Californians, Vote No on Prop 23

Be sure to vote on Tuesday, November 2, Election Day, too much is at stake not to.  If you live in California, the results of races for Governor (vote for Jerry), the U.S. Senate (Boxer), and the U.S. House of Representatives, plus several state propositions, will have a collectively enormous impact on California’s environment, economy, quality of life, and future prospects.  

In California, it’s critically important that you vote No on Proposition 23.

Prop 23 is an attempt by Texas oil refinery companies Valero and Tesoro, as well as the extremist right-wing Koch brothers, to change the State of California's future by undoing our seminal Global Warming Solutions Act, better known as AB 32.  This legislation, approved in 2006 and signed into law by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, will have a profoundly positive impact by significantly reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG’s) and other air pollutants, creating new jobs and spurring innovation in clean technology, renewable energy, and energy efficiency, and improving residents’ quality of life through better air quality and more sensible transportation and housing policies.  Prop 23 would unravel these advances.

California’s AB 32 also is extremely important in the national debate over what to do about global climate change, especially given that reactionary conservatives to date have successfully stifled action on the climate change crisis primarily at the behest of oil, coal and electric utility companies.  AB 32 will help reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, reduce the nation’s irresponsible emissions of GHG’s, and provide invaluable impetus to the urgent economic and environmental necessity of shifting this nation’s energy dependence to clean technologies and renewable energy. 

Everywhere across the country, elected officials and numerous other stakeholders are looking to California and AB 32 as an indicator of where the nation is going.  Unless, of course, somehow AB 32 was made to go away.  Proposition 23 would effectively kill AB 32, although its dishonest purveyors claim that the proposition would merely “suspend” the global warming law.  Indeed, the language in the proposition does say “suspend,” but the conditions attached to this so-called suspension in reality would make it permanent.   

Federal Agencies Roll Out Greenhouse Gas Regulations, Initiatives

The 1990s was a lost decade on the climate change issue in the U.S., mostly thanks to the hidebound U.S. Senate.  In 1993 it defeated President Clinton’s BTU tax proposal, in 1997 it repudiated the Kyoto Protocol (which at that time still technically was only a draft, not a final accord) with its 95-0 vote in favor of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, and in 1998 it defeated  “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007,” also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill. 

EPA Administrator Carol Browner, in choosing to be MIA, also served as an obstacle, albeit a quiet and passive one.  So President Clinton and Vice President Gore essentially limited the administration’s remaining climate change efforts to signing up corporate partners to its voluntary Climate Change Action Plan, supporting research, and launching an earnest but low-level public awareness effort that made a point to avoid the media, in which this writer participated.  Of course, the U.S. and the world community then lost another precious eight years under Dubyah and his administration, no need to elaborate. 

Today, 16 years after the U.S. Government should have started mobilizing the country to address global warming, we finally have a White House, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a Department of Energy (DOE) moving forward with meaningful measures to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 

LEED: The Emperor Has No Clothes

The highly touted LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification program for energy performance of new homes, schools, and commercial buildings has until now outrun its mostly hidden flaws.  LEED has been a resounding green business success story, enticing thousands of building owners clamoring for certification, spawning a thriving cottage industry of designers and accredited certifiers, and attaining most favored status among climate-conscious municipalities and politicians nationwide. Saving energy is LEED's raison d’être, with the resulting projected decreases in greenhouse gas emissions the reason for the program's sex appeal among the serious-minded. LEED's commercial successes may continue but its flaws have finally begun catching up to the hype.

As reported by Mireya Navarro in the August 30 New York Times, in addition to other sources, a recent review by the program's administrators, the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), found that a stunning 25 percent of LEED commercial buildings sampled did not live up to expectations for energy efficiency. Further, most certified buildings had not even been monitored for actual performance. A smart-looking green design suffused with good intentions and energy- or water-saving features was generally all that was needed (along with an ability to count points) for your office building to score one of those snazzy LEED certification plaques.

For those of us who have worked in the environmental certification business, LEED's overblown claims of energy savings have been an open secret.

Can a Carbon Footprint Label Make a Difference in Reducing Greenhouse Gases? Yes, If You Believe in the Power of the Marketplace

Reflecting growing concern about global climate change, as well as the growing prominence of market-oriented environmental performance ratings for products, carbon footprint labels probably soon will be coming to your store shelves. The World Resources Institute (WRI) and Carbon Trust are but two of the organizations developing voluntary carbon labels for products.

Another carbon footprint label quite possibly will be coming from the State of California in the form of Assembly Bill 19, the Carbon Labeling Act of 2009, which passed the State Assembly on June 2 with no real concerted opposition and currently awaits Senate action. AB 19 was authored by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) and is promoted by the group Carbon Label California (www.carbonlabelca.org), which primarily has received funding from Silicon Valley philanthropist Noel Perry.

The purpose of AB 19?  Carbon Label California and other supporters of the legislation hope that a prominent label bearing the imprimatur of the State of California and explaining that product's carbon footprint will be meaningful and credible enough to consumers to help sway their purchase decisions toward a preference for low-carbon products. Further, much as it has done with other recent global warming legislation and policy, this bill presents another opportunity for the Golden State to prod the rest of the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A product's carbon footprint is meant to denote the amount of GHGs, converted into pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent, that were emitted in order for this product to be produced and shipped for sale at your store.

For AB 19 to be both an environmental and marketplace success, enough corporations will have to find it in their self-interest to go to the trouble and expense of determining, then reducing, and finally publicizing their product's carbon emissions. In this manner, they meet evolving consumer expectations, strengthen their environmental credentials and their brand, and gain competitive advantage. At the same time, sufficiently growing numbers of consumers will need to presumably change their purchasing behavior to reward those companies that have lowered their GHG emissions and punish those that haven't.

Success will depend in part on effective branding, marketing, advertising, and merchandising by participating corporations. But success also very much hinges on widespread consumer acceptance of a yet-to-be determined carbon measurement protocol and rating system.

If AB 19 becomes law, the choice of which measurement protocol to use -- there are both lenient and stringent approaches -- belongs to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Presumably, consumers would attach more value to a more stringent carbon footprint protocol. On the other hand, the tougher the requirements the more expensive the whole process for businesses, thus serving as a barrier to market entry and limiting overall marketplace impact. Many businesses and other supporters are likely to prefer an easier approach for measuring their GHG emissions.

Tougher emissions measurement protocols utilize a life cycle analysis (LCA) approach, which generally captures both direct and indirect carbon emissions throughout the product's supply chain. This can include: use of raw materials and their transportation; manufacturing; distribution; energy use; and, with the most comprehensive GHG measuring approach ("Scope 3"), vendor performance. Even with differences in difficulty among different LCA approaches, LCA nonetheless is a fuller and more realistic accounting of a product's carbon performance than non-LCA approaches. The latter methods are easier, as they measure fewer impacts, but they would still end up as numbers on a label.

So, given different approaches and assumptions in measuring greenhouse gases, how does a concerned but somewhat bewildered and harried shopper readily understand what the numbers on a carbon label are supposed to really mean?  How does one compare the carbon footprint for one product to another if both display certification labels from credible third-party organizations?

Most carbon and sustainability experts probably share these concerns. One, Nancy Hirshberg, vice president of Stonyfield Farm, was quoted in the New York Times that measuring a carbon footprint is a "fabulous tool" for identifying an organization's emission reduction opportunities. But she also said that, given the variables in determining a footprint, assigning a single number to a package was "misleading at best."

This methodological quandary does potentially confuse consumers. At the same time, Matt Newman, co-founder of Carbon Label California, points out at least two key benefits of a carbon footprint product label:

First, if provided by a credible third party certifier, and assuming no one commits market suicide by advertising a product with high emissions, a carbon footprint label does distinguish products that reduced their greenhouse gases compared to times past, their competition, or both. Other products on the shelf making either an unsubstantiated or vague claim -- ("Our internal investigation discovered we're green, we can all feel good") -- or no claim whatsoever fare poorly in comparison. In the case of AB 19, the third-party certifier would be CARB, which consumers should find reassuring and possibly even compelling.

Second, a carbon footprint label highlights the inherent environmental advantage of buying locally produced products. It's easy to understand that fruit, vegetables and flowers produced at farms within two hours' drive of the Bay Area, compared to like products produced in Latin America and shipped here via airplanes, cause far fewer greenhouse gases by the time you're buying them at your local grocery or flower store.

Stay tuned for more information at Climate Change Update regarding AB 19, and regarding the realm of voluntary environmental and sustainability standards and certification.

Some Hits, Some Misses, as Friedman Discusses Climate Change and Energy

This is a summary and review of the keynote address delivered by author and columnist Thomas Friedman at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) May 4 Climate Action Leadership Summit.

Friedman’s presentation and discussion, based upon his recent book, ‘Hot, Flat, and Crowded,’ was in parts an insightful tutorial on global energy issues, an accurate and thus ominous review of climate change-related developments and challenges, and a self-indulgent exercise in name-dropping (repeating for the audience that he was “a close friend” of Al Gore, as one example).

He also devoted part of his presentation to a snappy slogan -- “Change your leaders, not your light bulbs” – that he masqueraded as a strategic approach for curbing greenhouse gases. The first half of his slogan was Friedman committing the public speaker’s sin of not knowing his audience. The latter half brought to mind Dick Cheney’s widely panned remark several years ago that energy conservation was an admirable personal ethic but not a legitimate component of an energy policy.

Summary of Friedman’s key points and premises:

• The world is getting hot, flat, and crowded. Friedman is correct, of course. Regarding temperatures, this writer notes that despite 2008, when average surface temperature in the lower 48 states was 1.34 degrees Fahrenheit lower than in 2007, average global surface temperatures increased over the last 100 years by about 1.1 degrees. Regarding “flat,” Friedman explained that this is a metaphor for the growth in the ranks of the world’s middle class and thus, in global appetites for American lifestyles and consumer amenities. “There are too many Americans in the world today,” Friedman joked. And as for crowding, this writer notes that today’s global population is 6.5 billion and that while it took all of human history until 1830 to reach the first one billion people we are now adding 80 million people per year, or, another billion every 12 or 13 years.

• Five global energy mega trends today, with each contributing to serious global problems and challenges, are:
• First, energy and natural resource supply and demand and its impact on human freedoms, or what Friedman labeled “the first law of petropolitics.” Friedman examined four countries almost totally reliant on oil for their GDP -- Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria – and discovered that when the price of oil went down, his “freedom index” regarding living conditions in those countries went up. When the price of oil went up, the freedom index went down.
• Second, petrodictatorships are flourishing.
• Third, human-induced climate change is occurring. Further, we won’t come remotely close to halting and reversing levels of greenhouse gas emissions if nations such as China and India and in South America and South Asia continue to power their growing economies with enormous amounts of relatively cheap fossil fuels, which of course is the U.S. model. The comparatively modest reductions in emissions currently being contemplated in the U.S. and Europe would be completely overwhelmed by the concurrent growth in emissions from the world’s underdeveloped nations if current trends continue.
• Fourth, some 1.6 billion people today are suffering from “energy poverty,” i.e., they have no access to electricity and thus are denied the economic and quality of life benefits that electricity provides. Living in already deprived conditions in underdeveloped countries, they likely will suffer disproportionately as climate and weather patterns change.
• And fifth, we are in the midst of a mass phase of biodiversity extinction so pronounced that we’re entering what Friedman and others call the “Age of Noah.” We are the first human generation like the biblical Noah, necessitating that we act strategically and aggressively to protect the last remaining pairs of many species of animals that are fast becoming extinct.

• The answer to each of these global problems is the same: widespread use of abundant, cheap, reliable clean energy. But curbing the world’s voracious appetite for fossil fuel, and switching it to clean energy such as wind, solar and biomass, requires nothing short of revolution. The good news, according to Friedman, is that revolution is coming. Namely, innovation involving the environment, clean energy, and green technology is soaring, creating an Energy Technology (ET) revolution that will permanently alter the world’s economies and industries. Friedman predicted that this will be the world’s “next great revolution” but also noted that getting there will be extremely difficult, as there will be winners and losers.

This writer notes that, policy and financial interventions aside, the “losers” in a switch to clean energy are politically powerful stakeholders that include: the coal industry overall, as well as coal-producing regions in the U.S.; most U.S. utilities; petroleum-exporting nations such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela; and, manufacturers that rely heavily on oil in their production processes.

• The U.S. needs to position its economy and business enterprises at the forefront of this coming ET revolution or risk losing a generation’s worth of economic opportunities. If the U.S. can achieve ET leadership, says Friedman, we will garner economic security, environmental security, energy security, and national security. To have a chance to attain leadership of, and gain advantage from, the ET revolution, the U.S. must undergo three institutional changes: First, businesses must change their practices. Second, “green” has to become the norm, not the advertising novelty that it is today. And third, there must be a significant and lasting increase in the price of carbon-based fossil fuels.

• Price matters. Permanently assigning a significantly higher price to carbon-based fuels -- one that internalizes their current environmental externalities and reflects their true environmental and societal costs – is a necessary step in weaning societies off fossil fuel. By first taking this step, “forces will be set in motion” unleashing investments in renewable energy, alternative fuels, and clean technology. These innovations will realize their tremendous market potential and the world’s economic and energy landscape will change forever. Without this price signal for coal and oil, the ET revolution will be minimized and the unprecedented growth in global GHG emissions will continue.

• We haven’t yet taken the serious steps in the U.S. that would impel the ET revolution. Instead, “we’re having a green party,” which Friedman gleefully mocked as consisting partly of corporate “green” advertising pitches and the seeming over-abundance of “how to save the environment” books.

Generally speaking, I mostly agree with Friedman’s point but his examples were rather poor. Friedman is correct that a great many corporations are exaggerating their supposed environmental accomplishments, and very publicly so. Consumers are being flooded with green advertising, some of which is completely true and meaningful, some of which is not. Just the other night I watched a TV commercial by a company advertising itself as “the Greenest” junk removal service – meaning what? – and we’re all being subjected to Chevron’s irritating and disingenuous advertising campaign. We could go on and on with “greenwashing” transgressions that include exaggerations, intellectual dishonesty, portraying modest actions as major, and touting environmental certifications that in some cases rest on flimsy requirements. But this isn’t universally true of corporations, hundreds of which voluntarily are going to the trouble and expense of making meaningful changes and meeting what are sometimes tough environmental performance standards.

Regarding the books, was Friedman suggesting that a seemingly excessive number of books on individual empowerment was some sort of denial of the big picture? Good thing he wasn’t an opinion leader in the U.S. prior to the American Revolution. Was he implying that the environmental benefit of numerous individuals taking relatively modest steps was a waste of time? Illogically, Friedman’s answer to both questions seemed to be “yes,” as he made clear with the final main point in his presentation.

• “Change your leaders, not your light bulbs”

From a national perspective, the first half of this message, “Change your leaders,” was obvious. In order for Americans to fundamentally shift our economy into one based on clean energy, we can’t miss the fact that only elected officials and others whom they appoint to agencies can make laws, change laws, and craft and implement regulations. Further, members of Congress to date have been a dismal failure on the daunting challenges of energy use and climate change. “It all comes down to leadership,” Friedman reminded us, and this writer’s own reminder is that historically this has meant a lack of leadership and currently this means an opening awaiting leadership.

But this message for this audience was misdirected. Many of those seated around me were policy or political leaders who recently had played substantial roles in what are enormous accomplishments on the climate change issue, namely AB 32, SB 375, and California’s toughened automobile fuel efficiency standards. As opposed to most elsewhere in our nation, Bay Area residents indeed have elected the right political leaders for effective action on energy, the environment, and climate change.

The latter half of his policy prescription, “Change…not your light bulbs,” was a puzzler. Friedman, a smart and educated man, couldn’t be more misguided in his disdain for the collective positive environmental impact of numerous individual actions. It’s a fact that enormous quantities of carbon dioxide equivalent have been avoided thanks to numerous individuals each taking some of the same mundane steps, such as recycling, increasing building insulation, telecommuting, purchasing energy efficient appliances, conserving water, using video conferencing in lieu of airline travel, and more. Friedman also was ignoring the power of the consumer-driven marketplace, in which increasing numbers of environmentally aware consumers are driving real changes in corporate behavior.

• Even given the weight of many of Friedman’s observations in his prepared presentation, his most concerning statement occurred during the Q&A session. A pesky questioner in the audience extracted from Friedman the reluctant admission that we are “probably too late” in the fight against human-induced global warming.

What “too late” truly means is best explained by expert scientists. To cite only one alarming example, recently published Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported that even if reality were turned on its head and the nations of the world could bring carbon dioxide levels back to those of the pre-industrial era (currently we are at roughly 365 parts per million), it would still take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed. This was mostly due to the long-term impact of carbon dioxide on oceans. What the world will experience in the meantime, according to the NAS, will include greater melting of the polar icecaps than previously estimated and droughts in some regions comparable to the 1930s U.S. Dustbowl. We’ll end this edition of Climate Change Update on that sobering note.

ABAG Meeting re SB 375 Climate Change Law and Bay Area Response

This first Climate Change Update is regarding SB 375 and last week’s Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Spring General Assembly and Business Meeting with “Call to Action” concerning “SB 375: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Land Use and Transportation Planning.”

Meeting Agenda, Participants: The meeting took place on Thursday, April 23 and was presided over by Rose Jacob Gibson, ABAG President and San Mateo County Supervisor. The morning session included an audience of some 80 people, most of whom were elected city and county officials and local planning, transit and environmental department managers. The agenda included: David Chiu, San Francisco Supervisor and Board President, who gave the host city welcome; Nancy McFadden, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs for PG&E Corporation, who gave the morning keynote; a three-person panel on “Setting the Stage” that included moderator Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Supervisor; and, a five-person panel on “Implementing SB 375” that included moderator Dave Cortese, Santa Clara County Supervisor.

SB 375 Purpose, Approach: SB 375 was signed into law by the Governor on September 30, 2008, and mandates that regions pursue an integrated land-use and transportation planning approach for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cars and light trucks. SB 375 implements provisions of California’s AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which calls for reducing the State’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

SB 375 requires California’s Air Resources Board (ARB) to assign a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target to each of the state’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for the years 2020 and 2035. ARB must propose draft reduction targets by June 10, 2010 and adopt final targets by September 30, 2010.

SB 375 Key Elements: 1. Established a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC), through which stakeholders can recommend factors and methodologies for ARB to consider in setting the targets. 2. Requires each MPO to meet its emission reduction targets by developing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for its region, i.e., a regional growth plan designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Of key importance, the SCS will be part of each region’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), thus linking its new growth strategy to transportation planning law. In addition, regional transportation funding decisions must be consistent with the SCS. 3. Requires MPOs to align their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process and requirements with their RTP, thus for the first time linking regional transportation and housing planning. 4. If a region does not meet its reduction target, the MPO is required to create an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) containing more aggressive reduction measures. 5. Provides “CEQA Exemptions and Streamlining” for two types of development projects that conform to the SCS and help reduce VMT even if they conflict with a local community’s plans: residential or mixed-use projects, and “transit priority projects.”

The Nine-county Bay Area: The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are the region’s two formally designated MPOs. More important, these two agencies, together with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), formed a regional planning consortium, the Joint Policy Committee (JPC), and it is the JPC that will serve as the primary policy-making body that will draft the Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. Already in 2007, the JPC approved a “Bay Area Regional Agency Climate Protection Program” with a stated goal to “employ all feasible, cost-effective strategies to meet and surpass the State’s targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.”

The MTC on April 22 produced its updated Regional Transportation Plan, “Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area,” which outlines how more than $200 billion in federal, state, and local transportation funds will be spent over the next 25 years. “Transportation 2035” contains major elements that should contribute to VMT reductions and will be included in the Bay Area’s SCS, such as “FOCUS,” an incentive-based regional planning initiative, and the launch of a “Transportation Climate Action Campaign.”

SB 375 Analysis: For the most part, regional and municipal leaders across the U.S. barely have begun to use local planning as a strategic tool to seriously address global climate change, which is why SB 375 is groundbreaking. But the success, or lack thereof, of SB 375 likely will vary on a region-by-region basis according to the wherewithal of each region’s planners and local elected officials. To even have a chance of crafting an effective SCS, regional planning, transportation and local government leaders will have to cooperate and compromise to an unprecedented degree even though our political processes are not set up that way. 

Moreover, SB 375 does not tie state or federal funding to land use decisions, does not confer land-use authority onto the MPOs, and does not force local governments to comply with their region’s SCS. There are other caveats and exemptions in the bill that potentially undermine its intent.

The CEQA exemptions are controversial to some, but SB 375 contains language watering down the impact, such as the fact that they can’t be granted until the SCS is adopted. At the same time, state legislators are considering clean-up legislation that would increase CEQA streamlining.

Requiring regional leaders to incorporate their RHNA requirements into their RTP introduces a healthy dose of realism regarding the imperative to cut GHG emissions even as regions plan for population growth.

Bay Area Perspective: One speaker after another at the April 23 meeting extolled the need to “work together.” More than an obvious platitude that one expects to hear from elected officials, this chorus highlighted the enormous challenge of achieving meaningful regional cooperation on nitty-gritty matters such as which constituencies will get which incentives, dollar allocations, and development and transit projects. And of course, the end result needs to be less driving, less traffic, greater use of more easily accessible public transit, and pedestrian-friendly downtowns that are good for business and residents.

Thanks primarily to the leadership of ABAG, MTC, and the JPC, as well as numerous stakeholders involved with shaping MTC’s “Transportation 2035” plan, the Bay Area’s effort to produce a robust strategy that will reduce VMT is well underway. Several of the speakers cited examples of mostly nascent or pilot projects that have potential to significantly reduce GHGs if scaled up, such as Berkeley FIRST, which provides cheap loans with favorable terms for residents installing solar energy for their homes, and a proposed Regional HOT network consisting of 800 miles of HOT (high-occupancy and/or toll) lanes that promise to reduce traffic congestion while raising revenue for public transit.

In addition, FOCUS has the potential to be a highly effective tool, as it “directs financial assistance and other resources to Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs)” to foster infill development near transit and provide long-term protection to “regionally significant open spaces.” These PDAs and PCAs already have been identified, and at least one prominent panelist at the meeting felt that PDAs are the “backbone” of the Bay Area’s pending Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Next up: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District hosts a “Climate Action Leadership Summit” on Monday, May 4 at the Fox Oakland Theatre with the keynote provided by acclaimed author, columnist, and foreign affairs expert Thomas Friedman.