In 2008, Massachusetts passed the Green Communities Act, an energy reform bill, which promotes communities for building greener buildings and energy use with access to grants.
There's just a few unanswered questions....
1. How can the materials of building or lot construction which step foot on a wetland be considered green?
2. How can a building or lot, replacing pristine woods with a green building be considered green?
3. How can a building location, which creates a large amount of traffic to a poor access area be considered green in the efforts of reducing pollution and energy waste by transportation?
4. How can a building be green, if the products for consumption or items within it are toxic?
How can all this help reduce Global Warming, the main energy concern by which this Act has been created?
Please ask the State Elected Officials to amend the following definitions into the Act, to make it a better Green Community.
These questions came about from opposition of this project: http://www.change.org/petitions/view/save_woods_of_salem
Please make amend these concerns into the Green Communities Act
Greetings,
In 2008, Massachusetts passed the Green Communities Act, an energy reform bill, which promotes communities for building greener buildings and energy use.
These definitions are stated in the Green Communities Act:
"Energy conservation projects", projects to promote energy conservation. And
“Green building”, a building, ...... that lessen its dependence on fossil fuels and minimize its overall negative environmental impact.
Please consider the following concerns, and make amendments into the Green Communities Act concerning these:
1. The Material of a building or lot construction which creates a foundation or paving on a wetland is not green construction, and does not help reduce the energies of Global Warming.
2. A building or lot, replacing pristine woods with a green building, is a giant step backward towards reducing Global Warming, and is not enough to replace the irreparable existing environment.
3. A building's location, which creates a large amount of traffic to an area of poor access is not reducing pollution and energy waste through transportation, but is increasing Global Warming, and therefore does not promote green energy use.
4. A building which stores or manufactures toxic products for consumption is not defeating the energies of Global Warming. And could possibly promote toxic ground absorption and air pollution.
Please help reduce Global Warming, which is the main energy concern this Act has been created for. Please make amendments into the Green Community Act, which will help reduce Global Warming and create a better green community locally and globally.
Thank you,
[Your name]