King Solomon, reputed to be the wisest man who ever lived, had the difficult job of deciding which of two women was the rightful mother of a baby they both claimed to be their own. Amidst their cries of claims and counterclaims, Solomon did something unique, unexpected, and very, very wise. He acted based on what he knew without question to be true: a mother’s love and human nature.

With regards to his Jobs Plan, President Obama would do well to take a cue from King Solomon. He should base his Jobs Plan on what he knows without question to be true: it is private sector investment that creates sustainable jobs, yet it goes against human nature to invest during an economic downturn unless it makes good financial sense to do so.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the approach that Obama is taking. Among the major job creation ideas announced today, the President is calling for:

… small businesses tax breaks for new hires and equipment purchases. He also wants to expand American Recovery and Reinvestment Act programs and spend some $50 billion more on roads, bridges, aviation and water projects. Finally, Obama would offer consumers rebates for retro-fitting their homes to consume less energy.

Providing cash incentives or tax credits for energy-saving materials and equipment for homes will not put America back to work.

Why not? Because both the amount of private investment generated and the financial savings for homeowners will be far too small. Even if one million homeowners (very optimistic) took advantage of a 50 percent federal cash incentive or tax credit at a home-weatherization cost of $4,500, it would cost the government $2.25 billion and generate only $2.25 billion in private spending. This would create or save only 29,997 direct construction jobs and 39,297 indirect jobs. Over the past 6 months, we have been losing 63,000 construction jobs each month. Since the recession began, we have lost over 1.6 million direct construction jobs.

The financial savings to the homeowner is so small that it is simply not worth the hassle. A $4,500 weatherization cost, with $2,500 out-of-pocket expenses and a 20 percent energy savings, would save a homeowner just $35* a month. If the homeowner borrowed the $2,500 at 6.5 percent interest over 10 years (from a revolving loan fund), the homeowner’s savings is only $9 a month.

Funding infrastructure projects with more stimulus dollars will not put America back to work either.

Why not? Because infrastructure projects depend on tax revenue and the generator of tax revenue is the private sector, which has been devastated. Funding infrastructure projects with stimulus funds simply substitutes federal dollars for tax revenue dollars. This approach is a losing battle, creating temporary jobs that can only be made into permanent jobs by continual federal funding. While some infrastructure spending and financial help to state and local governments is warranted, it will not put America back to work. Each $1 billion of federal infrastructure spending creates only 7,667 one-time construction jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs.

If these approaches are not the answer, what is? Based on what we know to be true, the only real answer is a plan that generates large private investment by making such an investment a good financial decision by those investing.

Fortunately, where to target such investment is known. The real engine behind American jobs is private building sector construction. This sector is an amazing jobs machine, employing millions of Americans, spurring economic activity in almost every other U.S. sector, and generating large amounts of private investment and spending, as well as the tax revenue needed for infrastructure projects and other public services.

The bad news is the construction industry is reeling and taking down the entire U.S. industrial base with it, everything from steel, metals, wood, and concrete to gypsum-board, glass, wiring, lighting, paint, fabrics, retail, wholesale, shipping, and warehousing. Of the 1.6 million construction jobs lost to date, about 1 million of these have been residential construction jobs. To date, less than 15,000 jobs have been created in housing construction by the stimulus.

The good news is that production homebuilders are sitting on billions of dollars in cash reserves and are ready to build, and about 77 percent of homeowners in the U.S. have positive equity and many are ready to renovate.

The only piece missing is demand. 

The most effective way to create the demand is to lower mortgage interest rates for homeowners who renovate their homes or buy new homes that meet specific and deep energy reduction targets. Not only does this make good financial sense to homeowners (the ‘investors’) who will save substantially on both monthly mortgage payments and energy bills, it also makes good financial sense to the federal government, which will multiply each federal dollar invested with $9 to $10 of private spending.

Under such a plan, a homeowner would be able to refinance a home at a lower mortgage interest rate in return for making energy efficiency upgrades, immediately putting people back to work. Homebuyers would also be able to purchase new highly efficient homes at lower rates. The more energy efficient the upgrade or new home, the lower the interest rate available. For renovations, upgrade costs would be added into the new lower-rate mortgage, so that a homeowner pays little up front, has a lower monthly mortgage payment, cheaper energy bill, more expendable income, and a more valuable property.

Take, for example, a family currently paying 5.5 percent on a $240,000 loan with $30,000 in equity. Under this plan, in order to obtain a new 3.5 percent interest rate mortgage, the family would be required to spend $28,700 to renovate their home to be 50 percent more efficient, immediately creating jobs. After adding the $28,700 to their current mortgage balance and obtaining a new 30-year loan at 3.5 percent interest, this family would save $415 per month in combined mortgage payment and energy bill savings.

A homebuyer purchasing a new $240,000 home built to a 50 percent efficiency standard would also be eligible for a 3.5 percent, 30-year mortgage. The homeowner would save $338 per month in combined mortgage payment and energy bill savings.

Because the program would be structured so that each federal dollar invested in lowering mortgage rates would generate $9 to $10 dollars in private spending, a federal investment of just $30 billion dollars would generate $280 billion in private spending, creating 4.5 million new jobs, generating $20 billion in state and local taxes, and returning to the federal government $60 billion in tax revenue – double its investment. The investment would also jump-start an energy efficiency renovation market worth potentially $1 trillion.

King Solomon acted based on what he knew to be true and was able to return the baby to its mother. If President Obama wants a thriving economy with low unemployment, he must also base his decisions on what he knows to be true. If not, his mistake could result in years of high unemployment.

–

*U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2008 Building Energy Data Book, Table 2.3.9 Average Annual Energy Expenditures per Household, by Year. [March 2009]. Using 2010 data.

Building energy codes are the key.

The answer lies buried deep within the 1,428-page Waxman-Markey climate bill (H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act), passed by the House and now under consideration in the Senate. It is Section 201, pages 320-348. It is this section that makes H.R. 2454 worth passing.

No matter what else is compromised or changed in the climate bill as it works its way through the Senate, Section 201 must not be changed or weakened. Why? Because all other energy- and emissions-reduction approaches pale in comparison to what Section 201 will accomplish. Without it, we simply cannot meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets called for in the bill. We won’t even come close.

Section 201 covers building energy codes — that’s right, building energy codes — that will transform the entire built environment in the U.S. by 2050. That’s because Section 201 affects all new buildings and major renovations, and by 2050 more than three-quarters of the built environment in the U.S. will be either new or renovated.

Section 201 requires updating national building energy codes to meet the following energy reduction targets:

• in 2010, 30% below the baseline energy code (IECC 2006 and ASHRAE 90.1-2004),
• in 2014-2015, 50% below the baseline energy code, and
• every three years after, out to 2029-2030, an additional 5% reduction.

The targets outlined in Section 201 are simply more effective than any other energy and emissions reduction approach. The following graphs compare Section 201 with the call by some in Congress for a massive U.S. effort to build 100 new nuclear power plants in an attempt to move the country toward energy independence and significant GHG emissions reductions:

The proof is in the data. There’s simply no comparison. Whereas the 100 nuclear power plants only act as a replacement energy source, the updated building energy codes of Section 201 actually reduce energy consumption, eliminating the need for more plants. The codes also achieve more than six times the emissions reductions of 100 nuclear power plants. The codes accomplish all of this at a fraction of the cost. Here are the facts:

• Since June 2006, over 60,000 new homes have been designed, built, and certified to meet a minimum 50% energy reduction below the baseline energy code for heating and cooling.
• Studies by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) illustrate that meeting a 30% residential energy consumption reduction target below code will save households in every region of the U.S. between $403 and $612 per year after the cost of efficiency measures is factored in.
• At current energy prices and mortgage interest rates, NREL estimates that the average cost-neutral point for home efficiency upgrades is a 45% energy reduction below code.

The targets in Section 201 are set at a reasonable and beneficial pace for change that will achieve the reductions necessary within the timeline called for by the scientific community. Implementing these targets will reduce building sector energy consumption by:

• 18.35 Quadrillion Btus from projected 2030 levels (the equivalent of approximately two hundred and forty 1000-MW power plants), saving consumers an estimated $218 billion in annual energy bills (2007 dollars),
• 18.7% below 2005 levels by 2030, and
• 40.4% below 2005 levels by 2050.

Implementing the targets in Section 201 would also reduce building sector CO2 emissions by:

• 20.3% below 2005 levels by 2030 and
• 48.8% below 2005 levels by 2050, leaving only 34% of President Obama’s 83% Building Sector reduction target to be accomplished with other clean energy sources.

It is clear that the building energy code targets set in Section 201 are not only essential for achieving the energy consumption and GHG emissions reductions needed, but they are also the most cost-effective approach for doing so.

What about China and India? The U.S., through our multi-national architecture and engineering design firms, heavily influence the global built environment. As our firms move the U.S. built environment into the 21st century, they will, in both practice and influence, move China’s and India’s as well (see a list of multi-state and national firms that have adopted the 2030 Challenge in Appendix B of the Architecture 2030 Fact Sheet [PDF]).

To read Architecture 2030′s complete analysis of H.R. 2454, Section 201, with sources and citations, download the Architecture 2030 Fact Sheet [PDF].

Architecture 2030 will post a better answer on Grist next week. Stay tuned …

UPDATE:  Here’s the answer.

Well it’s here. The campaign hit the New York Times on Saturday, and it comes from NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association. It appears just as the country has come to grips with the fact that buildings are responsible for over 50% (50.1% to be exact*) of all the energy consumed in the U.S. It comes at a time when Americans are trying to reshape their energy policy and wean themselves from dependence on foreign oil, dwindling natural gas reserves, and dirty conventional coal.

This disinformation campaign is obviously meant to stall, confuse, and distort. The first salvo, a spurious study (PDF) and press release, was issued two days before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on improving building energy code standards.

It is clear from a simple analysis of the study that NAIOP commissioned a building energy efficiency analysis to support predetermined results. They contracted with ConSol, an energy modeling firm, and asked them to analyze five (yes, only five) efficiency measures for an imaginary square-shaped, four-story office building with completely sealed windows and an equal amount of un-shaded glass on all four sides of the building.

In other words, analyze an energy hog.

They conducted the analysis for different cities and climates — Newport Beach, Chicago, and Baltimore — without changing the design to respond to these very different climates. They did not study changing the shape of the building, its orientation or form, or redistributing windows or using different windows to take advantage of natural light for daylighting or sunlight for heating. (Office buildings are day-use facilities.) They did not study shading the glass in summertime to reduce the need for air-conditioning, using operable windows for ventilation (not even in Newport Beach with its beautiful year-round climate), using landscaping to reduce micro-climatic impacts, employing cost-effective solar hot water heating systems, employing an energy management control system, or even study the impact of using inexpensive energy saving occupancy sensors in rooms to turn off lights.

In other words, NAIOP intentionally kept out of the analysis all the readily available low-cost, no-cost, and cost-saving options to reduce a building’s energy consumption. This deliberate omission is glaringly apparent in their press release and in the NYT article. In fact, they take so many inexpensive energy-saving options off the table that it is impossible for the imaginary building to reach commonly achievable energy-consumption-reduction targets. They then add an inflammatory headline to their press release — “Results show efficiencies unable to reach 30 percent mandates” — and state that, “The study provides an unbiased insight into the energy targets practical to commercial development today.”

Using this pseudo-analysis as their baseline, NAIOP goes on to report, without any objective basis, that “reaching a 30 percent reduction above the ASHRAE standard (a commercial building energy code standard) is not feasible using common design approaches and would exceed a 10-year payback.” They conclude, “achieving a 50 percent reduction above the standard is not currently reachable.”

Clearly, this study is meant to confuse the public and stall meaningful legislation, insuring that America remains dependent on foreign oil, natural gas, and dirty conventional coal.

The U.S. peaked in oil production in 1970 and natural gas in 1973. Our reserves are in steep decline and 70 percent of the remaining world oil and gas reserves are located in the Middle East, an area stretching from Saudi Arabia and Iran to the Islamic republics of the former Soviet Union. This type of activity by NAIOP not only hurts our country, it is also a disservice to their membership and all those in the building sector who work hard to deliver a high-quality, energy-efficient building products.

NAIOP touts itself as advancing responsible commercial real estate development and advocating for effective public policy. This pseudo-study and misleading campaign accomplishes none of these goals.

The American public deserves better.

—–

* To create a U.S. Building Sector, the Residential buildings (operations) sector, Commercial buildings (operations) sector, Industrial sector-building operations estimate, and the Industrial sector-annual building construction and materials embodied energy estimate were combined.

The Plan takes a focused approach, strategically inserting scarce investment dollars into the economy to get the widest range of benefits. With a federal investment of $85.56 billion each year for two years, the Plan will, in just two years:

• create over 8 million new jobs and
• create a new $1.6 trillion renovation market.

In just five years, it will:

• save consumers $142.33 to 200.88 billion,
• reduce CO2 emissions by 481.13 million metric tons,
• reduce energy consumption by 6.17 quadrillion btu,
• save 1.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and
• save 83.35 million barrels of oil.

The Plan accomplishes all of this and more using a simple, equitable, elegant approach that integrates a mortgage buy-down program for residential buildings and an accelerated-depreciation program for commercial buildings with the energy efficiency targets of the 2030 Challenge (see box below). By tying stimulus funding to the 2030 Challenge targets, the Plan revitalizes the U.S. economy while shifting it toward energy efficiency and clean energy.

This powerful and comprehensive Plan benefits all Americans, no matter what income level or location in the country. The new demand for energy efficiency upgrades and infusion of capital will create over 8 million new jobs, including a new $1.6 trillion renovation market that will put the construction industry back to work immediately. Due to the large number of products and services involved, investment in the building sector would spread across the U.S. and across industries (from steel, insulation, and caulking to mechanical, electrical, and solar equipment, glass, wood, metals, tile, fabrics, and paint) and sectors (from design, engineering, banking and development to manufacturing, construction, wholesale, retail and distribution).

In addition, the $142.33 to 200.88 billion in consumer mortgage and energy savings will provide much-needed disposable income to fuel economic growth. The reductions in energy consumption and CO2 emissions will put the country on the path to energy independence and signal our commitment to addressing climate change. The icing on the cake is that the cost of the Plan will be paid back each year through the new tax base created by the new jobs.

Separately, Architecture 2030 has called for updating the National Model Building Energy Codes to achieve overall energy savings, compared to the 2006 IECC for residential buildings and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 for commercial buildings, of at least: 30 percent by 2010, 50 percent by 2016 and 75 percent by 2022, reaching carbon neutral in 2030.

The 2030 Challenge Stimulus Plan bridges the gap between 2009 and the implementation of the updated National Codes in 2011. While addressing the country’s immediate needs, it builds a foundation of experience and momentum, easing the transition to the updated codes that will transform the U.S. building sector by 2030. Investing in the building sector is the only investment that can accomplish all of these objectives.

The simplicity of the 2030 Challenge Stimulus Plan and its potential for wide-ranging, positive, and immediate impact have garnered a lot of attention on the Hill. The Plan is now being reviewed by Obama’s transition team.

Download the full Plan [PDF].

—–

From Transition Team Weighing Blockbuster Housing and Stimulus Proposal by David Sassoon:

Here’s how the 2030 Stimulus Plan plan works.

If you are a homeowner, you can bring your mortgage rate down 2 or 3 or 4 points — with Uncle Sam picking up the difference — if you improve the energy efficiency of your home. It’s an offer you can’t refuse, because it means you can save hundreds of dollars on a typical monthly mortgage, plus hundreds more in reduced energy bills — in perpetuity.

Those savings immediately go in to family coffers and can get spent, stimulating the economy. At the same time, all the demand for energy efficiency upgrades creates millions of jobs. The government recoups its investment in the mortgage buy-down from the income tax collected from the newly employed. And greenhouse gas emissions go down dramatically.

Mazria walked me through a hypothetical example that highlighted the huge incentives the plan could unleash. Say you’re a homeowner with a $272,000 mortgage at 5.55%, paying about $1550 a month. You decide you want your mortgage rate to drop to 3%. In order to qualify for the reduction, you have to improve the energy efficiency of your home 75% below code, and it’s going to cost you a pretty penny: about $40,000.

Existing tax credits would take care of about $10,000 of that cost. The rest would get tacked on to your existing mortgage, bringing it up to $302,000. But, at 3%, you’d be paying only about $1280 — saving almost $300 a month on the mortgage alone, plus another $150 in reduced energy costs. The value of your home rises, you have more disposable income, you’ve given work to someone to do the upgrades for you — and s/he’s now paying federal taxes, and you’ve reduced your carbon footprint.

President-elect Obama has committed to economic recovery, energy independence, carbon-neutral buildings by 2030 and an 80% reduction in US greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Architecture 2030 has developed a groundbreaking economic stimulus plan that, with a single investment, simultaneously addresses all of these issues.

Because America’s energy crisis is adversely impacting our economy and national security, it is critical to take a realistic look at the energy solutions currently being proposed by politicians, industry, and the media.

Architecture 2030 in its latest E-News Bulletin illustrates that the centerpiece of America’s proposed "Bold Energy Plan," consisting of 45 new nuclear plants and offshore drilling, would supply a meager three percent of the 118 QBtu of energy that the Energy Information Administration projects America will consume in 2030. The other proposed big idea is “clean coal” technology, which is at best 15 to 20 years out, if it can be proven technologically feasible and economically competitive.

The inadequacy of offshore drilling and nuclear plants to make any significant contribution to America’s energy needs is made abundantly clear in the following charts (click to enlarge):

As dismal as this finding is, it’s not the final word. There are other solutions, real solutions, that are not only much more effective but much more cost effective. For example, simply updating the national energy conservation code standard to meet the 2030 Challenge targets would produce five times the amount of energy as the proposed offshore drilling and nuclear plants combined. And, as a recent report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows, the energy efficient buildings resulting from the updated code would actually save consumers money in reduced energy bills.

The 2030 Challenge is not a new idea; it has already been widely adopted and many cities, states, architecture firms, and businesses are working to implement it. The federal government has adopted the 2030 Challenge targets for all new and renovated federal buildings, and California recently completed a plan to implement the targets statewide.

These and other initiatives, such as providing incentives for using energy efficient equipment and appliances, community building via smart growth coupled with public transportation, driving fuel-efficient cars, and using renewable energy, are the real solutions. These practical, effective ideas are not as catchy as “drill, baby, drill,” but maybe that’s only because we haven’t really tried to put it into a sexy slogan. How about, “Live, Baby, Live”?

A new report, titled “Implementing the 2030 Blueprint: A Comprehensive Plan to Address Energy Independence, Climate Change and the US Economy,” will be released by Architecture 2030 in November. Stay tuned.

Buildings are responsible for approximately 48 percent of all energy consumption and GHG emissions in the U.S. Forty-eight percent. Let that sink in. The entire transportation sector is only responsible for 27 percent. To win the climate change battle, we must tackle the building sector.

Local governments are doing just that. They are among the real heroes of the climate change crisis. Shortly after Architecture 2030 issued the 2030 Challenge[1], the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted Resolution 50, the challenge for all buildings in all cities. Since making that commitment, cities and counties across the U.S. have been working to implement its targets, particularly through building energy codes.

As the gatekeepers of building energy codes, local governments are in a uniquely powerful position to save the world by effecting change within the very sector that needs the greatest changes. They don’t need to wait for anyone else to come to their rescue; they are the knights in shining armor. Who knew?

Even so, without a clear relationship between the 2030 Challenge targets and existing building energy codes, many local governments have struggled in their attempts to move forward. To clarify this relationship and help governments clear this hurdle, Architecture 2030 recently released the following table of “code equivalents”, which are the additional reductions needed beyond the requirements of a particular code to meet or exceed the initial 50 percent reduction target of the 2030 Challenge. Now, to meet the 2030 Challenge, local governments simply need to amend their building energy code by adopting the appropriate code equivalent in the table.

How much will that cost? Nothing. It will actually save the building owner money.

According to a recent study by DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the cost to implement the reductions called for by the “code equivalents” in a typical new residence is about $1.25 to $2.00 per square foot of building floor area[2]. If this cost is amortized at 7 percent over a 30-year mortgage, the annual cost for a 2,000-square-foot residence is approximately $211. However, due to the significant reduction in energy consumption achieved by a 2030 Challenge building, the homeowner will save $723 on their annual utility bill. So, the net savings for the year is $512. And, as energy prices increase, the owner’s savings also increase.

If building codes aren’t sexy enough for you, surely extra money in your pocket is. And fortunately, amending your local building code to get these savings rolling is a local action. Each and every citizen can get in on the action by lobbying their local and state officials to amend their code.

To download the full report, Meeting the 2030 Challenge Through Building Codes, click here [PDF].

—–

[1] The 2030 Challenge calls for 1) all new buildings and developments to be designed to use half the fossil fuel energy they would typically consume, i.e., half the regional or country average for that building type, 2) at a minimum, an equal amount of existing building area be renovated annually to use half the amount of fossil fuel energy they are currently consuming, and 3) the fossil fuel reduction standard for all new buildings be increased to 60 percent in 2010, 70 percent in 2015, 80 percent in 2020, 90 percent in 2025, and carbon neutral in 2030 (using no fossil fuel GHG-emitting energy). Architecture 2030 recommends the fossil fuel reduction targets be achieved through design, the application of renewable energy technologies and/or the purchase of renewable energy (20 percent maximum). Additional information is available here.

[2] According to the 2006 DOE-supported study, Energy Impact Study of the 2003 IECC, 2006 IECC, and 2006 IRC Energy Codes for Nebraska, the energy consumption of an IECC 2003 or IECC 2006 code compliant residence is essentially the same.

Complex problems sometimes require the simplest of solutions. One of the most important questions facing those attempting to solve the climate crisis is, “How do we reduce CO2 emissions dramatically and immediately?” The simplest answer is, “Turn off the coal plants.“

Although coal produces about half of the energy supplied by the electric power sector, it is responsible for 81% of the sector’s CO2 emissions. According to recent paper by Dr. James Hansen et al., titled "Target CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" (PDF), if we are to have any chance of averting a climatic catastrophe, we must implement an immediate moratorium on the construction of any new conventional coal-fired power plants and complete a phasing out of all existing conventional coal plants by the year 2030. Anything short of this will fail (call Congress on Earth Day, April 22nd, supporting the Markey Waxman bill and a moratorium on coal).

To turn off the coal plants, one must replace them with another energy source and/or eliminate the demand for the energy produced by these plants. And the economic feasibility of any proposed actions regarding climate change is a particularly important consideration in this time of looming recession.

Today, of the approximately 38.5 QBtu of primary energy consumed by residential and commercial building operations in the U.S. each year, 27.3 QBtu is consumed in the form of electricity. About 14.2 QBtu of this electricity is produced by conventional coal-fired power plants. According to a recent McKinsey Global Institute report, the implementation of straightforward, off-the-shelf residential and commercial building efficiency measures would reduce energy consumption by 11.1 QBtu for an investment of $21.6 billion per QBtu.

Investment in building energy efficiency is surprisingly effective. A single investment of $21.6 billion would replace 22.3 conventional 500 MW coal-fired power plants, reduce annual CO2 emissions by 86.7 million metric tons, save 204 billion cu. ft. of natural gas and 10.7 million barrels of oil each year, save consumers $8.46 billion in energy bills annually (less than a 3-year simple payback), and create 216,000 permanent new jobs.

By comparison, as the chart below illustrates, neither "clean" coal plants nor nuclear plants can compete with building energy efficiency. Investing the same $21.6 billion in either "clean" coal plants or nuclear plants costs significantly more (rather than saving consumers money), replaces far fewer conventional coal plants, reduces CO2 by far less, and would create no new jobs, since the jobs created by these new plants would simply replace existing conventional coal plant jobs.

In addition, because building is a local activity (construction jobs cannot be outsourced), the money invested in this sector is spread across the entire country and across all industries, from wood, metals, and glass to sealants, paint, and banking. Both the $21.6 billion invested and the $8.46 billion saved on energy bills will cycle through the economy several times.

A comparative analysis of the cost of energy production also provides useful information. As shown in the chart below, the cost to build enough new coal plants with CCS to produce just one QBtu of delivered energy would be $256 billion. The cost to build enough nuclear plants to produce just one QBtu of delivered energy is $222 billion. The cost to incorporate energy efficiency measures into residential and commercial buildings to negate the need for one QBtu of delivered energy is $42.1 billion.

While coal with CCS is at least 20 years out and a single nuclear plant takes 8 to 12 years to get on line, energy efficiency measures can be implemented today — at today’s prices, with off-the-shelf materials, appliances, and equipment.

The clear winner among the energy solutions being considered today is building energy efficiency. To make the building energy efficiency solution a reality, we recommend the implementation of the following plan of action, which we call the 2030 Blueprint:

1. Implement an immediate moratorium on the construction of any new conventional coal plants, and the gradual phasing out of all existing conventional coal plants by 2030 in order to:
   • place an immediate cap on coal plant emissions while allowing time to retrain coal workers for new jobs.
2. Require that all developments using federal funds meet the 2030 Challenge targets in order to:
• create additional models of building energy efficiency for the marketplace.
3. Upgrade the National Energy Conservation Code Standard to the 2030 Challenge targets for residential and commercial buildings in order to:
• immediately stabilize and begin reducing energy demand in the building sector.
4. Invest $21.6 billion each year for five years in building energy efficiency measures, through existing federal programs (i.e., New Markets Tax Credits; Low Income Housing Tax Credits; a five-year extension and increased funding for efficiency in the Energy Policy Act) and new energy efficiency incentives, tax credits, and programs in order to:
   • stimulate building construction
   • reduce annual building sector energy consumption by 5 QBtu
   • reduce annual U.S. CO2 emissions by 433.5 MMT
   • save consumers $128 billion (which more than covers the cost of this solution)
   • create more than one million permanent new jobs
5. Fund and implement a joint labor-management job-training program for displaced coal industry jobs, based on successful models developed over the past two decades, i.e., in the tire/rubber, steel, automobile, and communications industries.

Earth Day 2008 is going to be historic. We, along with numerous other groups around the nation, are calling on everyone to wear blue during Earth Day 2008 to signify a vote for no coal. Events will be happening around the world from April 19-22, so …

• If you’re attending the Earth Day event on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. on April 20, wear blue.
• If you’re attending another major Earth Day event, wear blue.
• When you dress in the morning on Earth Day, wear blue.
• No matter what you’re doing for Earth Day 2008, wear blue.

A blue shirt, top, sweater, or jacket … whatever. Just wear blue.

Then, on April 22, as the culminating event, pick up the phone: call Congress at 202.224.3121 and ask for an immediate “Moratorium on Coal” — a halt to the construction of any new coal-fired power plants. Through this Call for Climate event, Earth Day hopes to generate over a million phone calls to Congress. Visit Earth Day’s website to learn more.

Your blue vote will count. Fifty-nine coal plants were canceled in 2007. That’s over a third of the 151 planned. That happened before millions of people joined together to say “No Coal!”

BYOBlue for Earth Day 2008. Be the vote that tips the balance.