While the rest of the country is experiencing high temperatures moving into summer season, Colorado’s climate is very moderate. Here in Colorado you can enjoy the best of both worlds, skiing in the winter and biking and hiking in the summer. Whatever time of year our residents are always outdoors experiencing all that the Rockies have to offer.

If you are looking to build a second home or vacation getaway you should consider majestic Colorado. Our mountainous terrain is the perfect backdrop for you future home site. At Trilogy, we can help build you the vacation home of your dreams. We have the experience and knowledge of working and building homes in the Rocky Mountain region.

For more information on building in Colorado please contact Trilogy at 970-453-2230 or visit us online at Trilogybuilds.com.

The world’s greenest, most energy efficient commercial building? It’s a bold claim, but as the headquarters for the Cascadia Green Building Council–a key force behind the Living Building Challenge, widely considered to be the highest standard in green building–we’d expect nothing less of the new Cascadia Center for Sustainable Design and Construction (CCSDC).

Slated for the intersection of Seattleʼs Central Area and Capitol Hill neighborhoods, this six-story, 50,000-square-foot building is meant to serve as a “living laboratory” for cutting-edge sustainable building technologies and practices.  Information on building’s systems and operations will be continuously monitored, analyzed and made available to the public.

image via The Bullit Foundation

The building is also intended to be a boon for local businesses supplying sustainable building materials, and to strengthen Seattleʼs leadership in the green building movement as a whole.

The CCSDC is meant to serve as a center for learning and a model for green development while providing community and economic development in the short and long term. Its builders would like to see it lower barriers for future high performance green projects by transforming the marketplace, and to foster new, hands-on partnerships to advance shared goals in green building for all those involved.

More information on the project and its sponsoring agent, The Bullit Foundation, is available online.

Source: earthtechling.com

The sustainable design and green building movement have made tremendous advances over the past decade to the point that virtually every building project today employs some level of green design.  And yet despite the bar being raised significantly there remains resistance in the public and private sectors to embracing “no brainer” investments in sustainable building and infrastructure that would further benefit all stakeholders.

It is my belief that in order to convince business and government leaders to take the next step, and invest more heavily in sustainable design solutions, design professionals need to become more conversant in the economics and profit potential inherent in smart, sustainable design…we need to talk the talk.

Proponents of green building and sustainable design have included a “triple bottom line” (TBL) argument in their pitch as the movement has grown.  The three P’s of TBL are most commonly listed in the following order:

1.      People (social)

2.      Planet (environmental)

3.      Profit (economics)

For background, Wikipedia states that sustainability was first defined by the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations in 1987. Over a decade later the TBL phrase was coined by John Elkington in his 1998 book “Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.”

The most prominent US organization in the green design space, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), has stated that they “pursue robust triple bottom line solutions that clarify and strengthen a healthy and dynamic balance between environmental, social and economic prosperity. “ Although the USGBC speaks about a commitment to TBL solutions, the origins and current focus of their successful Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) system are primarily rooted in environmental concerns. When factoring in the life cycle returns achieved from investments made in pursuit of LEED® credits there is a clear economic benefit, yet architects, engineers and designers often are less passionate and only marginally successful at making a strong business case for sustainable designs.

Of course most design professionals are not trained as business people, and our motivation for embracing sustainability seems naturally biased towards the first two P’s of the TBL triumviri, namely “people” and “planet.” By contrast, the original protagonists for sustainability and TBL thinking started with economic “profit” driven decision-making and sought to add social and environmental performance considerations to the formula.

To achieve the more ambitious goals of the green building movement, architects, engineers and designers need to further embrace and communicate the profit and economic potential of sustainable design measures. We need to focus on honing our skills in communicating the economic and profit potential of smart design, with the same rigor that we have applied to advancing technical building solutions.

As an example, many business clients will balk at spending money on energy saving enhancements that they are told have a payback period of 7 to 10 years. However, if these same business executives were told that they could obtain a 10% to 14% return on investment (ROI) by investing capital in the current financial climate they would be more likely to sign on. By understanding and reframing the conversation in an economic and finance perspective project leaders can be more persuasive in obtaining managements support for green capital spending.

In the public sector as well more passionate communication about the economic ROI to taxpayers from sustainable building and infrastructure investment is needed to sway politicians to take action. Too often rational decision making is derailed, and policy stalls, when liberals focus only on saving the planet and their conservative foes challenge the science behind global climate change, rejecting any consideration of spending on sustainability. Despite the divisive social or environmental beliefs across the population, it is safe to say that there is more political unity around the economics of capital spending that saves taxpayers money.

Do you agree that the third “P” in the TBL formula – profit and economics – needs to be more prominently embraced by the design and building industry as we seek to promote a more sustainable built environment? Do you have successful ideas or examples to share on the topic?

***

Source: Triplepundit.com

Ronald Weston, AIA, LEED AP is an architect and consultant who assists small business and social entrepreneurs with the sustainable design and planning of their built environments.

About 6 months ago we at Trilogy Partners completed an 8000 square foot zero net energy home, a first for Breckenridge, Colorado. Beginning with design and until now I’ve been conducting an internal debate as to whether it’s even possible for a home that large to be considered “green,” zero net energy or not. The somewhat difficult conclusion I’ve reached is based on the philosophy of “early adoption.” What I refer to is the process by which new technologies get adopted into the mainstream marketplace. Early adopters are usually passionate individuals who are less price sensitive and are willing to invest in emerging technologies or ideas while they are still more expensive than alternative solutions. In the case of this ski in and out home on the slopes of the Breckenridge ski resort our owner was willing to put aside cost issues to create a platform that would in essence serve as a model for the future. Although the trend is toward building smaller homes, indeed for the foreseeable future larger homes will be built by those that can afford them. This experiment with a larger “green” home will hopefully provide a blueprint for sustainability and accountability.

This week, The Guardian’s Environmental Blog featured a story on the increasing number of New York City buildings with green rooftops. Aside from simply improving the view, these designs also improve the environment in the city know for its towering skyscrapers.

The green rooftop movement is still small, but it has put the idea and design on the mind of many architects lately. These architects have actually started including green rooftops in the designs of new buildings throughout the five boroughs instead of including them as an after-thought.

Analysts have cited green rooftops as a big help to absorb up to 70% of the excess rainwater that would otherwise runoff, causing drain systems in the city to flood with sewage.

Tax incentives and the environmental movement are helping New York City to catch up with cities like Chicago that embraced the green rooftop years ago. As more resources become available and costs go down, even more builders and architects will get in on the game. Green rooftops save so much money in the long run, they can be found in most LEED-certified buildings.

What do you think of the green rooftop movement? Share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Photo courtesy of The Guardian Environmental Blog

A "green" White House?

Agencies face many mandates to become more environmentally friendly: Reduce gasoline consumption in cars and trucks, lower water use and greenhouse gas emissions, and adopt more renewable energy sources, among others.

But the mandate that agencies struggle with most is one to convert their existing buildings to meet green standards. That means decreasing energy use at hospitals and health clinics and reducing waste at laboratories. Agencies will also have to work to bring historic buildings, and even prisons, into compliance.

Those steps take money, and that’s what agencies are increasingly short on.

Of 20 agencies graded by the Office of Management and Budget on their compliance with green mandates, only seven met the 2010 mandate to have at least 5 percent of their buildings meet energy-efficient and sustainable standards.

Dan Tangherlini, chief financial and performance officer at the Treasury Department, said tighter budgets are certain to make this an even tougher challenge going forward.

But, he said, tighter budgets “shouldn’t be an excuse for us not to continue to find efficiencies and try to create new sustainable practices.”

Treasury used a strategy of “1 percent solutions,” such as installing low-flow fixtures, instituting recycling programs and making small improvements to help make their mandates more achievable, Tangherlini said. In that way, it exceeded the 2010 mandate by making 8 percent of its buildings sustainable.

To be considered green, a newly constructed building must use 30 percent less energy than a typical building of the same size. Renovated buildings must use 20 percent less energy. Also, they must meet specific standards for water efficiency, recycling, indoor air quality and low-emission paints and sealants, among other things.

Agencies need to have 15 percent of their buildings meet these green guidelines by 2015.

OMB’s scorecards grade agencies on how they comply with mandates for reducing energy use in federal facilities, reducing gas use in fleets, and other sustainability goals. Agencies were given green lights for meeting or exceeding the goals, yellow for partial completion and red for failing to meet the mandates.

Agencies scored worst on the green buildings mandate.

“Conquering the green buildings beast will be difficult,” said John Selman, energy and environment program director for LMI, a nonprofit organization that helped develop greenhouse gas reporting protocols.

He said agencies need to think of new strategies and innovative ways to bring their building portfolios into compliance while keeping costs down.

Still, agencies will need extra funding and time to achieve these sustainability goals, he said. And making a business case for these projects will be hard in the current budget environment.

“These projects, they are not donated. Someone has to pay for these things, and that’s the greatest challenge,” Selman said.

Olga Dominguez, senior sustainability officer at NASA, said the space agency is looking at more innovative ways to achieve sustainability goals. NASA missed the 5 percent mark, with 4 percent of its buildings meeting the guidelines.

NASA has used energy savings performance contracts, in which a private company makes efficiency upgrades to an agency facility in exchange for long-term payments from the energy savings generated by the upgrades.

Willie Taylor, director of the Interior Department’s Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, said the green building mandate was Interior’s most challenging. Less than 1 percent of its buildings meet the green goal.

Interior does not construct many new buildings, and its building portfolio contains many historic structures that cannot be renovated to comply with the goals. But Interior will be tackling the goals in increments over the next few years.

According to a June sustainability report, the department plans to have 6 percent of its buildings meet the guidelines in 2014 and 15 percent in 2015.

At the Health and Human Services Department, less than 1 percent of buildings meet the green goal. Ned Holland, the department’s chief sustainability officer, said HHS is working to upgrade its buildings as it secures funding for the projects.

The department’s many laboratories, hospitals and American Indian health clinics require more resources and funding, and making those buildings more sustainable is fully consistent with its core mission.

But HHS has made progress by upgrading laboratory space, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Laboratory Sciences Building 110, which follows the guidelines and blends the use of natural daylight, sustainable design and energy-efficient lighting.

Stephen Leeds, senior counsel to the administrator at the General Services Administration, said tighter budgets will present additional challenges in finding ways to further reduce the use of energy and other resources.

Leeds pointed to an effort at GSA to develop sustainable technologies that aim to yield savings.

“It means that we have to tighten our belts, and we are going to find new ways to accomplish the goals laid out for us,” he said.

Source: FederalTimes.com

The Oprah Winfrey Show is heading to the Rocky Mountains today to interview celebrity designer Ralph Lauren at his Double RL ranch in Telluride. Ralph Lauren has granted Oprah a first time ever look inside his Colorado mountain estate that he built from the ground up.

Lauren told Architectural Digest that  “Colorado was for us an escape. It wasn’t about being in fashion. It wasn’t about saying, ‘Wouldn’t it be nice to have this cute ranch!’ It was about a life that would be different, that would be freer—that would have nature and trees and animals and big sky.” We understand Lauren’s reasons about building in Colorado better than most. As a design build firm in Colorado we hear the same sentiments from our clients.

Take a look below at these images of Ralph Lauren’s Telluride home featured in Architectural Digest.

Architectural Digest. Photography by Gilles de Chabaneix

Architectural Digest. Photography by Gilles de Chabaneix

Architectural Digest. Photography by Gilles de Chabaneix

Architectural Digest. Photography by Gilles de Chabaneix

Architectural Digest. Photography by Gilles de Chabaneix

In one of Seattle’s most urban neighborhoods, a small elementary school is trying to wean itself off the city’s water grid.
The toilet composts and treats waste on site rather than flushing it into city sewer pipes. Water washed down sinks doesn’t flow into storm drains but recirculates to a 14-foot-high wall filled with plants, which will eventually soak it all up. For now, excess flows through the wall.

Plenty of “green” buildings strive to generate as much energy as they use, but Bertschi School’s new science building is one of dozens nationwide taking it a step further. The school is attempting to unplug from the municipal water and sewer system to collect, recycle and reuse water and wastewater on site, a concept often referred to as “net zero water.”

The U.S. Army has a goal for several installations to reach zero water, energy and waste use, and last month it designated Fort Riley in Kansas, Camp Rilea in Oregon and Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, among others, to be net zero water. It also named other installations to strive for net zero use for energy and waste.

In April, the University of Miami broke ground on a college dormitory that will reuse all water from showers, toilets and laundry for everything except drinking and cooking. With a $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation, researchers are developing an on-site system to convert wastewater into potable water while treating for pharmaceuticals and other contaminants.

“Water is a looming issue after energy,” said James Englehardt, a professor of environmental engineering at the University of Miami who is spearheading the project. “Energy and water are intimately linked. We have plenty of water, but it takes a lot of energy to purify it.”

Despite Seattle’s image as the land of plenty of rain, water conservation is a concern here because summer months can typically be dry.

Proponents say the Seattle school project and others like it recognize water as a precious resource. Treating waste and runoff on-site also means reducing the land, infrastructure, energy and chemicals needed to convey water to faucets and later to treat what flows down toilets and bathtubs.

“People are recognizing the limitation of the planet and what’s available,” said Eden Brukman, vice president of the International Living Building Institute, which runs the “Living Building Challenge,” considered the most rigorous green-building performance standards. In the U.S., two projects in Eureka, Mo., and Rhinebeck, N.Y., have been certified as living buildings.

In Washington state, Seattle and Clark County have pilot programs to promote buildings that meet those standards.

The Bertschi School, which opened in February – as well as a midrise building being built in Seattle by the Bullitt Foundation – are aiming for living building status.

Designed to be self-sustaining in the energy, water and waste use, the school’s new science building collects rainwater in cisterns. A plant-covered roof slows storm water runoff, which can carry contaminants into rivers and streams. The building is set up to treat gray water to drinking standards, but it is still drawing water from the city water supply because of public health regulations.

“The state gets really nervous about treating drinking water on-site,” said Joel Sisolak, Washington advocacy and outreach director for the Cascadia Green Building Council. “Public water supplies and treatment water systems have done a lot of good in promoting public health. The question is, is it still the best model?”

The composting toilet in the new classroom functions much like a vacuum toilet found on airplanes, and it doesn’t smell bad.

Stan Richardson, a school representative, said composting waste may not work for everyone, but it’s a good tool to teach students that there are different ways of doing things.

“For us to do that in the city when you have a perfectly good sewer system, I can’t imagine everybody in the city connecting to the composting toilet,” he said. “We are doing it as a demonstration. It can be done.”

The classroom was designed and built by a team of professionals in the Northwest who formed the Restorative Design Collective. The team donated $500,000 in time and building materials to the project.

The goal is to design buildings that have little to no impact on the Earth, said Stacy Smedley of KMD Architects, one of the project architects.

“Yes, it’s extreme,” said Chris Hellstern, also of KMD Architects. “It’s about getting people comfortable with the different aspects. Once people see it in action, they’re more likely to understand it.”

Source: readingeagle.com

More than a decade ago a spec home we’d built went under contract. As a part of the sales contract the purchasers requested a radon test. When the test came back higher than that recommended by the EPA, the buyers requested mitigation. So we installed a foundation fan that completely cured the problem and the house sold. The installation was done by a company that specializes in radon mitigation. The cost was approximately $2500. Now, during construction we always install piping below basement slabs for radon mitigation to insure all our homes are radon free. Radon is a scary word, but the cure is usually simple and not overly expensive.

Quick Facts…

• Radon is a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas that can enter the home.
• Most of Colorado contains high concentrations of radon, considered the second highest cause of lung cancer.
• All Colorado homes should be tested for radon.
• Radon reduction methods can be planned for and installed during new home construction.
• Home buyers and renters should ask if the home has been tested for radon and for the results.

What is Radon?

Radon is a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas emitted from uranium, a naturally occurring mineral in rocks and soil. Normally, radon rises up through the soil and dissipates in the air outside. Radon becomes a concern, however, when it seeps through openings such as cracks, loose fitting pipes, sump pits, dirt floors, slab joints or block walls and accumulates in the home. See Figure 1.

Air pressure inside the home is usually lower than pressure in the soil around the house’s foundation. Because of this difference, the house acts like a vacuum, drawing radon in through foundation cracks and other openings.

Figure 1. Radon entry locations.

Radon has been identified as a risk factor in developing lung cancer because it decays into radioactive particles that can get trapped in the lungs. These particles release bursts of energy that damages lung tissue. It is estimated that radon may be associated with about 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States, second only to smoking.

The chances of getting lung cancer from radon depend on how much radon is in the home, the amount of time spent in the home and whether a person smokes. See Table 1. Smoking, combined with radon, adds to the health risk.

Radon in Colorado

Surveys show that homes in most Colorado counties have the potential for radon levels above EPA’s recommended action level. EPA has developed three radon designations, ranging from Zone 1 with the highest recommended action level to Zone 3 with the lowest recommended action level. The EPA map of radon zones for Colorado (Figure 2) shows the majority of counties are designated as Zone 1, with no counties in Zone 3.

Figure 2: EPA map of radon zones for Colorado. Zone 1 (dark gray), high risk (greater than 4pCi/L). Zone 2 (light gray), moderate risk (2-4 pCi/L).

Because radon levels are influenced by a variety of factors—soil type and moisture, how “tight” the home is, type of heating and ventilation system, movement of air and groundwater, air pressure, and lifestyle behavior of the occupants—the only way to know if a home has elevated levels of radon is to test it.

Radon Testing

All homes in Colorado should be tested for radon. Only individual testing can determine which houses may have a radon problem. You cannot base your radon level on a neighbor’s test result. Every house is different. Measuring radon levels in the home is simple and inexpensive. Test kits include complete instructions and return postage for mailing samples back to the lab for analysis.

Short-term detectors (such as charcoal canisters) are used for two to seven days. They provide quick screening measurements indicating potential radon problems. Short-term detectors should be placed in the lowest livable level of the house, preferably during winter. Long-term detectors (such as alpha track detectors) are left in place for three months to one year. They provide the advantage of averaging seasonal variations associated with radon levels. Long-term detectors are generally placed in main living areas.

Radon test kits cost from $10 to $25 for a short-term kit and $25 to $40 for a long-term kit. Test kits are available from hardware and home improvement stores, or through mail order companies. Many communities provide free test kits at county offices, senior citizen centers or other locations. If test kits are not available in your area, call the Colorado Radon Hotline at (800) 846-3986 or the National Radon Hotline at (800) 767-7236. Research indicates some homeowners buy kits and then never send the samples in for the results. When you buy a kit make a commitment to obtain the results.

When buying a test kit, select one approved or listed by the EPA (see Figure 3) and follow the instructions carefully. If you do a short-term test, close windows and outside doors and keep them closed as much as possible during the testing period. Instructions are specific as to placement and the importance of not disturbing the test kit while it is monitoring the radon level of a home.

Figure 3: Examples of test kits approved by the EPA.

Homes that have a basement or combination slab-on-grade and crawlspace should be tested in each area due to potential differences in radon levels. Generally, radon levels are highest in the lower levels of the home. For this reason, some homeowners prefer to test in the basement and first floor, especially if they are used for living and sleeping spaces.

Once the test is finished, reseal or close the container and send it to the lab specified on the package right away. The lab fee for interpreting the results is usually included in the original cost of the kit. You may choose to have radon measurements performed by a professional. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Radiation Control Division, can provide a list of companies qualified to perform radon tests for homeowners in the state.

Understanding Test Results

Radon measurements show how much radon was present in the home during the test period. This level varies depending on detector location and the time of year it was used. As mentioned earlier, radon levels are generally highest when the house is closed and in the basement or near possible radon entry routes. Readings averaged over an entire year are usually lower than those taken in a basement during winter.
Radon gas is measured in units of picocuries per liter (pCi/L), a standard measure of radioactivity. The EPA set 4 pCi/L as a recommended action level. If a short-term measurement is over 4 pCi/L, the recommended action is to perform a follow-up test to better characterize the radon levels. If a long-term test measures over 4 pCi/L, action should be taken to reduce radon exposure.

Radon levels are categorized as low, slightly high, high, and very high. These levels are interpreted as follows:

Low—less than 4 pCi/L. It is unnecessary to take further action unless you desire.

Slightly High—4 to 20 pCi/L. Short-term results should be followed up with long-term measurements lasting approximately twelve months. Occupants of homes with long-term results in this range should take action to reduce exposure within the next few years.

High—20 to 100 pCi/L. Follow-up testing of no longer than three months is recommended. Occupants of homes with long-term results in this range should take action to reduce exposure within the next few months.

Very High—over 100 pCi/L. Confirmatory short-term follow-up measurements should be performed as soon as possible and action taken.
The average indoor radon level is estimated to be about 1 to 3 pCi/L in the U.S., but it is over 4 pCi/L in most Colorado counties. The average outside radon level is about 0.4 to 0.8 pCi/L. The level of radon in a home may vary considerably from neighbor to neighbor.

Radon Mitigation

The cost of repairs to reduce radon depends on how the home was built and the extent of the radon problem. Most homes can be fixed for $800 to $2,500. A variety of methods may be used to lower radon levels in a home. These include sub-slab, drain tile, sump hole, and block wall suction. Sealing cracks and other openings in the foundation and covering sump pump holes are basic approaches to radon reduction; however, sealing alone is not proven to significantly or consistently lower radon levels.

The most commonly used radon mitigation technique, and generally the most effective method, is called sub-slab depressurization. This system uses pipes that extend from a permeable layer below the basement floor (such as gravel or drain tiles) upward through the structure, venting out the roof (Figure 4). This system collects radon gas before it enters the house and funnels it directly up through pipes and out of the home. If natural ventilation through the pipe system is not adequate to lower radon levels, a fan can be added in the attic to help draw gases through the system to the outdoors. Similar systems also can be installed in homes with crawlspaces.

Other methods used, although they have some disadvantages and may not be appropriate for a more permanent solution, include house pressurization and ventilation such as using a heat recovery ventilator (air-to-air heat exchanger). Whatever method you use, be sure to test for radon before and after the system is in place to be sure it is reducing levels to below 4 pCi/L.

Because the right system depends on the design of the home and other factors, most homeowners should not try to fix radon problems on their own. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Radiation Control Division, can provide a list of contractors qualified to perform radon mitigation in the state. Call (303) 692-3030 or visit www.radongas.org for more information.

When choosing the mitigation method, consider the radon levels, system operation, structural changes, cost, house size and foundation types. For houses with several foundation designs and levels, a combination of techniques may be needed.

Figure 4: Typical radon mitigation system (EPA).

Simple ways to reduce radon levels:

• Keep windows open on both sides of the lower floor of your house when possible.
• Ventilate crawlspaces under your house.
• Open basement windows early in the spring and keep them open when possible until late fall.
• Seal cracks in basement floors with polyurethane caulking compound.
• Pour water in floor drains once a month to make certain that traps do not dry out.
• Keep stairwell doors, fireplace dampers, and laundry chute doors closed when not in use; keeping them open can suck air from the basement into the living area of the house.

Radon Resistant New Construction

Radon reduction methods can be planned for and installed during new home construction. Installation costs are generally much lower during construction and careful planning allows a variety of strategies to be integrated to ensure the most effective radon reduction system possible. The average cost to install a radon mitigation system in an existing home is about $1,200 to $2,500. Installing radon-resistant features during construction of a new home will cost $350 to $500. New homes constructed in areas of the state known to have high levels of radon should include at least:

• A passive sub-slab or crawlspace depressurization system.
• Foundation barrier techniques such as a layer of gas permeable material under the foundation (usually four inches of gravel), plastic sheeting over that material, and sealing and caulking of all openings in the concrete foundation floor or the floor above.
• Dedicated intake and/or combustion air for exhaust and combustion appliances.
• Installation of a gas-tight three- or four-inch pipe that runs from under the foundation (under the sheeting covering the soil in crawlspaces) through the house to the roof.
• A roughed-in electrical junction box for future installation of a fan, if needed.

Home Buyers and Renters

Home buyers and renters should ask about environmental issues concerning property such as whether the home has been tested for radon and what the test results showed. Testing your home does not mean lowered sales value or less chance of selling. It means you can accurately inform potential buyers or renters of the existing condition of the property. Taking precautions now to mitigate for radon means your family’s health is protected against adverse radon effects.

Resources Available From EPA:

• A citizen’s guide to radon: The guide to protecting yourself and your family from radon
• Building a new home: Have you considered radon?
• Home buyer’s and seller’s guide to radon
• Radon: The health threat with a simple solution

Phone Numbers:

• American Lung Association: (800) 586-4872
• Colorado Radon Hotline: (800) 846-3986
• National Radon Information Line: (800) 767-7236
• Radon Fix-It Program, Consumer Federation of America: ( 800) 644-6999

Web Sites:

• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment:www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/rad/radon/index.htm
• List of radon measurement and mitigation providers: www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/rad/radon/radonlists.htm
• Healthy Colorado Homes: healthycoloradohomes.colostate.edu

¹ Colorado State University Extension housing specialist and professor, design and merchandising. 4/04. Revised 12/07.

Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Colorado counties cooperating. CSU Extension programs are available to all without discrimination. No endorsement of products mentioned is intended nor is criticism implied of products not mentioned.

Source: www.ext.colostate.edu

Coalition of environmentalists claim government has failed to protect the atmosphere

Lawyers representing children and young adults filed a series of lawsuits against the US government alleging that its agencies have fallen short in their duty to protect the Earth’s atmosphere for future generations.

Cases are to be launched in every state and Washington DC, according to the plaintiffs, a coalition of green groups called Our Children’s Trust.

The individual plaintiffs named in the suits are mostly teenagers, as part of an effort to emphasise the obligation that the government and state legislatures have to preserve a healthy atmosphere for future generations.

The aim of the suits is to have the atmosphere declared a “public trust” deserving of special protection, a concept previously used to clean up polluted rivers and coastlines.

Legal experts remain unsure whether the principle could be applied to climate change, but noted the parallels with an ongoing lawsuit brought by a number of states against the five largest US utilities that is attempting to brand greenhouse gas emissions a “public nuisance”.

Even victories in just one or two states would give the environmental movement increased leverage as it campaigns for the revival of legislation tackling emissions that had previously been blocked by Congress.

“People have tried pushing legislation and that hasn’t worked,” Alex Loorz, a 16 year-old Californian named as one of the plaintiffs, told Associated Press. “Obama hasn’t been able to push anything through. The only option we have is the judicial system – taking this to the courts.”

Judges will have to decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) existing efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions go far enough.

The agency has controversially decreed that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health, and is in the process of introducing regulations to curb emissions. As such, the EPA and the Obama administration have consistently argued that the ongoing regulatory efforts should not be pre-empted by the courts.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion on the public nuisance case this spring, which could influence courts hearing the public trust suits.

The cases are likely to take years to be resolved, but if successful they could have huge implications for carbon intensive businesses by effectively forcing the government to impose more stringent emissions regulations.

Source: Businessgreen