Green Building Law Blog : Green Building Lawyer & Attorney : Shari Shapiro: Calliope Communications, LLC

The Home and Garden Channel (HGTV) is the top rated cable network on the weekends.  At the end of every remodeling show on HGTV is the big reveal, dramatic "before and after" footage of the transformation of the kitchen or bedroom.

How does this relate to EPA?  On my Muse of Eloquence blog (which deals more generally with policy and communications issues), I discussed the Democratic losses last week, diagnosing it as a communications problem, not a policy problem.  

This is doubly true with respect to the Environmental Protection Agency.  Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency needs to improve its brand image, not just among young voters (or, non-voters, as is more accurate), but with voters that turn out on a regular basis.  To do so, it must make the impact of environmental regulation personal.

Fortunately, the EPA has a lot of "before and after" images to use in its advertising campaign.  For example, above is a picture of air pollution in Los Angeles in 1968, before the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, and 2005, 35 years later (Image courtesy of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder).

CIRES conducted a study on what caused the reduction in air pollution.  Although population has tripled in LA since 1968, according to lead study author Ilana Pollack: 

LA’s air has lost a lot of its ‘sting,' Our study shows exactly how that happened, and confirms that California’s policies to control emissions have worked as intended.

"Before and after" footage is compelling because, by viewing the pictures, we are experiencing the change personally.  The EPA (and other Federal agencies, for that matter) needs to reframe the debate by spending more (a LOT more) of their budgets on advertising showing the American people the transformative impact that regulation has had on everyday life.  We await the big reveal in 2016.  

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the world was a-twitter about the New York Times Freakonomics blog concluding that green buildings in an unsustainable infrastructure are not really green.  Imagine my amusement when the EPA releases a list of the cities with the most Energy Star buildings, with Los Angeles at the top, declaring:

These cities see the importance of taking action on climate change," said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “Communities from Los Angeles to Louisville are reducing greenhouse gases and cutting energy bills with buildings that have earned EPA's Energy Star."

Coincidentally, Los Angeles is also among the top 10 cities with the longest commutes. It would be higher than 9th due to the traffic, but the suburban-style office parks and lack of a compact central downtown allow for shorter commute times. According to Forbes:

But what serves L.A. well is that a surprisingly high percentage of drivers get to their destinations in under 20 minutes (34%), which is only the 13th worst rate in the country. The reason? All those office parks and strip malls dotting the basin make it easy for people to commute between suburbs as opposed to a central downtown location, and that makes commutes shorter in mileage terms.

Green buildings are just one component of what cities need to do to combat climate change.  A comprehensive approach which incorporates regional planning, transit, infrastructure, zoning, and the buildings themselves is what will move us truly forward in the fight against climate change, and the EPA should be stressing the need for cities to move in this direction.  

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link