Daily Score Blog

Over at Worldchanging, Sarah Kuck has some great examples from Portland of how to make green building available to everyone:

Redeveloping and retooling our cities means investing upfront to insure quality materials and sustainable development plans. This includes thinking about how to improve a neighborhood for all residents. Although there are costs that come with these investments, a dedication to equality and durability ensures long-term sustainability for the entire community.

As a Portland-native, I'm thrilled to see world-class examples from my own backyard. So, give it a read, will you? Then, tell us: what are your favorites for best practices in green building and affordability?

Northwesterners rallied en masse this afternoon to show their support for the EPA to take action on the regulation of greenhouse gases. Hundreds of people (including a crew from Sightline Institute)  gathered on Seattle's waterfront outside the Bell Harbor Conference Center at Pier 66 where the agency was taking public testimony on the issue until tonight. 

There were only two hearings nationwide (the other was in the other Washington on Monday) to take the public's pulse on the matter. (See this Seattle Post Globe story to learn more about the hearing.)

The question being posed: Does the public thinks that carbon dioxide is a threat to human health? It sounded like the answer from this coast was a resounding 'yes.'

A recent Gallup Poll reveals solid majority support for higher fuel efficiency standards such as those President Obama announced Tuesday. A March poll found 80 percent of Americans in favor of higher standards. So, why are reporters painting a picture only of consumer woe and sacrifice when it comes to this landmark announcement?

Obama launched his proposal along with state governors from both sides of the aisle -- and public support is refreshingly bipartisan. While Democrats show more widespread support for higher fuel efficiency standards, 72 percent of Republicans also say they are in favor (see graph below). But a big AP story (front page of the Seattle Times, Wednesday) and a USA Today story -- along with all kinds of other coverage -- dwell almost exclusively on a litany of trumped up downsides: increased consumer costs, soccer moms jamming their families into smaller cars, and compromises on choice and safety for the sake of efficiency. This is odd when the proposal will encourage more consumer choice and more efficiency -- exactly what Americans seem to want.

Buried deep in these stories is the important factor that Obama has stressed, that the upfront cost increase (estimated to be $1,300 per vehicle) would quickly be offset by savings at the pump. He estimated a more fuel-efficient vehicle will pay off in as little as three years, and that over the vehicle's life the typical driver would save around $2,800.