Also see below:     
The San Jose Mercury News | Climate Change at Crisis Level    [

    Warming Law Applies Pressure to Industries
    By Glen Martin
    The San Francisco Chronicle

    Monday 25 December 2006

Agriculture, forestry, car makers need to reduce emissions.

    California's landmark law to drastically cut greenhouse gases could boost the state's economy or make it even more expensive to live in California. It may do both.

    The Global Warming Solutions Act, which drew international attention when it became law in September, is vague on details about how the state must cut emissions that cause the planet to warm - most notably carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Still, the act portends unprecedented change in the ways Californians live and work, probably affecting the power that we use, the cars we buy and how our food is grown.

    "Long term, it will mean more and better choices for Californians," said Linda Adams, the state secretary for environmental protection. "They'll be able to choose from a wide range of efficient electric or alternative fuel vehicles. They'll be able to buy power from utilities that generate electricity from low-carbon sources, or they'll be able to take advantage of incentives to install solar systems."

    The act calls for the state to first ratchet its emissions back to 1990 levels - the same target in the Kyoto Protocol, a seminal environmental treaty so far spurned by the federal government. By 2050 emissions would have to be cut by 80 percent under the 1990 levels. The law must still survive various court challenges.

    Determining which industries will carry the biggest burden is the job of the California Air Resources Board. The general idea is to employ a market-based approach that rewards businesses for cutting emissions while penalizing others that fail to meet target levels. The industries that have the most to gain or lose include automobile makers, energy companies, the forestry sector and farmers.

    The trading of "carbon credits" from one business to another is essential to the legislation. Companies that cut their emissions can sell those "credits" to other polluting companies. Companies can trade credits within California as well as with companies in the United Kingdom and continental Europe.

    For example, some companies or agencies may be forced to plant large swaths of trees or pay for wind or solar power plants. Farmers could be required to change cultivation methods to reduce nitrous oxide emissions - or conversely, they could get credit for crops that suck up carbon dioxide.

    Bill Magavern, a Sacramento representative for the Sierra Club, thinks most of the changes engendered by the act will be positive, such as better alternative-fuel cars.

    But he said there could also be some higher costs for consumers - most notably for power, because some low-carbon sources could be relatively expensive. It's too early to tell how high such costs will climb.

    Growing Green

    The forestry sector and agriculture industry ultimately will figure heavily in implementation of the new law, for the simple reason that plants pull greenhouse gases from the air and store it in woody tissue.

    According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a single acre of pine trees in the southeastern United States will sequester a metric ton of carbon each year. California's temperate areas probably would yield similar emissions-storing results.

    Some state goals call for forestry programs to cut 30 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. Existing forests and new plantations could, therefore, become valuable in the carbon-credit game. Private forestry companies could profit by planting new forests and acquiring carbon credits.

    Agriculture, meanwhile, is California's biggest business and a significant producer of greenhouse gases. Cows belch vast quantities of methane. Plowing releases nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.

    Both compounds are potent greenhouse gases. Methane traps heat 30 times more effectively than carbon dioxide, while nitrous oxide is 300 times more efficient.

    Frank Mitloehner, an associate professor of animal science at UC Davis and the director of the university's Agricultural Air Quality Center, said each of California's 3.4 million dairy cattle emit between 300 to 400 pounds of methane a year. That's roughly the equivalent of emissions from up to 4 million cars.

    Still, Mitloehner said, ridding the state of its dairy cows isn't the best way to cut greenhouse gases.

    Rather, he said, methane levels can be lowered by changing the dairy cows' diet. Special feed additives, he said, are effective in curtailing the growth of methanogens - the bacteria that produce methane - in the bovine gut. The fewer methanogens, the less methane.

    Livestock can also help in the fight against global warming, Mitloehner said, given that they consume as well as release carbon.

    "Virtually all the food byproducts produced by Central Valley agriculture - nut husks, waste grain, cottonseed - end up as commercial cattle feed," Mitloehner said. "If it wasn't going to the cattle, it would be rotting on the ground or in a landfill, releasing carbon dioxide and methane."

    And increasingly, dairy farmers are capturing the methane their cows produce by containing the manure in tanks; the gas is then burned to produce electricity for farm needs. That's another way that farmers could acquire sellable carbon credits.

    In fact, Mitloehner said, agriculture in general constitutes a major carbon sink - every green growing thing on a commercial farm, from an almond tree to a lettuce seedling, is pulling carbon from the air.

    No one has done the math yet, Mitloehner said, to quantify agriculture's role as both a reservoir and emitter of greenhouse gases. So it's unclear how much the new law will cost growers - or whether farmers stand to make substantial profits.

    And until such calculations are done, farmers will remain wary of the act.

    "We need to get this right, to make sure correct science is applied," said John Harris, president of Harris Ranch, a large cattle feed lot in Coalinga in Fresno County. "The governor's office is telling us, 'Don't worry, it'll all work out.' But for us, the jury is still out."

    Power Sector

    Power companies could have to reduce more than 36 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually - the equivalent of shutting down five or more old, coal power plants.

    The California Public Utilities Commission is already working to cut 20 percent of emissions from fossil-fuel burning plants by 2010 by using more renewable power such as wind and solar.

    But the PUC has yet to embrace a 2020 goal of cutting annual emissions by 33 percent - and even if it did, it remains unclear if the technology exists now to achieve such dramatic cuts, said Wendy Pulling, director of environmental policy for Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

    Conservation could help achieve some extra emissions cuts. Residents already can get rebates and other incentives to weatherize homes or install energy-efficient appliances. Over the next three years, PG&E will devote $1 billion to its energy-efficiency program, which is funded by ratepayers through a fee included in utility bills.

    Pulling said such programs have kept more than 61 million metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the skies over the past 20 years - equivalent to a decade's worth of carbon emissions from a large coal-fired power plant.

    California's energy mix is sure to become more diverse in coming years. The new law provides incentives to move utilities away from energy produced from fossil fuels. The costs of building new, environment-friendly power plants will almost certainly be passed on to ratepayers, experts agree.

    Vehicle Emissions

    The power industry and vehicles account for 60 percent of the state's carbon dioxide emissions.

    A large piece of the state's emissions cuts, therefore, will involve tailpipes. State goals call for cutting car emissions by 30 million metric tons by 2020 - the equivalent of taking 6.5 million cars and light trucks off the road.

    Environmentalists say that figure is not only achievable, but already is mandated by another California law - the 2002 state vehicle emission standards. Scheduled to begin going into effect in 2009, the new standards theoretically would allow the transportation sector to achieve its 2020 emissions reduction target.

    But the automobile manufacturing industry has sued the state over the 2002 law, claiming emission standards are basically the same as fuel-efficiency standards. And the state does not have the prerogative to set fuel-efficiency standards, carmakers say.

    Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of American Automobile Manufacturers, said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the sole authority to set fuel-efficiency standards.

    The federal district court in Fresno turned down state requests to dismiss the lawsuit. A trial is expected to begin early next year.

    If the court overturns the 2002 law, said David Doniger, the policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, the state Air Resources Board can still require the auto sector to meet its emission reductions through other means.

    For example, he said, auto manufacturers could meet requirements by turning out cars designed to burn low-emission fuels like ethanol - a type of alcohol derived from grain or agricultural and forestry waste.

    "One way or the other, any auto manufacturer doing business in California will have to meet the standards," Doniger said.

    And if the court upholds the 2002 standards, car manufacturers still are likely to resist implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act.

    "We oppose it," said Gloria Berquist, the vice president of public affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "It's still about trying to regulate carbon dioxide emissions through fuel-efficiency standards."

    Berquist said consumer demand for alternative cars is sufficient to stimulate change in the industry.

    "This year our organization set a production goal of 1 million hybrid, electric or alternative fuel cars," Berquist said. "By the third quarter, manufacturers had built 1.1 million. We intend to do even better next year."

 

---

    Go to Original

    Climate Change at Crisis Level
    The San Jose Mercury News | Editorial

    Tuesday 26 December 2006

    Global warming is the greatest environmental threat that humanity has ever faced.

    Caused mainly by the unprecedented levels of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by automobiles and industries, the rise in temperature is already starting to melt the polar ice caps and disrupt weather patterns.

    The potential consequences for California are dire. At current rates of warming, state researchers project that the sea level will rise as much as three feet by the end of the century, flooding many low-lying areas and tainting important sources of fresh water like the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta. Higher temperatures will drastically shrink the Sierra snowpack that stores much of our water. They will increase smog, boost the risk of wildfires and upset California's vital agricultural industries.

    The United States produces about one-fourth of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, yet we're the only major nation that officially denies there's a problem. This is the year for all of us - government, business, individuals - to aggressively attack global warming.

    California already is in the vanguard. Last year lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger passed a landmark law to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by about 25 percent by 2020. Although the details remain to be worked out, including how to implement an emissions trading scheme, the structure is in place for positive change. Northeastern states are implementing similar initiatives, and others may follow suit.

    California is also leading the nation by providing incentives for drivers to purchase hybrids and by creatively using clean-air laws to force automakers to boost average vehicle fuel economy.

    Sadly, the Bush-Cheney administration, loyal lackey of the energy industry, has consistently opposed any national efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The best we can probably hope for from the Roughneck-in-Chief is more funding for alternative energy research and added incentives for purchasing hybrid cars.

    That puts the pressure on Congress - particularly California Sen. Barbara Boxer, the new chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Congress needs to pass sensible and veto-proof legislation to reduce U.S. production of greenhouse gases.

    The Supreme Court should also strike a blow for planetary sanity by backing the dozen states that have sued the Environmental Protection Agency to force regulators to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant. If the court doesn't step up, Congress will need to dictate regulations.

    Here in Silicon Valley, venture capitalists like John Doerr are doing their part by investing billions of dollars in alternative energy start-ups. Computer and chip makers are creating more power-efficient devices. And local business leaders are trying to cut costs and streamline the permit process for solar power.

    There's also a lot we can do as individuals: dial down the heat and air conditioning, drive a fuel-efficient car, carpool, recycle, turn off unused lights and electronic devices. Most of all, we need to keep the pressure on our elected leaders to act.

    Other environmental priorities for 2007 include:

• Protecting our oceans. This is almost as important as the fight against global warming. Federal overseers are deciding how much to extend protection of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. They should err on the side of more rather than less, including tackling difficult issues such as fishing restrictions.
  
  The United States also needs to renew its push in the United Nations for global restrictions on bottom trawling, the practice of dragging fishing nets along the ocean floor, which destroys critical habitat. A proposed ban on bottom trawling in international waters was defeated in November after opposition from fishing nations such as Iceland and Russia. But with new evidence of declining seafood stocks, it's worth reopening the issue in 2007. (Perhaps if the United States gets serious about global warming, the rest of the world will take us seriously on other global environmental issues.)
  
  
• Protecting us from floods. The state Legislature and Department of Water Resources need to wisely spend the $4.1 billion that voters approved in November for flood control and levee repair. As we saw during last winter's heavy rains, the aging Delta levees are extremely vulnerable. They have been neglected for too long. At the same time, the state needs to discourage more building in flood zones - a lesson from Katrina that California should take to heart.