As part of the general agenda to drag America into a nightmarish Mr Rogers’ neighborhood, the Republican House Majority is pushing through legislation that will savage the U.S. government’s ability to monitor risks to the public and inform decision-makers about how to move forward to address these threats. And, they are also savaging programs — such as innovative energy research — that offer the hope for creating paths toward a more prosperous climate-friendly future for America and Americans.
In a symbolic measure, with tangible impacts, the House Republicans voted through a measure to defund the Greening the Capitol initiative.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) won a victory for the coal industry in the wee hours of the morning today when the House adopted a relatively cheap but highly symbolic amendment to the fiscal 2011 continuing resolution.
Yes, Representative Whitfield pushed through this legislation because it removed coal out of the Capitol Power Plant (which, until then, was the greatest single polluter in Washington, DC, and causing asthma and other ailments) and, he claimed, because it had the audacity to be moving its efforts from the DC offices to helping Representatives green their district offices around the country.
Whitfield said today that he offered the amendment because he believes Pelosi’s greening program was more a political stunt than a real effort to save taxpayers money.
Hmmm …
Perhaps, Congressman Whitfield, this was not “political stunt” but tangible leadership. Executing a program that shows the value streams associated with Energy Smart measures from those ‘twisty bulbs’ that cut electricity demand by over 70 percent, bathrooms that work well with less water waste, and otherwise — energy and resource saving measures that improve the work atmosphere.
Today, we say that the Capitol will not only be just a shining example of our democracy, but a symbol of our commitment to the future. – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, June 21, 2007
Sadly, these words from the Architect of the Capitol rings false
As a result of aggressive implementation and extensive outreach and education, sustainability is becoming a routine part of life on Capitol Hill. Perceptions have adjusted and attitudes have shifted toward new business practices and workplace standards.
At the House, green has become the new normal.
Sigh … while this might have been true prior to November 2010, for the House, the “new normal” is far from a “symbol of our commitment to the future” but a dedicated readiness to “Eat the Future,” as per Paul Krugman. “The Republicans face a budget conundrum, and their answer is to sacrifice tomorrow.”
Green the Capitol had tangible, direct impact. What did the program achieve in 2010?
- An expected 23 percent reduction in total energy consumption in all House Office Buildings
- An anticipated 32 percent reduction in total water usage across the Capitol Campus
- A savings of 265 tons of unused paper to date
- A reduction of 375,000 watts of energy used in the House’s computer center
- A total of 1,800 tons of paper recycled annually
- An annual savings of more than 1.1 million kilowatt hours of electricity from the installation of 13,000 CFL light bulbs
- The purchase of 120 million –kilowatt hours of clean, renewable wind-generated electricity
These numbers, however, provide only a shadow of a window on what the impacts were within the House for the U.S. taxpayer. Very roughly, energy costs total about one percent the costs of the people occupying an office building. Greening programs often lead, as per the bullets above, to direct financial savings from that one percent of the costs of the people in the building. More important, however, for anyone attuned to business thinking would realize that the 100 percent of personal costs are of much greater interest.
Greening programs save money due to reduced resource demands … however, they also provide value on that 100%. Real-world experience after real-world experience, study after study, financial accounting after accounting shows that greening office buildings (and factories and schools (also about House Republicans opposing a very high payoff program to help America’s future) and hospitals (pdf) and jails …) leads to improved productivity and improved results. A Rocky Mountain Institute study from the 1970s, by Joe Romm and Bill Browning, Greening the Building and the Bottom Line provides eight short case studies where ‘greening’ efforts led to significant productivity improvements, such as a Boeing case where daylighting reduced error rates on a production line by over 20 percent. A 2009 University of San Diego study examined over a hundred of buildings and thousands of tenants to differentiate between green and ‘non-green’ buildings. Overall, using very conservative standards,
when comparing “green” to non-green buildings, their work showed a reduction in sick leave of 2.88 days per year, on average, and a 4.88% productivity improvement. That translates, based on the salaries, to a value to the employer of $1,228.54 due to reduced sick leave and $5,204 due to productivity increases.
“Value to the employer” (e.g., to you and me — the taxpayer — for the Capitol) of nearly $6500 per year per employee, which is many times the costs of the greening. And, by the way, reduced utility costs more than paid for that greening.
The Greening the Capitol program essentially was a wash when it came to energy savings (due to efforts to clean up the Capital Power Plant, among other things) but it almost certainly has been an incredibly profitable investment for the American taxpayer through fostering a healthier and more productive Congressional staff.
The Republican House Majority is willing to through this profit into the drain with, it seems, utter disdain for the productivity and health of their own employees.
Posts relevant to Green the Capitol