Rebates for Energy Efficient Home Appliances
Beginning next April, California expects to receive about $35MM under the ARRA (stimulus) Act to offer rebates for purchasing energy efficient home appliances. It will be first come, first served, with $100 for new washing machines, $75 new refrigerators (sorry, no wine coolers) and no dryers (more below). Manufacturers can add additional rebates. You must recycle your old one. New appliances must meet the EPA's Energy Star rating and possibly even higher state requirements. (Note: $35MM means about 375,000 appliances; 1 for every 32 households in California; we have 10MM households)
More from the California Energy Commission.
No Dryers - Back to the Clothes Line
Why no dryers? Dryers are energy hogs, using 6-10% of household electricity.
Here is a SJ Mercury News article about a Santa Cruz woman claimed to reduce her monthly electric bill from $100 to $40 just by using the clothes line. [But, um, she does 14 loads a week!]
1000 flags
Digress to China for a moment, where everyone is buying new energy efficient washing machines, air conditioners, but no dryers. Everywhere I went in that country, north or south, east or west, I got the same answer: "We like the fresh smell." In fact, almost all Chinese apartment buildings have some kind of terrace (open in the south, enclosed in the north) that is always filled with laundry. That's laundry hanging over the side or handing in the hallway, rooms, everywhere.
When I said to one friend that terraces are often considered a luxery in the US, she immediately burst out: "Where do you dry the clothes??" (Needless to say, few outdoor BBQ in China.) By the way, Chinese rinse clothes nightly and never wear torn or dirty clothes. (I didn't say they were designer clothes.)
Giant TVs and California Energy Commission
Good news (?) is you can have a big TV, but the bad news is only if it uses less than 142 watts. [Depending on your viewpoint you might not see any good or bad there.] In any event, the Consumer Electronics Association, with 5 minutes before the deadline, submitted a request for a review, thus halting a vote (NRDC) by the California Energy Commission on this energy saving measure. 142 watts is doable, would save us money but the CEA is an example of an industry doing everything in its power to turn "back the clock."
Here's an interested Blog on No Impact Week
When DOE Secretary Chu talks about low-lying fruit sitting on the ground, he's probably referring to turning hot water from 140F to 120F (saving 500 lb of CO2); replacing incandescent bulbs with CFL (or LED); checking insulation - all of which SAVE money, as well as reduce energy use per captia in this country which is 4 times EU or Japan! This NRDC Blog is more interesting and useful than I am.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Lead, UCSC and the Sublities of Life
[I write about this because (1) it's interesting (2) it happening in Santa Cruz, UCSC and (3) in era of climate change we need our scientists and their clarity, precision, intellectual honesty more than ever before.]
Never thought I'd find seminars like "How Bacteria Breathe Arsenic" interesting, but after reading Toxic Truth (the fight against the scientists who fought against lead) or Ecological Intelligence (the full lifecycle impact of food and products we create and use) or reading about certain plants that can absorb the heavy metals in a brownfield (or, um, urban gardens), I have become very curious about the interplay of biology, chemistry and the environment and our health. A subject studied at UCSC's Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology Department.
[I was educated in a prior century where physics and then electronics seemed to be the key.]
"Toxic Truth" also describes a young scientist probing for environmental lead, A. Russell Flegal, who later joined UCSC's faculty. So when I heard about a public lecture honoring the 10th anniversary of UCSC's Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology Deptartment, I couldn't resist.
Dr. Howard Hu gave the talk last Tuesday:
"Lead Toxicity: Twenty Years of Research on the Poison that Keeps on Poisoning
Lead is just one of the thousands of toxins we've put into the environment. It is a "success" story because scientists and doctors got it out of paint, cosmetics, gasoline and out of our blood stream - only after decades of fighting corporations. (A little bit like climate change? Or smoking?) Thousands of other toxins have never been studied.
The amount of lead in our bodies, yours and mine, is "low" but still far above what pre-industrial revolution man had in his/her body. How "low" is safe? Maybe no level.
Unfortunately, the lead is now in our bones, in "low" doses, because the body is tricked into thinking lead is calcium. So we all now have "low" levels of lead - in our bones, if not blood. And what does "low" levels of lead do?
That is what Dr. Hu reported to about 100 scientists and students, in very clear, accessable lecture.
Here's a myth for you: As we age, our arteries naturally constrict and our blood pressure tends to rise. True? Seems plausible and the data seems to support it. But it is false. Only people in industrialized societies have this pattern. People in rural societies do NOT exhibit this pattern.
And nobody knows why.
What Dr. Hu and people in his field look at amount of lead in people's bones. Of course, there is a range - some have more lead, some less, even though it is all "low" level. There are studies, over time, of groups of individuals and what diseases they contract. Turns out that people with higher lead (still "low") have much higher liklihood of also having hypertension. Again, nobody knows exactly why, but is clearly observable.
And not just hypertension, but also higher likelihood of ALS, tooth loss.
What Dr. Hu studies is the interaction of "low" does of lead and the body's chemisty and genetic makeup. Lead interferes with all kinds of processes, but it also seems to interact with certain genes, or gene variations.
In fact, Dr. Hu has raised some interesting possibilities that lead exposure at very young age, perhaps even through the mother, can result in higher incidence of disease (or is this accelerating 'aging') later in life. In the middle, we have NO signs of illness. There is NO known level of lead that is safe.
These guys are the our heroes because they are pulling away the veil of "better life through chemistry" that I grew up and moving us toward a better understanding our own planet. [Chemistry certainly can make life better, but life is simply more complicated and subtle than we all thought it would be.]
Maybe they are getting closer to sublties of life itself.
Never thought I'd find seminars like "How Bacteria Breathe Arsenic" interesting, but after reading Toxic Truth (the fight against the scientists who fought against lead) or Ecological Intelligence (the full lifecycle impact of food and products we create and use) or reading about certain plants that can absorb the heavy metals in a brownfield (or, um, urban gardens), I have become very curious about the interplay of biology, chemistry and the environment and our health. A subject studied at UCSC's Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology Department.
[I was educated in a prior century where physics and then electronics seemed to be the key.]
"Toxic Truth" also describes a young scientist probing for environmental lead, A. Russell Flegal, who later joined UCSC's faculty. So when I heard about a public lecture honoring the 10th anniversary of UCSC's Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology Deptartment, I couldn't resist.
Dr. Howard Hu gave the talk last Tuesday:
"Lead Toxicity: Twenty Years of Research on the Poison that Keeps on Poisoning
Lead is just one of the thousands of toxins we've put into the environment. It is a "success" story because scientists and doctors got it out of paint, cosmetics, gasoline and out of our blood stream - only after decades of fighting corporations. (A little bit like climate change? Or smoking?) Thousands of other toxins have never been studied.
The amount of lead in our bodies, yours and mine, is "low" but still far above what pre-industrial revolution man had in his/her body. How "low" is safe? Maybe no level.
Unfortunately, the lead is now in our bones, in "low" doses, because the body is tricked into thinking lead is calcium. So we all now have "low" levels of lead - in our bones, if not blood. And what does "low" levels of lead do?
That is what Dr. Hu reported to about 100 scientists and students, in very clear, accessable lecture.
Here's a myth for you: As we age, our arteries naturally constrict and our blood pressure tends to rise. True? Seems plausible and the data seems to support it. But it is false. Only people in industrialized societies have this pattern. People in rural societies do NOT exhibit this pattern.
And nobody knows why.
What Dr. Hu and people in his field look at amount of lead in people's bones. Of course, there is a range - some have more lead, some less, even though it is all "low" level. There are studies, over time, of groups of individuals and what diseases they contract. Turns out that people with higher lead (still "low") have much higher liklihood of also having hypertension. Again, nobody knows exactly why, but is clearly observable.
And not just hypertension, but also higher likelihood of ALS, tooth loss.
What Dr. Hu studies is the interaction of "low" does of lead and the body's chemisty and genetic makeup. Lead interferes with all kinds of processes, but it also seems to interact with certain genes, or gene variations.
In fact, Dr. Hu has raised some interesting possibilities that lead exposure at very young age, perhaps even through the mother, can result in higher incidence of disease (or is this accelerating 'aging') later in life. In the middle, we have NO signs of illness. There is NO known level of lead that is safe.
These guys are the our heroes because they are pulling away the veil of "better life through chemistry" that I grew up and moving us toward a better understanding our own planet. [Chemistry certainly can make life better, but life is simply more complicated and subtle than we all thought it would be.]
Maybe they are getting closer to sublties of life itself.
Santa Cruz Commission on Environment, Brown Act
I have attended meetings of the Santa Cruz County Commission on the Environment and have had several emails with the staff. The Environment, of course, is a vitally important subject and the public needs to be both informed and engaged.
However, I have found the workings of this Commission opaque, as well as falling short in several areas related to content, speed, possible conflicts, engagement of the public.
California has the Brown Act to make meetings open. I have notified my Supervisor (Coonerty) that though I am not a lawyer it seems quite clear to me the SCC Commission on the Environment has been operating in violation of the letter and spirit of Brown Act.
I like this part of the Act:
Finally, here is the "demand letter" I sent:
(Also my September 25, 2009 letter)
==
However, I have found the workings of this Commission opaque, as well as falling short in several areas related to content, speed, possible conflicts, engagement of the public.
California has the Brown Act to make meetings open. I have notified my Supervisor (Coonerty) that though I am not a lawyer it seems quite clear to me the SCC Commission on the Environment has been operating in violation of the letter and spirit of Brown Act.
I like this part of the Act:
54950Here is related information in Santa Cruz County code, section 2.38.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the
agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
Finally, here is the "demand letter" I sent:
(Also my September 25, 2009 letter)
==
November 4, 2009
Dear Nancy Gordon:
cc: Allison Endert (Supervisor Coonerty's Office)
Under 54960.1 of the Brown Act and Santa Cruz County 2.38.130, 2.38.230, 2.38.270 Chapter 2.54 plus other appropriate laws, do here and in all prior oral/electronic/written communication since August 2009 demand of the Santa Cruz County Commission on Environment:
- full disclosure and transparency of all COE activities
- public access and participation in all COE activities, including subcommittees, task forces, working groups etc.
- conflict of interest policy and personal statements (section 2.38.270)
- bylaws and resolutions authorizating subcommittees (section 2.38.130 B, 2.38.230 A)
- correction of inaccurate minutes and omissions
- make public: all work-in-progress, all data, all draft reports, all electronic or email correspondence; all consultant reports or drafts, all ICLEI reports or drafts, etc.
- all other information necessary for the Board of Supervisors and citizens of Santa Cruz County be fully and timely informed the issues covered in your subject area ..."...such as energy, environmental health, business, climate change, ecological science, education, housing development, transportation, agriculture, water, biotic resources, land use planning"
I am not a lawyer. The citizens of this county need to be informed on the issues, risks, facts, related to the environment, especially reducing green house gases and reducing energy consumption. Nothing less than full disclosure, transparency, and public engagement is acceptable.
Jim Rothstein
831-824-4304
==
==
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Climate Action, plastic bags Board of Supervisors, Nov 3
Received an email from Ross Clark, City of Santa Cruz's Climate Coordinator, the year 2008 Climate Greenhouse inventory report would be ready "any day" now.
Another report, the City's Climate Action Plan is in draft form (private?) and will available "soon after the new year."
At this morning's County Board of Supervisors Meeting most of the discussion was about Arana Gulch Master Plan, which calls for an asphalt bicycle lane that an EIR says will cause serious harm to a rare, endangered plant. The issue has divided the environmental community, but appears to have the votes to pass, Supervisor Mark Stone asked for time to review the information.
I spoke for 3 minutes during Open session re: Climate Change, thanking Supervisor Coonerty for the Oct 24 proclamation as International Day of Climate Action. But I stressed the need now for action, before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December:
I also asked him about banning single-use coffee cups, but he smiled and said one issue at a time.
More on plastic in Linda Fridy's Mid-County Post article.
My own thoughts:
One issue at a time? How much time does our local government think we have? 6 months to write an ordinance?? And I also thought "single-use" was an adjective, so I immediately began to think: what else is "single-use" in everyday life? After all, "single-use" is a relatively new idea. Before McDonald's, ok before Michael Jackson, we didn't throw everything away after 1 use - I can remember that.
Another report, the City's Climate Action Plan is in draft form (private?) and will available "soon after the new year."
At this morning's County Board of Supervisors Meeting most of the discussion was about Arana Gulch Master Plan, which calls for an asphalt bicycle lane that an EIR says will cause serious harm to a rare, endangered plant. The issue has divided the environmental community, but appears to have the votes to pass, Supervisor Mark Stone asked for time to review the information.
I spoke for 3 minutes during Open session re: Climate Change, thanking Supervisor Coonerty for the Oct 24 proclamation as International Day of Climate Action. But I stressed the need now for action, before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December:
- full disclosure/full transparency of all the data, goals, reports that the County has, even if not complete, such vehicle miles traveled, energy use, ICLEI draft reports, etc. and referred to my September 25, 2009 letter
- Asked that by Thanksgiving, finish what they have, release whatever they have and start to act
- By act, I refered to UK's 10:10, Bablyon, NY's 12x12, Secretary Chu's "low-lying fruit", read "Moving Cooler" report even if they don't like it
- Also, start educating and engaging the public. If adults can not calculate the CO2 released by driving to the mall, teach our children to.
- Other ideas (before I ran out of time): 1 day a week "no car", green roofs (not just solar) and stressed again the need to act, not send to committees, task forces, etc. the science has changed.
I also asked him about banning single-use coffee cups, but he smiled and said one issue at a time.
More on plastic in Linda Fridy's Mid-County Post article.
My own thoughts:
One issue at a time? How much time does our local government think we have? 6 months to write an ordinance?? And I also thought "single-use" was an adjective, so I immediately began to think: what else is "single-use" in everyday life? After all, "single-use" is a relatively new idea. Before McDonald's, ok before Michael Jackson, we didn't throw everything away after 1 use - I can remember that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
