A colleague of mine (Wendy Bruget) forwarded me these two Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors motions.
Motion 1. Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina sponsored Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Motion. The motion asks the county to create an inventory of its GHG situation, and then develop a Climate Action Plan based on it, with strategies on how to reduce GHG emissions as well as strategies preparing for the potential impacts of climate change on the county. Very Interesting. View the motion here: http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/49052.pdf
Motion 2. Mark Ridley Thomas and Michael Antonovich sponsored bill seeking the establishment of a county “Environmental Service Center,” which would provide County residents and businesses with information on Renewable Technologies, Green Buildings, Water Conservation/Efficiency, Low Impact Development, Recycling, and more. View the motion here: http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/49058.pdf
I will try to update everyone on the status of these as soon as possible.
the Eco|Angeleno had the great opportunity to go to the Renewable Energy in Emerging Markets (REEM) conference this past week up in San Francisco. What a great conference. We’re catching up on a couple stories at the moment, and we hope to post on some of the great stuff we learned at REEM soon. In the meantime, check out the conference’s web-site when you get a chance: http://www.reem09.net
The Eco|Angeleno has just heard word that the City of LA is in the process of drafting an ordiance establishing a city-wide “Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy.”
According to a reportand draft ordinance delivered to the RENEW LA Ad Hoc Committee:
“The new EPP (Environmentall Preferable Purchasing Policy) would promote the use of environmentally preferable products in the acquisition of goods and services by establishing factors to consider, such as the pollutants associated with the product, the waste generated, recycled content, energy consumption, depletion of natural resourcesand potential impact on human health and the environment.”
In the draft ordinance itself, it explains that the key factors that will be considered in selecting products include pollutant releases, waste generation, recycled content, energy consumption, depletion of natural resources and potential impact on human health and the environment.” The ordinance also seems to push the city to take an even more proactive approach towards CREATING MARKETS by mandating the City to ”seek opportunities to enhance markets for environmentally preferable products through employee education; encourage pilot testing of potential new products; adopt innovative product standards, specifications and contracts; and embark on cooperative ventures with other jurisdictions.”
This is good news for Green product manufacturers, a great step in the right direction for the city. Now, we’ll just have to trust our new controller Wendy Greuel to make sure we don’t bust our budget on this.
To see a more extensive list of criteria considered under the program, you can view the draft ordinance here: LINK
According to the Wall Street Journal & Ecogeek.org, the US Congress is considering introducing a “Cash for Clunkers” bill, which would allow people to trade in their old, gas guzzlers, for a government cash voucher that can be used towards the purchase of a more fuel efficient vehicle. A similar concept has been used in Europe, and has recently been adopted in Germany. There are two potential bills being thrown around on the Hill, one is from Rep. Sutton, and one is from Sen. Feinstein:
According to the WSJ, “Ms. Sutton’s bill would provide buyers vouchers of $3,000 to $5,000 if they turn in cars that are eight years old or older and buy new cars that get at least 24 miles per gallon on the highway or trucks that get 27 mpg (The money could also be used for mass transit.),… Sen. Feinstein’s bill, [would] provides incentives of $2,500 to $4,500, [and] the “clunker” could get no more than 18 miles per gallon, ( The new car would have to exceed fuel-efficiency standards for its class by at least 25%).” Another difference, is that “Ms. Feinstein’s bill wouldn’t cover vehicles that cost more than $45,000, while Ms. Sutton would cap the new car’s price at $35,000.”
I LOVE this idea, and actually wanted to try and propose the concept to our state legislature. This type of program has ENORMOUS potential to both reduce gasoline demand, as well as reduce emissions significantly since a 14 year old vehicle produces 19 times more smog-forming emissions than a 2004 or newer model (Link).
Nonetheless, if I were to introduce the bill, I would take a slightly different approach. I would write the bill as follows: Buyers will receive a voucher of $4,000 to $5,000 if they turn in a vehicle that is either older than 10 years old, or, gets a maximum fuel-economy of 18 mpg, and if the buyer purchases any vehicle that gets at least 36 mgp that costs less than $40,000. Maybe this is just a number game, but I like thinking that for every car sold under this program, you get the emissions reduction and reduced fuel demand equivilant to taking two of the turned cars off the streets. I also like the idea of keeping the price point low, to act as an indicator for car companies where they should be aiming with their new fuel efficient vehicles.
Now, we should be doing something like this for the clunker trucks at the Port of LA too!
The Pacific Instutite has recently released a new study which looks at which Coastal area’s in the state are most at risk of climate change driven flooding:
According to the study, “480,000 people; a wide range of critical infrastructure; vast areas of wetlands and other natural ecosystems; and nearly $100 billion in property along the California coast are at increased risk from flooding from a 1.4-meter sea-level rise – if no adaptation actions are taken.”
The report made some key findings:
1. under relatively conservative estimates, the report projects the California coasts line to rise an estimated 1 to 1.4 meters by the year 2100.
2. A 1.4 meter rise can be expected to put 480,00 people at risk of a 100-year flood event.
3. Their demographic analysis identified potentially significant environmental justice concerns.
4. Huge amounts of critical infrastructure will face an increased risk on innundation in a 100-year flood event. the infrstructure involved:
Potentially 140 Schools
34 Police and Fire stations
Over 300 Hazardous waste facilities/sites
3,500 miles of roads and 280 miles of railways
30 coastal power plants
29 wastewater treatment plants
SFO and OAK airports
5. Huge amounts of wetlands and other natural ecosystems are at risk, an estimated 430,000 acres,
6. Around $100 billion worth of property will be at risk.
7. It would cost around $14 billion in upfront costs, and around $1.4 billion a year to protect most of the at risk proporties.
8. Other areas will face increased risk of erosion.
If you are more of a visual learner, be sure to check out the maps they put together. Want to see if your home is at risk, just check it out using their google maps overlay: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/gmap.html
Want to know what the City is up to? Well, sometimes it’s best to look at what the city is trying to buy. A couple weeks ago, the city of Los Angeles put this RFI (Request for Interest) up on their Business Assistance Virtual Network – basically, the site they post open business contracting opportunities: LINK
Here is the description: PUBLIC BICYCLE-SHARING PROGRAM FOR LOS ANGELES
“The City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation is soliciting Letters of Interest from bicycle vendors/manufacturers, public transportation contractors, advertising companies, and other entities interested in developing, installing, operating, and maintaining a bicycle sharing program for the City of Los Angeles.”
I look forward to seeing their proposed locations, and seeing the project move forward.
I went to a screening of the new film, FUEL, in Santa Monica this past Friday. Here is the movie’s trailer:
Let me begin my short review with a reservation, IN GENERAL, I don’t enjoy these types of movies that much. I find in general I don’t learn very much, and I find it is innapropriate to try and inform and educate people in a movie setting where you have a completely captured audience like that. I just think it is too easy to spread incorrect facts, or overlly biased versions of facts, to an audience who has no choice but to sit quietly for an hour and a half and have them pounded into them. Even worst for me, as someone who has been tracking the issue covered for the movie, for just about as long as the writer of the movie itself, I knew going into it that I wasn’t about to learn anything new; in the end, this point proved true.
Ok, now, my bias aside, overall I thought the movie was pretty good. I mean, pretty good production value, and for those who have not been folloing the bio-fuels history of the past 10 years, it provides some good background on the rise and fall, and potential rise again of Bio-fuels as a viable alternative energy source.
I have plenty of critiques as well. First, the movie tried to do TOO MUCH. In addition to trying to give background on Bio-fuels, it also tried to document the personal life story of the Director Josh Tickell, a guy who seems nice enough, but who also seems to have a super sized ego. Particulalry the sweeping shots of Josh walking along the beach, reflecting on his thoughts and life, felt forced and distached to the movie as a whole. Another movie goer who has worked in alternative fuels for many years commented that he thought Tickler seemed to be taking credit for the whole of the Biofuels emergence all together. In addition, I thought the movie tried to cover too much ground in terms of topics, and it became jarring for the movie viewers.. One second we’re following the life and death of Rudolph Diesel, and the next second we’re looking at the environmental degradation around New Orleans, and then at oil interests in the middle east, and then at Tickell’s roadtrip around the US. It was just a bit much, and honestly, entire movies could have been made on half of the subjects Tickell only begins to scratch the surface on, leaving the viewer unfullfuilled with many of the discussions and eager for an explanation as to how this is all supposed to connect.
Another more accute problem I had with the movie, has to do with something the movie left out… and that is the issue of top soil erosion, and its role in slowly washing away the soils and lands the feed the world. People look at soil like we once looked at the atmosphere, as a limitless resource that humanity can do no harm to… but this is just flat wrong, and the reality is, that biofuel crops are being grown at the expense of our soils, soils which should be preserved for an even higher need: FOOD.
So, basically, those are my thoughts. If this were “At the Movies,” I would give the movie a “Rent It” rating particularly if you have been following the history of alternartive fuels over the past 5 to 10 years. If you are a newbie, and are looking for an imperfect crash course on Biofuels, then I would say its worth seeing at the theater.
One last note, Larry David 5 second appearance made me crack up… haha loved it. Oh and Josh Tickell’s fiance, who produced much of the music, did a fantastic job…
Finally, I’m sure I missed a bunch of other critiques and also praises… please comment if you have seen the movie as well and share your thoughts.
Somewhat dissapointing news from the Los Angeles Business Journal, LADWP is buying geothermal power from Mexico to meet its renewable energy goals… Why is this dissapointing? Well, this deal will create ZERO green jobs here in California, and will do NOTHING to improve our infrastructure or increase our energy independence… very dissapointing… would it be that hard to actually do something in this state (or country for that matter)… Cmon LADWP, part of being green is to buy local. Here is the article in sum:
DWP Makes Geothermal Deal: “In a major step towards its renewable energy goals, the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power on Tuesday signed an agreement with Mexico’s federal power utility to immediately buy up to 100 megawatts of geothermal energy.The agreement between the DWP and Mexico’s Comision Federal de Electricidad enables the DWP to make wholesale purchases of up to 100 megawatts of electricity generated by CFE’s Prieto Geothermal facility in Mexicali in Baja California. With the geothermal power from this agreement, the DWP is now slated to have renewable power make up 10 percent of its total power portfolio. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has set a goal of 20 percent renewable power by 2010.”
By Howard Fine, Los Angeles Business Journal Staff , LINK TO ARTICLE
This looks like it should be a really interesting event… here is the information from the event’s web page:
Presented by: Los Angeles County Bar Association; Environmental Law Section
Program Information:
The California Air Resources Board currently is drafting regulations to implement California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). As part of these efforts, CARB currently is evaluating the benefits and downsides of two options to control GHG emissions, which include a “cap-and-trade” system and a more traditional “command and control” system. The panelist for this program are experts in this area and will discuss the positive and negative aspects of both emission control programs, including how the programs will impact California’s economy while also achieving the goals of AB 32.
Speakers:
Timothy R. Grabiel, Natural Resources Defense Council
K Ryan Hiete, Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP
Robert Wyman, Latham & Watkins LLP
Location:
LACBA Conference Center, 281 S. Figueroa Street , Los Angeles
The Pacific Instutite has recently released a new study which looks at which Coastal area’s in the state are most at risk of climate change driven flooding:
Want to know what the City is up to? Well, sometimes it’s best to look at what the city is trying to buy. A couple weeks ago, the city of Los Angeles put this RFI (Request for Interest) up on their Business Assistance Virtual Network – basically, the site they post open business contracting opportunities: 