Mayor Reed’s proposal for green building mandates would make San Jose’s policy the most advanced in California, according to the article by Erin Sherbert in this week’s Metro. The mandates would apply to commercial as well as residential developments. Reed wants to create a renewable-energy-powered San Jose that will reduce consumption in the city by half within the next two decades. Since the average green building saves 50 percent in energy usage, and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent and solid waste by 70 percent, it is an attainable goal.
The mayor recognizes that the cost of converting existing homes to green energy can be expensive. The city has already put new policies in place that make the permit process for residents who want to convert to solar energy much faster, cheaper and easier. Reed has challenged local solar energy companies to create ways for no-cost installations, correctly reckoning that such a proposition will make conversion affordable and attractive for more homeowners and builders. Two companies have risen to the challenge and are said to be developing such plans. Also, the city is exploring ways to reduce the cost of solar conversion by facilitating block purchases at a discount.
However, there are still hurdles in realizing the mayor’s proposal. The residential developers are resisting the mandates, saying it will increase costs at a time when they are being pushed to build more affordable housing. This should not deter the mayor and council in implementing the proposals, though. The developers will just have to learn to live with it. Also, the PG&E inspection and approval process for solar conversions takes way too long at present and needs to made much quicker.
I applaud this effort at the city level. Not only are we going to make improvements in our city’s environment but as individuals we are going to get the same energy we have now, and it will be cleaner, and we will use less of it and pay less for it. What we need is a federal energy policy that makes similar mandates nationwide. Of course, we won’t get such a thing under the Bush administration, but after January 20 next year, who knows?
In the meantime, Reed’s proposals will come before the council later this year and there should be unanimous approval. This is a no-brainer. It makes sense that this should happen at the center of world technological development. And if we are at the forefront of the energy revolution, the changeover to the new technology will certainly bring jobs and industry here too.
Renewable energy used to be the wave of the future. It’s now here and we should ride it.
If you really want to solve the problem, you would reduce gtreenhouse gas emissions more by building homes and reducing the number of cars commuting in from the Central Valley.
Novice,
Your friend was half-right. What the city intends is to plant corn in the tens of thousands of potholes that would otherwise just get worse. Besides providing fuel for ethanol, the bulky plants will “calm” traffic, spare the city from having to pay for its chronic neglect of basic services, and provide agricultural jobs for the many illegal aliens who’ve been put out of work due to the construction slowdown.
Oh, and when you see one of those new, solar-powered warning signs flashing “Corn Hole Ahead,” don’t forget to keep an eye out for the undocumented bio-fuel technician.
Good idea. Let’s jump on the latest bandwagon and put a bunch of inept, ambitious, career Government bureaucrats in charge. That should work out real well.
Thanks Finfan. Top shelf as always!
The policy goes into effect the day after we finish the downtown highrises and there’s no vacant lots left to build on.
Here’s a green idea that would cost the city nothing at all.
Make it illegal to ban or restrict the use of outdoor clotheslines in the city. Gated communities and similar developments frequently do not permit clotheslines.
Dryers use a huge amount of energy and in our climate you really only need them a small part of the year.
People think that hanging out your laundry looks lower-class. But saving energy means we may have to change some of our perceptions. Think about it as drying your clothes the same way they do in the glamorous South of France.
We could at least start by not putting obstacles in the way of people who want to save energy on their own. And the way the price of energy is going, there could be a big increase in the number of such people.
Great column Jack! I am very excited about our City going green. That is one of the reasons I supported Mayor Reed for Mayor. I know how strongly he feels about open land, a safe environment and going to solar power etc.
I’ve been very impressed by some of the wonderful things SF has been doing for years to make our planet safer by going green. I’m not sure about this, so if someone knows more I’d love to hear it, but aren’t they using ocean water to power things? I have been in some of their awesome green buildings. They are just beautiful! I wouldn’t mind working in a building like that.
I’ve seen some pretty good shows on the incredible things different states and some builders are doing with recycled tires, aluminum cans, and solar energy too. In Arizona, they have these awesome homes under ground that run completely on solar energy! Going green saves so much money! I’ve also seen the new green materials you can use in your homes like bamboo flooring. It is very attractive.
Does any one know anything about a city in Europe; I think it is, that took up the challenge to go completely green? I saw something about that awhile back. OMG it was just incredible! They even ran a factory using some kind of water powered system from the ocean.
Alfred Doten, that is a great idea. I remember how good my sheets smelled after being washed and hung outside. When I went back East a couple of years ago, I noticed almost every back yard had a clothesline in in it. It looked fine and brought back some great memories of standing outside with my mom hanging clothes and talking. I used to love to hear em flap in the wind, and we’d make shadow ducks, etc. through the sheets.
I think if builders built condo or town house complexes or housing developments with hidden areas for clothes hanging that would be awesome. Of course now or days someone just might steal them.
I lived in a condo complex in Pete Constant’s district, on San Thomas and Payne Ave. They had a nice clothesline hung by the laundry room. Lots of people used it too. You couldn’t see it from the street, or even the side walks because they built a special area for this exact purpose, keeping the look of the property in mind.
Yes we should. Yes,Yes! Glad you raised the question Jack.
The other day my neighbor told me that the city is going to start it’s own ethanol program and was rezoning industrial land for agricultural use to grow corn.
Is that true?
I thought my neighbor was crazy but I wanted to doublecheck here first.
This should be changed to: “the city should mandate we all go out of business”.
the “process” will not catch up with the market for many years. Meaning, you force a business to do the “right thing” regarding green tech; but city staff and PGE will take their sweet time in coming up with the process to get through the tangle webs of red tap.
So as usual, small under funded businesses are put out of business. But I sure starbucks will have no problem adjusting and the city will do everything to make sure starbucks has success. But will do nothing for those “dumb” mom and pops shops.
Greg Perry good point!
Yep, San Jose should model it’s green programs after, um I dunno, how about one of those really progressive Scandinavian countries?
Norway’s Emissions Soar
“Just as Norwegian delegates to the UN’s conference on climate change started heading home from Bali, came news that Norway’s own carbon emissions rose 80 percent from 1990 to 2004. Statoil’s refinery at Mongstad is the biggest contributor.”
But wait – here’s the really good part…
“That’s why the government plans to donate NOK 15 billion (nearly USD 3 billion) over the next five years to help preserve the world’s rain forests. That’s viewed as an efficient way of offsetting carbon emissions.”
You know the Brazilians are just jumping for joy. “We’ll plant those 3 billion dollars worth of trees for ya Sven, you betcha!”
This green lunacy is a real life Monty Python skit that gets better and better every day.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2157059.ece
In December 2006, Adobe Software Headquarters three towers became,“Platinum Certified LEED buildings”, the highest rating awarded by the U.S. Green Building Council.
Adobe converted almost 1 million square feet of office space and 940,000 square feet of garage space into a environmentally friendly campus.
Adobe spent $1.2 million to retrofit the three towers and has recieved $350,000 in rebates from PG&E and has recouped all their costs in just 101/2 months. This said,new companies looking to relocate their corporate offices into new buildings will be looking for “Platinum LEED Certified Buildings”. Developers, not building LEED Certified Buildings will find their non certified buildings worth a lot less on the real estate market than the LEED buildings.
Adobe compleeted their Certification in 2006, it`s too bad buildings like Tamien Station Towers coming on line in 2008 isn`t Certified LEED. Maybe our Mayor`s position will change future Silicon Valley Buildings to become Green LEED Certified Buildings.
Hopefully this idea of legislating one solution to fix a complex problem will not go through. Unfortunately, politicians like to see a very public fix to an actual good solution; sometimes they overlap too ofter they don’t.
Anyways, see the article about solar panels in the Chronicle today for two thoughtful perspectives on renewable energy.
There is so much wrong-headed thinking in trying to fashion this one solution to a complex problem that it is hard to know where to start on the issue: it completely ignores the fact that perhaps I can save one unit of energy by spending $1 versus the $X dollars invested in green building (GB) changes (recall the many articles about the economic choice of buying a Prius…); by insisting on GB solutions we may lower the cost of GB changes relative to other activities and so market prices are thrown off kilter; the real thing you want to improve is efficient energy use but advocating a GB program will lead to more GB programs because of mandates not because of their intrinsic value; if the reason you believe that energy should be used more efficiently is because its true value is not taken into account, then you should want to adjust the price to take into account the “externalities” and then people will react to the new proper price. This could go on and on….
You know it is sort of like believing there are too many cars on the road (clogging commutes and using too much gas), but instead of applying the specific incentives (making commuting in cars more expensive and increasing gas costs) you build a VTA transportation system that mostly runs empty and commutes are still clogged. People really are very smart and logical in their choice making, they should be treated accordingly.
But how green is traffic calming, where I stop every two blocks at a traffic signal along Story Road every day. How green is traffic sitting in idle waiting to move. And rezoning trucking yards out business so they drive from outside do get here to do business. How green is big box stores in industrial areas with scant transit service. And density housing with no parks, so everyone heads for the hills to get out each weekend. The big one of course is the shipping of our goods from overseas. Coyote development really would help here. The average piece of produce in America travels 1500 miles.
My favorite. The emerging Chinese urban middle class have a smaller carbon footprint than us because of small fridges, sun dried clothes, etc., until… they all clog the roads out of town to go to there villa or eco lodge, wherein they loose much ground. A vision of high density San Jose coming soon I think.