Climategate

I apparently have not been tuned in this holiday week, as I am just becoming aware of the escalation of ClimateGate.  For those who have also been under a rock (or a heaping pile of culinary delights to be thankful for), take a quick gander at what the link above has to say.  Or better yet google "Climategate" and take a look at what the online media has to say about it. 

In short, over a thousand emails from the Climactic Research Unit in the UK were leaked, and the conversations show some tinkering around with the data used to prove that climate change is a severe threat caused by human activity.  The  CRU, referred to by one website as the "Pentagon of climate change science," is an important institution in the effort to understand global warming.  According to some, the emails represent a "veritable who’s who in climate science."

The emails are pretty incriminating, even when one acknowledges the lack of context and the need for further examination.  Essentially the statements show evidence that some scientists have been trying to hide data showing a global cooling trend in recent years, refuting the theory that temperatures have undergone a more significant swing since the industrial revolution than at any measurable time in the past.  It is a horrible offense in the world of scientific research, in my opinion, to seek results to prove a theory, rather than performing an unbiased analysis and honestly interpreting results.  The former seems to be what occurred here, and whether the actions are considered a misguided attempt to do right by defending a belief that contradicts evidence, or outright dishonesty and self preservation, will be debated.

At first google, one might believe that this proves without a doubt what climate skeptics have been arguing for years: either global warming is blatant nonsense, or if it is happening, it is a natural process independent from human effect.  The first few pages of search results are a showering of I told you so's from those who have objected to the money and time spent on fighting global warming.  The general consensus from this camp are that the lies of the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth have finally been exposed in the biggest conspiracy of the century and that any legislation regarding limiting greenhouse gas emissions and limiting access to cheap fossil fuel should be stopped immediately.

I had to dig pretty deep to find any response from the liberal side of the table, indeed a big criticism voiced by the conservative media is that the news has been all but ignored by those that it incriminates, including the mainstream media.  But the radical conclusions expressed by skeptics are pretty severe. Those from the left that have responded point to the overwhelming evidence that already exists that climate change is human-made, and that although these scientists may have exercised bad judgment, this is not the whole story. 

As a former researcher and one who has and will continue to base my understandings on scientific evidence, I am very alarmed by this apparent abuse of power and mission.  I am saddened by the dishonesty that will significantly impact the credibility of what I believe to be an honorable branch of scientific inquiry, whatever the investigation results.  Ultimately, I tend to work from the general principal that efficiency itself is a noble cause.  Even if we are not causing global warming as rapidly as the researchers at CRU expected to show, sustainability has many more dimensions that just carbon emissions.  Regardless, we deserve to have accurate information, ethics and objectivity present in the pursuit of science.

The Density Debate Pt. 1: Evolving Definitions

While looking into what has been written about the Berkeley Downtown Area Plan debate (see my post on October 17) I came across a very interesting article called "You're Not an Environmentalist If You're Also a NIMBY."  It was written by Robert Gammon of the East Bay Express.  For me, it shed considerable light on the density debate and the evolution of environmentalism.

Most people curious about planning issues have heard the term NIMBY, which stands for "Not in My Backyard."  If you google the definition you will find that it describes the type of person who resists new development or changes in their own neighborhood.  Some definitions mention that it is often used pejoritavely, or that the same person would not object to that development occurring elsewhere.  In my experience it has been extended to describe those who might concede that something may be neccesary or worthwhile as long as the inconvenience stays off of their lawn (or out of their sightline, or out of earshot etc.).

As Mr. Gammon points out, for years city dwellers have adopted a NIMBY-esque attitude against development under the umbrella of environmentalism,  preventing new apartments and condominiums from being built.  He describes this mostly liberal group as presenting their "eco-conscious" position to reduce traffic, overcrowding, and the potential destruction of neighborhood character.  In actuality, this attitude has contributed to suburban sprawl and increased commute miles, the effects of which few could hardly argue to be supported by the environmentalist community.  In addition, the lack of new housing left urban areas such as Berkeley and Oakland underdeveloped, further weakening the economic corner of the sustainability triangle (right).

I have personally heard this debate on the streets of downtown Berkeley, when volunteers opposed to the current DAP were collecting signatures for the petition to put it on the ballot.   Livable Berkeley is a group active in the DAP debate who consider themselves green and oppose the NIMBY attitude.  Erin Rhoades, the organization's volunteer executive director, tells Gammon: "Our goal is to shift the idea of what it means to be an environmentalist when living in a city, away from the protection of land to the more efficient use of land." 

This idea essentially moves the preservation vs. conservation debate as defined in the Progressive Era into modern urban/rural context: preservation of what has not been developed requires conservation of resources and compromise in personal benefits.  That we will grow is inevitable.  How we will grow is up to us.

Resilient and Biophilic Cities

On October 26th I attended a lecture hosted by the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, called Green Urbanism: Planning for Resilient and Biophilic Cities.  It was given by Dr. Tim Beatley, a professor at the University of Virginia.  He is a published author of many books on land use and sustainability, most recently Resilient Cities, Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change.   

    Dr. Beatley initially outlined his current focus to be one of understanding existing and possible strategies for cities and towns to reduce their carbon footprint as well as become more equitable.  He proposed that we look at our buildings like trees and our cities as forests, closing the loop of inward and outward flows.  In this spirit, most of the lecture highlighted strategies that he uncovered while researching two recent books, Green Urbanism, learning from European Cities, and Green Urbanism Down Under.  

Here are just a few of the strategies that Dr. Beatley discovered in Europe and Australia.  

• Copenhagen set the goal be Carbon Neutral by 2025 by exploring alternative energy sources and encouraging people to spend more time outside, as well as exploring ways to offset their carbon production elsewhere. 

 

• Almost every city in Australia has a Public Art Master Plan (examples here, here, and here) to encourage residents to get outside and explore parts of the city they might not otherwise visit.  In some cases they provide small grants to local artists to entice residents into alley ways.

• Brisbane Australia has facilitated the decoration of over 900 traffic signal boxes by local artists.

• Stockholm has invested into transit infrastructure so that stops are available before people even move into new flats.

• Public bike programs have become very popular in Paris (20,000 bikes) and Stockholm (6000 bikes) for both resident and tourist use.  Smart cards facilitate use and popularity has lead to additional infrastructure investment that encourages use of personal bikes as well.

• Barcelona has mandated that 65% of water heating be provided by solar hot water and outfits public buildings such as city hall with PVs to supply power to the grid.

• The Vauban development in Freiburg, the “Eco-Capital” of Germany, is a neighborhood facilitated by trams that is car free.  If you own a car it must be parked at a peripheral lot which costs over $20,000 at the outset. 

• Technologies are being implemented near Sydney to extract biogas solid waste for fuel and facilitate wastewater collection and reuse.

• In Australia Toy Libraries are common, at least one or two per city.

• Montreal has a rooftop gardening project, and a nonprofit that makes a “balcony kit” from recycling bins to help people grow their own food even with limited outdoor space.

• In the London Borough of Croyden a goal was set for the neighborhood to source 50% of their building materials in a 35 mile radius, which they did from a local municipal forest.  The urban city of Croyden is now FSC certified.

For more exciting innovations underway at home and abroad, refer to the books mentioned above, and look for Dr. Beatley's soon to be released film: The Nature of Cities.

Gardens, gardens, everywhere...at least in Berkeley.

When I initially decided to start this blog, sharing what I learned about community gardens and locally grown food was going to be it's main reason for being.  As I stumbled into one interesting sustainability/planning topic after another, I realized that a focus that narrow wasn't going to work for me.  I am, however, still interested in the subject, and I decided to start with a closer look at community gardens in Berkeley.

Wow.  There are alot of community gardens in Berkeley!  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it is the culture of Berkeley that first brought me greater awareness about the local food movement and its impact on the health of both the consumer and the community.  These impacts are especially great when choosing organic or pesticide free sources, and buying locally grown food cuts down on energy and emissions required to bring produce to your local grocer.  Growing your own food goes even further, by allowing people to connect directly with what they consume, and reinforcing community relationships with a cooperative effort.

Not everyone can, or wants, to grow their own food.  For some the limitation is time, space, or both.  I personally fall somewhere in the middle of the above groups, but it is likely that I would have started something small by now if my neighborhood wasn't so full of deer.  Because of my adorable but hungry neighbors, I would have to construct a considerable barrier to keep them away from my edibles.  I love the deer.  But they would love my tomatoes.  It also takes considerable effort to get a garden setup, figure out what works and what doesn't, and to manage the fruits of your labor in an efficient way.

Enter the role of Community Gardens.  They allow the average person to overcome the problems of space and infrastructure and get involved with what they eat with a reduced time commitment.  There are even groups like the Berkeley Community Gardening Collaborative  that help organize those gardens and train the community on the methods and benefits involved.  BCGC is really a great resource (as is the Ecolcogy Center that manages it).

From the BCGC website, or this one as well, one can find a local garden near them: at least 10 general gardens plus 10-12 others for special purposes or located at schools.  One can also learn about local farmer's markets and training and volunteer opportunities.   Some gardens allow you to spend a little time and/or money and share a portion of what grows, be it food, flowers, herbs, etc.  Some, like the Karl Linn Community Garden (picture, left),  also serve as a public gathering place.  Others, like Spiral Gardens (picture, above right),  donate a significant portion of the food grown to promote health in the community.  In this case they split the harvests between low-income seniors in the neighboring complex and the volunteers that make it happen.

Kind of makes you all green and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

Berkeley Downtown Plan Debate Continues

As a resident of Berkeley, I have been following the recent evolution of the new Downtown Area Plan.  What was initially an idea that remarkably enjoyed “unanimous support,” has slowly evolved over a four year period into a heated debate.  The debate reflects an ongoing struggle in Berkeley between those who seek to limit development and an increase in urban density and those who feel that a density increase is vital to restoring the ailing downtown area.

Some who oppose increased density argue that it is bad development mislabeled as smart growth, and a movement towards more people, more cars and traffic problems, and less green space.  Those that support a density increase see it as a means of creating a more walkable community, allowing people to live where they work, and thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions exacerbated by suburban sprawl.  These two groups are especially pitted against each other in Berkeley, and people on both sides can claim to be environmentalists.


While the original plan that was proposed by the 25-member citizen's Downtown Area Advisory Plan Committee was hardly unanimously approved, the plan that was then adapted by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council has been even more hotly contested.  This version has been successfully petitioned to be put up for public vote in 2010, a fight led by two City Council members who voted against the commission version.  So what are these additional layers of disagreement about?

Essentially, the debate centers around two general areas.  The first involves the interconnected concerns regarding the impacts of increased density and height allowances on the overall character of downtown and it’s historical landmarks.  The City Council approved version allows taller buildings with fewer restrictions.  The second issue involves the green building and affordable housing elements that the DAPAC worked to incorporate into their version, but the Planning Commission considerably weakened.   The DAPAC felt that both of these components were vital to the plan’s success.  The Planning Commission, at least those members who voted for the final plan, felt that the adjustments were necessary to make Berkeley’s development economically feasible.  Those fighting this version criticize it as siding with developers and not accurately reflecting the needs and values of Berkeley residents.

In light of the fact that even that chairman of the DAPAC, Will Travis, acknowledged that the committee did not examine economic aspects of the plan due to time constraints and a general distrust of economists, it seems reasonable that the new plan be explored further in a public forum.  There is no doubt that the impacts of the plan will be far-reaching, and that including supports for green building measures and affordable housing are essential.  But enacting a plan that actually executes the goals of improving the vitality of the area while maintaining the historical essence of the community, rather than preventing development with excessive costly requirements, is where the challenge lies.

The debate continues.

It's a great day to start a blog!

My day began with the fantastic news that Governor Schwarzenegger signed in two important bills this week that increase incentives to invest in solar energy.  AB 920 changes the current net-metering law to require utility companies to buy back annual energy surplus from customers who generate it via solar panels.  This is a huge step, one that many debated could happen at all.

When you install solar panels on your home, the energy generated rolls back your electricity meter averaged over a year of usage.  Because more power is often consumed in months with the least amount of sunlight, this averaging allows your summer sun to pay for your winter heat.  Prior to AB 920, if your system generated more power than you used, the utilities essentially got that power for free.  At the end of the year your balance went back to zero.

Now the utility companies have to pay for ALL your power, at a rate determined by the California Public Utilities Commission. This is a huge step!  It means that you can earn money by not using power!   It will also encourage investment in ample or oversized systems for those who can afford them, those who want to offset their carbon footprint, those who live is especially sunny areas like the desert, and those who use certain buildings on a part-time or seasonal basis.

The second bill, SB 32, expands the “feed-in tariff” system approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in early 2008.  The system as originally approved by the CPUC allowed the government to regulate the rate that utility companies pay for private power generation from facilities up to 1.5 megawatts in capacity.  Under the CPUC program private customers are paid only a market rate for their solar power, essentially exchanging the cost of “brown power” for that generated with solar cells. Some feel that this incentive is not good enough and does not accurately take into account the benefits of this clean power.  Not only is the energy produced with fewer resources, but because the solar cells can be located closer to the user, there can be less energy required for transmission.  That only 14MW have been installed under the CPUC program since it began is an indicator that these critics are correct.

SB32 changes the way the pricing structure is determined, adding in environmental and distributed generation attributes in the tariffs, which are now determined by avoided cost, and not just current market rate.  It also doubles the capacity covered, so that facilities up tp 3 megawatts now fall under this umbrella.
The hope is that these changes will encourage both private investors and utilities themselves to build solar facilities.  There are successful examples in Europe, where feed in tariffs have been in place for some time.  Germany has had exceptional success, in part due to the over market price German utilities pay for private generation of clean power.

Lets hope the results of these incentives follows Germany’s example!
Ontario recently launched a similar but much more aggressive program, considered to potentially turn Ontario into a “green-energy titan.” Their program allows private producers of solar electricity to earn up to 80.2 cents per kilowatt for solar power (wow!) and between 11-19 cents for other forms of green power such as wind farms, biogas facilities and mini-hydro plants (the exchange rate from Canadian to US dollars is almost 1:1).  This is a huge step in moving Canada towards their impressive goal of shutting down all coal plants by 2014.  Go Canada!