The Green Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring an evening with author Bill McKibben on Thursday, April 22, 2010.
Twenty years ago, with The End of Nature, Bill McKibben offered one of the earliest warnings about global warming. Those warnings went mostly unheeded; now, he insists, we need to acknowledge that we've waited too long, and that massive change is not only unavoidable but already under way. Our old familiar globe is suddenly melting, drying, acidifying, flooding, and burning in ways that no human has ever seen. We've created, in very short order, a new planet, still recognizable but fundamentally different.
Bill McKibben is the author of The End of Nature, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, and Deep Economy. A former staff writer for the New Yorker, he writes regularly for Harper's, the Atlantic, and the New York Review of Books, among other publications.
The event will be held at Dominican University of California, San Rafael. There is a special reception at 5:30 pm at Creekside. Doors to Angelico Hall open at 6:00 pm and the lecture begins at 7:00 pm. The lecture and book signing are free. There is no RSVP, and seating is limited.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Friday, April 16, 2010
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Final Rule on Mandatory GHG Reporting
On September 22, 2009, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from large GHG emissions sources in the United States.
This reporting rule will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions.
This national reporting requirement will provide EPA with GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, including suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, and manufacturers of vehicles and engines.
This action includes final reporting requirements for 31 of the 42 emission sources listed in the proposal. EPA continues to consider comments and options for the remaining source categories.
The following source and supply categories are not required to report at this time:
Previously on the Northgate Sustainability Forum: A Mandatory GHG Registry for the US?
This reporting rule will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions.
This national reporting requirement will provide EPA with GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, including suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, and manufacturers of vehicles and engines.
This action includes final reporting requirements for 31 of the 42 emission sources listed in the proposal. EPA continues to consider comments and options for the remaining source categories.
The following source and supply categories are not required to report at this time:
- Electronics manufacturing
- Ethanol production
- Fluorinated GHG production
- Food processing
- Industrial landfills
- Magnesium production
- Oil and natural gas systems
- SF6 from electrical equipment
- Underground coal mines
- Wastewater treatment
- Suppliers of coal
Previously on the Northgate Sustainability Forum: A Mandatory GHG Registry for the US?
What's Good for the Environment is Good for the Economy? Some Not So Sure...
Americans continue to send mixed signals about the dangers of climate change
Rasmussen Reports, September 25, 2009
In a recent poll, 47% of respondents said that they do not consider themselves selfish for putting economic concerns ahead of the fight against global warming.
Twenty-nine percent (29%) take the opposite view and believe Americans are being selfish for putting the economy first, and 24% are not sure.
Still, 52% of all Americans agree with President Obama that "the danger posed by climate change cannot be denied, and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred."
Sixty-four percent (64%) of US voters say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 35% who regard it as very serious. Forty-seven percent (47%) believe global warming is caused by long-term planetary trends rather than human activity, and 42% blame human activity.
Rasmussen Reports, September 25, 2009
In a recent poll, 47% of respondents said that they do not consider themselves selfish for putting economic concerns ahead of the fight against global warming.
Twenty-nine percent (29%) take the opposite view and believe Americans are being selfish for putting the economy first, and 24% are not sure.
Still, 52% of all Americans agree with President Obama that "the danger posed by climate change cannot be denied, and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred."
Sixty-four percent (64%) of US voters say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 35% who regard it as very serious. Forty-seven percent (47%) believe global warming is caused by long-term planetary trends rather than human activity, and 42% blame human activity.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Superfund Site to Become Climate Change Think Tank
San Francisco and the United Nations partner on global warming center
Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, July 30, 2009
San Francisco's Hunters Point Shipyard will be the future home of a UN-sponsored think tank to study solutions to global warming and other environmental crises plaguing the planet.
The 80,000-square-foot United Nations Global Compact Center will include office space for academics and scientists, an incubator to foster green tech start-ups, and a conference center. The center is expected to cost $20 million. Lennar Corp., the developer partnering with the city to rebuild large swaths of the shipyard and Candlestick Point, will donate the land and infrastructure. The city hopes the remainder of the funds will come from corporate sponsorship, state and federal grants, and foundation money.
The partnership between San Francisco and the United Nations dates to June 26, 1945, when the UN Charter was signed at the city's War Memorial Veterans Building. Four years ago, mayors from around the world gathered at City Hall to sign the UN Global Compact, a set of 21 urban environmental accords. San Francisco and Milwaukee are the only two American cities that signed the compact.
Read the complete story here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/29/MN7O1913JU.DTL
Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, July 30, 2009
San Francisco's Hunters Point Shipyard will be the future home of a UN-sponsored think tank to study solutions to global warming and other environmental crises plaguing the planet.
The 80,000-square-foot United Nations Global Compact Center will include office space for academics and scientists, an incubator to foster green tech start-ups, and a conference center. The center is expected to cost $20 million. Lennar Corp., the developer partnering with the city to rebuild large swaths of the shipyard and Candlestick Point, will donate the land and infrastructure. The city hopes the remainder of the funds will come from corporate sponsorship, state and federal grants, and foundation money.
The partnership between San Francisco and the United Nations dates to June 26, 1945, when the UN Charter was signed at the city's War Memorial Veterans Building. Four years ago, mayors from around the world gathered at City Hall to sign the UN Global Compact, a set of 21 urban environmental accords. San Francisco and Milwaukee are the only two American cities that signed the compact.
Read the complete story here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/29/MN7O1913JU.DTL
Saturday, June 27, 2009
House Passes Climate Bill
Turning the corner toward a green energy future?
Greg Hitt and Stephen Power, Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2009
Landmark legislation to curb US greenhouse gas emissions was approved by the House of Representatives by a 219 to 212 vote late Friday, June 26th.
The 1,200 page bill -- formally known as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" -- would mandate that 15% of the nation's electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020, potentially expanding the market and profit potential for companies in those sectors. Towards that goal, it seeks to boost nascent industries such as wind-generated electricity and solar power.
It isn't clear how much of the House bill will survive in the Senate, where moderate Democrats and Republicans could form a majority that backs less ambitious action. The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers lobbied against passage. Groups that represent airlines, oil producers, and mining companies expressed disappointment, saying the bill, if enacted, would lead to onerous new costs to consumers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the bill would have a modest impact on family budgets. The CBO projected an annual economy-wide cost in 2020 of $22 billion, or about $175 per household.
Concessions to ease the impact on businesses and their customers included giving the business community more than 60% of pollution permits in the early years of the program. Supporters say the bill will have a modest impact on electricity ratepayers, and in many cases will save them money. That is because the legislation directs state regulators to make sure electricity-producing utilities that receive free pollution permits pass along the savings. The measure could result in higher gasoline and diesel prices. But New Energy Finance, an energy consultant, said it expects gasoline prices to rise about 17 cents a gallon, a relatively small amount compared with recent fluctuations in pump prices.
Read the complete story here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124602039232560485.html
Greg Hitt and Stephen Power, Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2009
Landmark legislation to curb US greenhouse gas emissions was approved by the House of Representatives by a 219 to 212 vote late Friday, June 26th.
The 1,200 page bill -- formally known as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" -- would mandate that 15% of the nation's electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020, potentially expanding the market and profit potential for companies in those sectors. Towards that goal, it seeks to boost nascent industries such as wind-generated electricity and solar power.
It isn't clear how much of the House bill will survive in the Senate, where moderate Democrats and Republicans could form a majority that backs less ambitious action. The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers lobbied against passage. Groups that represent airlines, oil producers, and mining companies expressed disappointment, saying the bill, if enacted, would lead to onerous new costs to consumers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the bill would have a modest impact on family budgets. The CBO projected an annual economy-wide cost in 2020 of $22 billion, or about $175 per household.
Concessions to ease the impact on businesses and their customers included giving the business community more than 60% of pollution permits in the early years of the program. Supporters say the bill will have a modest impact on electricity ratepayers, and in many cases will save them money. That is because the legislation directs state regulators to make sure electricity-producing utilities that receive free pollution permits pass along the savings. The measure could result in higher gasoline and diesel prices. But New Energy Finance, an energy consultant, said it expects gasoline prices to rise about 17 cents a gallon, a relatively small amount compared with recent fluctuations in pump prices.
Read the complete story here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124602039232560485.html
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Super Center Needs to Consider Carbon Emissions Under CEQA
WalMart's analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is inadequate
Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times, May 15, 2009
A San Bernardino Superior Court judge ruled against Wal-Mart’s plan for a super center in the desert city of Yucca Valley, partly on the grounds that the giant retailer failed to take measures to reduce its contribution to global warming.
The retailer contended that the estimated 7,000 metric tons per year of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that would result from the store’s operation was too insignificant to require such measures under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Judge Barry Plotkin, relying on contrary evidence from state air quality officials, ruled otherwise, in a case that signals a growing legal consensus that climate change must be considered by businesses and governments promoting new developments. Judge Plotkin also found the retailer’s economic analysis flawed and the retailer’s analysis of ozone and dust pollution inadequate.
"California is in the forefront," said Matthew Vespa, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, which sued Wal-Mart and Yucca Valley. The center also won a case last year against Desert Hot Springs after the city failed to analyze the GHG emissions that would result from a golf course and 2,600-home development.
Environmental activists have had a powerful ally in California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has won agreements from San Bernardino County, ConocoPhillips, the Port of Los Angeles, the San Diego Airport Authority, and Cilion, a Kern County ethanol plant, to measure or mitigate GHGs.
Read the complete article in the LA Times.
Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times, May 15, 2009
A San Bernardino Superior Court judge ruled against Wal-Mart’s plan for a super center in the desert city of Yucca Valley, partly on the grounds that the giant retailer failed to take measures to reduce its contribution to global warming.
The retailer contended that the estimated 7,000 metric tons per year of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that would result from the store’s operation was too insignificant to require such measures under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Judge Barry Plotkin, relying on contrary evidence from state air quality officials, ruled otherwise, in a case that signals a growing legal consensus that climate change must be considered by businesses and governments promoting new developments. Judge Plotkin also found the retailer’s economic analysis flawed and the retailer’s analysis of ozone and dust pollution inadequate.
"California is in the forefront," said Matthew Vespa, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, which sued Wal-Mart and Yucca Valley. The center also won a case last year against Desert Hot Springs after the city failed to analyze the GHG emissions that would result from a golf course and 2,600-home development.
Environmental activists have had a powerful ally in California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has won agreements from San Bernardino County, ConocoPhillips, the Port of Los Angeles, the San Diego Airport Authority, and Cilion, a Kern County ethanol plant, to measure or mitigate GHGs.
Read the complete article in the LA Times.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Berkeley Climate Action Plan Public Meeting
The Berkeley City Council is considering approval of the city's Climate Action Plan for the purpose of environmental review.
A public meeting will be held May 5, 2009 from 7:00 to 9:00 pm in the Council Chambers at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way in Berkeley.
Read Berkeley's Climate Action Plan here: http://www.berkeleyclimateaction.org/Content/10056/ClimateActionPlan.html
Previously on the Northgate Sustainability Forum: Compendium of California Climate Action Plans.
A public meeting will be held May 5, 2009 from 7:00 to 9:00 pm in the Council Chambers at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way in Berkeley.
Read Berkeley's Climate Action Plan here: http://www.berkeleyclimateaction.org/Content/10056/ClimateActionPlan.html
Previously on the Northgate Sustainability Forum: Compendium of California Climate Action Plans.
Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan
The City of Oakland is developing a community-wide Energy and Climate Action Plan to identify actions the City can take to help minimize energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the Oakland community.
On April 30th, the City will host a second round of public workshops for all members of the Oakland community to learn about and help shape the Plan.
Participants in this workshop will discuss potential energy and climate targets for the Oakland community and provide input on actions to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Two identical workshops will occur on Thursday, April 30, 2009, from 3:00 to 5:00 pm and from 7:00 to 9:00 pm.
Meeting location:
Oakland City Hall
One Frank Ogawa Plaza (at 14th & Broadway)
Hearing Room 3
For more information on the Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan, please visit www.sustainableoakland.com.
On April 30th, the City will host a second round of public workshops for all members of the Oakland community to learn about and help shape the Plan.
Participants in this workshop will discuss potential energy and climate targets for the Oakland community and provide input on actions to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Two identical workshops will occur on Thursday, April 30, 2009, from 3:00 to 5:00 pm and from 7:00 to 9:00 pm.
Meeting location:
Oakland City Hall
One Frank Ogawa Plaza (at 14th & Broadway)
Hearing Room 3
For more information on the Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan, please visit www.sustainableoakland.com.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Global Climate Coalition May Have Suppressed Its Own Expert Opinion
Industry Ignored Its Own Scientists on Climate Change
Andrew C. Revkin, NY Times, April 24, 2009
For more than a decade, the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that the coalition's internal scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
Benjamin D. Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory whose work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was challenged by the Global Climate Coalition and allied groups, said the coalition was “engaging in a full-court press at the time, trying to cast doubt on the bottom-line conclusion of the I.P.C.C.” That panel concluded in 1995 that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
“I’m amazed and astonished,” Dr. Santer said, “that the Global Climate Coalition had in their possession scientific information that substantiated our cautious findings and then chose to suppress that information.”
Read the complete story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?ref=earth
Andrew C. Revkin, NY Times, April 24, 2009
For more than a decade, the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that the coalition's internal scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
Benjamin D. Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory whose work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was challenged by the Global Climate Coalition and allied groups, said the coalition was “engaging in a full-court press at the time, trying to cast doubt on the bottom-line conclusion of the I.P.C.C.” That panel concluded in 1995 that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
“I’m amazed and astonished,” Dr. Santer said, “that the Global Climate Coalition had in their possession scientific information that substantiated our cautious findings and then chose to suppress that information.”
Read the complete story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?ref=earth
Thursday, April 23, 2009
An Inconvenient Alternative to Global Warming Theory
Global Warming Heretic?
The New York Times Magazine recently profiled Freeman Dyson regarding his particular views on climate change and global warming — which have tended to affront the sensibilities of those fighting to curb greenhouse gases and who see any alternative views to anthropogenic climate change theory as counter-productive to moving towards a more sustainable way of living on earth.
An excerpt:
Dyson is well aware that “most consider me wrong about global warming.” That educated Americans tend to agree with the conclusion about global warming reached earlier this month at the International Scientific Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen (“inaction is inexcusable”) only increases Dyson’s resistance. Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus.
It's a fascinating article about a very robust technical analyst, and certainly elevates the discourse above emotionally driven standoffs between polar bears and polluters.
Read the complete article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
A follow-on conversation and comments regarding the article can be found here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/some-inconvenient-thinkers/?ref=energy-environment
The New York Times Magazine recently profiled Freeman Dyson regarding his particular views on climate change and global warming — which have tended to affront the sensibilities of those fighting to curb greenhouse gases and who see any alternative views to anthropogenic climate change theory as counter-productive to moving towards a more sustainable way of living on earth.
An excerpt:
Dyson is well aware that “most consider me wrong about global warming.” That educated Americans tend to agree with the conclusion about global warming reached earlier this month at the International Scientific Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen (“inaction is inexcusable”) only increases Dyson’s resistance. Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus.
It's a fascinating article about a very robust technical analyst, and certainly elevates the discourse above emotionally driven standoffs between polar bears and polluters.
Read the complete article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
A follow-on conversation and comments regarding the article can be found here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/some-inconvenient-thinkers/?ref=energy-environment
Friday, April 17, 2009
EPA a Step Closer to Climate Change Regulations
EPA Clears the Way for Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
John M. Broder, NY Times, April 17, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally declared carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are pollutants that threaten public health and welfare. The endangerment finding triggers a 60-day comment period, but this is likely the impetus for the regulation of GHGs in the US.
The EPA finding could potentially lead to a wave of new regulations, putting stricter emissions limits on a wide range of enterprises from power plants and oil refineries to automobiles and cement makers.
Even as the EPA begins the process of regulating GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) under the Clean Air Act, Congress is engaged in writing wide-ranging energy and climate change legislation that could pre-empt any action taken by the agency. President Obama and Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, have repeatedly said that they prefer that Congress address global warming rather than the EPA addressing it through administrative action.
Read the EPA press release here.
Read the complete NY Times article here.
Similar stories are also running in the Wall Street Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Previously on the Northgate Sustainability Forum:
EPA Takes Another Step Towards Regulating Greenhouse Gases.
John M. Broder, NY Times, April 17, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally declared carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are pollutants that threaten public health and welfare. The endangerment finding triggers a 60-day comment period, but this is likely the impetus for the regulation of GHGs in the US.
The EPA finding could potentially lead to a wave of new regulations, putting stricter emissions limits on a wide range of enterprises from power plants and oil refineries to automobiles and cement makers.
Even as the EPA begins the process of regulating GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) under the Clean Air Act, Congress is engaged in writing wide-ranging energy and climate change legislation that could pre-empt any action taken by the agency. President Obama and Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, have repeatedly said that they prefer that Congress address global warming rather than the EPA addressing it through administrative action.
Read the EPA press release here.
Read the complete NY Times article here.
Similar stories are also running in the Wall Street Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Previously on the Northgate Sustainability Forum:
EPA Takes Another Step Towards Regulating Greenhouse Gases.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Compendium of California Climate Action Plans
Find out more about how California's cities and counties are addressing climate change by reading their sustainability and action plans.
Cities:
Alameda, Albany, Arcata, Berkeley, Benicia, Burbank, Davis, Fremont, Fresno, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Riverside, Sacramento, San Carlos, San Diego, San Francisco (city/county), San Jose, Santa Monica, Hayward, Martinez, Oakland, Sebastopol
Counties:
Your favorite city or county not on the list?
Monday, March 23, 2009
An End to the Era of Denial on Global Warming?
EPA Takes Another Step Towards Regulating Greenhouse Gases
Felicity Barringer, NY Times, March 23, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved to declare that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are pollutants that pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare. If that determination is made final, it will pave the way for federal regulation of carbon dioxide, methane, and other GHGs linked to global warming.
An endangerment finding would allow federal regulation of motor vehicle emissions. It could also open the door to regulatory controls over power plants, oil refineries, cement plants, and other factories that emit GHGs.
Read the complete NY Times story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/science/earth/24epa.html?hp
And also in the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/23/national/w122327D98.DTL&tsp=1
Felicity Barringer, NY Times, March 23, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved to declare that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are pollutants that pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare. If that determination is made final, it will pave the way for federal regulation of carbon dioxide, methane, and other GHGs linked to global warming.
An endangerment finding would allow federal regulation of motor vehicle emissions. It could also open the door to regulatory controls over power plants, oil refineries, cement plants, and other factories that emit GHGs.
Read the complete NY Times story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/science/earth/24epa.html?hp
And also in the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/23/national/w122327D98.DTL&tsp=1
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
A Mandatory GHG Registry for the US?
EPA Proposes Tracking Industry Emissions
Kate Galbraith, NY Times, March 10, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule on Tuesday that would require suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial chemicals, manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines, and large direct emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) with emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 tonnes per year to quantify and report their GHG emissions. The EPA says that the rule, promulgated under the Clean Air Act, would account for 85-90% of the country’s emissions of GHGs.
Many facilities already account and report the information voluntarily through various registries or federal agencies.
Large stationary sources of GHGs would be included in the new requirements. For example, buildings with an aggregate maximum rated heat input capacity equal to or greater than 30 mmBTU/hour (thousand thousand BTUs per hour) would have to comply, as would manure management systems that have emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year.
A 60-day comment period and two public hearings will take place in April 2009. If the rule is finalized this fall, as the EPA hopes, reporting could begin in 2011, after the monitoring of 2010 emissions.
Read the EPA's press release here, get more information on the proposed rule here, and read the complete NY Times story here.
Kate Galbraith, NY Times, March 10, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule on Tuesday that would require suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial chemicals, manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines, and large direct emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) with emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 tonnes per year to quantify and report their GHG emissions. The EPA says that the rule, promulgated under the Clean Air Act, would account for 85-90% of the country’s emissions of GHGs.
Many facilities already account and report the information voluntarily through various registries or federal agencies.
Large stationary sources of GHGs would be included in the new requirements. For example, buildings with an aggregate maximum rated heat input capacity equal to or greater than 30 mmBTU/hour (thousand thousand BTUs per hour) would have to comply, as would manure management systems that have emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year.
A 60-day comment period and two public hearings will take place in April 2009. If the rule is finalized this fall, as the EPA hopes, reporting could begin in 2011, after the monitoring of 2010 emissions.
Read the EPA's press release here, get more information on the proposed rule here, and read the complete NY Times story here.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Catch the Wave
Will California's Quest for Wave Power Sink or Sail?
Josie Garthwaite, NY Times, February 27, 2009
Having completed a wave power study, San Francisco submitted a preliminary application to federal regulators on February 27 for a permit to develop a 10 to 30 megawatt (MW) project to tap ocean energy eight miles off the city’s west coast. The proposed project has the potential to generate up to 100 MW. But while the technology has a big fan in Mayor Gavin Newsom, regulatory hurdles may prove a show-stopper. Last year state commissioners decided the technology was too new and the prices too high, and denied approval for PG&E and Finavera Renewables to develop what would have been the country’s first commercial wave power project.
Research and development of wave power technologies has rapidly expanded in recent years. The first commercial units are scheduled to go online in Portugal this year, producing 2 MW of energy. Despite several studies, no commercial operations are online in the US.
Josie Garthwaite, NY Times, February 27, 2009
Having completed a wave power study, San Francisco submitted a preliminary application to federal regulators on February 27 for a permit to develop a 10 to 30 megawatt (MW) project to tap ocean energy eight miles off the city’s west coast. The proposed project has the potential to generate up to 100 MW. But while the technology has a big fan in Mayor Gavin Newsom, regulatory hurdles may prove a show-stopper. Last year state commissioners decided the technology was too new and the prices too high, and denied approval for PG&E and Finavera Renewables to develop what would have been the country’s first commercial wave power project.
Research and development of wave power technologies has rapidly expanded in recent years. The first commercial units are scheduled to go online in Portugal this year, producing 2 MW of energy. Despite several studies, no commercial operations are online in the US.
San Francisco is hoping to change that.
Read more in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/27/27gigaom-will-calis-latest-wave-power-project-sink-or-sail-24696.html
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/wave-power-for-san-francisco/
Read more in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/27/27gigaom-will-calis-latest-wave-power-project-sink-or-sail-24696.html
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/wave-power-for-san-francisco/
Thursday, February 26, 2009
CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Senate Bill 97 mandates the development of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions."
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the California Resources Agency, Cal EPA, and the California Air Resources Board have issued a technical advisory containing informal guidance for addressing climate change in CEQA documents.
How does this affect you and your clients?
Many development, redevelopment, and remediation projects are subject to CEQA.
- a CEQA project is one that requires discretionary approval by a government agency
How does this affect you and your clients?
Many development, redevelopment, and remediation projects are subject to CEQA.
- a CEQA project is one that requires discretionary approval by a government agency
Affected agencies must now address greenhouse gases (GHGs) in addition to other environmental issues and impacts.
-Identify all the GHG emission sources
-Calculate/estimate GHG emissions
-Identify mitigation measures and alternative methods/approaches
-Identify preferred mitigation strategies
-Identify all the GHG emission sources
-Calculate/estimate GHG emissions
-Identify mitigation measures and alternative methods/approaches
-Identify preferred mitigation strategies
OPR is required to prepare, develop, and transmit the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before July 1, 2009, and the Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines on or before January 1, 2010.
Visit the OPR website to view the Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments and submitted written comments.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Climate Change and Water Resources
On January 29, 2008 the Santa Clara Valley Water District's (SCVWD) Board of Directors hosted a special meeting and work study session to explore climate change, its potential local impacts, and policy implications.
One of the outcomes was the adoption of a resolution stating that the SCVWD will "apply understanding of climate change and climate change impacts as appropriate in water supply plans, flood management project plans, asset management and infrastructure plans, CEQA assessments and EIRs, energy management plans, business plans, and strategic plans". It also states that the SCVWD "will strive to minimize its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, work with the community to reduce its GHG emissions related to utilization and management of water resources and enhance community understanding of climate change".
They have posted materials from their meeting here: http://www.valleywater.org/Water/Where_Your_Water_Comes_From/Water%20Supply%20Sustainability%20Planning/Climate%20Change/_BODWorkstudy.shtm
One of the outcomes was the adoption of a resolution stating that the SCVWD will "apply understanding of climate change and climate change impacts as appropriate in water supply plans, flood management project plans, asset management and infrastructure plans, CEQA assessments and EIRs, energy management plans, business plans, and strategic plans". It also states that the SCVWD "will strive to minimize its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, work with the community to reduce its GHG emissions related to utilization and management of water resources and enhance community understanding of climate change".
They have posted materials from their meeting here: http://www.valleywater.org/Water/Where_Your_Water_Comes_From/Water%20Supply%20Sustainability%20Planning/Climate%20Change/_BODWorkstudy.shtm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)