asbestos

While the remodeling of existing older buildings to make them more energy efficient is certainly a necessity, it doesn't come without its hazards. Remember, older homes and commercial buildings probably contain all sorts of toxins, most notably asbestos. The miracle of the 20th century building industry, touted for its amazing heat- and fire-resistant properties, this hazardous mineral can be found in attics, wrapped around pipes and furnaces, and even in walls, floors, and ceilings, especially in buildings constructed prior to 1980. Rare forms of cancer may result from exposure, including peritoneal mesothelioma and pericardial mesothelioma so a safe transition is vital.

Once the asbestos is addressed and then removed by a licensed professional and disposed of properly, green insulation options should be given serious consideration. The Department of Energy says heating and cooling accounts for 50-70 percent of the energy used in the average American home so finding sound and healthy insulation options are a necessity. Today, these options can save natural resources as well. Eco-friendly insulations are often made of recycled materials and include cellulose (old shredded newspapers treated for fire resistance), cotton fiber (usually made of recycled batted denim), and spray polyurethane foam.

Statistics show that the foam, for example, can cut energy costs by about 35 percent annually, according to studies done by manufacturers. The other projects claim similar figures. And because these are recycled materials, less waste is going to the nation's already crowded landfills.

Savings of Green Construction

Thankfully the idea of "building green" is gradually becoming much more than a trend. Builders and investors are recognizing that eco-friendly construction provides not only long-term positive environmental benefits but also immediate financial payoffs as well.

Cities throughout the U.S. and the world are also slowly recognizing the necessity of green construction practices in the remodeling and renovating of older residential and commercial facilities, taking advantage of loans offered to them by various foundations, designated for the purpose of upgrading lighting and heating and cooling systems in aging buildings, where the most energy is consumed.

Such initiatives also prompt the need for healthier and more cost-efficient options in the world of building materials. Indeed, the United Nations Environmental Program says that the use of recycled building materials, like cotton fiber insulation, in addition to the installation of energy saving appliances and the maximization of natural lighting in a building, can reduce energy use energy use by 25 to 35 percent. In some best-case scenarios, they say, results have been as high as 80 percent.

The United States Green Building Council (USGBC), in a study conducted in 2003, estimated a savings of $50-$65 per square foot for well-constructed green buildings in the U.S. (see table below) during that year. The numbers continue to improve as more eco-friendly options become available, and those kinds of figures have finally begun to attract those who thought eco-friendly construction was just a bunch of hogwash.

Type of Benefit

20-year Net Present Value / sq. feet

Energy Savings

$5.80

Emissions Savings

$1.20

Water Savings

$0.50

Operations and Maintenance Savings

$8.50

Productivity and Health Benefits

$36.90 - $55.30

Subtotal

$52.90 - $71.30

Initial Investment in Green Building Practices

$3.00 - $5.00

Total 20-year Net Benefit

$50 - $65

Source: USGBC Capital E Analysis, 2003.

The method in which America creates energy has been a hot topic during the 2008 presidential election. For most, a primary concern deals with how we can keep prices down at the pump while eliminating our need for foreign oil. This desire has lead to the “drill here, drill now” crowd calling for domestic offshore drilling (among other things). While everyone agrees that energy independent principles are vital to revving up the American economy, there are big differences in how to accomplish this task. Notably, when it comes to the energy resources and environmental protection standards, there are fundamental differences in Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s interests. Additionally, when it comes to bills in congress addressing consumer protection, manufacturing standards, and other topics not talked about enough, the future will heavily depend upon which candidate prevails. The following include a few you may not have known about, and some you may have, but they are all liable to affect the lives of everyday Americans.

One fact to note when looking for the candidates policies on their respective websites is that Barack Obama has a category named “Energy and Environment” under the “Issues” section. On the other hand, John McCain has “American Energy” and “Climate Change” listed as separate categories under the “Issues” section. This seemingly subtle difference represents some conflicting policies between the two candidates. While McCain believes in global warming, he is resistant to associate the call for more oil with his global warming concerns because supporting the two issues is a sheer contradiction. In sum, Obama wants to rid our dependence on all oil (not just foreign) and McCain wants to use every available resource needed to end our dependence on foreign oil.

McCain calls his energy plan “The Lexington Project,” which is an all of the above energy solution according to his website. Included is expansion of domestic oil and natural oil exploration, tax credits for automakers and consumers who buy cars with low carbon emissions, $2 billion annually reserved for clean coal technology, 45 new nuclear power plants and he will “encourage”  the market for alternative fuels such as wind, hydro, and solar power. He has greenhouse gas emissions targets listed in the climate change section that includes dropping it 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Obama calls his plan “comprehensive” and puts added emphasis on new forms of energy. He wants to provide $1,000 to American families through a windfall profits tax, calling it an “Emergency Energy Rebate.”  He will invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to build a clean energy future, and in that same allotted time, rid American dependency of foreign oil. He wants to put one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015 and ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025. In addition, Obama wants to implement an economy–wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Interestingly, by 2050 many of those reading this article still won’t be as old as John McCain is now. Moving on, there are other issues that you may not hear about quite as much.

The use of asbestos in products and the manufacturing industry could come to a close in 2009. Senator Patty Murray introduced the “Ban Asbestos in America Act” that has been introduced and passed by the entire U.S. Senate. However, the bill does contain a harmful pro-industry amendment eliminating coverage for workers exposed to products containing one percent or less of asbestos. CWA and the AFL-CIO will work to have this language omitted in the final Senate-House legislation.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum has introduced the “Bruce Vento Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act of 2008.” This legislation is not expected to be passed by the full house during 2008, so this is basically groundwork in order to get the bill passed in 2009. Right now there are now mesothelioma treatments that result in a cure.

Another bill is the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008.”  These are all supported by the Blue-Green Labor/Environmental Coalition.

With Barack Obama as president and a Congress dominated by democrats, the above legislation should all pass. With John McCain as president, the bills could be vetoed.

In paying for all of these plans, Barack Obama pledges to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (annual income of $250,000) and raise taxes on oil companies. While John McCain will actually lower taxes for oil companies, he pledges to cut small business taxes and promote fiscal responsibility within the government. He says that with bi-partisan efforts, he can bring the budget to balance by 2013. Until then, expect a dirty fight in efforts toward a cleaner America.

The “going green” trend isn’t just good for the environment – it’s also a great step towards protecting our health.

We’re all aware of the benefits of using alternative energy sources, including cleaner air. But consider this: our dependence on oil is not just harming our environment, but our health as well, and the hundreds of oil refineries right here in the United States are partly to blame.

The last U.S. oil refinery was built in 1976, prior to the advent of asbestos-usage regulations by EPA & the federal government. What is asbestos, and why is it so dangerous? Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral, also happens to be a toxin and the only known cause of pleural mesothelioma, a fatal cancer that attacks the lungs and does not have a known cure. Because asbestos is an adept insulator, it was widely used in the form of insulation within U.S. oil refineries. Asbestos is not harmful unless it is damaged, but if asbestos-containing materials are damaged, tiny asbestos fibers become airborne, putting oil refinery workers at risk of inhalation. If inhaled, asbestos fibers can situate in the pleural lining of the lungs for decades before an individual might begin to suffer from the symptoms associated with mesothelioma, including chronic, painful cough, difficulty breathing, and fluid within the lung cavity. There is no cure for mesothelioma, but there are various mesothelioma treatment options.

Because oil refinery workers are very likely to be exposed to asbestos, they are considered to be at a heightened risk of one day developing mesothelioma, also known as asbestos cancer. As piping insulation ages and the pipes corrode, asbestos fibers may become friable, putting workers at risk. However, the risk is even greater after a refinery fire or explosion, such as the two separate incidents in Texas in 2005 and 2007. And it is not only refinery workers who are at risk after a fire or explosion: firefighters and other first responders are also at risk of inhalation, as are nearby residents who may be exposed to errant asbestos fibers that travel via wind currents.

So, what can we do? By limiting our reliance on oil and turning to alternative sources of energy, such as solar energy, we will eliminate the need for oil refineries here in the U.S. If we are able to tear down the refineries and properly dispose of asbestos-containing materials, we will be taking a giant step towards a decrease in the number of oil refinery workers and other individuals who are diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer each year. Not only will we be protecting our health, but we will also be creating a cleaner, healthier environment.

For additional information about the health risks associated with asbestos exposure, please visit www.maacenter.org.