Photo Credit: ©amazon pixels

News & Views Curation

January 31, 2007

Uncool New York

New York Magazine

New York Magazine Cover
New York Magazine slammed the Mayor in an article by Chris Smith for lagging far behind other US cities that are turning up the heat on global warming. In her letter-to-the-editor, Nancy Anderson proposes a gutsy, green "giant step" for Gotham. Take me to your letter.

Carbon Neutral=Word of the Year

"Carbon neutral" is the word of the year but what does it add up to? Think fast

French Greens - Turn Off Your Lights

French environmentalists urge citizens to switch OFF on February 1 to show their concern about global warming. London? Bejing? New York? Click here

Investing in Low Carbon Utilities

"We Have To Act On This One"

Scientists, faith leaders and a polar explorer urge Minnesota legislators to act on global warming. States can make a difference. Explore

Thumbs Down For Palm Oil

Afloat with millions of euros, palm oil plantations sprang up to provide biofuels. The result is an environmental "nightmare". What went wrong?

January 30, 2007

Barrier Reef Going Extinct

Survey Finds Government Gagging Climate Science

Testifying in Congress, two science advocacy groups reported that government scientists believed they were being silenced on global warming. Click here

Going, Going ...

The World Glacier Monitoring Service's newest report finds that glaciers are shrinking faster than ever. What's next

"reegle" for renewables

Here's a website that works like Google for resources on renewable energy and enegy efficiency. Reegle launched last year with support from Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. Launch yourself

January 29, 2007

Will This Tiger Change Its Stripes?

Business media reports that ExxonMobil is rethinking its position on global warming. Ask Tony

Controvery Over IPCC Report

Prior to release of the latest IPCC report, controversy swirls over the impact of melting ice from Greenland and Antarctica. Feet or inches?

Realign Energy Politcs & Follow The Money

Venture capitalists urge Washington to create an energy policy that will attract their dollars. Step up

January 26, 2007

It's A Big "If"

A new report projects 50% of the world's energy coming from renewables by 2050 IF governments slash fossil fuel consumption. Hopeful?

Fight Global Warming-Raise Taxes

British climate change superstar, Sir Nicholas Stern called on world leaders meeting at Davos to use tax policy as a sharp weapon to fight global warming Their response?

No Land Is An Island

A survey of US CEO's find that more than 80% aren't worried about climate change. Uh-oh

Anderson's Testimony on PLANYC 2030

Read the testimony of Sallan's Executive Director about Mayor Bloomberg's PLANYC 2030 to combat global warming while the City grows.
Download testimony »

January 25, 2007

Attention Green Jocks

Superbowl XLI will do its bit to fight global warming. Go teams!

German Chancellor Links Globalization and Greenhouse Gas Cuts

At the World Economic Forum, Chancellor Merkel urged cooperation by developed and developing countires to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Let's talk

January 24, 2007

I See A Trend

Many US cities are gong green, with high performance building, energy savings and increased property values. What are you waiting for?

US Congress to G-8 - Let's Talk About Climate

US Congressional leaders will meet with legislators from G-8 countries next month and consider how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Work it

Times' Tierney On the "T" Word

We live in interesting times. Conservative columnist John Tierney takes up carbon taxes. Trade on it

January 23, 2007

Court Order on California's Carbon Emissions Rules for Autos

What Will The Democrats Do?

Now that the Democrats control both houses of Congress, is there a chance for federal climate change legislation?

Carbon Headliners

Here's what is happening in Lithuania, Norway and even Uzbekistan.Travel here.

Working On Green-Collar Jobs

Fear of global warming is stirring interest in a blue-green jobs alliance. Tune in

You Need a Scorecard

Here's an easy way to compare the five climate change bills in Congress now. Score!

Hurrah for Huron, South Dakota

Huron, SD's the 369th city to sign the US Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement to tackle global warming. On Thursday, the 2007 campaign will launch. Hooray


New York Magazine slams Mayor Bloomberg for showing "more gesture than guts" when it comes to tackling global warming in his PLANYC 2030 agenda. Read more

January 22, 2007

A Stormy Sneak Peak

A draft of the new IPCC report paints a grim global picture of storms and floods to come. Still skeptical?

Retailing Carbon Neutrality

British mega-retailer Marks & Spencer lauches a 100 point green plan with a goal of carbon neutrality as a highlight. Buying it?

Find The Answer

There's a new climate change web site in town. It's commited to taxing carbon as the answer to global warming. Visit today

January 19, 2007

Testing a PDF Link

point carbon pdf

Will India Trade Carbon?

India's interest in joining a global carbon trading scheme was broached at a meeting of the country's prime minister and global warming guru Sir Nicholas Stern. Read more

Massachusetts Rejoins RGGI

Massachusetts' new Governor is bringing his state back into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and he's going the extra mile by requiring that power plant owners buy their emissions credits at auction. Welcome back

Not The Usual Suspects

Blue chip corporations and green chip environmental groups are joining to advocate national caps on CO2 emissions. Stay tuned

January 18, 2007

The Usual Suspects

Power companies and manufacturers are gearing up to fight New York State's carbon emissions cap and trade program. Burned up?

Debating the Wind

Is wind power reliable or is it too fickle? Here's a primer on this debate. Read more

"Greenery's" Not Enough

The Times headline about new affordable housing that's got "greenery" misses the point-will this new housing be green? Turn a new leaf
The City's own press release is better-the project is going for a LEED Gold rating. Turn again

The Bull Moose Lives On

Unions join with "Republican-leaning" greens to protect hunting and fishing habitats imperiled by oil and gas exploration. Bully!

January 16, 2007

Feeling Good Isn't Enough

Planting trees in the US and Europe won't do much to slow global warming. We need to transform our energy systems. Think about it

Green Clean Industry Not Growing In NY

A new study finds NY far behind in the race for attracting green "clean tech" businesses. Why?

When No News Is Bad News

Scientists warn that without replacements, data on global warming will shrink as the US fleet of aging satellites die off. Beep Beep

January 15, 2007

Friday, February 9, 2007
Market Muscle — Can Cap and Trade Cut Carbon?

UK Predicts US Shift on Climate Policy

Unnamed Downing Street officials predict a great transformation in Pres. Bush's global warming views. Look into it

January 12, 2007

Keeping Atoms In The Mix

German leaders are reported to be reconsidering a decision to phase out nuclear power. Don't explode


This tri-partisan team is introducing new federal climate change legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. A rival bill sets its sites lower. Look into it

January 11, 2007

Oh, Urban Pioneers

Pioneering US mayors who signed onto the 2005 Climate Change Protection Agreement haven't yet met their goals, according to a new report. What's keeping them?

Can You Herd Greeen Cats? (2)

And the answer is....get the URGE. Here's more on one hot environmental agenda for 2007. Just click

Gotta Play To Win

In Europe's clean energy revolution, the science is falling in place, but will the politics move fast enough? See news and comments

Maybe It's Just A Phase

A recent ranking of carbon offsetters is not encouraging. What will this mean for reaching carbon neutrality? Be accountable

January 10, 2007

Can You Herd Green Cats? (1)

Here' one provocative take on the hottest environmental agenda for 2007 - but who will sign on? Consider it

Greenbacks for Green Renovation

A NYC-based fund has $100 million to invest in high performance, transit-friendly urban building rehabs around the US. Smile

Around the World in Eight Days

In the first eight days of 2007 the average UK resident was responsible for as many carbon emissions as it took the average Zairian to produce in a year. Any suggestions?

There Ought To Be A Law

The European Commission warns inefficient, energy intensive firms that it's time to shape up, or else. Unbundle this

January 09, 2007

The New (Fuel) Deal

California's Governor announces an order to cut motor vehicle emissions that add to global warming by making refiners change their product. That's news

January 08, 2007

No One's Won Yet

EU Commission President Barroso will urge President Bush to join the fight on global warming. Victory's uncertain. Read more

Great Green Web Site

Here's an online resource for New Yorkers and green building fans everywhere. What a find!

January 05, 2007

Chic and Green in Montreal

Master architect Moshe Safdie will design the McGill University Health Care Center LEED-rated masterplan. Mais oui

UK To AIrlines - Get Serious

The British Environment Minister rips into domestic and foreign airlines who don't take global warming seriously. Fly right

A Brain Trust For The Sub-Continent

India's Prime Minister calls for scientists and engineers to forge a new path to sustainable energy. Click

January 04, 2007

New Year+New Congress=New Energy Policy?

Will the new Congress overhaul the tax code and pump some money into a renewable energy fund? Let's see

Saving Energy in Existing Residential Buildings

Recent initiatives in energy efficient new construction such as Local Law 86 and the rise of LEED certification are valuable first steps toward a sustainable future. However, the stubborn fact is that New York City and the rest of the U.S. are filled with residential buildings that date from the pre-global heating days of cheap fuel and cold winters, and an energy-efficient future is only possible if these buildings can also be improved. Experience in a program aimed at residential multifamily buildings shows that real reductions in fuel and electric use are possible and cost effective, but several key lessons have also emerged. These include:

• On average, observed fossil fuel savings are in excellent agreement with audit projections;
• Electricity savings commonly are not fully realized, usually due to a change in usage by some building system not included in the audit;
• Building management must be enthusiastic and competent;
• Follow-up inspection and interaction are important since they uncover problems and allow the corrections that will ensure ongoing savings;
• Without incentives, economic payback on energy investments, even at current energy prices, is often too slow to interest owners unless they have some other reason to implement the measures, especially in the hot market downstate; so
• Advancing energy efficiency in existing buildings will therefore continue to require incentives in some form or other for the foreseeable future.

Three case studies will illustrate both the strengths and remaining issues in programmatic efforts to decrease fuel and electric use while providing the same or improved building services. The economic experience here leads us to some harsh economic realities.

For five years the Assisted Multifamily Program (AMP) was funded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and administered by Hamilton, Rabinowitz and Alschuler, with technical management by the Community Environmental Center (CEC). Projects ranged from privately-owned five- and six-unit row houses to the 15,000+ units in Coop City. Standardized Energy audits incorporating computerized building modeling were performed by CEC and eight other engineering firms across New York State, resulting in a recommended scope of work for each project, accompanied by estimates of capital costs and energy and financial savings. The audits for low-income and assisted housing were funded by NYSERDA, and owners were also eligible for scaled incentives to offset a portion of the needed investment. The incentive payment was made in full only after a series of inspections confirmed that the measures had been installed in accordance with standards established for the program.

Annual inspections and a review of fuel and electric bills followed completion of construction for the first projects to finish the program. Overall statistics on eighteen of these projects were reported during the summer of 2006 and showed that on average the projected fuel savings of 24% had been realized (with an exception we’ll discuss below), while for electricity we had projected savings of 38% in electric energy on average, but realized only 29%, which is still respectable. Let’s look at three New York City projects from this group to tease out some reasons we did as well or not as well as we thought we would.

A Modest Winner
This vintage Brooklyn apartment house has thirty-five units and is owned and operated by a local non-profit. A moderate rehab was underway when the non-profit brought the building into AMP. An energy assessment by CEC recommended a condensing boiler for the existing gas-fired hydronic heating system as well as better controls, high performance windows, improved roof insulation, weathersealing, and flow restrictors on showers and sinks. Electric measures consisted of replacing old common area fluorescent lights with T-8 bi-level fixtures, putting a timer on the exhaust fan, and replacing refrigerators with Energy Star models and incandescent lights with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) in the apartments. The measures were duly installed and inspected, and were expected to result in decreases of 33% in fuel use and 67% in electric energy (kWh) in the common areas. The assessment also predicted an average drop of 940 kWh/year in each apartment, but lacking sufficient individual electric bills we could not convert this to a percentage or verify it.

A year later we examined the building’s fuel gas and common area electric bills. The gas usage was down by 40%, with the savings substantially exceeding our projections. Because the price of gas had risen more than we projected, the financial savings were even greater. Under these circumstances, people rarely demand explanations and we did not spend much time studying the discrepancy. The simplest reason would be that the old boiler was even less efficient than we assumed. In fact, our inspection found that the new energy management system (EMS, a boiler control system) had been disconnected during the summer, leading to excessive firing. With this corrected, the savings should be even greater.

Common area electric use was disappointing, however: it was essentially unchanged. The annual inspection uncovered two problems with the measures: the sensors in the bi-level lights had not been adjusted, leading them to turn on and off erratically, and, due to eccentricities in the wiring system, the timer for the roof fan could only turn three of the six fans off for the night. Although these problems would lower savings, there still should have been some reduction in electric usage. The explanation was found in the basement, where the control for the hot water circulation pump had failed, leading the pump to run at all times and increasing usage.

We informed the owner of these problems and will see in our next inspection whether it was possible to rectify them. Similar troubles with the bi-level lighting elsewhere have led us to recommend more stringent oversight of these installations, including a clear statement of who is responsible for individually setting the sensitivity of the sensors. Due to the fuel savings, the overall project was still cost-effective, with a simple payback of 9.5 years. The owner received an incentive, but some of the savings went directly to the resident’s electric bills. Including only the owner’s costs and savings results in a simple payback of 9.4 years, essentially unchanged, and too slow a return to interest many owners.

A Big Winner
This ninety-unit coop in the northern suburbs of New York City entered AMP very early. Taitem Engineering of Ithaca, one of AMP’s “Technical Service Providers”, audited the building and recommended replacing the inefficient oil-fired boilers that were heating the building and providing hot water. Because the fuel was #2 oil rather than gas, a conversion to condensing boilers was not practical, but the new boiler was substantially more efficient. They also recommended insulating many exposed hot water pipes and adding weather stripping to the exterior doors. Electric measures were limited to replacing common area lighting with efficient T-8 bulbs and electronic ballasts, and fixing a photosensor controlling the outdoor lighting. Installation proceeded without major problems.

Examination of the fuel and electric bills a year after completion showed spectacular success in reducing fuel use: the audit had projected a reduction of 12%, and the bills showed a drop of 33%! There is no certain way to ascribe these savings to one measure or another, and all contributed to some degree. However, the 58% of fuel used for heating dropped by 26%, while the remainder baseload (hot water) use dropped by 46%, so the hot water pipe insulation likely played a major role. Boiler replacement would have contributed to both of these areas, while our inspection revealed that the weather stripping had been compromised by a door replacement.

For electric use, the audit had projected an 18% decrease in the common areas, but examination of the bills revealed only a 5% drop. One reason was immediately apparent at the annual inspection: at the insistence of a coop Board member, CFLs in lobby chandeliers had been replaced by incandescent bulbs. This, however, would have only lowered the projected savings to 15%, not 5%. Since the lighting was the only electricity measure implemented, and it seemed to be operating correctly, some unrelated increase in electric use is suspected, but could not be found at the time.

Even ascribing the weak electric savings to poor performance by the electric measure (rather than unrelated changes), the project was a marked financial success. The annual dollar savings to the coop were more than double what had been projected in the audit, bringing a simple payback of 4.6 years. If we could offer these savings to all buildings, energy efficiency would expand like cell phone use!

And a Loser
Sometimes it doesn’t pay to get out of bed in the morning. This thirty-four unit coop is located in an economically depressed part of Brooklyn and is managed by a local non-profit. The auditor recommended a standard list of upgrades including an energy management system (EMS), a new burner on the boiler, insulation, and weather sealing. He also recommended a substantial list of needed repairs to the roof, windows, and distribution system and, in the apartments, Energy-Star refrigerators and CFLs. The job was completed in about a year, and came in substantially under budget.

However, the one year examination of the bills revealed a disaster. Fuel use, predicted to drop by 58%, had actually increased by 47%! The inspection provided a host of explanations for this extraordinary finding.

First, the building had gone through three superintendents in as many years. None had been trained to use the EMS and had often disconnected it until it was damaged in a fire. That left the old Heat Timer in charge, and since it too was faulty, the superintendent usually operated the boiler manually, leaving it on until someone complained of excessive heat. The extraordinary level of fuel consumption indicates that this did not happen often. Further, many common area windows were broken, leading to infiltration which mitigated the excessive heat. Finally, visits to a sample of apartments revealed that most flow restrictors had been removed.

No common area electric measures had been recommended, but the electric use had increased by about 10%. This is probably due to incandescent security lighting added by the superintendent. Apartment visits revealed that only 25% of the CFLs remained, the rest having been replaced by incandescent bulbs after they “burned out”. Two of the Energy Star refrigerators were also reported to have “burned out” and been replaced. Although not technically credible, these were the only explanations available.

This result indicates a need for some pre-screening of projects. Without meaningful management involvement, reasonable staff training, and basic security, there is no reason to fund an energy efficiency project. The money simply goes down the drain or up the stack, and a program dedicated to energy efficiency cannot, by itself, provide the resources and day-to-day coaching needed to rectify a situation like this. Cooperative interaction with other housing support programs experienced in increasing management and resident capabilities could be part of the answer, but, to our knowledge, does not now exist.

What’s to be Done?
Returning to the eighteen buildings in the sample we reported on last summer, there is no question they were an environmental success, lowering greenhouse gasses by 26%, or 32 metric tons of CO2 per 1000 square feet of heated space. (Most of this comes from reduced electric generation, helped by three electric heat conversions not discussed here.) The financial situation is a little less clear. All told, an investment of $3.1 million produced a savings to investment ratio (SIR) of 1.4, corresponding to a simple payback of eight to ten years. This includes all outlays (except the audit cost of $6-8000 and programmatic oversight), and includes all income, including that going to residents. If the residents have their own electric accounts, the owner’s return is smaller. In a world where players hope to make 30% return by flipping a building in a few years, this is not very interesting. Also, although increasing prices have led to increased cursing of fuel bills, the annual outlays are still less than mortgage and payroll expenses, leaving energy efficiency (still!) with a relatively low economic profile.

This harsh economic reality explains why we have not seen the same explosion of interest in energy efficiency in existing buildings that we have in new construction. There, being “green” is a sales hook and an increasingly useful way to make a new building stand out and bring honor to its architects. (And this is good!) But in existing buildings, energy efficiency is a way to save a little money. This is not enough to promote real growth, and since it must be done for the good of the planet, a bundle of carrots and sticks will continue to be needed. For the present, we have carrots in the form of incentives from NYSERDA and federal tax benefits (aimed largely at single family homes). We could really use a stick. How about a gradually increasing carbon tax on fuels and electricity? If the resulting income is applied as incentives, it could be revenue and cost neutral, by promoting investments that are cost-effective, but don’t offer a quick enough return to attract investors. The hard truth is that energy efficiency in existing buildings is not ready to grow rapidly on its own, and some combination of pushing and pulling will be needed for some time to come.

Richard Leigh, PE is Senior Engineer at The Community Environmental Center in Long Island City, NY. He can be reached at Eduardo Guerra was an Energy Engineer at CEC and is now at Siemens. He can be reached at Many thanks to NYSERDA for funding the work described here under the Assisted Multifamily Program and to Nancy Ralph for many useful suggestions. All the opinions are our own and are not necessarily shared by either CEC or NYSERDA.


Sallan | News and Views | Snapshot | Richard Leigh, P.E. & Eduardo Guerra | Comments

February 4, 2007 :: Readers weigh in.

Michael Bobker
As a long-time energy practitioner in NYC multifamily housing, I would like to validate Richard Leigh's case study findings. Although our industry does not often enough rigorously document savings results, the range that he finds from "beyond expectation" to "dismal" is probably about right. Finding such a range of results with similar technology applied, tells us something important: that the potential for energy efficiency is very real but is not to be achieved solely by a "technical fix."

There are critical behavioral dimensions that must be addressed before, during, and after installation of equipment. If key behaviors are not changed, then the technical-fix investment will under-perform, perhaps even be wasted. Richard's case study provides an excellent example of this. Published studies by the Texas A&M Energy System Lab of a large sample of retrofitted public buildings show quite conclusively that training and information feedback to operators makes a difference to long-term system performance and savings. The interesting implication of this finding is that some portion of the savings may even be achievable just through behavioral change.

It is all-too-common today for the projected savings of new systems to be accepted as the actual outcome. The fallacy of this must be recognized and taken into account by program design. We'd like to think that the technical-fix installation, substituting capital for energy, is the end of the story but it is not. Knowledge and skilled labor must also be applied, informed long-term by actual performance data. The costs of training, education and performance monitoring cannot be ignored in our energy-saving calculation.

(The author is involved in building performance monitoring and continuing education of building operators through the CUNY Building Performance Lab.)

Adam Hinge
For another evidence rich report on energy efficiency in high performance buildings, here's an analysis prepared for the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.


Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air

A new report documents the ExxonMobil disinformation campaign about the causes of global warming. Just inhale

Giant Steps

New York joins the A list of sustainable cities in January 2007 as it puts Local Law 86, its high performance "green" building statute, into effect. But as with many things, the devil's in the details and many of those details should be in the rules now undergoing public review. Given the practical importance of these rules, in February 2006, the Sallan Foundation convened the first of many meetings of the Local Law 86 Roundtable. The Roundtable assembled experts and advocates who shared their ideas, learned from each other and conveyed to the Bloomberg Administration both support for the new law and advice on how to make a success of something so new and so ambitious. As underlined in my recent testimony on these rules, "Roll out of Local Law 86 will be the first major deliverable in Mayor Bloomberg's sustainable development initiative, "planyc", and, it's the only part of his initiative that has the force of law."

In light of our high hopes for making high performance building the "new normal", this edition of Torchlight presents on-the-record testimony made by Roundtable participants on January 2, 2007 about Local Law 86's proposed rules. Given the high stakes involved in succeeding, it is my hope that this testimony informs and inspires sustained attention to the rollout of "planyc".

Nancy Anderson
Good Afternoon. I am Nancy Anderson, Executive Director of the Sallan Foundation, whose mission is advancing useful knowledge for a greener city. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments about the Local Law 86 draft rules.

Roll out of Local Law 86 will be the first major deliverable in Mayor Bloomberg’s sustainable development initiative, “planyc” and, it’s the only part of his initiative that has the force of law. As such, all eyes will be on the impact and efficacy of this statute in the New Year and for years to come.

It is important to state on the record that these draft rules offer a generally robust framework for implementing Local Law 86. Let me point to three examples of this strength – which could be made even stronger with certain additions to the final rules. First, although the Local Law 86 definition of the term “capital project” is incorporated by reference in the draft regulations, it should be expanded in the final rule to clarify that the law covers a broad class of City funded projects where monies come from the City treasury but originate with State or Federal sources. The definition of “capital project” should also clarify that the law covers all City agencies and entities, including the City’s Economic Development Corporation, units of the Mayor’s Office and the offices of the five Borough Presidents.

Second, it is my understanding that the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards governing City-funded construction and renovation will be synchronized with LEED updates through new rule making by the Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination (OEC). Such coordination is essential for making Local Law 86 a living document in a fast-evolving arena. Language in Section 10-02 of the regulations should be sharpened to clarify this process. Third, responsibility for implementation, administration and oversight is properly centralized directly in OEC. Given that many government and non-government entities will be called on to ensure the success of this local law, creation of a responsibility center is good management.

Let me turn now to the exemption criteria as a means to support successful implementation. Section 10-07 of the draft rules sets forth the authority of OEC to grant exemptions from the provisions of Local Law 86. As drafted, the exemption language sets forth broad but vague and inadequate criteria. Here are four suggestions for establishing a more workable standard. First, No more than 10% of exemptions granted by OEC in any one fiscal year may be for projects in any one borough that would otherwise have to be built to LEED or LEED equivalent standards. Adoption of such language would insure that all boroughs equal benefit equally from the impact of LL 86. Second, no project designed to achieve LEED certification or an equivalent standard shall be exempted by OEC from LL 86 construction or renovation requirements. This provision shall also apply to any LEED certification or equivalent standard projects that are part of any mixed-use projects.

Third, any request by a City agency or other entity for an exemption as outlined in section 10-04 of this chapter, and all explanations and supporting documentation submitted as part of that request by such City agency or entity, shall be published on the OEC website 90 days prior to the issuance of a decision by OEC about whether to grant such exemption. The public shall have 45 days from this publication date to submit comments on the proposed exemption to OEC These comments shall become part of the public record and shall be included in OEC’s final decision about any exemption request. Each final decision shall be published on the OEC website five days prior to the granting of any exemption.

Fourth, to maximize compliance with Local Law 86 by all City agencies and entities that receive funds from the City treasury, any City agency or entity that files no exemption requests over a three year period shall receive in their budgets 65% of the savings accrued from lower use of fuel and electric over that time period. Non-government entities shall be granted a one-time real property tax waiver equivalent to 65% of the savings accrued from lower use of fuel and electric over that time period. Records of such savings shall be submitted in writing to OEM and OEM shall use its discretion in making the decisions whether to grant such funds or waivers in part or in whole. These four proposals are in the spirit of the language in Section 224.1(h) of Local Law 86, which require the Mayor to submit an annual report to the City council on granted exemptions.

Finally, let me turn to the Annual Report provisions found in Section 10-06(b)(2) of the draft rules. Section 3 of Local Law 86 sets forth certain categories of information that must be provided in the annual report written by OEC. They include “a list and brief description, including square footage and total cost, of any capital project” subject to the law as well as the estimated level of covered projects’ LEED certification. The statutory language also requires “an assessment of health, environmental and energy-related benefits achieved” in addition to other data on energy efficiency investments and payback times.

The public disclosure, analysis, assessment and planning functions of the Local Law 86 Annual Report would be improved with the stipulation of broader and deeper set of reporting requirements in the final rule. In May 2006, at the request of the Mayor’s Office, the Local Law 86 Roundtable convened by the Sallan Foundation prepared and submitted a set of recommendations about how to achieve these purposes. Among the highlights of the Roundtable’s recommendations were that the report should establish a uniform reporting framework consisting of milestones that apply to all agencies and entities covered by the law. This framework would fulfill two functions of value both to the government and the public. First, it would clarify what specific LEED or LEED equivalent goals that milestones are intended to meet (ex: projected fuel savings or use of mass transit by City employee building occupants.). Second, over time such a reporting framework could provide comparable quantitative data sets about how these milestones are being met. In turn, this would allow for a pattern analysis based on succeeding annual reports. Today, I am submitting this recommendations document as part of my testimony and I urge OEM to adopt its approach as part of its final rulemaking.

Stephen Boese, Healthy Schools Network
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to offer our comments regarding the proposed rules for green building standards for New York City , implementing Local Law 86. Healthy Schools Network is a national children’s environmental health advocacy organization with roots in New York City and New York State. Our work in green design for schools begins with our advocacy for healthy and safe schools for all school children. The full array of laudable green design benefits, including energy efficiency, conservation of resources and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions must also be integrated with design benefits that promote improved children’s health, enhances children’s learning and provides a quality learning environment for children and school staff.

We support Local Law 86 because it represents a step in the right direction for promoting healthy and high performance school design. Local Law 86 presents a tremendous opportunity for the New York City Education Department and the New York City School Construction Authority to work together with the administration to develop child centered green designed schools that would facilitate the critically important goals of
• improving children’s academic achievement,
• improving children’s health,
• reducing the impact of the city’s terrible asthma epidemic on our city’s children,
all of which can be accomplished while saving resources for the city.

Schools also represent the biggest component of Local Law 86. New York is now implementing a funded $13 billion school construction plan and the impending resolution of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit promise additional school capital funds. In addition, public schools are a part of every community and neighborhood in the city. And of course, schools are where we keep our children everyday. For six hours or more everyday, children breathe the air in their school. They live and learn in the classrooms and hallways. The school not only has a direct impact on their health and ability to learn, but the overall environment of the school itself “teaches” important lessons to the students about the value of education, the city’s commitment to their health and well being. A healthy and high performance school also teaches students about the value of environmental stewardship, and serves as a valuable reinforcer of the value of environmental stewardship in communities throughout the city and for future generations. Schools are central to the City’s sustainability goals, as well as to the success of Local Law 86.

The law states that schools must meet LEED certification standards. We have long held that this is a step in the right direction, yet Local Law 86 also represents an excellent opportunity for the city to surpass LEED certification standards and make some potentially profound steps towards improving the lives of children, schools, education, and the neighborhoods and communities of our city. We have advocated for New York City schools to meet instead the NY-CHPS standard, a child focused high performance school design guideline developed by NYSERDA and the New York State Education Department.

All of which makes us question why there is so little in the City’s proposed guidelines regarding schools, school children and the potential benefits of healthy and high performance green design. We cannot at this point comment as to whether the planned impact of Local Law 86 is supportive of children’s health, learning and well being because there is no detail in the proposed guidelines regarding how schools will comply with the new law. We understand the School Construction Authority has been conducting an extensive process to develop their own school design guidelines to comply with the new law. We have further found that this process has been closed, without the opportunity for public comment or input. The law may permit a closed process for schools. However, for all the reasons outlines above, school design is a community issue, with implications for public health, community development and neighborhood sustainability. If any component of Local Law 86 implementation warrants public input, then certainly schools should be at the top of the list.

We urge the administration to make public the SCA school design guidelines, and to provide an opportunity for community input. Green schools have succeeded where all members of the school community have offered their input on the use, benefits and functionality of the school. Top-down central planning such as is now being demonstrated by the SCA and the administration is not conducive to quality high performance school design. We therefore urge the SCA and the administration to
• publicly disclose their school high performance design guidelines,
• provide ample opportunity for community input, and
• provide an opportunity for technical review by high performance design experts.
• The SCA should also provide a side-by-side spreadsheet style analysis of their green design criteria in comparison to LEED and NY-CHPS to facilitate understanding of their proposal.

We of course hope that the SCA’s plan for complying with Local Law 86 is in fact child centered and focused on children and all building occupants, and that they are aiming to achieve a healthy and high performance design template that will promote the highest ideals of green and high performance school design. However, a critically important component to the high performance school design process is community input. We hope that a draft of the planned SCA high performance school design guidelines will soon be made available for public comment. We welcome the opportunity to work constructively with the SCA and the administration to achieve the best possible high performance design guideline that will not only meet the needs of children and educators throughout the city, but also serve as a national model of community influenced green design for schools in a complex urban environment.

Stephan Chenault, Sierra Club, New York City Group
The Sierra Club, New York City Group, is supportive of the City of New York’s growing commitment toward environmentally sound and healthy building design and construction. In this regards, Local Law 86 and its adoption of LEED certification standards is a welcome step forward.

In addition, the Sierra Club urges the City of New York to ensure the implementation of LL86 with LEED standards for Material and Resources, specifically the following:

MR Credit 5.1 and 5.2: Regional Materials;
MR Credit 6: Rapidly Renewable Materials; and,
MR Credit 7: Certified Wood.

These measures are essential to ensure the City of New York contributes to the conservation of natural resources, including forests, which are of invaluable ecological, cultural, and economic importance. The Forest Stewardship Council, an international certification program supported by environmental, labor, and human rights groups across the globe, is currently the only accrediting body that meets the high standards to protect these ecological, human rights, and economic values. LEED standards call for the use of Forest Stewardship Council certified wood and it is essential that this FSC standard remain intact in LL86 implementation. In addition, the regional materials credits would support the local economy and businesses. Thank you for your attention to these recommendations.

Chris Garvin, Cook + Fox
Thank you for meeting with me, as part of the LL86 Roundtable, last week to discuss the implementation rules for Local Law 86. It was an informative meeting and I would like to commend your office’s work on developing the draft rules.

The following are suggestions that we have developed that we believe would improve the rules and the process of their implementation:

1. Under the definition for ‘substantial reconstruction’, the phase ‘the building’s floor area’ should be expanded to ‘the building’s floor area of the city controlled portion of the building’ in order to address significant renovation of leased space in large buildings. In addition, there may need to be a minimum square footage that is attached to the definition to clarify the applicability. This would also address the issue of multi-use buildings in which the city funding is for only a portion of the overall building.
2. Under the definition for ‘reporting form’, the requirements should be more specific in order to give the OEC more data from which to understand the values of each project. Specifically, aligning the reporting requirements to the issues raised by the Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, specifically CO2 emissions. In general, basic building data (area, floor size, use type(s)), mechanical system type, fuel type, LEED checklist (when applicable), energy reduction calculations, and water reduction calculations. This will allow the City to quickly and easily measure progress toward meeting the City’s Sustainability goals.
3. Regarding ‘an alternative, not less stringent, green building standard’, in order to meet this requirement any alternative standard must maintain the third-party verification protocols that occurs with the LEED programs in order to be equivalent. Any other type of standard would be seen as an attempt to subvert the intent of the law.
4. Under the ‘Statement of Basis and Purpose’, second paragraph, an additional power and duties of the Director of the OEC should be “updating the green building standard to the most up-to-date version as deemed appropriate and that all ‘equal’ standards are also updated accordingly.”
5. The current draft rules reference LEED v2.1 for the energy calculation methodology, to reduce confusion and ease implementation this should be revised to reference LEED v.2.2 and as subsequently amended.
6. Under section 10-07 Exemptions, to insure equity and appropriateness of exemptions the City needs to improve the exemption policy by requiring cost analysis and life cycle analysis to any project requesting exemption in order to provide the Director of the OEC with legitimate (third party verified) data from which to make decisions.
7. The City must implement a large scale educational program to communicate the requirements and develop the skills needed to fulfill the promise of Local Law 86. Both municipal employees at all affected agencies and municipal vendors and contractors need to be acting in concert with the spirit of the law for it to truly succeed.
8. In the larger context, it is urgent that the City Council and Mayor move forward with legislation that requires ALL new construction and substantial renovations in the City meet LEED requirements similar to the recently passed Washing DC legislation. Details of the legislation are available at:

Personally, I am proud of the City Council and Mayor’s Office for developing this legislation and hope that the implementation throughout all of the City Agencies is as successful as possible. We look forward to working on future legislation that is even more ambitious to transform the entire building industry in New York City in to an wold-class example of Sustainability.

Eva Hanhardt, Pratt Institute
My name is Eva Hanhardt and I am an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Planning and the Coordinator of the Environmental Systems Management Program at the Pratt Institute Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments about the Local Law 86 draft rules.

I want to commend the Bloomberg Administration for its commitment to the successful implementation Local Law 86. which will be one of the first major deliverables in Mayor Bloomberg’s sustainable development initiative. As a Professor of Planning, I am particularly pleased that implementation of plans for “green” energy efficient high performance development will be supported with the force of law.

Indeed, the draft rules offer an excellent framework for implementing Local Law 86. There are several particular areas, however, where I feel additional clarification would improve their effectiveness.

1) In respect to §10-07 - Exemptions - It would be extremely important to have some identification of findings that the Director of the Office of Environmental Coordination would be using in determining “, in his or her sole discretion, such exemption is necessary in the public interest.” Such a clarification would serve to make the process more transparent and predictable for all concerned – agencies as well as the general public. Examples of findings can already be found in considering variances at the Board of Standards and Appeals and special permits at City Planning.

2) The draft rules state that “Requests for exemption, including an explanation of the reason for such request and supporting documentation, shall be submitted to the Office of Environmental Coordination as soon as is practicable after the agency becomes aware of the necessity for such exemption” The rules should make it clear how the public can have access to the requests for exemption including the stated reasons and the supporting documentation.

3) The Office of Environmental Coordination is responsible for “publishing findings, where necessary, on whether proposed green buildings standards are not less stringent than the applicable Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) standard.” It is important that these published findings are also made available to the public in a timely and relevant manner.

4) Finally, in determining the green building standards ratings, the City should make every effort to take advantage of the economic and job development potential for New York City and New York State in using locally produced “green” materials and products – including FSC certified wood. The City should work with the State to modify any State laws or regulations which currently make this difficult.

Again, I want to commend the Bloomberg Administration for its efforts and look forward to seeing New York become the “greenest” and most sustainable city in America.

Thank you.

Tanu Kumar, New York Industrial Retention Network
Thank you. I am Tanu Kumar, Director of Business Services for the New York Industrial Retention Network and responsible for implementation of NYIRN’s Green Manufacturing Initiative to help New York manufacturers capitalize on the growing market for green products. NYIRN is a citywide economic development organization that works with more than 400 manufacturers each year to promote both blue-collar jobs and sustainable development.

Our commitment to sustainable development grows out of the recognition that promoting green business practices is in the best economic interest of both the individual businesses and the City as a whole. Increased construction of high-performance energy efficient buildings by private developers has already sparked the growth of green manufacturing, i.e. the making of products that cut energy consumption, promote a healthy environment or otherwise reduce the environmental footprint left after production and use. 71% of the companies participating in a recent study by NYIRN and ITAC reported that their clients were interested in green products.

NYIRN has launched two initiatives, funded in part by the City Council and the Mayor’s Office, to help companies capitalize on these emerging markets and create jobs. NYIRN’s North Brooklyn Energy Grant Program has helped 22 manufacturers reduce energy consumption and costs, and green their operations. The Green Manufacturing Initiative, mentioned above, builds relationships between architects, developers and other potential buyers in the City’s real estate community with local manufacturers of green products who tend to be small companies that otherwise cannot reach this market. Both programs help prepare New York City manufacturers to participate in implementing and benefiting from Local Law 86.

The City Council’s passage of Local Law 86 was a landmark in moving the City toward sustainability. It is clear that part of the Council’s intent in passing LL 86 was to stimulate new jobs in local green manufacturing. The LEED standards referred to in the local law include a preference for the purchase of locally produced materials and products. The intent behind this preference is to reduce energy consumed in transportation, create markets for recycled materials and foster local green development.

However, it is not clear that the draft rules allow the City to realize the Council’s intent and take full advantage of the potential of Local Law 86. The draft rules omit any provisions to allow the City to specify the purchase of local materials because of possible conflicts with NYS Municipal Law. State law requires the award of contracts to the lowest responsible bidder to potentially avoid so-called “social benefit” goals. Apparently, adding local preference into the procurement process has been interpreted as a “social benefit.”

This prohibition obviously undermines both the environmental and economic goals of Local Law 86, and diminishes the impact of this law on New York’s long-term sustainability initiatives.

These potential restrictions are based upon a section of the NYS Municipal Law that does not clearly apply to local procurement and other bidding-related issues within Local Law 86. The prohibition that a city cannot consider the “social benefits” of products is only an interpretation of the State Law, and one that has been overlooked by other NYS municipalities when purchasing renewable energy and locally produced farm products.

Local Law 86 mandates that certain City-funded construction projects meet the USGBC’s LEED Silver or similar standards for green building. New York companies have a particular competitive advantage in this green building market since the LEED standards award points to buildings that use a certain amount of locally grown and/or manufactured materials and products. The rationale behind the local procurement preference point is threefold: to cut down on energy consumed in transportation; to employ and create markets for recycled materials; and to strengthen local economies.

In conclusion, we urge the City to interpret State law to allow a procurement preference pursuant to Local Law 86. Failing that, representatives from the business community and labor and environmental organizations have all indicated their support if necessary for a change in State law to carve out an exception to the NYS Municipal Law, to allow the City to realize the full benefits that should result from its commitment to sustainable development. I strongly urge you to consider the implications of the current draft rules for local economic growth, and if necessary to work with us to advocate for change at the State level that would benefit the long-term sustainability for New York City.

Carol Rosenfeld, Environmental Defense & Natural Resources Defense Council
Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to comment today. My name is Carol Rosenfeld and I am a Research Fellow in the Living Cities Program at Environmental Defense. Environmental Defense is a national non-profit environmental organization, headquartered in New York City, with 400,000 members around the country and over 50,000 members and activists in New York. The Living Cities program at Environmental Defense is dedicated to practical solutions that secure clean air, water and lands in urban areas like New York. My testimony today is on behalf of Environmental Defense as well as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a national non-profit environmental organization headquartered in New York City, with more than 500,000 members around the country and more than 50,000 members in New York, and uses law and science to protect the planet's wildlife and wild places and to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all living things. Both Environmental Defense and NRDC strongly supported the passage of New York City’s green buildings law, Local Law 86, in 2005.

Even without government mandates and incentives, building green makes good sense. Owners, developers, builders and tenants of sustainable developments often cite the tangible benefits they receive in terms of energy savings from lower heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting costs, lower maintenance effort and costs, and reduced water usage. For example, hundreds of green buildings have cut energy use by more than 25%. Other benefits include higher worker productivity with lower absenteeism and turnover, improved health and a greater sense of well-being, reduced neighborhood noise and light pollution, and improved behavior in institutional settings. There are also broader social benefits, such as smaller streams of solid waste and water, lower use of fossil fuels and the accompanying production of global warming gases, reduced air, water and ground pollution, and preservation of biodiversity.

For these reasons, we fully support the spirit of Local Law 86 and the Proposed Rules being commented on today. There are just four areas on which we are commenting: the process for allowing exemptions to the law, the process for setting an alternative standard to LEED, the annual reporting requirements, and the importance of promoting sustainable procurement practices.

1. Exemption. Currently, the Rules state (Section 10-07) that the Office of Environmental Coordination (OEC), as a delegate of the Mayor, may exempt projects not exceeding 20% of the capital dollars that fall under Local Law 86 if in his or her opinion an exemption is “in the public interest.” Reasons for requesting an exemption and explanatory documents must be submitted to the OEC for review. To ensure that as few projects are exempted as possible, the criteria for exemptions need to be narrower than this. New green building legislation in the District of Columbia, for example, holds that exemptions may be granted only if “circumstances exist that make it a hardship or infeasible” for a project to be a green building, such as if green building materials are unavailable or if a certain green building requirement is incompatible with current building standards. We suggest either non-vested third party or public review of exemptions to determine if such exemptions are truly in the public interest. Since there is such a strong public interest in having green buildings, as described above, any projects applying for exemption would need to prove that they truly could not possibly meet the green building standards. Additionally, this review could ensure that any exempt projects are equally distributed among the boroughs, so that each borough is able to benefit from Local Law 86. In its annual report, OEC should respond to these reviews and include a justification of its final decision about approving or disapproving each exemption.

Additionally, it is not clear from the regulations how Local Law 86 applies to mixed-use buildings or buildings where the City leases space. OEC needs to clarify what happens in these instances. We encourage OEC to include mixed-use and leased buildings under Local Law 86, and to have the cost of a given capital project govern the level of these buildings’ inclusion.

2. Alternative Standard to LEED. Local Law 86, as incorporated into the City Charter, provides that qualifying capital projects “shall be designed and constructed to comply with green building standards not less stringent than the standards prescribed for buildings designed in accordance with the LEED green building rating system….” The law provides that “[i]f the mayor elects to utilize green building standards other than the LEED green building rating system, the mayor shall publish findings demonstrating that such other green building standards are not less stringent than the LEED standards described above….” The City’s proposed rules briefly reference that the Office of Environmental Coordination may approve “an alternative, not less stringent, green building standard,” but do not provide a process for how any such alternatives can be developed or approved. We recommend that the City, at minimum, provide that a panel of experts including architects, green building developers and environmentalists should review and comment on any proposal for an alternative standard, and also that a public comment period be provided on any proposal for an alternative standard.

3. Annual Report. Section 3 of Local Law 86 describes the annual report that must be written by OEC. While the reporting requirements described in this section are adequate, they could be expanded to improve the information available about the impact of Local Law 86. The annual reports can be crafted in such a way that they serve as a resource for City agencies and others looking to build green buildings. As part of the Local Law 86 Roundtable, we submitted a document detailing our recommendations for strengthening the annual reporting requirements. These include creating a baseline of indicators across city buildings of the type affected by the law such as energy consumption, water use, purchases of recycled construction materials, etc. A standard reporting framework for city agencies could be used to re-collect this information each year. The annual report could then be a demonstration of the City-wide savings and environmental benefits generated by Local Law 86. This methodology would also allow for the development of City-wide goals related to green buildings, such as energy savings targets and stormwater runoff reductions. We are attaching excerpts from the Local Law 86 Roundtable memo with further suggestions to this testimony.

4. Sustainable Procurement. Local Law 86 and its implementing regulations provide an important boost to promoting green building in New York City, but there is much more that the City can and should do to promote sustainable development and greater investment in green building. An important next step for the City should be to incent greater use of green products in City buildings, such as sustainable wood, renewable energy and locally-procured materials. We urge the City to review its procurement policies to ensure that the City leads by example through purchasing green products whenever possible. We understand that the City has a concern that it may not be possible to specify certain green building requirements in an RFP due to constraints imposed by the procurement requirements of the New York State General Municipal Law. However, we believe that the City’s reading of this law may be unnecessarily restrictive and that the competitive bidding of green products may well be possible under existing law. As part of the Mayor’s Sustainability Initiative, we urge the City to review its ability to require the procurement of green products and to identify with the Sustainability Advisory Board and other stakeholders any perceived legal or practical barriers to green product procurement that may exist and how best to remove them. We also urge OEC to help agencies to generally specify just the desired green building rating in their specifications, and then have these agencies work with contractors to fulfill these three important criteria as part of the larger set of green building standards that must be met. This approach was used successfully in the Bronx Library Center.

At the Mayor’s recent speech on his new sustainability plan for the city, he said, “[I]t is up to us to look ahead, as earlier generations did, and to begin planning for a better, stronger, and more sustainable future for our children, and for theirs.” We see Local Law 86 as the first step toward achieving this vision, and we hope to see a broader version of the law encompassing private development down the line.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts and opinions on the Local Law 86 regulations. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Zoilo Torres, New York City Apollo Alliance
Ladies and gentlemen of the NYC’s Office of Environmental Coordination:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules governing green building standards for the implementation of Local Law 86.

My name is Zoilo Torres, Campaign Director for the New York City Apollo Alliance—a coalition of labor unions, business, community-based organizations, educators, and environmental justice organizations convened by the Urban Agenda. We would like to point out that the NYC Apollo Alliance worked diligently to get Local Law 86 enacted and look to its implementation with great anticipation.
We found the proposed rules governing green building standards to be encompassing of key areas of the law, and fairly comprehensive. The rules define a green building rating system. They include clarifying definitions. The rules outline the appropriate occupancy groups, the specific project types, and city and city-funded capital projects to which the requirements apply. The rules summarize building standards; set energy and water cost reduction targets, and provide methodologies and schedules for calculating cost savings. They set thresholds and standards for US Green Building Council certification, reporting procedures, and the process for Mayoral exemptions of projects.
Many will or have presented comments on the mentioned elements of the rules. We will like to address three areas of concern: The Mayor’s “sole” discretion to exempt projects “in the public interest,” the issue of maintenance as a standard in green construction and building renovation, and priority targets for building renovations and retrofitting.

The rules should more clearly define the phrase “in the public interest,” for it is used in connection to the Mayor having “sole discretion” to exempt projects from the building standards we are currently discussing. The absolute nature of the term “sole discretion” is especially unsettling in light of the economic and public health implication such exemptions have for NYC’s population.
Local Law 86 clearly established that the city own approximately 1, 300 buildings, and leases over 12.8 million square feet of office space. The legislation will affect some $12 billion in construction over the city’s ten year capital plan.

Local Law 86 also states that buildings, particularly city own buildings, are responsible for enormous consumption of energy, cause widespread pollution and water use, and significantly impact on the health of the occupants and worker productivity. However, remedial measures contained in Local Law 86 and implemented by the proposed rules and standards can go a long way in not only correcting our current course toward environmental degradation, but can also encourage market transformations in a manner that will stimulate the creation of green collar jobs for our underemployed. The potential ramifications of future Mayoral project exemptions merit greater public accountability and not sole Mayoral discretion. A public review process should be included in reporting procedures called for by the rules. This will ensure that the work of greening our city proceeds unhampered by compromised interests.

Next on the green agenda to be sure, is extending green building requirements to the private development review process as was done in Boston this past December.
Green building standards should also speak to building maintenance as this is part of the renovation and upgrading process of city own buildings. For this to be feasible, new skills will have to be acquired by glaziers, masons, and carpenters. There will be a heighten demand for building maintenance people, electrical workers, plumbers and pipe fitters. Solar panel and heating and ventilation installers will have to be trained in new green technologies, including energy auditors to ensure the systems function and continue to function properly. Standards should be drawn against the backdrop of future workforce and economic development goals, which are included in Local Law 86 as well.

Finally, the sheer numbers of city own buildings in our city behoove us to begin the work by focusing on specific priority buildings. We in the NYC Apollo have launched a campaign to retrofit 100 largest energy-consuming buildings. We understand that the Department of City-wide Administrative Services through its Office of Energy Conservation has audited and identified almost 200 buildings that meet the mentioned criteria. Living up to an energy conservation and a renewable energy future, should begin by correcting its biggest offenders.
The NYC Apollo Alliance is ready to work with your office in arriving at a set of building rules and standards that effectively implement the law on which the rules are grounded, and help bring the city closer to achieving a future of sustainable development.

Thank you.

Shine On

Things are looking bright for California's Solar Initiative. Click here

January 03, 2007

Hot Times Down Under

Not just koalas will be hot under the collar about the news that Australian temperatures are climbing fast. G'day Mate

Making Pomises & Keeping Them

Goldman Sachs has awarded $2.3 million for its first round of climate change research grants. Learn more

EU ETS: An Introduction

Learn your ABC's about the EU ETS What's that?