Water

It’s Not All Downhill

img_sasha-300.jpgSome of the most rewarding parts of my job covering the Central Valley are the stories I discover in Yosemite, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, and other parts of the Sierra. I’ve reported wearing snowshoes, sitting in a canoe, and perched in a Search and Rescue helicopter. So when the Climate Watch team asked me to tackle climbing to a glacier, I was thrilled.

The Dana Glacier is one of the most accessible in the Sierra, but the hike turned out to be a grueling journey. I was recovering from the stomach flu, and had to muster enough strength to scramble up miles of unsteady rock. There was no clear trail. I was never sure whether to plant my weight on the small boulders which sometimes tipped back and forth under my feet. I fell several times, and eventually decided to put away my microphone. Our trek (including stops to photograph and interview) took us about nine hours.

The air grew thinner as we climbed past 11,000 feet. In fact, you can hear my heavy breathing in the radio story about the journey. What you can’t hear is the screaming headache I developed when we reached the glacier.

We were dehydrated because the sun was intense, and we didn’t bring enough water. Producer Gretchen Weber and I were so worried about carrying all of our microphones and cameras up the steep bedrock that we only brought a few bottles. And there were few refilling opportunities in this parched moonscape.

But the journey was spectacular. Glacial “flour,” or fine silt from the moraine, colors the lakes below Dana almost tropical blue. They look like the Hawaiian ocean, but feel icy to the touch. Seeing withering Dana Glacier reflected in that water was magnificent.

On the way down, I badly bruised my toenails from banging them against my hiking boots. Three of my toenails fell off, and I had to wear a prosthetic one on my big toe to my wedding a few weeks later! When the fake fell off at the wedding, friends and family scoured the grass to find the missing toenail. That makes my hike to the Dana Glacier something I’ll remember forever.

Listen to the radio report.

Check out the video and audio slideshow of the journey.

Government & Business, Power

Punting the Issue

oil-refinery-300.jpgWhen California creates a cap and trade system to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, as it is planning to do, there’s going to be the question of what to do with the revenue. Actually, first there’s the question of if there will be any revenue, as Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), told a roomful of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and green tech leaders this week at the offices of fuel cell innovator Bloom Energy.

California’s cap and trade planning is tied to the Western Climate Initiative, but the consortium is leaving the decisions about how to dispense credits up to each state.

Nichols said that those who would be buyers in the potential cap and trade system are “very resistant” to the idea of an auction. Not exactly surpising.

But many clean energy innovators see the revenue from a cap and trade auction as the perfect opportunity to help new green technologies survive the tenuous period between venture capital funding and commericial viability. Funds from a cap and trade auction could help mitigate the risk private companies take on to develop the innovations that will be needed for a greener future.

Nichols admitted that how much of the credits to auction and where the money should go is the most controversial issue around AB 32. She cited the “cap and dividend” option, a scenario in which all the revenue would go “right back to the public, like in Alaska,” as a politically popular option. She also mentioned using the funds to reduce corporate taxes.

Bloom Energy CEO KR Srindhar likened the “cap and dividend” option to “giving people a fish” (I can only assume as a reference to the old adage about how teaching someone how to fish is better than giving him a fish).

“In the early stages, if we [California] want to be a leader in this field, we need to be seeding it to create jobs. When we do, then, month after month, they’ll be getting that dividend,” Srindhar told Nichols, asserting that money invested in green tech would pay off in the form of job creation and a better economy.

Nichols reponded by saying that she was “thinking about punting the issue for awhile.”

As we have blogged before, CARB is tasked with implementing AB 32, which requires that the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

According to rumors, Nichols may be influencing more than just California’s climate policy soon. Unnamed sources in recent reports have cited her as a potential Obama pick for EPA head in the new administration.

Uncategorized

A New Slogan for Reno

Reno, NV has long laid claim to being “The Biggest Little City in the World.” Now it could claim to be one of the fastest-warming towns in America.

Reno Arch

According to a survey of US cities from Environment America,  Reno averaged 4 degrees (Fahrenheit) above”normal” for the calendar year 2007. Citing data from the National Climatic Data Center, the report said that temperatures tended above normal for most of the nation (“normal” is defined as the 30-year average from 1971-2000), but few cities made the exclusive plus-four-degree club.

More telling, perhaps, is the average minimum temperature (overnight low), which clocked in at an eyebrow-raising 5.5 degrees above normal in Reno. Climatologists have noted that throughout the West, “T-minimums” (overnight lows) have been rising almost twice as fast as daytime highs, partially obscuring for many the sensation that things are warming up.

Environment America can be justifiably challenged for implying that one year’s worth of temperature records is any indication of generalized long-term warming. It isn’t. The group takes the position that the warm 2007 was part of a broader trend:

“Between 2000 and 2007, the average temperature was at least 0.5 degrees F above the 30-year average at 228 (89%) of the stations examined (nationwide).”

Reno also made the hot list for cities that showed the most deviation from normal (3.5 degrees F), during the eight-year period 2000-2007. Of all the data collected in the report, this is the most useful number to use in making a case for a persistent warming trend. Skeptics might argue that even eight years of data can be misleading and they’d be right–but other studies have been more than sufficient to confirm that the West is warming. The debate has largely shifted to what to do about it.

Photo courtesy of: RSCVA & VisitRenoTahoe.com.

Government & Business, Power

The Mystery Cities in Prop 10

Every ballot measure has its fine print and every piece of legislation its earmarks and “ornaments.” Prop 10, officially the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act is typical of this time-honored tradition, except in one respect. Usually these quirks can be explained by the people promoting them.

On page 16 of the measure, Prop 10 specifically allocates multi-million-dollar grants to each of eight cities in California. Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, Irvine, San Francisco, Oakland, Fresno and Sacramento (listed in that order) would each get $25 million:

“…for the purpose of capital projects and operating expenses promoting and demonstrating the actual use of alternative and renewable energy in park, recreation and cultural venues, including the education of students, residents and the visiting public about these technologies and practices.”

Seems straightforward enough–except nobody seems to know how these eight cities were chosen. It’s not merely a list of the state’s eight largest cities. It’s close, except that San Jose (#3) is conspicuously missing but Irvine (#17) makes the cut.

John Dunlap, former head of the state Air Resources Board and a paid consultant to the Prop 8 campaign, appeared to be stumped when I asked him for the rationale. His best  guess was that they might be locations with significant transportation infrastructure, such as major port facilities. Again, the mystery of Irvine…and Fresno isn’t quite the Rotterdam of the West Coast.

I called the official office of “Yes on 10” and a media representative told me that she thought the cities were chosen for “geographic distribution” but admitted that she hadn’t been asked before. She promised to get back to me with a definitive answer. That was last week. Election Day is tomorrow. If Prop 10 goes down to defeat, it won’t matter. If it passes, it’ll be even more important to have an answer.

Power

Methane Takes its Turn in the Spotlight

No sooner had I posted a piece about “The Other Greenhouse Gases,” than more new data bubbled up about one of them; methane.

Benicia Refinery

According to a study published by researchers at MIT, there was a global spike in atmospheric methane last year. The increase, on the order of millions of metric tons, was uniform around the world, not concentrated around major methane emitters, as one might expect. In other words, “background” methane levels are up all over, so that the atmospheric concentration is nearly 1800 parts per billion.

That’s a much lower concentration than carbon dioxide, which stands at about 385 parts per million. Methane also breaks down faster in the atmosphere. But it worries climatologists because it is far more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas; anywhere from 25 to 50 times more harmful, depending on how you measure it. Researchers Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn say atmospheric methane levels have more than tripled since the Industrial Revolution but has held steady in recent years. Recently something has thrown it out of balance but the MIT team could only speculate about possible reasons.

Methane escapes from a combination of both natural and human-induced sources. It leaks from oil & gas industry infrastructure and landfills, and is produced by livestock (and human) digestion. It’s also released by marshes and rice paddies. California is a major rice producer but the rice fields’ share of total U.S. methane emissions is relatively tiny.

Climate Watch is preparing an upcoming feature on  methane and climate change. Listen for it on The California Report in November.

Government & Business

The Other Greenhouse Gases

1 Comment

Carbon dioxide is the 900-pound gorilla of greenhouse gases. There’s little doubt of that, whether you’re tracking news coverage or policy measures.

But lately, some of the other beasts are getting more scrutiny. Reuters published a story last week that focused on nitrogen triflouride, a by-product of semiconductor manufacturing and a key ingredient in flat-screen TVs.

Researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego have been tracking the gas, which goes by the shorthand NF3, and concluded that the atmospheric load of the stuff is growing at 11% a year. What makes that a little scary is that NF3 is said to be 17,000 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, though over all it’s still a much smaller factor in global warming.

At the same time, Kirk Smith of UC Berkeley is taking his show on the road, with a lecture he calls “CO2 on Steroids.” It’s about the role that methane plays in the warming equation and what he believes are the opportunities to make relatively fast headway against global warming by attacking methane emissions. Smith will present his findings at the state air board’s Chair’s seminar series in Sacramento. You can watch a webcast of his lecture on November 10.

I interviewed Smith for an upcoming Climate Watch radio feature on the methane issue in California. Listen for it on The California Report in mid-November.

Uncategorized

A Long, Dry Season

2 Comments

In California, the term “fire season” is tossed around with a certain amount of vagueness, mainly because unlike, say “deer season,” there are no hard and fast rules for when it begins and ends. But like, for instance, “Holiday Season,” it does seem to be getting longer and more tedious.

For budgeting purposes, CalFire reckons it to be May 15 to November 15. As a practical matter, we don’t really expect the first wildfire to break out on May 15–except this year it did. The Summit Fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains flamed up about a month before people really expect to start seeing smoke in the air. It was the start of what could be a record-breaking season.

Last year’s fire season was the worst in a decade; 1.5 million acres burned. This year we’re on track to surpass that.  Climatologists say: Get used to it. According to a 2005 report from the California Climate Change Center, using warming scenarios from the IPCC:

If average statewide temperatures rise to the medium warming range (5.5 to 8°F), the risk of large wildfires in California is expected to increase about 20 percent by mid-century and 50 percent by the end of the century. This is almost twice the wildfire increase expected if temperatures are kept within the lower warming range.
Along with temperature, wildfires are determined by a variety of factors, including precipitation. Because of this, future wildfire risk throughout the state will not be
uniform. For example, a hotter, drier climate could increase the flammability of vegetation in northern California and promote up to a 90 percent increase in large wildfires by the end of the century. A hotter, wetter climate would also lead to an increase in wildfires in northern California, but to a lesser extent—about a 40 percent increase by century’s end.

Phyllis Banducci, an El Dorado County forester for CalFire, says that normally they would start “ramping down” (laying off seasonal firefighters and so forth) in the north state around mid-October but this year CalFire has delayed winding things down until November 3rd.

Recently I took a walking tour through some Sierra burn sites with Crawford Tuttle, Chief Deputy Director at CalFire. You can hear excerpts from that and comments on the climate connection from UC Merced researcher Tony Westerling on The California Report, starting Friday morning.

You can watch a video of that walk by clicking on the viewer below. The first location is Sierra Springs. The second walk was on Icehouse Ridge, above Highway 50. Both locations are in El Dorado County.

We’ve also set up a spot where you can share your own fire photos and experiences.

Uncategorized

Double Dose of Climate Calamity TV

PBS will air its long awaited climate documentary “Heat” tonight, as part of its Frontline series. The two-hour program rolls at 9 p.m. on KQED and most other PBS stations.

My companion program, “California Heat” also premieres tonight as part of the Viewfinder documentary series on KVIE Public Television in Sacramento. This show airs at 7 p.m., and sets the stage for Frontline by examining the almost certain effects on California–and interior California in particular.

Frontline takes it from there, examining our readiness as a nation and as a global community, to take on the challenge.

Government & Business, Power

400,000 Jobs or Bust. Or Both.

There’s an interesting juxtaposition nowadays between the grim economic/public funding forecasts and the eye-popping estimates of job growth in the “green-collar” economy…at least in the ever-optimistic Golden State.

Given the current meltdown in the capital markets, there is understandable fear that investment in renewable energy and carbon-reducing technology will be nipped in the bud. Recent articles in the New York Times and Times of London reflect the new angst.

But against this backdrop of doom, predictions are popping out all over about the coming economic boom, if we can somehow stay the course toward a low-carbon economy. This week number-crunchers at UC Berkeley issued the bold declaration that through energy efficiency alone, California can add 403,000 new jobs. David Roland-Holst and his colleagues assume a scant 1% annual improvement in overall energy efficiency, in order to get there. And by the way, they say, you can pencil an extra $76 billion in gross state product into the bargain. We’ll be spending so much less to light, heat, cool, and move us around, that it will free up billions of dollars and an outbreak of general prosperity will ensue. Sound like Pollyanna gone wild? The authors say we’ve done it before.

A recent economic analysis by the California Air Resources Board predicted that full implementation of the sweeping Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (CA AB-32) would add 100,000 jobs by 2020. The astute reader might wonder how, since energy efficiency is just one facet of AB-32, can the Berkeley number be so much higher. The answer, according to Roland-Holst, is that the Air Board estimate is “innovation-neutral.” In other words, it assumes that nothing new is invented on the efficiency front.

Hear more details as KQED’s Peter Jon Shuler speaks with  Roland-Holst about his methodology.

Government & Business

Proposed Plan for Reducing Emissions in CA

California is one step closer to implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or AB 32, the law that requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Today, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released its proposed scoping plan for how to achieve this goal.  CARB president Mary Nichols said more than 40,000 comments were submitted in response to the draft plan released in June, which we wrote about last month.  Today’s plan will go before the Board for approval in December.

One of the biggest changes to the scoping plan is that the target for reducing Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas emissions by 2020 was more than doubled from two to five million metric tons. CARB anticipates meeting this goal with a combination of improvements to alternative transportation infrastructure (such as public transit and biking lanes), building sustainable developments, and reducing vehicle trips through incentives and education strategies.

Another change is the addition of a goal for local governments, which was not articulated in the previous version of the plan.  CARB is recommending local governments reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below today’s levels by 2020.

A big component of the scoping plan is a cap and trade program that covers 85 percent of the state’s emissions.  The plan is being developed in conjuction with the Western Climate Initiative, which includes seven states and four Canadians provinces that have agreed to work together to cap emissions and create a regional carbon market.  In September, we wrote about the carbon trading market set up by ten eastern states, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). 

Questions still remain about how California’s carbon credits will be divided up and whether they will be handed out, auctioned off, or, more likely, a combination of the two.  WCI has left this decision up the individual states with a recommendation of a minimum auction for 10 percent at the outset of the program increasing to at least 25 percent by 2020, and perhaps higher in the future. Nichols said today that California is considering auctioning 20 percent.  Of course, for many environmentalists, the closer to a 100 percent auction, the better. 

For more information and analysis on the plan, listen to our own Craig Miller, Senior Editor of Climate Watch, on KQED Radio talking with host Sarah Varney. Listen to Miller’s report on AB 32 that aired on the October 16 edition of the The California Report.