Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this planet the reduction of which past a certain point will be detrimental to our survival. Why is ?Smartplant? unaware of this basic fact? Perhaps because this blog is politicized and not truly interested in real science just spewing dogma in the form of midlevel papal bulls. Please see these links for a better understanding of the relationship and effects of CO2 and plant life on this planet.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422132829.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm
Now ask yourself what if any is the current issue with CO2 in the atmosphere; do we truly need to reduce the current levels, if so by how much? Second how many people have died as a direct result of the current ?overabundance? or ?potential overabundance? of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to lets say the number of people who have died form the guns or due to the presence of US solders/US baked private or foreign militia/CIA covert opts? I believe if we greatly reduced the US army, CIA covert opts along with the Israeli army all of which are funded by the US tax payer we would be saving far more lives then could ever by possible with CO2 reductions, and actually save the US taxpayer money in the process, resulting in a more moral, sane and respected nation. A far greater gain than can be quantified. The savings could be invested in pro life measures such as tax reduction, better schools, health care and more efficient technology!
It still amazes me how many people walk around associating sustainability or green business processes with increased operating expenses. Here’s more proof that it just isn’t so — at least all of the time.
The six-year-old Energy Star Leaders program, which includes organizations focused on improving the energy efficiency of their operations and facilities, just reported that the organizations in the program diverted about 220,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the environment last year. At the same time, they saved north of $48 million on the energy costs associated with their commercial buildings. There are about 100 organizations currently part of this particular Energy Star initiative; the savings associated with actions being taken by Energy Star Leaders quadrupled between 2008 and 2009.
In order to be recognized as an Energy Star Leader you have to reduce the energy used by your entire building portfolio by at least 10 percent. A second metric requires the organization to demonstrate that its buildings operate at efficiency levels that are within the top 25 percent of similar buildings across the United States. The EPA (which administers the program) reports that approximately 75 percent of Energy Star Leaders in 2009 met the second performance milestone.
Another interesting tidbit, the list is dominated by 54 school districts, a lot of them in the Midwest. So that sort of lays to rest the notion that innovation in energy efficiency is being lead by companies on the two coasts.
Various government figures estimate that if every commercial or industrial building in the United States improved its energy efficiency by 10 percent, we could collectively save about $20 billion on energy costs each year. The carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions diverted by this action would be equivalent to taking 30 million vehicles off the road.
Are you doing your 10 percent?
