How We Get There Matters

When it comes to global warming, writes Brent Garnder Smith, Aspen is probably not as green as it thinks it is.

And it is certainly not as green as it should be.

Smith was writing about the ideas presented at the Aspen Ideas Festival by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

“There is a saying at the Pentagon that a vision without resources is a hallucination,” Friedman said. “And I think right now we are in the middle of a big green hallucination.”

“We’re talking about preventing the doubling of CO in the atmosphere from the pre-industrial age to the year 2050,” he said. To do that, Friedman said, “We have to conserve as much energy as we’re now using as a world.”

Friedman said one way to move forward on the vast scale required to meet that goal is to change the definition of the word “green.” “So I’ve been trying to redefine green as the most capitalistic, patriotic, geo-strategic, pro-American, pro-growth, future-oriented thing you can do, be or say.”

But he said, “Green has not gone down Main Street at all at the scale we need. Not even close.”

And so while Aspen has gotten a lot of positive press coverage for its efforts to combat global warming, Friedman’s speech begs for a reassessment of the community’s efforts.

Read the full article . . .

Neal Pearce highlights the posiblities for cycle tracks in U.S. cities in his  July 8 article.   Such infrastructure could address a number of growing concerns from climate change to obesity.  As he writes,

Cycle tracks are actually a separated part of the roadway yet distinct from the roadway, distinct from the sidewalk. In their purest form — Odense, Denmark, where 50 percent of all city journeys are by bicycle — the paths even have their own traffic signals.

What actually separates the cycle track? It can be a long, narrow curb. Or a line of cones or concrete barriers. Or metal stanchions. Or a line of trees and other vegetation (an on-street greenway).

Another solution, tried on relatively wide streets in Bogota, Paris, London and elsewhere, is to move the parking lane several feet from the sidewalk, creating a new lane for cyclists between the sidewalk and parked cars. Brooklyn-based bicycle advocate/blogger Aaron Naparstek has an excellent online video celebrating that solution (www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/).

Read the full article . . .

“Green is the new red, white and blue.”

From solar power to biofuel, state is way ahead of federal government. Read full article by John Larson, NBC News Correspondent  April 2, 2007

Spurred by a Supreme Court ruling this week, environmental activists are stepping up pressure on carmakers to cut down on CO2 emissions. Will Detroit get the message? Backstage at the auto show. Read full Newsweek article by Keith Naughton

The world’s scientists are telling us with increasing confidence that the costs of doing nothing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions will be far greater than the costs of acting now. Read full editorial.

Role of vehicle emissions in global warming take center stage in Supreme Court case:

A dozen states, large cities argue that emissions need to be regulated

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming.

A dozen states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles.

Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. It is the principal “greenhouse” gas that many scientists believe is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, leading to a warming of the earth and widespread ecological changes. One way to reduce those emissions is to have cleaner-burning cars.

The Bush administration intends to argue before the court on Wednesday that the EPA lacks the power under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The agency contends that even if it did have such authority, it would have discretion under the law on how to address the problem without imposing emissions controls.

The states, led by Massachusetts, and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970 law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant — much like lead and smog-causing chemicals — that is subject to regulation because its poses a threat to public health.

A sharply divided federal appeals court ruled in favor of the government in 2005. But last June, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case, plunging for the first time into the politically charged debate over global warming. The ruling next year is expected to be one of the court’s most important ever involving the environment.

“Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time and the decision by the court on this case will make a deep and lasting impact for generations to come,” says Massachusetts’ attorney general, Thomas Reilly.

David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the Sierra Club, says a legal clarification of the EPA’s authority could determine whether the current administration must regulate carbon dioxide emissions and whether a future one will be able to demand such limits.

At issue for now is pollution from automobiles. But the ruling indirectly may affect how the agency deals with carbon dioxide that comes from electric power plants.

In a separate lawsuit, the EPA says the Clean Air Act also prevents it from regulating such emissions from those plants. That claim would be undercut, Bookbinder says, if the high court rules in the states’ favor in the auto emissions case.

President Bush has rejected calls to regulate carbon dioxide. He favors voluntary steps by industry and development of new technologies to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

“We still have very strong reservations about an overarching, one-size-fits-all mandate about carbon,” James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, recently told a group of reporters.

The administration says in court papers the EPA should not be required to “embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions” when other ways are available to tackle climate change.

The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of carbon dioxide from U.S. motor vehicles, power plants and other industry has increased on average by about 1 percent a year since 1990.

Now that Democrats will control the House and Senate in January after their election victories this month, there is expected to be increased pressure in Congress for mandatory limits on carbon emissions.

The election results “have signaled a need to change direction” on dealing with global warming, three Democratic senators who will play leading roles on environmental issues recently wrote the president.

But whether there is such a shift actually may depend, in the end, on the Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs in the suit are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. They were joined by cities such as Baltimore, New York and the District of Columbia; the Pacific island of America Samoa; the Sierra Club; the Union of Concerned Scientists; Greenpeace; and Friends of the Earth.

The case is Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15909008/

As a coastal area, San Francisco is sensitive to reports that climate change from greenhouse gases would raise ocean levels and inundate parts of the region.  Since new report, Climate Change and the Bay Area shows that half of all greenhouse gas emmissions come from private automobiles, planners are working on mixed-use, transit oriented development to reduce the need for cars.  As Edward Carpenter writes, 

With the average Bay Area resident spewing about 12 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a year, the move toward transit-centered development is the only logical choice to cut traffic congestion and tackle global warming, according to transit experts.

Not only could high-density housing development encourage more walking, biking and transit use, it could help the state reach its ambitious goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 25 percent, to 1990 levels by 2020, said Ted Droettboom, regional planning director for a joint committee on smart growth.

“Smart growth is going to play one huge part in reducing greenhouse gases,” Droettboom told members of the Joint Policy Committee on Friday.

And while transit-oriented development is not a silver bullet, convincing drivers to give up their cars addresses, head-on, the largest source of greenhouse gases in the Bay Area and California, James Corless of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission said. An estimated 50 percent of all greenhouses gases in the Bay Area — more than twice that from local industry — comes from personal vehicles, a new study on “Climate Change and the Bay Area” shows.

“We’ve got a really tough task ahead of us,” Droettboom told committee members. He warned of an impending crisis in which wildfires increase 55 percent and ocean levels rise, submerging the San Francisco and Oakland airports by the year 2099.

As a first step to getting a grip on the problem, the Joint Policy Committee voted unanimously Friday to move forward with a comprehensive analysis of what traffic and Bay conservation agencies as well as local governments need to do to begin reducing greenhouse gases. Warning there is no time to lose and adopting the state’s 25 percent reduction model as a goal, the analysis is expected to be complete in six months, Droettboom said.

The City of Boulder and the Town of Carbondale may be on opposite sides of Colorado’s Continental Divide, but they are on the same page when it comes to increasing the use of renewable energy and addressing climate change.
Voters in both communities approved tax and debt questions to implement their respective Community Energy Plans.

In Boulder, voters approved ( 59% to 41%) an “energy use tax” on electricity use by residential and business customers of Xcel Energy.

According to estimates, homeowners will pay an average of $33 a year, businesses $37 a year and industrial customers $2,832. The tax would raise$ 5.5 million over five years and pay for efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Boulder.

The city has voluntarily agreed to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, which would require cutting the city`s emissions by 24 percent by 2012.

In Carbondale, voters approved the issuance (by a 4 to 1) of up to $1.8 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) to construct and operate two large-scale solar systems. The proposed systems would provide about 250 kilowatts (KW) of power. One of the systems would be the largest solar system in western Colorado.

“It’s great to have interest-free money at the municipal level, so we applied,” said Joani Matranga, an architect of the project and the ballot question, which takes advantage of a provision tucked into the federal Energy Policy Act that encourages renewable energy investment by rural electric cooperatives, cities and towns.

The Internal Revenue Service pays the interest with tax credits to buyers of the bonds. Xcel Energy, prodded by requirements of Amendment 37 (passed by Colorado voters in 2004), will help pay the principle on the bonds with incentives and rebates based on energy production.

Read the full article by Marilyn Gleason . . .

Apparently, the sales taxes started in a similar way. One commuity adopted it and now it is just about everywhere - except the national level. Could a similar future hold for a carbon tax?

By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY

DENVER — Voters in Boulder, Colo., will decide Tuesday whether the city will become the first in the nation to impose a “carbon tax” on homeowners and businesses to fund efforts to reduce emissions that cause global warming.

If approved, the ballot measure would tax electricity usage and add about $16-$20 a year to the average residential electric bill. Businesses would pay an additional $46 a year on average, and industries an extra $3,226, according to Yael Gichon of Boulder’s environmental affairs office. The tax could raise $860,000 in the first year.

Gichon and Matt Baker, director of Environment Colorado, a Denver-based environmental group, say that if the measure passes, it will mark the first time a U.S. city has voted in favor of a carbon tax to combat global warming.

The levy is called a carbon tax because most electricity in the USA is produced by burning coal and natural gas, which emit carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.

Climate Smart, a local group that supports the tax, estimates the average monthly residential electric bill of $63 would increase $1.38, or 2.2%. A medium-size office building would rise $33, or 0.6%.

Boulder, one of the state’s most liberal communities, has a long history of environmental activism, such as preserving open space, recycling and encouraging use of public transit. The town of about 92,000 residents is home to the University of Colorado and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “We have probably more climate scientists living in Boulder than any other city in the world,” Mayor Mark Ruzzin says.

The City Council authorized the ballot measure to fund a city plan to reduce greenhouse emissions 7% below 1990 levels. To accomplish that, Boulder would have to cut emissions 24% by 2012. About half of the city’s emissions are attributed to burning fossil fuels for electricity.

Four years ago, the city adopted emission targets set by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement the United States has not ratified, to reduce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

“There is a strong environmental ethic in Boulder,” Ruzzin says. “People are looking to do the right thing, and the climate action plan gets us down that road.”

No group has organized in the city to oppose the tax measure, and even the Boulder Chamber of Commerce has endorsed it. Climate Smart expects to spend about $8,000 on yard signs and “a few newspaper ads,” volunteer Ken Regelson says.

Gichon says the tax would fund efforts to increase energy efficiency, spur the use of renewable energy such as wind and solar power, and encourage residents to drive less. The tax also would fund city-sponsored energy audits for residences, and educational programs on utility-sponsored rebates for installing energy-efficient appliances, light fixtures and insulation.

Many states have mandated special charges on electric bills to fund energy-efficiency and renewable-energy programs. And some city-owned utilities, including Fort Collins, Colo., have raised rates to pay for renewable-energy programs.