Re/Action on Climate Protection

CA Energy Commisions - Conference on Climate Change

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/events/2005_conference/index.html
Good information about what is happening at the state level

Against the backdrop of the borderless battle against global warming, the California Energy Commission and the California Environmental Protection Agency will hold the Second Annual Conference on Climate Change Research.

Sir David King, the chief science adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, will deliver the keynote speech at this year's gathering (on Thursday). Through Sir David, the United Kingdom will forge a united front with California and its two closest Western neighbors - in hopes of complementing worldwide strategies to soften the economic and environmental blows inflicted worldwide by the climactic phenomenon.

Megawatts vs. Negawatts for GHG reduction?

Does added renewable generation capability give you the best bang for the buck for reducing GHG emissions? How does reducing power needs by improving efficiency stack up? Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute coined the term "negawatts" back in the early days of the energy efficiency movement. This concept compares the cost of a watt gained by the system through improved efficiency, vs. the cost of a watt gained by the system through new generation. In GHG terms, one watt not used reduces overall GHG emissions as much as one additional watt generated by a non-fossil fuel powered generator. Here is a worked example that demonstrates this concept:

If you put in a 3kW PV system on your home, that will cost you about $20,000, after rebates. If you finance that at 5% over 30 years, which is the life of the system, that will end up costing you about $39K. That system will generate about 4600 kWh/yr in Sonoma County, CA, which is about 1.6 tons of CO2 avoided. Over the 30 yr period, that is about 48 tons of CO2 avoided. That is about $800/ton of CO2 avoided.

Now take a 20 watt compact fluorescent bulb, replacing a 100 watt incandescent. Let's assume the lifetimes of the two bulbs are equal, 10,000 hours (they're not, but it doesn't really matter in this case). Let's say the compact fluorescent costs $10, and the incandescent costs nothing. Over the lifetime of the two bulbs, the compact fluorescent avoids 800kWh, which is about 560 lbs of CO2, at a cost of $10. This works out to about $35/ton of CO2 avoided.

Here is a good resource for energy efficiency information: www.aceee.org

New Orleans - America's First Zero Carbon City?

Musing about the possibilities in rebuilding New Orleans:

Wouldn't it be an amazing statement to rebuild New Orleans as America's first zero net carbon city?

• All electric power derived from renewable sources
• New housing so tightly integrated with services that individual cars not required
• Car-free downtown
• All municipal transportation systems powered by renewably generated electric power or biofuels
• New housing all net zero carbon
• Any carbon emitted during construction is offset by tree planting and wetland restoration and/or investment in new renewably powered energy generation

This would be a concrete statement to the rest of the world that America cares about global warming and the need to transition to a zero carbon economy. It would show that the richest nation on earth has heard the wakeup call and is ready to join the rest of humanity in solving global warming.

Write to the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans and suggest it. No, demand it! Write to your senators and representatives to urge them to earmark the federal dollars for the reconstruction of New Orleans to be used for Green Building, zero net energy government facilities and renewable energy and fuel sources.

Here is what the City of Melbourne, AU is doing:

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=235&pg=1618

Zero net carbon

"Zero net carbon" or "low carbon" is a way of talking about the effect of human-caused GHG emissions on the atmospheric carbon dioxide level. If an activity is zero-net-carbon, it does not increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is clear that, in order to reverse the trend of increasing GHG emissions due to new demand for energy, new development must be zero net carbon. Here are some ways that this can be accomplished:

http://www.bedzed.org.uk/main.html

http://climateprotectioncampaign.jot.com/NewDevelopment

Achieving Zero Net Carbon

At Climate Protection Campaign, we have developed a strategy called "Carbon Removal". We look at each of the GHG emitting sectors: existing buildings, local energy system, transportation, water/wastewater, solid waste, agriculture, new development and forestry in the context of government, residential, commercial and industrial uses.

We then formulate what must be done to remove carbon emissions completely from each sector. Generally, these actions fall into two categories: demand side and supply side. On the demand side, we have found that energy efficiency measures top the list for fast, cost-effective GHG reductions. On the supply side, we are developing ways to transition our local energy supplies to renewable sources.

In my next few posts, I'll give some examples of the types of measures we are working on. I hope that other folks out there will share their experiences with working toward zero net carbon.

Action on Climate Protection

Hello, Climate Protection Campaign is launching our blog. This blog is intended to stimulate discussion about what can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are currently working on projects at the local level, but we advocate action at all levels: local, state, federal and international.

What we want to do in this blog is to discuss solutions. We want to know what is working elsewhere in the world...and we want to share our experiences with what is working here in Sonoma County.

Although we will post articles on science and links to basic climate science, our aim is not primarily to discuss the science of global warming and climate change. We are not climate scientists, but we view the science of global warming as basically settled. We have adopted and endorse the findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which are that:

• The planet is warming
• Most of the warming in the past 100 years is caused by humans (anthropogenic)
• The human activities most responsible for warming are emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and deforestation.
• Emissions of GHGs that are causing global warming are primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels.
• Significant reduction in GHG emissions is necessary to prevent dangerous changes to the global climate.

In addition to the findings of the IPCC, our view is that meaningful reductions must be accomplished as quickly as possible in order to stabilize the level of atmospheric CO2 as low as possible.

We are looking forward to engaging in discussion with you about how to solve the climate crisis.