New map could refocus state's pollution battles
Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times, April 22, 2014
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) has released a statewide assessment of census tracts most burdened by pollution, providing a powerful tool to pressure regulators to clean up neighborhoods with long-standing health risks.
The environmental health assessment, published in draft form this week, was a major update to an initiative that includes an interactive online map and is being refined over time by Cal/EPA. The state's first such report last year assessed the state by ZIP Code and yielded broadly similar results, showing that Latinos and African Americans make up a disproportionately high percentage of the population in areas most affected by pollution. But the previous list was criticized by environmental justice groups and researchers who complained that ZIP Codes were too large and arbitrary to reveal much.
The screening and ranking tool, called CalEnviroScreen, was developed to pinpoint the communities with the highest exposure and vulnerability to multiple environmental hazards, including polluted air and water, waste facilities and contaminated soil. The rankings are not based only on measures of environmental exposure: they also take into account socioeconomic characteristics and health data on residents to assess the overall vulnerability of communities. Those factors include poverty, education, unemployment, rates of asthma and low-birth-weight infants. In total, 19 criteria are considered.
State Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) wrote a 2012 law that requires the state to spend 25% of the auction proceeds from California's GHG-cutting cap-and-trade program to benefit disadvantaged communities that face disproportionate effects from pollution and climate change. Governor Jerry Brown's proposed budget for 2014-15 would set aside $225 million of $850 million in proceeds. Budget documents say projects could include energy-efficiency upgrades for homes in low-income areas, improvements to bus and rail systems, urban forestry projects and programs to fund cleaner trucks and equipment near ports, rail yards and distribution centers.
Read the complete article here.
Showing posts with label greenhouse gas emissions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label greenhouse gas emissions. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
An Allegory about NIMBYism
Remove contaminated soil.
Restore the aquifer to drinking water quality.
Replace air strippers that vent to the atmosphere with carbon filters.
Redevelop properties to bring in new tenants and raise property values.
What do these objectives have in common?
Throughout the history of a particular Silicon Valley Superfund site, these goals have been supported by the community, responsible parties, and regulators. And at face value, they each appear to be protective of human health and the environment and benefit the neighboring community.
Only more recently has the concept of sustainable remediation been used to look at cleanup programs from a holistic viewpoint, and examine the collateral damage that some remedial decisions can cause, even those that appear to be protective.
In the 2008 Optimization Evaluation reports prepared by Northgate, Geosyntec, Weiss, and Schlumberger, we found that annual carbon (CO2) emissions related to the operation of five treatment systems at the Silicon Valley Superfund site ranged from 42 to 281 metric tons. For comparison, the EPA estimates that the annual CO2 emissions from a typical passenger vehicle are approximately 5 metric tons.
In a 2010 economic analysis of 25 San Francisco Bay Area Superfund sites, Northgate staff, Maile Smith and Scott McLaughlin found that although concentrations of groundwater pollutants had been greatly reduced, contaminant removal rates were insufficient to reach cleanup goals. Furthermore, we found that the benefits of groundwater cleanup were reduced by the cross-media (e.g., water to air) pollution impacts of the remediation programs. The study indicated that the collective pollution reduction achieved by the cleanup programs at these sites is less than the pollution generated by the production of goods and services required to operate and maintain the cleanup programs themselves.
And this week the Center for Investigative Reporting published an article on the journey of the groundwater pollutants from that particular Silicon Valley Superfund site, illustrating the pathway that pollution takes after it is pumped from the ground and filtered through those carbon vessels.
“There’s really no such thing as throwing something away,” said Environmental Protection Agency spokesman Rusty Harris-Bishop. “You’re always throwing it somewhere.”
It's an interesting tale, and certainly highlights the potential collateral damage that can occur when we collectively decide, "not in my backyard."
Read the complete article here: http://cironline.org/reports/cleanup-silicon-valley-superfund-site-takes-environmental-toll-6149
Restore the aquifer to drinking water quality.
Replace air strippers that vent to the atmosphere with carbon filters.
Redevelop properties to bring in new tenants and raise property values.
What do these objectives have in common?
Throughout the history of a particular Silicon Valley Superfund site, these goals have been supported by the community, responsible parties, and regulators. And at face value, they each appear to be protective of human health and the environment and benefit the neighboring community.
Only more recently has the concept of sustainable remediation been used to look at cleanup programs from a holistic viewpoint, and examine the collateral damage that some remedial decisions can cause, even those that appear to be protective.
In the 2008 Optimization Evaluation reports prepared by Northgate, Geosyntec, Weiss, and Schlumberger, we found that annual carbon (CO2) emissions related to the operation of five treatment systems at the Silicon Valley Superfund site ranged from 42 to 281 metric tons. For comparison, the EPA estimates that the annual CO2 emissions from a typical passenger vehicle are approximately 5 metric tons.
In a 2010 economic analysis of 25 San Francisco Bay Area Superfund sites, Northgate staff, Maile Smith and Scott McLaughlin found that although concentrations of groundwater pollutants had been greatly reduced, contaminant removal rates were insufficient to reach cleanup goals. Furthermore, we found that the benefits of groundwater cleanup were reduced by the cross-media (e.g., water to air) pollution impacts of the remediation programs. The study indicated that the collective pollution reduction achieved by the cleanup programs at these sites is less than the pollution generated by the production of goods and services required to operate and maintain the cleanup programs themselves.
And this week the Center for Investigative Reporting published an article on the journey of the groundwater pollutants from that particular Silicon Valley Superfund site, illustrating the pathway that pollution takes after it is pumped from the ground and filtered through those carbon vessels.
“There’s really no such thing as throwing something away,” said Environmental Protection Agency spokesman Rusty Harris-Bishop. “You’re always throwing it somewhere.”
It's an interesting tale, and certainly highlights the potential collateral damage that can occur when we collectively decide, "not in my backyard."
Read the complete article here: http://cironline.org/reports/cleanup-silicon-valley-superfund-site-takes-environmental-toll-6149
Friday, September 28, 2012
The Social Cost of Carbon
Joanna M. Foster, NY Times, September 18, 2012
In 2010, 12 government agencies working in conjunction with economists, lawyers, and scientists, agreed to develop a common standard for the social cost of carbon. The reason was that, in calculating the costs and benefits of pending policies and regulations, the Department of Transportation was assuming that a ton of emitted carbon dioxide imposed a $2 cost on society while the Environmental Protection Agency plugged 10 times that amount into its equations.
Instead, they decided that all agencies would use the same baseline of $21 per ton as the standard in monetizing the social costs of the seven-plus billion tons of carbon generated by US power plants, vehicles, and factories each year.
But a new paper published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences concludes that the costs of carbon pollution and related climate change are vastly greater — possibly two to 12 times as much. The authors argue that the federal government is not adequately taking into account the impacts of climate change on future generations.
At the heart of this debate is a disagreement about how to apply an economic concept known as the discount rate. Simply put, the discount rate is based on how much it is worth to us now to prevent that future damage. The governmental agency group looked at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent, ultimately settling on 3 percent and putting the cost of one ton of carbon at $21. But the new study opts for discount rates of 1, 1.5, and 2 percent, ultimately putting the cost of one ton of carbon at anywhere from $55 to $266.
Read the complete article here.
In 2010, 12 government agencies working in conjunction with economists, lawyers, and scientists, agreed to develop a common standard for the social cost of carbon. The reason was that, in calculating the costs and benefits of pending policies and regulations, the Department of Transportation was assuming that a ton of emitted carbon dioxide imposed a $2 cost on society while the Environmental Protection Agency plugged 10 times that amount into its equations.
Instead, they decided that all agencies would use the same baseline of $21 per ton as the standard in monetizing the social costs of the seven-plus billion tons of carbon generated by US power plants, vehicles, and factories each year.
But a new paper published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences concludes that the costs of carbon pollution and related climate change are vastly greater — possibly two to 12 times as much. The authors argue that the federal government is not adequately taking into account the impacts of climate change on future generations.
At the heart of this debate is a disagreement about how to apply an economic concept known as the discount rate. Simply put, the discount rate is based on how much it is worth to us now to prevent that future damage. The governmental agency group looked at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent, ultimately settling on 3 percent and putting the cost of one ton of carbon at $21. But the new study opts for discount rates of 1, 1.5, and 2 percent, ultimately putting the cost of one ton of carbon at anywhere from $55 to $266.
Read the complete article here.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Voluntary CSR Reporting Can Boost Your Company's Worth
Going Green: Market Reaction to CSR Newswire Releases
Paul A. Griffin, UC Davis, and Yuan Sun, UC Berkeley
January 29, 2012
A new study conducted by Paul Griffin of UC Davis and Yuan Sun of UC Berkeley shows that greenhouse gas emissions and carbon-reduction strategy reporting can lift a company's economic value.
Companies currently report most of their greenhouse gas, carbon, and CO2 emissions information to interested parties voluntarily, either directly or through various non-governmental channels (although the public will soon have access to standardized carbon emissions data collected by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board).
The researchers analyzed ten years of voluntary news releases, tracking disclosures and subsequent market responses for 84 companies that released their emissions information via Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire. They found that stock prices jumped approximately one-half a percent over five days, with smaller companies seeing a bigger boost of just over 2 percent. Using a matched control sample set, no statistical change in stock price was detected for companies that did not disclose carbon information.
The study concludes that voluntary green disclosure decisions produce positive returns to shareholders, and that shareholders of smaller companies with limited public information availability benefit the most from voluntary green disclosure, since in this setting investors have less access to competing information.
Paul A. Griffin, UC Davis, and Yuan Sun, UC Berkeley
January 29, 2012
A new study conducted by Paul Griffin of UC Davis and Yuan Sun of UC Berkeley shows that greenhouse gas emissions and carbon-reduction strategy reporting can lift a company's economic value.
Companies currently report most of their greenhouse gas, carbon, and CO2 emissions information to interested parties voluntarily, either directly or through various non-governmental channels (although the public will soon have access to standardized carbon emissions data collected by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board).
The researchers analyzed ten years of voluntary news releases, tracking disclosures and subsequent market responses for 84 companies that released their emissions information via Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire. They found that stock prices jumped approximately one-half a percent over five days, with smaller companies seeing a bigger boost of just over 2 percent. Using a matched control sample set, no statistical change in stock price was detected for companies that did not disclose carbon information.
The study concludes that voluntary green disclosure decisions produce positive returns to shareholders, and that shareholders of smaller companies with limited public information availability benefit the most from voluntary green disclosure, since in this setting investors have less access to competing information.
Read the study for all the details, and some additional insight from the authors on the Daily Climate.
Friday, January 27, 2012
California Passes New Auto Emission Rules
The California Air Resources Board has unanimously approved a package of new emissions rules for cars and light trucks through 2025.
“The California Advanced Clean Car rules will clean our air, fight climate change and provide cars that save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump,” said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols. “The Board’s action today will create thousands of new jobs, transforming California into the advanced car capital of the world. California is now in pole position in the race to provide next-generation ultra-clean cars to the global car market.”
The Advanced Clean Cars program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The new rules will clean up gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell cars, aiming to put 1.4 million electric and hybrid vehicles on state roads by 2025. The package will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California.
The rules are designed to preserve consumer choice while ensuring the development of a full range of environmentally superior cars from compacts to SUVs and pickups. Many of the technologies that reduce emissions also significantly reduce the operating costs of passenger vehicles on a month-to-month basis for consumers.
"Our research shows a $1,400 to $1,900 car price increase. But over the life of the vehicles, the owners save $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance costs," board spokesman David Clegern said. One of the nation's foremost consumer groups, the Consumers' Union, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, supported the changes.
Companies including Ford Motor Corp., Chrysler Group LLC, General Motors Co., Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and others submitted testimony Thursday supportive of the new standards.
Read more here and here.
“The California Advanced Clean Car rules will clean our air, fight climate change and provide cars that save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump,” said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols. “The Board’s action today will create thousands of new jobs, transforming California into the advanced car capital of the world. California is now in pole position in the race to provide next-generation ultra-clean cars to the global car market.”
The Advanced Clean Cars program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The new rules will clean up gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell cars, aiming to put 1.4 million electric and hybrid vehicles on state roads by 2025. The package will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California.
The rules are designed to preserve consumer choice while ensuring the development of a full range of environmentally superior cars from compacts to SUVs and pickups. Many of the technologies that reduce emissions also significantly reduce the operating costs of passenger vehicles on a month-to-month basis for consumers.
"Our research shows a $1,400 to $1,900 car price increase. But over the life of the vehicles, the owners save $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance costs," board spokesman David Clegern said. One of the nation's foremost consumer groups, the Consumers' Union, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, supported the changes.
Companies including Ford Motor Corp., Chrysler Group LLC, General Motors Co., Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and others submitted testimony Thursday supportive of the new standards.
Read more here and here.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
EPA Posts Emissions Data from Industry
Yesterday, the EPA took the bold step of releasing on line comprehensive greenhouse gas data reported directly from facilities in nine industry groups that directly emit large amounts of GHG. The data was also posted for suppliers of certain fossil fuels. The information can now be found online at the EPA's Reporting Program Data and Data Publication Tool.
In making the announcement, Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, stated: "Thanks to strong collaboration and feedback from industry, states and other organizations, today we have a transparent, powerful data resource available to the public. The GHG Reporting Program data provides a critical tool for businesses and other innovators to find cost - and fuel-saving efficiencies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster technologies to protect public health and the environment."
The online tool allows the public to view the data in a variety of ways, including by location, facility type and GHG type emitted.
It will be interesting to see if the transparency of this data will result in a reduction of emissions by these industries. Indeed, this may prove to give meaning to the phrase: "We are watching you"!
The full press release may be viewed here.
In making the announcement, Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, stated: "Thanks to strong collaboration and feedback from industry, states and other organizations, today we have a transparent, powerful data resource available to the public. The GHG Reporting Program data provides a critical tool for businesses and other innovators to find cost - and fuel-saving efficiencies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster technologies to protect public health and the environment."
The online tool allows the public to view the data in a variety of ways, including by location, facility type and GHG type emitted.
It will be interesting to see if the transparency of this data will result in a reduction of emissions by these industries. Indeed, this may prove to give meaning to the phrase: "We are watching you"!
The full press release may be viewed here.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
ARB Workshop on Draft Changes to California's GHG Reporting and Cap-and-Trade Regulations
The California Air Resources Board is holding a public workshop to discuss draft changes to the proposed greenhouse gas cap-and-trade and mandatory greenhouse gas reporting regulations.
DATE: Friday, July 15, 2011
TIME: 9 am to 3 pm
LOCATION: Byron Sher Auditorium, 2nd Floor, Cal/EPA HQ
Building, 1001 I Street, Sacramento
WEBCAST: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/broadcast/?BDO=1
During the workshop, stakeholders may e-mail questions to ccworkshops@arb.ca.gov.
The cap-and-trade program covers major sources of GHG emissions in the State such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels. The proposed regulation includes an enforceable emissions cap that will decline over time. The State will distribute allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emissions allowed under the cap. Sources under the cap will need to surrender allowances and offsets equal to their emissions at the end of each compliance period.
The discussion drafts are now available for download.
Staff’s presentations will be posted in advance of the workshop on ARB’s website.
You can also call (916) 322-2037 with general questions about the workshop or the proposed cap-and-trade regulation, or (916) 322-5350 with questions about the mandatory GHG reporting regulation.
DATE: Friday, July 15, 2011
TIME: 9 am to 3 pm
LOCATION: Byron Sher Auditorium, 2nd Floor, Cal/EPA HQ
Building, 1001 I Street, Sacramento
WEBCAST: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/broadcast/?BDO=1
During the workshop, stakeholders may e-mail questions to ccworkshops@arb.ca.gov.
The cap-and-trade program covers major sources of GHG emissions in the State such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels. The proposed regulation includes an enforceable emissions cap that will decline over time. The State will distribute allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emissions allowed under the cap. Sources under the cap will need to surrender allowances and offsets equal to their emissions at the end of each compliance period.
The discussion drafts are now available for download.
Staff’s presentations will be posted in advance of the workshop on ARB’s website.
You can also call (916) 322-2037 with general questions about the workshop or the proposed cap-and-trade regulation, or (916) 322-5350 with questions about the mandatory GHG reporting regulation.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Oakland City Council Adopts Energy and Climate Action Plan
On March 1st, Oakland's City Council adopted a resolution that accepts the city's first Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP)--with some of the strongest greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals of any city in the country--and directs the staff to proceed with appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
The February 22, 2011 Draft ECAP is available for review here.
The purpose of the ECAP is to identify and prioritize actions the City can take to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with Oakland. The ECAP recommends GHG reduction actions and establishes a framework for coordinating implementation, as well as monitoring and reporting on progress.
In July 2009, the Oakland City Council approved a preliminary GHG reduction target for the year 2020 of 36% below 2005 levels. The primary sources of Oakland’s GHG emissions are:
Read more here. A video of the Council meeting is available here (skip to about 2:43:00 in the video for the ECAP agenda item).
The February 22, 2011 Draft ECAP is available for review here.
The purpose of the ECAP is to identify and prioritize actions the City can take to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with Oakland. The ECAP recommends GHG reduction actions and establishes a framework for coordinating implementation, as well as monitoring and reporting on progress.
In July 2009, the Oakland City Council approved a preliminary GHG reduction target for the year 2020 of 36% below 2005 levels. The primary sources of Oakland’s GHG emissions are:
- Transportation and Land Use
- Building Energy Use
- Material Consumption and Waste
Read more here. A video of the Council meeting is available here (skip to about 2:43:00 in the video for the ECAP agenda item).
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Greenhouse Gases Threaten Human and Environmental Health
The EPA today formally determined that greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution endangers human health and the environment. Under a Supreme Court ruling, the endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other GHGs released from automobiles, power plants, and factories under the federal Clean Air Act. This finding sets the stage for EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation. It also allows EPA to move forward with its "tailoring rule", which will require major sources of GHGs to take steps to limit emissions from new facilities by using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
Read Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's comments on the endangerment finding here.
Read the Associated Press article about the finding here.
Read Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's comments on the endangerment finding here.
Read the Associated Press article about the finding here.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
California's Mandatory Reported GHG Emissions for 2008
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is making available to the public a summary of facility greenhouse gas emissions data reported pursuant to the California mandatory GHG emissions reporting program required by the 2006 California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).
Under the program, California's largest industrial GHG emitters were required to report their emissions for the first time in 2009.
The 2008 GHG emissions data represent the reported emissions from electricity retail providers and marketers and six industrial sectors: cement plants; oil refineries, hydrogen plants, and stationary combustion sources (emitting 25,000 metric tons CO2 or greater per year); and electricity-generating facilities and cogeneration facilities (≥1 megawatt generating capacity and emitting 2,500 metric tons CO2 or greater per year).
The emissions reported by facilities through the Mandatory Reporting Program represent approximately 40 percent of California's statewide greenhouse gas emissions.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Executive Order to Set GHG Emissions Reduction Targets
President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order today that sets sustainability goals for federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy, and economic performance. The Executive Order requires federal agencies to set 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets within 90 days.
The new executive order mandates agencies across the federal government to "measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward agency-defined targets," the White House said in a statement.
The Executive Order also agencies to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including:
- 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
- 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
- 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
- 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;
- Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;
- Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and
- Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations.
The federal government is the largest consumer of energy in the US economy. It occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs more than 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services.
The Executive Order builds on and expands the energy reduction and environmental requirements of Executive Order 13423 by making reductions of greenhouse gas emissions a priority of the federal government, and by requiring agencies to develop sustainability plans focused on cost-effective projects and programs.
Transportation, Land Use, Housing, and SB 375
The California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) links regional transportation planning processes to planning for land use and housing with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The goal of this legislation is to develop regional plans that encourage compact development served by high quality public transit.
This caucus will explore the relationship between transportation, land use, housing, and climate change and the opportunities that SB 375 may offer in advancing regional equity as it meets its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The program will explain how local land use planning processes (and related boards and commissions) will contribute to regional development and equity through the SB 375-mandated Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
Wednesday, October 21, 6 pm to 8 pm
David Brower Center, 2150 Allston Way, Berkeley
Seating is limited. RSVP early to guarantee your reservation.
RSVP to Laurie Jones Neighbors at Urban Habitat.
This caucus will explore the relationship between transportation, land use, housing, and climate change and the opportunities that SB 375 may offer in advancing regional equity as it meets its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The program will explain how local land use planning processes (and related boards and commissions) will contribute to regional development and equity through the SB 375-mandated Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
Wednesday, October 21, 6 pm to 8 pm
David Brower Center, 2150 Allston Way, Berkeley
Seating is limited. RSVP early to guarantee your reservation.
RSVP to Laurie Jones Neighbors at Urban Habitat.
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?
Monday, July 6, 2009
Preliminary GHG Reduction Targets Topic of July 7th Oakland City Council Meeting
Consideration of preliminary planning targets for development of the draft Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP) is scheduled on the Oakland City Council agenda for July 7th, 2009. The Staff recommendation and accompanying report for this item have been posted to the City's website.
Agendas and additional information about past and upcoming meetings of the Oakland City Council and Council Committees are available on the City's website. The July 7th Oakland City Council meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:00 pm.
For those planning to attend, please see the posted meeting agenda for further information on when the ECAP item is likely to be considered during the meeting.
Agendas and additional information about past and upcoming meetings of the Oakland City Council and Council Committees are available on the City's website. The July 7th Oakland City Council meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:00 pm.
For those planning to attend, please see the posted meeting agenda for further information on when the ECAP item is likely to be considered during the meeting.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
NIMBY or YIMBY?
As both Berkeley and Oakland debate their downtown plans, there is growing recognition that the fight against global warming requires greater urban density.
Robert Gammon, East Bay Express, July 1, 2009
Environmentalists who think globally say suburban sprawl and the destruction of rural farmland must stop. But the lack of urban growth in Berkeley and in parts of Oakland during the past few decades also has contributed to suburban sprawl and long commutes. And all those freeways choked with cars are now the single biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions in the region. Some activists who have fought developers for years are now embracing them and calling for so-called "smart growth" or "infill development" — dense urban housing near mass transit. They note that downtown Berkeley and Oakland, along with the major transportation corridors between the two cities, are nearly perfect for transit-oriented development.
Greenbelt Alliance, an environmental group that has been fighting suburban sprawl for decades, recently pinpointed the inner East Bay as one of the region's top potential growth areas. The group estimates that the inner East Bay, west of the hills, could accommodate at least 106,000 new housing units by 2035. The group based its estimate on data from the Association of Bay Area Governments and UC Berkeley's Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
But for the inner East Bay to grow the way it should, it will have to overcome the region's well-developed not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) sensibilities. In Berkeley and North Oakland, in particular, residents who view themselves as environmentalists have been blocking dense housing developments for decades. They have complained about traffic, overcrowding, and the potential destruction of neighborhood character.
In Berkeley, where NIMBY sentiment is especially strong, a group of developers and activists who advocate for smart growth sometimes refer to themselves as YIMBYs (Yes, In My Backyard). "Our goal is to shift the idea of what it means to be an environmentalist when living in a city, away from the protection of land to the more efficient use of land," explained Erin Rhoades, the volunteer executive director of Livable Berkeley. For several years, her group has been battling a small but very vocal coalition of city residents who simultaneously view themselves as green while staunchly opposing urban housing development.
There are far fewer NIMBYs in Oakland when it comes to downtown issues. The Oakland City Council is scheduled to debate its new downtown plan on July 7. In downtown Oakland, the biggest impediment to growth over the years hasn't been NIMBYism but crime. The widespread perception that downtown is dangerous has stymied development. But in recent years, Oakland's Uptown area, just north of downtown, has launched a comeback, particularly since the renovation of the historic Fox Theater.
Read the complete article in the East Bay Express.
Robert Gammon, East Bay Express, July 1, 2009
Environmentalists who think globally say suburban sprawl and the destruction of rural farmland must stop. But the lack of urban growth in Berkeley and in parts of Oakland during the past few decades also has contributed to suburban sprawl and long commutes. And all those freeways choked with cars are now the single biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions in the region. Some activists who have fought developers for years are now embracing them and calling for so-called "smart growth" or "infill development" — dense urban housing near mass transit. They note that downtown Berkeley and Oakland, along with the major transportation corridors between the two cities, are nearly perfect for transit-oriented development.
Greenbelt Alliance, an environmental group that has been fighting suburban sprawl for decades, recently pinpointed the inner East Bay as one of the region's top potential growth areas. The group estimates that the inner East Bay, west of the hills, could accommodate at least 106,000 new housing units by 2035. The group based its estimate on data from the Association of Bay Area Governments and UC Berkeley's Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
But for the inner East Bay to grow the way it should, it will have to overcome the region's well-developed not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) sensibilities. In Berkeley and North Oakland, in particular, residents who view themselves as environmentalists have been blocking dense housing developments for decades. They have complained about traffic, overcrowding, and the potential destruction of neighborhood character.
In Berkeley, where NIMBY sentiment is especially strong, a group of developers and activists who advocate for smart growth sometimes refer to themselves as YIMBYs (Yes, In My Backyard). "Our goal is to shift the idea of what it means to be an environmentalist when living in a city, away from the protection of land to the more efficient use of land," explained Erin Rhoades, the volunteer executive director of Livable Berkeley. For several years, her group has been battling a small but very vocal coalition of city residents who simultaneously view themselves as green while staunchly opposing urban housing development.
There are far fewer NIMBYs in Oakland when it comes to downtown issues. The Oakland City Council is scheduled to debate its new downtown plan on July 7. In downtown Oakland, the biggest impediment to growth over the years hasn't been NIMBYism but crime. The widespread perception that downtown is dangerous has stymied development. But in recent years, Oakland's Uptown area, just north of downtown, has launched a comeback, particularly since the renovation of the historic Fox Theater.
Read the complete article in the East Bay Express.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
California Allowed to Raise Mileage Standards
California gets green light to set tougher mileage standards on new vehicles
Matthew B. Stannard, SF Chronicle, July 1, 2009
Federal officials on Tuesday cleared California to impose tough greenhouse gas limits on new motor vehicles that form the basis of new nationwide rules in 2012.
California has a history of setting environmental standards more rigorous than the federal government's since before 1970, and the Clean Air Act passed that year permits the state to continue to do so, providing it receives a waiver from the EPA.
The state law setting the new carbon dioxide standards, written by then-Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, passed in 2002, and the state sought an EPA waiver in 2005. But the EPA denied the waiver in 2007, saying it was important to have a national emissions standard and that a recently passed energy bill raising fuel economy standards was a better universal rule. In January, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson promised to review the waiver decision. On Tuesday, Jackson granted the California waiver.
The new national standards, which are still being developed, are due to take effect in 2012 and would include both fuel economy and greenhouse gas pollution standards. They would require an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016; current federal standards require 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.3 mpg for SUVs and light trucks. California's new rules will be followed by 13 other states - Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - and the District of Columbia.
Read the complete story here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/30/MN0T18GI3P.DTL
Matthew B. Stannard, SF Chronicle, July 1, 2009
Federal officials on Tuesday cleared California to impose tough greenhouse gas limits on new motor vehicles that form the basis of new nationwide rules in 2012.
California has a history of setting environmental standards more rigorous than the federal government's since before 1970, and the Clean Air Act passed that year permits the state to continue to do so, providing it receives a waiver from the EPA.
The state law setting the new carbon dioxide standards, written by then-Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, passed in 2002, and the state sought an EPA waiver in 2005. But the EPA denied the waiver in 2007, saying it was important to have a national emissions standard and that a recently passed energy bill raising fuel economy standards was a better universal rule. In January, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson promised to review the waiver decision. On Tuesday, Jackson granted the California waiver.
The new national standards, which are still being developed, are due to take effect in 2012 and would include both fuel economy and greenhouse gas pollution standards. They would require an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016; current federal standards require 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.3 mpg for SUVs and light trucks. California's new rules will be followed by 13 other states - Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - and the District of Columbia.
Read the complete story here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/30/MN0T18GI3P.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
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Garbage Police? Or Good Policy?
San Francisco approves toughest recycling law in the US
John Coté, SF Chronicle, June 10, 2009
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 Tuesday to approve the most comprehensive mandatory composting and recycling law in the country. It's an aggressive push to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have the city sending nothing to landfills or incinerators by 2020. The ordinance is expected to take effect this fall.
The legislation calls for every residence and business in the city to have three separate color-coded bins for waste: blue for recycling, green for compost, and black for trash. Failing to properly sort your refuse could result in a fine after several warnings, but fines will likely only be levied in the most egregious cases.
Cities from Pittsburgh to San Diego have mandatory recycling. None, however, require all food waste to be composted. Seattle passed a law in 2003 requiring people to have a compost bin, but unlike San Francisco, it did not mandate that all food waste go in there.
About 36% of what San Francisco sends to landfill is compostable, and another 31% is recyclable, a comprehensive study found. By the city's count, it currently diverts 72% of its waste; the best in the nation. If recyclables and compostables going into landfills were diverted, the city's recycling rate would jump to 90%.
Read the complete story here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/10/MN09183NV8.DTL
John Coté, SF Chronicle, June 10, 2009
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 Tuesday to approve the most comprehensive mandatory composting and recycling law in the country. It's an aggressive push to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have the city sending nothing to landfills or incinerators by 2020. The ordinance is expected to take effect this fall.
The legislation calls for every residence and business in the city to have three separate color-coded bins for waste: blue for recycling, green for compost, and black for trash. Failing to properly sort your refuse could result in a fine after several warnings, but fines will likely only be levied in the most egregious cases.
Cities from Pittsburgh to San Diego have mandatory recycling. None, however, require all food waste to be composted. Seattle passed a law in 2003 requiring people to have a compost bin, but unlike San Francisco, it did not mandate that all food waste go in there.
About 36% of what San Francisco sends to landfill is compostable, and another 31% is recyclable, a comprehensive study found. By the city's count, it currently diverts 72% of its waste; the best in the nation. If recyclables and compostables going into landfills were diverted, the city's recycling rate would jump to 90%.
Read the complete story here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/10/MN09183NV8.DTL
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)