We support the Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure Ordinance!

Boston’s City Councilors will have a rare opportunity to support climate action policy on Wednesday, May 8. The proposed Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure Ordinance (BERDO) would require owners of large buildings (over 25,000 square feet) to collect and publicly report their buildings’ total energy and water usage each year. Those with the most inefficient buildings would be required to get an energy audit or to undertake energy efficiency upgrades. This would provide key information to owners, residents, prospective buyers and tenants, and spur energy efficiency work. Increasing energy efficiency in existing buildings is the single most important component of the City’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By passing this Ordinance, Boston would join the ranks of New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Seattle, San Francisco, and other major U.S. cities that have enacted similar ordinances.

Please contact your City Councilors before noon on May 8, and urge them to support the proposed ordinance. The following letter to the editor summarizes our argument.

To the Editor:

Boston Climate Action Network strongly supports the proposed City ordinance to make public the energy efficiency rating of large buildings (BERDO) as a key tool for a more financially and environmentally sustainable Boston. For residential properties the required audits are free, and even for nonresidential buildings, this benchmarking process is projected to add only two-tenths of one percent to the cost per square foot, according to Laurie Kerr, former NYC Deputy Director for Energy Efficiency, who led that city’s benchmarking program. And the audits can easily pay for themselves in energy savings that actually reduce costs.

BostonCAN is part of a working group composed of BERDO proponents and opponents working to address concerns raised by both sides. We strongly support such equity goals as protecting low-income tenants from noncompliance fines, as well as measures to protect tenant privacy. What we will not compromise on is BERDO’s goals for reducing pollution and mitigating climate change.

We wonder if some real estate owners oppose BERDO because it offers prospective tenants access to energy ratings. Building energy efficiency benchmarks, just like miles-per-gallon stickers on new cars, allow the public to vote with their dollars for the most environmentally and financially sustainable property they can find. Benchmarking allows tenants and buyers to budget effectively based on independently verified energy cost projections.

BERDO can be good for those building owners who do not realize that their buildings have fallen behind the market average in energy efficiency. Many owners and managers of large properties are already saving through benchmarking, and City officials are working with the utility companies to completely automate the process of gathering data so that it becomes virtually effortless for tenants and owners.

According to Mark Sylvia, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, the Commonwealth’s energy efficiency program is “projected to generate $6 billion in benefits over the lifetime of the energy efficiency improvements installed in homes and businesses, from planned spending of $2.1 billion. The plans are also expected to create or retain nearly 4,000 jobs in Massachusetts.” In addition to these skilled, export-proof jobs, lower energy bills also mean that fewer dollars will leave the region to line the pockets of petro-profiteers, and more capital will remain here, available for workforce expansion and other community investments.

In addition to these economic benefits, this ordinance is essential in this era of increasing climate instability. As we saw by our near-miss with Superstorm Sandy, great swaths of Boston are vulnerable to more intense storm surges. Flooding, heat waves, blizzards—all these are expected to increase due to the warming that we can no longer prevent.  Energy conservation today directly lessens the degree of climate change risk that we face. This degree is the difference between conditions Boston can adapt to, and conditions that might overwhelm our ability to leave our children a Boston that looks anything like what we live in today.

A Report on the Report: Keystone XL Is NOT in the National Interest

by Beth Newhall

On March 1, 2013, the State Department issued a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluating TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. The final EIS is one of the pieces the president will consider in determining whether the pipeline is in the national interest. To quote the executive summary of the statement, the national interest determination “involves consideration of many factors, including energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations.” (page 6).

Fortunately, the EIS is not the only thing that the president will consider in making the determination. Until April 22, the State Department is accepting public comments on the pipeline, and you can submit yours through 350MA and 350.org. The State Department’s draft EIS discounts the degree to which Keystone XL would contribute to further development of the Alberta tar sands. In addition, it largely dismisses the effects of the greenhouse gas emissions produced through the burning of tar sands. Yet despite these inadequacies, a closer reading of the EIS reveals compelling evidence that the pipeline is not in our national interest.

Energy Security

Proponents of the pipeline like to argue that because tar sands oil comes from our friendly Canadian neighbors, it will furnish the United States with a stable source of fossil fuel. This is a gross distortion—the United States would assume all the risk of having the tar sands oil course through the heart of our country, with little guaranteed security at the other end. Keystone XL would carry tar sands oil to refineries in the Texas Gulf Coast region. But as the EIS notes, from the refineries, the oil would be subject to the vagaries of the world market. TransCanada executives will make sure it’s sold to the highest bidder, and according to the EIS, that is less and less likely to be the United States: “While the increase in U.S. production of crude oil and the reduced U.S. demand for transportation fuels will likely reduce the demand for total U.S. crude oil imports, it is unlikely to reduce demand for heavy sour crude at Gulf Coast refineries” (section 1.4, page 1). This means that as demand for fuel from the United States decreases, demand from other countries is keeping the refineries busy.

Section 1.4 of the EIS also notes that although it is unlikely that tar sands oil would be shipped from the Gulf Coast for refining outside of the United States, the only thing preventing that possibility is the lower cost of refining in the Gulf Coast region. Should market conditions change, TransCanada would be free to ship the unrefined tar sands oil overseas, making the United States nothing more than a bridge from one point to another—a bridge bearing all the risks of pipeline leaks and spills.

Environmental Impacts

One of the most flagrant flaws in the State Department’s EIS is the report’s refusal to consider the impacts of the greenhouse gases that would be generated during the operation of the pipeline and from the burning of the tar sands as refined fossil fuels. Well, that’s not quite accurate. The EIS notes that operating the pipeline would generate approximately 3.19 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, mostly from running the electrical pumping stations along the pipeline route: “The annual CO2e emissions from [operating] the proposed Project is equivalent to CO2e emissions from approximately 626,000 passenger vehicles operating for one year or 398,000 homes using electricity for one year” (executive summary, page 17). To mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the operation of the pipeline, the EIS suggests that operators “Consider the purchase of green electricity from the grid” (section 4.12, page 20). Apparently, the EIS authors are oblivious to the irony of suggesting that we use green electricity to support the further development of fossil fuels.

The executive summary notes that the oils from tar sands “are more [greenhouse gas]-intensive than the other heavy crudes they would replace or displace in U.S. refineries, and emit an estimated 17 percent more [greenhouse gases] on a life-cycle basis than the average barrel of crude oil refined in the United States in 2005” (page 17). Scientist and climate activist James Hansen is more explicit in his evaluation of the development of the tar sands—he has said that development of the tar sands is “essentially game over” for the climate. The EIS dismisses such concerns because it concludes that tar sands will be developed regardless of whether Keystone XL is approved. But as the actions of climate activists around the world and here in the United States have shown, opposition to our continued dependence on fossil fuels is growing. If we can stop the Keystone XL pipeline, who’s to say we can’t stop (or delay or limit) the development of Canada’s tar sands?

Cultural Impacts

When it comes to iconic American images, few are etched on our national memory as profoundly as the sweep of prairie and ranchers moving their herds across the land. But the pipeline will cut through the heart of cattle country in Nebraska and Montana, and many ranchers are fearful of the consequences.

In an article on the site of Drovers Cattle Network, cattle buyer Randy Thompson, founder of the group Stand with Randy, gives voice to such concerns:

I am a Nebraska cattleman and landowner. I am fighting against the [Keystone XL] pipeline for two very basic reasons.   First of all, I feel very strongly that this pipeline represents an assault on the individual property rights of American citizens. There is something inherently wrong about the idea of American landowners being forced to subsidize the private enterprise of a foreign corporation with land that their families have earned through generations of hard work and determination. Secondly, I feel that the [Keystone XL pipeline] presents a real threat to some of our nation’s most valuable natural resources, especially our rivers, streams and underground aquifers. These are priceless American assets that no amount of oil money, foreign or otherwise, could ever replace.

And ranchers are not the only ones whose land could be seized for the construction of the pipeline. Native American peoples, gathered largely under the banner of Canadian-American coalition Idle No More, are likewise protesting Keystone XL—for its encroachment on their lands as well as the broader environmental consequences of moving forward with the pipeline.

Economic Impacts

Pipeline developers would like to convince Americans that Keystone XL holds the key to jobs and prosperity, but the truth is that the money will flow in only one direction—to the executives at TransCanada.

According to pages 15 and 16 of the executive summary, construction of the pipeline will generate approximately 42,100 annual jobs for one to two years (3900 jobs directly related to construction). This employment would result in approximately $2.05 billion in earnings. States that levy sales and use taxes could collect about $65 million each during construction. After that point, the operation of the pipeline would generate 35 permanent jobs and 15 temporary jobs.

Although $2.05 billion might seem promising, consider that in 2011, oil companies made a profit of $80 billion. In addition, fossil fuel companies manage to net billions of dollars in tax subsidies each year. And consider that the state of Nebraska had approximately $4.2 billion in tax revenue in 2012. That $65 million suddenly seems pretty paltry.

But of course, the worst exaggeration relates to the jobs. After the pipeline is complete, 50 jobs (15 of them still considered “temporary”) will remain. One could argue that long-term indirect employment from the pipeline would be greater—refineries, for example, might have to hire more workers to increase capacity—but those numbers will surely not be enough to nudge down the country’s overall unemployment rate. March was a slow month for job growth, and the U.S. economy still managed to add 88,000 jobs. TransCanada and pipeline supporters argue that Keystone XL holds the promise of jobs and revenue, but it is a false promise, belied by the details of the State Department’s own report.

Foreign Policy Impacts

In addition to misrepresenting Keystone XL as the key to a stable and secure source of energy for the United States, TransCanada and the Canadian government have presented the development of the tar sands as an unmitigated boon to the economy of Canada, and one that has the widespread support of Canadian citizens. But in reality, many Canadians share the same worries and doubts about tar sands developments as we do.

According to Thomas Homer-Dixon’s New York Times opinion piece, “A poll by Nanos Research in February 2012 found that nearly 42 percent of Canadians were opposed [to tar sands development].” In Alberta, Canadians are seeing their forests destroyed and replaced by tailing ponds that contain the toxic water that is a by-product of tar sands production. Canadians are also witnessing the corrosive mix of politics and fossil fuel interests. Homer-Dixon argues that many of the decisions relating to tar sands development are being made by those who most directly stand to benefit from them, even though they have nothing like a mandate from Canadian citizens: “The current Conservative government holds a large majority of seats in Parliament but was elected in 2011 with only 40 percent of the vote, because three other parties split the center and left vote. The Conservative base is Alberta, the province from which Prime Minister Stephen Harper and many of his allies hail. As a result, Alberta has extraordinary clout in federal politics, and tar sands influence reaches deep into the federal cabinet.”

Proponents of Keystone XL want Americans to believe that rejection of the pipeline would jeopardize our relationship with Canada. But again, closer inspection of the facts shows that Canadians themselves are questioning the wisdom of tar sands developments. The only friendly relationship we’d be sure to preserve by going ahead with Keystone XL is our relationship with TransCanada.

Compliance with Federal Regulation

The EIS itself fulfills the requirements for evaluation put forth by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, as first reported in Mother Jones, several scientists working for Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the contractor commissioned to draft much of the EIS, have previous ties to TransCanada and other oil companies. When federal regulations allow for such conflicts of interest—conflicts that did not have to be revealed on ERM’s conflicts of interest disclosure—the relevance and effectiveness of regulations such as NEPA seems questionable.

Furthermore, as incidents with existing pipelines have shown, federal regulations are largely ineffective when it comes to preventing leaks and spills or lessening their effects. Spills in Arkansas and Utah are only the most recent. Scientific American asserts that there are hundreds of small leaks in oil pipelines each year. And even new pipelines can leak. Keystone I, a piece of the Keystone Pipeline System that is already built and in use, has suffered 14 leaks since 2010. As thousands of gallons of crude oil ooze down suburban streets, it’s difficult to imagine that federal regulations, or fines for failures after the fact, could ever be adequate to the task of protecting our aquifers, rivers, lakes, land, and property.

 

Until April 22, 2013, the State Department will be accepting public comments on the draft EIS and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Please take a few minutes to submit your comments through 350MA or  350.org. You can also email the State Department directly at keystonecomments@state.gov or call Genevieve Walker at 202-647-9798. Tell the State Department and the President that there is no way Keystone XL is in our national interest. If we let tar sands oil come to market through the United States, we have everything to lose—and only TransCanada gains.

Spring is Here: Raise Your Voice!

What’s better than writing a letter to your congressman about climate change? Writing your letter with friends and sending a whole bunch of letters in conjunction with people all over the nation! That’s what Greening Rozzy (GR) board member Karen Kirchoff did on a snowy February afternoon when she held a letter writing party at the Select Cafe in Roslindale Square. Karen gathered members of GR, BostonCAN, and Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and, after a quick briefing on Carbon Tax bills, nine of us got down to writing three letters each. In two hours time we had 27 hand-written letters to Elizabeth Warren, Barak Obama, and various House members.

To put on your own letter writing party all you need is stationery supplies, around ten people, and a place conducive to writing — like a cafe or someone’s house. It could even be an excuse for a picnic in the Arboretum. Citizens Climate Lobby has sponsored hundreds of letter writing parties around the country as part of their “Million Letter March” campaign to generate a million citizen letters calling for meaningful climate legislation. If you want to put on your own letter writing party, BostonCAN will publicize it through their mailing lists and CCL-Boston will send a speaker, educational materials, and the latest information on climate legislation — just to get folks in the letter-writing mood. Letter writing parties are a quick and fun way to participate in climate politics and original, hand-written letters have much greater impact than a larger number of internet-generated emails. Getting a few hundred letters is a concrete way to show our elected officials that their constituents want them to take real action to stop climate change.

To have CCL-Boston and BostonCAN co-sponsor your letter writing party, email Gary Rucizinsky  and cc: BostonCAN.

– Jack Thorndike

Putting Teeth into the President’s Promise

“We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.”

—President Barack Obama, January 21, 2013

Gina McCarthy

Throughout the presidential campaign, many of us waited anxiously to hear about climate change from either major candidate. Many of us joined actions urging them to speak out, but the silence was deafening. Then came Superstorm Sandy—a storm that amplified our protests with the voices of the raging wind and tumultuous sea. And whether as a result of Sandy or from a new sense of power and obligation, President Obama finally was moved to speak about climate change during the inauguration and the State of the Union. Surprised and encouraged by his words, climate safety activists are looking forward to what Obama’s second term will bring.

We will soon see an early indication of the President’s commitment when he announces his replacements for outgoing Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Lisa Jackson. The rumor that Bostonian Gina McCarthy is a potential nominee for the EPA is exciting to all who have heard her speak or worked with her on the creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and other climate-positive policies. Many take heart in the appointments of John Kerry to the State Department and Sally Jewell to Interior.

February 13 Tar Sands civil disobedience participants including
BC professor Juliet Schor (right).

The President’s decision on whether or not to permit the Keystone the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be another early indicator of the chances for significant action on climate this term.  Boston College professor Juliet Schor joined 47 other national leaders in a sit-in at the White House on Feb. 13 designed to build momentum for the President to reject the pipeline’s permit application. About her actions, Schor says, “I was willing to risk arrest because decades of scientific evidence, argument, and information have failed to move U.S. elites to protect the planet and the future of humanity. It is clear that we need to take on the fossil-fuel industry, which is acting in a stunningly dangerous and amoral way. History shows us that major social change often requires civil disobedience. I consider this a generational obligation.” Many more Boston area activists will travel to Washington, DC, for the Forward on Climate demonstration on February 17. Organizers are hoping that upwards of 20,000 people will gather at the Washington Monument to call for rejection of the pipeline permit.

Communities hit by Superstorm Sandy are likewise feeling the urgency of climate change. Boston dodged the climate bullet on October 29 when Sandy’s storm surge hit at low tide rather than high tide. A new study at Boston Harbor Association finds that had the storm hit five hours earlier, it is likely that seven percent of the city would have been flooded. By the end of this century, almost a third of the city will be vulnerable to flooding due to higher sea levels resulting from global climate change.

People in city government and in Boston’s real-estate community are getting serious about the rising seas and about the need to adapt to a warmer climate more generally. State government as well is planning new ways to protect the Commonwealth from climate threats. One pragmatic action that’s currently being debated at the State House is a major change in funding for transportation projects, including improvements to mass transit that would greatly reduce greenhouse gas production related to vehicle travel. Success at the State House is now much more likely given Governor Patrick’s high-profile advocacy and a strategic alliance between metro Boston residents who depend on the MBTA and other Massachusetts residents who depend on regional transit authorities. Public Transit — Public Good, a campaign by the Green Justice Coalition, aims to expand funding for public transit throughout the state.

Unfortunately, sea-level rise is just one climate impact already hitting Boston. Extreme heat, and the poor air quality that comes with hotter days, is already the number one climate impact in our region. Expanded funding for mass transit is essential to cleaner air and cooler summers. Boston residents also need expanded access to state energy-efficiency programs to cope with more high-heat days. The Department of Public Utilities recently approved plans for the Commonwealth’s energy-efficiency program, MassSave, for the next three years. The plans include some exciting new initiatives, such as “Efficient Neighborhoods +.” The details are still being outlined, but in essence, this initiative is likely to improve access for low-to-moderate income families who have been paying into MassSave for years but have not yet been able to afford the 25 percent co-pay for the insulation and other services that the program subsidizes.

Whether you decide to head to Washington, DC, to take action on a national level or seek to participate in regional climate action closer to home, there are many ways you can get involved. President Obama’s words were stirring. We, the people, have an obligation to make good on their promise.

Link up with other BostonCAN volunteers at the Local Environmental Action conference on Sunday, March 10^th.

Protestors Brave Cold to Rally against Tars Sands Pipeline in New England

Even in winter, Portland, Maine, bustles with tourists and residents enjoying the city’s artsy shops and eclectic restaurants. But on Saturday, January 26th, the streets of Portland were full for a different reason. Between 1400 and 1500 people, myself included, marched through downtown to the Maine State Pier to protest a pipeline that would bring tar sands from Canada through New England.

The pipeline already exists and currently carries conventional crude oil from Portland to Montreal. According to the Natural Resource Council of Maine, the Sierra Club of Maine, and EcoWatch, plans are in the works to reverse the flow, sending unrefined tar sands (aka, oil sands and diluted bitumen) from Canada through Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine for export.

Media coverage of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline has raised awareness about the dangers of tar sands, so the environmental risks are familiar to many. The Natural Resources Defense Council has reported that tar sands are highly corrosive and that existing tar sands pipelines are extremely prone to leaks. The process of extracting tar sands is destructive and creates huge amounts of toxic waste. A recent study indicates that carcinogens have increased in lakes near the sites of tar sands extraction. Perhaps most significantly, use of oil from tar sands perpetuates dependence on fossil fuels that release carbon into the atmosphere, worsening global warming.

But those of us marching, chanting, and carrying signs and banners were not in Portland just to raise awareness of the dangers of tar sands. We were there to shine a spotlight on plans that have, until now, gone largely unnoticed. The companies operating the existing pipeline seem to have local roots, but they are backed by the power players of the fossil fuel industry. ExxonMobil has major interests in Portland Pipe Line Corp., which operates the stretch of pipeline in the United States, and Montreal Pipe Line Limited, which owns the Canadian stretch. Enbridge Incorporated in Canada owns other pipelines that would connect Canadian tars sands from the west to the northeast pipeline. And although the companies associated with the pipelines claim that they have no plans to reverse the Portland-Montreal pipeline, actions such as Enbridge’s application for a permit to reverse the flow of a pipeline in Ontario (so that it would flow west to east) undermine the denials.

Speakers at the rally, including Portland mayor Michael Brennan and Democratic US representative Chellie Pingree, talked about the need for heightened awareness of the oil companies’ maneuvering. Representative Pingree stated her intention of making a presidential review a necessary part of any proposed reversal of the current pipeline. Graduate student Ben Thompson, one of the “Westborough 8” recently arrested during a peaceful protest at a TransCanada office in Massachusetts, delivered a moving call to action linking climate change to food shortages and the struggles future generations will face on a warmer planet. As singers and dancers from the Native American environmental group Idle No More closed the rally by bringing protesters together in a circle dance, a ferry departed the Casco Bay terminal, displaying a banner that read “No tar sands in Casco Bay.”

At this point, it’s impossible to know whether the protest has had any impact on plans for pipeline reversal. But the marchers and speakers from across Maine and New England can rest assured that we succeeded in bringing attention to the issue. The protest was covered by the Associated Press, and the story ran on the sites of national news outlets, including the Huffington Post and San Francisco Chronicle. And as for the passersby who happened to be out and about enjoying Portland’s amenities? They smiled and took photos. The windows of one downtown hotel were lined with people waving and cheering us on.

The fight against the fossil fuel companies has only begun. The major corporations that have vested interests in coal, oil, and natural gas will make every argument and spend every dollar required to prevent a transition to renewable, sustainable energy. But if the United States’ proud tradition of activism has taught us anything, it’s that if enough of us march, chant, and carry signs, we can meet the challenge.

If you would like to learn more about the proposed pipeline reversal or get involved in making sure that tar sands stay out of New England, visit the website of Tar Sands Free Northeast or 350 Massachusetts. If you are ready to take action to oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline, consider being part of Forward on Climate, potentially the largest climate change rally in history, in Washington, DC, on Sunday, February 17th. You can get more information at http://350ma.org/ or at http://act.350.org/signup/presidentsday.

by Beth Newhall

More photos on 350MA’s photo stream

Green Minga Barnraising: Big Success

(En Español Abajo)
When was the last time you hosted a party and saved hundreds of dollars in fuel costs and thousands of pounds of global warming pollution? Yolanda Gonzalez and family did that just last week at the Green Minga barnraising!

Three generations of the Gonzalez family were joined by about 40 BostonCAN volunteers for the Green Minga barnraising, or community work party. Key among these were local professionals Victor Guillén of Carpentry Services Boston, Wilbert Seoane of Co-op Power, and Next Step Living’s Carl Lowenberg, who donated both time and materials to make the day a success. These three were joined by Manuel Gonçalves of Co-op Power, Loie Hayes of BostonCAN, and Matthew Schriener of Home Energy Efficiency Team as team leaders who taught volunteers ways to block cold air from sneaking in through windows and doors, and to keep heat in where it’s needed and not where it isn’t.

Spanish and English conversations echoed throughout the building, with more than a third of the participants being native Spanish speakers. Media professionals José Massó from WGBH’s Con Salsa and independent filmmaker Carla Pataky interviewed participants to document the event and discuss more broadly Latino efforts to address climate change. Freelance photographer Gretjen Helene took photos throughout the day and created a wonderful slideshow of highlights. Whole Foods donated a bounty of sandwiches and snacks to get volunteers fueled up for the four-hour work session.  Catalina Justiniano, the Green Minga organizer, commented afterward, “It was an exciting and beautiful experience of a community working together to improve the living conditions of these JP residents. Most impressive was how most of the volunteers were willing to come back again if anything else could be done beyond the possibilities of a four-hours work session.”

As in a traditional Minga, the homeowners offered food to thank their community after the work was done, Yolanda thanked the volunteers with a wonderful supper of chicken, rice, red beans and a delicious salad jointly prepared by the family. Volunteers took a break from work to enjoy this meal and share their joyful sense of accomplishment. Yolanda never stopped smiling throughout the day and days after she said “I feel blessed with all the work that was done, as it was something I really needed. What I like most was that there was a family-like feeling in the air and also that I’m positive I will save energy. Now I need to get the insulation and I hope that will happen soon.”

During supper, people had the opportunity to hear presentations on job openings in the weatherization industry. Jubeth Nuñez representing Renew Boston and  Next Step Living, Eunice Yu from Mass Energy, Mela Bush from Co-op Power, and Stephan MacPhee from Solar City all discussed the types of positions that are currently open at their workplaces. Just the fact that so many more companies are now providing energy efficiency services to Boston residents, compared to even 4 years ago, is a testament to the potential of community development through investment in energy efficiency.

Victor Guillén and Co-op Power both donated planning time before the barnraising and Co-op Power came back after with a blower door test to measure how much our work had reduced the draftiness of Yolanda’s home. Based on that evaluation, we project that the building’s residents will save a combined $438 in energy costs every year going forward. That also means that there won’t be any of the global warming pollution that would have been created by burning that $438 worth of energy: a savings of more than 3895 pounds of CO2, which is equal to about a fifth of Yolanda’s household’s energy pollution footprint.  And all from do-it-yourself projects!

Green Minga organizer Catalina Justiniano is saying goodbye to BostonCAN as she moves out of the area. Thankfully she has created some wonderful precedents that our next barnraising organizer can use going forward. Please contact BostonCAN Coordinator Loie Hayes if you’re interested in helping to organize our next barnraising!

We’ve posted more photos on-line.

Minga Verde: Gran Éxito

¿Cuándo fue la última vez que usted hizo una fiesta y terminó ahorrando cientos de dólares en costos de combustible y ahorrando miles de libras de contaminación que produce calentamiento gobal? Yolanda González y su familia hicieron esto la semana pasada en la Minga Verde!

A las tres generaciones de los González se sumaron cerca de 40 voluntarios de BostonCAN a esta fiesta de trabajo comunitario, la Minga Verde. Claves en este evento, fueron los profesionales líderes de equipo como Victor Guillén, de Carpentry Services Boston, Wilbert Seoane, de Co-op Power, y Carl Lowenberg, de Next Step Living. Todos ellos donaron tiempo y materiales para que esto fuera un éxito. Además se sumaron otros líderes, Manuel Gonçalves de Co-op Power, Matthew Schriener, voluntario de Home Energy Efficiency Team (HEET), y Loie Hayes, de BostonCAN, enseñando a los voluntarios medios simples de como bloquear la entrada de aire frío a la casa a través de las puertas y ventanas, y cómo mantener el aire caliente en los lugares donde se necesita sin malgastarlo donde no es necesario.

A través del edificio se escuchaban conversaciones en ingles y en español, pues había al menos un tercio de los participantes que eran hispanoparlantes. Los profesionales del medios, José Massó, locutor del programa Con Salsa de WGBH’s y la cineasta Carla Pataky entrevistaron a los participantes para documentar el evento y conversar con los participantes acerca de los esfuerzos de la comunidad Latina para combatir el cambio climático. La fotógrafa  Gretjen Helene capturó imágenes durante todo el día, generando una bonita presentación de los momentos más significativos del día. Whole Foods hizo una donación de sándwiches y snacks que dieron fuerzas a los voluntarios para trabajar durante cuatro horas seguidas. Catalina Justiniano, la organizadora de la Minga Verde, comentó posteriormente, “Fue maravilloso lo que se generó como experiencia de trabajo comunitario para mejorar las condiciones de la vivienda de un vecino de Jamaica Plain. Se respiraba un ambiente de fiesta, y lo más impresionante fue ver como los voluntarios se mostraron dispuestos a regresar en caso que no se terminaran todas las tareas proyectadas al término de las cuatro horas.”

Como sucede tradicionalmente en la Minga, donde los propietarios ofrecen comida a la comunidad en agradecimiento al trabajo realizado, Yolanda agasajó a los voluntarios  con una deliciosa comida. Junto a su hermana e hijas, prepararon pollo, arroz, porotos y ensaladas. Los voluntarios se tomaron un descanso para disfrutar de la comida y compartir la satisfacción del trabajo realizado. Yolanda no paró de sonreír en todo el día, y días después del evento señaló “estoy muy halagada con el tipo de trabajo que ustedes hicieron, porque era algo que yo necesitaba. Lo que más me gusto fue el ambiente tan familiar, y que estoy segura que esto me ayudará a ahorrar energía. Ahora me falta la insulación para completar esto, lo que espero suceda pronto.”

Después de la comida, las personas tuvieron la oportunidad de escuchar a profesionales de la industria de climatización. Estuvieron ese día, Jubeth Nuñez representando a Renew Boston y Next Step Living, Eunice Yu, de Mass Energy, Mela Bush de Co-op Power, y Stephan MacPhee de Solar City. Todos ellos presentaron el tipo de puestos de trabajo que se están ofreciendo hoy día en sus empresas. El solo hecho de que hoy hay muchas compañías que proveen servicios de eficiencia energética a los habitantes de Boston, en comparación a lo que ocurría cuatro años atrás, es una muestra del potencial para el desarrollo comunitario a través de la inversión en eficiencia energética.

Victor Guillén y Co-op Power, a través de Wilbert y su equipo, donaron tiempo para evaluar las tareas que eran más urgentes de realizar el día del evento, así como hacer la evaluación de pérdida de calor a través de la prueba conocida como “blower door.” Co-op Power regresó el día lunes post evento para hacer nuevamente la prueba, de modo de medir cuanto se redujo la pérdida de energía luego de los trabajos de climatización realizados en la casa de Yolanda. Basado en esa evaluación, proyectamos que los habitantes del edificio de Yolanda, ahorrarán aproximadamente $438 anuales, en costos de calefacción. Esto también significa que se reducen los contaminantes que producen el calentamiento del planeta producto de la generación de esos $438 en energía. En términos de energía, los ahorros superan las 3800 libras de CO2, que equivale a un qunito de la huella de carbono que genera el hogar de Yolanda. ¡Y todo a través de proyectos hágalo usted mismo!

La organizadora de la Minga Verde Catalina Justiniano se despide de BostonCAN pues se mueve de Boston. Pero deja muy buenos precedentes y materiales que serán de utilidad para la siguiente minga. ¡Por favor contacte a la coordinadora de BostonCAN, Loie Hayes si está interesado/a en organizar el próximo evento de este tipo!

Más fotos aqui.