Masdar: World's first carbon-neutral, zero-waste city

The United Arab of Emmerits is constructing the world’s first carbon-neutral, zero-waste city in Aubu Dabi, named Masdar. The official ground-breakingfor the Masdar Initiative took place on February 9, 2008, though the plans for the project began way back in 2006. The construction of the development is will be phased over seven years and is aimed to be completed before 2015 with a cost of $22 billion US dollars. The first phase of construction, building the Masdar City Headquarters and the Institute of Science and Technology, is currently scheduled to be complete within the last quarter of 2010.

The Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company, a subsidiary of Mubadala Development Company, is responsible for the construction of the 6 million square meter city while the design can be accredited to the British architectural firm Foster and Partners. Nestled adjacent to Abu Dhabi’s international Airport, Masdar links the main communities of Abu Dhabi and will be home to a new university called the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, the Headquarters for Abu Dhabi’s Future Energy Company, special economic zones and an Innovation Center. The city is an example of some of the most sustainable and detailed environmental planning the world has seen.

In order to become the “zero-waste” city that they pride themselves on already, Masdar required some comprehensive and detailed planning in advanced energy; sustainable transportation; water and waste management; energy efficiency; green construction and materials; biodiversity; climate change; and sustainable finance. One of the more ambitious features of the city is that it is car free. Designed so that there is no more than 200 meters to public transportation and services, the city will be made of a united to community of walkers. With sustainable technologies, the first phase of Masdar alone will capture around 6.5 million tons of CO₂ from power plants and industrial facilities in Abu Dhabi by 2013. The walled city of Masdar will be able to sustain approximately 47,500 residents that will benefit from 100% foreign ownership, zero taxes, zero import tariffs, zero restrictions on capital movement and strong property protection in the region. In order to combat the energy demands, the developers invested in the most technologically advanced companies to use the most renewable and sustainable energy options like Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), Photovaltaic (PV), and Wind and Waste-to-Energy. There will be a 500 MW hydrogen-fired power plant that can make hydrogen through spillover advantages for the existing oil and gas industries. In order to collaborate in ongoing research and development of alternative and renewable energy technologies and solutions, the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology became an inaugural founding member of MIT’s Energy Initiative in February of 2009. Seen as the new emerging hub for renewable energy, Masdar will be hosting the World Future Energy Summit, consisting of over 50 participating countries, January 18-21, 2010.

Kristin Sukys

Mountaintop Removal

The Environmental Protection Agency has taken the first step in revoking a permit issued to Arch Coal Inc., based in St. Louis, Missouri. The permit was for the Mingo Logan Coal’s Spruce No.1 mine. This permit would allow Arch to use mountaintop removal practices to be used and for the fill material to be placed in valleys.

Mountaintop removal is a method of coal mining in which the forests on the mountain are cut down and the surface of the mine is blasted away with dynamite. The debris left over from the blasting is then placed into valleys and often disrupts what is left of the habitat around that area. Often streams are buried and hydrology is changed in that area. The clear cutting and blasting destroy the natural environment as well as effect human health downstream or in areas located near blasting sites. “Families and communities near mining sites may suffer from airborne dust and debris, contamination of their drinking water supplies, and flooding from broken slurry impoundments,” (Appalachian Voices). Mountaintop removal often damages homes as well as decreased property value up to 90%.

Mountaintop removal is popular in areas of West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. This topic is important to me because I was born and raised in Charleston, West Virginia. Even as close as 17 miles outside of the capital city of Charleston the water is polluted by coal companies and they are not held liable for the clean up or the health problems caused by underground slurry injections.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the power to issue permits, but the EPA has veto power of all permits. This is the first instance in which the EPA has revoked a permit so that it can review the permits and decide whether the environmental impact of mountaintop removal is too destructive. The EPA is in the works of regulating carbon dioxide which coal mining and processing expels under the authority of the Clean Air Act. This is important especially to our campus because we are one of 60 college campuses that have a coal fired power plant on campus. My dorm room freshman year had a great view; it was located right across the street and seeing the smoke stack everyday. The Sierra Club has set up a campaign to try to make students active in the fight against coal power especially because of our location in coal country.

The position of the Obama Administration is the polar opposite of the Bush Administrations regulations on mountaintop removal. The moratorium on permits imposed by the EPA is a step in the right direction to dealing with the devastation caused by mountaintop removal.

changing lights

The way we get our light and the efficiency of our bulbs maybe changing. As recently as December of 2007 congress was deliberating over a ban on incandescent light bulbs. Currently incandescent light bulbs are used in many homes because they are cheaper then the newer florescent light bulbs. The thought behind banning the incandescent light bulbs is to promote efficiency and save money in the long term. Both bulbs have their benefits and drawbacks.

The US is not the only country that is proposing a ban on incandescent bulbs from the small and poorest countries in the world To Australia who was the first to “pull the Plug” on incandescent light bulbs. It is important to compare the two different types of bulbs on a variety of planes in order to understand why congress would want to ban a certain one in favor of another. According to energystar the compact florescent light bulbs are seventy-five percent more efficient and can last up to ten times the average life of incandescent bulbs. In theory if the bulbs do not break they will eventually end up saving more then they cost in initial price but the initial price of incandescent in a quarter of florescent. Currently the ban proposes that light bulbs be phased out by their efficiency with all bulbs having 30% more efficiency by 2014 and 70% by 2020. One main criticism of the florescent light bulb is that though they provides maximum efficiency and cost saving they also have potential heath effects. The florescent bulbs are made with small amounts of mercury, a neurotoxin. When these bulbs are not properly recycled or break inside of home they can lead to exposure that was not a problem with incandescent bulbs

Florescent light bulbs though more effective cost wise are potentially very high in human heath effects. A lot of these countries that have banned incandescent lights have not seen the effects yet but as more and more lights containing mercury break and seep into homes and soils the problems will come up. Before congress passes a full ban without giving us any choice but to use these dangerous chemical lights people should be fully aware what’s in the lights, how to mitigate a breaking light and most importantly how and where to recycle the lights. The EPA recommendations for dealing with broken lights should be known to anyone who purchases them.

-Brian Schmitt

Leesburg Using Environmental Planning

Leesburg, Virginia is undoubtedly guilty of many of the same offenses which plague modern suburban life. But it stands at a pivotal point; it has not yet developed to the degree of its neighbors in Fairfax, Reston, Ashburn and Sterling. It has made it a key goal to work sustainability into its future. I know this from first hand experience, not only because I live in Leesburg, but I also interned in the town’s Department of Planning and Zoning this summer. The environmental ramifications of a project were always a hot button issue, which caused much strife between the developer and the department.

Leesburg understands the repercussions its actions has on the environment and has noted the mistakes it has made in the past. The town is taking the lesson, which its neighbors learned the hard way, while acting as an example for the lesser-developed surrounding towns of Purcellville and Middleburg. The town’s environmental planning program is based upon five elements, which have been adopted by the town council. They include:
1. Council Strategic Focus Priorities to pursue effective natural resource stewardship and build an environmentally sustainable community.
2. Town Policy on the Environment to use sound environmental principals and practices, meet or exceed our environmental regulations, and educate employees and residents.
3. Town Plan Natural Resource Objectives to protect the environment and quality of life.
4. Zoning Ordinance and Design and Construction Manual (DCSM) through the Floodplain and Creek Valley Buffer Overlay Districts in the Zoning Ordinance and the storm water management specifications of the DCSM.
5. Town Council Resolution/Policy including the Ten Percent Energy Reduction Goal.

Furthermore, Leesburg tackles its energy issues through its Ten Percent Energy Reduction Goal and its “Change a Light Campaign”. Through a combination of energy audits, the establishment of a centralized energy management system, the writing of new more comprehensive town energy policy, the establishment of new performance standards for town projects, and a new evaluation and reporting system, the town hopes to reduce its energy usage by ten percent. The Change a Light Campaign is an established program, which attempts to get the residents of Leesburg to change at least one light in their homes to an energy-efficient light.

As seen by the town of Leesburg, going green does not have to be done all at once. By having localities take small steps towards efficiency and taking advantage of environmental planning, it allows for great gains to be made in the long term. I feel that all localities should take a similar stance and attempt to work energy efficiency and environmental planning into their comprehensive plan. By employing and enabling environmental planners, towns can efficiently move into a more sustainable future where short-term costs will be trumped by long-term gains.

-Chris Neto

New Urbanism Communities: Redoing Suburbs in a Sustainable Way

I am from Montgomery County Maryland which is the epitome of an urban sprawl community. Traditionally urban sprawl is responsible for increased dependence on automobiles and harming human health and the environment. However, there have recently been two new innovative communities introduced to my county that are challenging the status-quo of sprawl. The Kentlands in Gaithersburg Maryland and the King Farm Development in Rockville Maryland serve as examples of how suburban lifestyles can not only be convenient and enjoyable but also combat global warming, peak oil, and climate change.

By using smart growth practices new urbanism communities are based on several sustainability principles. First there is walkability meaning that most things lie within a ten minute walk from your home. This is made possible by a pedestrian friendly street designs where buildings are close to the street and cars are only able to travel at low speeds. Another principle is mixed use and diversity of the land. Shops, offices, apartments, and homes are all at the same site diversifying not only the landscape but also people with different age groups, income levels, and cultures all in one location. Increasing the density allows for ease of walking and enables a more efficient use of services and resources. Green transportation like trains makes it easy for residents of the community to travel to a city nearby in a clean way. Also, pedestrian friendly designs allow for bicycles, scooters, and rollerblades as daily transportation. The community is designed to be energy efficient with less use of fossil fuels and with more local production of energy. All of these principles work in unison to provide a high quality of life for residents.

Benefits to residents of new urbanism communities include less traffic congestion and driving, healthier lifestyles with more walking, getting to know neighbors, and more efficient use of tax money with less spent on utilities and roads. For businesses there are increased sales due to foot traffic, lower rents due to smaller spaces and parking lots, and more profits due to spending less on advertisements. Developers are able to fit more businesses per square foot which raise property value and income and local governments are able to enjoy an increased tax base due to more buildings being used.

New urbanism not only benefits the residents, businesses, developers, and governments of a community but also provides solutions to peak oil, global warming, and climate change.

California Fee on Greenhouse Gases

For decades the state of California has proven to be among the leaders in the environmental movement. Through radical legislation and strong political activism, the state has remained on the forefront in terms of innovation. California continue to fulfills that role, as on October 12, 2009 the California Air Resources Board passed a law placing a 15 cent tax on every metric ton of carbon produced by energy companies and their consumers. The state plans to lower the 15 cents to 9 cents once the programs loans are paid off. The tax is expected to rake in over $63 million dollars in tax revenue in its first year, which will be used to pay off debts and to assist funding for California’s climate change law, which requires annual testing and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. These laws all fall under California’s global warming bill, which has emission caps on Greenhouse gases, and the new legislation helps strengthen this legislation by actually being able to enforce it.

This is new tax is the first of its kind and is commonly known as a part of the widely debated concept of a carbon tax program, and in this case, a greenhouse gas tax program. Because the tax will be passed down to the consumers, it promotes using less electricity among coal, natural gas, and petroleum producers. This law will also coincide with California’s planned cap-and-trade system that will be put in place in 2012. A cap-and-trade system has more definitive environmental results, but less predictable economic outcomes. On the contrary, carbon tax programs rely on market forces to influence individual environmental change. By easing companies and firms into the regulation of greenhouse gasses, the state can prepare them for future stricter environmental regulation.

The carbon tax program in California will not only help fund many of the states programs and encourage a smaller energy use per capita in the state, but it will also enforce the 20% planned decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Under climate change law of 2006, the state of California “delegates broad authority to the California Air Resources Board,” allowing regulations to be enforced and deadlines to be strict. This governing body is key to the success of such a law because it puts muscle behind an otherwise weak law. The carbon tax put in place by California is the first of its kind, but is clearly a necessary step in the advancement in the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Salazar Halts Oil and Gas Leases in Utah

In the final days of his Presidency, George W. Bush hurriedly pushed to lease 77 of Utah's land parcels, close to national parks, to drill oil and gas. As soon as the Obama administration stepped in office, newly appointed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar put a hold on all 77 leases while the department of the Interior reviewed them. On October 8th, Salazar anounced his finding regarding the controversial leases near federally protected lands in Utah. His decision cancelled eight of the leases (the most outrageous leases which would have put national icons in danger), delayed fifty-two leases, and allowed seventeen of them to continue.
This issue is important because it shows people the new administration's dedication to upholding environmental standards. It gives the United States an opportunity to set an example for other countries to protect their most precious lands while pursuing other fuel alternative. This might also prove to be influential during the Copenhagen meeting, taking place at the end of this year.
The freezing of 60 of the77 leases is exactly what needs to be done in order to show the petroleum industry as well as the American people that fossil fuels are quickly becoming a thing of the past. With fossil fuels being such a large contributor to global warming, it is pertinent that we begin to reduce our reliance on them as well as begin to implement alternative sources of energy. The Department of the Interior needs to begin to push for clean energy solutions taht will protect breath-taking wild lands and important wildlife areas as well as cut carbon pollution.
According to many conservation groups, if these leases are approved they would destroy critical wildlife habitat, compromise air quality, and spoil one of the nation's premier scenic areas. Shockingly, an analysis conducted by the Wilderness Society found that the leases would contribute less than two days worth of natural gas and less than two hours worth of oil at today's rate of consumption. Also, Salazar stated tat unlocking petroleum from hard rock would require an enormous amout of power and water. It is obviously clear that the production results are far outweighed by the damage these proposed leases could have on public lands. Not to mention the fact that te impending global warming crisis calls for a reduction or even cessation of our reliance on fossil fuels.