Get Energy Smart! NOW!

In the last week, several studies (okay, one lobbyist press release packaged as a “study” and the other a real study) have made a splash.

The first, the Price Waterhouse “study” for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) on implications of moving toward a public option and universal coverage.

The other, the month’s old Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examination of the long term economic implications of acting to mitigate climate change via the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.

While one was simply a lobbyist-driven disinformation effort and the other an attempt at a serious examination, these two have several fundamental similarities that illuminate problems in achieving a meaningful public (whether in the general public or in the political arena) dialogue over the critical issues of health care and climate change.

What are those ‘similarities’?

1. There is a bit of Mr Bill from Saturday Night Live in reporting from these. In essence, OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! No matter what serious understanding of these analyses might suggest, there data engendered a bit of ‘the sky is falling reporting’. [Note, video below is from prior to Katrina.]
2. As for that reporting, both were poorly reported in The Washington Post. The Post put the Price Waterhouse AHIP report above the cover, on the front page, without serious examination of the study’s parameters which (quite seriously) skewed its results. The Washington Post entitled its story Cap-and-Trade Would Slow Economy, CBO Chief Says, with no meaningful examination of how (based below) the CBO’s study falls short of providing what any reasonable person would consider an appropriate path toward accounting the costs and benefits of any policy option.
3. Both Price Waterhouse and the CBO fail on multiple levels, most significantly a skewed cost-benefit accounting by tallying costs fully while ignoring significant benefits. After the AHIP report had already made quite a splash (including that front page Post coverage), Price Waterhouse released a statement explaining that they had left out significant elements that would lower costs (provide benefits).  The CBO study explicitly did not consider the avoided costs due to reducing the impacts of catastrophic climate change.
4. Both Price Waterhouse and CBO work provide ammunition for those seeking to mislead the public and the political process, undermining necessary change to strengthen the United States and increase the prospects for today’s and tomorrow’s Americans.

There is that old adage, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”.  The AHIP Price Waterhouse ‘study’ seems to merit all three.   The CBO work, on the other hand, seems to fall only in the third category, underlining the importance of reading (and understanding) footnotes to place the study in context.

The real issue, of course, comes from failures in the media process and inadequate critical review. With any serious, objective review, it is hard to see the justification for giving an AHIP-backed “study” (essentially a lobbyist press release) space in a newspaper of record, let alone giving it prominent front page coverage.

The CBO study was caveated and testimony last week clearly stated that the work didn’t coverage the full range of issues (“CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf emphasized that his estimates contained significant uncertainties and “do not include any benefits from averting climate change,””). Traditional media reporting, however, doesn’t seem to have peeked between the wizard’s curtain of economic analysis to see how CBO processes can skew results (and how counting rules can drive the US toward sub-optimal policy) and, probably even more importantly, how the CBO processes exclude a huge range of benefits that, if included, would flip the CBO results from ‘some costs’ to ‘massive benefits’ from acting to mitigate climate change.

In any event, when it came to AHIP’s Price Waterhouse ‘study’ relative to health care policy and CBO’s examination (and testimony about) the costs/benefits of action to mitigate climate change, The Washington Post (sigh, and too many ‘traditional media’ outlets) failed its readership and the general policy discussion.  And these failures helped create Mr Bill “Oh, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!” moments for at least some in the critical health care reform and clean energy/climate change mitigation arenas.

Note:  This is a somewhat unfair comparison. The CBO study has serious problems, but these do not seem to be from any intention to create a misperception or purposefully skew the discussion. The CBO works with a scoring system that creates confusion and worked within a stove-piped analysis, that doesn’t enable a robust examination of costs and benefits. The Price Waterhouse work, on the other hand, is perhaps more appropriately compared to the SAIC “studies” released by the National Association of Manufacturers as part of their battle to prevent action to mitigate climate change. Like Price Waterhouse’s press release highlighting the limited nature of their work (and how they had excluded significant components of health care reform plans in their work), the SAIC “studies” had footnotes that explicitly absolved SAIC of any responsibility for the results and conclusions. That footnote: “The input assumptions, opinion and recommendations are those of ACCF and NAM, and do not necessarily represent the views of SAIC.”

NOTE 2: The CBO process seems to have an even more seriously fundamental flaw, which is a seeming embrace of an economic perspective with blinders to science and where science is on the risks of catastrophic climate change.  Brad Johnson of the Wonkroom highlights a rather terrifying element of the CBO testimony:

As a consequence, a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming of about 7° Fahrenheit (F) by 2100.  … “the risk of catastrophic outcomes associated with about 11°F of warming by 2100? gives a projected “loss equivalent to about 5 percent of U.S. output and, because of substantially larger losses in a number of other countries, a loss of about 10 percent of global output.”

This is jaw dropping. Does anyone at CBO have the slightest understanding of the potential real-world implications of seven degrees of warming? Anyone at all?  For a robust discussion, see Brad’s stellar work.  In short, however, this sort of warming would massively disrupt US agriculture, have significant portions of America’s coastal areas awash due to rising seas (with huge infrastructure costs from lost cities and ports, industrial and transportation infrastructure lost, etc), significantly increased forest fires, … And, well, again, see Brad’s sobering work.  It seems that the CBO should pay a bit of attention to the US Climate Change Research Program and perhaps actually read (highlighter in hand) the report on Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.   Perhaps spending some time with science and facts might lead CBO to revisit their quite odd (rather bizarre) results.

Today is Blog Action Day, with thousands of blogs discussing global warming.

[Read more →]

The Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) is determined to prove to any and all its anti-science, anti-knowledge credentials.

Here is the RPV candidate for Attorney General parroting global warming denier lines, showing his tendency to allow his ideological preferences and biases to triumph over science and the work of 1000s of scientists.

Should it surprise anyone that, as Republican Party hacks reject science, scientists are rejecting the Republican Party.

Let’s face reality, it takes a sort of unusual person to describe crawling through attics to seal air leaks or slithering in crawl spaces to insulate piping as a “fun” activity. Turning over the compost pile; separating materials for recycling; turning off lights; putting on an extra sweater while turning the thermostat down in winter; … While we might see the value of these actions, “fun” is rarely the motivating factor (again, unless you’re that ‘special’ type of person).

Yet, sustainable options can be “fun”. Riding a bike (okay, at least in nice weather) is fun. Watching a child pluck a freshly ground tomato, warm from the sun, and plop in their mouth is fun. Driving an electric car (or a hybrid on electricity) with the windows open, listening to birds sing is fun. Dining on The National Mall, in a Solar Decathlon house (as I did last evening) is certainly (majorly) FUN!

Think about ourselves, think about what motivates. Making activities “fun” can make them more likely to happen. (Think that ‘clean up, clean up’ song used with toddlers to get them to put things away after play time. Or, perhaps, singing a song while washing the dishes.)

Thus, the question to ponder: How can we make the sustainable fun?

Stairs vs escalator: a battle to make the sustainable fun.

Reducing litter by making the trash can fun

See The Fun Theory … courtesy of Volkswagen.

One Senator has chosen to pay attention to The Solar Decathlon on the Mall and issue a challenge. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has issued A Challenge to Universities. He opened with a strong statement of praise and support for The Solar Decathlon.

Every two years at this time of year, an exciting thing happens on the National Mall in Washington D.C.: the Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon. It is a competition in which universities from around the globe compete to design, build, and operate homes powered solely by the sun. This year’s competition, like every past competition, features no representation from New Jersey universities. As a leading supporter of solar power in Congress, I know well that our state is a world leader in solar technology. That’s why I think it is high time that our state’s renowned educational institutions show that they too are world leaders in solar technology.

The deadline for applications for the 2011 Solar Decathlon is coming up fast, 17 November. This is not far away for what is a quite serious commitment. When one gets a chance to speak with Solar Decathletes, the extent of the challenges they faced and the achievements they’ve made in raising funds, designing and building the homes, developing innovative features, and simply making it to the Mall become even more impressive. The 20 teams, no matter who wins or who comes in 20th, merit credit because they all have impressive elements and they all are, eminently, habitable, net-zero homes.

But, back to New Jersey …

Senator Menendez lay down a marker for NJ’s educational institutions:

I hereby issue a challenge to New Jersey’s universities and colleges to enter the 2011 Solar Decathlon.

If there is a New Jersey Decathlon entry in 2011, it seems clear that Menendez will lead the way among Senators laying down some bets in the competition.

The nation would be better off with more attention to the Decathletes.

Kudoes for Senator Menendez for doing his part.

[Read more →]

The U.S. Congress is often the site of friendly (sometimes not so friendly) wagering, when rival teams meet each other in important events.

Virginia Tech: Lumenhaus

This occurs around University football games, World Series, the Superbowl, March Madness, and other competitions.  Right now, there is a 20-team competition underway almost literally in the shadow of the US Congress and, yet, there seems to be nearly zero attention from Members of Congress and, as far as can be told, no friendly (or less than friendly) wagering going.

The Decathletes from around the United States (and Spain, Germany, and Canada) are serious in their endeavors, creating top-notch products competing across 10 different categories from electrical power generation to architectural design.  This is an event attracted 100,000s of thousands of visitors, a number of on-scene people that easily rivals the sports events that generate that Capital Hill wagering.

In contrast to those  sports events (and despite mythic views of sports), The Solar Decathlon has the potential for truly changing lives and America’s future prospects.  It is an event meriting attention and focus from Members of Congress.

As we look to paths to confront the challenges and seize the opportunities created by Climate Change, and attempt to set a path forward where America is a leader and winner (rather than follower and economic loser) in the green energy revolution, The Solar Decathlon is the sort of event and environment that merits significant attention — attention that Members of Congress simply don’t seem to be giving it.

Multiple searches of the U.S. Senate website, for example, showed zero references to the 2009 Solar Decathlon.  In 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whose state did not (and does not this year) have a contesting team, visited the Decathlon.  (Nothing from Bernie yet this year, but it would be surprising if he didn’t take a stroll down to the Mall to do some house site seeing.  A question to ask: Who will join Bernie?)

Sticking with the Senate, there is serious discussion about climate legislation (with the introduction of the Kerry-Boxer >>>) with many (far too many) Senators sitting on the fence, evidently unconvinced that actions to mitigate climate change won’t only reduce risks but create new (and exciting) economic and social opportunities. P erhaps some attention to events on The National Mall might help them readjust their thinking.

Could Senator Kerry (Team Boston) ask Senator McCain (Arizona) to join him for a stroll on the Mall? (Perhaps making a wager as to having to wear the team t-shirt for a day dependent on which ends out ahead.)

Could Senator Boxer (Team California)  sent a Twitter note to Senator McCaskill (Team Missouri)  making a boast that California’s solar production will top Missouri’s this week?

Perhaps Senator Kerry (Team Boston) could challenge Senators Webb and Warner (Virginia Tech), wagering some clam chowder against crab soup.

There are teams from Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Virginia, Louisiana, California, Missouri, Texas, Iowa State, Minnesota, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and New York. The range of betting pool opportunities, with ten different competitions, are pretty staggering in numbers.

To be honest, encouraging gambling habits isn’t a normal practice but this is a case where it would be great to see some heavy (and heavily publicized) betting going on.

[Read more →]

Solar innovation has come to The National Mall from the north as part of the 2009 Solar Decathlon, with two Canadian teams out of the 20 energy efficient solar powered homes. Team Ontario/BC took their geography to heat, forming Team North to North House to Washington, DC.

Considering where they come from, no surprise that North House is sealed tight with R-60 insulation. Yet, their effort was complicated by the need to design for cold (let us say, extremely cold) winters and hot & humid summers. Coming from the north also creates another challenge: rooftop solar would have little value for much of the year, which led to putting solar photovolaic (PV) panels mounted vertically on the south, east, and west sides.

[Read more →]

Electrification of rail is one of the most effective currently available technology paths for reducing carbon emissions.

It should be on the top of the policy agenda.

It is, basically, nowhere to be found.

Here is a guest post by the very thoughtful BruceMcF, looking at this gap and providing a path forward for addressing it.

Transport For America (t4america.org) has a call to action out on the Climate Change Bill. “ACES” passed the House, and the corresponding (but of course not identical) legislation is presently up for consideration in the Senate.

The premise of the call to action: Between 0% and 1% of the revenues is permitted to be used for existing clean energy transport technology; Transport is responsible for 30% of the CO2 emitted; thus, “You can’t solve 30% of the problem with 1% of the funds.

In particular:

• The most promising single opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in transport inside a decade, electrification of long haul rail freight, is entirely out of bounds for any funding
• Funding for electric rail and trolley bus passenger transport requires first gaining approval through Federal programs that discriminate against energy-efficiency

[Read more →]

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, and Senator John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts, have joined forces in what might be one of the most important single opinion pieces published in a newspaper so far in 2009. Published in The New York Times, Yes, We Can (Pass Climate Legislation), provides an indication of a ‘bipartisan’ path toward significant climate legislation. In short,

Unlike (too) many Republicans, Lindsey Graham explicitly acknowledges climate change risks and the need for serious action. Graham, as perhaps the first crack in the Party, could lead other Republicans (including, for example, John McCain) to the floor to vote for legislation if, as “Yes We Can” suggests, additional resources are committed for nuclear power and clean coal combined with an opening of more areas for offshore drilling for oil and natural gas.

Graham will be attacked by Republican leading lights like Glenn Beck. The “deal” will be attacked by many who understand climate change’s risks, the dangerous fantasy and deception of “clean coal“, and the risks of digging our hole deeper with oil dependency in the face of Peak Oil, not mentioning those adamantly opposed to nuclear power (existing or additional).

Considering this, there are some fundamental questions to consider: Is this a situation where ‘being attacked from all sides’ suggests that the proper middle ground has been found? After all, there is no reality-based middle ground from anti-science syndrome sufferings like James Inhofe and those who actually understand the scientific process. Thus, being in the middle between global warming deniers and scientists isn’t a reality-based common ground. Thus, the attacks to come prove nothing beyond politics.

Thus, is this a compromising of what is necessary for what seems politically convenient? To a certain extent, “Yes We Can” leaves many doors open on this, with the devil in the details. Will Graham’s vote and support be ‘bought’ with $100s of billions of guaranteed funding for nuclear power, no matter whether it could be truly competitive in the face of other energy technology developments in the coming years? Is the “clean coal” element (simply) guaranteeing resources for research or is there going to be an iron-glad commitment of resources to coal even when there are clearly economically sensible paths to wean the US off coal electricity over the next twenty years (and the globe perhaps in 30)? And, so on. Thus, the impact truly will be understood within the devilish details.

One of the core questions to ask of any “compromising” within climate legislation is as follows:

Does it handicap future efforts to adapt to deeper scientific and economic understanding? (whether, to be ecumenical, to strengthen efforts to cut CO2 if the situation is as bad (or worse than) the scientific community is warning or to loosen targets if the situation is not as bad as currently thought)

That is a key question to consider when looking to Graham-Kerry compromising on climate legislation details.

Join me after the fold for examination of the OPED.
[Read more →]

The University of Kentucky has brought its own color to a plot on The National Mall. . Their entry into the Solar Decathlon, as one of 20 energy efficient solar powered homes,, is called “s•ky blue” with the motto “live.light”.

As with all the houses, s•ky blue almost certainly exceeds the U.S. Green Buildings Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Homes Platinum standards—the highest level achievable under the LEED rating system. s•ky blue achieves this efficiency combining technology with Kentucky architecture.

Along many other Decathlon entries, s•ky blue incorporates weather monitoring. The AWARE computer monitoring system (the Automated Weather Adaptive Response Energy ) also receives zip code-specific, short-term (24- to 72-hour) weather forecasts at 3-hour intervals. It then uses an energy model to evaluate the data and calculate the best scenarios for operating building systems in response, and chooses settings and recommendations for the house’s components. For example, with cold, overcast weather predicted, it might use order additional water pumped through the solar thermal system to build up as much hot water as the tank can mange. Occupants can, themselves, monitor the home’s performance and override the system — or choose to modify their own behavior in face of the house’s feedback.

One of the realities of the Solar Decathlon: these are small homes. As commented by Decathlon judge Sarah Susanka, The Not So Big House,

“I don’t think many people have had the opportunity to tour well-designed smaller structures. That’s a real revelation to a lot of people.”

The Univ of Kentucky team tackled the challenge in part through the Shaker tradition. (Truth in advertising, I find Shaker furniture highly appealing, with several pieces in my home.)  S•ky blue’s spaces thus can be more than meets the eye.

To maximize space in the general portion of the house, the s.ky blue team has designed and fabricated numerous areas and spaces unforeseen to the eye. Built-ins and bump-outs act as wardrobe and storage compartments. For example, a pocket-table slides into the kitchen wall making it possible for a multifunctional dining and entertainment area. The Shaker inspired chairs that hang flat on the wall, concealed door slides and foldout office table compliment the spatial goals desired throughout the house.

Rainwater collection is standard fare with Decathletes.  S•ky blue’s system might be unique, as it is connected to an automated watering system.

The stored rainwater is used to water the plants using a highly efficient water usage system. Sensors placed inside the plant pots determine if the plant needs water. If water is needed the system provides a small amount of water to the plant. The system then waits for a few minutes and checks to see of the plant still needs water and if so, the plant receives another pulse of water. This continues until the watering needs of the plant are met.

Note: s•ky blue= Solar Kentucky Blue (blue being the University’s color)

Additional posts on the 2009 Solar Decathlon:

• Showing some CURIOsity at The Mall
• Cash is Green
• A Napa Valley Vision on The National Mall
• An ICON-ic statement about a better future
• An Illuminating Vision for Pavilion Living: VT’s Lumenhaus
• Penn State’s Natural Fusion
• A Solar Decathlon Cheat Sheet
• Energy COOL Solar: The Solar Decathlon
• Secretary Chu Hits the Mall for Solar Decathlon … and hits the Chamber while he’s at it

Thronging The National Mall at this time are thousands of curious people, visiting the Solar Decathlon with the 20 energy efficient solar powered homes, being awed by their designs, their technologies, and their visions for the future.  Team Boston has centered their entire project around that very sense of curiosity, with CURIO House having as its core motto: “live curious”.  While the House has incorporated a number of leading edge technologies and approaches, the true center of effort might actually be a question:  How to design a home, a sustainable home, that will interact with its occupants to foster a changed relationship not just with their dwelling, but the overall interaction of humanity with our planetary system.

According to team members, this evolved somewhat from interactions on during the 2007 Solar Decathlon, where people asked “what can I do now?” and there was a feeling that too much of what was being shown was leading edge technology, not ready to move from the laboratory to store shelves.  Thus, a question Team Boston considered: “What can you do in your home?”

A session at the Biomimicry Institute occurred ealy in the process, helping to evolve these questions with “How is it possible to evolve the home as a whole, including the person?”

With all of this in mind, Team Boston sought to maximize (and simplify) feedback systems as a tool for engaging the occupants as a partner in managing the home sustainably while developing flexible controls so that each CURIO house would evolve to meet the personalities, requirements, and desires of that home.

[Read more →]