Category Archives: Politics

New Dungeness crab law protects permitted fishermen and crab habitats

By Piper Kujac | Published: September 26, 2011

Fresh Dungeness crab catch of the day

California’s Dungeness crab fishery is one of the state’s largest and most important commercial fisheries and is an economic foundation for many of California’s ports. A bill recently passed by the California Legislature, SB 369 (Evans), will cap the number of traps that individual fishermen can use. This will not only protect crab populations for generations to come, but will protect the economic viability of the fishery and the coastal communities that rely on it.

The problem is that the number of crab traps being used in the fishery escalates each season as fishermen race to catch crab. This “arms race” creates unnecessary ecological impacts and threatens the long-term economic health of the fishery. This frenzied derby effect leads to a glut of crab on the market at the beginning of the season and correspondingly depresses the value of crab. It also leads to significant safety risks as the intense pressure to compete during the initial weeks of the season can lead fishermen to go out in dangerous winter weather. This resulted in broad recognition among fishermen that trap limits are needed, but until now, agreement on what those limits should be could not be reached.

Bay Area crab fisherman preparing for the catch. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images News

To help address this problem, Environmental Defense Fund was approached by a group of crab fishermen in 2008 to help sponsor a bill (SB 1690 – Wiggins) to create the Dungeness Crab Task Force. The group was charged with developing recommendations to the Legislature to address the challenges facing the fishery, including the “arms race.” It was comprised of an elected group of diverse fishermen from all major crab ports and representing both large and small boats. The group met during 2009 and 2010 and came to consensus on the design for a trap limit in the fishery. The new law incorporates the recommendations of the Dungeness Crab Force. Fishermen are broken out into 7 “tiers” basedon how much crab they’ve landed in the past. Fishermen who have landed the most can fish with 500 traps and those who have historically landedthe least can fish with 175. The law also includes sufficient fees to cover all of the costs identified by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and was passed with bipartisan support by the Legislature. It’s supported by major fishing organizations such as the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and the Crab Boat Owners Association, as well as environmental groups such as EDF, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Let's thank Governor Brown for passing SB 369 and helping to ensure the long term biological and economic sustainability of California Dungeness crab fishery, while at the same time promoting fishermen safety at sea.

Also posted in Ecosystem Restoration, Ecosystem Services, General, Pacific Ocean | Comments closed

Clean Air Act Benefits Exceed Costs More Than 30-to-1

By Tim O'Connor | Published: March 1, 2011

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just released a report on the Clean Air Act that would make any investor proud. It shows that for every dollar spent on regulations to cut air pollution over the last 30 years, we’ve earned more than $30 in savings to go along with tremendous public health benefits.

Members of Congress have spent much of the last two months trying to roll back clean air protections. They’ve argued that the Clean Air Act is bad for the economy. This report shows otherwise. As EDF’s president Fred Krupp notes, “If anyone still doubts that America can afford to do the right thing, this report should settle the matter. Cleaner air will unquestionably improve our health, our economy, and our lives.”

California still ranks among the states with the worst air pollution. Just this week, Forbes released a list of the ten most toxic cities in America. Four of them are California cities: Bakersfield (2nd place), Fresno (3rd place), Los Angeles (6th place) and Riverside-San Bernardino (10th). Poor air quality was a major reason they qualified.

Ironically, all of those cities have improved their air quality in the last decade. The trouble is that they’ve also grown dramatically, which has only added to the number of vehicles and other sources of pollution. Can you imagine how much pollution—and lung disease—we’d have in those cities and around the country if tailpipe and power plant pollution controls had not been in place these last 30 years?

California needs the Clean Air Act for many reasons, but the economic benefits particularly stand out. An earlier peer-reviewed study found that dirty air in the Los Angeles Air Basin costs local residents nearly $22 billion a year in health costs, premature death, lost days at work and lost days at school. In the San Joaquin Valley, the annual costs amount to about $6 billion.

Think about it: that’s $28 billion in costs each and every year—nearly as much as it would take to resolve the state’s budget deficit this year.

Now add EPA’s new study showing that we get $30 worth of value on every dollar invested in clean air and another thing becomes clear: those who are working to weaken the Clean Air Act and reduce EPA’s authority are effectively selling an investment that’s returned billions of dollars to our economy.

A poll released last month by the American Lung Association found that three out of four Americans support the EPA setting tougher standards on specific air pollutants, including mercury, smog and carbon dioxide. It also found that 68 percent of voters oppose Congressional action that impedes the EPA from updating clean air standards generally and 64 percent oppose Congressional efforts to stop the EPA from updating standards on carbon dioxide. If you want to protect these economic benefits and help prevent putting tens of thousands of lives at risk, you can voice your support for the Clean Air Act and the EPA by clicking here.

Also posted in Climate | Comments closed

Attacks on Clean Air Act Threaten Healthy Air for America and California’s Environmental Leadership

By Derek Walker | Bio | Published: February 11, 2011

Would Stop Clean Cars Program, Put Pollution Reduction Goals at Risk and Threaten State’s Communities

Attacks on America’s landmark clean air law intensified on Wednesday in Washington D.C. The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Power Subcommittee held its first hearing on a draft bill to undermine the country’s Clean Air Act.

The attacks take direct aim at California’s long-standing clean cars program – vital clean air measures that have protected California’s health and environment for more than 40 years.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) — and a companion version of the bill in the Senate sponsored by Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — would strip the Environmental Protection Agency’s planned update to improve the act’s pollution limits by addressing greenhouse gases (GHG).

Among other things, the bill would:

Overturn the EPA’s independent scientific determination that greenhouse gas pollution endangers human health;
Overturn the Supreme Court’s finding affirming that the EPA has the authority and responsibility to regulate those emissions,
Block EPA’s measures to require the nation’s largest industrial emitters to deploy cost-effective pollution mitigation at the time of construction or modernization; and
Prohibit the EPA from requiring additional GHG reductions from motor vehicles and repeal California’s long-standing authority to regulate these harmful emissions.

What hasn’t been reported so far is the blow this legislative attack would have on California’s successful environmental leadership, a record that has delivered tremendous health and economic benefits to Californians and to all Americans.

Many of the folks I’ve spoken with believe that environmental attacks in D.C. won’t really impact California since we have our own air pollution limits and groundbreaking environmental standards. In this particular case, unfortunately, they’re wrong.

If this bill becomes law, California will be prohibited from limiting global warming pollution from vehicles, which accounts for nearly 40 percent of the state’s emissions. Blocking California’s ability to reduce pollution within its borders would mean:

more pollution;
less fuel efficiency in cars and trucks; and
sagging demand for innovative hybrids and electric vehicles.

This would cripple California’s ability to cut pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 as required by the state’s landmark clean energy and climate change law, AB 32. It would also mean importing more oil from unstable and unfriendly governments, and forcing California drivers to pay more at the pump.

James Goldstene, executive officer of California’s Air Resources Board (CARB), the primary agency charged with protecting the state’s air quality and overseeing implementation of AB 32 testified at yesterday’s congressional hearing. He said that California has established pollution standards for new vehicles sold in the state since the 1960s. Since the 1980s, each successive California standard has gone on to become the national standard.

“Preempting the authority for EPA to regulate the emissions of vehicles would rob this country of one of its most powerful tools not just to reduce carbon pollution, but also to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to save consumers money. And every dollar not spent on foreign oil is a dollar spent here.”

Last year, the EPA adopted the first national greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light trucks for model year 2012-2016 vehicles. These were based on California’s standards, which 13 other states had adopted. They are expected to improve fuel efficiency by about five percent annually, reduce fleet-wide greenhouse gases 21 percent by 2030 and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.

Upton’s bill “changes the manner in which motor vehicles have been regulated in the United States for 40 years” and would prohibit the EPA and California from establishing new tailpipe emissions standards and from making further revisions to the standards announced last year.

As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson noted in her testimony at the hearing, Chairman Upton’s draft bill would eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act that “saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe.”

Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the act:

saved more than 160,000 American lives;
avoided more than 100,000 hospital visits;
prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma;
enhanced American productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays; and
kept American kids healthy and in school.

According to Jackson, it also contributed to dynamic growth in our domestic clean tech industry, which in 2008, generated nearly $300 billion in revenues and $44 billion in exports.

Californians pride themselves on their state’s innovation. If we want to continue this leadership role, Upton’s bill, and other like-minded attacks, must be defeated.

EDF will continue working with our allies to protect the Clean Air Act, which an overwhelming majority of Americans and tens of thousands of businesses support–for good reason.

Also posted in Climate | Comments closed

Not the U.S. or China, but the U.S., China and the Planet

By Lori Sinsley | Bio | Published: January 21, 2011

January 21, 2011

This was originally posted by Gernot Wagner in California, International, Markets 101, Politics in EDF's Market Forces blog.

One of the pleasures of my job is having a slew of superbly qualified prospective interns knock on our doors. Yesterday, I interviewed someone who graduated at the top of his class at Renmin University in Beijing.

There have been plenty of column inches written on "China versus the US," including when it comes to green jobs and clean tech. So,

Who's going to come out ahead, China or the United States?

It took him nary a second to nail this one:

China, relatively. Both China and the U.S. in an absolute sense.

That's the textbook answer.

The atmosphere wins

China has a lot of catching up to do. Comparatively, it will clearly gain on the U.S. But trade also has advantages for both parties involved. That's why we trade in the first place.

The planet emerges as a winner as well. It doesn't care where a ton of carbon gets emitted or where it gets reduced—just that reductions happen.

If China produces cheaper solar panels, we get fewer emissions overall. The planet wins. China wins. What about the U.S.?

What about jobs?

If you are among the 800 workers in Devens, MA, who last week found out that Evergreen Solar was moving its plant to China, you will feel very differently about free trade right about now. The textbook economic answer would say that the move can still make everyone better off: compensate the losers through portions of the gains from the winners, and everybody wins once again.

This situation, of course, is the moment when you throw out your textbook and think about the full consequences.

As a result of the move, solar panels will likely become even cheaper for everyone, enabling many more to buy them. Still, the Devens 800 will not be among the people lining up to buy cheaper solar panels.

What can they do? What should the U.S. do as a matter of policy?

First, we need to realize that the rules of trade still apply. China has lots of cheap labor. It does and will continue to manufacture many products sold in the U.S. Solar panels are no different.

But that's still not a satisfying answer, nor is it the whole story—not for manufacturing itself, and not for the clean tech industry overall.

How to keep clean tech jobs in the U.S.

To get to the bottom of this, we need to look at the full supply chain for solar panels. This, of course, oversimplifies things, but we can split the entire process into three distinct buckets: inventing, producing, and installing.

Right now, the U.S. is inventing, China is producing, and it is the one installing the resulting solar panels domestically at massive scale.

The U.S. ought to do everything to make sure it keeps inventing clean tech products. That means a concerted push to fund basic research and development. But R&D subsidies alone won't do.

Many mentions of "R&D" add a second "D" for deployment. Government support can get things going, but large-scale deployment of clean technologies won't happen through subsidies alone (at least not without bankrupting the government).

So how do you get deployment up to scale?

Deployment clearly needs to be driven by demand. That's where a cap on carbon pollution, with its resulting price on carbon, comes in. A cap helps create a more level playing field for solar and other renewable energy sources relative to fossil energy and, therefore, creates the necessary demand. (There are alternatives, like simply requiring a certain percentage of power to come from solar, but none is quite as cheap and flexible as a cap.)

Made in USA?

Moreover, cheap labor and cheaper production facilities may be a decisive factor, but they are not the only reason companies consider when choosing where to locate. There are many more, but let's focus on two: intellectual property (IP) protection and being close to where the demand is.

The U.S. has a leg up on China in terms of IP protection. That's, in part, why the U.S. (still) leads on R&D. It's also a clear draw for some companies to locate their production facilities in the U.S.

Another oft-cited reason is to be close to consumers. That's once again where the importance of the second "D"—deployment—comes in. The more demand there is for solar panels in the U.S., the more companies will locate their production plants in the U.S. as well. The case of First Solar supplying panels for Wal-Mart is a prime example. (Note that this is distinct from cheaper production leading to more demand in the first place.)

In the end, though, we must also be clear that jobs will be different in the new, cleaner economy. We will need fewer gas station attendants. Many other jobs will thrive. Underlying trade forces will mean that China may well be producing many of the solar panels sold globally. Assembling, installing, and maintaining solar panels in the U.S. will require plenty of skilled labor. And none of these jobs can be exported.

California leading

With the right policies in place, the U.S. will keep inventing. It will also create thousands of jobs dedicated to deployment. China will play a major role in producing, but even there, smart environmental policy can only help.

California is taking the lead with its Million Solar Roofs initiative, creating many a job assembling, installing, and maintaining solar panels. That initiative, though, still has to be paid for by tax dollars, and it won't go on forever.

That's where the cap on carbon kicks in. California is bound to stay ahead of the rest of the U.S. with its ambitious cap-and-trade system that starts on January 1, 2012 and the resulting market signal that says that clean tech pays in the U.S. as well.

Consider the just-released Next 10 report, Many Shades of Green, that found that in the most recent observable 12-month period (January 2008 – January 2009) jobs in the green sector grew more than three times faster than total employment in California. (Of course, all of this always comes with the warning that green sector jobs are still a small fraction of total jobs—much like IT jobs were a minuscule part of overall employment in the early 1980s.)

One of our internship spot may well end up going to a Chinese student, but that, too, can only be good for the planet—making a small contribution to help train the next generation of Chinese environmental leaders. And rest assured, there are plenty more open job positions (including one for a post-doc working with our economic team, open to anyone with a Princeton affiliation).

Also posted in Clean Energy | Comments closed

Brown Brings Life and Hope to Transit Funding

By Lori Sinsley | Bio | Published: January 12, 2011

This piece was originally posted in EDF's Way2Go blog and was written by Kathryn Phillips.

The last two years have been grim ones around the country for transit agencies. The economy’s slide has meant cuts in funding for drivers, managers and mechanics, and that’s generally meant cuts in service.

California’s transit agencies have been especially hard hit. As the state’s deficit grew bigger and bigger (it’s higher than $27 billion today), the legislature and then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger began digging into state funds designated for transit to fund other essential services. The battles that erupted and the maneuvers to protect transit that evolved as a result were complex enough that only a 19^th-Century Russian novelist could do the tale justice.

This week California’s newly inaugurated governor, Jerry Brown, began restoring life to transit and California’s transit users. He unveiled his 2011-2012 budget proposal and it includes a boost in transit funding. As one transit official suggested, it will help stop the bleeding.

The word on the street has been that this governor gets it about transit. He gets that good transit is essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and health-threatening air pollution, to get people to work and school, to reduce traffic congestion and make daily travel more reliable.

There were many reasons to believe this might be true. Throughout his career—two other terms as governor, two terms as mayor of Oakland, a term as attorney general—Brown has demonstrated that he thinks Californians need to be creative and smart about how we deal with transportation demand. Still, until that first budget came out, there was only hope.

The governor’s budget proposal now has some hurdles to clear. It now goes to the legislature where there will be hearings and debate and more debate, leadership meetings, and finally a series of legislative votes.

If it clears these hurdles, the proposal won’t totally solve the transit funding crisis in this state. However, it will help restore and maintain some service, and it settles the Capitol feuding over whether the state should even contribute to transit operations funding. With that settled, Californians can start the real conversation about how to pay for the level of transit Californians need.

Posted in Politics | Comments closed

New Energy in Sacramento: Jerry Brown Takes Office

By Wade Crowfoot | Published: January 4, 2011

Movers and shakers from throughout the State descended on Sacramento yesterday to see Jerry Brown become California’s 39^th Governor. You could feel the excitement in the long line that snaked around K Street into the Sacramento Memorial Auditorium for his inauguration.

Our new Governor didn’t disappoint. His 16-minute inaugural speech was energetic and frank. He provided a brutally honest assessment of our broken political process and told an uplifting story about his wife’s ancestors, a courageous lineage of pioneers who settled in California.

Brown speech—to no one’s surprise—centered on the budget. He spoke passionately about the need to transcend Sacramento’s partisan political culture and stop using “delay and denial” when making tough budget choices.

He laid out three principles for his budget proposal:

Speak the truth on budget challenges
No new taxes without the vote of the people
Bring authority closer to the people (aka “realigning” core government responsibilities to local governments)

In a speech that didn’t delve into specifics, it’s notable that Brown singled out clean energy policy as a great economic opportunity for California. Expanding investment in cleaner energy, he said, can help lead us out of the state’s 10^th recession since World War II.

He mentioned one of the boldest pieces of his campaign’s energy platform: generating 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy— enough electricity to power 15 million homes. Brown said that “sensible and bold decisions” were needed to reach this audacious goal and that we have to focus on the right “laws and rules” to meet it.

Brown’s priority on clean energy reflects a strong mandate voiced by voters, state leaders and private-sector investors:

In soundly rejecting the Dirty Energy Proposition (Prop 23) two months ago, voters reaffirmed their support for California’s approach to securing a clean energy future, improving air quality, creating jobs and competing in the next industrial revolution, a global market that is estimated to be valued at $8 trillion.
Leaders in the Assembly and Senate have strong track records as clean energy champions and are eager to advance energy solutions.
The private sector sees the potential of clean energy: $10 billion in clean tech funding has flowed into California since AB 32 passed in 2006—almost half of all domestic clean energy investments.

Governor Brown’s leadership—combined with these factors—opens a great window of opportunity for California to break new ground in energy. To paraphrase a 1980s one-hit-wonder, “the future’s so bright (for California clean energy), you gotta wear shades.”

This post originally appeared in the SF Chronicle's City Brights blog.

Also posted in Clean Energy | Comments closed

California Clean Tech Leadership: A Success Story under Siege

By Derek Walker | Bio | Published: September 28, 2010

If there was a public policy that could create jobs, reduce our dependence on oil, save individuals and businesses money on their energy bills and reduce pollution, would you support it?

Well, there is and you can: California’s clean energy policy.

While most states in the U.S. have passed policies to grow their clean energy sectors, California has easily been the most visionary. Who wouldn’t want to be America’s leader in this booming global market? States across the country are looking to supplant California as the leader in this growing new economy.

The capstone of California’s approach is its landmark climate policy—AB 32—that has delivered to it the lion’s share of economic rewards in the form of business investment and energy-related financial savings.

That is the finding of a new report released this week by the Cleantech Group, California in Perspective: A Review of State Energy Policies and Their Impact on High Growth Cleantech Markets.

Here are the CliffsNotes:

In the four years since AB 32 passed, California has distinguished itself as the domestic market leader in clean tech, a global industry that is expected to grow from $10 billion this year to $80 billion in 2020.
Since 2006, California clean tech companies have reaped 40% of all dollars that went into market categories related to AB 32: renewable energy; energy efficiency; cleaner vehicles and low-carbon transportation fuels.

The report concludes that, ‘If California’s clean energy policies remain in place, we can assume that leading venture-backed states like California will receive an outsized portion of market share in these large clean energy markets going forward to 2020.’

All of this will be at risk if Prop 23 passes in November. Prop 23 is backed by two Texas-based oil companies that are spending millions to kill California’s clean energy and clean air standards so that they can continue polluting, kill competition and jobs from our clean tech companies and keep us addicted to dirty fossil fuels.

To ensure we maintain and increase our market leadership—and deliver a higher quality of life to those who live and work here—California voters should vote 'no' on Prop 23 and support clean energy and air policies that benefit not only our economy but our environment as well.

Also posted in Climate | Comments closed

California’s Climate War: Far From Quiet on the Western Front

By Derek Walker | Bio | Published: September 27, 2010

Federal climate legislation is on the shelf for at least this year, making California’s AB 32 the most significant U.S. effort to cut global warming pollution.

This means polluters—especially oil and coal companies that have been fighting clean energy for years—are spending millions to derail it.

We’ve been seeing this for decades in Washington and in international venues. Few have a keener or more insightful perspective on this history than Eric Pooley, who will be in Sacramento tomorrow to discuss his acclaimed new book The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers and the Fight to Save the Earth.

Pooley’s book takes readers on a multi-year journey on the front lines with climate warriors such as EDF’s Fred Krupp, former Vice President Al Gore and the sometimes edgy, always enigmatic CEO of Duke Energy, Jim Rogers.

The story is as tantalizing as it is timely: Californians head to the polls in five weeks to vote on Proposition 23, the polluter-funded initiative to suspend AB 32. The initiative’s main backers—Valero, Tesoro and the billionaire Koch Brothers—known as the Toxic Triplets, were dealt a big blow last week when gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman came out and opposed it. Still, these deep-pocketed polluters will spend millions on ads between now and Election Day to try and win this war.

Eric will read from and discuss The Climate War tomorrow from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. at a breakfast co-sponsored by EDF and the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT) at CEERT’s office, 1100 11^th Street, Suite 311, in Sacramento. For information or to RSVP, please contact me at dbwalker@edf.org.

Pooley will also be the special guest speaker at a California Air Resources Board event later tomorrow.

Also posted in Climate | Comments closed

Taking Climate Change Personally

By Wade Crowfoot | Published: September 10, 2010

As summer turns to fall, it’s a good time to take stock of recent efforts on clean energy policy. A lot happened this summer: The Gulf Coast oil spill was finally capped and serious talk occurred in Washington, D.C. about moving the U.S. away from dependence on oil. Unfortunately, little came of this conversation. Climate and clean energy legislation stalled in the Senate and meanwhile, an attack on California’s clean energy law called Prop 23 will be on the November ballot.

Amidst these political challenges in Sacramento and DC, I thought I’d lighten it up a little by reminding us how we can take action in our own lives to reduce our oil dependence. Simple personal actions we can take: No congressman to convince, no legislation to support.

With the help of my favorite green guru Mindy Pennybacker, below are ten every day actions you can you can take to shrink your oil footprint while getting outside to enjoy the warm fall weather.

‘Wait’ you say? Can individuals really make a difference on these issues? The answer: Yes! Our collective consumer muscle, which according to Mindy represents 70% of the U.S. economy, matters now more than ever in redirecting the marketplace toward energy and products that rely less on fossil fuels.

Mindy’s new book, Do One Green Thing: Saving the Earth Through Simple, Everyday Choices offers a number of great tips we can use in every day life to protect the Golden State.

Below are the top ten things you can do for the environment today. Starting from #10…

10. Say no to bottled water and non-recyclable plastics.
If every American stopped buying water in disposable bottles and used free water from the tap, we'd save at least 17 million barrels of oil a year. That's equivalent to taking one million cars off the road. And certainly we can do our part to reduce the great Pacific Ocean garbage patch. For a list of safer reusable plastics, click here.

9. Use compost and organic fertilizers in your garden.
Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, made from fossil fuels, overload the soil with nutrients. These nutrients run off into waterways and out to sea, polluting groundwater supplies and stimulating the growth of algae which causes oxygen-depleted dead zones in the ocean. Use natural composts when possible and while you’re at it, complete the composting cycle by putting your food scraps into the green composting bin. More than 200 vineyards and farms in Northern California now use compost from San Francisco instead of man-made fertilizers.

8. Use green cleaning and personal care products.
Many conventional detergents, liquid soaps and shampoos contain chemicals that harm reproductive development in marine life–and may impact human hormones, too. Keep toxins out of the gay by using one of the many cleaning and cosmetic brands that steer clear of these and other toxic tongue-twisters.

7. Use a nontoxic sunblock.
Headed out for an afternoon in Golden Gate Park or the Oakland hills? Don’t forget safe sunscreen. A widely used sunscreen chemical, known as oxybenzone, has been linked to harming fish and coral. BP-3 is also a suspected human hormone disrupter that's been found in 97 percent of Americans tested by the Centers for Disease Control.

6. Reduce runoff when washing your car.
For those of us who have driveways, keep soapy, greasy water out of storm drains by washing your cars on flat surfaces instead of sloped driveways and use porous materials like gravel and pebbles for terraces, driveways, and paths. For car-less BART and Muni riders (you guys are a step ahead!), conserve clean water by taking shorter showers and turning off the tap while sudsing, shaving and brushing teeth.

5. Drive alone less, use public transportation, carpool, bike & walk more.
Not only are these methods of transport environmentally friendly, they are much cheaper ways of getting around. Casual Carpool is a great way to get around the Bay Area especially if you don’t live near public transportation hubs. “If enough people reduce driving or switch to more energy-efficient vehicles, gasoline demand would decline and prices would decrease," the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports. Its basic economics: reduced demand results in reduced production.

4. Properly inflate your tires.
Believe it or not, low tire pressure wastes over two million gallons of gasoline in the US—every day! Save about a tank of gas a year by keeping your tires properly inflated. And make sure to have your tires correctly aligned to maximize fuel economy.

3. Use propane/gas or natural charcoal to fire up the grill.
Every July 4^th, our 60 million U.S. barbecues emit 225,000 metric tons of CO2. Use propane and gas tanks that release the least carbon when burned. Get rid of toxic charcoal that spews soot—cook with solid charcoal from well-managed forests instead of toxic-glue-bound briquettes (never dump these on a beach!). The EPA advises a chimney or electric starter instead of lighter fluids, which produce 14,500 tons of smog. Next time you’re headed to Crissy Field for a BBQ, make sure you grab clean charcoal!

2. Turn off lights and avoid air conditioning.
Incandescent light bulbs waste 90% of their energy as heat. Even CFLs waste 30%, so turn off unnecessary lights to keep your space cooler. For those rare, toasty days when you use air conditioning in the Bay Area, turn the temperature up a bit. Air conditioning represents 21% of annual home electricity consumption. A shift from 72°F to 74°F in the summer will save 366 pounds of CO2/year and $28 on the average annual energy bill.

1. Most importantly, join other Californians to TAKE ACTION. Two Texas oil companies are trying to kill clean energy and air pollution standards in California by killing our landmark law AB32. The oilies have put Prop. 23 on the November ballot, which will allow polluters to avoid our state's clean energy standards, kill competition and jobs from California's emerging clean technology companies, and keep us addicted to dirty, costly oil.

Join the NO on Prop 23 campaign and fight to keep California’s landmark clean energy policy moving us forward.

Also posted in Clean Energy, Climate, General, Pacific Ocean | Comments closed

Oil companies saying greenhouse gases are not ‘pollution’ = cigarette companies denying health impacts of smoking

By Wade Crowfoot | Published: September 1, 2010

As the world experiences the hottest year on record, the oil companies backing Prop 23 are arguing that carbon dioxide (CO₂)—the main greenhouse gas causing climate change—is not pollution. Rather, they say, it is merely an “emission.”

Really? Do they think that California voters will be duped that easily? In a campaign full of misrepresentation, this whopper of a lie stands out.

This double-talk reminds me of the slick mid-century ad campaigns by tobacco companies—featured in the current TV hit Mad Men—that convinced generations of smokers that tobacco brought no health risk.

Consider this straightforward definition of pollution: “the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.” There’s no doubt that CO₂fits this definition and our basic understanding of the term “pollution.” Of course, the oil industry uses “emissions” because it’s a scientific term that isn’t as easily understood as “pollution.” When the truth is ugly, there’s a tendency to dress it up with fancy words and confusing descriptions.

Numerous studies show that CO₂ does indeed have direct and local health impacts. The latest research was done by Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson, who I was with on a panel yesterday at this year’s CAPCOA Climate Forum.

Jacobson studied the local health effects of “CO₂domes” that form over cities. He found that these domes could increase urban smog and other air pollution problems, an effect that could cause the premature deaths of 50 to 100 people a year in California and 300 to 1,000 in the continental United States.

These findings make the case for reducing CO₂emissions at the local level, which is exactly what California is doing through various clean energy and clean air policies, including AB 32.

It’s also undeniable that AB 32 measures—which will increase energy efficiency and our use of solar and wind energy—will reduce the need for coal plants that create air pollution that costs Americans billions of dollars every year in health care and lost productivity.

California already has some of the most polluted air in the country with more than 91% of residents living in counties that got failing grades in air quality.

Prop 23 is backed by two of California’s—and this country’s—largest polluters. California voters are smart. They know that a vote against Proposition 23 is a vote for cleaner air and a healthier environment.

Also posted in California Elections, Clean Energy, Climate | Comments closed