Jonathan A. Schein

How Many Homes Does it Take to Be President?

2013-01-29T12:14:25-05:00

With another presidential election cycle and inauguration behind us, this would normally seem like a good period to take some time out from politics. But only if the people we've empowered to run our government actually come together to do the right thing.

This time around, it's not looking too good, if the resolution to the fiscal cliff saga and the ongoing debate on raising the debt ceiling and dealing with sequestration are any guide. It And it doesn't look to get any better anytime soon. But before we give up completely on having a productive, if not bipartisan, government and start hoping for things to change in 2016, it might be worth noting something that may be an indicator of which presidential candidate will actually win -- no matter which party he (or she) -- represents.

I'm not talking about the 7/11 coffee mug or Halloween mask polls, which, despite their silliness, actually have been quite accurate over the past three election cycles. Nor am I referring to Nate Silver, the sage of all pollsters, who has had a lock on uncanny accuracy for two election cycles. (Besides, he is human and likely to come up wrong at some point in his ascending career.)

The indicator that I find most reliable has to do with homeownership--that is, the homeownership of the candidates themselves. The fact is, over the past five elections it's been the candidate who owned only one home while representing his party for the presidency has won, and the candidate who has owned two or more homes has lost.

Please see table below:

Year	Candidates	Number of Homes Owned	Result

1992	Bill Clinton	1	Won
	George H.W. Bush	2

1996	Bill Clinton	1	Won
	Bob Dole	2

2000	George W Bush	1	Won
	Al Gore	2

2004	George W Bush	1	Won
	John Kerry	5

2008	Barack Obama	1	Won
	John McCain	8

2012	Barack Obama	1	Won
	Mitt Romney	6

What does this really mean? And is it a reliable method of predicting election outcomes? Nobody knows, but if you're interested in becoming president you may want to look at your portfolio and see if it is consistent with what the average voter's mindset.

Real estate ownership is a great way to create and transfer wealth over the long term. But if you're looking to place a bet on a winning candidate in 2016, it might be a good idea to find out how many homes each candidate owns, along with his or her platform, as the next election cycle begins.

If the Sun Shines on the White House, Will it Make a Difference?

2011-07-07T11:05:32-04:00

Last October, Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu promised that by the end of this spring, the White House would have solar panels on its rooftop as well as a solar water heater installed. Would it surprise you to learn that this has not happened yet?

Ramamoorthy Ramesh, director of the SunShot Initiative and Solar Energy Technologies Program at the Department of Energy sums up the situation as follows: "The Energy Department remains on the path to complete the White House solar demonstration project, in keeping with our commitment, and we look forward to sharing more information-- including additional details on the timing of this project--after the competitive procurement process is completed."

Does that make you feel better?

Yes, it's true that the Obama administration has many pressing issues at hand; however, sometimes the simplest measures can mean the most. This standard boilerplate response is actually symbolic of an administration that is often tone-deaf to some of the easiest tasks.

There have been nagging questions from both the left and the right about the Obama White House and what it stands for, but this one small issue is a politically neutral one. Solar manufacturing and installation is part of one of President Obama's keystones: that is, creating a green economy and green jobs, which has been well covered through the past two and a half years of his tenure. So how can something as simple as this installation be incomplete?

Solar panels graced the roof of 1600 Pennsylvania during President Carter's term. It was a small gesture with big meaning during the oil shock of the late 1970s. The panels were dismantled once President Reagan took office, but they need to be replaced as symbolic of the fact we need to wean ourselves off foreign sources of oil, and fossil fuels for that matter.

President Obama has a tremendous amount on his plate, but this was a real no-brainer. If you're going to step out on the ledge and proclaim that green jobs and alternative sources of energy are a major part of our future, then the least you can do is deliver on the simplest of promises.

Jonathan A. Schein is founder/CEO, ScheinMedia, publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com

The Candidates, Their Faith and the Environment

2011-06-14T17:03:47-04:00

As various factions of Christianity begin to embrace global climate change and mankind's responsibility for both causing it and fixing it, it will be interesting to see how the Republican presidential candidates respond to questions about the state of the environment and what America should do about it.

Traditionally, one of the hallmarks of a successful presidential candidacy has been a high-profile devotion to religious faith, so not surprisingly, every Republican in the running for 2012 claims to be a true believer. Religion is highly personal and private, so their level of sincerity is something we'll never really know for certain. What we do know is that the environmental wakeup call currently being heard and heeded within Christian communities could create some murkiness for Republican presidential candidates.

On May 2, the Vatican Council issued a report produced by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences after the Council convened in April, which states unequivocally the Catholic Church's stance on climate change: "We call on all people and nations to recognize the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses."

This 15-page report, titled "Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene," further claims that: "The business-as-usual mode will not be possible because of both resource depletion and environmental damages," and air quality has gotten worse due to these gases and will "result in more than 2 million premature deaths worldwide every year and threaten water and food security." The report, which was signed by 23 internationally renowned scientists, mountaineers, and lawyers, and the Pontifical Academy's chancellor, Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, came about in an effort to determine the effect of human beings on climate change.

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), a group representing 40 different denominations and over 45,000 congregations, has been an active proponent of human causation for planetary climate changes for many years. The NAE embraces the principle of sustainability in its belief that our uses of the Earth must be designed to conserve and renew the Earth rather than to deplete or destroy it. The NAE's website states: "We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part. We are not the owners of creation, but its stewards, summoned by God to "watch over and care for it" (Gen. 2:15).

It's pretty clear that Christian institutions are not only making statements in favor of the acceptance of global climate change but also regarding the need to address it. So how does the fact that conservative Christianity is coming out in favor of manmade climate change and environmental concerns match up with the current slate of potential Republican Presidential candidates? Not very well, actually.

Almost each announced and potential G.O.P. candidate at one point in his or her political career has been clearly vocal about the need for addressing climate change, but by the same token, each one of them has made it a point to advertise their strong religious convictions. When those of such conviction feel the need to use their personal religious values to drive the nation's political agenda, how can the concerns of major religious institutions be ignored? It's becoming clear that Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Palin, Bachmann, et al are going to find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to balance the needs of their party and the desires of their religious leaders. How they will bridge the gap between their own personal convictions and those of their own religious leaders will certainly be worth watching.

Jonathan A. Schein, Founder/ScheinMedia and publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com

U2 Malibu Project: Where Green Streets Have No Name

2011-04-26T15:15:40-04:00

U2's David Evans, aka The Edge, and his partners plan to build five environmentally-friendly homes on an undeveloped 156-acre tract of land above Malibu Beach in the community of La Costa, which happens to be one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in Southern California.

These homes, averaging 10,500 square feet each, will apply for Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certification from the U.S. Green Buildings Council (USGBC), an 18,000-member organization that deems itself a "nonprofit community of leaders working to make green buildings available to everyone within a generation."

LEED and other designations are part of a forward-thinking progression in real estate awareness, which have taken nearly a generation to be taken seriously by the development community. Curiously, USGBC is not commenting on the Santa Monica Mountains development, better known as the U2 Malibu project, claiming it's a local issue.

The U2 Malibu development, as it's known, is planned to be a cluster of large residential buildings above Malibu, with prime views of the Santa Monica Mountains, the Malibu Pier, Surfrider Beach, and the Pacific Ocean. If these buildings can indeed be built, given that the rough, slide-prone area's setting would require substantial engineering feats, there is little question that they will be ecologically sound, and even luxurious, with a wastewater treatment facility and electric vehicle charging included among the planned amenities.

The question is whether the U2 Malibu project really needs to be built at all -- and if these homes must be built, do they need to be so big? This is not to disparage wealth, which is a terrific thing if one can attain it. The point is that since we're currently coming to grips with the fact that our lives are all intertwined, especially in terms of environmental impact, we have to ask ourselves how green even a green development project could be when it's to be so big and planned for such an environmentally sensitive area?

The website for the project maintains that its "intention was to achieve a benchmark for sustainable design in a sensitive area." Yet the National Park Service, which manages land near the proposed project, does not seem to think the project is viable. Nor do other local environmental action groups. Their collective point is to question whether a project, no matter how eco-friendly, can actually be green if it negatively impacts the land it's built upon. A decision from the California Coastal Commission is due in the next few months as to whether a permit will be granted on the development.

The Edge has proven to be one of the most talented musicians in the last 25 years. However, the decision to push this project forward may equate to his other recent failed venture, which was the creation of the Broadway musical Spiderman. It's much too big, much too ambitious, and just over the top. For this reason, it has been temporarily closed in order to be scaled down. Hopefully, the U2 Malibu project will be scaled down too -- before it gets built.

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO/Publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com and NewYorkHouseMagazine.com

Debating Cutlery? Can't We Do Better?

2011-03-22T18:09:56-04:00

With so many incredibly large issues facing our country at this time, it's amazing that the new U.S. House of Representatives majority would spend any of its time working on its own composting problems. Since the GOP takeover of the House this year, for instance, there has been great debate over balancing the budget and how to put a handle on our growing federal deficit -- not an issue to be taken lightly as this situation is going take decades to solve.

Yet in a move that can only be described as picayune and small-minded, a program designed to make the House cafeteria greener has been eliminated. Part of the "Green the Capitol" initiative instituted by former Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi has been cut, with cost-savings given as the main rationale. A whopping $475,000 will be saved annually according to the office of Representative Dan Lundgren (R-CA), chairman of the House Administration Committee. Basically, compostable knives, forks, spoons, plates and cups will now be replaced by plastic utensils and foam cups. A statement issued by Lundgren's office claims that the program "failed to produce significant savings in carbon emissions." In the statement, Lundren explains that the house will begin offering a new program that includes reusable cups and plates. Of course, it hasn't been determined how much the carbon footprint will be increased by the need to wash them, or how much this will cost. But that's not really the point at all.

Either way, it's doubtful that there will be measurable financial savings through eliminating this particular program. The purpose of this greening program was more symbolic in nature than truly impactful. That was the point that Pelosi was attempting to make. The U.S. House of Representatives is one of the most powerful deliberative bodies in the world, and has a responsibility to demonstrate what is possible in all matters big and small.

But what's happened to Pelosi's symbolic gesture happened once before, when President Reagan moved into the White House in 1981. During the energy crisis of 1979, President Carter had installed 32 solar panels on the White House grounds to show that we did not have to rely on oil for our energy needs if we look to alternative sources. When Reagan moved in, one of the first things he did was remove them. Obviously, those solar panels alone would not have ended America's dependence on oil, but how different would our attitude toward renewable energy be today if that one small gesture had remained in place? How far along would we be now in terms of alternative sources of energy if that symbol had stood?

Symbols matter, and hopefully we won't have to look back 30 years from now and ask questions like, What if our elected officials had done more to safeguard our environment? Although $475,000 is a lot of money, there must be another way that Representative Lundgren can find it. It's not like the House of Representatives doesn't have a great deal of fat to cut out of its own budget. Cutting this one small program seems to have satisfied a different agenda entirely -- one has nothing to with saving money or America's well-being.

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO/Publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com and NewYorkHouseMagazine.com

How Green Is My Rupert Murdoch?

2011-03-09T22:49:01-05:00

News Corporation, the parent company of Dow Jones and Fox News, has declared itself carbon neutral. According to a memo from Chairman Rupert Murdoch:

We have become carbon-neutral across all of our global operations, and we are the first company of our kind to do so... We made a bold commitment in 2007 to embed the values of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability into all of our businesses -- for the benefit of our communities and our bottom line.

Murdoch's memo also says its businesses in Britain now obtain 100 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. And its offices in South Brunswick, N.J., shared with Dow Jones at a corporate office campus, is nearing completion of a 4.1-megawatt solar power system that will provide nearly half of the facility's electrical needs at peak capacity.

How wonderful that the owner of Fox News, in particular, is so forward-thinking and progressive when it comes to issues concerning the environment. Murdoch is one of the most successful media moguls on the planet, and part of this is due to his focus on the bottom line. And if installing solar panels can bring down expenses, then this certainly makes perfect sense. However, when one of his media outlets continually discredits manmade climate change and also promotes the political views of politicians and pundits who want to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its funding, it makes one wonder which side of the issue he is on.

Is Rupert Murdoch a closet environmentalist who truly believes that we need to do our best to make our planet a cleaner and healthier place to live? If this is so, then why would he be party to a group of people who denigrate this line of thought? For example, Fox mainstay Glenn Beck has been quoted as saying, "For those of you who think climate change is real and man-made, you should know this, that -- I mean, you don't have to be a socialist, I guess, to believe in global warming. It's just that almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist."

Obviously, Beck doesn't agree with the idea that climate change could be man-made. But is he also calling his boss a socialist?

And then we have the notorious leaked memo from Fox News' managing editor Bill Sammon sent to his staff last year in which he wrote: "... we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

This doesn't even begin to address the sitting U.S. senators and representatives who are frequent Fox News guests, who feel that the EPA should be scaled back or completely eliminated.

The good news is that Murdoch's News Corporation is taking great strides towards creating a greener and more sustainable place to work and live. And if this is the firm's true core values, more power to it. However, it must be tough balancing act for News Corporation to justify its product line that doesn't agree with those values.

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO/ScheinMedia, publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com

Mississippi Gov. Barbour Wants His State to Be Healthy -- But Not Necessarily Yours

2011-02-23T18:00:55-05:00

At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was one of this year's piñatas. First, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich took his stick and made a major swipe at the EPA by calling for its shutdown and elimination. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour was a little more cautious, merely stating that through the EPA, the Obama administration is "trying to achieve through regulation what it can't pass through legislation." Following up on that statement, Barbour told a group of Kentucky coal executives that the EPA is over-regulating the coal industry with its strict environmental standards.

Both Gingrich and Barbour are rumored to be getting ready to run for president, so it's possible that they're just preaching to the greenhouse gas-denying crowd. It's not unheard of to make extreme pronouncements when trying to achieve the highest elected office in the land, but doing so leaves a very wide berth for the discussion and analysis of such statements.

Recently, Mississippi was ranked as the 50th healthiest state in the nation by the United Health Foundation. This annual ranking looks at 22 indicators of health, including everything from how many children receive recommended vaccinations, to obesity and smoking rates, to cancer deaths. Scores for each state are determined by gathering data from a variety of government and nongovernmental databases and then calculating how much each state is better or worse than the national average for each measure.

With this in mind, perhaps Barbour's real intent is to bring down other states' comparative rankings so that Mississippi's can begin to rise. Showing an improved healthy outlook in his home state certainly would be good politicking, and besides, it's really difficult to get any worse than the bottom of the list.

On the other hand, Barbour also recently petitioned the EPA regarding its serving Mississippi's own environmental needs. Just last August he sent a letter to the agency to halt the construction of a 27,000-square-foot slot machine facility in Jones County proposed by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians because its wastewater system would cause a hardship on the groundwater in that area. In Barbour's own words:

"Because the current design of the wastewater system jeopardizes the safety of the water supply in the area where both tribal members and Mississippi citizens live and work, I ask this agency to stand behind its...comments and enforce all applicable environmental laws and regulations. Those comments make clear that the slot parlor as planned will not live up to federal environmental standards."

Is Gov. Barbour practicing a double standard or does he simply want to create an unhealthy environment in any state other than his own? Either way, his actions and statements just don't pass the smell test.

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO/ScheinMedia, publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com

To Halliburton or Not to Halliburton

2011-02-04T17:07:56-05:00

If you want to get some high-flying action going at a party, just bring up the company Halliburton. When some people hear the word "Halliburton" they immediately recall that it's the company where former Vice President Cheney amassed great wealth. Others identify the multinational corporation as a major player in the oil field services industry. In any case, just mention Halliburton and emotions typically fly high. Although it's not the only company involved in the oil industry, in some corners, the word "Halliburton" seems to have become synonymous with the word "evil." The company is seen as signifying all that is wrong with our energy policy, both abroad and at home, as Halliburton leads the charge to exploit shale formations in North America.

Last week Halliburton announced that its net income more than doubled in 2010 due to improved international results and record U.S. revenue as the oil industry jumped on the shale-drilling bandwagon. In fact, North American revenue alone rose more than 83 percent. That's not bad, considering how much the Great Recession has impacted this country, as well as the fact that Halliburton had to settle and pay on bribery charges in Nigeria stemming from the activities of its formerly owned KBR unit.

So while the mere mention of Halliburton may provoke a lot of ranting, we really need to see why it's so successful. The reason is pretty simple: We're just not moving fast enough towards other sources of energy. We are still the country that has 6 percent of the world's population and consumes 25 percent of the world's energy. These are not new facts, and unfortunately, these facts aren't changing. And if we continue to move at our current rate, these facts aren't going to change for some time.

Meanwhile, global events are beginning to change the landscape at a furious rate. The uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan could be the tip of the iceberg in creating problems in the U.S., because this is the highest oil-producing area in the world. In other words, oil prices could literally spike, leaving the U.S. in a very precarious position, especially in light of our fledgling economic recovery.

If this happens, Halliburton and its brethren companies will be in an even stronger position in terms of exploiting natural shale formations in order to drill for natural gas. This will make our energy needs even more beholden to them. Either way, we could be in for a tremendous shock in the short and long term.

Every day our news cycles feed us information that shows us that we need to make changes. The question is, what will it really take for us to make the effort?

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO/ScheinMedia, Publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com

Is the Sun Already Setting on Domestic Solar Manufacturing?

2011-01-18T14:05:55-05:00

To borrow a phrase from former presidential candidate Ross Perot, that "sucking sound" you may be hearing could be the departure of the nascent American solar manufacturing industry.

Last week Evergreen Solar of Devens, MA announced that it is shutting down its plant and shedding 800 local jobs in order to move its manufacturing to China. Evergreen Solar is the third largest manufacturer in the United States, and its closing comes on the heels of other large solar manufacturers shutting their doors and shedding jobs, including SpectraWatt in East Fishkill, NY, which just put 120 people out of work, and the Silicon Valley-based Solyndra's closing of one of its two plants.

Each of these companies has received many millions of dollars in subsidies, incentives, and loan guarantees in one form or another. Some of the reasons given behind these closings include poor economic conditions in the U.S. and Europe, cheaper labor in China, and the inability to work with our own local and national agencies.

In total, however, these reasons don't add up. In truth, it may be that the solar industry isn't growing as quickly as predicted or as fast as it needs to be. It's not that solar energy isn't moving forward in this country, but energy independence is still not a priority. And this leaves the need for clean and sustainable energy out of the question for the moment. We still haven't had the "aha" moment when we realize that digging for oil and coal is a short-term bet and, much like our ballooning national debt, a huge mortgage on our future.

But there is also another factor that may be coming into play, much like the dot-com boom-and-bust from a decade ago. Being an industry that isn't close to maturity, solar energy saw too many dollars flooding its already inflated market, which will certainly cause investment distress.

However, the biggest fallout may come in terms of the new "green" economy and the jobs that are to be created. It's true that these are new manufacturing jobs, and it's critical at this point in our fledgling economic turn-around to keep adding them. Yet it's disheartening to watch as these new jobs, which are supposed to replace other jobs that will never return, actually leave the country so quickly.

There are many unanswered questions regarding the solar industry in the United States, but the latest news does not give any indication that this is a sustainable industry.

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO, ScheinMedia, publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com

Sarah Palin, an Environmentalist's Best Friend

2011-01-04T18:20:03-05:00

Even though the holidays are now over, there are certain gifts that just keep on giving. Last week, for instance, Sarah Palin accused conservationists of "hypocrisy" because they send her letters on paper written with wooden pencils. While discussing the tree and lumber harvesting industry, Palin was quoted as saying:

"Conservationists write me these nasty letters because I support an industry like this... They write me these nasty letters using their pretty little pencils on their pretty little stationery not realizing. Where do you think your pencil and your piece of paper came from, people? It came from a tree that was harvested."

She said this, incidentally, while taking a chainsaw to an Evergreen timber and cutting it down. The good news is that this story was covered and given the treatment it truly deserved, which was not terribly much. In general, "conservationists" seek to maintain a healthy balance between our needs as humans to survive, and the excesses that have happened and can continue to happen if unchecked. As in most movements, the conservation movement includes those on the more extreme side, which can have the undesirable effect of impeding all progress.

The conservation movement in this country developed in the early twentieth century through the leadership of President Theodore Roosevelt, and progressed throughout the century with the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency by President Richard M. Nixon. Looks like the Grand Ol' Party had a decent understanding about the value of limited natural resources back in the day, and certainly didn't rely on basically stupid and argumentative commentary to get their points across. Of course, without these two presidents, we might not have our National Parks or clean water to drink. To Palin, however, this is just a small matter that she conveniently overlooks as millions of dollars in eco-tourism pour annually into her home state of Alaska.

If Palin wants to have a proper debate about the value of conservation, it would be much healthier for her to stop relying on outmoded photo ops and statements like this last one to make a strong argument. Maybe she could do some actual research (that means reading) and learn that many paper manufacturers are now harvesting trees from forests that are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, whose mission is to develop standards to responsibly harvest trees and work with the industry in making it so. This gives both manufacturers and consumers a stake in what kind of paper is available for purchase. There are also pencil manufacturers that are now using recycled wood products as well.

Of course, the good news is that as long as Palin makes comments along these lines, she'll help keep discussion about our environment alive.

So thank you, former governor!

Jonathan A. Schein is the CEO of ScheinMedia and publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com.

To Buy or Not to Buy, More

2010-12-15T10:18:01-05:00

The holiday season is now in full throttle, which can mean only thing: Let's consume. And let's consume as much as is humanly possible in a very short period of time. Most of this consumption will take place in shopping centers, malls, and retail outlets, as well online. We are encouraged to purchase as much as we can in order to satisfy the bottomless pit of our needs and, more importantly, to spur on the recovery of our weakened economy. According to economists, if sales are stronger this year than last year, then we must be headed in the right direction.

One of the most prevalent advertisements seen this year in many major outlets is "buy more, save more." What the promotions are getting at is that the more dollars you spend, the higher discount you'll receive. You can find this at a multitude of outlets, including Banana Republic, Home Depot, Dell, CVS, and Macy's. But this doesn't make any sense because, as we all know, the more you spend, the more you'll owe. In other words, retailers, desperate for sales much like many businesses in America, are literally engaging in less than truthful advertising. And what's really behind much of this promotion is getting people to open up new credit card accounts at these stores.

We've already been down this buy-more-save-more road before with our housing market, and that didn't end up very well. There isn't much difference between banks pushing mortgages on people to buy houses they couldn't afford and retailers pushing people in a weakened economy to spend more than they can.

In a time when people are feeling tense, scared, and basically insecure about their jobs and financial wherewithal, it's unconscionable to continue with these kinds of promotional tactics. Yes, it's true that the responsibility to buy or not to buy ultimately falls on the consumer. However, it's also the responsibility of any vendor to understand its audience and not play up to these kinds of insecurities.

Unless this changes, we'll only continue a cycle of debt from which we will never recover.

Jonathan A. Schein is president/CEO, ScheinMedia, publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com

Fort Sumter First on the Frontlines, Again

2010-11-30T23:34:19-05:00

Almost 150 years ago, Confederate troops in South Carolina fired the first shots of the Civil War at Fort Sumter, leading to the bloodiest period in American history. Today Fort Sumter National Monument is taking the first shot at ushering in a new era of energy independence through collaboration between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Interior (DOI), the National Park Service, South Carolina Research Authority, and the Center for Hydrogen Research. Their collaborative efforts are designed to take the island off the electric utility grid, and make it completely self-sufficient.

Initial feasibility studies and cost estimates will be the team's first step. Although funding is not complete at this point, the plan is for the island to be installed with a hydrogen-fuel cell backup power system and solar energy generation.

Behind the project is Energy SmartParks, a partnership formed by the DOE, DOI and the National Park Service, whose objective is to showcase sustainable energy practices in national parks to "inspire a green energy future for America."

All in all, the Fort Sumter development makes a nice story in terms of experimentation with green and sustainable technologies. However, the message of this story goes much deeper. In terms of sustainable energy practices, we're a nation at a crossroads, with serious decisions that need to be made now. Whether or not man made greenhouse gas exists and how it is impacting the environment is irrelevant to this discussion. The safety of our country is paramount and goes hand in hand with the issue of energy independence. Time and time again, we hear in the media that many of the countries from which we import oil from are simply not our friends and that many of them fund groups that want to hurt us and destroy our way of life.

Fort Sumter symbolizes a time when the United States literally came apart at the seams, and so many perished as a result. It now has the opportunity to become a symbol of aligned interests and a secure future.

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO, ScheinMedia, publisher of GreenRealEstateDaily.com.

How Many Tea Partiers Does It Take to Screw Up a Light Bulb?

2010-11-16T09:59:20-05:00

Now that the election is over and the new Republican majority is set to take over the House of Representatives come January, members of Congress are vying for committee leadership positions. One position in particular is for the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Established in 1795, it is one of the oldest standing committees in Congress, and has been in continual service for more than 200 years. Its responsibilities include oversight of consumer protection, public health, food and drug safety, telecommunications, air quality and environmental health, interstate and foreign commerce, and the supply and delivery of energy. Whoever wins the position of chair will certainly wield a tremendous amount of influence over these issues.

The competition for the position is between Reps. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Joe Barton (R-Texas). Barton is most widely known as the guy who apologized to BP Chairman Tony Hayward for the way the White House treated his company during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster this year. Upton appears to have committed what some conservative thinkers consider the egregious crime of co-sponsoring legislation in 2007 with Rep. Jane Harman (D-California) to phase out the incandescent light bulb in favor of energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs -- a bill that eventually became law as part of a larger energy bill.

Leading conservatives are campaigning against Upton's possible appointment as chair. Rush Limbaugh commented on the light bulb law in this way: "This is exactly the kind of nannyism, statism, what have you, that was voted against and was defeated last week. No Republican complicit in nannyism, statism, can be rewarded this way."

It's hard to believe that legislating energy-efficient light bulbs could bring up so much raw emotion. The actual idea behind the light bulb law was to bring about a standard of energy efficiency which, in turn, would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It's also meant to bring down the level of greenhouse emissions, which will clean up our air quality and hopefully result in fewer respiratory illnesses.

For the record, Upton is hardly the darling of the liberals. He has a solid 93 percent Chamber of Commerce voting record when it comes to business-related legislation.

When the Founding Fathers were building this country from the ground up, they debated issues that are hardly imaginable today. Some of these issues eventually brought forth the catastrophic Civil War, while some other of these issues created the foundation that still holds us together. It's hard to believe that the enlightened minds of people like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and perhaps especially Benjamin Franklin -- who first harnessed electricity -- could conceive that one day far into the future, something as insignificant as a type of light bulb could become a divisive political issue.

Ridiculousness like the controversy over the light bulb law makes you wonder if some of these conservative "thinkers" really want to return to the Dark Ages. After all, it's only a light bulb away.

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO/ScheinMedia, publisher of MetroGreenBusiness.com.

High-Speed Rail on Slow Track

2010-11-02T09:23:16-04:00

Amtrak has announced it's purchasing the next generation in energy efficient passenger trains that use approximately 2,134 BTUs per mile (which compares to 3,578 per mile for a passenger car and 3,942 per mile for domestic airplane flights). The 70 new locomotives will come on line between 2013 and 2019 and replace 64 locomotives, some dating back to 1980. These new trains will mostly be manufactured domestically in Sacramento by Siemens AG. And the manufacturing facility will have 2 megawatts of solar cells on its roof. These new trains will feature regenerative braking--much like that in hybrid automobiles--which will also generate electricity. Their top speed will be 125 miles per hour.

All in all, a pretty good step in terms of energy efficiency and reduction of greenhouse gases.
However, there is a larger issue at hand: consider where we are in comparison of the rest of the world. China has just introduced the world's fastest train, averaging speeds of 217 miles per hour. Last year, China announced its massive rail development program that is set to expand the high-speed rail service to 42 additional lines by 2012. This is quite a contrast to Amtrak's current plans that use these new trains on its Northeast Corridor lines between Washington, DC and Boston and on the Keystone Corridor between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

More importantly and more impotently, Amtrak released a report for next generation high-speed rail for the Northeast corridor. The new concept for rail travel suggests trains running at 220 miles per hour between Washington, DC and Boston as well a few other northeast cities. However, this project isn't expected to be completed until 2040! That's 30 years from now. Can you imagine where China and other developing nations are going to be by that time?

Rail service began in this country more than 150 years ago and was one of the most important forces in our economic development. And now it's roaring back as an important step in low-carbon transportation and an economic necessity. Just ask Warren Buffet about Berkshire Hathaway's $39 billion acquisition of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. earlier this year.

In order to grow we need to build and build faster. A plan that indicates a completed high-speed rail service three decades from now while other nations are building them now and at a much faster pace truly shows that we are on the wrong track.

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO/ScheinMedia and publisher of MetroGreenBusiness.com

Buildings Come to Life And The Challenge of Existing Ones

2010-10-21T08:17:26-04:00

The next giant step in sustainability is now literally alive at the Omega Center for Sustainable Living (OSCL) in Rhinebeck, NY. Having achieved full certification under the Living Building Challenge by The International Living Building Institute, "a non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to the creation of a truly sustainable built environment in all countries around the world," the OSCL is now an icon for sustainable building.

Comprised of the leading green building experts, futurists and thought-leaders, The International Living Building Institute believes that providing a compelling vision for the future is a fundamental requirement of reconciling humanity's relationship with the natural world. The Living Building Challenge "defines the most advanced measure of sustainability in the built environment possible today and acts to diminish the gap between current limits and ideal solutions. This certification program covers all building at all scales and is a unified tool for transformative design, allowing us to envision a future that is socially just, culturally rich, and ecologically restorative," according to its mission plan. The OSCL achieved this designation last week having already achieved LEED Platinum status by the United States Green Building Council after a year-long certification process.

In terms of how the OSCL functions as a living building it supplies its own energy needs through geothermal and photovoltaic energy and is carbon neutral. It also turns Omega's 5 million gallons of wastewater per year into clean water to restore the aquifer. Quite an impressive structure.

Of course, this breakthrough in new construction is great and will certainly pave the way for future development. However, the real issue we have today is our existing building stock and how to bring this to an acceptable level of sustainability. According to Skip Backus, Omega's CEO and the general project manager of the OSCL, Omega has 152 buildings and finding the proper balance in bringing the entire campus to sustainable standards is not a simple task. And this mirrors much of the struggle we all face in terms of this nation's building stock. Seventy percent of all greenhouse gases come from existing structures and finding a way to modernize them to be much more energy efficient and lower their carbon footprint is just as important if not more than creating these new beautiful living buildings.

Omega should be congratulated on accomplishing such a marvelous feat. Now is the time to take this to the next level and begin the heavy lifting on what we already have.

For more information about the OSCL, please logon.

Jonathan A. Schein is CEO/ScheinMedia and publisher of MetroGreenBusiness.com