Yesterday's election is notable for many reasons, but one in particular for us in California was the defeat of Proposition 23. If you don't know what Prop 23 was all about, it is important to have some idea. This ballot initiative was sponsored by out-of-state oil companies seeking to suspend the state's landmark climate law enacted in 2006, AB 32, and would only bring it back if unemployment levels reached 5.5 percent, effectively killing it. Assembly Bill 32 called for the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and provided a framework for how to reach that goal. Of course, this meant that the energy Californians receive must transition to cleaner sources, to the dismay of the oil companies.

Results came in from the election, and show that voters rejected Prop 23 wholeheartedly. According to figures, over 93% of precincts reported, and over 61% voted against the measure. This is great news for those of us living in this state, as the clean tech industries we support can continue to provide us with technology and building materials that will take us toward better energy sources. We can't wait to see what this will mean in the years ahead of us for the building industry. One thing we do know however is that it will strengthen the building codes and standards such as CalGREEN and LEED being used today.

Following ten years of planning last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved a controversial offshore wind project off the coast of Cape Cod. This project will provide 420 megawatts of clean, renewable energy.  In average winds, this project known as  Cape Wind will provide three quarters of the cape and islands electricity needs.

Of course with every project their are vocal critics and this one no doubt will be caught up in the courts for some time.  With many locals decrying the potential loss of view along with a tribe of Native American's  citing sacred grounds, I am sure this project is dead in the water.   While I can see both sides, I’d much rather see wind turbines than oil rigs.
As a native of Santa Barbara, a small town 90 miles north of Los Angeles that experienced a large oil spill 40 years ago that inspired the birth of Earth Day a year later, oil derricks still dot our shoreline.  We see them every time we drive in town, visit the beach, kayak, sail or take a trip to the Channel Islands.  While the lights at night are nice, I’d love to see a moon lit ocean than these beasts working 24/7 to quench our thirst for oil.  Not to mention that the quality from our coast isn’t pure enough to fuel cars, just clean enough to make water bottles and plastic bags.

Our lapse in memory to the risks of offshore drilling was awoken late last month with the horrific BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.  It is well known that all off-shore wells are not the same.  At depths below 30,000 feet, such as the drill site in the gulf, extremely high pressure and high temperatures make drilling a considerably high risk and a blow-out’s ticking time bomb.  

While the cost of clean up is BP’s responsibility to a certain extent, no where near the cost of clean up or restoration.  The minimal amount of cash from the oil company and the associates, can’t possibly cover the cost on the environment, clean up, loss of jobs as well as the quality of life for years to come..  We can no longer depend on the status quo of our current energy supplies.  

While implementation of clean energy projects will take time, I hope that we start now and not look back in 5 years after another horrific  event takes place and we wonder why again accidents like this have happened again.
I challenge us all to to conserve energy, fight for policy change and think of creative solutions to our dependence on the status quo for our energy needs.

Green Inc., the environmental blog run by the New York Times, ran an article yesterday covering the recent letter sent to Obama regarding climate legislation within the United States. The authors of the letter are Senate Democrats considered swing votes on the topic of climate change and energy policy, and they came with several demands.

The letter specified 10 requirements to be met before they will give their support, and comes at the perfect time for such an action. President Obama will be attending Copenhagen next week where he will hopefully show that the US is supportive of a binding international treaty. Kyoto was a missed opportunity which led to an agreement that is now about to run out, and without significant results. 

Recently revealed emails suggest that climate change experts may have exaggerated science data to overstate claims for geologic climate change.  Does this mean green building and innovation will be tossed out the window?  Will we return to the status quo - which I’ve seen in the last year to include businesses failing, foreclosures and bank bail-outs.  This can’t possibly be related to climate change can it?

When I think of climate change, I imagine rising temperatures, melting of the ice caps, lack of water in many parts of the world, but I don’t associate it with green building.  After reading multiple news reports and op-ed’s I get the feeling that most people lump climate and sustainability all together.