SmartSynch has been selected by Texas-New Mexico Power (TNMP) to deploy 231,000 SmartMeter metering devices through the utility’s Texas market, the company announced . The SmartMeter device utilizes standard IP communications over public wireless networks. The move represents the first mass residential deployment of a smart metering technology using public wireless networks as its communications backbone, according to the company. Using public wireless networks, rather than private network solutions, results in greater cost savings and the flexibility to incorporate new technology in the future, according to the company. The decision follows a smaller roll-out to 10,000 energy customers, which achieved a 99.96% successful read rate, according to the company. This new 231,000 unit deployment will enable TNMP to monitor and identify trends on customer usage data at 15-minute intervals, expand capabilities to support energy management, and provide a Home Area Network communications gateway enabling retail energy providers to manage demand response and energy efficiency activities. TNMP customers will gain the ability to monitor and regulate electricity usage via the Internet and home devices. The technology will also help TNMP provide faster and safer response to customer service requests and power outages, while reducing its meter reading, work order costs and overall carbon footprint resulting from lower truck use. Environmental Leader previously reported that SmartSynch has partnered with the University of Mississippi to monitor the university’s energy consumption.

Excerpt from: 
SmartSynch to Deploy SmartMeters in TX

Verdant Power , a U.S. tidal power developer, signed a memorandum of understanding with the China Energy Conservation Environment Protection Group (CECEP) to develop tidal energy project in China. The agreement is the first to involve U.S. marine and hydrokinetic power projects in China, according to an announcement by the company. The agreement came during the recent U.S. Clean Energy Mission to China headed by Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who was on hand at the signing. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the undeveloped hydropower potential of the U.S. is more than 250,000 megawatts. China’s Ministry of Water Resources and Electric Power estimates that the undeveloped hydropower potential of China is nearly double that of the U.S. at more than 475,000 megawatts. “Compared to fossil fuel plants, hydropower is clean and the ‘fuel’ is free,” said Trey Taylor, President of Verdant Power. “When people hear hydropower, they immediately think of large dams and other impoundments. Sustainable hydropower or marine hydrokinetics (MHK) is based on technologies now entering both the U.S. and Chinese markets that do not require dams.” Environmental Leader previously reported on Verdant’s plan to build out its first installation in New York City’s East River. The Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE) Project will be the first grid-connected project that will provide New York City and the metropolitan area with up to 500 megawatts of pollution-free electricity from a field of underwater MHK turbines.

Here is the original post:
Verdant Power, China sign MOU

American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE), representing 6000 U.S. companies, demanded action from the Obama administration and Congress on climate and clean energy legislation. According to an ABCE press release , their list of supporters includes 49 Fortune 500 companies, including Exelon Corporation , FPL Group , National Grid , The Gap , and Warner Music Group . Christopher Van Atten, spokesperson, ABCE said: “This unprecedented outpouring of business support for real leadership from the White House and U.S. Senate on clean energy and climate should be a wake-up call for elected officials in Washington. Thousands of American businesses are saying that they want action on climate and clean energy … and they want that action now. What unites all of these businesses is a shared agreement on the wisdom of comprehensive clean energy legislation that will create jobs, unleash innovation and make our nation more secure, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.” ABCE is an umbrella organization representing U.S. businesses advocating Congressional action on climate and energy legislation.

Read the original here: 
ABCE: 6000 Companies Support Clean Energy Bill

An alliance of global companies including Acer , Dell , Hewlett-Packard and Sony Ericsson , and environmental organizations including the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), urged restrictions on PVC and brominated substances in electric and electronic equipment in the EU, according to a press release by the EEB. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) can currently be found in electronic equipment and other products, creating high risks for environment and public health if these products are not properly disposed of. The organizations are calling on EU legislators to ban the use of all BFR and PVC in electronics after 2015. EU legislators are now in the process of deciding future restrictions on hazardous substances in electronics through the revision of the EU Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive. The European Parliament Environment Committee will vote on the RoHS proposal on 3 June. The European Parliament will consider the directive in plenary in July 2010. The Council of Environmental Ministers will have its own debate on this subject on the 11th of June. Greenpeace recently pressured many electronics companies to support such a ban, while Apple and Sony were recently recognized for their efforts to eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs.

More here:
HP, Sony, Dell Push PVC, BFR Restrictions

John Kerry’s climate bill is an important component of legislating to stop climate change, but it’s falling to pieces due to Senate infighting and lack of sponsorship. It’s especially important to pass the bill now with the real possibility of a Republican majority come next election. The bill’s required carbon cap is desperately needed in slowing the rate of emissions. The Kerry-Lieberman climate bill is out now, and with it comes a fateful decision for the political left in the U.S. If the left’s institutions and messaging infrastructure succumb to internal squabbling or simple indifference; if the public is not actively won over and fired up; if President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stick their fingers in the wind to see which way it’s blowing … the bill will fail. The default outcome now is failure. Very few people in Washington, D.C., today believe the bill has a chance of passing. The odds are long, but the bill could be saved if the left — and I mean the whole left, not just environmentalists — pulled together and fought like hell. What’s needed is concrete political pressure. That means tracking who’s for it and against it; relentlessly pressing for commitments; actively organizing in a few key Republican and centrist Democratic states; pressing establishment pundits and media figures to cover it; calling out those who stand in the way of progress; and never, ever letting Obama and Reid have a moment’s peace until they fulfill their promises. The left hasn’t shown itself particularly capable of that kind of single-minded campaign. And there’s no guarantee it would succeed even if attempted. Without it, the bill’s failure is all but inevitable. For a complete examination of the bill’s importance, check out the full-length article at Grist.org . Editor’s note: Article by David Roberts. Originally published by our friends at Grist.org . Grist is a media organization that has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a humorous twist since 1999. Be sure to visit them and say hi, and follow Grist on Twitter , too! Image: The Sierra Club

Here is the original post:
Leaning Forward: Why the American Power Act is Worth Fighting For

Whenever I daydream on a particularly dreary day, I imagine walking along the streets of Paris, dressed, coiffed, and projecting je ne sais quoi , like the uniquely chic French girls. Like most Americans, I’m guilty of Euro-worship. Everything seems better across the pond: the food, the men, the beauty products. While we insist on injecting ourselves with Botox , European women seem to know how to age gracefully. But perhaps the secret to European healthy living lies in the fact that the European Union strictly regulates the extremely hazardous chemicals found in everyday products here in the United States. To date, the EU has banned 1,100 chemicals in cosmetics; the Food and Drug Administration in America has banned only ten. In fact, Cover Girl waterproof mascara contains the same ingredient (petroleum distillates, an oil by-product) as Dr. Scholl’s Wart Remover—both of which are illegal in Europe. Shocking, right? While I would never intentionally coat my lashes with wart remover, I do apply mascara multiple times a day. When I realized that many of the chemicals banned in the EU—but found in FDA-approved beauty products —cause cancer, birth defects, genetic mutation, and organ damage, I wondered: why is our regulation system so different from (and, dare I say, less effectual than) that of our European neighbors? Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Bithionol? If the U.S. has thus far prohibited only ten chemicals, you can imagine they’re pretty gnarly. As of 2010, the FDA has banned the following chemicals from any product sold in the U.S.: Choloroflurorocarbon Chloroform Halogenated salicylanilides Hexachlorophene Mercury Ethylene chloride Bithionol Prohibited cattle material (tallow and its by-products) Trichloroethane Zirconium The names may sound like a foreign language, but these chemicals were available in aerosol hairsprays, shampoos, face creams, deodorants, and more up until a few decades ago. Several other chemicals found in fragrances, such as AETT (acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin) and nitrosamines, can cause severe neurotoxic disorders and discoloration of internal organs. The fragrance industry voluntarily discontinued using these additives in the 1970s. Unfortunately, U.S. law can’t prevent other countries from importing prohibited cosmetics. Mercury, used mostly in skin bleaching or whitening products, used to be a preservative in shampoos, bubble bath, hair color, deodorants, etc. As it’s absorbed through the skin, mercury causes brain, kidney, and lung damage. But cosmetics containing mercury are often smuggled into the U.S. from China or India. After a case of mercury poisoning from an illegally imported skin-whitening cream occurred, the FDA warned against using such products but was unable to take any further legal action. The Sheriff of Makeup Town When it comes to cosmetics, the FDA is largely a paper tiger. Unlike with food and drug additives, the FDA has no authority to test chemicals in cosmetics, to require safety testing before products reach the consumer market, or to recall products. Cosmetic manufacturers are wholly responsible for the safety of their own products and for making sure they adhere to the FDA’s guidelines. Companies also aren’t required to register their cosmetic establishments, file data on ingredients, or report cosmetic-related injuries to FDA. Compare U.S. legislation with European law. The U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines cosmetics as products for “cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.” The intentionally vague language gives manufacturers a lot of freedom to produce questionable merchandise without the risk of government interference. By contrast, the European Union Cosmetics Directive (EUCD) defines a cosmetic as “any substance or preparation intended to be placed in contact with the various external parts of the human body (epidermis, hair system, nails, lips and external genital organs) or with the teeth and the mucous membranes of the oral cavity with a view exclusively or mainly to cleaning them, perfuming them, changing their appearance, and/or correcting body odours and/or protecting them or keeping them in good condition.” In case that wasn’t clear enough, the EUCD mandates that products “must not cause damage to human health when applied under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use.” While the EU has more protective and stringent laws toward cosmetics than the U.S. does, it also has the advantage of having each member state regulate products within its own national borders. Where we have one regulatory body, Europe has twenty-seven independent (but cooperative) organizations. Blinding Us with Science So who tests for unsafe additives in beauty products in the U.S.? The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), a self-policing safety panel, is the FDA’s main source of scientific data. According to its Web site, the CIR “thoroughly reviews and assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics in an open, unbiased, and expert manner, and publishes the results in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” But despite its claims of “fair and balanced” results, the CIR is funded by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), an industry group of more than six hundred cosmetic companies. In fact, the PCPC reportedly spent over $600,000 on lobbyists in Sacramento to prevent the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005, a law that would have required manufacturers to post any unsafe ingredients on product labels, from passing. Reports from environmental and public-health groups, like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, have often directly contradicted the “safe” findings of the CIR. In a 2007 study, the Environmental Working Group found that: One in thirty products sold in the U.S. fails to meet industry or government safety standards. Nearly four hundred products sold in the U.S., such as Crest Whitestrips and Neutrogena daily face cream, contain chemicals banned in Japan, Canada, and the EU. Ninety-eight percent of all products assessed contained one or more ingredients never tested for safety. However, even with the CIR’s reports readily available, many cosmetic companies continue to create products that defy safety guidelines. Since the CIR has the authority only to “advise,” not to regulate, these products are still sold in stores all across America. U.S. companies often create safer products for their European market and sell the more dangerous versions in American stores. Many companies acknowledge the danger of the chemicals in their products but insist that using the product as directed minimizes health risks. But before you lather, rinse, and repeat, remember that trace chemical amounts accumulate over time in the human body, and the CIR’s tests don’t account for lifelong use. Your daily body wash might contain a small, permissible amount of phthalates, but over the course of several years, the amount of phthalates in your body can reach extremely unhealthy levels. A Safer Lipstick, a Healthier You These days, if you’re not eating free-range, organic, all-natural food, expect to drop dead any minute—at least, that’s what your vegan-fanatic neighbor would have you believe. But Americans are so concerned with what they put in their mouths, they forget to watch what they put on their skin. I’m no different: a trip to Whole Foods’ produce section gives me a sense of superiority, but I still wash my hair with Pantene Pro-V. Before you pull a Henry David Thoreau and become a hermit in the woods, remember that you can get involved. Tell your congressional representative your concerns about effecting stricter legislation, and try to buy products whose ingredients you can recognize easily. CosmeticsDatabase.com is a wonderful resource for toxicity levels of brand-name products. It’s inevitable that my body will encounter a fair share of toxic chemicals over a lifetime—thank goodness for my liver!—but if I can make small changes to my daily routine, my body will thank me in the long run. Article by Bijani Mizell for DivineCaroline . First published May 2010. Related DivineCaroline posts: The Price of Beauty: What’s Lurking in Your Cosmetics? When It Comes to Beauty, It Ain’t Easy Being Green How to Tell if Your Beauty Products Are Actually Natural Image: Akira Ohgaki

View original here: 
American Beauty: Why Europe Bans Cosmetics America Won’t

Montgomery County, Maryland, passed a five dollar tax on every ton of carbon emitted, according to a press release by a local environmental group. The bill which was approved by an 8-1 vote. The bill would apply only to electrical plants that generate more than 1 million tons a year. Only the Dickerson power plant, owned by Mirant Corp , is large enough to fall within the law’s jurisdiction. The bill also included credits to Mirant if it reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Councilman Roger Berliner, who proposed the bill, said it could raise as much as $15 million. According to a report on Gazzette.net , the debate over the tax drew about 200 supporters and opponents, some booing and one who had to be removed. Robert Gaudette, vice president at Mirant Mid-Atlantic, argued on Tuesday that the tax would in fact be harmful for the environment, since Mirant would likely reduce production at the Dickerson plant and increase production at other, less regulated facilities. Gaudette also said the company would like have to pay $7.5 million under the new tax.

Read more from the original source:
Maryland County Carbon Tax Targets Mirant

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is planning to build a wind farm on a pier in New Jersey, according to a request for information from the Authority. The request calls for five, 300 foot tall wind turbines in Bayonne and Jersey City on the Port Jersey peninsula to produce 7.5 megawatts of electricity to power Port Authority operations and up to 2,000 nearby houses. The state hopes to generate 200 megawatts of electricity from wind power within 10 years. The proposal is part of the Port Authority’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from a 2006 baseline by 2050. The Authority is attempting to reduce emissions by 5 percent annually to achieve the goal. According to a report on northjersey.com , the Authority hopes to have the turbines generating power by 2014. The report cited a spokesperson for the Office of Clean Energy saying that the wind farm could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 10,000 metric tons a year. The Port Authority is expanding its port, which accommodates 323,000 containers a year, on the peninsula by refitting a dormant terminal. New York also recently released a request for proposals (RFP) to build an offshore wind farm in Lake Eerie and Lake Ontario of 40 to 150 turbines producing 120 to 500 megawatts. The Authority has received a $3.6 million grant to fund the project from the Office of Clean Energy.

Continued here:
Port Authority Plans Wind Farm in New Jersey

Intel has reduced its absolute global-warming emissions by more than 45 percent below 2007 levels and more than 40 percent below 2004 levels on a per chip basis as of the end of 2009, according to the company’s 2009 Corporate Responsibility Report . Intel also reduced its PFC emissions by more than 50 percent in absolute terms and 80 percent on a per chip basis from its 1995 baseline. However, water consumption and chemical waste recycling rates increased, in part due to low manufacturing levels and the closure of a U.S. recycling plant, respectively. Intel’s absolute Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions were down 20 percent in 2009 compared to 2008, while emissions on a per chip basis were up 13 percent due to lower manufacturing levels. The decrease in absolute emissions from 2008 to 2009 was due to reduced PFC emissions and energy-efficiency projects, says Intel. Here are other environmental highlights from Intel’s progress report. Intel has maintained its position as the largest voluntary purchaser of renewable energy credits (RECs) in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and announced in January 2010 its plan for eight new solar installations at U.S. facilities. These projects will generate almost 2.5 million watts of solar power by mid-2010 . The company’s purchase of RECs represents 51 percent of its U.S. energy use, which resulted in a reduction of approximately 1 million MM tCO2e in Scope 2 emissions in 2008 and 2009. The semiconductor manufacturer continued to invest in resource conservation and efficiency projects in 2009, aimed at reducing energy use in its operations. Projects include the installation of more efficient lighting and smart system controls; boiler and chilled water system improvements; and cleanroom heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and heat recovery improvements. Since 2001, Intel has invested more than $35 million and completed over 1,300 projects, saving more than 640 million kWh of energy, and about $18 million annually in energy costs. The IT department also has implemented projects to reduce energy consumption of IT-related and office energy, which has cut power costs by $4 million in 2009. Intel also cut energy use and carbon emissions by expanding its video conferencing capabilities, saving an estimated $14 million and 43,156 travel hours in 2009. Intel also met its goals to meet energy-efficiency and product ecology targets in 2009. As an example, Intel estimates that the conversion to the energy-efficient Intel Core microarchitecture saved up to 26 terawatt-hours of electricity between 2006 and 2009, compared to the technology it replaced. Intel also recently released the Xeon 5600 series, which offers improvements in performance, service virtualization and power consumption , with applications ranging from data transactions to workstations performing medical imaging and digital prototyping. In 2009, Intel also expanded its transparency and disclosure on water use and adopted a new water policy. Water conservation measures also helped Intel reclaim approximately 2 billion gallons of water in 2009. The chip maker has saved 36 billion gallons of water since 1998 due to its water conservation investments. However, Intel’s water consumption increased 3 percent from 2008 levels on an absolute basis and 38 percent on a per chip basis due to low manufacturing levels and increasingly complex manufacturing processes. The company expects to meet its 2012 goals to reduce water use per chip below 2007 levels through investments in process optimization and additional recycling and reuse opportunities. The semiconductor manufacturer also disclosed for the first time the list of its top 50 suppliers, and trained them on new environmental, social, and governance requirements and metrics they’ll be evaluated on in 2010. Intel recycled 80 percent of its solid waste in 2009 but its chemical waste recycling rate fell to 71 percent in 2009, in part due to closure of a U.S. recycling facility and reduced recycling opportunities in Israel. The company says it will implement new processes to reverse this trend in 2010. Chemical waste generated was down 13 percent on an absolute basis and up 23 percent on a per chip basis in 2009 compared to 2008. The per chip basis was up due to lower manufacturing volumes. In 2009, Intel founded the Intel Open Energy Initiative to drive the global transition to smart grids and smart buildings. The following table shows the progress Intel has made on meeting its 2012 environmental goals.

Original post:
Intel Cuts Emissions by 45%, Water Use Rises 3%

The National Research Council (NRC) released three reports today making the case that climate change is real and largely caused by human activity. The reports advocate immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America’s Climate Choices. “These reports show that the state of climate change science is strong,” said Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. ”But the nation also needs the scientific community to expand upon its understanding of why climate change is happening, and focus also on when and where the most severe impacts will occur and what we can do to respond.” The three reports, Advancing the Science of Climate Change , Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change , and Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change , lay out the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, advocate methods for limiting its magnitude, and strategies for mitigating risks in the face of rising sea levels and more extreme weather phenomena. The reports do not recommend a specific target for a domestic emissions budget, but suggest a range of emissions from 170 to 200 gigatons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent for the period 2012 through 2050 as a reasonable goal, a goal that is roughly in line with the range of emission reduction targets proposed recently by the Obama administration and members of Congress. The project was requested by Congress and is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Here is the original post:
NRC Releases Three Reports on Climate Change