Category Archives: Government & Business

What’s brewing in Sacramento, Silicon Valley, and beyond

Government & Business, Water

CA is “Extra Vulnerable” to Climate Change

3115732217_d7901f1545_m.jpgClimate change will most likely affect California more dramatically than it does many other places, according to researchers speaking Tuesday at the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting in San Francisco. The panel featured new research into climate change impacts on sea level rise, agriculture, water evaluation and planning, air pollution, and extreme climate events.

Climate researcher Dan Cayan, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, described California as “extra vulnerable” to climate change and gave a broad (and somewhat scary) overview of the reasons why. The state’s temperature increases are expected to be similar to the global average temperature rise in the coming decades, making for hotter summers with longer heat waves. Given the expected increase in population in California’s interior, longer and harsher heat waves could have significant public health implications.

On top of the more intense summers and milder winters, precipitation across the state may well decrease, especially in Southern California. These drier conditions will be compounded by a significant withering of the Sierra snowpack. Even with a moderate increase in temperature (2 degrees C), Cayan says more than half of the historic California snowpack will disappear by 2100, as the mountains get more rain than snow at higher elevations. That can increase flooding and coupled with expected sea rise over the next century, the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta may be in for some extreme events.

Fortunately, others are looking into sea level rise and what it’s going to mean for the San Francisco Bay Area and the coast of California. Peter Gleick, president and founder of the Pacific Institute, spoke about a new study currently under review focused on the projected impacts of sea level rise, including flooding and erosion, and the potential responses. The study will evaluate flood and erosion potential, create detailed maps of California’s vulnerable areas, estimate risks to populations and structures, anticipate costs of various adaptation strategies, and make policy recommendations. Gleick cited one immediate need as a catalog of the state’s existing levees and their conditions.

The report’s results should be out in February, which is also when we should see the draft version of the first California Adaptation Strategy, which aims to compile information on expected climate change impacts for the state and provide policymakers and resource managers with strategies for addressing them.

Government & Business

AB-32: Now What?

Whew. OK, two years after California’s Global Warming Solutions Act was passed into law, the “solutions” package now has the force of regulation…sort of.

The unanimous vote of the California Air Resources Board yesterday to accept its “scoping plan” for implementation, wasn’t so much the final gun as the second-half kickoff. Don’t get me wrong: the vote was momentous as a kind of intermediate milestone. But there’s a lot to do if the law is really to kick in as scheduled, three years from now.

For instance, there’s that whole cap-and-trade thing. When it comes to putting a market in place for trading carbon credits, the carbon cops in Sacramento have agreed to collaborate with a half-dozen other states and follow the general conventions of the Western Climate Initiative, which are still to be worked out.

Then there’s that pesky EPA waiver to let California put its own regulations for tailpipe emissions in place. The state law enabling that has been on the books for about five years now, stalled by federal EPA officials under the Bush administration. Okay, that’s a gimme. We already know that waiver will finally be granted, sometime shortly after Inauguration Day. But even that signals the start of a complex internal process to get the new regs in place.

In fact, virtually nothing about AB-32 is automatic. As they say, the Devil is in the details. And most details have yet to be laid out, argued about, and worked out, before we can really start marking progress toward the broad goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions (which are still rising, worldwide).

I sat down with James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the Air Board, and asked him what happens next. You can hear his answer by clicking on the player, below.

[audio:http://kqed03.streamguys.us/anon.kqed/climatewatch/goldstene.mp3|titles=James Golstene on AB-32]
Government & Business

CNN: Berkeley Lab’s Chu to Head DOE

xbd200805-00226-24.jpgReuters news agency is quoting CNN today in reporting that Steve Chu will get the nod from President-elect Obama to head the U.S. Dept. of Energy.

Since 2004, the Nobel laureate physicist has been the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Lab spokesman Lynn Yarris said he could not confirm the report. In an email to KQED’s Cy Musiker, he wrote that Chu is traveling until next week, adding that right now the report is “all still speculation.”

Chu has maintained a fairly high profile, writing op-ed pieces on America’s energy future and lecturing on potential solutions to climate change (note that this link is to an hour-long video).

He’s also been a vocal supporter of California’s comprehensive plan to attack climate change, known by the shorthand AB-32. From an opinion piece for the San Francisco Chronicle last year, co-written with U.C. Berkeley’s chancellor, Robert Birgeneau:

“The development of new, carbon-neutral energy sources are needed to avert the predictions of disastrous climate change. The landmark global warming legislation signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year committing our state to ambitious reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 is a strong and encouraging step. California is a national and global leader moving toward a sustainable energy future, and it is in the public mission of the University of California to help find ways to meet these goals.”

LBNL has been a leader in developing energy-saving technology, from lighting to windows, to “cool-roof” coatings.

In 2006 Chu was interviewed on KQED’s Pacific Time.

The California Air Resources Board is expected to vote on final acceptance of an implementation plan for AB-32 tomorrow. Speaking of which, published reports indicate that Mary Nichols, who heads California’s air board, will be passed over for the top spot at the Environmental Protection Agency, and that the nod will go to Lisa Jackson, a former state environmental regulator in New Jersey.

Photo: LBNL.

Government & Business

Postcard to Poznan

3088850070_5a89257718_m.jpgThe United States might not have an international reputation as a leader in the fight against climate change, but on Saturday a few hundred San Franciscans came out to Crissy Field to tell the world that times are changing.

Environmental groups declared December 6th the Global Day of Action, selected, as it has been for the last three years, to coincide with the United Nations climate talks. This year’s talks are currently taking place in Poznan, Poland.

Organized by Greenpeace, the crowd in San Francisco held up a 50 x 30 ft “postcard” that read: “Dear World Leaders, We are ready to save the climate! Yes we can!” against the backdrop of the San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge.

A helicopter flew overhead at 1 p.m., taking photos of the banner and the crowd. Ben Smith, Greenpeace’s National Organizer for Global Warming, said that the group plans to send the photos to delegates at the talks in Poznan (it’s gotta be cheaper than sending the postcard) as a symbol that despite the last eight years of inaction, Americans are serious about finding solutions for climate change.

“We are at a really significant point in history now, after eight years of the Bush Administration denying global warming and dismantling the UN process for stopping it,” said Smith. “The door has swung wide open, and we have the opportunity to solve the problem.”

Boston, Chicago, San Diego, Palm Beach, and several other cities across the country held similar demonstrations, said Anna Wagner, Greenpeace Global Warming Senior Organizer.

“We are trying to put pressure on our leaders to pass strong science-based solutions to global warming,” said Wagner. “The United States is key to stopping global warming, and we are sending a message to the Obama Administration that this is a number one priority for Americans.”

Many environmentalists are optimistic about Obama’s plans to invest billions in alternative energy and to place mandatory caps on greenhouse gases across the country similar to those already mandated in California. As we have reported here, Obama recently said in his video address to the Governors’ Climate Summit that he will work for “a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

But some are raising questions about whether Obama’s plans go far enough. A recent article in Time Magazine cites a November 12th International Energy Agency (IAE) report projecting that a $26 trillion investment in power-supply needs will be needed to address a 45 percent increase in the demand for energy between 2006 and 2030, if no new government policies are enacted.

It appears that Obama will promote new policies that may mitigate this scenario but the challenge may be greater than it was a few months ago. With half a million jobs lost last month and regular gasoline at $1.69 a gallon in San Francisco, large scale investment in new low-carbon industries might be a harder sell.

img_0217.JPGimg_0185.JPGimg_0196.JPG

Government & Business

Pipeline to Poznan

Map courtesy of Encyclopedia Britannica OnlineAs a general rule, I’d say anything that already has 789 credentialed media members covering it doesn’t need me there. That’s the announced size of the press contingent at the UN climate talks going on this week in Poznan, Poland. All those reporters should find something to write about, among the 10,696 reps from 187 countries.

And yet, expectations are not high for this round, which is described by the U.N.’s Yvo deBoer as “the halfway point” to a successor agreement for the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. DeBoer says he is hoping for substantive progress on matters like deforestation and technology transfer.

So far it’s sounding a lot like the recent Governors’ Global Climate Summit in Beverly Hills–at least until President-elect Barack Obama seized the crowd by laying out his aggressive plans for climate policy. His four-minute video greeting effectively let the air out of Poznan, which is being staffed, of course, by a U.S. delegation from the outgoing Bush administration.

Recently I had a chance to get a Poznan preview from Jonathan Pershing, a former science and climate advisor in the Clinton Administration, now at the non-profit World Resources Institute.  You can hear my radio report about California’s influence on the tone of the UN climate talks on The California Report.

Use the audio player below to hear a one-minute excerpt from my interview with Pershing.


Government & Business

Can “31,000 Scientists” Be Wrong? You Betcha.

2 Comments

Especially when there aren’t actually 31,000 of them. But that hasn’t stopped climate change skeptics from trotting out something called the Global Warming Petition Project to help make their case that human-induced climate change is a lot of hooey.

For example, Bob Lutz, the Chairman of General Motors,  likes to cite it when he refutes “the CO2 theory” of global warming. Of course executives from old-line auto and oil companies could be expected to grope for credible-sounding skeptics. But this weekend my morning coffee nearly came out of my nose when I saw San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders fall back on the threadbare petition argument in a Sunday magazine piece entitled “Warming Science and Science Fiction” (not available online at this writing).

The framers of the petition assert that:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

“So far,” wrote Saunders, “more than 31,000 scientists have signed it.”

What Saunders doesn’t say is that this effort was launched fully 10 years ago by a rinky-dink rural concern called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. According to the Project’s own website, only 40 of the more than 31,000 signatories are trained in climatology (114 in “atmospheric science”). But we really have no way of knowing. The Project’s instructions for prospective signers say:

“Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.”

But it seems to run entirely on the honor system. There is no way to independently verify information given by the signatories about their training and experience. And the group’s qualification for “scientist” is a little lax, to put it mildly. An undergraduate degree in any science or engineering-related field hardly ordains one as an authority on climate change.

The group uses as its poster scientist Edward Teller, a key figure on the Manhattan Project and legendary “Father of the H-Bomb.” Teller died in 2003 at age 95, so it’s possible that he did sign this. And given his famously contrarian personality, it’s not even unlikely. Even so, the august Dr. Teller was a nuclear physicist–not a climatologist.

Saunders isn’t the first journalist to take the bait. In fact, she appeared to be sourcing an article that she read on the website Politico.com.

The Oregon petition and its promoters have been roundly criticized by the National Academy of Sciences and repeatedly debunked by others.

Even so, the petition has had traction in California. According to the Project’s web site, more than 3,700 of its supporters identify themselves as Californians (the second most signatures–3,500+–allegedly come from Texas. No other state comes close).

What’s more disturbing is that it continues to get traction in press accounts and policy circles. Given the volume of climate research over the past ten years that has affirmed the IPCC’s conclusions on global warming, one has to wonder how many of the petition’s original signers would do so again.

Government & Business

Air Board Responds to LAO Critique

The California Air Resources Board has formulated a written response to the very unflattering report by the state Legislative Analyst (LAO) described here last week. The Air Resources Board is the lead agency in implementation of the state’s attack on climate change, known by its legislative shorthand, AB-32.

The Board admits that most (70%) of the savings in AB-32 flow from one measure, the so-called Pavley regulations on vehicle emissions. But it insists that even without those, the overall plan still pencils, economically.

The Air Board also concedes that its economic analysis was not complete when it issued its “scoping plan” for implementation, but counters that it has since done some more number-crunching and that the bottom line is still a net benefit of about $300 million per year, as the first phase of the plan is unfolding. After 2012, the Board says, annual savings to Californians ramp up to nearly $3 billion.

Government & Business

State Climate Strategy Hits a Sustainability Snag

3 Comments

3060242318_80122bcff7_m.jpgIs AB-32 sustainable? The state’s Legislative Analyst seems to think it’s a valid question.

A series of reports from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (California’s version of the federal GAO) casts doubt on the long-term viability of the nation’s most ambitious attack on climate change.

Just as the Governor was tuning up for his Climate Summit last week, the LAO released a report questioning the economics of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, aka AB-32. The report assails the assumptions and projections made by the Air Resources Board, in estimating the effect of AB-32’s implementation on the state’s economy. The board’s “scoping plan” projects net annual savings of $16 billion.

Among the LAO’s conclusions:

– The [ARB] plan’s evaluation of the costs and savings of some recommended measures is inconsistent and incomplete. The plan does not reflect the costs and savings of all of the emissions reduction measures that it recommends.

– Macroeconomic modeling results show a slight net economic benefit to the plan, but ARB failed to demonstrate the analytical rigor of its findings. Despite its findings—slight, eventual overall benefit to the economy—the macroeconomic analysis conducted by ARB provides little insight.

– The findings are highly dependent upon key assumptions, and ARB has not performed an analysis to determine how sensitive the macroeconomic findings are to changes in the key assumptions.

– The plan fails to lay out an “investment pathway.” Despite its prediction of eventual net economic benefit, the scoping plan fails to lay out an investment pathway to reach its goals for GHG emissions levels in 2020.

The LAO found that the lion’s share of the economic benefit from AB-32 is presumed to spring from one emissions control measure, that’s actually part of a separate law (AB 1493, passed in 2002). According to the analysis, implementation of the “Pavley regulations” would account for 18% of the greenhouse gas reductions and 70% of savings and benefits attributed to AB-32 in the air board’s scoping plan. That plan is likely scheduled for formal sign-off by the board in the next few weeks.

The report was not widely distributed but was contained in a letter to Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Sacramento), who requested the analysis.

All the angst over economic impact of AB-32 may be moot, given the findings of another recent LAO study, which warned that we may not be able to put the darn thing into effect, anyway. The state is presently keeping the program alive by borrowing tens of millions of dollars from the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund. The LAO says the Schwarzenegger administration “has failed to produce a sustainable, long-term funding plan for AB-32 implementation.”

 

Government & Business, Water

When Mitigation Falls Short, Adapt

3042486968_0a474edd83_m.jpgWhile California has plans in place to reduce greenhouse gases, to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is only recently that the local governments have begun thinking about adaptation strategies, according to two reports released today by the PPIC. “Preparing California for a Changing Climate” and “Climate Policy at the Local Level: A Survey of California’s Cities and Counties.” Both focus on what is being done currently to confront climate change and where the state and municipalities need to focus adaptation efforts, in order to prepare for future environmental changes.

According to Ellen Hanak, who co-authored both studies, while three out of  four California’s communities are “doing something” related to climate change, only half of that group is looking into adaptation strategies and developing plans for protecting community assets.

“The focus has been on bringing greenhouse gases down,” said Hanak. “Only recently have folks been looking into climate impacts.”

Adaptation is a critical element because even if the world does reduce emissions significantly, Californians still may face problems like sea level rise, increased wildfires and flooding, public health issues related to air quality and increased temperatures because of change that has already been set in motion.  The extent of these problems, of course, will depend on how successful we are with mitigation strategies.  The less successful we are at reducing greenhouse gases, the better we need to be at adapting to change.

Hanak sees the executive order issued by the Governor on Friday requiring state agencies to assess and plan for sea level rise due to climate change, which we blogged last week, as one positive step in this direction.  Because the order mandates an assessment of projected sea level rise, local governments will soon have a benchmark to use for planning their adaptation strategies.

Government & Business

Obama Steals the Show

news-obama2-140x140.jpgIt was one of those rare occasions when a video gets a standing ovation.

But President-elect Barack Obama’s video greeting to 800-plus attendees at the Governors’ Climate Summit in LA had quite a few of them on their feet.

Obama lauded the conference and promised that once he takes office, “Any Governor who works toward clean energy will have a partner in the White House.” So, he said, would any company working to develop clean energy, projecting that five million new “green jobs” will be created in the process.

While he did not say anything he hasn’t said before, Obama bundled most of his previously articulated thoughts on climate response into his brief video comments. He restated his commitment to a federal cap-and-trade program that would help return U.S.-based greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, with an 80% reduction by 2050.

Obama again left the door open to an expansion of nuclear power, saying that the nation would “tap” it, “while making sure it’s safe.”

Referring to the ongoing UN climate talks, the President-elect got one of his biggest ovations when he said “You can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

“Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response,” he said.

The first panel discussion of the two-day summit involved the problem of tallying and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. Representatives of Mexico and China pledged renewed efforts on that front.

Watch the video greeting below.