Bay Area cities join to fight climate change

(Photo of Bay Bridge linking San Francisco and Oakland from Flickr and photographer Dikesh Joshi)

News Update: Look West, young man, for examples of pioneering work on global warming. Now three Northern California cities have joined forces to reduce their emissions by 2013. San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland have agreed to cooperate on cutting greenhouse gases, by boosting the number of hybrid and electric vehicles, diverting waste from landfills and increasing green jobs. They also plan to craft a common standard for green buildings and rooftop solar installations, decrease water consumption, provide incentives to cut the use of gasoline in transport and educate the public about climate change. The goals have been endorsed by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a coalition of 284 companies including PG&E, Apple and Google, as well as the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. (Source: ClimateWire)

10 reasons why Obama is best on global warming

(Photo of Barack Obama by Peter Holderness/Medill News Service)

Weekly Angst: Saving the planet is taking a back seat to the financial crisis right now. But to many of us, climate change remains the top concern for the next president of the United States, because we’re running out of time to stop the catastrophic results of a warming planet. It’s getting so bad that Al Gore, a former vice president, is suggesting civil disobedience.

Unfortunately, when climate change does come up these days, it has morphed into talk about offshore drilling and achieving independence from foreign oil, which is the way John McCain has framed it. The maverick who championed climate change legislation with his buddy Joe Lieberman in 2003 and 2005 has, in this campaign, shifted from concern about greenhouse gases to concern about high gas prices and getting off foreign oil. That means American oil is just fine with him. In fact, the more the better.

The League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club and Environment America, the three major environmental organizations that endorse candidates, all jumped on the Barack Obama bandwagon early on, because he so clearly will lead the nation to a better place on global warming. As Environment America said, McCain is not the right president to reverse 8 years of the anti-environment Bush Administration.

Talking points
Here are 10 top reasons why Obama is the better candidate on global warming:

1. Obama favors cutting greenhouse gases as much as scientists say we should. His goal is an 80% reduction (from 1990 levels) by 2050. He doesn’t try to second-guess science. McCain’s goal is 60%.
2. Obama has a much better voting record. On the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, Obama’s lifetime record is 86%. McCain’s is 24. During the last 2 years, McCain has missed every important environmental vote, including 2 on renewable energy where a yea vote from him could have made the difference. He deliberately missed all 8 tries to extend the renewable energy tax credits.
3. Obama favors an RES and subsidies for renewable energy. He has called for a renewable electricity standard of 25% by 2025 and for investing $150 billion in renewable energy. McCain opposes RES, as well as subsidies to alternative energies like solar and wind, preferring to let the market work unfettered. Though he seems to favor incentives for nuclear power.
4. Obama is much more cautious about nuclear power. He says it may need to be part of the mix, but safety and waste storage problems must be resolved first. McCain, on the other hand, makes nuclear power a major part of his energy portfolio, calling for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, and 100 eventually.
5. Obama wants all credits in a cap-and-trade system to be auctioned. In other words, polluters must pay for their allowances. McCain says permits would eventually be auctioned, but should mostly be given free at first, and he favors polluters being able to bank or borrow credits based on the economy.
6. Obama wants to double the fuel efficiency of autos in 18 years. McCain, who missed the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) vote of 2007, says he would enforce the new standard of 35 mpg by 2020 but isn’t looking to increase it. Obama voted for the CAFE bill.
7. Obama says offshore drilling will do little to help gasoline prices and was for the ban. He’s since softened his stance, saying he might accept some offshore drilling if it would help get other things he wants, like RES. McCain strongly favors drilling offshore, saying it will help solve the problems of high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil. After McCain announced this new position favoring offshore drilling, and became a cheerleader for the cause, campaign donations from oil and gas went up more than double, or by more than a million dollars.
8. Obama took a stand against a summer repeal of the gas tax, when McCain and Hillary Clinton called for one. Obama called it a gimmick that would not help lower prices.
9. Obama favors a windfall profits tax on big oil companies. He would like to see that money go to people who are struggling to pay for gas. McCain is against a windfall profits tax.
10. Obama picked Sen. Joe Biden as is running mate. Biden has an 83% lifetime score with LCV and proposed a bill in 1986 to deal with global warming. McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has expressed doubt about the human role in causing climate change, filed suit to de-list the polar bear as endangered, and favors drilling in ANWR.
For more on the candidates' environmental views, go to News21 Politics and the Environment, and click on Charging Up the Elections. News 21 is a summer project of Carnegie-Knight fellows at Northwestern University. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the faculty members on the project.)

(Sources: League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Environment America, barackobama.com, johnmccain.com, news21project.org, New York Times, salon.com)

Chicago Climate Action Plan here after long delay, calls for massive community effort to cut GHG

(Photo of Chicago skyline from Flickr and photographer Atelier Teee/Terrence Faircloth)

Weekly Angst: Finally, the long-awaited Chicago Climate Action Plan is here. Mayor Daley unveiled it last week, apparently after convincing the power structure in the city to go along with it.

In many ways it is very ambitious. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gases 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, with an interim marker of 25% reduction by 2020. But success will depend on the actions of business, labor, civic leaders and individual residents, so buy-in is important. And someone will need to be pushing the agenda.

CCAP is more comprehensive than many city plans, covering everything from retrofitted buildings to biking to roof gardens to power plants and beyond. Yet it is sparse on numbers.

The plan calls for a 30% increase in mass transit ridership and suggests some ways that could happen, but offers no dollar amounts or specific numbers. Likewise it calls for more efficient motor vehicle fleets, but gives no specifics – unlike New York City, which seeks a total turnover of taxis to hybrids in 5 years.

There are some numbers in the plan, and I’ll list some of them here. I like numbers because you can measure progress against them.

Strategies to reduce GHG
Overall, the 4 strategies for reducing greenhouse gases call for:
• 30% of the savings to come from making buildings more energy efficient
• 34% to come from clean and renewable energy sources
• 23% from transportation and
• 13% from reduced waste and industrial pollution.

Some other numbers
The plan calls for the following:
• Retrofit 50% of the commercial and industrial building stock (that’s huge if you think about it)
• Improve efficiency at 50% of residential buildings (also major, in a city of 3 million people)
• Upgrade or re-power 21 power plants
• Procure enough renewable energy to reduce electricity emissions 20%
• Double household-scale renewable electricity
• Increase roof gardens to cover 6,000 buildings and plant 1 million trees
• Recycle 90% of waste by 2020.

This last – recycling – is a sore point for Chicago. The blue bag system never worked well and is slowly being shifted over to a suburban-type blue cart system, ward by ward. The plan calls for all blue carts by the end of 2011, and in the meantime, there will be communal recycling boxes throughout the city, within a mile of any residents who don’t yet have blue carts. The plan also touts the city’s toxic and electronic waste center, which is open three days a week for disposal.

City government plans to upgrade building codes and have energy audits for its 500-plus buildings, including schools, with the goal of reducing energy costs 30-40%. The Department of Water Management will put solar panels on the filtration plant and Park District employees will be taught to install solar panels.

Programs and tools
The plan emphasizes tools and programs to help businesses and individuals retrofit their buildings and take other steps to cut emissions. Among them are a “one-stop shop” for financing and technical assistance in retrofitting buildings. The city and CTA have a task force to encourage transit-supportive neighborhoods. Businesses will compete with one another to reduce CO2. And a Chicago Offset Plan will invest in renewable energy, trees and retrofitting.

Do it yourself
The plan also lists steps businesses can take to reduce their emissions, including (a favorite of mine) turning off the lights when they’re not in use, switching to efficient CFL bulbs, lowering the thermostat 3 degrees in winter and raising it 3 degrees in summer, turning off electronics in off-hours, reducing auto trips and driving the most fuel-efficient cars available, using videoconferencing instead of travel, buying green products and recycling.

There’s also a list for residents, which includes: switching to public transit (getting rid of a car could save $400/month) or at least keeping your car tuned up and tires inflated, re-using shopping bags, using CFLs and turning off lights and unplugging electronics when not needed, and planting or adopting a tree.

The plan, available for download at http://chicagoclimateaction.org, includes information about current emissions, expected impacts from climate change and a strategy for adaptation to extreme weather and ecosystem changes that are inevitable.

All-in-all it’s a good blueprint for reduction of greenhouse gases. Now it needs to be implemented. That will require a huge community effort by business, labor, government and residents -- and most of all, leadership from the mayor, just as Mayor Bloomberg is pushing for major change in New York City. A powerful mayor should be able to make it happen.

New London mayor undoes earlier steps to curb greenhouse gases, including driving charge

(Photo of London traffic congestion from Flickr and photographer gerdragon)

News Update 2: New London Mayor Boris Johnson, in office less than 100 days, has eliminated the emissions-based congestion charge for drivers and canceled contracts for a fleet of zero-carbon hydrogen powered cars, vans and motor bikes. He also is considering increased flights in and out of the city by 50% and building another airport in the Thames estuary. Angry green groups complain he has no environmental expert on the London Development Board and see his actions as harmful to the city’s goal of cutting CO2 emissions 60% by 2025. Johnson had campaigned on a promise of making London the greenest city in the world. (Sources: The Guardian, E&E News)

Will China become a Green Dragon when it comes to clean energy to fight climate change?

(Photo of wind power in China from Flickr and photographer drs2biz/David Schroeter)


Weekly Angst: All eyes are on China this week. That’s because of the Olympics, but there’s a far more important reason to China-watch. As the world’s fastest-growing economy it has great power for good or evil – when it comes to global warming.

China has passed up the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, releasing 24% of the world’s total, and it’s building an average of one coal-fired power plant a week. That’s scary.

At the same time, it’s leading the world in hydropower, is a major producer of photovoltaic solar panels, and will likely soon lead in making wind turbines.

Its autos are required to have 40% greater fuel economy than ours and it has mandated 15% renewable energy by 2020 – something our own Congress failed to pass.

A report released Aug. 1 by The Climate Group, an independent nonprofit, pulls together information about “China’s Clean Revolution”:
* It leads the world in total installed capacity of renewable energy.
* It is second to Japan in solar photovoltaic production.
* It is likely to be the largest exporter of wind turbines by 2009.
* It has 60% of the world market in solar water heaters.
* It’s the third largest ethanol producer.
* It leads the world in hydroelectric power and is 5th in wind power.
* It spent $12 billion on clean energy last year, second only to Germany, which spent $14 billion (they have similar-sized economies) and more than the United States. For shame.

In 2005, China enacted fuel-economy standards for autos and new-building efficiency design codes that would cut energy use in half. In 2006, in passed a Renewable Energy Law, mandating the purchase of wind, solar and biomass for power plants, and a tax of up to 20% on SUVs.

Seizing green economic advantage
“China’s beginning to unleash a low-carbon dragon,” said Steve Howard, CEO of The Climate Group, which advises government and businesses on how to combat climate change, and co-author of the report.

Clean-energy demand has given the Chinese economy an opportunity and they are forging ahead of us. Tens of thousands of companies are making everything from solar panels to electric bicycles to energy-efficient appliances to wind turbines. The 6 largest solar companies have a market value of $15 billion.

One city, Rizhao, has set out to become a carbon-neutral showcase and is half-way there, according to a recent story on ClimateWire. Highrise buildings will collect solar power during the 260 days of sunshine in the oceanside city, which plans to close down cement, paper and steel businesses that use coal. Rizhao shares this goal with a small number of other cities: Arendal, Norway; Vancouver, Canada; and Vaxjo, Sweden.

Coal still main energy source
All is not blue skies though. Fossil fuels provide most of the power, and if trends continue, 70% of China’s new electric power by 2030 will come from coal, the Climate Group report said. So by that year China will be adding an estimated 4 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, more than the European Union’s total now.

But China realizes it can’t sustain the kind of dirty industrial development the West had and must look for a better, cleaner way. Motivation comes from the enormous air-pollution problem and shortage of natural resources in a country trying to lift its population (one-fifth of the world) out of poverty.

China depends heavily on imports, and the high cost of fuel has made renewable energy far more attractive, The Climate Group’s China director, Changhua Wu, told the BBC.

“In China we are concerned about the speed of growth of emissions. It’s really scary,” Wu said. The government wants to stabilize emissions by 2020, mainly through efficiency, renewable energy and electric cars, she said, but more policy incentives are needed.

As a growing world power, and leading emitter of greenhouse gases, China will be one of the most important countries in seeking an international solution to climate change. But China has taken the position that the developing world, which was responsible for the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases until recently, must show its sincerity and ability to cut its own GHG before expecting new economies to do likewise.

“If they are not able to do it with the technology available to them, then is it reasonable to expect China and India to do it?” asked Wu.
(Sources: The Climate Group, BBC News, ClimateWire, Reuters)

Unregulated ships spew greenhouse gases into atmosphere and untreated waste into ocean

(Photo of Chinese freighter from Flickr and photographer fusionpanda/David Grant)

Weekly Angst: When I was on an idyllic cruise in French Polynesia eight years ago, I was astounded at how clear the water was. I’d never seen anything like it. Imagine my dismay to learn our ship was dumping all kinds of waste in the water, befouling this pristine sea. Cruise ships continue to use the ocean as a dumping ground and that’s a huge problem addressed by Friends of the Earth in its latest magazine (see summary below).

But there’s another problem – one I wasn’t aware of in 2000 when I marveled at the clear waters off Bora Bora and Moorea.

Ships help cause global warming.

Shipping worldwide released 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide last year, according to the International Maritime Organization. That’s equivalent to the CO2 given off by 205 million cars (more than all the cars in the U.S.).

Shipping emits 3% of all CO2 emissions. If it were a country, it would rank No. 6, between Japan and Germany.

With world trade expanding, shipping has grown about 5% a year for the past 3 decades and is likely to continue to do so, according to a new report by Oceana , an international advocacy group. Ships carry 90% of all trade, with more than 90,000 vessels plying the seas, the report says.

Ships don’t just release carbon dioxide, they also spew black carbon (soot), nitrogen oxides and nitrous oxide, all of which add to climate change. The emissions are especially damaging to the fast-warming Arctic, and problems will likely accelerate as the Northwest Passage opens up to more shipping. Soot, for example, absorbs sunlight and can speed the melting of snow and ice.

No regulations
With virtually no regulation, ships are using the cheapest and dirtiest kind of fuel and doing little to become more efficient. Some quick and easy fixes could help the situation, says the Oceana report.

Switching from the worst fuel available, residual oil, to marine diesel or marine gas oil, could reduce CO2 and nitrogen oxides about 5%, particulate matter 63% and nitrous oxide 91%, the report says. Better fuel would also allow for placement of emission controls that would further reduce GHG.

Just slowing down could make a big difference. Ships burn fuel based on speed rather than weight, so cutting back 10% on speed would save 23% in fuel emissions, the report says.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have financial incentives for reducing speeds within 20 nautical miles of the ports and are getting 80% compliance. With 100% compliance they figure they could cut particulates (including black carbon) in half and reduce nitrogen oxides 37%.

Ships also could cut off their diesel engines when in port and hook up to power lines on shore to furnish electricity.

The industry also could work on more efficient designs for both the vessels and their engines, the report says.

And there is now some experimentation with adding sails or kites to capture wind power on the high seas. That could provide a carbon-free energy boost.

Oceana calls for the EPA to regulate ship emissions within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and the International Maritime Organization to regulate worldwide shipping, because of the substantial impact ships have on climate change.

A coalition of states, environmental groups, government agencies and New York City has served notice to the EPA that it plans to sue the agency for failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions coming from ships and airplanes. The action follows petitions last October and December that were ignored.

Earthjustice will represent the coalition in the lawsuit against the EPA. Coalition members include Oceana, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biodiversity, the states of Connecticut and New Jersey, the California Air Resources Board, the California Southern Coast Air Quality Management District and the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection.

Other cruise ship problems
In addition to emitting heat-trapping gases, the world’s cruise ships are using the oceans as dumping grounds. As long as they are 3 miles offshore they can and do dump raw sewage directly in the water. When you flush on a ship, that’s where it goes. Within 3 miles they are supposed to use a rudimentary treatment device, but there is little monitoring. They also dump wastewater from sinks, showers, galleys and laundries; oily bilge water; and hazard waste from dry-cleaning and photo processing as well as batteries, paints and fluorescent lights.

How much waste do cruise ships discharge? According to Friends of the Earth, a large ship in one week generates approximately:
• 210,000 gallons of blackwater (human waste)
• 1 million gallons of graywater (showers, galleys, etc.)
• 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water
• More than 130 gallons of hazardous waste.

If that outrages you and you want to take action to help get this dumping under control, call your reps in Washington and tell them to support the Clean Cruise Ship Act of 2008 (more likely to pass in 2009), spearheaded by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.)

Somehow, it’s easier to get exorcised over the dumping – something we can see – than greenhouse gases, which we can’t see. But they’re both a problem for our planet, our oceans, and ultimately ourselves.
(Sources: Greenwire, E&E News PM, Oceana, Friends of the Earth)

Draining wetlands could double greenhouse gases

(Photo of Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration in California from Flickr and and photographer Mollivan Jon)


Weekly Angst: Add wetlands to the list if things that can cause global warming. Swamps and marshes are great carbon sinks, storing about 20% of the carbon and methane on the Earth’s land surface.

But as wetlands dry up from climate change, or are drained for development or agriculture, those greenhouse gases have the potential to do as much damage as industrial emissions. This was a topic of discussion and concern for 700 experts from 28 countries who met at last week’s 8th International Wetlands Conference in Brazil.

Wetlands hold some 770 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases, equal to what's now in the atmosphere. And emissions from wetland have the potential to negate all other steps to stop global warming if we don’t act to preserve these places so essential to the planet’s health.

Bad image
Wetlands get little respect. They have long been seen as useless and yucky, interfering with development, farming and other civilized things. So about 60% of wetlands across the world have been destroyed in the last century. Europe drained 90% of its wetlands for farming, the U.S. has drained more than half of its, and the California coastal region destroyed about 95%.

We know wetlands serve as a habitat for wildlife. We also know that in coastal areas they can buffer against hurricanes. We learned that when Katrina devastated New Orleans. If only the wetlands had been left in place, the impact of the storm wouldn’t have been as great.

Wetlands serve as natural “horizontal levees,” that can prevent flooding by storing floodwater. The recent floods in the Midwest reminded scientists that the Mississippi River once could store 60 days of floodwater in its wetlands, where now it can only store 12 days’ worth.

Wetlands – which include marshes, swamps, river deltas, peat bogs, mangroves and river flood plains – produce 25% of the world’s food, purify water and recharge aquifers.

Some thawing of the Arctic wetlands permafrost is probably inevitable at this point, so efforts to stop draining wetlands in more temperate and tropical climates is essential – not to mention restoration.

Restoration
Some restoration projects are under way – in the Everglades and on the Louisiana coast, with each one costing upwards of $5 billion. But it’s much cheaper to preserve the existing wetlands than have to rebuild them, scientists remind us.

In Southern California, the recently restored Bolsa Chica wetlands are now bursting with birds and fish. The project cost $147 million and culminated 40 years of struggle between environmentalists and developers. Part of the problem was a duck blind constructed by hunters. Now the wetlands connect to the Pacific Ocean basin, as they should.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire, Reuters )

House cafeteria cutting greenhouse gases – and making $$ at it

(Photo of salad from Flickr and photographer roboppy/Robyn Lee)

Washington Report 3: House members and staff are eating green and making green, and the Senate likely will soon follow suit. In December, Restaurant Associates took over House restaurants and food services and made them more environmentally friendly. Among other things, they:
• abolished Styrofoam
• used local produce in salad bars
• switched to organic coffee
• started composting much of the waste.
And it’s profitable. The greener cafeterias are expected to bring in $1 million annually. Why? Because more people are staying on The Hill to eat their meals, now that they are healthier and better. The Senate, which has had taxpayer-subsidized food services running at a loss ($1.3 million last year), is expected to sign a contract with Restaurant Services this week. Building on its success, the company also started a farmer’s market in the Cannon House Office Building, selling government types fresh fruits and vegetables from farms within 150 miles, (Source: E&E Daily)