Saving Energy City by City
by Michael Blouin
The Cool Cities initiative provides guidelines and goals for
promoting local emissions reductions
As oil and electricity prices continue to skyrocket across the United
States, citizens and governments alike are realizing that we must take
energy use seriously. In many instances, local governments are leading
the charge, creating sophisticated action plans to reduce energy use and
develop alternative energy sources. The 33 cities and towns within the
Sierra Club’s Greater Boston group’s area vary greatly when it comes to
energy: some municipalities have developed aggressive energy-use
reduction plans and have begun implementing everything from efficient
lighting to wind turbines, while others do little more than follow state
building codes. Motivations differ significantly as well, from a desire
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and help slow global warming, to
reducing high energy costs.
Half a dozen of these communities have drawn up some sort of “Climate
Action Plan.” These local initiatives aim to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions within a specific timeframe through smart energy decisions.
For example, the city of Newton has published an Energy Action Plan
which will try to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent from
1998 levels by the year 2010. It suggests — among other things —
adopting LEED standards (the US Green Building Council’s measure of
sustainability) for all new and renovated public buildings and
purchasing 10 percent of city electricity from renewable power sources
by 2010. Newton joins Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, Medford, and
Somerville as local leaders when it comes to tackling global warming.
These municipalities are all at the forefront of addressing their energy
consumption, and they are most committed to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
About 20 communities in the Greater Boston area have worked to
improve energy efficiency as a means of reducing municipal energy costs.
Many of these cities and towns have adopted more efficient street
lighting and LED (light emitting diodes) traffic lights; they have made
use of rebates from utilities to install more efficient lighting and
heating systems in municipal buildings. In Melrose, for example, an
“energy commission” was recently formed in response to exorbitant energy
costs. The city has started taking a closer look at energy efficiency in
buildings and has even considered wind turbines as a source of renewable
energy. However, a leading committee member noted that this interest in
energy has much more to do with minimizing costs than reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Most cities and towns have not yet looked into renewable energy
sources or more complex initiatives, instead emphasizing relatively
cheap and easy fixes that will save money. A handful of communities are
doing nothing more than following state law, and have not yet committed
to elaborate energy conservation efforts. The most serious problem in
these local energy initiatives can be summed up in a single word:
implementation. In Cambridge, for instance, a city that enjoys one of
the most sophisticated greenhouse gas reduction plans in Massachusetts,
emissions have actually increased since the plan was published in 2001.
Though much of this can be blamed on emissions from recently constructed
buildings, the increase clearly indicates that no significant progress
has been made. Together we can help by connecting with one another
through the Massachusetts Chapter, and putting real pressure on
municipal governments to develop goals and follow through with them. We
have the power to encourage real progress in addressing the energy
crisis and slowing global warming — the next step is to use it.
The Sierra Club’s Cool Cities initiative provides guidelines and
goals for promoting local emissions reductions — take a look at this
project to get some ideas of where to start.
Michael Blouin, a Sudbury resident and student at Pomona College,
served as a Mass Chapter/GBG intern. |
|
