wind-turbine generator and a photovoltaic generation system, which directly converts light into electricity, to produce about 15 kilowatts of energy a day, nearly five times the amount used by a regular household. The government has presented the house as one of its contributions toward helping the world cut greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

As leaders of the world’s most powerful nations discuss climate change at the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan, Japan’s big tech companies are displaying some of their most cutting-edge solutio…
As leaders of the world’s most powerful nations discuss climate change at the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan, Japan’s big tech companies are displaying some of their most cutting-edge solutio…

Filed by Dave Burdick |  Report Corrections

More in Green…

:}

More tomorrow.

:}