Today
Sections
More
Features
Displaying 1 - 10 of 16 |
Next »drought
Smart growth packs in the savings, study finds
A little smart growth goes a long way, a state study has found. Intended to help cities and counties implement SB 375, the analysis weighed 10 years of the status quo against "urban infill and compact growth" geared toward public transit.
Turns out, density makes almost everything bad better.
Even your bank account: Strategic growth would fatten the average head of household's wallet by $6,400 a year.
The troubled state budget would get $3.4 billion a year in wiggle room.
The climate would get smooth sailing to the tune of a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
And the ever-impending California drought would recede by 19 million acre feet of water.
Darrell Steinberg, author of SB 375 had this to say: "We can either grow smart at less cost while enjoying healthier, cleaner more livable communities, or, we can continue business as usual and watch our economy and our environment erode."
The analysis was conducted by Berkeley-based Calthorpe Associates, one of the nation's most influential urban design firms.
| June 24 2010 at 06:15 AM
Do as I say, not as I do
The Sacramento city council has banned bottled water at its meetings and has imposed water restrictions on residents due to drought. But it's welcoming a Nestle bottling plant to the city, although the plant would consume 80 million gallons a year. Some will be purified and sold at a profit under the Pure Life label.
Although Nestle will have to pay by the gallon for city water (elsewhere in the state, the company sucks up spring water for free), it won't be held to any limits or restrictions.
Nestle will also truck in 20 million gallons of spring water for bottling. The trade-off? 40 jobs, by the company's estimate.
Thoughts?
| October 07 2009 at 12:09 PM
Renewables standard is big news
The state legislature managed to pass a renewable energy standard on its last day of the session. The bill would require state utilities to obtain a third of their power from renewable sources by 2020. It would also limit their ability to use offsets to meet the requirement and to buy renewable power from out of state, while streamlining the approval process for in-state projects.
It's the most significant environmental legislation of the session.
It's unclear if the governor will sign it; he had objected to restrictions on buying out-of-state power. Lawmakers added a series of amendments in an attempt to address Schwarzenegger's concerns.
The amendments succeeded in winning the support of PG&E;, Sempra Energy and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, but not of Sacto. Municipal Utility District.
The California PUC estimated that the measure could raise consumer rates by 7 percent, but it would also reduce global warming emissions in the state by as much as 12.8 million metric tons, eliminating the need for 10 to 15 large new fossil-fueled power plants.
Supporters also say it will spur green jobs in California.
Laura Wisland, an analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that the measure, if signed, would "help power up California's green economy by creating jobs, saving money, and cleaning the air."
Even so, 7 percent may seem like quite a bit. But a new report by the UCS documents (again) that failing to act to curb climate change will cost significantly more. The report, a review of 60 studies, documents the economic impacts of a changing climate.
Here is the California prognosis:
• Air conditioning use as a result of higher temperatures: $1 billion to $8 billion a year
• Losses to hydropower due to drought: $440 to $880 million annually
• Annual heat-related health costs: $14 billion by 2100
• Medical bills due to rising ground-level ozone levels: $10 billion
• Protecting real estate from rising sea levels and storms, especially around S.F. Bay: $6 - to $30 billion annually by 2100
• Disappearance of the ski season: 15,000 jobs and $500 million annually in revenues
• Total annual tourism industry losses: $7.5 billion
• Annual losses to agriculture, forestry and fisheries: Up to $4.3 billion
• Additional firefighting costs: $106 million in federal funds and $26 million in state funds annually by 2100
On the other hand, the combined cost of national Waxman-Markey legislation and the new state renewable energy standard, using conservative back-of-the-envelope calculations, would be $250 per household per year in California, or roughly $3.2 billion annually.
UPDATE: Schwarzenegger says he will veto the bill and instead issue an executive order that will require 33 percent renewable power by 2020, but will allow utilities to obtain the power out of state.
SFGreen on Facebook
| September 12 2009 at 11:42 AM
Mass human extinction?
A breathtaking article in the New York Times reports that tribes living in the Amazon rainforest are facing starvation as supplies of fish in the ecosystem's many rivers dwindle due to climate change. The Amazon gets less and less rain, leaving rivers low and fish stranded.
I'm excerpting it here, but the full article is a must-read.
Chief Kotok, who like all of the Kamayurá people goes by only one name, said that men can now fish all night without a bite in streams where fish used to be abundant; they safely swim in lakes previously teeming with piranhas.
Tacuma, the tribe's wizened senior shaman, said that the only threat he could remember rivaling climate change was a measles virus that arrived deep in the Amazon in 1954, killing more than 90 percent of the Kamayurá.
Fish stocks began to dwindle in the 1990s and "have just collapsed" since 2006, said Chief Kotok...
Throughout history, the traditional final response for indigenous cultures threatened by untenable climate conditions or political strife was to move. But today, moving is often impossible. Land surrounding tribes is now usually occupied by an expanding global population, and once-nomadic groups have often settled down, building homes and schools and even declaring statehood.
The Kamayurá live in the middle of Xingu National Park, a vast territory that was once deep in the Amazon but is now surrounded by farms and ranches.
| July 27 2009 at 10:55 AM
Weird weather watch: Rocky Mountain dust storms
An unusually high number of dust storms have swept into Colorado's Rockies, leaving the caps darker in color (see photo) and consequently quicker to melt. A faster melting snowpack exacerbates water shortages in the west. There isn't enough evidence to indicate whether the dust storms are a consequence of a changing climate, but if they are it's another example of feedback loops that will cause our weather woes to escalate:
Twelve dust storms barreled into the southern Rockies from the deserts of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico so far this year. In contrast, four storms hit the mountains all year long in 2003. Eight occurred in each of the last three years.
And even without more frequent dust storms, snowpacks will likely occur earlier and faster, and soil quality will likely diminish:
Even without the dust storms, forecasters predict that global warming will reduce the soil quality in the western United States to dust-bowl levels by 2050, said Jayne Belnap, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey. The Southwest's temperatures are expected to rise by 10 degrees Celsius by 2100.
Ouch.
Photo: L.A. Times
| May 27 2009 at 11:02 AM
Drought or no drought?
Although California is most often a pioneer of sound environmental policies, it's important not to become too complacent to challenge areas in which there's plenty of room for progress. One such issue is water. It's a hard fought battle in the state, with farmers, cities and environmental groups all vying for more of the stuff.
Nor is the problem limited to the delta and the snowpack. There's also groundwater. And California, unlike most states, does not regulate groundwater.
As farmers get less water from the Sierras, due to low snowfall, and from the San Joaquin Delta, due to environmental protections of fish and ever-expanding urban populations, they are pumping more water out of aquifers. In most states, this water is regulated, even when the aquifer is on private property. That's because emptying the underground water supplies has far-reaching effects, including dramatic changes in the land (see the photo, tracking historic land levels). Underground aquifers are also an important Plan B for the state in case of serious drought.
And state water boards are warning residents that a serious drought is on the way—and with it, rationing. The more accurate description is likely that population has grown so much that even a minor drought will create major problems. That's bad news, because we're certainly already in a minor drought, and climate change threatens to limit the state's water supply still further. Meanwhile the state continues to promise more water—some say as much as 8 times more—than it can deliver.
Warnings of drought may make the problem worse, instead of better. Schwarzenegger's recent drought emergency alert allows him to okay water projects without the usual checks and balances. But the governor's proposals to fix the state's water woes thus far consist of canals and dams—and it doesn't take a civil engineer to know that these projects won't create more water, they'll just move around what little we have. Sooner or later, the state will have to regulate groundwater and get serious about water efficiency measures, and probably even desalination and recycling (and, yes, that does mean toilet-to-tap).
For a great green read on the West's water woes, check out Cadillac Desert.
Three easy tips for conserving water:
- Put a plastic water bottle filled with sand or water in your toilet tank for a D.I.Y. low-flow toilet.
- Pick up a free faucet aerator at SFPUC (SF residents only).
- Try a Navy shower: Turn off the water while you're soaping up and save roughly 5 gallons.
Second photo: U.S.G.S.
| May 14 2009 at 12:24 PM
Weird weather watch: California heat wave
It almost goes without saying: It's really hot in the Bay Area. As in, record-breaking hot. I went up to Crissy Field yesterday, hoping that by 5 o'clock the heat would be dying down and the ocean breeze would be kicking up. Not so. So I plunged into the bay, which was, indeed, icy cold. But then I remembered that if our weather heats up permanently, the water won't be so cold, either.
With highs reaching 100 inland, here are some energy-saving, self-preserving coping-with-the-heat tips:
- Shut the blinds.
- Use fans while you're in a room, but turn them off when you're not. They only make the air feel colder.
- Don't use the oven or the dryer if you can avoid it.
- Avoid short trips in the car if you are relying on air conditioning. The air uses a lot of gas, and by the time you get comfortable, it will be time to get out of the car.
- Wear loose, lightly colored clothes.
- Drink lots of water.
Finally, a quick word on why these shifts matter: Without the slow-melting snowpack of the Sierra Nevada, California wouldn't have enough water to support its population. The unseasonable temperatures are causing the snow to melt more quickly, meaning more will evaporate, exacerbating the drought we're also experiencing.
Here's a proposal for helping generate public awareness of climate change. Even if you like the heat, talk about it in terms of "weird weather" or "record temperatures."
| April 21 2009 at 09:39 AM
Water Wars
Thankfully, this rainy February has pulled California away from the brink of the worst drought in the state's history. But water in our fair state remains a scarce and precious resource.
Yet major multinational corporations such as Nestle are allowed to siphon it up for free—only to sell it back to Californians and others in energy-guzzling plastic bottles likely to end up in landfills or floating off our lovely coastlines. Profit margin: Up to 10,000 percent.
Bottled water is increasingly controversial for these reasons. And while you may not believe that the occasional Dasani or Aquafina is a Class A environmental felony, it would certainly make sense to have companies pay the state something for the millions of gallons of water they remove from the public's groundwater supply. (The controversial Nestle plant in McCloud, California, [is permitted to]* suck up as much water as 614 typical American families from the springs pictured above.)
Last fall, state Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes (D-San Fernando) introduced a bill that would have required companies to provide the state with detailed information on where they get their water. It was among the lump of bills vetoed by the Governor in the waning hours of the session.
Florida is taking it a step further, proposing to tax bottled water companies 6 cents a gallon for the water they take—a potential $56-million windfall for the state's troubled coffers. (Only Michigan and Vermont currently impose similar taxes.)
Nestle is steaming mad, claiming that bottled water is a necessity in a natural disaster (in fact, less than 1 percent of the 102,000 bottles filled every hour at the company's Florida plant are used for natural disaster relief). The company can't claim that the tax would put it out of business, because it would barely put a dent in its massive profits.
With California facing dire water problems and a broken state budget, should our state follow suit?
*Apparently, because of the controversy surrounding Nestle's deal with the town of McCloud, the company hasn't actually started pumping water there.
| March 06 2009 at 09:18 AM
Urban Nature: Showers and Flowers
The last two weeks of rain haven't made a difference in the state's longterm water outlook, but they sure have brightened nature up, with green grass and beautiful flowers. Here are some photos of quenched nature in the city. (Share your own here!)
| March 02 2009 at 10:33 AM
Drought On The Way
Today's Sacramento Bee reports that a serious drought in California is virtually a sure thing, and that it may well be the worst in the state's history.
The state is also less able to deal with a major drought than it was in the early 1990s, because farmers have replaced hundreds of thousands of acres of seasonal crops with permanent crops such as fruit and nuts.
Local water districts will soon announce Stage 2 and 3 conservation measures. But critics suggest that the state isn't doing nearly enough to handle the water crisis. Agriculture still gets the lion's share, but weaning the industry would mean major economic losses.
Here are some water conservation tips. What else can residents and officials do to get ready for the drought?
Update: Per GreenBiz's Twitter feed: Here's what the experts say agriculture should do to save the state water.
| February 11 2009 at 11:39 AM
more