Global Warming Solutions that Work - Environment America
  • No tags were found...

Global Warming Solutions that Work - Environment America

Global WarmingSolutions that WorkCutting-Edge Efforts to Curb Global Warming Pollutionand the Lessons they Hold for AmericaEnvironment AmericaResearch & Policy CenterTony Dutzik, Joshua Hoen,Timothy Telleen-Lawton, Sarah PayneFrontier GroupMatthew Davis, Emily Figdor, Rob SargentEnvironment America Research & Policy CenterJune 2008

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 1Introduction 4Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Homes, Businesses and Industry 6Saving the Environment and Saving Money: Energy $mart Homes in New York State 6Greening the Bottom Line: Adobe Systems and California’s CommercialEnergy Efficiency Program 9Building a Better Future: The Green Building Revolution in Pittsburgh and Beyond 11Zero-Energy Homes: Combining Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to Slash Pollution 13The Energy Efficiency Revolution in California: Getting More Done with Less Energy 16Saving Energy in Industry: Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy Program 19Turning Trash into Treasure: Germany Sets the Standard for Recycling and Waste Reduction 21Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Transportation and Land Use 24Building Around Transit: An Alternative to Sprawl Blooms in Northern Virginia 24Walking in Copenhagen: Making Room for Pedestrians on City Streets 27Portland, Oregon: Building “Bike City, USA” 29Speedier Rail Service in Eastern Pennsylvania: Drawing New Riders and Reducing Pollution 31DART Hits the Bullseye: Light Rail in Dallas, Texas 33Public Transportation in a Small New England Community: Free Rides and High Ridership 36Austin, Texas: Paving the Way for Plug-In Hybrids 38Reducing Global Warming Pollution with Renewable Energy 41The New Texas Energy Boom: Wind Power 41The Renewable Energy Revolution in Spain: Building a New Clean Energy Economy 43Solar Thermal Power: Heating Up in America’s Desert Southwest 46Solar Water Heating: A Way of Life in Israel 48The Sun Shines on New Jersey: The East Coast’s Solar Capital 50Tapping the Power of the Earth: Geothermal Energy in Oregon 52Community-Wide Initiatives 56Rebuilding After Tragedy: A Kansas Town “Goes Green” 56Green Roofs and Green Jobs in the South Bronx 59Taking the Next Step: An Effective Response to theChallenge of Global Warming 62Notes 64

share of America’s electricity needs.Southwestern states have enactedpolicies that are contributing to a solarpower boom that could result in morethan 4,000 megawatts of solar thermalpower coming on line in the nextseveral years.• Plug-in hybrid vehicles can dramaticallyreduce carbon dioxide pollutionfrom vehicles while weaning Americafrom its dependence on oil. Austin,Texas, citizens and public officials arepushing for the development of pluginhybrid vehicles and enlisting peoplefrom around the country in the effort.• “Green” buildings and zero-energyhomes could revolutionize America’sbuilding stock by providing pleasant,comfortable spaces with dramaticallylower impact on the global climate.Pittsburgh and other cities are drivinginnovations in green building,while engineers, home builders andresearchers are building the first waveof “zero energy homes” across thecountry.• Addressing global warming willrequire efforts from people of allwalks of life. Communities likeGreensburg, Kansas—a small ruraltown nearly wiped off the map by adevastating tornado in 2007—and theSouth Bronx neighborhood of NewYork City are showing how residentscan come together to weave efforts toreduce global warming pollutioninto strategies for communitydevelopment.Cities, states and the federal governmentshould build upon the successesof these efforts by setting mandatory,science-based caps on global warmingpollution, adopting strong clean energypolicies, and investing in the transitionto a low-carbon economy.• Individual states and the federalgovernment should adopt mandatory,science-based caps on global warmingpollution. At minimum, those capsshould be consistent with a nationalgoal of reducing emissions by at least15-20 percent below today’s levels by2020 and by at least 80 percent belowtoday’s levels by 2050. Revenuesfrom any program that puts a price onglobal warming pollution should beused to aid in the transition to a cleanenergy economy and to reduce thecost of emission reductions to consumers.• Cities, states and the federal governmentshould make energy efficiencyimprovements and accelerated developmentof renewable energy thecenterpiece of their environmentaland economic development policies.Advanced building energy codes;strong energy efficiency standards forbuildings, appliances and vehicles;and mandatory targets for renewablepower generation and energy efficiencysavings are among the policies thatcan reduce global warming pollutionand put the nation on a clean energypath.• Global warming and fossil fuel dependenceshould become central considerationsin land-use planning and publicsector investment decisions. Americashould increase its investment inpublic transportation and rail transportationto reduce emissions fromtransportation. All new public buildingsshould meet rigorous standardsfor energy efficiency and the use ofclean energy.Executive Summary

successfully reduce global warming pollution.These efforts are also reminders that addressingglobal warming has the potentialto make our lives today better—creatingnew economic opportunities, rescuingAmerica from its dependence on fossil fuels,reducing pollution and threats to ourhealth, and bringing new life to cities andsmall towns alike.Many of the solutions we need to addressglobal warming already exist—andthere are communities making them happen.What is missing is the commitment,on the part of most states and the federalgovernment, to implement these good ideasand innovative actions on a broad scale andto do what is necessary to respond to thechallenge of global warming.That commitment must take the formof mandatory caps on global warmingpollution that are sufficient to prevent themost dangerous impacts of global warming.With a firm commitment to reduceour impact on the climate, America canunleash the creativity and the resourcefulspirit we need to win the fight againstglobal warming.The examples in this report show thatAmerica has the ideas, technologies andcan-do spirit to address global warming.Responding to the threat won’t be easy, andmany years of delay in taking action havemade the task that much more challenging.But if any nation can do it, and show therest of the world what an effective, nationwideresponse to global warming looks like,it is America.Introduction

Solution: Residential Energy EfficiencyWhat it is: Statewide program that helps homeowners assess the energy efficiencyof their homes and provides incentives for the installation of energy-saving appliances.Who is doing it: New York State’s ratepayer-funded energy-efficiency program.What it has achieved: Reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 360,000 metric tonsper year while saving money for New York electricity consumers.Why it is important: Homes account for 17 percent of America’s global warmingpollution. Energy consumption in buildings (including homes and businesses) couldbe reduced by 23 percent below business-as-usual levels by 2025 through energyefficiency improvements. 3 Successful programs like New York’s could be usedelsewhere to cut household energy consumption and global warming pollution.Public policy best practices: Ratepayer-supported programs that provide homeenergy audits and financial incentives for energy efficiency efficient, the program also helpsNew York reduce fossil fuel consumptionthat contributes to global warming.Through the program, the Denleysreceived a home energy audit and identifiedpotential improvements. They choseto install an Energy Star-certified boilerand refrigerator, added attic insulation,and performed air sealing and duct work.The improvements were financed througha low-interest loan. By installing energyefficientproducts, the Denleys were able tocut their energy consumption by 40 to 50percent, thus dramatically reducing theirhousehold’s energy bills and their impacton global warming. 5The Energy $mart program has benefitedthousands of New York State homeowners,but it also benefits the state asa whole. Energy efficiency improvementsare often the fastest, least expensive way toaddress energy needs—alleviating demandfor new power plants and transmissionlines and helping to ensure the stability ofthe electric grid. The program is fundedSealing air leaks is one of many steps homeownerscan take to reduce energy consumption.Home energy audits, such as those provided byNew York’s Energy $mart program, can helphomeowners identify low-cost opportunities forenergy savings. (Credit: gwmullis/ Global Warming Pollution from Homes, Businesses and Industry

through a small “systems benefit charge”assessed to electricity ratepayers. Thecharge raises approximately $170 millionper year that is used to support the Energy$mart program. 6New York’s Energy $mart programis comprehensive and casts a wide net,targeting single-family residences, multifamilyresidences, renters, and low-incomehouseholds. First, it works to educate thepublic on ways they can use energy moreefficiently. To encourage New Yorkers topurchase appliances bearing the EnergyStar label, the Energy $mart program runspublic service campaigns, including printand television advertisements, magazinearticles, store displays, and inserts in utilitybills.The program also works with consumersto integrate more environmentallyfriendly appliances and technologies intotheir homes, providing low-interest loansfor homeowners who wish to performrenovations recommended by certified,program-provided energy auditors. Theserenovations may include more efficientappliances, heating and air conditioningsystems, lighting, windows and hot watersystems, or insulation and weatherizationimprovements. 7In addition, the Energy $mart programprovides guidance to homebuilders onhow to build energy efficient residencesusing the most up-to-date practices. Theprogram also works to promote advancedtechnologies like solar electric systems andgeothermal heating and cooling.Altogether, New York’s Energy $martprograms currently save about 3.1 billionkWh of electricity per year, and preventthe emission of over 360,000 metric tonsof carbon dioxide annually. 8 The programalso saves New Yorkers a lot of money. In2006, more than 3,200 homes participatedin the program and received upgrades,with an average savings of $600 per year. 9According to a very conservative cost-benefitanalysis, the program’s benefits weremore than double its costs. 10The Denleys, for example, now save$1,847 annually on their energy bills—forevery dollar spent on the project, the familysaves $2.56—all the while decreasing theirglobal warming pollution. 11This win-win scenario can be replicatednationwide. In fact, many stateshave initiated similar programs to reduceresidential energy consumption.Vermont, for example, has established afirst-of-its- kind “energy efficiency utility”—calledEfficiency Vermont—whosemission is to promote energy efficiencyin all sectors of the state’s economy. In2007, Efficiency Vermont saved enoughenergy to fully offset the growth inelectricity demand in the state, and didso at a levelized cost of 2.6 cents/kilowatt-hour—abouta quarter of the cost ofsupplying additional electricity to meetincreased demand. 12 As of 2007, energysavings delivered by Efficiency Vermontwere meeting approximately 6.5 percentof the state’s electricity needs. 13In 2006, state residential energy efficiencyprograms like those in New Yorkand Vermont reduced electricity consumptionnationwide by 18,765 gigawatt-hours,or about 1.4 percent of U.S. residential electricityconsumption. 14 Yet, the bulk of thesesavings are concentrated in a small numberof states—many other states spend little ornothing on energy efficiency programs.States in New England, the Mid-Atlanticregion, and the Pacific Northwest, alongwith California and Hawaii, were responsiblefor 85 percent of all electricity savingsthrough energy efficiency programs in2006. 15 In other regions, particularly theSoutheast, energy efficiency programs aregenerally poorly funded or non-existent.The New York Energy $mart programshows that energy efficiency can bringlarge benefits to homeowners and theeconomy—while at the same time helpingAmerica to reduce its emissions of globalwarming pollution.Global Warming Solutions that Work

Greening the Bottom Line:Adobe Systems andCalifornia’s CommercialEnergy Efficiency ProgramAmerica’s commercial buildings—its officetowers, big-box stores, restaurantsand institutions—consume vast amountsof energy, much of it wasted. In 2006, thecommercial sector in the United States wasresponsible for more than 1 billion metrictons of carbon dioxide emissions—a 33percent increase from 1990 levels. 16 Nearly80 percent of this global warming pollutionresulted from the use of electricity. 17Energy costs are a large and growingexpense for businesses. In California, forexample, businesses collectively spendmore than $15 billion a year on heating,cooling, lighting and other energy uses. 18Reducing energy consumption, therefore,Adobe Systems Incorporated has slashed energy use and globalwarming pollution at its San Jose headquarters while also savingmoney. (Credit: Proehl Studios April 2006)can be good for the environment and thebottom line.San Jose-based Adobe Systems Incorporatedis a case in point. The company isSolution: Commercial Energy EfficiencyWhat it is: Energy efficiency improvements at a corporate headquarters.Who is doing it: Adobe Systems, with support from California’s ratepayer-supportedenergy efficiency programs.What it has achieved: Reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 11 million pounds peryear at just one facility—cutting emissions by 16 percent despite a nearly one-thirdincrease in the number of employees.Why it is important: Commercial buildings account for 18 percent of globalwarming pollution. Large reductions in energy consumption are possible throughcost-effective energy efficiency improvements. Adobe’s experience shows that manycompanies can both reduce global warming and save money through smarter useof electricity.Public policy best practices: Ratepayer-supported energy efficiency programs thatprovide technical expertise and financial incentives to companies aiming to reducetheir energy consumption.Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Homes, Businesses and Industry

Se produce ante la lesióno enfermedad del tejidonervioso tanto periféricoo central.Causa dolor aun ante laausencia de un estímuloque lo provoque y unaserie de síntomasdesagradablesrelacionados con lapercepción.Su tratamiento es muycomplicado.Dolor neuropático

Nearly every commercial facility nationwidehas the potential to benefit fromefficiency improvements—the averagebuilding can reduce energy use by about 30percent. 24 Too often, however, companieslack the expertise to make sensible energyefficiency improvements or face financialincentives that prioritize short-term costreductions at the expense of long-termsavings on energy bills.Commercial energy efficiency programslike California’s can help businessesovercome these barriers to make improvementsthat benefit the companies andsociety as a whole.The experience of Adobe Systemsshows that achieving large reductions inenergy consumption and global warmingemissions can pay off—in more ways thanone.Building a Better Future:The Green BuildingRevolution in Pittsburghand BeyondThe Felician Sisters, an order of RomanCatholic nuns, occupy a beautiful hilltopcampus just down the Ohio River fromPittsburgh, consisting of a chapel, conventand high school. With many of the buildingsdating from the 1930s, the sistersdecided in 2001 to undertake a thoroughrenovation of the campus. And, in keepingwith their order’s dedication to theprinciples of St. Francis of Assisi, patronsaint of the environment, they decided togo green.The resulting renovation included insulationof the buildings, the installation ofSolution: Green BuildingsWhat it is: Initiatives to promote green building in Pittsburgh and elsewhere inthe United States.Who is doing it: Led by architects and design professionals, commitments to greenbuilding are being embraced by government officials, institutions and homeowners.What it has achieved: On average, certified green buildings reduce energy consumptionby 25 to 30 percent, while reducing other environmental and public healthimpacts.Why it is important: By 2035, 75 percent of our built environment will be eithernew or renovated. 25 Encouraging energy efficient building techniques can ensurethat America’s building stock consumes less energy and produces less global warmingpollution.Public policy best practices: Requirements that public buildings meet stringentenergy efficiency criteria; tax credits and incentives for green building; advancedbuilding energy codes that ensure that energy efficiency improvements are incorporatedin all new buildings.Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Homes, Businesses and Industry 11

The Felician Sisters campus is one of manyexamples of “green building” in the water heating and solar photovoltaicsystems, and the removal, restoration andreuse of more than an acre of hardwoodflooring, two miles of baseboards andwood trim, and 200 doors. 26 The renovatedcomplex uses approximately 30 percent lessenergy and has been recognized with aLeadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) Gold rating from the U.S.Green Building Council (USGBC).“Green buildings” are described bythe USGBC as those that incorporateelements of energy efficiency, water efficiency,location on a sustainable site, theuse of recycled and sustainable materialsin construction, and measures to preserveindoor air quality. 27 Certified green buildingscan dramatically reduce the impactof a building on the environment, withthe average LEED-certified new buildingreducing energy consumption by 25 to 30percent. 28The Felician Sisters’ convent is just oneof several notable green building projectsin and around Pittsburgh—a city onceworld-renowned for its smoky air but nowestablishing itself as a pioneer in the burgeoning“green building” movement. Inthe last several years, the city has seen theconstruction of a LEED Gold-certifiedconvention center, the opening of a LEEDSilver-certified corporate office centerdowntown, and the beginning of constructionof a new children’s hospital complexthat will incorporate at least two certifiedgreen buildings. 29 Pittsburghers can nowshop at a certified green supermarket, listento programs beamed from a certified greenradio studio, take out money at a greenbank branch, and visit a green children’smuseum and plant conservatory. 30Pittsburgh is now home to at least 21 certifiedgreen buildings, and, despite rankingonly 57 th in population in the United States,ranks eighth in the nation for the amountof LEED-certified floor space. 31Pittsburgh’s leadership in green buildinggoes back to the early 1990s, whenlocal philanthropists, led by the HeinzEndowments, teamed up with architectsand building professionals to launch theGreen Building Alliance—the first nonprofitorganization in the United Statesdevoted to promoting green commercialbuilding on a regional level. 32 The alliancefocused on encouraging local institutionsto take leadership on green building,providing support to green builders, andbuilding a base of expertise on green buildingtechniques in the community. As localleaders have gained experience with thebenefits of green building, the demand forenvironmentally responsible buildings hasonly grown.While the green building movement inPittsburgh was initiated by the private andnon-profit sectors, government policieshave played a key role in adding momentumto the spread of green building. Publicagencies such as the Sports and ExhibitionAuthority of Pittsburgh and AlleghenyCounty have invested in green buildings,and in 2007, the city of Pittsburgh adoptedzoning incentives for developers to buildgreen. 33Pittsburgh is not alone. Businesses,governments, institutions and homeownersacross the country are recognizing thebenefits of energy-efficient green buildings—andare driving a revolution in what12 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Americans expect from their buildings.A recent report found that commercialproperty customers were willing to payan average of $15 per square foot extra forbuying an industry-certified green building.34 In the past seven years, more than2.2 billion square feet of commercial spacehave been certified by the LEED BuildingRating System. 35Architects are beginning to respond tothis demand. In 2002, for example, architectEd Mazria established Architecture2030 to mobilize design and building professionalsacross the country and aroundthe world to respond to the global warmingcrisis.Architecture 2030 issued the “2030Challenge” in January 2006. The challengeasks the global architecture andbuilding community to adopt the followingtargets:• All new buildings, developments andmajor renovations should be designedto achieve a fossil fuel consumptionperformance standard of 50 percentbelow the current regional average forthat building type.• At a minimum, an equal amount ofexisting building area shall be renovatedannually to meet a fossil fuelconsumption performance standardof 50 percent of the current regionalaverage for that building type.• The fossil fuel reduction standard forall new buildings will be increasedover time, until new buildings arecarbon-neutral in 2030. 36The 2030 Challenge is gaining momentum:it has been adopted by the U.S. Conferenceof Mayors, the American Instituteof Architects, as well as hundreds of firmsand organizations across the globe. 37While Architecture 2030 is a privatesectorinitiative, the involvement andsupport of governments in green buildingefforts is critical. Cities and states acrossthe nation have adopted policies to reduceenergy consumption at government buildingsand to ensure that new construction isenergy-efficient. The state of New Mexico,for example, now requires new, large statebuildings to achieve at least LEED Silvercertification and smaller buildings andbuilding renovation projects to incorporateenergy efficient technologies and practices.38 State and local governments havealso created tax breaks and other incentivesto encourage green building.The potential impact of green buildingon global warming pollution is large. By2035, 75 percent of our built environmentwill be either new or renovated. 39 Buildingenergy efficient and environmentallyresponsible buildings now will ensure thatAmerica can achieve the dramatically reducedlevels of global warming pollutionwe will need to reach in the decades tocome.Zero-Energy Homes:Combining Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energyto Slash PollutionImagine living in a home that produces asmuch energy as it uses and that emits onlya fraction of the global warming pollutionof a typical American home. For a small butgrowing number of American homeowners,that dream is becoming a reality withthe development of “zero-energy homes.”Zero-energy (and near-zero energy)homes combine a host of energy efficiencyand renewable energy technologies toslash household fossil energy consumption.A zero-energy home might integratean energy-saving building envelope withhighly efficient heating and air conditioningsystems, judicious use of windows toReducing Global Warming Pollution from Homes, Businesses and Industry 13

Solution: Zero-Energy HomesWhat it is: Initiatives to design and build “zero-energy” homes.Who is doing it: Builders, architects, non-profit organizations and governmentagencies.What it has achieved: Zero-energy homes have been built in a variety of climates,demonstrating the potential to achieve large reductions in fossil fuel use at reasonablecost.Why it is important: Zero-energy homes serve as models for energy efficiencyand renewable energy improvements that can be implemented in all homes in theyears to come.Public policy best practices: Government-supported research and developmentof zero-energy building techniques; tax incentives and rebates for energy efficientconstruction and distributed renewable energy equipment; utility “net metering”policies; energy efficiency mortgages; public investment in energy efficient constructionfor low-income housing.“Zero-energy” homes, like those under construction in this Sacramento subdivision, couple energyefficient design with small-scale renewable energy generation to dramatically reduce consumptionof fossil fuels. (Credit: Sacramento Municipal Utility District)14 Global Warming Solutions that Work

provide light and heat during the day, andrenewable energy technologies such asgeothermal heat pumps, solar water heatersand solar photovoltaic panels. Not everyhome billed as “zero energy” truly meetsthat standard, but all of them consumesignificantly less fossil fuel and electricitythan conventional homes.In Frisco, Texas, local radio host ChrisMiles scoffed at a caller who claimed thathis June electric bill was just $60. Milesinvited the home’s designer, Jim Sargent,onto his show, and became enthralledwith the idea of energy efficient construction.The pair then collaborated to bringTexas its first zero-energy home: 3,800square feet, architecturally pleasing, andcomfortable. 40 The home uses 45 percentless energy than a typical home, with theremaining needs met by the renewableenergy produced by the photovoltaic andsolar hot water systems. 41Zero-energy homes use state-of-the-arttechnology, but they are not just for therich. Indeed, government officials, builders,building material suppliers, non-profitorganizations and individual citizens areengaged in efforts to make zero-energyhomes not only green, but also affordablefor everyone.In 2005, for example, Habitat for Humanityof Metro Denver teamed with theNational Renewable Energy Laboratory tobuild an affordable zero-energy home. TheColorado home was built without complexsystems, with off-the-shelf technologies,and using volunteer labor. 42 In its first year,the house produced more energy than itconsumed, with an average utility bill (electricand natural gas) of $17 per month. 43Figure 1: Energy Usage in Standard Home Compared to Zero-Energy Home 4730,00025,000Annual Energy Con nsumption (kWh)20,00015,00010,0005,000All Other LoadsWater HeatingCoolingHeating0Base HouseZero-Energy HouseReducing Global Warming Pollution from Homes, Businesses and Industry 15

In Lenoir City, Tennessee, experts at theOak Ridge National Laboratory teamedwith Habitat for Humanity to build a seriesof low-cost, near-zero energy homes. Thehouses include airtight building envelopes,solar photovoltaic panels, and heat-pumpwater heaters, among other energy-savingtechnologies. The houses cut energy consumptionby approximately half comparedto a typical home (not counting the energysupplied by the photovoltaic system), withtotal energy costs of approximately $1 perday. 44A similar affordable near-zero energyhome project in western Massachusettshas also achieved impressive results. In itsfirst year, the home, built by a non-profitorganization providing housing for lowandmoderate-income families, consumedless than 700 kilowatt-hours of electricityfrom the utility grid—less than the averageAmerican home consumes in a singlemonth. 45 The non-profit agency, RuralDevelopment, Inc., is now applying itsexperience with the initial house in theconstruction of a mixed-income developmentof 20 near-zero energy homes. 46Zero-energy homes are being built inlocations as diverse as California, Massachusetts,Wisconsin and New Jersey. 48State and local governments are also developingprograms to provide incentivesfor the construction of zero-energy andnear-zero energy homes. New Mexico,for example, has created tax incentivesto encourage highly efficient residentialconstruction. 49Investing in zero-energy homes andfostering their market penetration couldresult in large reductions in global warmingpollution. An analysis conducted by theNational Renewable Energy Laboratoryfound that, by investing in zero-energyhome technology now through researchand development and public policy support,zero-energy homes could reduce energyconsumption in single-family homes by 17percent by 2050, averting up to 100 millionmetric tons of global warming pollutionper year. 50While the technology to build zeroenergyhomes exists today, investment inresearch and development can continue toplay an important role in making zero-energyhomes more efficient and affordable.The U.S. Department of Energy’s BuildingAmerica program, for example, bringstogether teams of engineers to designbuildings that maximize energy efficiency,and then monitors those buildings as theyare used to further improve and refinethose designs.With new building techniques andstrong public policy support, zero-energyhomes can quickly be brought from thefringes to the mainstream—with largebenefits for homeowners and the planet.The Energy EfficiencyRevolution in California:Getting More Done withLess EnergyIn the fall of 1973, particle physicist ArthurRosenfeld had an epiphany.It was a time of skyrocketing oil pricesand long lines outside gas stations asAmerica reeled from the impacts of theArab oil embargo. One day during thecrisis, Rosenfeld did a little math. Leavingthe lights on in his office all weekend, as heusually did, would consume the equivalentof four gallons of gasoline, he concluded. 51The realization led Rosenfeld to thinkthat, perhaps, the solution to the nation’senergy woes could be found in reducing theamount of energy America wastes.Rosenfeld went on from that realizationto a new career devoted to exploring howenergy was used—and often wasted—inAmerican buildings. In the mid-1970s,Rosenfeld and other researchers found that16 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Solution: Statewide Energy Efficiency EffortsWhat it is: California’s three decade-long economy-wide energy efficiencyeffort.Who is doing it: California policy-makers, businesses and individuals.What it has achieved: California uses 20 percent less energy per capita than itdid in 1973, and produces 30 percent less carbon dioxide per capita than in 1975.California’s innovations in energy efficiency have also set the stage for nationaladoption of many efficiency policies.Why it is important: California’s example shows that economic growth and greaterenergy efficiency go hand in hand. Aggressive and thoughtful energy efficiencypolicies can achieve significant reductions in energy use and global warmingpollution.Public policy best practices: Aggressive building energy codes and energy efficiencystandards for appliances; ratepayer-supported energy efficiency programsand extensive public education efforts.there were vast differences in the amountof energy used by various refrigerators,and that establishing minimum efficiencystandards for refrigerators could save 1,500megawatts of generation capacity—aboutthe size of one-and-a-half typical nuclearpower plants. 52 The researchers gave theirconclusions to California’s governor, JerryBrown, and in 1976 California became thefirst state to establish energy efficiencystandards for refrigerators—a move thateventually led to the adoption of similarfederal standards. Today, the averageAmerican refrigerator uses 75 percent lessenergy than a typical 1974 model, despitebeing larger and having more features. 53California’s early lead in energy efficiencycontinued through the 1970s. Thestate implemented the first building energycode in the nation in 1978. And over time,the state has continued to adopt increasinglystringent standards for appliances—inFor more than three decades, California has made energy efficiencyimprovements a key part of its energy strategy. Here, atechnician installs energy efficient lighting at a children’s hospitalin central California. (Credit: Children’s Hospital CentralCalifornia)Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Homes, Businesses and Industry 17

most cases, setting the bar for the adoptionof similar standards at the federal levelyears later.California has also turned to energyefficiency in times of crisis. In 2000 and2001, manipulation of electricity marketsby Enron and others led to a wrenchingenergy crisis for Californians—a timeof rolling blackouts, utility bankruptciesand skyrocketing energy bills. To bringthe electric grid back into working order,policy-makers needed to reduce energydemand quickly—on a scale of monthsrather than years. To address the issue, theydevised a program to educate the public onthe need to work together to conserve electricity.The “Flex Your Power” campaignwas born. Within a year, Californians, whowere already using energy much more efficientlythan the rest of the nation, workedtogether to reduce their demand for electricityby 14.1 percent, equivalent to theoutput of 10 large power plants. 54California’s efforts as a leader in energyefficiency have paid off. Since the state’senergy efficiency efforts began in themid-1970s, California’s per capita energyconsumption has declined at a faster ratethan that of the rest of the country. (SeeFigure 2.) In 1973, California’s per capitaenergy consumption was 19 percent lowerthan that of the United States as a whole.By 2005, California was using 32 percentless energy per capita than the whole ofAmerica. 55Statistical analysis of declining per capitaenergy consumption in California relativeto the rest of the nation found that, aftercontrolling for retail price of fuel, per capitaincome, technological change and climaticconditions, energy efficiency measures werelargely responsible for this trend. 56California’s energy efficiency effortshave not only reduced global warmingemissions, but have also delivered substantialbenefits for the economy. From 1975to 2001, the state’s building and applianceefficiency standards reduced energy costsFigure 2. Per Capita Energy Consumption Declining in California Relative to Rest ofthe United States 57400(million BTU/person)Per-Capita Energy Consumption350300250200150100500United StatesCaliforniaYear18 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Manufacturing plants are large consumers of energy.Programs like Wisconsin’s Focus on Energyhelp manufacturers use energy more efficiently.(Credit: winhorse/ $10 billion in revenue. 62 Energycosts are a significant expense for thesecompanies, which must cook, refrigerate,freeze and otherwise process vast amountsof food.Nestlé USA, the global food conglomerate,operates several facilities in Wisconsin,including an infant formula plant in EauClaire that uses large amounts of heatedwater in its operation. The company hadlong considered ways to recapture some ofthe heat that had been lost in the plant’sexhaust. But low natural gas prices meantthat it would take too long for the companyto recover the cost of the investment. 63With natural gas prices on the rise inrecent years, however, Nestlé began toreconsider, and the company turned toWisconsin’s Focus on Energy programfor help. Focus on Energy is supported bya small systems benefit charge on Wisconsinratepayers’ electric bills, and operatesenergy efficiency programs that help homeownersand businesses. The program’sindustrial efforts, which began statewidein 2001, have been recognized as an “exemplary”energy efficiency program by theAmerican Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy (ACEEE). 64Focus on Energy provides experttechnical advice and financial assistanceto industries seeking to improve their energyefficiency. The program has specialprograms devoted to five common andenergy-intensive industries in the state:food processing, metal casting, plastics,pulp and paper, and water and wastewatertreatment. 65 The potential for energy savingsin these industries is vast: Focus onEnergy estimates that energy efficiencyimprovements in the dairy and food processingindustries alone could shave $60million off the industries’ total energy billof $400 million. 66In Nestlé’s case, Focus on Energy providedfinancial assistance that, combinedwith the higher cost of natural gas, madeit cost effective for the company to installcondensing economizer systems on its boilers,which capture lost heat from the stackand use it to preheat cold water headinginto the boilers. The system saves Nestléan estimated 142,000 therms of natural gaseach year, and the investment is expectedto pay for itself in just 2.7 years. 67In total, Focus on Energy has workedwith over 1,500 industrial customers fora net savings of over 141 million kWh ofelectricity and 15 million therms of naturalgas. 68 Assuming that the saved electricitycame from Wisconsin power plants, thosesavings represent over 200,000 metrictons of averted carbon dioxide emissions. 69Conserving energy results in lower billsas well. Focus on Energy has resultedin a net savings of over $262 million forWisconsin industries. 70 The programbudget for that period was a total of $2220 Global Warming Solutions that Work

million, yielding an exceptional benefitcostratio of 11.9. 71America’s industrial facilities havemassive, untapped potential for improvedenergy efficiency. The use of advancedmotors, more efficient equipment, bettermanagement of heat energy, and combinedheat-and-power (which uses waste heatfrom industrial operations to generateelectricity) can all dramatically reduceenergy consumption in industrial facilities.Programs such as Wisconsin’s Focuson Energy show that this potential can betapped in ways that not only reduce emissionsbut that also keep American businessescompetitive and thriving.Turning Trash into Treasure:Germany Sets the Standardfor Recycling andWaste ReductionLike any developed country, Germanycreates a lot of trash—nearly 30 milliontons of it annually. 72 Germany is denselypopulated and open land is scarce, leadingto a serious problem: where to put all of thisgarbage? By the late 1980s, Germany facedboth a shortage of landfill capacity andstrong opposition to placing new facilitieson available land. 73In 1991, Germans took a bold stepSolution: RecyclingWhat it is: A society-wide effort to encourage recycling and waste reduction.Who is doing it: Germany.What it has achieved: Germans recycle more than half their garbage, eliminating4 million metric tons of global warming pollution each year.Why it is important: America producesvast amounts of waste and recycles far lessof it than Germany. Reducing waste andrecycling more of the waste we producewould significantly reduce global warmingpollution and avert other environmentalproblems.Public policy best practices: Requiringproduct producers to take responsibility forwaste; imposing sliding scale fees based onvolume and content of packaging; providingwide-scale recycling infrastructure.Germany’s recycling rate is nearly double that ofthe United States, thanks in large part to policiesthat put the responsibility for recycling on productmanufacturers, not consumers and taxpayers. (Credit: GFDL file/Kaihsu Tai)Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Homes, Businesses and Industry 21

toward a new way of dealing with waste,through the adoption of a cutting-edge lawknown as the “Waste Act.” The Waste Actspecifically targeted product packaging,which at the time accounted for over 30percent by weight and 50 percent by volumeof all municipal solid waste producedin Germany. 74The philosophy underlying the WasteAct is based on the “polluter pays” principle.In the United States, the responsibilityfor dealing with waste disposal lies entirelywith taxpayers (with a few exceptions, suchas bottle deposit laws), giving manufacturersno incentive to reduce the amount ofwasteful packaging. By contrast, Germanyrequires the consumer products industryto take responsibility for packaging waste,thereby providing an incentive for companiesto design less wasteful productsfrom the very beginning. This shift ofresponsibility effectively internalizes wastemanagement costs by integrating them intothe prices of products and packaging. 75It can be difficult for individual companiesto take full responsibility for thewaste their products create, but Germanlaw provides a convenient solution: manufacturerscan opt out of taking back theirown product packaging by helping to payfor and participating in a cooperative recyclingscheme. Germany’s packaging collectioncompany, Duales System Deutschland(DSD), fulfills that role.DSD is financed by a fee paid bymember companies, which are chargeda one-time fee when they join, then areperiodically charged based on the quantityand type of material they produce. The feesfor materials that are more costly or difficultto recycle are higher than those formore easily recyclable products, providingincentives for manufacturers to reduce theamount of packaging on their products andto use recyclable materials. In return forthe fees, DSD allows these companies toplace its trademark “Green Dot” on theirproducts. DSD uses the revenue to hirewaste collectors to pick up recyclables andto operate recycling facilities that handlethe waste after it is collected. 76In the German model of recycling,consumers participate voluntarily, withoutexplicit financial incentives. Why, then,are the nation’s recycling rates so high?First, German consumers are enthusiasticrecyclers for environmental reasons. Moreover,because manufacturers must meetgovernment-imposed recovery quotas forthe packaging they produce, they have anincentive to design recovery systems thatGermans will use.Germany now has one of the most ambitiousand successful recycling programson the planet. The nation of about 80 millionboasts that each resident recycles 167pounds of packaging alone in a year. 77 Thecountry’s recycling rate for product packagingis an astonishing 78 percent. 78 And,incredibly, the sum total of waste fromhouseholds in Germany has remained constantsince 1990, during a period in whichwaste production in the United States wasincreasing by 22.5 percent. 79 By 2005, Germanywas recycling more than 60 percentof its municipal waste. 80 By comparison, inthe United States, only 32 percent of wastewas recycled by 2006. 81Recycling can reduce global warmingpollution in several ways. First, it typicallytakes less energy to create products fromrecycled materials than from virgin wood,metal or petrochemicals. Second, wastethat is sent to landfills or incinerators createsglobal warming pollution. Landfillsproduce methane as organic materialsin garbage decompose, while incineratorsproduce pollution when garbage isburned.Germany’s exceptional recycling systemreduces the nation’s contribution to globalwarming. In 2005, recycling of paper, glass,metal, wood and packaging in Germanyreduced global warming pollutant emissionsby nearly 4 million metric tons ofcarbon dioxide per year. 82 These savings22 Global Warming Solutions that Work

only reflect the energy savings gained byusing recycled as opposed to new materials,and do not reflect the emissions that wouldhave been produced if these materials werelandfilled or incinerated instead. Nor dothey reflect Germany’s success in keepingthe overall volume of waste down.America is a long way from reaching thestandard for recycling that has been establishedin Germany—America’s recyclingprograms are run by local governments,vary from place to place, and are oftenunderfunded. In many parts of the country,workable recycling programs don’t exist.The German model of recycling hasbeen emulated by other European nations,but the closest the United States has cometo that standard is with the bottle depositlaws that are currently on the books in10 states. Those laws place a 5 to 10 centdeposit on beverage containers, which arethen returned for recycling. Containerscovered by bottle deposit laws are recycledat twice the rate as those that are not. 83While bottle deposits are required only forsoda and beer containers in many states,several states have expanded their laws tocover bottled water, sports drinks and othernon-carbonated beverages.The German example shows that thebenefits of a society-wide recycling effortare profound—reducing waste and curbingglobal warming emissions. By requiringproduct manufacturers to do their partto reduce packaging waste and promoterecycling, America could achieve similarbenefits.Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Homes, Businesses and Industry 23

Reducing Global Warming Pollutionfrom Transportation and Land UseAmerica’s transportation system producesmore carbon dioxide pollutionthan the entire economy of anynation in the world, other than China. 84Americans drive far more miles on averagethan their counterparts in the rest ofthe developed world, fueling a cripplingaddiction to foreign oil that threatens oureconomy and our national security.Transportation has also long been consideredamong the most difficult sectorsof the economy in which to achieve largereductions in global warming pollution.Since World War II, the United States hasimplemented land use policies that makedriving an automobile a necessity, even forthe simplest of daily errands. Our massiveinvestment in highways has also helpedcement our dependence on automobiles.At the same time, the United States hasfailed to invest in public transportationand rail transport—two options we willneed to expand if we hope to reduce globalwarming pollution.But reducing global warming pollutionfrom transportation and land use isfeasible. Manufacturing more energy efficientvehicles is one part of the equation,but perhaps more important is changingour transportation and growth patterns.Efficient cars will play an important rolein reducing emissions, but those reductionswill not last long if Americans continueto increase the number of miles we driveeach year.Cities and towns across America andelsewhere are showing, however, that thereis a path toward a cleaner, less pollutingtransportation system. By embracing avision of future growth centered aroundcompact, vibrant communities, and investingin low-carbon transportation infrastructure,America can significantlyreduce global warming pollution fromtransportation.Building Around Transit:An Alternative to SprawlBlooms in Northern VirginiaAfter World War II, Arlington County,Virginia—just across the river from Washington,D.C.—came to be defined by theautomobile. Like many inner-ring suburbs24 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Solution: Transit-Oriented DevelopmentWhat it is: Compact development near transit stations.Who is doing it: Arlington County, Virginia.What it has achieved: Eliminates an estimated 35,000 single-passenger automobiletrips to workplaces per day, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by tens of thousandsof tons each year.Why it is important: Arlington’s experience shows that there are attractive alternativesto car-dependent sprawl. Transit-oriented development reduces vehicletravel, conserving scarce oil and reducing global warming pollution.Public policy best practices: Expansion of transit infrastructure; routing of transitlines through existing town centers; land-use policies that encourage compact,mixed-use development near transit stations.Walkable, mixed-use developments have sprung up around transit stations in Arlington County,Virginia—the result of investments in public transportation and sound community planning.(Credit: Coalition for Smarter Growth)Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Transportation and Land Use 25

outside American cities, Arlington washome to strip malls, car dealerships, gardenapartments and tracts of single-familyhousing. The county even had what wasbelieved to be one of the largest parking garagesin the United States, outside the aptlynamed Parkington shopping center. 85By the late 1970s, however, as populationmoved further and further out into suburbia,much of the county’s retail and housinginfrastructure was in decline. So, it was nosurprise that when design began for theWashington, D.C. Metrorail network—atransit system that would link Arlingtonto the nation’s capital—local officials sawit as an opportunity.What was surprising, however, was thatlocal officials saw the coming of the Metronot only as a transportation link, but asan opportunity to reshape its neighborhoods—bringingnew jobs, new housingand new life to the community. Arlingtonwas one of the first communities in thenation to embrace what is now known as“transit-oriented development”—the constructionof communities where residentscan use a variety of modes of transportationto get to and from work. Transit-orienteddevelopment is a potent tool to reduceglobal warming pollution from vehicles.Residents of compact communities drive20 to 40 percent fewer miles than residentsof sprawling communities, generating asimilar percentage reduction in globalwarming pollution. 86The neighborhoods of Ballston andRosslyn—both situated along the Metro’sOrange Line—experienced the greatesttransformation. Local officials urged thatthe Metro line be built through the existingbusiness districts of the two neighborhoodsand not along the median strip of anew highway, as had also been proposed.Arlington County officials also preparedfor the Metro’s arrival by creating a new visionfor community development. In 1980,Figure 3: Average Daily Metro Orange Line Ridership, Arlington County, Virginia 9390,00080,000Number of Metro Tr rips Per Day70,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,00001991 200626 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Arlington County approved a land-useplan for the Ballston area that envisionedthe creation of a new downtown aroundthe Metro station that included a mix ofcommercial and residential development. 87By concentrating the most intense developmentaround its Metro stations, the countywas able to preserve the low-density,single-family character of the rest of thearea, while also giving residents of thoseneighborhoods new access to shops andjobs—often within walking distance.The result has been a boom in developmentnear the stations. Since 1970,the square footage of office space in theBallston-Rosslyn corridor has nearly quadrupled,from 5.5 million square feet in1970 to 20.5 million now, the number ofjobs has increased from 22,000 to 90,000,and the number of residential units hasjumped from 7,000 to 26,200. 88 ArlingtonCounty now has more office space thanthe downtown areas of Pittsburgh, Denveror Dallas. 89Yet, despite this tremendous growth,traffic on the area’s streets has grownonly modestly. 90 The reason: residentsof the Ballston-Rosslyn corridor are farmore likely to walk or take transit to workthan their counterparts in other suburbs.About 10 percent of the people living in theBallston-Rosslyn corridor walk to work. 91Nearly 40 percent take transit to get towork, and residents of the area own farfewer cars per capita than people in the restof Arlington County or other Washingtonsuburbs. 92The impact on traffic has also beenmoderated because Arlington officialshave zoned the Ballston-Rosslyn corridorfor a mix of commercial and residentialdevelopment—avoiding the problemsfaced by other suburbs whose residentsjam highways leaving town to go to workin the morning and jam them in the otherdirection coming home at night.If residents of Arlington County droveto work alone at the same rate as residentsof other Washington-area inner suburbs,they would take approximately 35,000 morevehicle trips per work day. 94 Even assumingrelatively short commutes—for example, 5miles each way—the savings would add upto more than 45 million avoided vehiclemilesover the course of a single year, ormore than 19,000 metric tons of avoidedcarbon dioxide emissions. 95 If those residentshad opted instead to live in sprawlingcommunities further from their jobs, thesavings would be even greater.Transit ridership continues to soar inthe corridor, growing by nearly 150 percentsince 1991. 96 (See Figure 3.) Indeed, thesuccess of the Ballston-Rosslyn corridorhas left transportation officials with anew challenge: crowded conditions on theMetro subway.Arlington County has several advantagesthat make it unique—its locationadjacent to the nation’s capital and thepresence of numerous subway stops. Butthe tools used to drive smart growth inthe county—ranging from investment intransit expansion to the use of innovativeland-use tools to promote the right kindsof development in the right places—canbe applied in almost any American city,reducing global warming pollution, curbingcongestion and improving the qualityof life.Walking in Copenhagen:Making Room forPedestrians on City StreetsThe Strøget, which runs through thecenter of downtown Copenhagen, is theworld’s longest pedestrian-only street.Lined with shops, restaurants, and streetperformers, the Strøget is a charming blendof modernity and old-world Scandinaviancharm. 97Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Transportation and Land Use 27

Solution: Pedestrian-Friendly StreetsWhat it is: The creation of pedestrian-only and pedestrian-priority streets.Who is doing it: Copenhagen, Denmark.What it has achieved: Reduces carbon dioxide emissions by at least 90,000 tonsper year; more than one-third of work commutes now take place by bike.Why it is important: Copenhagen’s four decade-long efforts to carve out space forpedestrians in its city center show that well-planned efforts to develop pedestrianfriendlyspaces can pay off in reduced emissions and improved quality of life.Public policy best practices: Investment in pedestrian infrastructure; land-useplanning that encourages the development of vibrant, walkable neighborhoods;investment in infrastructure for bicycles, including a widespread bikeshare program.The Strøget, once a typical, car-jammedstreet, is a haven for pedestrians—a testamentto Copenhagen’s success in promotingnon-motorized forms of transportationand vibrant urban life. (Credit: JasonKottke)However, the Strøget was not alwayssuch a pleasantly walkable destination. Bythe early 1960s, the street was often packedwith cars. In 1962, city officials, desiring tokeep some of Copenhagen’s streets car-freein the interest of historical preservation,transformed the Strøget into a road forpedestrians only. 98Eliminating automobile traffic from theStrøget was initially controversial, but itturned out to be an enormously successfulexperiment. Shopkeepers found thatrevenues actually increased when cars wereforbidden. 99 Residents appreciated qualityof life improvements, including improvedmobility and decreased congestion andnoise.The initiative was popular enough thatCopenhagen began gradually convertingother streets into pedestrian malls.In ensuing years, the city has closed offadditional streets, erected new plazas,and eliminated parking spaces. By 1996,Copenhagen had six times the amount ofcar-free space as it did in 1962 when thepedestrian initiatives began. 100Copenhagen also pioneered the developmentof “pedestrian priority” roads, inwhich pedestrians, bicyclists and driversshare lanes of the street. Bikers and pedestriansmay travel both ways, but carsmay only move in one direction, and mustyield to other modes of traffic at all times. 101The effect is greater safety and mobility28 Global Warming Solutions that Work

for non-drivers, while maintaining someaccess for automobiles as well. 102New amenities for pedestrians weren’tthe only transportation innovations Copenhagenundertook. The city has a vigorouspublic transportation network and isalso one of the world’s premier biking cities.Copenhagen’s ubiquitous “City Bike”program has more than 2,000 public bikesavailable at 100 racks throughout the city. 103Anyone can use any available bike at anytime by dropping a deposit into a coin boxon the bike rack. Riders can then returnthe bike to any rack in the city, where theycan reclaim their deposit.The result of these innovations hasbeen a massive shift in Danes’ travelingbehavior, and even, some believe, Danishculture. Walking and cycling account for41 percent of trips made in Danish urbanareas—an increase of more than 25 percentfrom 1975 levels. 104 By comparison, only 10percent of trips are made by walking or bikingin American cities. 105 In Copenhagenitself, as of 1995, about one-third of all tripsto work were made by bicycle. 106 Bicyclingalone averts approximately 90,000 tons ofcarbon dioxide emissions in Copenhageneach year. 107 Moreover, the shift to a pedestrian-friendlycity center changed theway Danes spent their time—as the citydevoted more space to pedestrians, Copenhagenresidents spent more time in publicspaces rather than at home. 108Merely shutting down a street to vehicletraffic—as was tried in many American citiesin the 1970s—is not enough to realizethe results achieved in Copenhagen. Thecity combined its focus on pedestrians withthe creation of a diverse transportation systemand land-use planning that encourageda strong residential presence in the centercity, adding both to the number of peopleon the street and the feeling of securityand warmth.Over the course of more than fourdecades, Copenhagen has taken a developmentpath away from automobile dependenceand toward the creation of more space forpedestrians and bicyclists—resulting notonly in less pollution, but in vigorous, funplaces that attract tourists and residentsalike.Portland, Oregon: Building“Bike City, USA”Portland, Oregon, takes pride in its nicknameof “Bike City, USA.” Each year, moreand more residents are finding that theycan get by just fine with two wheels ratherthan four, swelling the ranks of bicyclistson city streets and creating a vibrant “bikeculture” in the city.But the success of bicycling in Portlandisn’t just the result of individual preferencesor a quirky Northwestern sensibility.Rather, it is the result of decades of investment,hard work and planning by citizensand government officials to make Portlanda bicycle-friendly metropolis.The seeds for the bicycle revolution inPortland were planted more than threedecades ago. In 1971, the state of Oregonpassed the “Bicycle Bill,” mandating thata minimum of 1 percent of its highwayfunds be set aside for bicycle and pedestriandevelopments. 109 This led the city of Portlandto begin to integrate cycling into itstransportation system, with the installationof bicycle lanes on many roads. 110Portland’s Bicycle Transportation Alliancesucceeded in 1991 in convincing thecity’s transit authority to install bike rackson all buses and light rail trains. 111 In addition,the city has implemented aggressiveminimum bike parking standards in placeslike housing units, transit stations, andretail and office buildings. 112In 2002, Portland implemented SmartTrips, a program that works to reduce solodriving by focusing on one city neighborhoodat a time. Smart Trips encouragesReducing Global Warming Pollution from Transportation and Land Use 29

Solution: BicyclingWhat it is: Bike lanes and programs to encourage bicycling.Who is doing it: Portland, Oregon.What it has achieved: Reduces carbon dioxide emissions by at least 8,500 metrictons per year; the percentage of Portlanders commuting to work by bike is eighttimes the national average.Why it is important: After three decades of investing in bicycling infrastructure,Portland is experiencing a biking boom. Other American cities could achievesimilar results by creating safe and widely available bike lanes along with otherinducements for bicycle travel.Public policy best practices: Planning policies that treat bicycling as an integralpart of the transportation system; public investment in bicycle lanes and associatedinfrastructure; programs to encourage bicycle commuting targeted at employersand commuters; bicycle parking requirements for new developments; installationof bike racks on transit buses.Bicycling has increased dramatically in Portland in recent years, the result of the city’s longstandingpolicies to encourage alternatives to driving. (Credit: Jonathan Maus/ Global Warming Solutions that Work

alternatives to driving by giving away mapsand transit schedules, organizing strollsand bike rides, educating local youth onbike safety, offering free bike tune-ups,and more. 113The city of Portland now has nearly200 miles of bikeways—bicycle lanes,boulevards, and multi-use trails. 114 AmongPortland residents, 4.2 percent bicycled towork in 2006, a rate eight times the nationalaverage. 115The number of trips taken over the fourbike-friendly bridges in Portland has morethan quadrupled since 1992, to more than14,000 trips per day. 116 Bicycle trips nowrepresent more than 11 percent of all vehicletrips on the four bridges; in 2000, theyrepresented less than 5 percent. 117 Bicycletraffic in the city increased by more than 18percent in a single year from 2006 to 2007,the third consecutive year of double-digitpercentage increases. 118Portland’s combination of bike laneexpansion and cycling encouragement hasyielded significant reductions in globalwarming pollution. In 2006, the SmartTrips program in the city’s Northeast areawas responsible for reducing vehicle travelby more than 19 million miles, reducingcarbon dioxide emissions by 8,500 metrictons. 119Global warming pollution from thetransportation sector in Portland has decreasedby 1.6 percent since 1990. 120 This isin part due to the city’s encouragement ofbicycling and expansion of services for bikeriders, though investments in new transitlines and the city’s well-known efforts topromote “smart growth” have also playedimportant roles.The explosive growth of bicycling hassparked other changes in the city. A vigoroussub-economy has developed aroundbicycling in the city, with about 125 bikerelatedbusinesses in Portland, includingcompanies that make bike racks, high-endcomponents for racing bikes, and aluminumfor bikes mass-produced elsewhere. 121In 2006, an estimated 600 to 800 peoplein Portland were employed in the “cyclingindustry.” 122 Economic activity related tocycling totaled $63 million in Portland in2005, and in a recent survey, more than80 percent of businesses responded thatPortland’s reputation for being bicyclefriendly was good for their business. 123Portland’s bike push is good for publichealth as well, encouraging city residentsto boost their level of physical activity bybiking or walking more of the places theyneed to go.Portland’s transformation into “BikeCity, USA” is the result of actions by privatecitizens and public officials to makebicycling a safe and convenient means ofemission-free transportation. Many of theinitiatives that have set off the bicyclingboom in Portland could easily be adaptedto other American cities.Speedier Rail Service inEastern Pennsylvania:Drawing New Riders andReducing PollutionThe “Keystone Corridor” of Amtrak’s passengerrail network has a long and storiedpast, linking the cities of Harrisburg andLancaster, Pennsylvania, with Philadelphiasince 1834. 124 By the turn of the 21 stcentury, however, rail service along thecorridor bore too many reminders of the19 th century—with slow speeds, frequentdelays and decaying infrastructure.Demand for travel along the corridorhas expanded dramatically in recent yearsas suburban development has spreadwest from Philadelphia, bringing with itincreasing concerns about traffic congestion.Pennsylvania officials saw improvingservice on the Keystone Corridor as onepotential solution to the problem.Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Transportation and Land Use 31

Solution: Fast and Efficient Rail ServiceWhat it is: Improved rail service in eastern Pennsylvania.Who is doing it: Amtrak and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.What it has achieved: Increased ridership on a popular rail line by 20 percentwithin a single year.Why it is important: Passenger rail is a cleaner and more efficient means of transportationthan cars or airplanes. America’s passenger rail infrastructure is agingand has been the victim of disinvestment. Investing in passenger rail improvementscan generate increased ridership and reduced emissions.Public policy best practices: Public investment in rail improvements.Electrification of the Keystone Corridor line from Harrisburg to Philadelphia has led to higherspeeds and more passengers. (Credit: Xb-70; licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5)32 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Advance Transit provides free bus service to riders in its New Hampshire-Vermont service area,helping New England small towns retain their traditional character. (Credit: Advance Transit)the area’s walkable, small-town feel.The region had a local transit authority,called Advance Transit, which began inthe 1980s as a project of the local seniorcitizens’ council. 150 The agency, like manyin small towns, struggled to maintainminimal operations until the late 1980s,when the agency began making connectionswith the business community, whichsaw the potential role transit could playin addressing the region’s transportationchallenges. Advance Transit expanded toinclude a free shuttle between Hanover andthe Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Centerin 1994 and gradually added additionalroutes to its system.Finally, in 2002, Advance Transit partneredwith local governments and majorarea employers to try a bold experiment:make all buses free. It was an audaciousmove for a transit agency that covers sixsmall towns, but the decision to foregofares has had benefits for the region thathave exceeded expectations.Despite a population of only 45,000in the six towns served by the agency,Advance Transit accounted for 1.5 millionpassenger-miles of travel in 2004. 151Advance Transit has seen double-digitpercentage increases in ridership overthe past few years. In 2005, for example,and again in the first six months of 2006,passenger volume increased 14 percent. 152The majority of riders use the bus on theirdaily commute: on average, more than 50percent of patrons ride during high-traffic“peak” hours. 153Free fares have made it both easierand more attractive for local residents toride transit. In addition, by eliminatingfares, Advance Transit has been able toeliminate the cost of fare collection. Theagency’s executive director, Van Chesnut,says that the agency is probably better offin cost-benefit terms from not chargingfares, and that, while free fares play a roleReducing Global Warming Pollution from Transportation and Land Use 37

in attracting new riders, “You can’t giveaway bad service.”High-quality transit service comes witha price. Advance Transit’s fixed-route busservice had a $1.4 million budget in 2005.But a 2005 study by the Upper ValleyTransportation Management Associationestimated that Advance Transit providedsignificant economic benefits to the region,including:• An estimated $1.2 million paid inwages to workers who depended onthe bus for transportation to and fromwork.• Approximately $375,000 in avoidedtransportation expenses for private vehicleowners who took the bus instead.• At least $16,000 per year in avoidedneed for new parking spaces.• At least $170,000 in avoided taxi trips.• Additional, unquantified benefits forquality-of-life improvements, avoidedlocal traffic congestion, avoided pollution,and land-use impacts. 154Advance Transit is also helping reduceglobal warming emissions in its ConnecticutRiver Valley neighborhood—each year,the services cut greenhouse gas pollutionby 5 tons. 155 Those emission reductionsare not large, but they are a good startingpoint and significant for a community ofsuch a small size. Moreover, by reducingcongestion and the need for parking intown centers, Advance Transit helps keepthe towns of the Upper Valley friendly forpedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorizedtravelers.The Upper Connecticut River Valleyhas developed a unique solution to ever-increasingtraffic congestion and demand forparking. By investing in free, high-qualitytransit service, the region—including themajor employers who support the programfinancially—is preserving its traditional,walkable downtowns while enhancingmobility, sustaining economic growth andreducing pollution. Other small communitiesnationwide can look to the valley for anexample of how to achieve the same goalsin their communities.Austin, Texas: Paving theWay for Plug-In HybridsTexas was the epicenter of the Americanoil boom. And, if local officials and residentshave anything to say about it, Austin,Texas, will play a big role in endingAmerica’s dependence on oil to fuel carsand trucks.The city of Austin is at the forefront of anational effort to promote the developmentand sale of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,or PHEVs. Plug-in hybrids are similarto vehicles such as the Toyota Prius thatuse an electric motor to help propel thevehicle, thereby saving gasoline. But thereis one important difference: PHEVs havelarger batteries that store power drawnfrom the electric grid, allowing the electricmotor to do more of the work of movingthe vehicle.A PHEV’s battery pack is sufficient topower the vehicle 20 to 60 miles on batterycharge alone. 156 PHEVs are superiorto regular hybrids and standard vehiclesfor a number of reasons. Outfitted with abattery pack providing a 40-mile electricrange, a PHEV could accommodate morethan 60 percent of the total annual milestraveled by the average U.S. driver usingthe all-electric mode. 157 Unlike a typicalhybrid, which derives all of its energy fromgasoline, a plug-in hybrid can get morethan half of its energy from electricity. 158All in all, a PHEV gets about twice the fueleconomy of a conventional vehicle and 3038 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Solution: Plug-In Hybrid VehiclesWhat it is: A campaign to convince consumers, government agencies and othersto commit to purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles once they are introduced—therebyensuring a market for the vehicles.Who is doing it: Austin, Texas and other cities nationwide.What it has achieved: Generated 31,000 petition signatures in support of plug-inhybrids and dozens of commitments to purchase the vehicles once they becomeavailable.Why it is important: Automakers have historically lagged in bringing new, environmentallysensitive technologies to the market. Efforts such as the Plug-inPartners campaign demonstrate the strength of consumer interest in advancedvehicle technologies and ensure that government agencies “lead by example” bypurchasing the vehicles when they become available.Public policy best practices: Government purchases of low-emitting vehicles;public sector planning for the transition to alternatively fueled vehicles.The city of Austin, Texas is pushing automakers to introduce plug-in hybrid vehicles, which useelectricity rather than gasoline as their primary source of power. (Credit: Argonne NationalLaboratory)Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Transportation and Land Use 39

to 50 percent better fuel economy than astandard hybrid. 159Cars that run on electricity are generallybetter for the environment than cars thatuse gasoline—even if the electricity usedto drive those cars comes from pollutingsources. The reason is that electric motorsare far more efficient than internal combustionengines. And electric vehicles can bepowered with renewable resources, such assolar and wind power. A PHEV deriving itselectric power from renewable sources has acarbon intensity per mile that is 45 percentless than a standard hybrid. 160 If Americawere to shift to PHEVs while also shiftingaway from polluting sources of electricitysuch as coal-fired power plants, we couldreduce carbon dioxide pollution from vehiclesby as much as 612 million metric tonsper year by 2050. 161 (See Table 1.)While PHEVs are likely to be moreexpensive than conventional vehicles, theyare also likely to be cheaper to fuel. At $3for a gallon of gas, driving a non-hybrid carcosts 8 to 20 cents per mile; with a PHEV,the cost of local travel drops to 2 to 4 centsper mile. 163For many Austin residents, the benefitsof plug-in hybrids are clear. But local residentshave been frustrated by automakers’failure to bring plug-in hybrids to themarket.The Austin City Council, along withthe city’s forward-thinking municipal utility,Austin Energy, launched the Plug-InAustin campaign in 2005 to throw theirsupport behind PHEVs. The Austin CityCouncil passed a resolution supportingthe mass production of PHEVs. 164 AustinEnergy, as well as other utilities, set asideover $1 million to provide incentives for thepurchase of a first round of plug-in hybrids,whenever they become available. 165 Thecampaign has obtained commitments forfleet orders from a number of businessesand government agencies, as well as thousandsof public petitions in support of theintroduction of PHEVs.Plug-In Austin served as the model forthe Plug-In Partners national campaign,which was launched in early 2006. Thusfar, the campaign has garnered more than31,000 signatures on a petition urgingautomakers to develop PHEVs and hasenlisted the support of hundreds of cities,businesses, electric utilities, environmentalorganizations and other non-profitsnationwide.Several automakers—including Toyotaand General Motors—have announcedthat they are moving forward with thedesign of plug-in hybrids. Should theysucceed, they will have a willing and enthusiasticmarket across the country, thanksin part to the leadership and foresight ofpeople in Austin.Table 1: Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Reductions from PHEVs in 2050 1622050 Annual CO 2Reduction(million metric tons)Electric Sector CO 2IntensityHigh Medium LowPHEV FleetPenetrationLow 163 177 193Medium 394 468 478High 474 517 61240 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Reducing Global Warming Pollutionwith Renewable EnergyElectric power plants produce approximately39 percent of America’s globalwarming pollution, with most of thatpollution coming from plants that burncoal. To achieve steep reductions in globalwarming pollution, America will have toreplace our dirtiest sources of electricitywith clean, renewable forms of energy,such as solar, wind and geothermal power.Renewable energy can also substitute forsome of the natural gas, oil and otherfuels burned in American homes andbusinesses.Renewable energy has long been considereda pie-in-the-sky dream—somethingthat was too impractical or too expensiveto satisfy America’s thirst for energy. Butthe last decade has seen a renewable energyboom, both in the United States andworldwide, as clean energy technologieshave broken new technological and costbarriers.The experience of the past decade hasalso shown that there are large benefits tobe had from taking leadership on clean energy.From the revitalization of rural areasin Texas due to wind power developmentto the creation of a burgeoning renewableenergy economy in Spain, cities, states andcountries that are embracing renewableenergy are reaping the rewards—bothenvironmentally and economically.The New Texas EnergyBoom: Wind PowerNearly a century ago, wildcatters fannedout over the Texas plains in search of “blackgold.” Now, a new energy rush is takingplace in Texas—only in this case, it is windturbines, not oil derricks, that are sproutingon the plains.Texas has the nation’s second-greatestpotential to generate power from the wind.Yet, as of the late 1990s, the state had onlyone utility-scale wind farm. 166That changed—and quickly—beginningin 1999. In that year, Texas, withGeorge W. Bush as governor, adopted arenewable electricity standard, requiringinvestor-owned utilities in the state to install2,000 MW of new renewable energycapacity by 2009. In 2005, with the 1999target already in sight, the state upped itscommitment to 5,880 MW of renewableReducing Global Warming Pollution with Renewable Energy 41

Solution: Wind PowerWhat it is: Dramatic growth in wind power.Who is doing it: Texas.What it has achieved: Wind power now accounts for 3 percent of electricity generationin Texas, averting approximately 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxideemissions per year.Why it is important: States across the country are using renewable electricitystandards and other policies to drive investments in renewable energy. By doingso, states can reduce their reliance on fossil fuel-fired power plants and curb globalwarming pollution.Public policy best practices: Renewable electricity standards; federal tax incentivesfor renewable energy development; efforts to provide access to transmission fornew wind energy plants; incentives for research and development of new renewableenergy technologies.Wind power has brought new economic opportunity to rural areas of Texas. (Credit: NREL PIX;Cielo Wind Power)42 Global Warming Solutions that Work

energy by 2015, which is about 5 percentof the state’s demand. 167Incredibly, Texas is poised to surpasseven that goal early, perhaps as soon as2008. In less than a single decade, Texashas seen the installation of more than4,000 MW of wind power generatingcapacity, with another 1,200 MW underconstruction as of early 2008. 168 In 2006Texas became the largest producer of windpowered electricity in the United States, atitle California had held for decades. 169In the space of just a few years, windpower has gone from being a marginalsource of electricity for Texas to providing3 percent of the state’s annual electricityneeds—enough to power about 1 millionhomes. 170 Assuming that the state’s windfarms have an average capacity factor of 35percent, and that the wind farms displacepower from a typical Texas power plant,the state’s wind power generators avert anestimated 8.6 million metric tons of carbondioxide pollution per year. 171The wind energy boom in Texas is theresult of a variety of factors. The state’searly initiative to establish a renewableelectricity standard played a key role, ashas the presence of federal tax credits thatprovide financial incentives to wind energydevelopers. At the same time, rising pricesfor fossil fuels and conventional powerplants, coupled with continued advances inwind power technology, have given windpower a leg up in the marketplace.The benefits of wind power in Texas gofar beyond environmental issues. Windfarm developers pay royalties to farmers andranchers who host wind turbines on theirland and property taxes to local communities—moneythat provides a much-neededshot in the arm to rural economies. Theconstruction of wind turbines creates jobs inconstruction and engineering, while turbinemaintenance creates skilled, local jobs thatcan help sustain small communities.Texas is by no means alone in experiencinga boom in wind power. States such asWashington, Oregon, Minnesota and Coloradohave also experienced a recent surgein wind power installations. All of thesestates—and a total of 26 states across thecountry—have adopted renewable electricitystandards (RES), which require that aminimum percentage of a state’s electricitycome from renewable sources. Establishingeven higher targets for renewable energydevelopment—on both the federal andstate levels—can ensure that more statesfollow Texas’ lead in reaping the benefitsof wind power.The Renewable EnergyRevolution in Spain:Building a New CleanEnergy EconomySpain is blessed with abundant sunlightand wind but not much in the way of fossilfuels. With little indigenous coal, oil ornatural gas, Spain has relied heavily onimports for most of its energy needs. Asthe nation’s economy grew over the last 15years, Spain’s emissions of global warmingpollution increased steadily—as did itsdependence on imported energy.Now, however, Spain is emerging as aworld leader in several renewable energytechnologies. The country is the world’sthird-leading producer of wind energy andis poised to take the lead in solar powergeneration as well. Spanish companies arereaping the benefits of that growth, as theytake the expertise gained during Spain’srenewable energy boom and export it tomarkets around the world, including theUnited States.Spain has encouraged growth in itsdomestic renewables market as far back asthe 1980s. But the cornerstones of Spain’srenewable energy revolution were placedReducing Global Warming Pollution with Renewable Energy 43

Solution: Renewable Energy PoliciesWhat it is: Development of renewable energy industries.Who is doing it: Spain.What it has achieved: Spain is now the world’s third leading producer of windpower and is poised to add more than 2,000 MW of solar generating capacity toits electric grid by 2012. Spain expects renewable energy to avert 11 million metrictons of carbon dioxide pollution per year by 2010.Why it is important: Spain’s aggressive strategies to promote renewable energy arenot only reducing emissions, but are also fostering economic development. Spanishrenewable energy companies are now engaged in building projects in the UnitedStates and other nations.Public policy best practices: Renewable electricity standards; feed-in tariffs forrenewable energy; requirements for the use of solar energy on new buildings.Spain has become a global leader in wind and solar energy development, helping to spur newindustries in the increasingly competitive global renewable energy market. (Credit: CopyrightEuropean Community, 2008)44 Global Warming Solutions that Work

in the late 1990s, when Spain establishedfinancial incentives for renewable energy.The incentives give renewable energycompanies a choice: they can receive a set,above-market-value amount per unit ofrenewable energy that they feed into thenational power grid (a feed-in tariff), orthey can sell their electricity on the openmarket and receive a fixed premium in additionto the market price. The incentivevalues are determined annually, and eachyear renewable electricity producers candecide which incentive—the fixed price orthe premium—they want to receive.As a result of these policies, the amountof wind power installed in Spain has increasednearly 30-fold in the course of asingle decade—from just over 500 MWin 1997 to more than 15,000 MW in2007. 172 A country with just one-sevenththe population of the United States, Spainnow rivals the wind-power production ofboth America (16,000 MW) and Germany(22,000 MW). Spain also ranks as theworld’s fourth leading market for solarphotovoltaics. 173Spain is also taking a global lead in solarpower production, both with photovoltaicpanels and concentrating solar power(CSP). In 2007 alone, 11 large-scale photovoltaicplants began operation, deliveringa total of over 100 MW of electricity toSpain’s grid. 174 The number of solar panelsmounted on buildings is growing as well:in 2006, the government passed a law requiringall new and renovated buildingsto install solar energy equipment—eitherfor water heating or for electricity production.175 And in 2006, Spain inauguratedPS10, a central receiver concentratingsolar power (CSP) plant near Seville—thefirst of its kind in Europe. 176 A larger, 50MW CSP facility is also under constructionoutside Granada. 177 Overall, Spainplans to add 2,570 MW of CSP power toits grid by 2012, with more projects in itsconstruction pipeline. 178Spain’s recent growth in renewableenergy is just the beginning. The countryplans to build even more, setting a targetof 42,500 MW for 2010. 179 Spain’s plans topromote solar and wind power alone areexpected to reduce its emissions of globalwarming pollution by 11 million metrictons (carbon dioxide equivalent) per yearby 2010. 180Beyond benefits to Spain’s environmentand public health, renewable energy is alsohelping the Spanish economy by attractingmillions of investment dollars and creatingthousands of new jobs. The Ernst & YoungRenewable Energy Group, for example,ranked Spain in the top five of its RenewableEnergy Country Attractiveness Index,demonstrating Spain’s strong renewableenergy investment appeal. 181 Spain’s windindustry generated 30,000 jobs as of2005—a figure projected to reach 60,000in 2010 if the country attains 20,000 MWof installed wind power. 182 And solar poweris doing its part for job growth as well: the50 MW Andasol-1 plant, for example, created50 permanent positions and over 500temporary construction jobs. At this rate,concentrating solar power will produce atotal of 5,500 jobs as the more than 500MW of CSP projects currently in developmentare built. 183Spanish companies have assumed leadershipin renewable energy developmentworldwide. Companies such as Abengoa,Acciona, Iberdrola and Gamesa have takenthe lead in development of several solarand wind power projects in the UnitedStates—using the expertise gained duringSpain’s renewable energy boom to gaina leadership position in other renewableenergy markets worldwide.These successes did not happen ontheir own. Spain actively paved the wayto its renewable energy growth by settingambitious goals for renewable energydevelopment and investing the resourcesneeded to achieve them. The experience ofSpain—along with other European nationsand American states that have prioritizedReducing Global Warming Pollution with Renewable Energy 45

enewable energy—suggests that renewableenergy investments can have powerful environmentaland economic benefits, whilealso reducing global warming pollution.Solar Thermal Power:Heating Up in America’sDesert SouthwestThe sunlight that strikes the southwesternUnited States each day brings with itenough energy to power the nation severaltimes over. Harnessing that energy, anddoing so at reasonable cost, holds tremendouspotential to reduce global warmingemissions in the United States.Solar thermal power plants—otherwiseknown as concentrating solar power (CSP)plants—are beginning to tap that potentialand can play an important role in America’stransition to a lower-carbon economy. CSPplants generally use mirrors to focus sunlighton a receiver fluid, which is then usedto produce steam to turn a turbine and generateelectricity. CSP is a fundamentallydifferent technology from the form of solarpower most familiar to Americans, solarphotovoltaics, which generate electricitydirectly from sunlight.Seven states in the Southwest have thepotential to generate nearly 7,000 GW ofconcentrating solar power—seven timesAmerica’s electric generating capacity. 184 Intheory, an array of CSP collectors coveringa 100 mile by 100 mile area of the Southwest—anarea equivalent to 9 percent of thearea of Nevada—could supply 100 percentof the electricity used in America. 185Solution: Solar Thermal PowerWhat it is: Generation of electricity from the sun’s heat.Who is doing it: Utilities and power plant developers in the American Southwest.What it has achieved: More than 400 MW of solar thermal power plant capacityhas been built in southwestern states, with another 4,400 MW in the developmentpipeline.Why it is important: The United States has vast potential to generate electricityfrom the sun’s heat. High-quality solar resources in the southwestern United Statesalone could generate more electricity than is currently generated by all of America’sexisting power plants. By combining solar thermal power plants with thermal energystorage, these power plants can provide a dependable source of power even whenthe sun is not shining, enabling renewable energy to play a greater role in meetingAmerica’s energy needs.Public policy best practices: Renewable electricity standards with solar set-asides;federal research and development funding.46 Global Warming Solutions that Work

CSP has one important advantage overother forms of intermittent renewableenergy in that it can be paired with costeffectivethermal energy storage. Thermalstorage devices generally function like alarge Thermos, storing heated fluid until itis needed to produce electricity. Wind turbinesand solar photovoltaic panels, on theother hand, directly generate electricity,which is more expensive and less efficient tostore. The ability to store thermal energyallows many concentrating solar powerplants to provide electricity to the grid evenat night. Indeed, the potential of thermalstorage makes CSP a candidate to competedirectly against “baseload” power sources,such as coal and nuclear power.The United States has more than twodecades of experience with CSP. In thelate 1980s, several concentrating solarpower plants were built in the deserts ofCalifornia—plants that continue to supplyrenewable electricity to the grid today.Declining fossil fuel prices delayed furtherdevelopment of CSP, but a concentratingsolar power boom is now beginning to takeshape in the Southwest. In 2006, America’sfirst new solar thermal power plant in15 years went on-line in Arizona, and in2007, the 64 MW Nevada Solar One plantbegan operation in Boulder City, NV. Asof February 2008, California utilities hadsigned contracts for between 1,600 MWand 2,500 MW of solar thermal power tobe developed in California and neighboringstates. 186 CSP is even making inroadsoutside of the Southwest. Florida Power &Light has committed to building 300 MWof concentrating solar power in Florida,provided that an initial 10 MW plant meetsits cost and performance goals. 187In total, CSP projects currently in thedevelopment pipeline in the U.S. couldcontribute 4,430 megawatts (MW) ofpower over the next several years. 188 Andinterest in CSP continues to grow: inCalifornia alone, as of March 2008, thefederal Bureau of Land Management hadConcentrating solar power plants like this one in Kramer Junction,California, provide reliable, renewable electricity. (Credit:Gregory Kolb, Sandia National Laboratories)received requests for the use of federal landsufficient to produce more than 38,000MW of solar thermal power. All of thoserequests have been filed since the beginningof 2006, and the vast majority werefiled since the beginning of 2007. 189 Whileonly a fraction of those projects are likelyever to be completed, the large number ofapplications is an indicator of the acceleratinginterest in CSP development.One critical factor driving the developmentof CSP has been the renewableelectricity standards (RES) adopted byCalifornia, Nevada, Arizona, Coloradoand New Mexico. California’s RES, whichrequires the state to get 20 percent of itselectricity from renewable sources by 2012,has been particularly important in drivingnew proposals for CSP power plants. In addition,RES policies in Nevada, Coloradoand New Mexico have special targets forsolar power, which has also helped drivethe recent surge in CSP power plant proposals.190Just how much global warming pollutioncan be avoided by CSP use? The WesternGovernors’ Association Solar Task Forceestimated in 2006 that CSP would save545 metric tons of carbon dioxide annuallyfor every gigawatt-hour of CSP powergeneration. 191 Building 80 GW of solarthermal power—a target that is achievableReducing Global Warming Pollution with Renewable Energy 47

y 2030 with sufficient public policy support—wouldsave 152 million metric tonsof carbon dioxide emissions annually, or 6.6percent of carbon dioxide emissions fromthe U.S. electricity industry in 2000. 192This is the rough equivalent of removing28 million cars from the road, and isgreater than the amount of carbon dioxideproduced annually by the entire economiesof the states of Arizona or Colorado. 193Advances in CSP technology are increasinglymaking solar thermal powercost-competitive with other sources of energy.But public policies—particularly theadoption of aggressive renewable electricitystandards with special targets for solarpower—are also helping to drive utilitiesand power plant developers to consider thespecial benefits of CSP.Solar Water Heating:A Way of Life in IsraelIn the United States, we heat water forcooking, bathing and other uses withelectricity or fossil fuels. Israelis, however,let the sun do much of the work of heatingwater, reducing their dependence onfossil fuels.Solar water heating systems, which werefirst patented in 1891, use rooftop collectorsto harness sunlight to heat water. Israelbegan taking advantage of solar waterheating well before global warming was aconcern. In the 1950s, fuel shortages in Israelled to power outages and water heatingwas outlawed during certain times of day toration electricity. After a special committeesuggested purchasing more fossil fuel-firedgenerators to solve the problem, an Israeliengineer quipped, “How about an alreadyexisting energy source which our countryhas plenty of—the sun? Surely we needto change from electrical energy to solarenergy, at least to heat our water.” 194 Theengineer, Levi Yissar, went on to becomethe first manufacturer of solar water heatersin Israel, and the systems could be found onabout 5 percent of Israeli homes by 1967.When oil fields captured during theSix Day War and imports from Iran gaveIsraelis access to cheap oil, the price ofelectricity dropped and with it the demandfor solar hot water systems. It wasn’t untilthe oil boycott of 1973 following the YomKippur War that Israel again turned tothe sun for hot water. By 1983, 60 percentof households used solar water heaters,and when oil prices dropped again, Israelpassed a law requiring all houses to use thesystems, in order to avoid repeating thebacksliding of the late 1960s. 195Today, Israel has twice as much solarhot water capacity as the United States,despite having one-50 th of the population. 196Solar water heating systems can displace75 percent or more of the natural gas orelectricity used to heat water in a building.197 Because water heating accounts forapproximately 17 percent of residential energyconsumption, solar water heaters canmake a big contribution toward reducingenergy costs and avoiding global warmingpollution. 198A recent analysis by Environment CaliforniaResearch & Policy Center estimatedthat taking full advantage of that state’spotential for solar water heating in homeswould result in emission reductions of 6.8million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalentper year. 199 Further opportunities existto use solar water heating in commercialand industrial applications.In addition to emission savings, solarwater heating makes good economic sense.Even without state incentives, a new systemcan start generating net profits in lessthan 10 years. Including solar hot waterin the construction of a building cutsupfront costs and payoff time roughly inhalf. 201 Solar water heating also benefits theeconomy as a whole by reducing demand48 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Solution: Solar Water HeatingWhat it is: Residential solar water heating.Who is doing it: Israel.What it has achieved: The majority of Israeli homes have solar water heaters,which reduce fossil fuel consumption for water heating by an average of 75 percent.Israel has twice the solar water heating capacity of the United States, despite havingone-50 th of the population.Why it is important: Solar water heaters are a simple, proven, reasonably pricedtechnology to reduce fossil fuel consumption for water heating. Israel has usedaggressive public policies to make solar water heaters a common feature of Israelihomes and the United States could do the same.Public policy best practices: Requirements that solar water heaters be mandatoryfeatures on new homes; rebates, low-interest loans or tax incentives for installationof systems.Solar hot water systems can supply most of a home’s hot water without the use of fossil fuels. Israelis a world leader in solar water heating. (Credit: VELUX/ESTIF)Reducing Global Warming Pollution with Renewable Energy 49

for natural gas, thereby reducing prices forall consumers.Several U.S. states, including California,Florida and Hawaii, have already takenaction to promote the use of solar waterheating. As the example of Israel shows,however, the United States can go muchfarther in using the sun to heat our water—cuttingour use of fossil fuels and theimpact of water heating on the climate.The Sun Shines on NewJersey: The East Coast’sSolar CapitalNew Jersey is the birthplace of solar photovoltaics,the solar panels that convertsunlight directly into electricity. Today’sphotovoltaic (PV) systems owe their successto the advances made at Bell Laboratoriesin Murray Hill, N.J., in the 1940s and1950s, where Russell Ohl patented thefirst solar cell in 1946. 202 New Jersey hasrecently built upon its legacy as the birthplaceof PV by becoming the East Coast’sleader in installing PV systems on homesand commercial rooftops.New Jersey now has the second-largestamount of installed PV capacity in theUnited States, trailing only California. In2007 alone, New Jersey installed at least20 MW of solar PV systems—more thanhad been installed in the entire state priorto 2006. 203 New Jersey now has 47 MW ofsolar PV installed, with a goal of installing210 MW by 2010 and at least 1,500MW by 2021. 204 By 2021, solar PV will begenerating about 2 percent of New Jersey’selectricity.Replacing 2 percent of the state’s electricitymay not seem like much, but it isa very important 2 percent. First, PVgenerates more electricity at times whenSolution: Solar PhotovoltaicsWhat it is: Solar photovoltaic power.Who is doing it: New Jersey.What it has achieved: The Garden State has installed more than 40 MW of solarphotovoltaic (PV) capacity—most of it since 2005. New Jersey now ranks numbertwo in the nation, after California, in installed PV capacity. Solar power in New Jerseyaverted approximately 15,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution in 2007.Why it is important: Solar photovoltaics generate electricity at times when demandfor electricity is highest, reducing strain on the electric grid. PV panels arealso a distributed technology, meaning that no energy is lost in the long-distancetransmission of power. New Jersey’s efforts show that PV can make rapid inroadsin the densely populated Northeast with the right set of public policy incentives.Public policy best practices: Renewable electricity standards with solar carveout;rebates and market-based incentives for solar photovoltaics; net meteringpolicies.50 Global Warming Solutions that Work

it is needed the most—on sunny, hot summerdays when power is most in demand.Solar PV, therefore, can help New Jerseyavoid the need to build new power plantsor build new transmission lines to servepeak demand—an important benefit for adensely populated state that has limited capacityto build new plants or import powerfrom elsewhere. Second, the investmentsthat New Jersey and other states make nowin solar PV will help the industry achievelarge-scale production, which should bringprices down and make PV available to awider variety of consumers.How has New Jersey managed to boostsolar power? The state has had a longhistory of providing incentives for solarPV. Since 1980, New Jersey has exemptedsolar and wind systems from the 7 percentsales tax in the state to help account forthe benefits of generating energy throughclean renewable sources over the fossil fuelsources they compete with.New Jersey is a national leader in solar photovoltaics,thanks to aggressive public policiesto promote solar power. Other East Coaststates have recently taken action to follow inthe Garden State’s footsteps. (Credit: RobbWilliamson, NREL/PIX)Figure 5. Cumulative Photovoltaic Capacity Installed with New Jersey’s RebateProgram 20950,00045,000Installations (kW)Cumulative Solar PV40,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,00002001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Reducing Global Warming Pollution with Renewable Energy 51

In 1999, New Jersey passed a law providingrebates to homeowners and businessesthat installed solar panels. The first10 kilowatts earned $4.10 per watt, andsmaller rewards were given for even biggersystems. The cost of the program was paidfor by the societal benefits charge paid byall electricity consumers in New Jersey.But the biggest and most lasting step thestate has taken is to create a solar “carveout”in its renewable electricity standard(RES). New Jersey’s RES requires that, by2021, 22.5 percent of all electricity sales inthe state be generated by renewable energysources, including at least 2.12 percentfrom solar.The adoption of the RES has led NewJersey to reconsider its strategy for incentivizingsolar PV systems. The state isnow in the process of transitioning from arebate-based system to one that relies on amarket-based mechanism: solar renewableenergy credits, or SRECs. Under the newsystem, homeowners and businesses willbe rewarded when they generate electricityfrom solar panels with credits that canbe sold to utility companies or brokers onthe open market. Over the last two yearsthe average reward for solar electricityeach month has usually stayed above $200per megawatt-hour. At those rates, a typical2.5 kilowatt household system wouldearn nearly $650 per year. 205 Homeownersinstalling small PV systems will still receiveupfront rebates, though of decliningamounts, for the next several years as thenew system is phased in.In 2007, New Jersey generated approximately47,000 MWh of electricity fromsolar power. 206 If that power were to havebeen generated at a typical New Jerseypower plant, it would have produced anadditional 15,000 metric tons of carbondioxide. 207 The solar panels that have beeninstalled under the state’s programs willcontinue to generate electricity—andcarbon dioxide emission savings—for decadesto come.Other East Coast states are alreadyfollowing New Jersey’s lead in promotingsolar photovoltaic power. In 2007alone, four East Coast states—Delaware,Maryland, New Hampshire and NorthCarolina—adopted solar set-asides in theirrenewable electricity standards. 208By setting out clear goals for solar powerand adopting policies designed to meetthem, New Jersey has become a nationaland world leader in developing its solarpower markets. New Jersey’s success willpay big dividends down the road, in bothenergy savings and reductions in globalwarming pollution.Tapping the Power ofthe Earth: GeothermalEnergy in OregonResidents of parts of the West and otherparts of the United States are sitting on avast source of energy. Geothermal energy—theenergy contained in hot water androck below the earth’s surface—is a largepotential energy resource for the nation.Between conventional geothermal (whichtaps reservoirs of hot water undergroundto provide heat or generate electricity)and “enhanced geothermal” (which injectswater into the earth, where it comes incontact with hot rock to generate steam),the United States has economically viablegeothermal resources equal to 10 percentof the capacity of all current U.S. powerplants. 210Oregon occupies prime territory forgeothermal energy. Most of the easterntwo-thirds of the state has potential forgeothermal energy development. Andwhile Oregon already taps its geothermalresources in some ways, it is looking foropportunities to do more.The city of Klamath Falls, Oregon,52 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Solution: Geothermal EnergyWhat it is: Efforts to tap geothermal energy for heat and electricity production.Who is doing it: Businesses, cities and utilities in Oregon.What it has achieved: The geothermal heating system in one Oregon townaverts 1,900 metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution annually. Even greater emissionreductions could result from expanded use of geothermal power to generateelectricity.Why it is important: America’s geothermal energy resources could potentiallyprovide as much as 10 percent of the nation’s electric power. Even greater potentialexists from the use of small-scale geothermal energy from residential and commercialheat pumps.Public policy best practices: Renewable electricity standards; tax credits and otherincentives for geothermal district heating and electricity production; incentivesfor residential and commercial geothermal heat pumps.Klamath Falls, Oregon, uses pumps and heat exchangers to deliver geothermal energy to the town’sbuildings and greenhouses. There is great potential to use geothermal energy to produce electricityin Oregon and other parts of the West. (Credit: Geo-Heat Center, NREL/PIX)Reducing Global Warming Pollution with Renewable Energy 53

just north of the border with California,has used geothermal energy to meet someof the city’s energy needs since the early1980s. The city has a “district heat” system,which pipes steam from an undergroundgeothermal reservoir into 24 governmentand commercial buildings, as well as fourcommercial greenhouses. 212 The city alsouses underground pipes with steam fromthe system to melt snow on sidewalks, roadsand bridges.The system has experienced its share oftechnical and economic challenges overthe years. Originally conceived duringthe energy crisis of the 1970s, the city hada difficult time signing up customers forthe system when natural gas prices plummetedin the 1980s and 1990s. For a time,the city considered abandoning the systemaltogether. But now, with the cost of geothermalheating approximately 30 percentlower than that of natural gas, KlamathFalls has been able to sign up enoughcustomers to make the system financiallysustainable and is considering expansion. 213In 2005, the system provided 31 billionBTUs of energy to the city. 214 If that heathad instead been provided by natural gas,the city would have emitted approximately1,900 metric tons of additional carbondioxide. 215Figure 6. U.S. Geothermal Resources at Depth of SixKilometers 211Piping underground steam directlyto homes and businesses isn’t the onlyway that Oregon can take advantage ofgeothermal energy. Geothermal energycan also be used to produce electricity.Geothermal power stations pump hotwater from thousands of feet undergroundand use the energy to drive a turbine andgenerate electricity before returning thecooler water to the earth. Since the processdoes not rely on burning fossil fuels, thismethod of generating electricity produceslittle global warming pollution.Oregon’s renewed interest in geothermalenergy is driven in part by the need tomeet aggressive targets for renewable energydevelopment established in the state’srenewable electricity standard. Adopted in2007, the Oregon RES requires all utilitieswith at least 3 percent of the state’s totalgeneration to produce 15 percent of theirelectricity from renewable sources by 2015,and 25 percent by 2025. 216A Renewable Energy Working Groupput together by the governor is working toovercome some of the barriers to greatergeothermal electricity production. Oneof the biggest costs in geothermal powerplants is drilling the wells. Sometimes it ishard to tell whether a site will be ideal fora power plant until after exploratory wellshave been dug, which means that afterpaying the cost of drilling, the site mightnot be used to generate electricity. Byworking with the federal government forrisk-reducing loans and creating incentivesfor the first big geothermal power plants inOregon, the state has spurred new interestin the industry. Several geothermal energyprojects, totaling more than 60 MW ofcapacity, are currently in the developmentstage in the state. 217According to a report by the WesternGovernors’ Association, Oregon couldinstall as much as 380 MW of geothermalpower capacity by 2015 and 1,250 MWby 2025. 218 The latter translates to over10 million MWh of electricity a year, or54 Global Warming Solutions that Work

nearly 20 percent of all Oregon’s electricityproduction in 2006. 219New technologies are also bringingdown costs and expanding the potentialrange of geothermal power. The qualityof a site for geothermal power depends onhow deep, hot, wet, and porous the sourceis. A new technology known as enhancedgeothermal can make a usable site out ofhot dry rock that isn’t porous. A 2006 studyestimated that, with modest investmentsin research and development for enhancedgeothermal, the United States could create100,000 MW of geothermal power plantsacross the country by mid century. 220Homeowners and businesses don’thave to dig deep wells to take advantageof the earth’s heat. Indeed, small-scalegeothermal heat pumps use the relativelyconstant temperature of the earth’s crustto reduce the cost of heating in the winterand cooling in the summer. Geothermalheat pump systems use 25 to 50 percentless electricity than traditional heating andcooling systems. 221Klamath Falls has shown that tappingthe natural energy stored deep inside theearth can provide a clean, consistent heatsource for a community. Now Oregon isworking to utilize even more of its geothermalresource to reduce dependence onfossil fuels and global warming pollution.Reducing Global Warming Pollution with Renewable Energy 55

Community-Wide InitiativesSome efforts to combat global warmingtranscend easy categorization—involvinglarge parts of a community inmulti-faceted efforts to address environmentalchallenges. Communities acrossthe country are taking action on globalwarming in a variety of ways. Many areconducting greenhouse gas inventories andworking to make government buildingsmore energy efficient. Others are buildingcommunity-scale renewable energyprojects. Still others are working to educatetheir neighbors and build support for comprehensivesolutions to the climate crisis.The following two examples representways that very different places are respondingto global warming—and using thatresponse to revitalize their communities.Rebuilding After Tragedy:A Kansas Town “Goes Green”Greensburg was a small, sleepy town ofabout 1,400 residents in southern Kansas.Its claim to fame was that it boasted theworld’s largest hand-dug well. 222On May 4, 2007, however, everythingchanged. A level EF5 tornado (the higheststrength tornado possible, and the only oneof this magnitude ever recorded) rippedthrough the town, destroying more than 95percent of the town in one fell swoop. 223In the wake of the disaster, some doubtedwhether the town would ever be rebuilt.But, the residents of Greensburg saw anopportunity to rebuild their town and theirlives in a new and exciting way.They decided to rebuild it green.Often, green building initiatives areassociated with large, urban settings.Greensburg’s reconstruction efforts provethat small towns with big visions can alsobe part of the effort to reduce global warmingpollution and promote environmentalsustainability.Greensburg and surrounding KiowaCounty developed a recovery plan in August2007, after substantial communityinput, that proposed to rebuild the communityin an entirely sustainable way.The plan recommends the establishmentof a Sustainable Development ResourceOffice to provide education and technicalassistance in environmentally friendlyreconstruction. 224 The office will provide56 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Solution: Community-Wide Green Building EffortsWho is doing it: Businesses, government officials and nonprofit organizations inGreensburg, Kansas.What it has achieved: A little over a year after the town was wiped out by a tornado,Greensburg is rebuilding itself as a sustainable town, with several energy efficientbuilding projects already underway and more to come.Why it is important: Community-based efforts to address global warming can beamong the most powerful and successful ways to reduce a locality’s impact on theclimate. Greensburg provides an example of how a typical American communitycan pull together to address the challenge.Public policy best practices: Advanced building energy codes; research and developmentspending; technical assistance for businesses and individuals embarkingon green building projects.Greensburg, Kansas was devastated by a tornado in 2007. The community’s efforts to rebuild inan environmentally sustainable way have drawn attention and support from across the country.(Credit: Greg Henshall, FEMA)Community-Wide Initiatives 57

guidance on the construction of greenhomes and buildings that incorporate solarand wind energy, recycled materials, andefficient appliances. 225In addition, the plan proposes thatall new public buildings in the town beLEED-Platinum certified, the highestbenchmark for energy efficient and greenbuilding design. Greensburg’s stated intentionis to serve as a model of sustainabledevelopment for cities throughout thecountry. 226Furthermore, Greensburg’s plannedrecovery recommends that the city identifyrenewable energy generation options, aswell as create opportunities to incorporaterenewable resources in the rebuilding process,including:• Solar preheating of ventilation air;• Solar water heating for domestic andcommercial purposes;• Rooftop solar panels and solar lightingfor parks, signs and parking lots; and• Wind farms—Kansas has the thirdhighestpotential of any state in thenation for production of wind energy. 227Incorporating energy efficiency andrenewable energy measures into constructionplans is one of the best ways for acommunity to reduce its global warmingpollution. As Greensburg moves forwardwith sustainable rebuilding, it will reduceemissions of carbon dioxide below pretornadolevels.While the town has a long way to go inits rebuilding efforts, things are starting tohappen. Ground was broken in Februaryfor the reconstructed John Deere dealership,which will include wind turbinesand other green features. 228 Constructionis also underway at a local car dealership,which will include energy efficient skylights,windows and insulation. 229 Housingreconstruction is underway as well.Greensburg residents aren’t alonein their efforts to go green. Since announcingits intention to rebuild in anenvironmentally sustainable manner, thetown has garnered international attention.Corporations and government agenciesare helping the town with investment andexpertise. The effort has even attracted thestar power of Leonardo DiCaprio, who isproducing a multi-part Discovery Channeldocumentary series on the town’s rebuildingefforts.But Greensburg’s experiment withgreen building isn’t just about making anenvironmental statement. The town’s residentswere sold on the notion that by buildingenergy efficient structures, they wouldreduce their energy bills, saving moneyin the long run. In a part of the countrywhere thrift and stewardship of the landare core values, the notion of rebuildingin a sustainable way made good commonsense, while giving the community a newsense of purpose, which is attracting residentsand businesses to stay and rebuild inthe community. As a result, a town of lessthan 2,000 citizens is staking out a positionat the forefront of green building and thefight against global warming.Most cities, fortunately, will never haveto start over from scratch like Greensburg.But all cities can embrace a vision for greendevelopment that reduces their long-termimpact on the climate. More than 800 localgovernments worldwide, for example,participate in the Cities for Climate Protectioninitiative, which requires localgovernments to inventory their greenhousegas emissions, set a goal for emission reductions,and develop and implement measuresdesigned to achieve the targets. 230Building and expanding communitiesin a way that is sustainable and focuses onthe efficient use of clean energy is one importantstep towards solving the problemof global warming. Greensburg, Kansas isshowing the way.58 Global Warming Solutions that Work

Green Roofs and Green Jobsin the South BronxThe South Bronx has weathered more thanits share of economic and environmentalchallenges. The Cross-Bronx Expresswaywas cut through the neighborhood in 1963,displacing thousands of residents. Banksredlined the area, cutting off new investment,and neighbors moved out. Industrialplants, and the pollution they caused,threatened the health and welfare of thosewho remained. 231 The South Bronx becamea national symbol of urban decay.Things are still tough in the SouthBronx, but a group of organizers is workingto turn the gritty neighborhood intoa model for a green renaissance. Foundedin 2001, Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx) isa nonprofit organization seeking to bringnew life back to the neighborhood, and todo it in an environmentally sustainableway.One vehicle used by SSBx to achievethose goals is to train inner-city residentsfor “green jobs.” The concept is simpleand appealing: to transition America toa cleaner, low-carbon future, the nationwill need lots of skilled laborers—andthe sooner the better. Electricians will beneeded to install solar panels, arborists willbe needed to plant and care for trees, andworkers will be needed to install energyefficiency upgrades in homes. Trainingresidents of low-income neighborhoodsfor those jobs could be a “win-win” forAmerica’s environment and our economy.The job potential in green-collar industriesis large and growing. Accordingto the American Solar Energy Society, in2006 alone renewable energy and energyefficiency were responsible for $970 billionin industry revenues and 8.5 million jobs. 232Unfortunately, America’s growing greeneconomy currently lacks the manpowerto meet labor demands in manufacturing,construction and installation. A 2008 studyby the National Renewable Energy Laboratoryindicated that a shortage of skills andtraining is a leading barrier to the growthSolution: Green Jobs TrainingWhat it is: An effort to train residents of a low-income neighborhood for jobs inclean energy and environmental protection.Who is doing it: The non-profit organization, Sustainable South Bronx.What it has achieved: The organization has trained more than 70 workers for“green jobs” and is taking a leading role in promoting the use of energy-saving“green roofs” in the Bronx and other neighborhoods of New York City.Why it is important: America’s transition to a clean energy economy will requirea workforce of individuals trained in renewable energy, energy efficiency and relatedtechnologies. Programs like those led by Sustainable South Bronx can helpsupply those workers while providing renewed economic vitality to low-incomeneighborhoods.Public policy best practices: Workplace training for green jobs; policies to encourageinstallation of green roofs.Community-Wide Initiatives 59

Community organizers in the South Bronx see “green roofs” as a way to reduce energy use andwater pollution, while providing new economic opportunities for residents of low-income communities.(Credit: James Burling Chase)of green industries such as renewableenergy and energy efficiency. 233That is where organizations like SSBxcome in. In 2003, the organization initiatedthe Bronx Environmental StewardshipTraining (BEST). Since then, BEST hastrained over 70 workers for careers in wastecleanup, landscaping, ecological restorationand green roof installation. 234 The programhas been remarkably successful: four yearsafter completing BEST, 85 percent ofgraduates are employed, and 10 percentare enrolled in college. 235One of the job skills taught in the BESTprogram is installation of green roofs,which Sustainable South Bronx promotesthroughout the neighborhood. A “green”roof is one in which a layer of soil and plantsare installed atop the building. 236 The SouthBronx and New York City as a whole aboundwith flat tar roofs that would be perfectcandidates for conversion to green roofs.By one estimate, there are 16,000 acres ofpotential green roofs in New York City, anarea greater than that of Central Park. 237Green roofs provide a number of benefits,both for addressing global warmingand other environmental challenges:• Temperature reduction and energyconservation: Cities worldwide sufferfrom the “heat island effect,” in whichurban air and surface temperatures arehigher than nearby areas. For citiesand suburbs in the United States, thiscan mean air temperatures up to 10°Fwarmer than surrounding rural areas.238 Heat islands form as pavementreplaces trees, narrow streets reduceair flow, and buildings, factories andvehicles dump waste heat from fossilfuel combustion into urban neighborhoods.239 The heat island effect canlead to increased air conditioning60 Global Warming Solutions that Work

demand in urban areas, which resultsin greater energy consumption andglobal warming pollutant emissions.Green roofs, like those installed bySustainable South Bronx, help mitigatethe heat island effect. Increasingthe cover of trees and vegetation ina city, particularly on roofs whereit keeps heat off the building andincreases insulation, can reduce coolingenergy consumption by up to 25percent. 240• Stormwater Management: NewYork City has a combined sewagesystem, meaning that rain water fromstreet gutters combines with sewagefrom commercial and residential usesfor treatment; during storms, however,the water treatment system is oftenoverwhelmed and the combination ispoured, untreated, into local rivers. 241Plants should be able to absorb up to80 percent of the storm water thatgathers on the roof. 242 As a result,green roofs can make reduce the needfor expensive investments in sewagetreatment works and improve waterquality.• Air Quality: A green roof also filtersthe air that moves across it. Thegreening of an average roof in theBronx can remove 18.6 kilograms ofairborne particulates from the air ina year, and provide enough oxygen toprovide 62 people with their yearlyoxygen intake. 243Policies to promote the expansionof green roofs have been very effectiveabroad, and could be easily applied in theUnited States. For example, tax incentivesfor green roofs were introduced in Francein January 2007, leading to 50 percentmarket growth in just one year. 244SSBx has been instrumental in bringinggreen roofs to the Bronx. And similar effortslike it in cities across the country areworking to promote sustainable solutionsand green jobs—advances that can help theenvironment and low-income communitiesat the same time.Community-Wide Initiatives 61

Taking the Next Step:An Effective Response to theChallenge of Global WarmingThe examples in this report show thatcommunities of every kind acrossthe country are responding to globalwarming. But America has a long way togo. There is not much time to take thelessons learned from these “best practices”and apply them nationwide.To do so, federal and state governmentsmust take several important steps:First, establish mandatory, sciencebasedcaps on global warming pollution.The caps should be set at levelsconsistent with what science tells us isnecessary to prevent the worst impactsof global warming. At minimum, thenation and individual states should seekto reduce emissions by 15-20 percentbelow current levels by 2020 and by atleast 80 percent below current levelsby 2050.With firm, enforceable emission reductiontargets enshrined in law, America andindividual states can unleash the creativityand resources needed to address globalwarming.To use our resources most effectively,any emission trading program used tocomply with a global warming emissioncap must auction, rather than give away,emission allowances, and use the proceedsof that auction to accelerate the transitionto a clean energy economy and reduce thecost of the program to consumers. Withso much to do, and so little time, Americacannot afford large financial giveaways topolluters. Instead, we should invest much ofproceeds of the program in measures suchas energy efficiency improvements, renewableenergy, and expansion of low-carboninfrastructure, while also using some ofthe proceeds to ease any cost burden onconsumers.Second, cities, states and the federalgovernment should adopt strong publicpolicies designed to accelerate the transitionto a clean energy economy.Those policies should include:• Strong energy efficiency standardsfor vehicles and appliances. Whilestrong federal standards are a must,states should also be empowered togo farther, faster in promoting energyefficiency than the nation as a whole.• Strong building energy codes designedto improve the efficiency of62 Global Warming Solutions that Work

homes and businesses. States andthe federal government should alsoencourage the construction of greenbuildings and zero-energy buildingsthat go “beyond code” and shouldadopt measures to encourage or requirethe use of small-scale renewableenergy technologies like solar waterheaters, geothermal heat pumps, orsolar panels on new residential andcommercial buildings.• Renewable electricity standards thatwill ensure that America gets at least25 percent of its electricity from renewablesources by 2025.• Energy efficiency resource standardsfor electric utilities that require thatenergy efficiency improvements playan important role in meeting futureenergy needs.• Transportation and land-use policiesthat encourage the developmentof compact, walkable neighborhoodswhere automobile use is an option, nota requirement.• Policies to reduce global warmingpollution and promote sustainablepractices in other parts of the economy,including policies to encouragerecycling, sustainable agriculture,more energy efficient industrial practices,and reduce emissions of globalwarming pollutants other than carbondioxide.Third, cities, states and the federalgovernment should make global warminga central consideration in publicinfrastructure investment decisions,and should increase investment in thetechnologies and human resourcesneeded to address global warming.Investing the revenues from a globalwarming cap-and-trade program in cleanenergy solutions can provide an immediateinfusion of resources. But city, state andfederal governments should also adjusttheir investments in other ways, including:• Increase investment in low-carbontransportation infrastructure, such aspublic transportation, rail transportation,and pedestrian and bicyclingimprovements. Evaluate all transportationinvestments for their impact onglobal warming.• Require all new public buildings tomeet strong energy efficiency standardsand incorporate renewableenergy where possible. Require thatgovernment agencies receive a portionof their electricity from renewablesources.• Make government a leader in thetransition to low-emission formsof transportation by incorporatinglow-carbon vehicles, such as plug-inhybrids, in government fleets.• Boost investment in federal researchand development programs for energyefficiency and renewable energy technologies.• Launch “green jobs” training programsdesigned to train the workforcenecessary to make the transition to aclean energy economy a reality.Taking the Next Step: An Effective Response to the Challenge of Global Warming 63

Notes1. Architecture 2030, Building Sector Energy,CO 2Emissions, downloaded from,18 April 2008.2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office ofRenewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, IndustrialEnergy Systems, downloaded from, 18 April2008.3. Charles F. Kutscher, ed., American Solar EnergySociety, Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.: PotentialEmissions Reductions from Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy by 2030, January 2007.4. New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority, Home Performance withENERGY STAR®: Albany County, downloaded, 27 February 2008.5. Ibid.6. New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority, 2006-2007 Annual Report,undated.7. New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority, New York Energy SmartLoan Fund Program (brochure), 17 September 2007.Available from New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority, New York Energy SmartProgram Quarterly Evaluation and Status Report:Quarter Ending September 30, 2007, November 2007;360,000 metric tons: assumes energy savings aredistributed proportionally amongst electricitysources.9. Number of homes built and upgraded fromNew York State Energy Research and DevelopmentAuthority, New York Energy Smart Program Evaluationand Status Report: Year ending December 31, 2006,March 2007, 4-10. Annual per-household savingscalculated by dividing annual savings by numberof participating households, from New York StateEnergy Research and Development Authority,Programs that Work: Stretching Every Dollar to KeepEnergy Affordable for New Yorkers (brochure),11 November 2005. Available from See note 8.11. Ibid.12. Efficiency Vermont, Efficiency Vermont 2007Preliminary Executive Summary, downloaded, 21 May 2008.13. Ibid.14. Consortium for Energy Efficiency, 2006Savings Impacts from U.S. Electric Energy-EfficiencyPrograms, downloaded from,18 April 2008;U.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, State Electricity Profiles 2006,November 2007.15. Consortium for Energy Efficiency, 2006 SavingsImpacts from U.S. Electric Energy-Efficiency Programs,downloaded from, 18 April 2008.64 Global Warming Solutions that Work

16. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, Emissions ofGreenhouse Gases Report, 28 November 2007.17. Ibid.18. Flex Your Power, Commercial Sector,downloaded from on 29 February2008.19. Adobe Systems Incorporated, Adobe Fast Facts,June 2006.20. Flex Your Power, Best Practice Guide:Commercial Office Buildings, Case Study: AdobeSystems Incorporated and Cushman & Wakefield,downloaded from b=offices on 29 February 2008.21. Environment California, Greening the BottomLine: California Companies Save Money by ReducingGlobal Warming Pollution, August 2006.22. Ibid.23. Ibid.24. Environmental Protection Agency, EnergyEfficiency: Reduce Energy Bills, Protect theEnvironment, downloaded from on 29 February2008.25. Architecture 2030, The Buildings Sector:A Historic Opportunity, downloaded on 24 March 2008.26. Felician Sisters, Our Lady of the Sacred HeartProvince, Green Building, downloaded from, 18 April 2008.27. United States Green Building Council, LEEDfor Homes, downloaded from on 24March 2008.28. Cathy Turner and Mark Frankel, NewBuildings Institute, Energy Performance of LEED forNew Construction Buildings, 4 March 2008.29. Convention center: Sports & ExhibitionAuthority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County,Pittsburgh David L. Lawrence Convention Center:Green Factor, downloaded from, 18 April 2008; Office center: WesternPennsylvania Brownfields Center, PNC FirstsideCenter (B&O Railroad), Summer 2007; Children’shospital: Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh,Environmentally Friendly, downloaded from, 18 April 2008.30. See U.S. Green Building Council, LEEDProject Directory, downloaded from,18 April 2008.31. Green Building Alliance, History, downloadedfrom, 18 April 2008.32. Ibid.33. “Incentives” from Rich Lord, “City to RewardThose Who Are Going Green,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 20 November 2007.34. Dean Calbreath, “Green Building MarketSees Growing Popularity in Area,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 10 February 2008.35. Ibid.36. Architecture 2030, The 2030 Challenge,downloaded from on March 24,2008.37. Architecture 2030, Who’s on Board, downloadedfrom on 24 March 2008.38. Database of State Incentives for Renewables& Efficiency, New Mexico: Energy EfficiencyStandards for State Buildings, downloaded from, 18April 2008.39. See note 25.40. United States Department of Energy, BuildingTechnologies Program, Moving Toward Zero EnergyHomes: Zero Energy Home Powers Up in North Texas,25 October 2004.41. Ibid.42. P. Norton and C. Christensen, NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, A Cold-Climate CaseStudy for Affordable Zero Energy Homes, July 2006.43. P. Norton and C. Christensen, NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, Performance Resultsfrom a Cold Climate Case Study for Affordable ZeroEnergy Homes (preprint), November 2007.44. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, EnergySavings from Small Near-Zero-Energy Houses, undated,downloaded from, 7 May 2008.45. “Less than 700 kilowatt-hours” from RuralDevelopment, Inc., First Year of Operating Datafor RDI’s Near Net Zero Energy Home in Colrain,downloaded from,28 May 2008; “Average American home” fromU.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, Frequently Asked Questions—Electricity, downloaded from,28 May 2008.46. Rural Development, Inc., Wisdom WaySolar Village Fact Sheet, downloaded from , 18 April 2008.Notes 65

47. National Association of Home BuildersResearch Center, Zero Energy Homes: A Primer,downloaded from on 27February 2008.48. Ibid.49. New Mexico Energy, Minerals and NaturalResources Department, Energy Conservation andManagement Division, Moving Toward Zero EnergyHomes Through New Mexico’s Sustainably Built Homes(brochure), downloaded from, 18 April 2008.50. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ThePotential Impact of Zero Energy Homes, February2006.51. Lisa Margonelli, “The Power of Less,”California, January/February 2007.52. Craig Canine, “California Illuminates theWorld,” On Earth, Spring 2006.53. Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Summing Up: EnergySymposium: The “Rosenfeld Effect,” (PowerPointpresentation), 28 April 2006.54. See note 52.55. Energy consumption data: Energy InformationAdministration, State Energy Consumption, Price, andExpenditure Estimates, 29 February 2008.56. Marvin J. Horowitz, “Changes In ElectricityDemand in the United States from the 1970s to2003,” The Energy Journal, 28(3); 93-120, July 2007.57. Based on data from U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration, StateEnergy Data System, downloaded from, 15 April 2008.58. “4,760 gigawatt-hours” from note 56;“800,000 California households” based on averagehousehold electricity consumption data fromU.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, 2001 Residential EnergyConsumption Survey, Table CE1-7c, downloadedfrom, 28 May 2008.59. 6,000 GWh from California Public UtilitiesCommission, Program Impacts—GWh, downloadedfrom, 21 May 2008; total consumption fromU.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, State Electricity Profiles, November2007.60. California Public Utilities Commission,Oct. 18, 2007: “Business as Usual” Energy EfficiencyDecision Approved, downloaded from, 21 May 2008.61. Audrey Chang, Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, California’s Sustainable Energy PoliciesProvide a Model for the Nation, March 2006.62. Forward Wisconsin, Wisconsin Food ProcessingBrochure, downloaded from, 18 April 2008.63. Focus on Energy, Nestlé USA Saves Energy WithNew Condensing Economizer System, 2007.64. Dan York, Marty Kushler and Patti White,American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy, Compendium of Champions: ChroniclingExemplary Energy Efficiency Programs from Across theU.S., February 2008.65. Focus on Energy, Industrial Businesses,downloaded from, 18 April 2008.66. Focus on Energy, Food/Dairy, downloadedfrom, 18 April2008.67. See note 63.68. See note 64.69. Average carbon dioxide emissions fromelectricity generation in Wisconsin from U.S.Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, Wisconsin Electricity Profile,November 2007; Emissions from natural gas usefrom Pacific Gas & Electric, Carbon FootprintCalculator Assumptions, downloaded from, 13 May 2008.70. See note 64.71. Ibid.72. How To Germany, All About Recycling,downloaded from on 18 March 2008.73. James E. Donnelly, “Numbers Never Lie,But What Do They Say? A Comparative Look atMunicipal Solid Waste Recycling in the UnitedStates and Germany,” Georgetown InternationalEnvironmental Law Review 15: 29-53, 1 October2002.74. Ibid.75. Amy Halpert, “Germany’s Solid WasteDisposal System: Shifting the Responsibility,”Georgetown International Environmental Law Review14:135-160, Fall 2001.76. Carol Williams, “Regulators See Germany’sRecycling Program as a Green Giant,” Los AngelesTimes, 12 August 2002.77. Tuba Tuncak, “Rubbish Managers SayGermans are Number One in Recycling,” DeutscheWelle, 14 May 2007.66 Global Warming Solutions that Work

78. Michael Oberdoerfer, State Agency for Nature,Environment and Consumer Protection of theLand North Rhine-Westfalia, Recent Developmentsin the Management of Packaging Waste in Germany(PowerPoint presentation), 19 April 2007.79. Germany: Jurgen Giegrich and Regine Vogt,IFEU Institute Heidelberg, The Contribution ofWaste Management to Sustainable Development inGermany, 30 May 2005. U.S.: EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste, 3 January2008.80. Federal Ministry for the Environment, NatureConservation and Nuclear Safety (Germany),General Information Waste Management in Germany,downloaded from,13 May 2008.81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Municipal Solid Waste, 3 January 2008.82. Gunter Dehoust, et al., Environmental Study:Waste Sector’s Contribution to Climate Protection,prepared for the German Federal EnvironmentalAgency, August 2005.83. Pat Franklin, Container Recycling Institute,Have Container Deposit Laws Been Effective?(PowerPoint presentation), 13 March 2007.84. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, Emissions ofGreenhouse Gases in the United States 2006,November 2007; U.S. Department of Energy,Energy Information Administration, InternationalEnergy Annual 2005, September 2007.85. Buckingham Community Civic Association,Neighborhood Conservation Plan, October 2006.86. Reid Ewing, Keith Bartholomew, et al., UrbanLand Institute, Growing Cooler: The Evidence onUrban Development and Climate Change, October2007.87. Arlington County Department of CommunityPlanning, Housing & Development, Ballston MetroStation Area, downloaded from, 18 April 2008.88. Arlington County Department of CommunityPlanning, Housing & Development, 30 Years ofSmart Growth: Arlington County’s Experience withTransit Oriented Development in the Rosslyn-BallstonMetro Corridor (PowerPoint presentation), May2007.89. Ibid.90. “Next Stop, Tysons,” The Washington Post, 18February 2007.91. See note 88.92. See note 90.93. See note 88.94. 35,000 avoided trips based on assumption that70 percent of Arlington County commuters woulddrive to work, amounting to 17,500 additionalcommutes per day. See note 88.95. Assumes 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxideproduced per gallon of gasoline per U.S.Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, Voluntary Reporting of GreenhouseGases Program Fuel and Energy Source Codes andEmission Coefficients, downloaded from, 13 May 2008; and average light-dutyvehicle fuel economy of 20.2 mpg based on “realworld” estimates for new model year 2007 vehiclesfrom U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends:1975 through 2007, September 2007.96. See note 88.97. Visit Copenhagen, Facts about Copenhagen,December 2007.98. Paul Makovsy, “Pedestrian Cities,” Metropolis,August/September 2002.99. Ibid.100. Ibid.101. Jan Gehl, Lars Gemzoe, Sia Kirknaes andBritt Sondegaard, Project for Public Spaces, How toRevitalize a City, downloaded from on 26 March 2008.102. C.G.B. “Kit” Mitchell, “Old World Ways,”Public Roads 70(5), March/April 2007.103. Bycylen Kobenhavn, News and Facts,downloaded from on 17 March 2007.104. John Pucher and Ralph Buhler, MakingCycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands,Denmark, and Germany, 12 November 2007.105. Ibid.106. European Academy of the UrbanEnvironment, Copenhagen: Encouraging the Useof Bicycles, downloaded from, 18 April 2008.107. Clinton Climate Initiative, Transport:Copenhagen, Denmark, downloaded from, 18 April 2008.108. Ekim Tan, “The Copenhagen Experience:What the Pedestrian Wants,” Nova Terra, April 2006.Notes 67

109. Steve Johnson, Civic Life Portland Oregon:The Bicycle Movement and Portland’s AlternativeTransportation Policy, 2003.110. Ibid.111. Ibid.112. Todd Litman, Victoria Transport PolicyInstitute, Online TDM Encyclopedia: Bicycle Parking,7 March 2007.113. Pedestrian and Walking Information Center,Portland SmartTrips, downloaded from, 6 February 2008.114. City of Portland Office of Transportation,Blue Bike Lanes Report, downloaded from on 6 February 2008.115. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 AmericanCommunity Survey: Portland city, OR, Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan StatisticalArea, Commuting Characteristics by Sex, downloadedfrom, 18 April 2008; U.S.Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey,United States, Commuting Characteristics by Sex,downloaded from, 18 April2008.116. Portland Office of Transportation, PortlandBicycle Counts 2007, September 2007.117. Ibid.118. Ibid.119. Portland Office of Transportation, SmartTripsNortheast Hub Comprehensive Evaluation Report,December 2006.120. Maria Rojo de Steffey and Erik Sten, AProgress Report on the City of Portland and MultnomahCounty Local Action Plan on Global Warming, June2005.121. William Yardley, “In Portland, Cultivatinga Culture of Two Wheels,” The New York Times, 5November 2007.122. Ibid.123. Alta Planning and Design, Bicycle-RelatedIndustry Growth in Portland, June 2006.124. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,Governor Rendell, Amtrak Announce $145 MillionUpgrade of Keystone Passenger Rail Service, 12September 2006.125. Jim RePass, National Corridors Initiative,Keystone Corridor Improvements Yield Higher Speeds,21 November 2005.126. Amtrak, Keystone Corridor ServiceEnhancements, downloaded from ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Hot_Deals_Page&cid=1093554066577&c=am2Copy&ssid=134, 5 February 2008.127. Ibid.128. “Keystone Corridor Riderhip, TimelinessImproving,” TRAINS Magazine, 5 March 2007.129. Amtrak, Annual Amtrak Ridership Sets All-TimeRecord; Fifth Straight Year of Increases (press release),23 October 2007.130. Ibid.131. Stacy C. Davis and Susan W. Diegel, U.S.Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energy, Transportation Energy DataBook: Edition 26, 2007.132. Robert Malone, “The World’s Fastest Trains,”, 23 May 2007.133. Center for Clean Air Policy, Center forNeighborhood Technology, High Speed Rail andGreenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S., January 2006.134. Ibid.135. Wilbur Smith, Texas Mass TransportationCommission, Public Transportation DevelopmentManual, 1971.136. Based on data from U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal Transit Administration,National Transit Database, downloaded from, 11 October 2007.137. Greater Dallas Chamber, DFW PopulationTrends 1970-2030, downloaded from on 20 March 2008.138. David Shrank and Tim Lomax, TexasTransportation Institute, 2007 Urban MobilityReport, 18 September 2007.139. Ibid.140. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, DART History,downloaded from,30 May 2008.141. Editorial Staff, “Keep DART in Irving,” DallasBusiness Journal, 19 July 1996.142. Light Rail Now!, Dallas Light Rail Opens FirstStations Serving Suburban Cities, August 2002.143. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, DART 2030 TransitSystem Plan, 24 October 2006.144. Susan Pantell, Light Rail Now, Dallas: DART’sLight Rail Success Drives Vigorous Expansion Program,February 2008.145. Ibid.146. Federal Transit Administration, NationalTransit Database, Transit Operating Service: ServiceSupplied and Service Consumed, downloaded from68 Global Warming Solutions that Work, 26March 2008.147. Ibid.148. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, A Better Wayto Go: Meeting America’s 21 st Century TransportationChallenges with Modern Public Transit, March 2008.149. Terry L. Clower, Bernard Weinstein andMichael Seman, Center for Economic Developmentand Research, Assessment of the Potential FiscalImpacts of Existing and Proposed Transit-OrientedDevelopment in the Dallas Area Rapid Transit ServiceArea, November 2007.150. Jack Kenny, “Non-Profit Transit Company Ison the Right Track,” New Hampshire Business Review,15 April 2005.151. Upper Valley Transportation Management Association,Operational Impact Study of Advance TransitFixed-Route Bus Network, 28 July 2005.152. Upper Valley Transportation ManagementAssociation, Operational Impact Study of AdvanceTransit Fixed-Route Bus Network, Final ReportExcerpt, Executive Summary, Updated, August2006, 6. Available from Ibid.154. Ibid.155. Ibid.156. Plug-In Partners, Plug-In Hybrids, downloadedfrom on 29February 2008.157. Plug-In Austin, Plug-In Hybrid Municipal Plan:Building a Market for Gas Optional Hybrids, 20August 2005.158. Manitoba Hydro, What is a PHEV?,downloaded from on 29 February 2008.159. See note 156.160. Electric Power Research Institute,Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid ElectricVehicles, July 2007.161. Ibid.162. Ibid.163. CalCars: The California Cars Initiative, AllAbout Plug-In Hybrids (PHEVs), downloaded on 29 February2008.164. See note 157.165. Ibid.166. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, Form 860 Database:Annual Electric Generator Report, downloaded, 27 June 2007167. Database of State Incentives for Renewables& Efficiency, Texas Incentives for Renewable Energy:Renewable Generation Requirement, downloadedfrom, 18 April 2008.168. American Wind Energy Association, U.S.Wind Energy Projects, downloaded from, 18 April 2008.169. American Wind Enery Association, AnnualU.S. Wind Power Rankings Track Industry’s RapidGrowth (press release), 11 April 2007.170. Clifford Krauss, “Move Over Oil, There’sMoney in Texas Wind,” New York Times, 23February 2008.171. Electricity production from wind turbinesassumes 35 percent capacity factor, which is justunder the average of wind turbines installednationwide in 2004-2005 based on U.S.Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energy, Annual Report on U.S.Wind Power Installation, Cost, and PerformanceTrends: 2006, May 2007. Average emissions froma Texas power plant based on U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration, StateElectricity Profiles 2006, November 2007.172. Earth Policy Institute, Wind Indicator Data,downloaded from,13 May 2008.173. Jonathan G. Dorn, Earth Policy Institute,Solar Cell Production Jumps 50 Percent in 2007, 27December 2007.174., Large Scale PhotovoltaicPower Plants: Cumulative and Annual Installed PowerOutput Capacity (Annual Report 2007), January2008, 4.175. Reuters, “Spain Requires New Buildingsto Use Solar Power: Homes Must Use it for HotWater, Commercial Sites for Electricity,”,13 November 2006.176. SolarPACES, PS10 (fact sheet), 28 June 2007.177. “Sunny Spain to Host Europe’s First LargeSolar Thermal Plant,” Environment News Service, 30June 2006.178. Emerging Energy Research, Concentrated SolarPower Resurges as Scalable Energy Alternative (pressrelease),11 December 2007.179. Jose Gil and Hugo Lucas, “Spain: New Planfor Renewable Energy,”,11 November 2005.Notes 69

April 2008.199. See note 197.201. See note 197.202. United States Patent 2402662203. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, NewJersey’s Clean Energy Program, New Jersey RECMarket Update, as of December 31, 2007, downloadedfrom, 18 April 2008.204. See note 190 and New Jersey Board of PublicUtilities, New Jersey’s Clean Energy Program, NewJersey Approves Solar REC-Based Financing Program, 17December 2007.205. Based on annual production for 2.5 kWsystem in Newark from National Renewable EnergyLaboratory PV Watts calculator, available at; and $220 per MWhSREC price from note 203.206. See note 203.207. Emission factor for average New Jersey powerplant from U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, State Electricity Profiles2006, November 2007.208. See note 190.209. See note 203.210. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of EnergyEfficiency and Renewable Energy, How an EnhancedGeothermal System Works, downloaded from,18 April 2008.211. U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. GeothermalResource Map, downloaded from, 12 May 2008.212. City of Klamath Falls, Geothermal Information,downloaded from, 11April 2008.213. 30 percent from note 212.214. Brian Brown, “Klamath Falls GeothermalDistrict Heating System at 25 Years,” GHC Bulletin,June 2007.215. Conversion based on Pacific Gas &Electric, Carbon Footprint Calculator Assumptions,downloaded from, 11 April 2008.216. Database of State Incentives for Renewables& Efficiency, Oregon Incentives for Renewable Energy,downloaded from, 28 May 2008.217. Renewable Northwest Project, RenewableEnergy Projects Serving Northwest Load, downloadedfrom, 28 May 2008.218. Western Governors’ Association, Clean andDiversified Energy Initiative: Geothermal Task ForceReport, January 2006.219. “10 million MWh” based on 95 percentcapacity factor from note 218; “Oregon electricityproduction” based on U.S. Department of Energy,Energy Information Administration, State ElectricityProfiles: 2006 Edition, November 2007.220. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, TheFuture of Geothermal Energy: Impact of EnhancedGeothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the21 st Century, 2006.221. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of EnergyEfficiency and Renewable Energy, Benefits ofGeothermal Heat Pump Systems, downloaded, 18 April 2008.222. Greensburg Chamber of Commerce, TheWorld’s Largest Hand-Dug Well, 27 November 2007.223. City of Greensburg, Kansas, Greensburg: AGreen City, downloaded from on 20 February 20, 2008.224. Kansas Office of the Governor, FederalEmergency Management Agency, Long-TermCommunity Recovery Plan: Greensburg + KiowaCounty, Kansas, August 2007.225. Ibid.226. Ibid.227. Ibid.228. Greensburg GreenTown, Groundbreakingat BTI/John Deere, downloaded from, 18 April 2008.229. Greensburg GreenTown, Dwane Shank MotorsGroundbreaking a Smashing Success, 13 April 2008.230. ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability,ICLEI Global: How it Works, downloaded , 18 April 2008.231. Jennifer Gandin, “Raising the Roof,” ReadyMade, downloaded from on 2April 2008.232. Roger Bezdek, American Solar EnergySociety, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency:Economic Drivers for the 21 st Century, October 2007.233. R. Margolis and J. Zuboy, National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, Nontechnical Barriers to SolarEnergy Use: Review of Recent Literature, September2006.234. Marisol Bello, “Cities Cultivate Two Types ofGreen,” USA Today, December 2007.235. Sustainable South Bronx, Green Collar JobTraining and Placement, downloaded from on 2 April 2008.236. The Green Roof Research Program, MichiganNotes 71

Environment Arizona Research & Policy CenterEnvironment California Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Colorado Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Connecticut Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Florida Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Georgia Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Illinois Research & Education CenterEnvironment Iowa Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Maine Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Maryland Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Massachusetts Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Michigan Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Minnesota Research & Policy CenterEnvironment New Hampshire Research & Policy CenterEnvironment New Jersey Research & Policy CenterEnvironment New Mexico Research & Policy CenterEnvironment New York Research & Policy CenterEnvironment North Carolina Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Ohio Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Oregon Research & Policy CenterPennEnvironment Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Rhode Island Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Texas Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Virginia Research & Policy CenterEnvironment Washington Research & Policy CenterWisconsin Environment Research & Policy CenterFederal Office:218 D St. SEWashington, DC 2000344 Winter St., 4th floorBoston, MA 021081536 Wynkoop St. Suite 100Denver, CO 802023435 Wilshire Blvd., #385Los Angeles, CA

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines