So why should we care about CAIR or the NOx BTP? The NOx BTP has effectively reduced NOx emissions by 74% between 1990 and 2006 [1]. The ozone season NOx emissions have dropped from 1.86 million tons in 1990 to 491 thousand tons in 2006. During the same period, the 8-hour average ozone concentration decreased across all states participating in the program with significant reductions occurring in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia [1]. While there remain areas that are not in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard, most areas within the NOx BTP have shown improvement suggesting that there is a benefit to implementing such a program whether the CAIR ultimately is accepted or the NOx BTP is extended.

Reference:
[1] US EPA. Office of Air and Radiation. NOx Budget Trade Program: 2006 Program Compliance and Environmental Results. EPA-430-R-07-009. 2007.

The air pollution index (API) indicates air quality for SO2, NO2, and PM10 (particulate matter that is 10 micrometers in diameter or less). The API cannot be directly compared to other air quality indices from other locations. The USA and Canada both use AQI, air quality index, which is similar to API but the indices are set according to different formulas based upon concentration. Hong Kong uses a different API, which can cause confusion when comparing the air quality of the two cities. While the indices cannot be compared, each index is used to evaluate when the air quality is safe or dangerous to public health according the location’s guidelines. The API for Beijing has the following ratings:

Generally, an AQI or API is set such that ratings of 100 or below are safe while ratings above 100 may be dangerous to at least some of the population. However, the formulas vary, and the specific concentration of that threshold varies according to the country or location where the index is used.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has established guidelines according to concentration, which is much more straightforward. Using concentration allows for comparison of air quality across borders. However, even the standards issued by the WHO are not standardized across pollutants (in time) as you can see below.

Source: WHO. 2006. WHO Air Quality Guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. WHO/SDE/PHE/OEH/06.02

While we can now view daily air quality in Beijing, where within the city the data is taken, and the proximity of the sampling stations to the Olympic venues, we are not able to compare it to WHO standards. Nevertheless, this is still pretty neat.

What I found most interesting were the efforts to green research laboratories. Genzyme is presently seeking Silver LEED accreditation for its research laboratory in Framingham, Massachusetts and has a proposed research building in Beijing, China. Much of the work in the Framingham laboratory focused on lighting and daylighting, radiant heating and cooling, and a highly reflective roof. One of the challenges with laboratories is the added energy expense of once-through air systems. Achieving LEED standards for laboratories can be more difficult than standard commercial buildings as laboratory buildings are more energy and water intensive (the average wet lab uses five times as much water and energy as a typical office building per square foot).

One of the facts that was mentioned multiple times during the hearing is that building stock represents 40% of total US greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce emissions by 60-80% by 2050, improvements in building efficiency must be made. The committee recognizes that sizable reductions can be made through improved building energy efficiency. Last year the committee and the House passed a new building code to states to advance energy efficiency, but the legislation was stopped by Senate action. The witnesses spoke of several different programs and efforts to formulate a national building energy efficiency policy. The challenge appears to be to create incentives to further energy efficiency without setting standards that are unachievable or of limited use depending upon the location of a building project.

Here are a few of programs and efforts that were mentioned in the hearing:
The 30% solution: The Energy Efficient Codes Coalition has launched a campaign to improve residential energy efficiency standards by 30% from the 2006 international energy code standards. In September, this will be decided at the International Code Council Annual Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The 30% solution is designed to be achievable, affordable, and enforceable. This is the most promising effort for enforceable change in building construction at the moment, but we’ll see where this stands in two months time.

“Beyond code”: This was another often used phrase yesterday. This refers to voluntary program such as EnergyStar. I’ve mentioned EnergyStar before, but another source for energy efficiency ideas is EnergySavers, which provides energy information and tips from DOE, EPA, and HUD.

With representatives talking about efficiency targets and executive agencies and departments collaborating, change is certainly coming. Who knew that “state of the shelf” technologies could be so exciting?

So how does $4.50 per square foot compare with the cost of a green roof? In our study on the costs and benefits of extensive green roof systems, which included costs to install the conventional components in addition to the green components, we found that 4 inch systems were on average $22 per square foot. An intensive system would certainly cost more, and there are certainly variations in this price. Assuming this price per square foot, the incentive covers about 20% of the cost. By reducing the upfront cost with an incentive, the time required for a return on investment (ROI) is reduced considerably. Considering only energy savings and a reduced stormwater fee, typically the average green roof takes 20 years before ROI can be reached. With the additional incentive, this can reduce the time required for an average roof to 12 years. Not a bad deal.

Simply hired, an online job search service and aggregator, provides data on the number of postings over time with specific terms. While this is only as good as the aggregator and doesn’t reflect hiring, I found the results interesting. I looked at four general terms within job postings: sustainability, environmental engineer, environmental scientist, and green building. The first and last terms fit into the growing “green collar jobs” while the middle two are more traditional job areas for environmentally minded folk. What I found interesting is that while those “green collar jobs” are growing (by 47% for “sustainability” and 16% for “green building”), they represent a fraction of jobs in the sector. What is more disconcerting is that the general trend since November of 2006 in posts for environmental engineer and environmental science decreases by by 37% and 42% respectively. The postings for these positions are ten times the number of those with sustainability or green building in them. With that in mind, while “green collar jobs” are growing, those traditional environmental job postings are disappearing at an alarming rate. Where’s a bull when you need one?

Sustainability, Environmental Engineer, Green Building, Environmental Science trends

Sustainability jobs | Environmental Engineer jobs | Green Building jobs | Environmental Science jobs

1. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has taken significant efforts to reduce energy and water consumption through water conservation and recycling programs. Their efforts are summarized in a 2007 report entitled
From Watts to Water.

2. With climate change affecting the frequency and magnitude of storm events, JP Morgan has recently published a guide to evaluating corporate risk with a focus on water. The report, Watching Water, provides tools for assessing impacts on companies due to decreased water quantity and quality.

3. The Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme (CEEQUAL) is an awards scheme for acknowledging excellent environmental quality on civil projects. CEEQUAL was developed in the UK and is based upon a points system.

4. The Pacific Institute has developed two water to air models. These models provide information on the energy and air quality effects of water management projects in urban and agricultural water districts.

Andrew Turner of HighEarthOrbit and Mapufacture, Inc blogged about the state map a couple of days ago. He converted the data into a KML file, which is available from the post for those who wish to create their own map from the data. He developed a revised map based upon the data. This revised map easily sorts the buildings according to LEED certified buildings, buildings pending LEED certification, an other category, and those buildings under 10,000 square feet.

The first speaker, Nancy Stoner of that Natural Resources Defense Council, presented a summary and update from the 2006 NRDC report, Rooftops to Rivers: Greening Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows. I enjoyed the definition of green infrastructure that she presented:

“Green infrastructure uses soil and vegetation in urban and suburban areas to manage and treat precipitation naturally rather than collecting it in pipes.”

The majority of Stoner’s talk focused on the efforts to promote green infrastructure technologies by cities. Cities that were highlighted in the talk include Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, New York, and Washington, DC.

Jennifer Malloy from EPA’s water quality permitting program stated that EPA supports green infrastructure (as noted in a previous post). To effectively tackle stormwater management and improve our surface waters, Malloy encouraged the idea of “rain as a resource, not a waste.” This may be apparent to gardeners, but this is a radical idea to those involved in large-scale stormwater infrastructure projects.

Green infrastructure is easy to adopt in eastern states, but under western “use it or lose it” water law, adoption is more complicated. Water that is not immediately used cannot be retained for future used. However, prior to development, a greater percentage of rainfall infiltrated the ground and a smaller percentage ran off to surface waters. Urbanization has shifted this balance sending more water downstream. Green infrastructure could serve as means of restoring this balance, but this depends upon how the laws are written in western states. Will the courts be determining the fate of green infrastructure?

Manfred Kohler spoke on studies evaluating installation using vegetated turf mats versus cuttings. His study also showed effects from sun or shade exposure although this was not the focus. Cuttings of sedum outperformed cuttings of grasses due to the slower growth rate of grasses. Grasses became established with the second year. While mats outperform cuttings in the first year, cuttings provide a greater diversity of plant species. It was observed that the grasses did better on the north facing roof while sedum did better on the south facing roof.

In a separate session, strategies were discussed for creating and maintaining successful green roofs in practice. Unfortunately, the talk was not included in the conference program, and I did not catch the speaker’s name although she’s worked on a number of green roof projects in the DC-Baltimore area. She showed a variety of roof “failures” and her investigations to determine the source of the failure. Wind affected several of her projects through scouring and increasing rates of evaporation. Excessive sun and shade also proved disastrous when plant selection and irrigation schedules were not compatible with the soil media depth and roof’s orientation. While this certainly is a fair challenge for the landscape architect or horticulturist, I also feel that there is a role for the engineer. Of course speaking from the hammer’s perspective, things can only improve upon hammering. Regardless of my bias, engineers can determine from location and building orientation the effects on the rate of evapotranspiration from wind and sun/shade exposure, which would assist in plant selection.