Earth Share of Washington

Have YOU ratified the Kyoto Protocol?

_By Alan Durning, Executive Director of Northwest Environment Watch, originally published in the Cascadia Scorecard Weblog

On Wednesday, February 16, the Kyoto Protocol will come into effect, mandating participating nations to reduce their emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases. Canada has ratified Kyoto. The United States has not.

Have you?

Not literally, of course. Individuals can’t sign international treaties. They can, however, pledge to match its goals (summarized by World Resources Institute): a reduction of emissions in the United States to 7 percent below—and in Canada to 6 percent below—the 1990 level by 2008-2012.

Fifteen Cascadian localities have signaled their intent to follow or approximate Kyoto, as you can see in this list maintained by the International Center for Local Environmental Initiatives. (Overall, unfortunately, Cascadia’s CO2 emissions have climbed by about 19 percent since 1990, as we documented in This Place on Earth 2002.

Inspired by this leadership, I decided to make the pledge myself. A few days ago, I solemnly swore—OK, not so solemnly, but I did swear—I would reduce my family’s emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases by at least 7 percent below our 1990 level.

Climate change is mostly a systems issue, not a personal one. I can’t change my utility’s power plant from coal to wind. I can’t install hybrid-electric engines in all the world’s new motor vehicles. I can’t enact a global cap-and-trade system or a national carbon tax. To see such systemic changes, we need business and government to develop policies and practice that will carry us to the Kyoto goal.

But personal action is at least a small part of the puzzle. And aligning our lifestyles with our values is never a bad idea. So, yes, pledging Kyoto may be mostly symbolic, but so are wedding rings, battle flags, and flaming crosses. Symbols are powerful.

The swearing was the fun part. It made me feel good. The hard part came next: figuring out how I was doing on my pledge. That part proved mind-boggling at first, but I hope it won’t be for you if you decide to follow suit.

Among the half-dozen personal greenhouse-gas-emissions calculators available online (for example, Environment Canada’s list), the best seems to be Safe Climate, maintained by the World Resources Institute. It allowed me to make estimates of emissions from home energy use and car and airplane travel.

But first, along the way, it raised lots of confusing and, in some cases, imponderable questions. How do you tally children? Since 1990, my wife Amy and I have adopted one and given birth to two. Should we count the aggregate emissions of the family? Or should we tally per-capita emissions, since the two births simply replace us? (I decided to make the challenge hard by tallying the entire family’s emissions: the two of us in 1990, the five of us today. So Kyoto’s 7 percent goal turns into a per-capita emissions reduction of 63 percent!)

What about local climate? In 1990, we lived in Washington, DC, where the summer heat is intense and winters are moderately cold, requiring both air conditioning and a fair bit of heat. Now, we live in Seattle, where air conditioning is unnecessary and winters are mild. Do we get credit for the resulting energy savings or not? (I decided just to tally emissions resulting from our home energy use, regardless of climate. Doing otherwise would be too complicated. In fact, I probably couldn’t do the math.)

And topography? The wet, mountainous Northwest is a natural for hydropower, and Seattle City Light is overwhelmingly a hydro utility—which gives our 2004 selves an advantage. But our utility in 1990 had, by virtue of topography and climate, virtually no access to hydro and relied instead on coal, nuclear, and natural gas plants. (Again, I decided just to tally household emissions from home energy use.)

What about phase-of-life changes? In 1990, we lived comfortably in a 700 square foot apartment and drove a new-ish compact car that went 36 miles per gallon. Today, with three kids, we live in a four-bedroom, 1,700-square-foot house and drive an old station wagon that goes 25 miles per gallon. There’s no such thing as a four-bedroom apartment in the Seattle housing market, so we have to live in a single-family home—which means more energy use per square foot. Should we be penalized for being in the child-rearing phase of life? (I decided to penalize us. It may not be fair, but it makes the challenge real and keeps the calculations simple.)

And what about work-related air travel? Include it or exclude it? In 1990, my work at Worldwatch Institute took me to England, Sweden, and Nigeria, plus a number of American cities. In 2004, my work keeps me within Cascadia and I rarely have to fly. (I decided to include work-related air travel. I had a lot of discretion over my travels in 1990, and Amy and I made a conscious decision to travel less and settle our lives down, as I detailed in This Place on Earth.)

Based on these decisions (and some rough estimates of our energy use in 1990), here’s what Safe Climate told me. In 1990, we caused an amount of emissions in the average range for Americans: together, we released 48,500 pounds of carbon dioxide through our home energy use and travel. The overwhelming majority of these emissions were from transportation: more than half of the total came from airplane trips; more came from Amy’s commute to her suburban teaching job.

And in 2004? Surely, with five instead of two people, 2.5 times the living space, and a bigger car, our emissions must have soared. To my astonishment—and initial disbelief—Safe Climate calculates our 2004 emissions at 30,600 pounds, an overall reduction of 37 percent from 1990 and a per-capita reduction of a whopping 75 percent. Our per-person emissions are now about one third of the US average and roughly equal to the European average.

I found this heartening but also, oddly, a bit of a letdown. Where’s the thrill in making an ambitious pledge only to discover you don’t have to do anything to fulfill it? Besides, I found myself wondering if there was some statistical fluke that gave us this victory for false reasons. So I triple checked the numbers, ran various alternative scenarios, and disaggregated them.

I learned that simply by moving from coal-powered Washington, DC, to hydro-powered Seattle (where the public utility Seattle City Light has now committed to releasing zero net emissions of greenhouse gases), we trimmed 12,500 pounds of CO2 (one quarter of the total) from our tally. If we had lived the same lifestyle in 1990 but it had been in Seattle, our reduction over the period would have been 15 percent, not 37 percent.

In addition to moving to a clean-power city, three steps brought our overall emissions down so much. First, we decided to travel the world less. Many years go by without getting on an airplane, although we are not doctrinaire about it. In 2004, we actually had a fairly heavy travel year: we logged some 25,000 air miles among the five of us—most of it on a trip to Boston to visit family and friends. In 1990, in contrast, the two of us clocked some 42,000 miles in flight, which was not a big number for those years.

Second, we chose our home based on its proximity to schools, shops, work, and transit lines. Amy works literally across the street from our house, at the same school that two of our kids attend. This move has cut our annual driving from 12,000 miles in 1990 to 8,000 miles today—almost low enough that we could make do with FlexCar alone.

Third, in 2001, we completed a comprehensive green remodel of our house. It’s now very frugal in its use of energy, with lots of insulation, heat-trapping windows, a superefficient heat/hot-water system, compact fluorescents in almost every socket, and other features about which I tend to wax poetic. (My wife warns visitors against expressing any interest in the GFX waste-heat recovery system on our main sewer line unless they have a lot of time on their hands.)

Before 2001, our home energy use was substantially higher. We now average 14 kilowatt-hours of electricity and 1.7 therms of natural gas per day. I’m proud of these numbers considering the fact that the house has people in it most of the time and that my kids have reached the age where they all enjoy hot showers.

Now, the inevitable caveats. There are some quirks in counting greenhouse gas emissions that make counting emissions vexing.

One example: Sometimes you have to spend carbon to save carbon. My family intentionally does all our heating—space, water, cooking, clothes dryer, everything but the oven and the microwave—with natural gas, even though burning it emits CO2 and heating with Seattle City Light (SCL) electricity would be climate neutral. But heating with electricity is thermodynamically inefficient (I know, Clark, except with a heat pump) and every watt of SCL electricity that my family doesn’t use gets sold on the Western electricity grid, where it offsets production of other electricity from either coal or natural gas. So, by burning natural gas efficiently ourselves at home, we prevent a much larger release of greenhouse gases somewhere else. In that sense, our home energy emissions are an overstatement of our net effect on climate.

Another example: about 60 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions come from things other than personal transportation and residential energy use. (Think of all those factories, farms, offices, stores, freight trucks, and military jets busily pumping out CO2.) So tallies of personal emissions from Safe Climate leave out more than they include. What I buy and do effects these other emissions, but there’s no practical way to count the effects. In some cases, pushing up your Safe Climate tally may even push down your true emissions total: for example, driving to a nearby store may generate fewer net emissions than ordering something for express delivery from a distant warehouse. But only emissions from the former option show up on your Safe Climate tab.

My advice: keep such things in mind but never let the accounting get in the way of the goal. And don’t let personal action take precedence over systemic action which, ultimately, is the only sufficient response to climate change.

For me, personally, I’m glad to know I’ve already met the Kyoto pledge. And I’m glad to know it was pretty easy to do, given a long period during which to shift into the big decisions like where to live. If it’s easy for me, it couldn’t be that hard for entire nations, given their vaster resources.

And I’m pondering how to go farther. I know lots of additional steps I can take: little things like installing a “soap-up” valve in our second bathroom shower; mid-size things like replacing the four remaining single-pane windows in our house; and big things, like buying a hybrid car, once one comes along that’s big enough for a family of five.

But, while I strive to keep trimming my emissions, for now, I’m content simply to be counted among those who have ratified Kyoto. When the protocol takes effect on February 16, it will cover nations that are home to 68 percent of the world’s people. That’s 4.4 billion out of 6.5 billion.

With my family, make that 4.4 billion and five. Care to join us?

Originally posted February 09, 2005 in Northwest Environmental News

Lack of snow may take toll

Many of the 500 or so workers at Stevens Pass ski area have been idled from an acute lack of snow. Some are still collecting pay checks; many have gone on vacation to ski or snowboard. Matt Gormley cruises along the top of the pipe that is desperately in need of more snow.

Balmy weather that has stripped the Cascades of its customary winter cloak of snow could take a toll on apples, salmon and more than a million water consumers by summer.

State climatologist Philip Mote yesterday warned that most basins in the mountain range have a snowpack just 20 percent to 30 percent of average. In more than half of areas measured, the January snowpack is lower than it has been in 28 years, he said.

Mote said that at one high-altitude monitoring station near Glacier Peak, the temperature last week was 20 degrees above average and that snow is melting at 6,200 feet -- something he doesn't remember ever seeing midseason.

"We are in a pretty deep hole, and the chances of recovering are pretty slim," Mote said. "It can be done. But it's like being 20-0 down halfway through a football game."

Should the trend continue, it could lead to a summer of reduced river flows, irrigation rationing in parts of Eastern Washington and low water levels in reservoirs that slake the thirst of Seattle-area consumers.

Continue reading this story from the Seattle Times:
Lack of snow may take toll

Originally posted January 27, 2005 in Northwest Environmental News

Strict car emission rules look likely

Dealers protest, but California limits have legislators' support

OLYMPIA -- Washington is likely to join California and six other states in adopting tighter vehicle emissions standards, despite protests from auto dealers.

The proposal, which is drawing strong support in the Legislature, would require the state to adopt the tougher regulations starting in 2009. By 2016, all new cars sold in Washington would have to comply with the new standards, with proponents claiming that emissions would be reduced by 30 percent.

The rules would apply only to cars and light duty trucks.

The federal Clean Air Act allows states either to adopt the 1990 federal emissions standards or follow California's more stringent policy, adopted in September. Adopting California's standards would require that new cars emit 30 percent less carbon dioxide, 20 percent fewer toxic pollutants, and 15 to 20 percent fewer smog-causing pollutants as measured against the federal standards.

Greenhouse gases from car emissions are a major contributor to air pollution and are thought to be a major factor in global warming.

Washington auto dealers and other opponents of House Bill 1397 say the stricter standards would require costlier emissions systems, making cars more expensive and resulting in lost business for auto dealers.

"We intend to be a positive player in the discussions, and we applaud the efforts to fix this ... but we have raised serious concerns about how this legislation will work," said Vicki Giles Fabré, executive vice president for the Washington Auto Dealers Association, representing 337 dealers across the state.

Former Gov. Gary Locke introduced the proposal in December, and now Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, is sponsoring the legislation.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has not endorsed Locke's proposal, and a spokeswoman said the governor wouldn't comment until the Legislature approves a bill.

In the early weeks of the legislative session, the proposal appears to have bipartisan support, with 30 Democrats and 10 Republicans signing on as co-sponsors, including House and Senate leaders and members of key environmental and transportation committees.

Giles Fabré said auto dealers understand the contribution of cars and trucks to pollution, but she argued that the proposed standards aren't reasonable. She said auto dealers are poised to sit down with legislators and discuss the specifics of the bill and the standards.

Murray and other supporters cite cleaner-burning engines that would get better gas mileage, lowering the overall costs of owning the vehicles. "I also think that by the time (the tighter standards) will be enacted in 2009, this won't be expensive," Murray said.

Continue reading this story from the Seattle P-I:
Strict car emission rules look likely

Originally posted January 24, 2005 in Northwest Environmental News

A Northwest Bright Green Hodge-Podge

This article is courtesy of author Alex Steffen at WorldChanging.com

I don't tend to hesitate in sharing my criticism of the Pacific Northwest when I think things are going wrong, so I thought I'd point out some things I'd noticed recently that seem to be going quite well.

The local Master Builders Association has not always been known for taking the greenest stances, particularly when it comes to growth management. But their Built Green program looks pretty sharp. If it's greenwashing, it's the kind that helps make our case; if they're for real, it represents serious progress:

"Our mission is to promote environmentally friendly home building methods and practices, and to enhance our communities through leadership in sustainable development."

Check out their case studies and, in particular, the Puget Sound Energy Built Green™ Idea Home, which boasts passive solar features, a green roof, permeable pavers, heat recovery and exchangers in a smart ventiliation system, wool carpet, very low VOC paint, recycled tile flooring, R-23 natural cellulose insulation, water barrels and native plant landscaping. Not bad! (more here)

A few years back, vandals from the ELF (acting, as it turned out, on wrong information) burned down the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture. The replacement building, which opens this month, is going for a LEED silver rating:

"The Berger Partnership has designed a Stormwater Demonstration Garden (not yet funded) that harvests rainwater, complete with a 2,300-gallon underground cistern. Notice the sustainable materials such as bamboo floors and straw-board cabinets pressed from North Dakota wheat fields, the low-flush toilets and waterless urinals expected to reduce water use by 35 percent, and the handsome transom windows that promote air circulation throughout the naturally ventilated building. Richard Chapman of the UW Capital Projects Office says Merrill Hall is targeted to receive recognition from the U.S. Green Building Council."

(Unfortunately, I can't hear the word horticulture either without thinking of Dorothy Parker's "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think...")

We've touched on the debate about the future of Seattle's waterfront before. Worldchanging friend and ally Cary Moon kicks butt in this essay she wrote about why Seattle needs to follow the lead of Portland and San Francisco and replace its collapsing waterfront viaduct with a more progressive system of transportation choices, traffic improvements and open space:

"In its myopic commitment to the automobile, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has convinced Mayor Nickels to throw his weight behind a costly tunnel option for the viaduct, pushing Seattle to anchor its future to the status quo of the past: highways. ...

"This pro-tunnel enthusiasm needs to be tempered by some sobering truths: First, no city actually improves traffic by giving people incentives to drive. Second, Nickels' promise of open space dramatically exaggerates what will actually be an awkwardly shaped strip of park. And, perhaps most important, the money isn't on the way.

"Fortunately, there's a cheaper solution that gives us a real park and improves traffic congestion by tearing down the entire viaduct, instead of just tunneling the 12-block portion between King and Pine Streets. It is an integrated system that would replace the viaduct with street improvements, transit incentives, and dense downtown development, combined with a rational surface roadway that will cost millions less than WSDOT's underground boondoggle."

Dr. Dan's Alternative FuelWerks is supposedly the first biodiesel gas station in Seattle. It's not far from where I live. Maybe soon I'll be driving a hybrid biodiesel car and swinging by Dr. Dan's to top off the tank every few months...

Meanwhile, Seattle design company Place has come up with a new infrastructure for bike commuters, the bikestation:

"Bikestations are the next step toward clean air and easy mobility in Seattle. Popular in Europe and Japan, bikestations are facilities where people can park their bikes in a secure location, stow their riding clothes, clean up, change and emerge ready for business battle after a relaxing bike ride to work. Bikestations can also be social spaces, where passersby can pause to buy a coffee and relax, riders can catch up on the news, pick up a PowerBar or an inner tube, or even check out an electric car!"

(If the monorail people were smart, they'd integrate these into their station designs.)

Originally posted January 14, 2005 in Northwest Environmental News

Clean Car Standards Gain Broad Support

Committee of Businesses, Governments and Civic Groups Recommends Clean Car Standards for Washington

In a report released this week, a group of Washington state stakeholders recommended adopting clean car auto emission standards as part of a set of priority recommendations to address climate change. The stakeholder group, formed by Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, includes representatives from Boeing, BP/Arco, Puget Sound Energy and other major industry groups, as well as local governments and public interest organizations.

One of the key recommendations of the report is to adopt clean car standards. These standards will require that all new cars sold in our state produce less toxic emissions and global warming emissions. The reports' authors also recommend taking action now. "For the future of our environment and our economy, we can and must begin immediately."

Legislation to adopt clean car standards will be introduced in the Washington legislature by Representative Ed Murray and Senator Phil Rockefeller. Climate Solutions is leading a coalition of organizations supporting adoption of the clean car standards. The clean car auto emission standards have been adopted by eight other states.

According to the report, adoption of clean car auto emissions standards would offer Washington:

• Significant reductions in global warming pollution and cancer-causing air toxics such as benzene and formaldehyde.
• Large and sustained economic benefits to the region and to vehicle owners, exceeding $1 billion by 2020. A purchaser of a new car financed over 5 years would reap net savings of $11 per month due to fuel savings, after subtracting costs.
• Technology and consumer benefits, including much longer warranties and increasing vehicle choice.

"Clean cars put local businesses on the road to a better economy," said Dennis McLerran, executive director of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. "Reducing transportation emissions leaves more room for local businesses to grow within safe air pollution limits."

"Industry now contributes only 2-3% of smog-forming and toxic pollution, while cars and trucks are responsible for more than 50%," added McLerran. "We need to reduce auto emissions to keep our air safe and healthy. Clean car auto standards are the right step for our state."

"What's good for business is also good for Washington consumers," said KC Golden of Climate Solutions, one of the members of the stakeholder group. "Clean car standards do more than reduce dangerous pollution. They also save money on fuel costs for Washington consumers. This is a win-win-win."

The 25-member committee included representatives from business, environmental groups, utilities and government agencies. The committee has met regularly since it was formed in 2004 to recommend actions to address climate change.

Originally posted January 14, 2005 in Northwest Environmental News

North American Auto Show Highlights Clean Cars

U.S. automakers, stung by environmental groups' complaints, say they will bring to market by 2008 an additional six gas-electric-powered vehicles.

DETROIT -- Stung by environmental groups' complaints that they weren't living up to their promises, General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. said Sunday that they would add a total of six gas-electric-powered hybrid cars and trucks to the market by 2008.

Ford made the biggest commitment, promising to add four new models to the hybrid sport utility vehicle it began selling last year. GM said it would add a new type of hybrid system to two large SUVs, the Chevrolet Tahoe and the GMC Yukon, in late 2007.

"Our commitment is clear. Five hybrids -- one very popular one on sale today, another coming later this year and three more in the next three years," Ford Motor Chairman William Clay Ford Jr. said at a news conference at the North American International Auto Show.

Ford Motor last year put on sale the nation's first hybrid SUV, the gas-electric Ford Escape. Like Toyota's popular Prius hybrid sedan, the Escape is often on back order at dealerships.

Bill Ford said the company had accelerated production of the hybrid Mercury Mariner SUV, which would go on sale later this year instead of in 2006. The automaker will follow that with a Mazda Tribute hybrid SUV in 2007 and two mid-size hybrid sedans, the Ford Fusion and the Mercury Milan, in 2008.

The hybrids, Ford said, "are only the start and only one of the four fuel technologies we're working seriously on."

The other technologies are environmentally clean diesel, hydrogen internal-combustion engines and fuel-cell electric vehicles.

Ford also said Sunday that the company had signed a contract to begin delivering 12-passenger buses with hydrogen-burning internal combustion engines to the state of Florida next year.

The engines use liquid hydrogen and are considerably less polluting than gasoline or diesel engines.

GM, which has introduced a toned-down hybrid pickup, the Silverado, that cannot run on all-electric power as other hybrids do, said it would break new ground with a dual-mode system for the Tahoe and Yukon.

The system uses several electric motors coupled to the vehicles' transmissions, to enable the SUVs to run at speeds of up to 50 mph in all-electric mode, all-internal combustion mode or any combination of the two, as conditions demand.

The vehicles will switch to their gasoline engines for primary power and use a second electric motor for assistance when towing heavy loads or climbing steep hills. In the high-speed mode the system also will utilize other GM fuel-efficiency technologies, including a system that shuts down half the engines' cylinders when the additional power isn't needed.

GM also showed off a new version of its revolutionary flat platform for fuel-cell vehicles and said it would have a drivable version later this year of a fuel-cell-powered SUV with 300 miles of range on a tank of hydrogen.

"It is the first fuel-cell vehicle capable of 300 miles between fill-ups," boasted Larry Burns, GM's vice president for planning and research.

The new test vehicle, called the Sequel, will use GM's "skateboard" platform, which houses all of the power, suspension and electrical components in an 11-inch-thick package. It was introduced several years ago but has been updated as fuel-cell technology has improved.

This story courtesy of the LA Times:
Ford, GM to Add to Lineup of Hybrids

Originally posted January 11, 2005 in Northwest Environmental News

Trying to make biodiesel a cash crop

King County has teamed with University of Washington professors and a Yakima farmer to get a biodiesel project up and running. A grant for $75,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture is helping make it a go.

At the demonstration site in Prosser, Benton County, byproducts from wastewater treatment in King County are fertilizing test plots of canola, a crop whose crushed seeds yield oil for biodiesel.

Like ethanol, its better known corn-based cousin, biodiesel is a mix of vegetable oil and fossil fuels that's used to power cars and trucks. European gas stations have sold biodiesel for more than a decade, but high production costs in the United States have kept it out of more than just a few cars here. But as oil prices hover around $50 a barrel, the incentive for biodiesel grows.

Exhaust from vehicles that use it smells like french fries, said King County's Doug Howell, who works on regional environmental policy. "People like that." Some are using it to run their Mercedes and Jettas.

King County plans to use the project to move biosolids - the byproducts of wastewater treatment processes here - to the Yakima Valley.

Sally Brown and Chuck Henry, two professors from the University of Washington, applied for a $75,000 research grant from the USDA so they could bring biosolids to the farm of a friend, Ted Durfey. Brown said Durfey grows organic cherries, pears and grapes at his farm in Sunnyside.

For the professors' demonstration project, Durfey planted 30 types of canola last year. Seeds were harvested, heated and pressed to see which kind yielded the most oil. One goal was to show farmers there how much better crops can grow when biosolids are applied.

"We know it works better," said Brown, who has done lab research to support her conclusion. "They need to see it to believe it."

People worry contaminants in biosolids will get into the food chain, she said. "Citizens there think they're going to die if biosolids are involved." Teaching them that biosolids can be safe is part of the project, too.

Another goal is to get farmers to recognize canola as a cash crop. If more grow canola, more seeds will then be available for biodiesel.

Peggy Leonard works in the county's wastewater treatment division and oversees its biosolids program. She said the big picture idea is to create a sustainable, closed-loop system: biodiesel made from canola seeds can be used to fuel the trucks that bring the biosolids to plots where canola is grown.

"We have a beautiful system here," said Howell. "We just have to make it large scale."

Getting people to make the fuel a little closer to home means first finding people that want to use it.

It's easier to start biodiesel programs for governments than to try to bring private industries on board, Howell said. "Market penetration for biodiesel into the private sector is going to be a tough nut to crack."

Late last year, King County Metro Transit started a two-year pilot program to use a 5 percent biodiesel blend in 325 of its 1,200 buses. Blended fuel is expected to cost the transit agency an extra 6.3 cents per gallon.

It might cost less if biodiesel didn't have to be shipped by railcar from as far as Iowa, said Howell.

People who are interested in making biodiesel need raw materials, and also don't want to have to go so far.

John Plaza is the founder of Seattle Biodiesel, which plans to manufacture and sell biodiesel. "Ideally we want to use oil that is grown and crushed in the Pacific Northwest," he said, "with Washington as our main source of crop."

Howell cites a few other groups interested in making biodiesel, such as the Spokane Conservation District. Baker Commodoties in Tukwila has been looking for real estate for the last year and a half to make biodiesel from its waste vegetable oil. Creston in Lincoln County is looking for a facility in which to crush canola.

And though "backyard brewers" who cook up biodiesel in their garages aren't certified, international standards are now in place, another sign a biodiesel market is beginning to emerge, said Howell.

A recently passed bill that allows a federal tax credit for manufacturers and distributors could be "the 800 pound gorilla" to jumpstart a new market.

This story is courtesy of the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce (subscription required):
Trying to make biodiesel a cash crop

Originally posted January 04, 2005 in Northwest Environmental News

2004 Sets Records for Climate and Natural Disasters

Climate change hits bottom line

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has announced that 2004 is expected to be the fourth warmest year worldwide since records began.

And the insurance industry says this year will face unprecedented claims for damage from weather-related disasters.

Both sets of figures were released as ministers from 180 countries heard a message from the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urging an end to doubts and delays on action to combat climate change.

The WMO reported that the average temperature of the world's surface for 2004 was expected to be 0.44C higher than the mean for the period 1961-1990, making it the fourth hottest year since 1861, just behind 2003, but still well below the all-time record year of 1998.

New risks

And this year has been the most expensive ever for the insurance industry in terms of payouts for damage from natural disasters such as hurricanes and typhoons.

According to preliminary figures compiled by the leading re-insurer Munich Re, insured damage for the first 10 months of 2004 amounted to $35bn, with the United States facing the biggest bill of $26bn.

Overall economic losses, the majority of which were uninsured, are expected to be about $90bn.

Among the disasters singled out in the report are Hurricane Ivan, which devastated the island of Grenada in September, killing 28 people and causing an estimated $1bn in damaged homes, buildings and agricultural losses.

The report says the insurance industry is also worried that new climate-related risks may be emerging, such as Hurricane Catarina, which hit southern Brazil earlier this year.

It developed in the south Atlantic where the sea temperatures are normally too low for tropical cyclones to form.

Thomas Loster, a climate expert with Munich Re said: "As in 2002 and 2003, the overall balance of natural catastrophes is again clearly dominated by weather-related disasters, many of them exceptional and extreme.

"We need to stop this dangerous experiment humankind is conducting on the Earth's atmosphere."

The figures were released as ministers gathered for the final stage of the UN conference to discuss future action on climate change.

Continue reading this story from BBC News:
Climate change hits bottom line

Originally posted December 17, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Locke backs tougher emissions standards

OLYMPIA - Gov. Gary Locke and legislative Democrats yesterday proposed that Washington adopt California's vehicle-emission standards, the toughest in the world.

Locke, a two-term Democrat who will leave office next month, also announced a freeze on state-government purchase of four-wheel-drive sport-utility vehicles. The state motor pool will begin shifting to hybrid vehicles, which run on electricity and gasoline.

The proposal to adopt California's auto standards, effective with the 2009 model year, is the centerpiece of Locke's package of bills to combat global warming.

"Global warming is here," Locke said at a news conference. "Global warming is real and it affects all of us. ... The impacts from global warming can be devastating to our coastline, our public facilities, our agricultural economy and to our environment.

"We must take action now to reduce or avoid these consequences for future generations."

Without stringent measures, he said, the snowpack could melt so much that his youngsters won't be able to ski at Snoqualmie Pass when they're his age.

Carbon-dioxide emissions from vehicles, including buses and commercial trucks, account for 55 percent of the state's emissions, Locke said, more air pollution than industrial smokestacks.

The new standards would greatly reduce pollution, ease health concerns and save motorists enough on fuel to more than pay the extra cost, estimated at $328, of buying a fuel-efficient vehicle, he said.

California estimates the new standards will cut emissions in cars and light trucks by 25 percent and in larger trucks and SUVs by 18 percent.

The auto industry sued California on Tuesday. Locke said Washington will monitor the lawsuit, but he said federal law clearly allows the California standards and other states are free to adopt them.

Seven states have adopted California's standards: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island. The eight states account for about one-fourth of U.S. car sales.

"California drives the market. It is the fifth-largest economy in the world," Locke said.

States need to take the lead, since the federal government has not, he said.

The new standards require automakers to use better air conditioners, more efficient transmissions and smaller engines.

Hybrid autos, such as the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius, and other superefficient vehicles would be exempt from emission inspections required every two years in Clark, King, Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane counties.

Continue reading this story from the Seattle Times:
Locke backs tougher emissions standards

Originally posted December 09, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Tighter vehicle emission standards proposed for state

Washington state would follow California's lead in establishing tough new automotive standards to slash emissions of greenhouse gases under a proposed new bill.

The bill, being drafted by Rep. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat who chairs the House Transportation Committee, would thrust Washington into the forefront of efforts by states to combat global warming. It would also put Washington in the thick of a battle with automotive companies over the legality of such actions.

"I think this is legal and doable, and intend to introduce it early in the [next legislative] session," Murray said.

The idea of imposing the tougher standards here was endorsed recently by most members of a task force that included government officials, environmentalists and representatives of some of the state's largest businesses.

The bill will likely face a vigorous fight from the auto industry, which claims the California rules are really an illegal, if indirect, attempt to impose tougher fuel-mileage standards.

"If you wait for the process to play out in California, it will be clear that no state has the authority to impose these kind of standards," said John Cabaniss of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, which plans a court challenge in that state.

In California, the standards would be phased in over more than a decade, eventually requiring by 2016 an average 30 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by new cars.

The standards would eventually boost the price of all new cars registered in the state by roughly $1,016, according to California state projections.

Auto-industry officials argue that the cost would be much higher, meeting the standards would pose technical challenges, and that the final price tag could hurt new-car sales.

California state analysts say all the technology needed to meet the standards is now available. And they say consumers could expect to recoup the added vehicle costs through lower fuel and other operating costs over the life of the vehicle.

Continue reading this story from the Seattle Times:
Tighter vehicle emission standards proposed for state

Originally posted December 02, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Fueling stewardship

While a lot of people talk about pollution problems, Albert Postema has been busy doing something about protecting the air and the earth. While a lot of people talk about new ways to support farmers and agriculture, Postema has been doing something about that, too.

And, while a lot of people think it would be great to practice ecological stewardship if it weren't so costly to stick to it, Postema has spent years finding innovative ways to minimize his company's impact on the environment, often spending extra to implement his ideas, and still making a profit at it.

"The best way to teach is by example, and that is exactly what we intend to do," Postema said. "We started by looking, with an environmental frame of mind, at where we were contributing the most pollution to our environment. We realized early on that diesel was a big factor, so we switched from off-road diesel fuel (often used on construction sites) to lower-sulfur on-road diesel that was cleaner. Then, in 2000, we became aware of the availability of biodiesel and started looking for reliable sources. That's how it started."

Collectively, Postema and his nine employees own Earthwise Excavation, the business he formed in Maltby in 1987. The heavy-equipment company -- specializing in grading, septic systems, storm systems, water mains, street improvements and erosion control -- continues to live up to its original goal of being an "evolutionary corporation with sustainable business practices," Postema said.

A year ago, he started using biodiesel fuel in his construction equipment, all 18 vehicles, from bulldozers and backhoes to the trucks that haul them to work sites. And not just B10 or B20 biodiesel fuel -- the 10 and 20 percent biodiesel some businesses have begun mixing with regular diesel fuel -- but 100 percent soy-crop biodiesel fuel.

"This vegetable oil fuel burns well in diesel engines, and the results are amazing," Postema said. "I was able to hook up with Alternative FuelWerks in Ballard as a supplier. We were both heading in the same direction, trying to lessen the impact on the environment from diesel fuel. By comparison with other fuels, biodiesel is almost carbon-neutral."

In fact, 85 percent of even the small amount of carbon produced in the burning of each gallon of field-grown soy biodiesel fuel actually returns to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide that is absorbed by plants, he said.

"We started out with blended fuels, then over six months we increased the biodiesel portion to a full 100 percent, with no problems at first. Then we found that the lye used in making the biodiesel fuel would weaken natural rubber in hoses, primarily in older engines. Today, most hoses are made of synthetic rubber, which doesn't cause any problems," he said.

Running biodiesel fuel in his diesel-powered vehicles proved to have multiple benefits for Earthwise.

"It dramatically reduced air pollution, which is really good considering there are four major carcinogens in diesel exhaust," Postema said. "Also, we began to notice other health benefits. Running the equipment long days on a work site during the summer would often give our crews dull headaches by the end of the day. We always attributed that to working long hours on the equipment, but when we started burning biodiesel, all of the headaches from diesel fumes went away. Biodiesel also eliminated the acrid smoke that often accumulated on the site. Plus, the lubricating nature of biodiesel made our engines run smoother and quieter."

Even so, biodiesel "isn't a silver bullet" that miraculously solves environmental problems with no drawbacks, Postema said.

"Biodiesel is really impressive. Until you experience using it, you don't realize how good it is. We wouldn't ever go back to regular diesel. But you have to be committed to be out in front with this. For one thing, we pay about $1 to $1.20 per gallon more for biodiesel than for regular diesel. But you have to look at the other advantages. For instance, we've gained a lot of business just because people like the idea that we're innovative and using biodiesel to improve the environment."

But even expanding his business with that kind of publicity means committing time to the effort. For example, Postema has spent a good deal of time working with groups such as the Puget Sound Clean Cities Coalition. He also regularly grants interviews to news media and spends time educating them about environmental issues. The publicity has also attracted the kind of employees he needs, ones who share the company's commitment to working with an environmentally focused mindset, he said.

He had to work hard to find suppliers of biodiesel fuel, though more and more are coming into the market nationally and regionally. Currently, his soy-based biodiesel supplies come from the country's largest-producing state, Iowa, where multimillion-dollar processing plants have been built to produce fuel from local crops.

"In Washington state, wheat farmers like to plant mustard seeds as a cover crop, which happens also to be a great source for biodiesel fuels. Eventually, there could be enough demand for wheat farmers to have almost a million acres in production for biodiesel, and mustard seeds provide better soil enrichment than canola seeds, another source," he said. "As the use of biodiesel increases, engine manufacturers are beginning to include the fuel in their warranty coverage, too."

Earthwise, already out in front in using biodiesel fuel, is moving ahead in other areas, too. Postema said the company's dedication to recycling led to using only rechargeable batteries to reduce the number going to landfills.

"We also buy 'green power' from the Snohomish County PUD's Planet Power program. All of our electricity comes from the Stateline and Condon wind farms. It cost us an additional $3 per 150-kilowatt hours of energy, but we combined this program with a conservation plan that included more energy-efficient lighting, employee awareness programs and a review of our energy uses," he said.

What else is on Postema's mind? One new venture is buying a 120-gallon-per-day processor for making his own biodiesel fuel from restaurants' waste frying oils, waste they normally pay to have hauled away.

"We'd like to support this concept, but no one wanted to step up and get a processor. We found an opportunity to get one ourselves, so we did," he said.

As if all of this commitment to the environment wasn't enough, Earthwise Excavation also donates a minimum of 9 percent of its net profits to Northwest area conservation programs, including the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, the Cascadia Forest Alliance, the Friends of the Trees and the Surfrider Foundation.

"It may seem odd, the combination of excavation and sustainability, but this is the front line of development. It is rewarding to know how many places we have been able to save simply due to ... offering an alternative to the standard 'clear and haul' mindset," Postema said. "We have discovered ... that it feels good to do good, and that doing good work enhances our company's success."

This story courtesy of the Snohomish County Business Journal:
Fueling stewardship

Originally posted November 24, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

West Coast Governors Strengthen Joint Climate Protection Strategy

The governors of Washington, Oregon and California today approved a series of recommendations for action to combat global warming, and directed their staffs to continue working on state and regional goals and strategies to combat global warming over the coming year. The staff report to the three governors, entitled "The West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative - Staff Recommendations to the Governors," stated:

"Global warming will have serious adverse consequences on the economy, health and environment of the West Coast states. These impacts will grow significantly in coming years if we do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. Fortunately, addressing global warming carries substantial economic benefits. The West Coast region is rich in renewable energy resources and advanced energy-efficient technologies. We can capitalize on these strengths and invest in the clean energy resources of our region."

"By working together as a region, we can have a significant impact on the reduction of greenhouse gases," said Washington Gov. Gary Locke. "Utilizing a consistent and common approach among the states will create great economic opportunities and maximize the environmental benefits."

"Global warming is one of the most significant threats to our quality of life and I am encouraged by the progress made under the West Coast Governors Global Warming Initiative during this past year," said Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski. "The recommendations in this report are an important step in the right direction. I look forward to receiving a more comprehensive set of recommendations from the Oregon Global Warming Advisory Group that has been hard at work over the past ten months to assess Oregon greenhouse gas emissions and consider strategies to reduce those emissions. I hope those recommendations provide new avenues to pursue in this regional collaboration over the coming year."

"California has been a leader in the efforts to combat global warming. Because the causes of climate change are not isolated to one state or region, it is important that we continue to work together on actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This is the most recent action taken as part of the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative, launched by the governors in September 2003. This effort is widely considered one of leading state initiatives on climate change in the United States. The governors have committed to act individually and regionally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below current levels through strategies that promote long-term economic growth, protect public health and the environment, consider social equity, and expand public awareness.

In today's action, the governors approved 36 recommendations in five areas that were jointly developed by the three states. Among the recommendations are directives to:

• Set new targets for improvement in performance in average annual state fleet greenhouse gas emissions.
• Collaborate on the purchase of hybrid vehicles.
• Establish a plan for the deployment of electrification technologies at truck stops in each state on the I-5 corridor, on the outskirts of major urban areas, and on other major interstate routes.
• Set goals and implement strategies and incentives to increase retail energy sales from renewable resources by one percent or more annually in each state through 2015.
• Adopt energy efficiency standards for eight to 14 products not regulated by the federal government, establishing a cost-effective efficiency threshold for all products sold on the West Coast.
• Incorporate aggressive energy efficiency measures into updates of state building energy codes, with a goal of achieving at least 15 percent cumulative savings by 2015 in each state.
• Organize a West Coast Governors' conference in 2005 to inform policy-makers and the public of climate change research concerning the West Coast states.

In addition, as the next phase of work under this initiative, the governors have agreed to explore more comprehensive regional measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, working with stakeholders deliberating in each of their states. Four areas are highlighted as holding the most promise for achieving greenhouse gas reductions:

• Adopt comprehensive state and regional goals for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
• Adopt standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
• Develop a market-based carbon allowance program.
• Expand the markets for energy efficiency, renewable resources, and alternative fuels.

The governors directed their state agencies to continue the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative in 2005, and to strengthen links with similar efforts in other states and Canada.

The governors are fully confident that, given the promise of new technologies, reducing greenhouse gases will simultaneously protect the environment and grow the economy across the region. "By working together," the report states, "the West Coast states can take a global leadership position in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming -- while achieving strong, long-term economic growth."

The tri-state report on the first year of the West Coast Governors Global Warming Initiative, which includes the full list of recommendations, is available online.

Originally posted November 19, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Six Brilliant Megawatt Ideas

By Evan Ratliff from Earth Share of Washington organization Natural Resources Defense Council

A few very smart people came up with some very smart ways to curb our energy needs. You can even try them at home.

If you added up all the cell phones, laptops, DVD players, plasma TVs, cable boxes, and other assorted electronic gadgets typically found in American homes, the number would run (easily) into the billions. And make no mistake -- those machines are hungry for power. Combined with household appliances like air conditioners and desk lamps, they suck up a whopping 21 percent of the nation's total energy supply, more than a trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity a year. The power plants that supply all that juice typically burn oil, coal, or natural gas, which makes the average home responsible for producing twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) as the average car. But while politicians and environmentalists continue to joust over how to satisfy our nation's energy cravings -- should we drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or improve the fuel economy of America's cars? -- a handful of innovators have quietly devised some ingenious ways to reduce the impact of our insatiable electronic desires. Sometimes it's as simple as building a better lightbulb (see Innovation #3). Sounds like a small thing, but save a kilowatt here and a kilowatt there and pretty soon you've eliminated the need for hundreds of CO2-belching power plants.

Innovation No. 1
THE SCIENCE OF COOL

The Problem: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory houses several thousand researchers, many of them cloistered in labs investigating scientific mysteries like the role of dark energy in the cosmos and the genetic code for human viruses. But one group became enthralled by, of all things, air-conditioning ducts. And oddly enough, they made an important discovery: In most households, about 20 percent of the heated or cooled air traveling through air ducts leaks through holes and cracks.

The Solution: The Lawrence Berkeley researchers, led by Mark Modera, devised a new aerosol sealant technique using a vinyl polymer, which reduces the leaks by 90 percent. A technician simply covers up a home's air vents and then blows a "fog" of the sealant through the ducts. The fog pushes into holes and cracks, plugging them with the polymer particles. Unlike traditional sealing methods -- think duct tape -- the aerosol method allows workers to catch leaks that would normally be inaccessible. Modera and his colleagues brought the invention to market through a company called Aeroseal.

California alone loses $1 billion to $2 billion a year in energy leaks from faulty heating and cooling ducts. Beginning in 2005, new state regulations will require most homeowners who replace their central air conditioner to seal these ducts. Other states, including New York and Texas, have also passed legislation or altered building codes to encourage the practice. "The biggest challenge is consumer awareness," says Modera. But he's working on solving that problem, too: Aeroseal now has 70 franchises nationwide.

Innovation No. 2
YOUR MOTHERBOARD

The Problem: In 1993, lighting specialist Greg Wiegand was working on the set of a Crest toothpaste commercial. That's where the trouble began. The dimmer used to control the lighting hummed so loudly that he had to run cables and move his kit off the set. Annoyed, Wiegand set out to find a fix and discovered that his problem was similar to one that afflicts every household in the United States: voltage control. When Wiegand turned up his dimmer, excess voltage flowing into the light kit generated a loud hum.

The same problem exists, less noticeably, in your home. Utilities are required to deliver power to households at somewhere between 114 and 126 volts (V), the standard operating range for home appliances. But because higher voltages are needed to push electricity over long distances, the actual voltage entering your house varies according to the distance between your home and the nearest substation. As a result, 90 percent of houses receive more voltage than they require. When anything more than 114V gets fed into an appliance, the excess is wasted as heat, increasing wear and tear on the device. Engineers have known for decades that they could save all this wasted energy by delivering electricity to homes at the minimum 114V, but there was no simple way for them to do so without the houses farthest from a utility's substation receiving too little voltage.

The Solution: Wiegand finally figured out how to silence his light kit with a clever metal device about the size of a phone book. And he eventually realized his little invention could be applied to the entire residential power grid. His Home Voltage Regulator, which attaches to the electric meter found on every house, is essentially a small transformer controlled by a computer motherboard. The motherboard measures the voltage coming into the meter, then directs the transformer to step it down to the minimum 114V. It then returns any excess power back to the grid to get passed along to the next house.

Wiegand quit showbiz and founded MicroPlanet, based in Edmonds, Washington, to promote his device and capture the large, lucrative home market. The company estimates that its devices could reduce household energy usage by as much as 20 percent by eliminating wasted voltage. Install them in a million homes nationwide and you could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 640,000 tons a year. The nonprofit Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance plans to install 500 of the boxes in homes this spring, and MicroPlanet says a public utility commission in the Northeast is planning a 1,000-unit pilot program this summer. Eventually, Wiegand hopes his device will become the standard for all U.S. households.

Continue reading this story from Natural Resources Defense Council
Six Brilliant Megawatt Ideas

Originally posted November 12, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Global warming study finds real change in America

WASHINGTON -- From Florida to Alaska and from coast to coast, nature's indicators show strong evidence of global warming in America, scientists said yesterday.

A report co-written by University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan concluded that more than 40 scientific studies link climate change with observed ecological changes. In half of the studies, the link is strong, the report stated.

Satellite data and a century of temperature records have shown an overall increase in global temperatures to parallel the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But in a report released by the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, Parmesan and University of Colorado ecologist Hector Galbraith say there is growing and scientific evidence that now shows specific trends in the United States.

"What we were able to show is it's happening in everyone's back yard," Parmesan said.

In some cases, the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases has caused plants and animals to shift their habitats northward. In others, the timing of natural cycles has been altered, the scientists said.

Despite the release of the studies, President Bush is unlikely to significantly alter his stance on the issue, a key White House official said yesterday.

Mandatory regulation or caps on greenhouse-gas emissions are unlikely for the foreseeable future, White House science adviser John Marburger told Scripps Howard News Service.

"Not in this administration," Marburger said.

Release of the U.S. report coincided with a massive study concluding that the Arctic region is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet (see story below).

Continue reading this story from the Seattle P-I:
Global warming study finds real change in America

Originally posted November 09, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Scientists find Arctic warming quickly

WASHINGTON -- Scientists say changes in the earth's climate from human influences are occurring particularly intensely in the Arctic region, evidenced by widespread melting of glaciers, thinning sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures.

A study released Monday said the annual average amount of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased by about 8 percent in the past 30 years, resulting in the loss of 386,100 square miles of sea ice - an area bigger than Texas and Arizona combined.

"The polar regions are essentially the earth's air conditioner," Michael McCracken, president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences, told a news conference Monday. "Imagine the earth having a less efficient air conditioner."

Susan Joy Hassol, the report's lead author, said the Arctic probably would warm twice as much as the Earth. A region of extreme light and temperature changes, the Arctic's surfaces of ice, ocean water, vegetation and soil are important in reflecting the sun's heat.

Pointing to the report as a clear signal that global warming is real, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Monday the "dire consequences" of warming in the Arctic underscore the need for their proposal to require U.S. cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. President Bush has rejected that approach.\

In the past half-century, average yearly temperatures in Alaska and Siberia rose by about 3.6 degrees to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit and winters in Alaska and western Canada warmed by an average of 5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit.

With "some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth," the Arctic regions' melting contributed to sea levels rising globally by an average of about three inches in the past 20 years, the report said.

"These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming," says the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a four-year study by 300 scientists in eight Arctic-bordering nations, including the United States.

This most comprehensive study of Arctic warming to date adds yet more impetus to the projections by many of the world's climate scientists that there will be a steady rise in global temperature as the result of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and other sources.

It is based on ice core samples and other evidence of climate conditions such as on-the-ground and satellite measurements of surface air temperatures. Nations participating in the study besides the United States are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden.

"The bottom line is that the Arctic is warming now, much more rapidly than the rest of the globe, and it's impacting people directly," Robert Corell, chairman of the scientists' study panel and a senior fellow with the American Meteorological Society, said Sunday.

The process is only likely to accelerate in the Arctic, a region that provides important resources such as oil, gas and fish, the study finds.

That would wreak havoc on polar bears, ice-dependent seals, caribou and reindeer herds - and local people such as Inuit whose main food source comes from hunting those animals. Some endangered migratory birds are projected to lose more than half their breeding areas.

The study projects that in the next 100 years the yearly average temperatures will increase by 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit over land and 13 to 18 degrees over the ocean, mainly because the water absorbs more heat.

Forests would expand into the Arctic tundra, which in turn would expand into the polar ice deserts, because rising temperatures would favor taller, denser vegetation. The areas of Arctic tundra would shrink to their smallest extent since 21,000 years ago when, humans began emerging from the last Ice Age.

Sea levels globally already are expected to rise between another four inches to three feet or more this century. Longer term, sea levels would rise alarmingly if temperatures continue to rise unabated, in the range of 5 degrees to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next several centuries.

In that scenario, the study projects "a virtually complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet," which would contribute as much as 23 feet to the world's sea level rise.

This story is from the Seattle P-I:
Scientists find Arctic warming quickly

Originally posted November 09, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Metro Transit pilot project may tip balance for new statewide industry

Venture produces largest biodiesel-powered fleet in the state 

King County Metro Transit's nationally recognized fleet of clean buses is about to become even cleaner, and will help bring to Washington the first in-state commercial-scale production of biodiesel fuel made from seed crops. The pilot program will also serve as an investment in Washington's sustainable future. 

Today, the first buses in Metro's fleet got an extra shot of homegrown biodiesel power to help reduce the agency's reliance on imported oil while increasing statewide demand by an estimated 30 percent or more for the alternative fuel. Metro's consumption of up to one-half million gallons of biodiesel over the next two years will also help stimulate the production of farm commodities that are used to manufacture biodiesel, creating benefits for both the environment and economy.

"Metro Transit's commitment to piloting the use of biodiesel will make it the single largest user of the fuel in the State of Washington which will, in turn, significantly increase markets for this clean burning alternative to fossil fuel," said King County Executive Ron Sims. "When combined with new hybrid buses, electric coaches, and its use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel, this newest commitment to clean air will make Metro a national model in pioneering the use of cleaner burning energy sources to produce lasting environmental benefits for our region."

As part of a Seattle City Light greenhouse gas mitigation program, Metro has committed to using a five percent blend of biodiesel to help power its fleet of more than 1,200 diesel buses over the next two years. The fuel will be blended with Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel, which will reduce greenhouse gases and improve on the 90 percent reduction in tailpipe emissions the agency has already achieved. The transit agency anticipates approximately 325 buses from its Ryerson and Bellevue bases will be using the cleaner burning mix by the end of this year, with the entire fleet of diesel-powered buses to be converted by the end of 2005. The county's solid waste division has additionally agreed to purchase and use up to 50,000 gallons of biodiesel for its operations. 

"Seattle leads the way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions," said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. "This partnership brings us closer to our goal of being greenhouse gas neutral in 2005. As demand for biodiesel increases through these efforts, the price will decrease and availability will increase," Nickels added.

"City Light is one of the greenest utilities in the nation, but we do produce some greenhouse gas emissions," said Superintendent Jorge Carrasco. "Mitigation projects like this, along with those we have with the Washington State Ferries and with commercial garbage trucks are important. They offset those emissions and at the same time benefit the utility and the community."

In addition to cleaner air and reductions in climate-altering greenhouses gases, King County and Seattle City Light are hoping their partnership will deliver added market development benefits. Demand for biodiesel has been growing rapidly, and now the industry has reached a tipping point where the first in-state commercial-scale production is viable. Farmers and developers throughout the region are actively pursuing their business plans to bring this new clean, renewable industry to Washington State. 

Continue reading this press release from King County Metro:
Metro Transit pilot project may tip balance for new statewide industry

Originally posted October 26, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Gov. Locke Announces Global Warming Targets

This story courtesy of Earth Share of Washington organization Climate Solutions

State leadership comes at a critical time

Gov. Gary Locke called for more aggressive actions to combat global warming in a press conference on Wednesday, in his first major recommendations since West Coast Governors Global Warming Initiative was launched by the governors of Washington, Oregon and California last year.

Locke called for Washington state to set greenhouse gas emissions targets, including a return to the 1990 statewide emissions level by 2010 and a target of 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. He also called for the state to incorporate aggressive energy efficiency measures into updates of state building energy codes and to set goals and implement strategies and incentives to increase retail energy sales from renewable resources during the next decade.

"Although the issue of global warming is much bigger than just the West Coast states, action on our part is necessary because of the inaction of the Bush Administration," Locke said.

"These targets and timelines set the stage for a meaningful, results-oriented climate policy for the state," said KC Golden, policy director for Climate Solutions. "The targets provide a yardstick for measuring progress. They send signals to private energy markets to invest in solutions. They provide a strong stimulus to our clean energy economy and help us reduce fossil fuel dependence and costs."

Locke's leadership at the state level is particularly relevant as Russia joins the Kyoto Protocol. Russia’s participation triggers an international agreement that moves the rest of the world towards common solutions to climate change. "The international train is moving out of the station," said Golden. "This state action is a declaration that forward-looking states can't afford to wait for the federal government to get with the program. Governor Locke's leadership makes sure that Washington state won't be left behind as rest of the world launches a new clean energy economy."

Locke has joined with Gov. Kulongoski of Oregon and Gov. Schwarzenegger of California in the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative. The three governors are expected to make additional recommendations based on reports from staff and stakeholder groups later this year.

Originally posted October 21, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Cleaner boats: City of Seattle subsidizes biodiesel ferry fuel

Seattle City Light continues to launch efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in the Puget Sound region, part of the city's policy to meet the goals set out in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

The Seattle-run utility is funding pilot programs to help the city's fleet and garbage haulers burn cleaner fuels in their cars and trucks. Seattle City Light also is working with the King County Metro to burn a 5 percent blend of biodiesel in buses.

Now the utility has started funding a one-year pilot program for three Washington State Ferries boats to run on a cleaner-burning diesel and biodiesel blend. The program is a subsidy that covers the difference between the cost of regular diesel and biodiesel, which is more expensive.

The so called B-20 diesel is a blend of 80 percent petroleum diesel and 20 percent biodiesel, a fuel made from animal fats or vegetable oil. It burns significantly cleaner that regular diesel.

But the fuel's biggest drawback may be its price. Because there are fewer suppliers and a small market, the special fuel costs more than regular diesel. The funds for the ferry program are designed to make up the cost differences, which fluctuate with the market.

Proponents say the biodiesel subsidy could create enough demand to nurture and eventually sustain this fledgling industry, ultimately increasing production and bringing down biodiesel prices.

Continue reading this story from the Puget Sound Business Journal:
Cleaner boats: City subsidizes biodiesel ferry fuel

EDITOR'S NOTE - The first biodiesel tax incentive has just passed congress and is expected to be signed by the President, bringing the cost of biodiesel down considerably. Since this bill has not yet become law, expected cost savings are not reflected in the article above. More news on this next week.

Originally posted October 19, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Russia backs Kyoto climate treaty

The Russian government has approved the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and sent it to parliament to be ratified.

Until now, Moscow has wavered over the treaty, which cannot come into force without Russian ratification.

The Kyoto Protocol sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions, which many scientists believe cause global warming and climate change.

Moscow's decision was greeted with delight by the European Union and environmental campaigners.

The necessary law on ratification is set to pass through the Russian parliament unhindered and, in theory, the treaty could come into force within three months.

The lower house, the State Duma, is dominated by the pro-Putin United Russia party.

International support

European Union Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom told the BBC: "We are very excited today - we have to wait [for] procedures in the Duma, but it looks very good."

And UK Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett praised the Russian move as "a vital step forwards for global efforts to tackle climate change".

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi added his praise, saying the "prevention of global warming is a very important and difficult issue".

Bryony Worthington of environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth expressed delight at the Russian decision, telling the BBC: "It will increase pressure on countries like the US and Australia, who have so far remained outside the only international agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions."

"It has to be recognised that Kyoto is only the first step and discussions must begin immediately on what happens after Kyoto," she added.

Interfax news agency said that, according to the government decision, ministries linked to the environment had been given three months to work out a series of practical measures arising from Russia's obligations.

Change of heart

Since the US, the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, pulled out three years ago, the treaty has been dependent on Russian ratification. Russia accounts for 17% of world emissions.

President Putin ended the confusion over Russia's stance in May, when he spoke of his desire to see the treaty ratified.

But divisions remained among his aides.

His chief economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, said the treaty would stifle economic growth.

Kremlin economists have questioned how Russia could reduce greenhouse gas emissions when it is enjoying an industrial revival and has set itself the target of doubling GDP within a decade.

This week, top Russian scientists advised against ratification, claiming there was no evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.

But the deciding factor appears to be not the economic cost, but the political benefits for Russia, correspondents say.

In particular, there has been talk of stronger European Union support for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization, in response to its ratification of the treaty.

This story courtesy of BBC News:
Russia backs Kyoto climate treaty

Originally posted September 30, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Power shift: Wind now seen as a viable alternative energy source

Eric Markell has been watching the wind blow for 25 years, hoping that someday it would heat homes and light buildings.

The wind's energy potential wasn't taken seriously until recently because it was too costly and unpredictable, said Markell, Puget Sound Energy's senior vice president of energy resources. Now with vast improvements in the reliability of wind technology, utilities are considering it as an alternative to traditional resources like hydroelectricity and natural-gas-fired generation in a major way.

PSE is paving the road, by announcing last week that it would pay up to $300 million for the proposed Wild Horse Wind Power Project near Ellensburg. The purchase makes PSE the first utility in the state to buy a wind farm.

And the Bellevue-based utility is just one of many in the Northwest trying to fulfill demand for power through wind, said Barrett Stambler, director of renewable business development of PPM Energy, which sells power.

Portland General Electric, PaciCorp and Avista also are looking for renewable power sources, he said. In all, he estimates, the utilities want to acquire about 2,500 megawatts by 2010.

"PPM has made wind power one of its most important business agendas, because there is so much interest by customers to diversify their energy sources," Stambler said.

But the process is not simple. With few wind farms completed in Washington, wind power is not readily available. Developers have started working on several sites but are struggling to get farms off the ground as residents rally against them and they wait for the federal tax credit to be renewed that would make the resource more competitive on price.

"Wind must and should have a permanent key place in our portfolio," Markell said. "The struggle is in actually getting it done."

Continue reading this story from the Seattle Times:
Power shift: Wind now seen as a viable alternative energy source

Originally posted September 27, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Puget Sound Energy buying wind-power farm

Puget Sound Energy plans to spend up to $300 million to buy a wind farm near Ellensburg, the first wind-power resource the Bellevue-based utility would own.

PSE says it will announce the deal today for the Wild Horse Wind Power Project in Kittitas County. The project is owned by Zilka Renewable Energy, a Houston-based company that develops wind farms.

The project is under review by the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. If approved, it could be completed in early 2006, said Eric Markell, senior vice president of energy resources at PSE.

Because wind power has become more affordable, utilities find it more attractive. PSE estimates wind energy will be 25 percent cheaper than natural-gas-fired power and 5 percent cheaper than coal-fired power.

Zilka would be responsible for the permitting process, and PSE would pick up other responsibilities, including some financing and some construction, according to the terms of the deal.

Markell said the company would raise the capital through a combination of debt and equity. He said PSE would not need permission from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to buy the site but would have to ask for a rate increase to recover its costs.

The final price of the wind farm would depend on the size of the project, which is to have 100 to 133 turbines.

The windmills, which are around 200 feet tall with 100-foot-long rotating blades, will be able to generate 150 to 220 megawatts of energy at full capacity.

One megawatt of wind power is enough to supply 330 homes for a year, so Wild Horse could produce enough to supply nearly 73,000 homes a year.

Continue reading this story from the Seattle Times:
PSE buying wind-power farm

Originally posted September 24, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Prime Minister Tony Blair gives dire warning on climate

The environment is again climbing the political agenda

Urgent action is needed now to combat the world's "greatest environmental challenge" - global warming, the prime minister has said.

The effects of climate change would be felt within a generation unless action was taken now, he warned.

In a key speech delivered on Tuesday, he said the world's richest nations had a responsibility to "lead the way".

Tory leader Michael Howard attacked Mr Blair's "fine words but no action", but some campaigners welcomed his stance.

Mr Blair pledged that Britain would argue for aviation emissions to be brought into the EU emissions trading scheme.

But action could not be taken by one country alone, he warned, as he set out government plans to tackle the issue during a speech to the Prince of Wales' Business and the Environment charity.

"No one nation alone can resolve it. It has no definable boundaries," he said.

"Short of international action commonly agreed and commonly followed through, it is hard even for a large country to make a difference on its own.

"But there is no doubt that the time to act is now.

"It is now that timely action can avert disaster. It is now that with foresight and will such action can be taken without disturbing the essence of our way of life, by adjusting behaviour, not altering it entirely," he said.

"There's no doubt that in my mind that the time to act is now.

"If there is one message I want to leave with you it is one of urgency," he said.

Continue reading this story from BBC News:
PM gives dire warning on climate

Originally posted September 15, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Why Hybrids Are Hot

Have you seen gas prices? Purists can wait for hydrogen. The market can't

In today's business world, even the most mild-mannered middle manager is supposed to imagine himself as a would-be Robespierre. It's all about "radical" innovation and revolutionary products that will overturn the established order in a single violent paroxysm. In this "off with their heads" climate, a true revolution requires a total break from what came before. If an innovation smacks of the familiar, it's tagged with that most dismal of labels: incremental.

Consider, for instance, the Toyota Prius. The Prius is a hybrid - powered by both a traditional internal combustion engine and an electric motor - and it's arguably the hottest car in America. US sales of hybrids are still meager (Toyota expects to sell about 50,000 Priuses in 2004). But so far this year sales are double those of the same period in 2003, despite the fact that each car costs $4,000 to $5,000 more than a comparable conventional one. Motor Trend recently named the Prius its 2004 North American Car of the Year. And most strikingly, nearly all the major auto manufacturers are on track to introduce their own hybrid models, including, oddly enough, SUVs. Industry forecasts suggest that by 2008, 2 percent of new cars sold in the US will be hybrids.

The virtues of the Prius and its siblings are hardly a secret: much higher gas mileage and much lower emissions. In the Prius, the electric motor handles start-up and low speeds, and assists the gas engine with acceleration and highway cruising. This reduces the car's demand for gasoline, while providing acceptable acceleration (0 to 60 mph in 10.5 seconds) and adequate top speed (105 mph). What's key, though, is that the electric motor doesn't merely supplement the internal combustion engine, but works in synergy with it and vice versa. The combination maximizes the strengths of the two technologies and minimizes their weaknesses.

For all that, though, hybrids are still seen by purists as a stopgap, a way to save a few extra barrels of oil and add a little less carbon monoxide to the atmosphere until something genuinely new comes along. That something new, of course, is the fuel cell-powered car, which will free us of our dependence on gasoline, allowing vehicles to live on hydrogen and emit only water vapor. Fuel cells have been on the ever-receding horizon for a while now. (The most optimistic forecasts are that fuel cell cars won't be mass-produced until 2020 at the earliest.) And there's no doubt that if they do arrive, they will be a revolutionary innovation.

But by keeping our eyes locked on the future, we're missing the truly radical nature of the present. The hybrid is the most important development in automobile technology since the introduction of the automatic transmission in 1938, or perhaps even the invention of the self-starting motor in 1911. It's the first successful alternative to the internal combustion engine since the early 20th century, when both steamers and electric cars were popular. And in technological terms, the hybrid represents a qualitative, and not just a quantitative, transformation in the way vehicles work. That's why Toyota, at least, calls the hybrid a "core" rather than a "bridge" technology. The synergy that propels the Prius will also likely be at the heart of fuel cell cars - if they ever materialize.

What's especially remarkable about the success of hybrids is that it's happened from the bottom up. Economists sometimes say there are two routes to innovation: technology push and market pull. In the first case, a cool technology is created and people have to be convinced they want it. In the second, a market exists for a solution to a problem, and it effectively pulls the technology out of the lab and into the real world. Before the recent hybrid boom, many would have said that the cars were a classic example of technology push, with Toyota and Honda trying to force vehicles on an uninterested public. But what has become clear is that the market for "environmentally sensitive" products is large and growing, and that people are willing to pay a premium for these products, as long as they don't have to compromise on quality.

Continue reading this story from Wired News:
Why Hybrids Are Hot

Learn more about the Toyota Prius, America's hottest selling hybrid:
http://www.toyota.com/prius/

Originally posted September 03, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

When 'Balance' Is Bias - Global Warming Coverage

Top U.S. newspapers' focus on balance skewed coverage of global warming, analysis reveals

SANTA CRUZ, CA--Reporters and editors at four of the nation's top newspapers adhered to the journalistic norm of balance at the expense of accurately reporting scientific understanding of the human contributions to global warming, according to an analysis that appears in the current issue of the journal Global Environmental Change.

The new study, "Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press," examined coverage of human contributions to global warming in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal from 1988 to 2002 to assess how scientific findings were conveyed to readers.

"By giving equal time to opposing views, these newspapers significantly downplayed scientific understanding of the role humans play in global warming," said researcher Maxwell T. Boykoff, a doctoral candidate in environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who coauthored the paper with his brother, Jules M. Boykoff, a visiting assistant professor of politics at Whitman College.

"We respect the need to represent multiple viewpoints, but when generally agreed-upon scientific findings are presented side-by-side with the viewpoints of a handful of skeptics, readers are poorly served," added Boykoff. "In this case, it contributed to public confusion and opened the door to political maneuvering."

In a thorough analysis of 636 articles, the Boykoffs found that:

• 52.7 percent gave "roughly equal attention" to the views that humans contribute to global warming and that climate change is exclusively the result of natural fluctuations.
• 35.3 percent emphasized the role of humans while presenting both sides of the debate, which the Boykoffs said more accurately reflected scientific thinking about global warming.
• 6.2 percent emphasized the dubious nature of the claim that anthropogenic global warming exists.
• 5.8 percent contained exclusive coverage of human contributions to Earth's temperature increases.

Although some media analysts assert that coverage improved as scientific understanding grew, the study suggests otherwise. Recognizing the challenges of characterizing the views of the scientific community on a controversial topic, the Boykoffs focused on the findings of groups like the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was created in 1988. The scientific community reached general consensus by late 1990 that immediate action should be taken to combat global warming, yet media coverage lagged through 2001, according to the Boykoffs.

Continue reading this story from EV World:
When 'Balance' Is Bias - Global Warming Coverage

Originally posted September 02, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Seas Seen as Viable Power Source

Undaunted by past failures, a new wave of entrepreneurs is seeking to generate electricity by channeling the energy of the Earth's oceans.

In experiments from Southern Australia to Scotland to Northern California, startup energy firms and researchers will be testing a host of technologies in the coming months aimed at generating electricity from the sea.

Among the most ambitious, planned for this fall, is a 486-ton wave turbine that converts wave motion into electricity and will be anchored off the coast of Australia, 150 miles south of Sydney. Energetech, the Australian company that developed the turbine, said it will be the "first plant in the world to make wave energy commercially viable." A similar turbine is to be installed off Point Judith, Rhode Island, in 2006.

Escalating oil prices and worries about global warming have shifted the quest for renewable energy sources into high gear. While wind and solar claim most of the attention, and hopes are high for high-tech hydrogen, the dark horse in this race may be the restless energy of the sea.

Covering 71 percent of the Earth's surface, the oceans are in essence the world's largest collector of energy from the sun. According to the Department of Energy, waves could generate 2 terawatts of electricity -- enough to meet the world's current electricity needs. Energy embodied in the world's ocean currents and tides is twice that much. However, only a small percentage of this could be tapped and thus far efforts to do so have cost more than the energy they've generated.

Continue reading this story from Wired News:
Seas Seen as Viable Power Source

More on wind and wave power at sea, being tested in the UK:
Wave power delivers electricity to grid

Originally posted August 26, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Investment advice - Alternative energy industry finally ready to grow up

As anxiety over oil supplies mounts, big-name companies that can afford to be patient have been making significant investments in renewable power sources

When oil prices rise, public interest in alternative energy often does too. Tapping into renewable sources of power like wind, solar power and hydrogen, which are inexhaustible but far from inexpensive, seems to make more commercial sense when crude oil costs almost US$48 a barrel.

But the logic is evidently escaping Wall Street. Many companies involved in alternative energy have missed out on the rally that has lifted shares of oil and gas companies.

Some investors, particularly advocates of what is known as socially responsible investing, expect the cost gap to narrow. They say that producing energy from renewable sources is becoming cheaper, while fossil fuels will become more expensive as supplies dwindle, long after the current pressures that have been pushing prices higher have receded.

Those advocates also say that concerns about pollution and climate change make alternative energy more politically palatable than energy from conventional sources. In many countries, they say, that should help producers benefit from government subsidies and ambitious production targets.

But skeptics closer to the investment mainstream argue that renewable energy will not become commercially viable for many years. In the meantime, they warn, these industries will have to depend on continual new financing and, as a result, are best avoided.

"The overriding issue is that the economics have to work, and for many companies that hasn't been the case," said Wenhua Zhang, an analyst at T. Rowe Price in Baltimore. "These are capital-intensive industries. There are very few of them where you don't have to spend a lot of money."

Alternative energy sources typically require huge infrastructure investment to deliver power to electricity grids, or to cars in the case of hydrogen as a substitute for gasoline.

"Energy is not like other technologies, where you can get started for US$15 million," Zhang said, referring to the dot-coms that proliferated in the late 1990s. "You need half a billion."

Portfolio managers and small investors may be reluctant to dip into their pockets when any payoff may be years away, but some big-name industrial companies that can afford to be patient have been making significant investments in alternative energy. Ford Motor and DaimlerChrysler recently agreed to acquire part of the vehicular fuel-cell business of Ballard Power Systems.

General Electric is one of the world's largest producers of wind turbines and is heavily involved in solar power, too, as are the Japanese companies Matsushita Electric Industrial and Kyocera and the oil producers Royal Dutch/Shell and BP.

"GE is likely to become the largest alternative energy company in the world in a short time," said James Cameron, a founding partner of Climate Change Capital, a venture capital firm in London that specializes in alternative energy. The investments by GE and other multinational companies "are signs that the industry is about to grow up," Cameron said.

Continue reading this NY Times article republished in the Taipei Times:
Alternative energy industry finally ready to grow up

Originally posted August 25, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Burning News

This story is courtesy of Matt Shoellhamer from Northwest Environment Watch

In case you've been living under a log, forest fires have been a serious problem lately. So far this year just over 6 million acres have burned nationwide, almost double the ten-year year-to-date average. Out of the 25 currently reported large fires in the US, 17 are burning in the Pacific Northwest, totaling 65,391 acres. The story north of the border has been even more dire. And forests fires aren't just frightening, they're expensive. From 1999-2003 the U.S. government alone spent an average of $1.3 billion dollars per year fighting the nation's wildfires.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Forest Service has taken a lot of, shall we say, heat recently for its fire fighting policies. Over the long term, suppressing forest fires in the West has allowed undergrowth and other combustible fuels to build up--which leads to bigger conflagrations once fire does break out.

However, a new study by scientists at the University of Washington shows that it is climate, not fuel buildup, that has the dominant influence on the extent and severity of forest fires.

Over the past century, fires have been more frequent and more severe during hotter, drier summers, even during low fuel years, and less frequent and severe during cooler summers with high amounts of ground fuel.

All available climate models predict warmer and drier summers for the Northwest over the next century, with regional temperatures expected to rise .4-.9 degrees fahrenheit per decade in this century (100-200% the rate of increase during the last quarter of the 20th century). As the climate warms, fire season will gradually start earlier and end later, and new areas completely unused to the threat of fire will begin to go up in smoke. This is already happening in Washington, where the fire season started 3 months early this year. Furthermore, these climate changes not only cause fires, but also wipe out forest stands by reducing trees' resistance to diseases and to insects such as the Mountain Pine Beetle. The Climate Impact Group warns that as the region continues to warm, forest coverage in the Cascades could decrease by 20-50%.

So, while forest management practices have certainly contributed to the forest fire problem, the time may have finally arrived when greenhouse gases will replace the chainsaw as the leading threat to the health of Cascadia's forests.

This story is from the Cascadia Scorecard Weblog:
Burning News

Originally posted August 23, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Green buildings less expensive in the long-run

WASHINGTON -- "Green buildings" sound great. But can we afford them?

The benefits are impressive. Building green means seeking out solar or other renewable power sources, utilizing smart architectural design to maximize natural sunlight and ventilation, and selecting recycled and nontoxic construction materials.

If we ever hope to have less energy dependence in America, buildings must be a big part of the deal. The country has 5 million commercial structures, 76 million residential. They account for two-fifths of total national energy use. And we keep building them at a furious pace -- an estimated 38 million new buildings by the end of this decade.

The environmental stakes are immense. Buildings generate a third of our carbon dioxide emissions (a chief culprit in global warming). They're responsible for half our sulfur dioxide emissions, a quarter of nitrous oxide emissions and major acid rain and smog problems, according to a Progressive Policy Institute roundup.

But -- are green buildings economic enough to build? The popular notion has been "no" -- that innovations such as solar panels are too costly, that unconventional building materials or design elements pose the risk of construction delays and higher costs.

By contrast, Charles Lockwood, architectural critic and author, recently e-mailed me: "The 'green is too expensive' myth is no longer true." A variety of real-life projects with standard construction costs, he notes, are receiving silver or gold ratings from U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) rating system.

Continue reading this story from Washington Post writer Neal Peirce:
'Green' Sounds Great -- But Is It Affordable?

Find out more about green building here in Washington by reading a recent Earth Share interview with Bert Gregory, President and CEO of Mithun. Mithun, a Seattle-based architecture, design and planning firm, plays a major role in shepherding this fast growing movement.

Thanks to Jon Stahl for the pointer.

Originally posted August 19, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Study Finds Climate Shift Threatens California

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 16 - A scientific study released on Monday presents an alarming view of climate changes in California, finding that by the end of the century rising temperatures could lead to a sevenfold increase in heat-related deaths in Los Angeles and imperil the state's wine and dairy industries.

The study, published in the online version of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offers the most detailed projection yet of changes in California as temperatures rise around the world because of building concentrations of heat-trapping gases.

Under one of two scenarios, in which fossil fuel use continues at its present pace, the study determined that summertime high temperatures could increase by 15 degrees in some inland cities, putting their climate on par with that of Death Valley now. That scenario also foresaw a reduction of 73 percent to 90 percent in the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, resulting in disrupted water supplies from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley.

Even in the second scenario, which assumed significant increases in the use of renewable energy like wind and solar power, the study concluded that fossil fuel emissions could push average high temperatures up by four to six degrees - the difference, one author said, between the temperature in Yosemite National Park and downtown Sacramento.

The study warned that the higher temperatures could have devastating consequences for wine grapes, which could ripen more quickly and be of poorer quality, and for cows, which could produce less milk. In cities like Los Angeles, it found, the number of days of extreme heat could increase by four to eight times. It projected that heat-related deaths in Los Angeles, which it said averaged 165 annually during the 1990's, could double or triple under the moderate scenario and grow as much as seven times under the harsher one.

The scientists said that California was chosen for the study because of its range of climates and the predominance of industries, like agriculture, that are dependent on climatic conditions. The state's economic heft - by some measures it is the fifth largest economy in the world - and its history of environmental activism were also considerations.

"California alone can't address the emissions problem, but California is in a position of leadership," one of the study's authors, Peter C. Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a teleconference.

The study was conducted by 19 scientists from several universities and research institutions, including Stanford University, the University of California and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. It was financed by a variety of foundations as well as the Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission.

Several of the scientists warned against dismissing the findings as overstated. "We have been studying this for 30 years, and the conclusions are getting increasingly clear, and increasingly consistent," said Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, a climate scientist at Stanford. He added, "We think this problem has too high a chance of happening and in negative incarnations for us to ignore it."

This story courtesy of the NY Times:
Study Finds Climate Shift Threatens California

Originally posted August 17, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Pay as you drive insurance pilot program launched

Story courtesy of Northwest Environment Watch

If you drive 10,000 miles a year, aren't you less likely to have an accident than someone who drives 30,000 miles a year? And if so, shouldn't you pay less for insurance?

That's the idea behind pay-as-you-drive car insurance (PAYD), an approach that would make buying car insurance more like buying gasoline: the less you drive, the less you pay. But despite studies indicating that mileage-based insurance makes sense from an actuarial point of view, insurers have been slow to adopt PAYD, in part because of technology and privacy issues. How would they collect accurate information on miles driven? And would consumers be willing to give that information up?

Progressive Insurance--long a leader in using technology to price insurance more accurately--will find out more about both those issues through a recently announced 5,000-participant pilot project in Minnesota. Called Tripsense, the program will use an an inexpensive plug-in device to record data about an individuals' driving, including time of driving and mileage, speed driven, and even acceleration and braking (which won't affect rates yet), with discounts for behaviors that indicate safer driving.

The customer can easily remove the box; download readings into a personal computer; and examine the data and potential insurance discounts. The customer can then choose to send the information along to Progressive, or keep it private. Unfortunately, discounts for low mileage are relatively small, but it's still step in the right direction. And if PAYD is adopted on a wide scale, it promises to reduce driving by 5 to 15 percent--a huge boon for society and the environment.

Originally posted August 16, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Businesses Start to Get Real About Global Warming

Consensus is growing among scientists, governments, and business that they must act fast to combat climate change. This has already sparked efforts to limit CO2 emissions. Many companies are now preparing for a carbon-constrained world

The idea that the human species could alter something as huge and complex as the earth's climate was once the subject of an esoteric scientific debate. But now even attorneys general more used to battling corporate malfeasance are taking up the cause. On July 21, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and lawyers from seven other states sued the nation's largest utility companies, demanding that they reduce emissions of the gases thought to be warming the earth. Warns Spitzer: "Global warming threatens our health, our economy, our natural resources, and our children's future. It is clear we must act."

The maneuvers of eight mostly Democratic AGs could be seen as a political attack. But their suit is only one tiny trumpet note in a growing bipartisan call to arms. "The facts are there," says Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.). "We have to educate our fellow citizens about climate change and the danger it poses to the world." In January, the European Union will impose mandatory caps on carbon dioxide and other gases that act like a greenhouse over the earth, and will begin a market-based system for buying and selling the right to emit carbon. By the end of the year, Russia may ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which makes CO2 reductions mandatory among the 124 countries that have already accepted the accord. Some countries are leaping even further ahead. Britain has vowed to slash emissions by 60% by 2050. Climate change is a greater threat to the world than terrorism, argues Sir David King, chief science adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair: "Delaying action for a decade, or even just years, is not a serious option."

There are naysayers. The Bush Administration flatly rejects Kyoto and mandatory curbs, arguing that such steps will cripple the economy. Better to develop new low-carbon technologies to solve problems if and when they appear, says Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. And a small group of scientists still argues there is no danger. "We know how much the planet is going to warm," says the Cato Institute's Patrick J. Michaels. "It is a small amount, and we can't do anything about it."

But the growing consensus among scientists and governments is that we can -- and must -- do something. Researchers under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have pondered the evidence and concluded that the earth is warming, that humans are probably the cause, and that the threat is real enough to warrant an immediate response. "There is no dispute that the temperature will rise. It will," says Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science. "The disagreement is how much." Indeed, "there is a real potential for sudden and perhaps catastrophic change," says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change: "The fact that we are uncertain may actually be a reason to act sooner rather than later."

Plus, taking action brings a host of ancillary benefits. The main way to cut greenhouse-gas emissions is simply to burn less fossil fuel. Making cars and factories more energy-efficient and using alternative sources would make America less dependent on the Persian Gulf and sources of other imported oil. It would mean less pollution. And many companies that have cut emissions have discovered, often to their surprise, that it saves money and spurs development of innovative technologies. "It's impossible to find a company that has acted and has not found benefits," says Michael Northrop, co-creator of the Climate Group, a coalition of companies and governments set up to share such success stories.

Continue reading this cover story from Business Week:
Global Warming

Originally posted August 13, 2004 in Northwest Environmental News

Washington Farms Could Benefit From Renewable Fuel Standards

A new report shows agricultural organizations across the country are joining a growing trend to support renewable energy standards that help make energy a profitable crop for farmers and local communit