Archive for December, 2009

Dec

31st

Benefits of Green Building


Green buildings have realized substantial bottom line savings from more energy efficient heating and cooling systems, ventilation, waste reduction and environmental sustainability. While initial investment is required to incorporate environmentally friendly technologies and design into buildings, the savings far outweigh the costs. In fact, the California Sustainable Building Task Force shows that an initial increase in upfront costs of approximately 2% for green design will yield lifecycle savings of more than ten times the initial investment, or 20% of total construction costs (based on a conservative estimate of a 20-year building life.)

Even the startup costs of building green can be comparable or less expensive than average construction prices where resource efficient and smaller mechanical, electrical and structural systems are more effective than oversized, underutilized systems, according to the US Green Building Council (USGBC). Generally, McGraw-Hill Construction estimates that green buildings generate an increase of 7.5% in a building’s value and a 6.6% improvement in return on investment, while decreasing operating costs by 8-9%.

The payoffs go far beyond financial returns. A recent study published by the University of San Diego and CB Richard Ellis Group showed that employees in LEED certified buildings take 2.9 less sick days each year than in non-green offices, which saves their employers roughly $1,200 per worker and results in significant productivity gains that generate sales. The research doesn’t determine exactly which green technologies improve employee health and productivity, but it is clear that natural lighting and cleaner air increase office stamina and even retain staff.

Externally, green buildings are creating market differentiation opportunities, improving reputations with clients and minimizing risks to corporate brand equity. Even in recessionary times, green buildings have been commanding higher rents; $30 per square foot, $3 over the national average of $27, and vacancy rates are over a percentage point lower. Green buildings also welcome government tenants and increase public sector good will.

Demand for green buildings continues to climb, as the value of green building construction is expected to reach $60 billion in 2010, up from $12 billion in 2008. Green is being incorporated into building codes at local and state levels. By upgrading now, buildings can anticipate these mandates and upgrade on their own terms, avoiding delays or operational losses. As more and more buildings become LEED certified, traditional buildings risk obsolescence and forfeit any first mover benefits of going green. Simply put, green buildings create a triple net effect, benefitting the owners’ bottom line, its tenants, and the environment. This author is left with just one question: Why notbuild green?

Courtesy of www.justmeans.com

Bookmark and Share

Comment Here


Dec

30th

Avoid Seven Foods for a Healthier 2010


Avoid These 7 Foods and You’re Off To A Healthier New Year- Courtesy www.dhlovelife.com, Darryl Hannah’s very interesting living green site.

1. Canned Tomatoes-  The expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A

The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Acidity — a prominent characteristic of tomatoes — causes BPA to leach into your food.

2. Corn-Fed Beef- The expert: Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of books on sustainable farming

Cattle were designed to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. A recent comprehensive study found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium.

3. Microwave Popcorn- The expert: Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group

Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize — and migrate into your popcorn.

4. Nonorganic Potatoes- The expert: Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board

Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting.

5. Farmed Salmon- The expert: David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany

Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT.

6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones- The expert: Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers.

7. Conventional Apples- The expert: Mark Kastel, codirector of the Cornucopia Institute

If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides with Parkinson’s disease.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment


Dec

17th

Greening Your Holidays!


So many of us are committing to positive environmental changes in large and small ways, and the holidays can present challenges to that commitment.  Read on for Stanberry Green Team’s encouragement for greener festivities with no sacrifice of fun! 

Green Buying:  Smart buyers buy local.  Buy close to the source as much as you can for your holiday foods and gifts.  Keeping money local helps in many ways; it vastly reduces use of fuel for storage and transportation of food and goods.  It puts money in the hands of people who spend money locally, economically empowering the community where you live and work, thereby supporting schools, parks, and other public systems. 

 Green Gifting:  Think conscious consumerism here.  Thoughtful choices might include passing along something that you have loved to someone who would cherish it.  People love homemade consumable gifts, or homemade anything.  Give a Go Local card from AustinFarmersMarket.org that gives ongoing discounts with local businesses.  Give gifts that empower like minded folks.  How about giving someone a set of cloth napkins and a decorative holder to replace paper ones?  Wrap gifts in reusable gift bags or arrange items in a basket…

 Green Decorating: Think “reusable” with ornaments you buy, or go with a theme that includes items from nature; fresh greens, flowers, plants, pinecones.  If you are replacing lights, consider replacing with LED.  These festive lights have a much longer life span than incandescent lights. What’s more, they use up to 90% less energy, are non-UV emitting, and remain cool to the touch, so they’re safer than traditional lights. Put outdoor lights on timers to manage the energy use. 

 Green Waste Management: We generate so much additional waste with guest, gifts, holiday feasts!  Buy foods and gifts with less packaging when you can.  Make it easy to stick with recycling by having clearly labeled bins to show guests how that is handled in your home.  Use real dishes and cloth napkins; wean yourself from disposables.  Compost your kitchen scraps in one of the new under-the-sink systems. 

 Stanberry and Associates wishes you and yours  a green and festive, warm and happy holiday season!

Bookmark and Share

Comment Here


Dec

17th

On Buildings and Climate Change…


The importance of energy-efficient buildings in mitigating effects of climate change was highlighted Friday at the climate conference currently taking place in Copenhagen. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a report Dec. 11 urging that buildings be considered as a major component of any strategy concerning emissions reduction.

UNEP’s report, “Buildings and Climate Change – Summary for Decision Makers,” emphasizes that buildings are an area of great potential to impact climate change. The report is a result of three years of study by the UNEP Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative (SBCI), a think tank and partnership between the United Nations and leading companies and organizations in the building sector.

Buildings account for more than 30 percent of worldwide energy use. Fortunately, buildings present vast opportunities to reduce energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, buildings generate the equivalent of 8.6 billion tons of CO2 a year, according to the report, and this amount is expected to nearly double over the next two decades. Population growth and urbanization are cited as the impetus for new construction growth.

For example, new construction in China over the next ten years will be so prolific that it will equal the size of all existing buildings in the United States, the report says. Investment in new buildings is also expected in South Africa. UNEP warns booms like these will likely double the amount of pollution associated with energy use in buildings.

Along with the report, the climate summit served as the debut of SBCI’s global Common Carbon Metric for Buildings to measure energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of buildings. The new metrics were created in conjunction with the International Energy Agency, International Standardization organization, World Green Building Council, International Initiative for the Sustainable Built Environment and Sustainable Buildings Alliance as well as private sector companies and associations.

This information adapted from greenandsave.com News

Bookmark and Share

Comment Here


Dec

8th

The Prius Effect


This is a great article written by Bryan Welch, Editor of Mother Earth News, that describes a phenomenon that is worth attention about how consumers “vote” with their dollars…

2010-prius

The experts at the Toyota Motor Co. were persistently wrong about the Prius. They seriously underestimated how popular it would be.

When it appeared in Japan in 1997, the world’s first mass-produced gasoline-electric hybrid car was not immediately recognized as a serious automotive challenge to the omnipresence of the internal-combustion engine.

The car was introduced to Japanese drivers in 1997. About 18,000 sold that year. On Earth Day, 2000, Toyota announced that the car was on its way to the United States, and the first American drivers stepped into their new hybrid cars in August.

Throughout the next five years, the only way to get hold of a Prius in the United States was by preordering one from the manufacturer. The waiting time for a new Prius was often more than six months. Its popularity was not based on economic necessity. When the new car first launched in the United States, gas was cheap. At that time, regular gasoline was selling for about $1.30 a gallon and inefficient SUVs were in their heyday. Toyota would debut a website via which car buyers could make a “pioneer purchase” of the Prius. About 6,000 American consumers signed up and got their hands on a Prius that first year, and about 20,000 sold worldwide, most of them in Japan. In 2001, 29,000 Priuses sold worldwide. By 2007, Toyota was selling 10 times that — 181,000 cars in the United States alone. And people kept putting their names on the waiting lists. Those sales numbers would have been much higher if production had kept pace with demand.

No other hybrid or fuel efficient car has been nearly as successful. The Toyota Yaris, which gets 80 percent of the Prius gas mileage and costs about half as much as a Prius, sold about half as many units in 2008. At 2008 fuel prices, you would have to drive your Prius at least 50,000 miles before the price difference was paid off in fuel savings.

The Honda Civic Hybrid was a dud in comparison to the Prius. Although its price and fuel efficiency were comparable, the car sold about 20 percent as many units in 2007. Compared with the 159,000 Priuses sold in the United States during 2008, Honda sold about 31,000 Civic Hybrids.

The Civic’s gass mileage, price, technology, reliability and overall quality were all comparable to the Prius. The biggest distinction between the two vehicles was their appearance. The Civic Hybrid looks like any other Civic, except that it has a little “Hybrid” emblem on its back end and a higher sticker price. The Prius looks like, well, a Prius. It’s perfectly recognizable from half a mile away.

So why would the Prius outsell the Civic Hybrid by a factor of five to one? Because the Prius is cool. Its wonky design instantaneously became a symbol for environmental awareness. Driving around in Prius projects the driver’s identity as a person who cares about the planet, and enjoys new technology. The same could be said of the buyers of any hybrid, but the Prius design projects the message more effectively. So the Prius is cool.

Read the rest here: http://www.motherearthnews.com/Rancho-Cappuccino/Toyota-Prius-Effect.aspx?utm_content=12.07.09+HE&utm_campaign=HE&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

Bookmark and Share

Comment Here