Television: *CHOMP*

^ That was the sound of your television eating energy.
California Seeks to Curb Appetite of Power-Hungry TVs

California's Energy Commission (CEC) is attempting to put a restriction on television sets; they want TVs sold in the state by 2013 to use 50% less energy than they do now! The Electronics industry is protesting because they say consumers are able to do so on their own, by adjusting brightness/light/etc. settings on their TVs themselves. However, the CEC is countering by saying that the standards they have proposed can be easily, efficiently, and cost-effectively done.

The article also taught me that the good old cathode-ray-tube TV sets are actually the most energy efficient, compared to the newer, fancier plasma or LCD screen sets. Intriguing. You'd think that since the latter two were newer, their energy efficiency would have increased...guess it isn't so! But then I suppose that is somewhat the same way for cars...the fuel-efficiency hasn't changed all that much since Ford's lovely Model-T.

But I digress.

This was a dandy little article, packed with information even though it was quite short. The lede was straight-to-the-point, which was appropriate for this type of article, yet it was quite clever as well. I liked how the headline and lede tied in together (though they probably weren't written by the same person, there had to have been some sort of collarboration) to the idea that TV's "consume" too much power.

The reporter also did a good job at presenting both sides of the issue, even though she was given very few words to work with. She let her sources do the talking, which also shows an excellent use of quotes that further the story rather than simply reiterate what has already been said. This also let the reporter say more in a short amount of space...however, she also didn't say too much, or try and cram as much information as she could, which is what I often see in articles as short as these.

The end of the article was also good in that it provided a little bot of background information that was not essential to understanding the story but helpful in understanding it. This also shows good use of the inverted pyramid form of writing a news story, which worked well with the subject matter.

All in all, a really sweet story, which is normally not the case when it comes to articles this short!

Empire State Building Plans Environmental Retrofit

You can read the article here!

The article talks about how the owners of the Empire State Building in New York have announced plans to make the building greener and more environmentally-friendly in order to conserve energy as well as cut down on costs. They are completely renovating the building and retrofitting it with things like dual-flush toilets and extra insulation. While the project is expensive, they estimate that it will pay for itself in about three years. Not too shabby!

This was a very well-written article, as it hit every point and answered most questions I/the reader might have about the project. It was also concise, and gave just the right amount of information needed. The lead wasn't anything special, but it was cute and drew me in. It also used sources who did add some good opinions to the article.

The one criticism I do have about this article was a lack of a variety of sources and opinions. Every source spoke of the planned changes in a positive light, but there must have been some people who might be concerned. Sources like the tenants of the building, or those who work in the building, might have added a differing perspective to the story. For example, the article says that, "tenants may also see a mark-up on rents because of the desirability of green features." Well, what do these tenants think about this?

Other than that, a good, informative article. Plus, I personally like how one of the largest buildings in the world is setting this "green" example...

People involved with the retrofit said the Empire State Building can offer
an example of how older buildings can retrofit to the highest energy standards
and effectively cut down their greenhouse gas emissions, a contributor to global
warming. The largest share of New York City’s greenhouse gas emissions, 78
percent, comes from the city’s buildings, with commercial buildings contributing
25 percent, mostly from the use of electricity and natural gas.

...hopefully, other buildings will follow the Empire State's lead!

Green Shoes?

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/timberlands-new-footprint-recycled-tires/

This is a nice, short little feature story about how the outdoor-sy company Timberland is planning on making some of their shoes out of recycled rubber material from worn-out tires.

I really liked this article because it was succinct, got straight to the point, and explained the transition well. It was also balanced in the sense that there was no editorialization; the reporter did not insert her opinion into it by saying that the change was good or bad, but always referred back to what the Timberland company said about the new "green" shoes.