Author Archives: Michele Merritt

Raising the Medicare Age to 67 Is a Lousy Idea

by Michele Merritt Posted on October 25, 2013

Mother Jones

The CBO has a new estimate of the budget savings from raising the Medicare age to 67. Here it is:

Please note: this is not percent of GDP. This is actual dollars. Over the next ten years, raising the Medicare age would save the government a whopping $2 billion per year on average. Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll give the nickel explanation for why the number is so low: “The more people you kick off Medicare, the more you get on Medicaid. That increases federal expenditures. More people will also need exchange insurance, too, which means more people needing subsidies….And we’re not even counting the increase to state expenditures for the added Medicaid, the increased cost to employers who have to provide insurance, the increased cost to all Americans in higher premiums for adding those elderly people to the private risk pools, or the increased out of pocket expenses to those seniors.”

Bottom line: raising the Medicare age to 67 accomplishes almost nothing. And if you take into account the increased costs in other areas (Medicaid and private insurance), it’s a net negative. This is a zombie idea that needs to die once and for all.

Source article:

Raising the Medicare Age to 67 Is a Lousy Idea

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Raising the Medicare Age to 67 Is a Lousy Idea

Why Are Some States Trying to Ban LEED Green Building Standards?

by Michele Merritt Posted on August 30, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story first appeared on the Atlantic Cities website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The amendments and executive orders never actually mention LEED by name. They ban new construction built with public money from seeking (or requiring) any green building certification that’s not recognized by something called the American National Standards Institute, or that doesn’t treat all certifications for wood products equally. But that’s really just a mouthful meant to ensure no more LEED-certified courthouses or state offices or libraries.

Behind the bans are a group of industries—primarily conventional timber, plastics and chemicals – unhappy that much of their product goes unrecognized by the LEED standard created by the US Green Building Council. LEED now certifies a million and a half square feet of real estate a day, affixing a “green” label onto public buildings, commercial offices and private homes that rack up points on a 100-point scale and rewards things like locally sourced materials and energy-efficient design.

Using lumber clear-cut from the side of a sensitive stream half a continent away does not, in short, get you anything.

“Certain things haven’t made the cut,” says Lane Burt, USGBC’s policy director. “As a result we’ve seen some political agitation, basically a much more threatening posture saying ‘if you don’t change this about LEED, or give us more points, we’ll use our constitutional rights to petition government to take LEED away.'”

Mississippi was the most recent state to do this, with an amendment just tacked on to a transportation and housing appropriations bill. Alabama and Georgia have done the same through executive order. An industry coalition is also trying to push similar language through Congress that would cover new construction from the largest property manager in the country, the federal government. (Treehugger has a good long-running history of all of this).

The industry objections have grown in direct proportion to LEED’s prominence. Thirty-four states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have policies either requiring LEED construction or establishing strong incentives for it in public buildings. The federal government does, too. The industries that now oppose LEED—even as they remain members of the USGBC voting on changes to the certification—aren’t out to ban green building, per se. Rather, they’ve come up with their own standards for what counts as “green.”

Instead of LEED, they’ve got something called Green Globes. Instead of the “Forest Stewardship Council” certification (which LEED recognizes for wood products), they’ve created the Sustainable Forestry Initiative program. Suffice it to say, these certifications have laxer standards.

To environmental groups, the sleight-of-hand tactic is actually more insidious than if industry were trying to politicize green building all together.

“What they’re trying to do,” Sierra Club activist Jason Grant says of the timber industry, “is protect their core business model, which largely relies on large-scale clear cutting and replanting.” The Forest Stewardship Council demands costlier and more sustainable practices. “The conservation community is united in opposition to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, not because it doesn’t have any merit, but because it is trying to pass off fundamentally status quo, barely legal forestry practices as green and sustainable. Look at the name—the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. That is what is at the heart of the conflict.”

The industry-led American High-Performance Buildings Coalition (URL: betterbuildingstandards.com) puts it a little differently. LEED, they argue, lacks transparency, “shuts out stakeholders,” isn’t built on “consensus.”

LEED’s own defenders (including Grant) acknowledge that the system isn’t infallible. The entire exercise of rating green buildings is inevitably fraught; environmentalists themselves don’t agree on many items in the certification. The latest version of LEED passed this summer with 86 percent of the vote of the USGBC’s 13,000 members. That would count as a sweeping victory in a democracy. But if “consensus” means everybody, it obviously isn’t that.

The entire dispute over the forestry practices behind the lumber that goes into these buildings actually revolves around a single point in the 100-point LEED system. And a building receives that point if just half of its permanently installed wood is FSC certified. A LEED building can contain any kind of wood under the sun. It just may not get that point. (For comparison’s sake, if you use locally sourced but less sustainable wood, that counts toward two points.)

All of this means that one industry with a vested interest in the smallest sliver of an entire green-building rating system has so far been successful in undermining the whole model in a few states. And the standards set by government construction have the potential to cascade into the private market, too.

For LEED, this battle is a perverse sign of its expanding influence. But it’s unclear if the many proponents of green building—including all the businesses that have grown up around it—are ready yet to mount the kind of defense that could keep LEED from becoming another wedge between red states and blue ones.

“I think we are at an inflection point,” Burt says. “The green building industry has grown to 45 percent of the marketplace in new construction. That’s significant growth. It’s become a real industry. And if these political attacks from certain sub-components, certain special interests are going to continue, the green building industry needs to get a lot more politically savvy.”

He doesn’t mean that the non-profit USGBC needs to become a political heavyweight. “There’s no nonprofit,” he says, “that’s going to match the lobbying clout of the timber industry.”

The USGBC, he says, is content to compete with other certifications. But that’s not the scenario these state laws would create. Instead, they would effectively ban LEED. “That’s a huge escalation,” Burt says.

Read the article – 

Why Are Some States Trying to Ban LEED Green Building Standards?

Posted in Cascade, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Are Some States Trying to Ban LEED Green Building Standards?

Solar Energy Is Hot

by Michele Merritt Posted on August 19, 2013

No doubt you have actually heard plenty about solar power however always thought it was too costly, aside from minor uses in the now popular yard lighting systems. Nevertheless, with fuel rates climbing up and solar cells becoming more reasonable, including solar power to your house is a fantastic, long term option to high energy expenses.

That isn’t really to say they’re affordable. Prior to rebates, it usually takes 12 or even more years for a resident to make their investment in photovoltaic panels back. That’s much longer than the ordinary individual is prepared to wait. Nonetheless, many states now offer rebates, so the final cost to the resident is much less than it use to be. The refunds vary from one state to another, so it’s impossible to state how much of an effect they have general. There might also be federal incentives.

Photovoltaic panel are also gradually ending up being more reliable. They produce even more energy than they utilized to. They require reasonably little maintenance, numerous of which you may have the ability to do yourself. This assists to make them really cost effective.

Solar energy isn’t just for making electricity. You can utilize it heat up the water for your pool or heat your house. There are lots of options offered for those who are fascinating in constructing an energy reliable house without sacrificing comfort.

Solar energy is much, much less costly than it used to be, as costs have fallen by 90 % since the 1970s. That doesn’t make it inexpensive – yet! – to set up adequate photovoltaic cells to power a residence, but in some locations the incentives provided to set up solar batteries cuts the overall cost to the property owner about in half.

To decide if solar power is right for you, take some fundamental figures into factor to consider.

Inspect your energy consumption. You have to understand how huge a system you will need to power your house. See to it you consider your greatest consumption levels and the possibility that it will grow somewhat.

Discover the amount of a photovoltaic system to fulfill your need will cost you. The size will depend both on your energy requirement and on the available sunshine (solar resource) in your area.

Learn exactly what refunds and incentives are offered to you to help reduce your costs.

Think about whether your system will be on the grid or off. On the grid has the benefit that you can sell when you have an excess and purchase electrical power when you don’t have enough, while with an off the grid system you have a battery to save your unwanted.

Consider exactly what the ecological perks are worth to you. This is an individual aspect rather than a direct economic one. It will not conserve you money, however understanding that you’re contributing a little less to pollution may alter how you feel about the expenditure.

Selecting to use solar power in your home is a financial investment you can value on lots of levels. Over a variety of years it will save you cash as you generate eco friendly energy. It’s not low-cost to get begun, however when you combine the ecological advantages with lowering your dependence on fuel expenses you can definitely appreciate the possibilities.

This author is very knowledgeable about solar energy. Please check out at their website or blog to discover a lot more.

Posted in solar | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Solar Energy Is Hot