Hillary Clinton Introduces Zero Emissions Building Act
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 04.13.07
Here is a politician doing something about climate change. Hillary Clinton has introduced the Zero-Emissions Building Act of 2007 which directs federal agencies to immediately require that all new federal buildings or major renovations reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent as compared to a 2003 baseline. In 2010, and every five years after that, the emissions reduction level would increase by 10 percent, until new federal buildings become "zero-emissions" buildings in 2030. The legislation would also apply to major renovations of existing federal buildings.
"This legislation sets an ambitious goal of making new federal buildings carbon neutral by 2030," said Senator Clinton. "Buildings account for 40 percent of global warming pollution in the United States, and the federal government should lead the way in developing building designs and technologies to reduce these emissions."
From Senator Clinton's website:
"The federal government is not only the nation's single largest energy consumer, but the number one energy waster as well. About $1 billion in taxpayer dollars is squandered every day due the needless wastefulness of outdated technology," said Senator Kerry. "We know that energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest, surest way to strengthen America's energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality - and the federal government should be taking the lead. I am proud of the legislation we are introducing today and I look forward to working with Senator Clinton to pass it."
Buildings could achieve the goals of the bill in three ways:
First, by using design principles and energy technologies, such as building orientation, daylighting, efficient lighting, and ground source heat pumps.
Second, by using on-site generation of renewables, such as solar photovoltaics.
Third, any remaining emissions would be offset by efficiency projects in other federal buildings.
Many of these technologies are being used successfully today by both the federal government and the private sector. For example, the Government Services Administration recently constructed a Denver courthouse that uses natural light in 75 percent of the building.
Read the ::Zero-Emissions Building Act of 2007 PDF
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Will the Next New Deal be Transit-Based? Three Plans to Rescue the Economy and the Earth with Public Transportation
- Sustainability’s Success
- Geoengineering Redux: Fertilizing Trees with Nitrogen to Fight Climate Change
- On Climate Change, Africa Votes As One Country And One Continent
San Francisco Bans Styrofoam for To-Go Containers
|
Most Huggable: Wal-Mart’s Organics Wilt, Mercedes’ Diesel Dies, New Gas Highs
|
Look who's conveniently greening today!
Fund geothermal energy programs too while your at it Hillary.
Could it be she is running for president?
Why not health care for all Americans to help her chances at getting the office of president too?
Politics as usual, nothing to see here, move along!
D~W
"Politics as usual, nothing to see here, move along!"
Well, wouldn't you rather have politics that encourage green buildings rather than subsidies for oil or whatever?
Good for her.
"Good for her."
Good for the environment and reducing emissions, definitely. But I still can't bring myself to say "good for her." Shrewd of her perhaps, but she still isn't scoring too many sincerity points with me.
I'll shoot for the stars and hope to hear about Kucinich's "Global Green Deal."
By "good for her" I just meant, good that she's paying attention to green. I'm no big fan of her, and being canadian, it's not like I could vote for her...
Then there is Obama still fighting for "Clean" coal.
nice to see she's endorising:
architecture2030.org
...but this isn't really that new.
Who cares about intent as long as the buildings become more energy efficient? I have no issue whatsoever with insincere politicians as long as they are doing the right thing. I'd support this endeavor even if Bush sponsored it.
I agree. Who cares WHY she is doing it. It doesnt really matter why any politician does anything. The sooner we let go of worrying about whether or not politicians are moral leaders, the happier we will be. They're not. They successful politicians because they know how to be good sometimes and shady at other times.
She's proposing a bill that anyone else in the Senate could have proposed but didn't. So, great. If she's only doing it because she wants to be President, great. I'll vote for her if I feel that she takes initiative on enough issues that are important to me.
How else would anyone decide who to vote for?
'Who cares about intent as long as the buildings become more energy efficient? I have no issue whatsoever with insincere politicians as long as they are doing the right thing. I'd support this endeavor even if Bush sponsored it.'
I am in complete agreement. I don't care who it comes from. It could come from little orange men with horns. All I care about is the policy - not the politician or the political party.
It's a good idea and not a bad move for a candidate involved in a Presidential election. She'll earn kudos if and when she actually fights to make it happen.
Until then, it joins the growing number of Bills the candidates have recently submitted so they can appease a constituency from whom they want an endorsement.
I agree. It's about policy. And hopefully it won't go the way of health care reform under her direction...