Build Green Scotty, Scotts Contracting www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com | ||||||||||||
9.20.2010
Join the movement to unite Americans to improve our economy »
Election Reform as a Way to Put Republicans on the Spot
Your request is being processed...
What can progressives and Democrats do about the anti-Washington tide sweeping the country? The economy certainly isn't going to get much better before the November election.
One practical and symbolic thing they could do is to pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which likely to be voted out of committee next Thursday. The Act, sponsored by Rep. John Larsen of Connecticut, with 165 co-sponsors and at least 40 more supporters, would give matching money to candidates who agreed to raise only small donations. It even has three Republican co-sponsors.
The right as well as the left is disgusted with corporate domination of our politics, a system where elected officials spend more and more of their time raising money. We're not going to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision any time soon, allowing unlimited sums to be spent on soft money. But at least we can drastically reduce the self-interested money that goes directly to candidates.
So far in this election cycle, House and Senate candidates have raised $1.2 billion dollars, and the money arms-race only grows.
Under the proposed Act, a candidate who raised small donations from at least 1,500 small donors contributing no more than $100 each for a total of at least $50,000 could get matching money, at a 4-to-1 ratio.
As much as $3 million in public financing would be available -- enough to be competitive on most House races. The money wouldn't come from tax dollars, but from a special levy on the auctioning of broadcast spectrum, something that belongs to the citizens of the United States.
As a money-and-politics reform, this legislation is a vast improvement on the so called Disclose Act, which Republicans blocked last July. That bill would have provided more complete public disclosures about the sources of funds but did nothing to limit the dependence on special interest money. Many progressives opposed the Disclose Act because it wasn't really campaign finance reform -- and to add insult to injury it included special exemptions for the National Rifle Association.
The task of progressives is to address voter discontent with business as usual, and break it into understandable issues. Like votes drawing the line against cutting Social Security benefits, or offering tax relief to the middle and working class but not the rich, the Fair Elections Now legislation is a good way to smoke out differences between Democrats and Republicans and to disentangle the general backlash against "Washington." Any incumbent Republican who votes against this reform should be ashamed to face voters.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is said to be torn about whether to schedule a floor vote on this bill. On the one hand, she is a strong supporter of clean elections reform and appreciates the value of the bill. On the other hand, she wants to wrap up House business so that her endangered colleagues can get home to campaign.
But progressives need more ammunition to campaign on, and this is another of those reform measures that remind voters why Washington is not one undifferentiated mess. It will take more than this to get big money out of politics, but it's certainly a good start.Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His new book is "A Presidency in Peril."
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com
Clean Air Act by the Numbers
Your request is being processed...
Forty years after the passage of the Clean Air Act, it is extraordinary to look at the numbers.
Numbers like 200,000 -- which is the count of premature deaths the Clean Air Act prevented in its first 20 years. Over the same period, the Act prevented 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis and 21,000 cases of heart disease. It avoided 843,000 asthma attacks and 18 million child respiratory illnesses.
1.7 million is the number of tons of toxic emissions removed from our air every year since 1990. In the last two decades, emissions of six common pollutants dropped 41 percent. Lead in our air is down by 92 percent since 1980.
Here is another: 95 percent. Innovations spurred by the Clean Air Act make the cars we drive today up to 95 percent cleaner than past models.
And as air pollution has dropped over the last 40 years, our national GDP has risen by 207 percent.
The total benefits of the Clean Air Act amount to more than 40 times the costs of regulation. For every one dollar we have spent, we have received more than $40 of benefits in return, making the Clean Air Act one of the most cost-effective things the American people have done for themselves in the last half century.
But here is perhaps the most important number to consider as we work to continue this success: two. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments were passed and enforced by the bipartisan collaboration of two political parties.
The 1970 law was signed by President Richard Nixon. It was first implemented by Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus, a Republican. The 1990 Amendments were passed by a Democratic-majority Congress and signed by the Republican President George H. W. Bush. Clean air has always been a bipartisan issue -- and should remain that way.
The good news is that the Clean Air Act has plenty for both sides to agree on. Extraordinary environmental and health benefits have come about by not only respecting, but thriving on, the openness and entrepreneurship of our economy. Our economy and environment benefit from a virtuous cycle in which public clean air standards spark private sector innovation, proving that we can create jobs and opportunities without burdening our citizens with the effects of pollution.
The bad news is that 40 years of success have not stopped the proliferation of exaggerated doomsday predictions. They appear in nearly identical form year after year, and history always proves them wrong.
In the 1970s lobbyists said that "entire industries might collapse" if we used the Clean Air Act to phase in catalytic converters for new cars and trucks. Instead, the requirement gave birth to a global market for catalytic converters and enthroned American manufacturers at the pinnacle of that market.
In the 1980s opponents of proposed Clean Air Act Amendments claimed they would cause "a quiet death for businesses across the country." Instead, the US economy grew by 64 percent even as acid rain pollution fell by half. The requirements fostered a global market in smokestack scrubbers and, again, gave American manufacturers dominance in that market.
In the 1990s many claimed that using the Clean Air Act to phase out the CFCs that were depleting our ozone layer would create "severe economic and social disruption." They raised the fear of "shutdowns of refrigeration equipment in supermarkets... office buildings, our hotels, and hospitals." In reality, new technology cut costs while improving productivity and quality. The phase-out happened five years faster than predicted and cost 30 percent less. And by making their products better and cleaner, the American refrigeration industry reached new overseas markets.
None of the doomsday predictions have come true -- and there is no reason to believe they will come true as we write the next chapter in the history of the Clean Air Act. It is our time to promote innovation, grow a clean economy, and address the new challenges and the unfinished business of the Act. Those include long-term health threats in the air we breathe, as well as first steps -- like the clean cars program -- in our fight against climate change.
Today, plenty of businesses and industry sectors have stepped up to help in the fight against climate change. There are plenty of ways to move forward in a common sense, bipartisan way that serves the health of the American people and the prosperity of American businesses, and not just the electoral prospects of a political party.
We cannot afford to get bogged down in the delay and distractions of partisan politics. This is because of the last number I ask you to consider: one. We have only one planet, and this may be our one chance to protect it for our children and grandchildren.
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com
Response to Nouriel Roubini on "America Needs a Payroll Tax Cut"
Response to Nouriel Roubini on "America Needs a Payroll Tax Cut"
Nearly three years since the onset of the financial crisis, the continued weakness of the labor and real estate markets, U.S. consumers' unbalanced balance sheets and fading support from policy stimulus have transformed the risk of a double-dip recession from unlikely to about a 40 percent likelihood.Stimulating Production a Mistake at this Juncture
The administration knows that it needs to fashion a revenue-neutral fiscal stimulus that increases labor demand and consumption. Its proposal to make permanent a research and development tax credit that dates to the 1980s, and then to enact a temporary investment tax credit allowing firms to write down capital investments at 100 percent of cost, are welcome -- but too modest a cure for what ails the economy.
A much better option is for the administration to reduce the payroll tax for two years. The reduced labor costs would lead employers to hire more; for employees, the increased take-home pay would boost much-needed economic consumption and advance the still-crucial process of deleveraging households (paying down credit card debt and other legacies of the easy-credit years).
Proportion is critical in designing the payroll tax cuts. Small and medium-size enterprises have had it rough the past three years. They are scrambling for operating capital as banks hold reserves tightly, and they face higher borrowing costs than large corporations when they do find willing lenders. To maximize the incentives for private-sector hiring, there should be sharper reductions to the payroll taxes paid by employers than for those paid by employees.
Low-income workers have historically shown a much higher propensity to consume when given extra money, so the payroll tax cut should be designed to provide a larger-percentage break to those on the low end of the income scale compared with the upper middle class.
Certainly some of what Roubini says makes sense. For example, it makes little sense to stimulate capital expenditures and production when there is a glut of overcapacity already.
Unwarranted stimulating of production is one of the reasons tax credits for news homes fell flat on its face. The last thing we needed to do was encourage homebuilders to build more houses.
What Roubini misses is that attempts to stimulate hiring (thus production) won't work because businesses will not hire just to get a tax break. There has to be a legitimate need for businesses to hire. For there to be a legitimate need, there has to be genuine consumer demand.
Plight of Small Businesses
I have written extensively about the plight of small businesses. Here are some examples.
- August 03, 2010: Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index Hits Record Low, Future Expectations Dip Below Zero First Time Ever
- August 20, 2010: Small Businesses are Not Hiring - Why Should They?
- August 24, 2010: Another Atlas Shrugs - Small Business Owners Chime In
- September 06: Labor Day Insanity from Clinton's Secretary of Labor
For several quarters, the number one problem in every NFIB report is lack of customers.
The number two and number three problems are Obama's healthcare "solution" and business uncertainty in general.
While business tax reductions will help profits, payroll tax reductions will not address the underlying structural problems, nor will they address the problem of too few customers. A look at the math will show why.
Employer Tax Break Math
If we completely eliminated the U.S. federal payroll tax employer contribution it would save employers 6.2% for Social Security (for wages up to $106,800 and nothing after that), and precisely 1.45% for Medicare.
Will a Pizza Hut, Home Depot, Citigroup, Bank of America, home builder, or specialized small manufacturer hire someone because of tax breaks? Would anyone?
I think not. The maximum possible saving, assuming we forgave all employer contributions, is 7.65%. Health care costs have been going up more than that!
Unless and until businesses can add employees that will increase the bottom line, they won't hire, tax breaks or not. Perhaps it will make a difference for some marginal businesses sitting on the fence wondering if they should hire one more employee, but that is the practical extent of it.
In a sense, the proposal is something like firing a shotgun over a swamp hoping to kill mosquitoes.
Arguably, payroll tax reductions will keep some marginal businesses alive, preventing layoffs. Then again, marginal businesses need to go out of business. Keeping them alive is a bad thing.
Proposal Helps Wall Street More Than Main Street
Lowering employer payroll taxes certainly will help business profits, but that does not mean businesses will hire. In fact, as noted above, they won't.
Thus, Roubini's proposal, as weighted, would help Wall Street more than Main Street. It addresses the symptoms and not the disease.
Consumer Attitudes Are The Key
Let's turn to the consumer side of the proposal. The #1 factor affecting small businesses is lack of customers. Would cutting taxes for the average Joe encourage more spending?
Ultimately one can count on it. Initially, many consumers will take every cent and pay down debt. However, paying down debt is a good thing. Over time, as consumer balance sheets are repaired, people will spend. More spending will promote hiring.
Philosophically Speaking, I Like Business Tax Cuts
Philosophically speaking, I am all in favor of businesses keeping more money and consumers keeping more money. The less money that goes to Washington the better. However, we must look at the proposal as laid out, to see if it meets the stated objective of stimulating the economy and getting businesses to hire.
Targeting businesses with payroll tax reductions will not do nearly as much as middle class tax cuts.
Complete Economic Overhaul Needed
Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to this mess. Structural problems run deep and a complete economic overhaul is in order. Here are a few of the structural problems.
- The US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. Military spending has to be reined in.
- Public unions have bankrupted many cities and states. The complete dismantling of public unions is mandatory for the long-term fiscal health of the country.
- To stimulate hiring and reduce the cost of government expenditures, we need to scrap Davis-Bacon.
- We do need to reduce business taxes, but only if we can pay for it. I propose we pay for it by slashing military spending.
- We need to fix the corporate income tax structure that gives incentives to businesses to move jobs overseas. Because of tax deferments, businesses pay less tax overseas than in the US. To promote hiring in the US we need to reverse that setup.
- Health care is an abomination. We need to start over from scratch.
- We need to eliminate too big to fail.
- We need to abolish the Fed.
- We desperately need a balanced budget amendment.
The public pension mess is nearly beyond belief. Extend-and-pretend not only affects banks, but public pension plans to the tune of $3 trillion. Please see Recently Introduced Actuarially Unsound Methods Hide Pension Mess in Illinois, Texas, Ohio; $3 Trillion Pension Deficit for a discussion.
The Goals
The goals must be a sound currency, a balanced budget, and less government, not more.
We can follow the path of Japan and its two lost decades, or we can make tough choices for the long haul. Sadly, the US has One Lost Decade Already with Another One in Progress Now.
There are no short-term fixes, nor are there painless solutions.
Unless and until we address our structural issues, the economic crises will not go away.
I am all in favor of incremental progress along the way, but a payroll tax cut is certainly not a silver bullet. In the grand scheme of things, a payroll tax credit is no bullet at all, given that it fails to address a single structural problem of any kind and stand to benefit Wall Street more than Main Street.
We need to address the disease, not the symptoms.
What America Really Needs
Roubini says "America Need a Payroll Tax Cut".
I say what America needs most right now is an honest appraisal of the sorry economic mess we are in, politicians who will work in genuine bipartisan effort to tackle our numerous structural problems, and willpower from everyone to make short-term sacrifices for the long-term benefit of the country.
We need to start with a fresh look at numerous structural problems one-by-one and propose solutions to those problems one-by-one, starting with a breath of fresh air from the administration and Congress as to what those problem are!
After all, how can you fix something unless you admit what the problems are?
To date, all the Fed and Congress have done is bail out the banks and the bondholders (in other words the wealthy), at the expense of the middle class.
Given the problems are numerous and deep, the solutions will undoubtedly require a series of across the board sacrifices. Those sacrifices need to start with public unions, the gigantic military complex, government employees in general (Congress and state legislatures in particular), as well as anyone bailed out or benefiting from the numerous and massive fiscally unsound policies of the Fed and Congress.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List
California Energy Commission approves the world´s largest solar power site
Solar Millennium AG: California Energy Commission approves the world´s largest solar power site
California Energy Commission approves the world´s largest solar power site The conclusion of the approval process is expected to come in October with the decision by the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
- Another important milestones in realizing one of the largest current infrastructure projects in the US
- Construction of the first two of four plants overall scheduled to begin at year-end upon receipt of the final construction permit and conclusion of financing
- With a power plant capacity of 1,000 megawatts, solar power is approaching the capacity of nuclear power plants
- Governor Schwarzenegger Applauds Approval of World's Largest Solar Power Project
Erlangen, Oakland [WorldofRenewables.com]
Thomas Mayer, Spokesman of the Executive Board of Solar Millennium AG: "Once the first two plants are connected to the grid in 2013 and 2014, we will have implemented the Desertec idea in California: With solar power plants in the California desert, we will be able to supply Los Angeles and other metropolitan cities on the American west coast with environmentally friendly electricity." The financing for the first two solar power plants is also scheduled to come to a close in autumn, which will include loan guarantees and grants by the US government. The investment volumes of more than one billion USD per plant make this one of the largest infrastructure projects in the US at the moment," Mayer further explains.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: "I applaud the California Energy Commission's decision to approve the construction of the Blythe Solar Power Project - the world's largest - and am excited to see other solar projects move forward. Projects like this need our immediate attention, as solar and renewable power are the future of the California economy."
The four power plants together would supply an annual electricity volume of approximately 2,200 gigawatt hours and thereby save roughly two million tons of carbon dioxide each year. The power purchase agreements between Solar Millennium LLC, Oakland, and the American energy provider Southern California Edison (SCE) for the first two 242-MW solar power plants initially scheduled to be built were approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in July. The contract regulates the purchase of electricity produced by the power plants via SCE for 20 years after the start of operations.
Solar Millennium LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America LLC, the US-American joint venture of Solar Millennium (70 percent) and Ferrostaal (30 percent). Uwe T. Schmidt, CEO of Solar Trust of America, explains the significance of the solar power plants in reshaping energy supply: "The power plants planned in Blythe will be an important part of reaching California's goals regarding the use of renewable energy sources." California has legally stipulated in the Renewable Portfolio Standards that regional energy providers must increase the share of renewable energy sources in their power supply to 20 percent by the end of this year. By the year 2020 even every third kilowatt hour could come from renewable energy sources.
Josef Eichhammer, President of Solar Trust of America and CEO of Solar Millennium LLC, adds: "The Blythe Solar Power Project (Blythe Project) will be 1,000 megawatts of clean, zero emission, renewable energy capacity. Because we are cooling the steam cycle of the turbines with air instead of with water, we require 90 percent less water. It is located 8 miles west of the city of Blythe, in Riverside County, California. Once fully constructed and operational, the Blythe Project will be the largest solar project in the world. At the same time, we are reviving the local economy by creating 2,500 jobs during the construction phase."
Link to the CEC´s press release.
Link to the Governor´s press release.
About Solar Millennium AG:
Solar Millennium AG, Erlangen, is an international company in the renewable energy sector, with its main focus on solar-thermal power plants. Together with its subsidiaries and associates, the Company specializes in parabolic trough power plants and has managed to take a globally leading position in this field. Solar Millennium strives to further extend its expertise in the area of solar-thermal power plants with the aim of achieving and securing sustainable technology leadership. As such, the Company covers all important business sectors along the value chain for solar-thermal power plants: from project development and financing to the technology and the turnkey construction and operation of power plants. In Spain, Solar Millennium developed Europe's first parabolic trough power plants and realized these together with partners. Additional projects are planned around the world with an overall capacity of more than 2,000 megawatts: here the current regional focus is on Spain, the US, India, China, the Middle East and North Africa.
About Solar Trust of America and Solar Millennium LLC:
Solar Trust of America (STA) is a joint venture of the Solar Millennium Group (70%) and the Ferrostaal Group (30%) and covers important business fields in the value chain for solar thermal power plants in the region of North America. This includes the business segments of project development and financing, engineering, turn-key construction and operation of power plants. Solar Millennium LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America.
About solar-thermal power plant technology:
Solar-thermal power plants generate electricity by converting solar radiation into heat energy. In a parabolic trough power plant, trough-shaped mirrors concentrate the incidental radiation onto a pipe in the focal line of the collector. Its absorption heats a fluid heat medium in the pipe, generating steam in the power block through a heat exchanger. As in conventional power plants, the steam powers a turbine to generate electricity. By integrating thermal storage, electricity can be supplied on demand, even after sunset.
For further information:
Solar Millennium AG
Dipl.-Ing. Sven Moormann (Corporate Communications)
Dr. Stefan Eckhoff (Investor Relations)
Tel.: +49 (0)9131 9409-0
Email: presse@SolarMillennium.de / investor@SolarMillennium.de
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com
Green Building Myth: Green Products Don’t Work as Well as Standard Products
While early-generation products sometimes gave green building a bad image, most of those early problems have been dealt with.
16 by Alex Wilson
TOTO toilets have consistently been top performers relative to flushing and low maintenance. The Drake II high-efficiency toilet (HET) flushes with 1.28 gallons, and the SaniGloss coating on the porcelain keeps cleaning to a minimum.
The last couple weeks I've written about two of the common myths of green building: that it has to cost more to build green and that green building is mostly about materials. This week I'll cover another myth: that green building products don't perform as well as conventional products.
A lot of people still point to products like early water-saving toilets, compact-fluorescent lamps, and recycled-plastic-lumber decking as evidence that new-fangled green products don't work very well. Clearly, there were some poorly performing products out there as manufacturers scrambled to respond to consumer demand and new regulations. But, for the most part, we've climbed up that learning curve, and current-generation products work very well.
Let's take a look at the history of a few of these product categories.
Low-flush toilets
The Energy Policy Act was signed into law in 1992 with a requirement that all toilets sold in the U.S. had to use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) by January, 1994. That wasn't much time for the plumbing industry to redesign their toilets, and many of those early 1.6-gpf toilets were indeed pretty unsatisfactory, requiring double flushing and frequent cleaning.
The problem was that those first low-flush toilets weren't designed from-the-ground-up to use 1.6 gallons for a flush; they were older toilets with bowls and trapways that had been designed to use 3.5 gallons or more; the only change was a modified flush valve that reduced the flush volume. Industry got the message loud and clear, and later models were designed to flush very well with 1.6 gpf—and some with even less. A new test procedure for toilet performance (Maximum Performance or MaP testing), introduced in 2003, helped manufacturers design better toilets by more accurately measuring flush performance.
The bottom line is that complaints about new 1.6 gpf toilets have largely disappeared and, in fact, a new generation of "high-efficiency toilets" (HETs) that use even less water (HETs are defined as using at least 20% less water than the federal standard, or a maximum of 1.28 gpf) often actually outperform those 3.5 gpf toilets that were on the market in 1990. We're using far less water today and getting better performance.
Compact-fluorescent lamps
Early compact-fluorescent lamps (CFLs) used magnetic ballasts causing the lamps to blink as they switched on, then flicker 60 times a second and buzz or hum during operation. New CFLs all use "electronic" ballasts that switch on instantly and eliminate flickering and buzzing. The light quality has also improved. The phosphors (the coatings on the inside of the glass that absorbs the UV light given off by the energized mercury vapor gas and emits white light) used in most CFLs today produce warmer light that makes objects look more realistic. The light quality from the best CFLs today nearly matches that of incandescent light bulbs.
Recycled-plastic lumber
The first recycled-plastic decking was made from 100% recycled plastic--usually high-density polyethylene (HDPE). The decking planks were very heavy, usually black, got really hot in the sun, and softened to create undulating deck surfaces. Today, most recycled-plastic decking is made of a composite material, with both waste wood fiber and recycled HDPE. The wood fibers increase the decking strength and reduce thermal expansion, so sagging is less of a problem. It's a much better product.
Low-VOC paints
Early efforts to reduce the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of paints to improve indoor air quality led to compromises in performance. The solvent-based products performed much better even as they gave painters headaches and likely contributed to health problems among homeowners. Over the past 10- 15 years, though, the vast majority of R&D work going into paint technology has been focused on acrylic-based, low-VOC products, and performance has dramatically improved. Indeed, there are now zero-VOC paints that satisfy the toughest performance standards of the paint and coatings industry. New and improved products continue to appear almost monthly.
* * *
I've reviewed just a snapshot of product categories here. The point is that the manufacturing industry has responded to consumer and regulatory demand for greener, more-efficient, healthier products. While there are still green products whose performance isn't where we'd like it to be, most green products work very well today. And we can look forward to continued improvement in the years ahead.
I invite you to share your comments on this blog. Do you think "green" product performance is improving? Are there examples of continuing performance problems among green products?
To keep up with my latest articles and musings, you can sign up for my Twitter feeds
Image Credits:
- TOTO USA
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com
Is Formaldehyde-Foam Insulation Safe?
Official Fine Homebuilding Post, editor 
Polyurethane is king when it comes to spray-foam, but some builders are looking at a few not-so-new alternatives.
Getting the facts on phenol-formaldehyde foam
When high-performance builders talk about spray-foam insulation, they're typically talking about polyurethane. But it turns out there's more than one kind of spray foam used in residential construction.
Although not as widely known, phenol-formaldehyde and urea-formaldehyde insulation also are available, and that's the focus of this week's Q&A Spotlight at Green Building Advisor.
Urea-formaldehyde earned a bad reputation in the 1970s after high levels of formaldehyde were detected in homes where it had been installed. Canada banned the foam outright, and some states in the U.S. continue to prohibit its use.
Some manufacturers turned to a phenol-formaldehyde resin with lower emissions. In the meantime, a urea-formaldehyde manufacturer says newer formulations meet federal formaldehyde standards.
How do these products differ, and how do they compare with urethane foam? The discussion points to the power and potential confusion over words, in this case the difference between "Tripolymer" and "tri-polymer."
BuildingGreen's Alex Wilson helps to sort it out, but admits that consumers will find it "remarkably difficult" to get the kind of information they're looking for.
Read the full article and join the conversation at Green Building Advisor
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Featured Post
How Two Friends Turned Abandoned CASTLE into a 4☆HOTEL | by @chateaudut...
Join us on an extraordinary journey as two lifelong friends, Francis and Benoit, turn a crumbling, centuries-old castle into a stunning 4-st...
-
Coalition for the Environment flat out opposes second nuclear plant | More ...
-
Thank You for stopping by the Green Blog. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know by posting a question or ...
-
Join us on an extraordinary journey as two lifelong friends, Francis and Benoit, turn a crumbling, centuries-old castle into a stunning 4-st...
