Think Progress

U.S. Capitol goes green.

By Amanda Terkel on Mar 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA) yesterday wrote to the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. Capitol and urged him to “undertake a ‘Green the Capitol’ initiative to ensure that the House institutes the most up-to-date industry and government standards for green building and green operating procedures.”

Comments
38

38 Responses to “U.S. Capitol goes green.”

R says:

Good. Now, what about the troops?
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Barbara Bush says:

The Capital has been white for years. Making it green is a terrible idea and not MY choice of color, at all.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Mary Poplins says:

#2 Who cares what you think old lady corrupt Bush.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
beefeater says:

Maybe they can purchase “carbon offsets” from Generation Investment Management, that should help.

According to Al’s spokes women,

Al Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said.

Al is still chairman of this little scam. Go green!
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Roger_Roger says:

This is very good news. Hopefully Pelosi will take it farther and demand that the Us government do everything in its power to get China, India, and Russia to become more like the USA. Currently those 3 countries are the main problem when it comes to emissions. It is time we demand they clean up there act. Global warming is the world’s biggest problem and we are currently doing all the micro little things right while ignoring the biggest problems. China, Russia, and India are far and away the biggest problems. If we could get them to shift to the USA model, we would reduce global emissions by 18%-20% overnight.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
We Know says:

Roger_Truth_Dodger,

Firstly the USA is responsible for over 1/4 of the worlds CO2. It is “us” that needs to change first, lead the way.

It is “us” who can afford it more easily than china, Prussia.

It is “us” who could develop those new technologies and make profits off them while cleaning our environment.

Roger why is it you want to be a FOLLOWER instead of a LEADER.

You embolden the terrorists. (of the environment)

You’re nothing more than a Rush Limpball propagandist.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Dale says:

Here’s 17,000 scientists who do NOT agree with global warming.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
We Know says:

Dale,

Great 16,999 of those scientists are not in the study of Climate..

You are a fool.

Would you see an eye doctor for your dental problems? Well maybe you might..

No wonder America is known as land of the idiots.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
RUCerious says:

Keep the capitol green used to be a reference to K street.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Dale says:

#8, did you even follow the link? Apparently not.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists

Any more questions?
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Roger_Roger says:

#6

I said that Russia, China, and India are the biggest problems. We certainly should take the lead. But taking the lead in this situation means we should invest resources and technology towards Russia, China, and India to help them out first.

The USA has already said we will reduce greenhosue gas intenisty by 18% by 2012. The EU has said they will reduce emission output by 20% by 2020. Saidly, the USA reducing output by 18% equates to a nominal 4.5% reduction in Global emissions. The EU’s 20% reudction equates to another 4%-5% in reduction for global emissions.

Russia, China, and India by simply adopting USA standards would reduce GLOBAL EMISSIONS by 18%!!!!

Nothing we or Europe do and plan to do comes close to that type of reduction.

The USA currently is responsible for 25% of world GDP and only 24% of world emissions. Russia, China, and India account for 25% of all Global emissions yet only account for 7% of global GDP.

Greenhouse gas intensity is the term used by climate scientist to measure emissions based on output (GDP). They use this measure because output is the single most important function of emissions. Russia, China, and India are the world’s worst polluters far and away. There greenhouse gas intensisty measure around 0.5 GDP per emission while the USA is around 2.118 GDP per emissions.

Yes, the USA and the rest of the world need to improve and we have stated wea re targeting an 18% reduction. The simple truth is that without Russia, China, and India getting on board and focusing on getting there greenhouse gas intensity to match the USA’s, this planet is doomed. We cannot call these countries nothing 3rd world countries. They have the most nuclear power in the world outside the USA and are big economic powers. There is no reason they can’t step up.

I agree with most that Global warming is the world’s largest problem. The USA should be more. Personally, we should bump our target reduction up to 30% as the EU alredy said they would match us. Sadly, even at a 30% reduction, we are only reducing our global emissions by roughly 7%.

Russia, China, and India could reduce global emissions by 18%-20% overnight by adopting a USA model. This is simple and is obvious who the problem lies with.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Dale says:

But taking the lead in this situation means we should invest resources and technology towards Russia, China, and India to help them out first.

So not only are we supposed to expend resources to limit CO2 emissions, but we’re also supposed to give money to Russia, China, and India to do the same?
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
We Know says:

Roger I won’t argue with you that they too need to make a change, but we need to do it first, and not by 2010, TODAY..

The simple point being which country could afford to most quickly adopt greener technology?Well that is the good ole USA. And perhaps we can help them. After all you’re the idiot who thinks we’re trying to spread democracy to Iraq, once we’re out of that mess we can use that money to spread “green technology” to other nations.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
We Know says:

Dale,

So what? Anyone, including YOU could fax to that website and say you were scientist… Think they really follow that up??
Whoopie a petition page of scientists.

So what if they have a few climatologists, they probably have scientists who study monkeys.

If they were credible they would have their own studies trying to “debunk” the climate change theory.. But they don’t all they have is a website of names… Impressive.. NOT
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
We Know says:

Dale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

“One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?”
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Roger_Roger says:

#13

We are already targeting a 18% reduction by 2012. That doesn’t mean we reduce emissions by 18% starting in 2012. We are currently working towards that goal today which is a good thing. The EU is working towards reducing there emissions by 20% by 2020. In that regard we are doing more then anyone by setting a reduction goal of 18% by 2012. No country is planning a reduction that big that fast. Like I said before, we should change to a 30% reduction by 2020 because the EU said they will match it.

With all that said, none of that will help “that much”. Having us and the EU reduce our emissions by 20% each still only reduces global emission output by 7% or so. That is simply not enough to stop global warming. I am not sure why your so against demanding that Russia, China, and India step up.

Currently, they are not only doing almost nothing, China alone is planning to add another 300 million cars over then next 14 years. Their emissions are planned to exceed the USA’s within 15 years yet they are only a sliver of world GDP. How can you not see that these countries are the main problem? While the USA is already well above them in greenhouse gas intensity, we are also working toward’s reducing our emissions today! So is the EU. Without Russia, China, and India on board and working to reduce theres ASAP the world is a goner.

Hell, the USA and the EU could reduce our emissions by 50% by 2020 and if China alone doesn’t change that entire reduction will be wiped out. Combined with Russia, and India the world will actually be producing MORE emissions as a whole by 2020. It is just odd that this #1 problem gets overlooked and even let off the hook by those that should care the most.

I may not be liked on this board, but Global warming is a serious problem and I take it very seriously. I realize that the EU and the USA cannot do this alone and in reality, have little impact over the long hall if these 3 countries don’t get their act together.

Honestly, you do realize that the EU and the USA’s current plans are a nothing in the global sense. Furthermore, even if by some miracle the EU and the USA double our reduction goal, it is meaningless if China, Russia, and India continue on their dangerous path.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Dale says:

#14, your little mind is really closed, isn’t it? If you would’ve actually looked on the site, you’d see that they followed up and verified 95% of those PhD’s who signed the petition. There’s other info on the site, including PPT’s and a RealVideo-based lecture that *is* showing there own studies.

But no, you just have accepted the ‘consensus’ that the earth really is flat… I mean that global warming is being caused by humans. And because of that, you want to spend billions of dollars following a guy who pays himself for carbon offsets.

Idiot.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
RUCerious says:

Dale, look for a Dr. Ragnar Ulysses Cerious to show up on that web site.
I just faxed them.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
We Know says:

Dale you are the idiot, you’ve first off accepted the fact that a website that accepts any fax to be a legitimate scientist is credible.

And not it’s generally you people who deny science are the ones who think the sun orbits the earth, and the world is flat.

If it’s CREDIBLE where are their studies, and reports. God knows the oil companies, coal companies etc would LOVE TO FUND THEM.

You sir, are the idiot.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
ForTruth says:

Roger,

YOu have created a great reason to invade and take over China, Russia, and India. They are the global climate change terrorists.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Fools on the Hill says:

Dale,

If you look at the signatures, you’d see the majority do not hold degrees. I randomly selected 20 names with Phd. 16 did not show up on goggle search. Out of 4 that showed up, 1 was a vet, 1 was a plant scientist, 1 was a microbiologist, and last was a K12 retired science teacher.

Whoopie!
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Roger_Roger says:

#17 At this point, people like you need to be passed over. We honestly don’t have time to continue the debate. It is over and the world is in trouble. At this point, we need to identify the countries with the worst greenhouse gas intensities and apply serious pressure on them to change today.

We may even need to work with the UN to apply some sort of fee or tax to those countries that have the worst greenhouse gas intensities. Maybe a tax on every single product exported from countries that can’t produce at least 2 GDP per emission. The tax would even out the playing field and pay for projects to offset the emissions. Things need to change fast.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid says:

Roger*2, Dale, the industry-paid-for scientists, and the rest of the Republicans who pretend to care about climate change are really working hard to resist the inevitable. Our current government is run by oil executives and to pretend these guys care more about the environment than lining the pockets of their cronies with cash is ignorant and immoral.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Roger_Roger says:

#20 While invading them wouldn’t solve much, I guess it would stop there production (GDP) thus halt emissions. I am certainly not advocating that however. Charging them a fee on all exports would be a solid step however. Read my other post above for an idea on taxing all countries with a greenhouse gas intensity lower then 2 GDP per emission. That at least would turn some heads.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Roger_Roger says:

#23 And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid

Not sure why your lumping me in with Dale. I don’t deny Global warming and am demanding we do more! Do you not read my posts in this thread and just assume the wrong thing?
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Dale says:

#14, #15, did you happen to find the name Richard Lindzen? He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT.

#22, let’s see if I understand this correctly. Global warming is happening now, and we don’t have time to continue the debate.

Does the same logic apply to the Iraq war? We don’t have time to continue the debate? Gee, I thought that was a prevailing theme throughout TP; we need to have debate on important issues. But if anyone tries to have a debate on global warming, they’re told we don’t have time!

Has anybody here actually studied both sides of the issue? Read more of the ipcc report than just the summary? Researched further than just watching Al Gore’s fiction?
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
We Know says:

Roger:

Finally something we can agree on, Dale has been passed over already!

He is proof common sense, isn’t so common.

Ok back to the issue…

Roger I’m sorry I just don’t see our govt doing enough too! Funding once again has been cut by Bush for the Alternative energy labs. We need MORE tax cuts for consumers, if I buy $60 worth of CF lamps, that should be tax deductible as well as major purchases.

Lets face it, Coal is the worlds biggest problem. So what can we do there. I say we TAX it, forcing the electric companies to find cleaner burning technologies, as well as alternative energies.

We really need our govt helping, as we see we can’t leave it up to private companies, because those with the money (oil, coal) won’t do anything about it until the Oil is $250 a barrel, or until forced, and we know how our Govt gives these Oil companies tax breaks, hell we even just give them money.

But we can’t leave something as important as this up to Exxon, BP etc, because they’re still making a huge profit, so why change their business model, they are run by a bunch of people who think like Dale after all.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Dale says:

#25, come over to the dark side Roger! :-)
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
We Know says:

Dale,

Did you study both sides of the debate on:

Smoking?
Asbestos?

And all the other “Great scientific debates”?

Still smoking thinking it’s okay? Or building with asbestos?

You can always find PAID scientists like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Dale says:

#27, sure, debates bad for an issue… as long as there’s a consensus…
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Roger_Roger says:

#27 You pose some very tough questions. Coal is a VERY big problem as it is very cheap right now. I heard somewhere that a new Coal plant goes up in China every 2-3 days which is damn scary. Taxing Coal is a interesting idea. I don’t know enough about alternative energy to give you a solid answer however. Do we currently, today, have an alternative energy source that we could shift to that won’t hurt the average americans pocket book? What I mean is that we certainly could tax coal to make it to expensive, but if we lack a solid alternative that is readily available and feasible to the average American, we would simply continue to use Coal and just hurt the average American. Please inform me better on what our options are today and if they are feasible to use (cost and avialability to change over America today).

You are certainly right on Oil and Energy companies not changing and I wouldn’t expect them to. They are in the business of selling Oil so why would they undercut themselves? That isn’t logical. The other problem we face, is that Oil is still really cheap and we still have ALOT of it. All estimates still pridict that demand for oil will not outstripe supply till around 2050 or later. We both know that is way to long for this planet. Personally, we are still not in a position to switch the global economy off Oil without it hurting to much. We need to devolope a new energy source that will be acceptable to the average consumer. Electric cars work for city folks, but are not really feasible for us country folks. Recharging them takes hours, if not days. Owning 2 vechiles is also too expensive for the average American. Currently, our government should demand more fuel efficeincy and continue to promote hybred cars (and make them cheaper).

In the end, all these changes won’t happen overnight but we need to start working today. Also, all these changes on out end are meaningless if we can’t get China, India, and Russia to change ASAP. They are the driving force behind global warming afterall.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Fools on the Hill says:

Dale,

Richard Lindzen’s theory got blown away about a year and a half ago with additional satellite data.

You are dated, man. Even your long list is dated 1998.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
lestatdelc says:

Great, good idea, but so low on priority as to make me shake my head in disbelief. I don’t give a shit about CFL bulbs in the Capitol vs. impeaching Bush for his illegal, and catastrophic war which is destroying the foundations of our Government, the executive office, our military, our standing in the world and as a result long-term, our nation.

Again, this is a good thing, but swapping out light-bulbs while your house is on fire is insane.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
lestatdelc says:

Comment by Dale â€” March 2, 2007 @ 2:01 pm

And how many employed directly or indirectly by the fuel extraction industry that simply wants the status quo while we slowly shit in on our own kitchen table?
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Roger_Roger says:

#34

That is the problem right there. For some reason the people that truly care about global warming (you for example) are to caught up in the micro details. This is a global problem. The USA isn’t the world. How is or isn’t paid by the Oil industry in the USA is a nominal issue.

You do realize that even if we came out tomorrow and said we would cut emissions by 50% by 2020 and start today, it would be reletively meaningless in the whole global scheme if our neighbors in China, Russia, and India don’t do a thing. And when I say 50%, you do realize that no one in the world is currently proposing more then a 20% reduction. We in the USA are actually working towards an 18% reduction by 2012 which would be the largest reduction of any country in the world over that time span. Either way, it is meaningless when countries like China are adding 300 million more cars in the next 14 years while already being the world’s largest polluter by greenhouse gas intensity charts (what climate scientists are using).

We need to start thinking about the problem in a Global sense and stop bickering about this nominal crap. The Oil industry in the USA is not the major factor. China, Russia, and India as countries are the major factor. Oil companies simply drill for Oil and sell it. We the consumer are the ones who buy and use it, they don’t. While it may give you warm fuzzies to see the EU cut emissions by 20% by 2020 and us cut emissions by 18% by 2012, it means nothing. That combined is still under a 7% reduction in global emissions which is less then what China, India, and Russia are going to increase there emissions by in the mean time.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Raymond Funamoto says:

GREEN combines with BLUE
And does what it has to DO!
THAT IS TO make RED
States DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!!!!
And BETTER for ME and YOU!!!!!
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Roger_Roger says:

It keeps looking worse and worse. As we and the EU focus on reducing emissions, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration projects that China will overtake the U.S. as the largest CO2 producer by 2015, and the World Bank agrees that if current trends continue China will lead the field by 2020. For them to do that, they will be increasing there emissions by over 670% within 7 to 12 years. How can you continue to care that much about the micro details of light bulbs and an extra mile per gallon in the USA when you read that? The EU is cutting emissions by 20% by 2020 and we want to cut our by 18% by 2012, IT MEANS NOTHING!!! The USA and the EU could cut emissions by 60% and we as a world would still have a net INCREASE in emissions just because of China alone.

India is on the same path. The UN predicts that India will increase it’s emission output by 90% by 2025.

Again, we need to stop thinking so small. The EU and the USA are NOT the problem. We in the USA could do everything in our power and India and China would still increase Global emissions by an unthinkable amount. Stop arguing about this stuff and start demanding action. The USA should up it intent and shot for a 30% reduction because the EU said it would match it. With that aside, the EU and the USA need to demand that China and India adobt the USA model for greenhouse gas intensity. We should start fining them on every good they export to make up the difference and use the money to help offset these horrible polluters.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 am
rachel says:

http://www.peace-action.org/

———————————————————————————

To: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
cc: Chairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Committee on International Relations

We, the undersigned, vehemently oppose any U.S. military action against Iran. Such military action would inevitably kill large numbers of innocent people, foster even more hatred and international condemnation of the U.S., and dramatically increase the instability of the region. Our own intelligence agencies have concluded the Iraq war has worsened the terrorist threat, and a war against Iran would add immeasurably more fuel to the fire.

Even if Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon, experts agree that it would take several years. There is no crisis, and our government should not create one with inflammatory rhetoric or military threats. The U.S. has both the time and obligation to work with the international community to fashion a diplomatic resolution to the situation, and the current refusal of U.S. officials to talk directly with Iranian officials cannot possibly help resolve the nuclear standoff, nor contribute to peace in Iraq and the Middle East.

Therefore, we urge you to take all steps necessary to reach a peaceful resolution to the current situation, including direct negotiations without pre-conditions. This is the only way to prevent yet another war, one that would be a calamity of truly global proportions.
———————————————————————–
No War with Iran!
President Bush is now regularly accusing Iran of supporting attacks on U.S. troops, without any evidence, – remember the WMD’s in Iraq, anyone? – adding that “we will seek out and destroy” these networks. Bush has authorized U.S. forces to kill Iranian “operatives” in Iraq, and he is sending nuclear aircraft carriers and missile defense batteries to the Persian Gulf. The unthinkable – a wider war in the Middle East – is unfolding.

John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that any U.S. military move into Iran would be “catastrophically stupid” and “unleash a conflagration like we’ve never heard of before.” We could not possibly agree more.

Resistance to a Bush planned military strike on Iran is growing in Congress, but it needs your help! Sign the petition to Congress below – No War with Iran! House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said recently that she would introduce legislation to stop such a strike, so our demand is beginning to get through. But the pressure needs to be much, much stronger to stop a President who has apparently gone mad with war and his own power.

Please know that your email address is for internal purposes only; we will not send it to the petition recipients nor share it with any other organization for any purpose. Thanks also for forwarding this to your friends, colleagues and listserves. We need everyone who wants to bring peace to the Middle East and prevent a war with Iran to join the effort now!
———————————————————————————–

http://www.peace-action.org/
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm

U.S. Capitol goes green.

U.S. Capitol goes green.

38 Responses to “U.S. Capitol goes green.”

Blogroll