To meet long-term climate goals, we’ll need eventual 100% zero-emission vehicle adoption. But it’s not just new vehicle sales that matter. It’s becomingly less expensive to retrofit existing vehicles, including even this 1949 Mercury Coupe, pictured here:
As Autoweek profiled, Jonathan Ward and the Los Angeles-based Icon converted a fuel-injected Coyote V8 into an EV, installing two motors and a Tesla-sourced 85 kWh battery system with up to 200-mile range.
It was carefully done work, as you can see under the hood:
Some big wins for California (and therefore national) climate policy last night:
- Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom is elected governor, which means the state will continue its climate leadership on various policy fronts
- Prop. 6 loses, which would have repealed the gas tax increase and meant less funding for transit going forward
- Prop. 1 wins, which could provide more money for affordable housing in infill areas, reducing driving miles as a result
- The Democrats win the U.S. House of Representatives, which has a host of implications:
- Oversight of the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior, and Transportation, plus E.P.A., which have all issued various regulations that hurt climate goals in the state
- Potentially more funding in future budget bills for crucial transit infrastructure, including high speed rail
- Potentially more funding and fiscal support for clean tech, like renewables, energy storage and electric vehicles, depending on how budget negotiations proceed
- Oregon Governor Kate Brown wins re-election, which means that state is well-positioned to adopt cap-and-trade next year, making it the first U.S. state to link to California’s program and potentially creating a multi-state building block for an eventual national carbon trading program
And on the housing front, Governor-elect Newsom has set ambitious goals for building more homes in the state, which if done in infill areas could bring crucial climate and air pollution benefits from reduced driving per capita. Pro-housing “YIMBY” candidates also bolstered their ranks in state government, with the election of former Obama campaign staffer Buffy Wicks to the Berkeley Assembly district.
Setbacks nationally (beyond continued Republican gains in the U.S. Senate) included the defeat of some state ballot initiatives, including a carbon tax in Washington, an anti-fracking measure in Colorado, and a renewable portfolio initiative in Arizona — though Nevada voters did embrace a 50% renewable target by 2030 at their polls.
All in all, a positive night for climate policy in California and beyond.
California has largely been “going it alone” on major climate policy, specifically the state’s carbon trading program through cap and trade. But the election today in Washington and Oregon could change that dynamic and possibly usher in a West Coast climate bloc of states willing to tackle carbon directly.
First up, a Washington state ballot initiative (1631) would institute a “carbon fee” that would generate roughly $2.2 billion in its first five years. The money would be spent on carbon-reducing projects like public-transit, energy efficiency retrofits, and new renewable facilities. It would also fund forest and stream projects.
Given the negative impact on the fossil fuel industry, it’s become hotly contested, per E&E News [paywalled]:
In Washington, the ballot initiative calling for an escalating carbon fee is now the most expensive in state history. More than $47 million has been raised for the contest, with oil interests dumping roughly $30 million into opposition to the measure. Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, along with former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, have donated $1 million to the yes campaign.
If it passes, it would be the country’s first carbon tax, as a complement to California’s trading program (which functions as a de facto carbon price based on the price of the carbon allowances auctioned to polluters).
Meanwhile, Oregon has a chance to enact its own cap-and-trade program next year, as I blogged this summer after attending a legislative gathering at the Oregon coast. But it hinges on the current governor, Kate Brown, winning re-election today against a tough Republican challenger, funded in part by Nike founder Phil Knight. If she wins and it passes next year, Oregon could potentially link their program to California’s.
So while most of the nation focuses today on the critical congressional elections, climate policy could take a major step forward in these state races. As the federal government experiences division and inaction in the face of the climate threat, multi-state coalitions like along the Pacific Coast could represent a promising step forward to achieve real national progress.
Most political candidates and media outlets don’t want to discuss climate change, but Saturday Night Live found an entertaining way to do so (though for some reason without mention of trees as a carbon sink):
Rural America has been falling behind urban America for decades, in terms of economic productivity and population growth. The worsening divide has manifested in cultural and political disruption nationwide. What role can climate policy play to help repair the inequity and hollowing out of our rural places?
My colleague Dan Farber describes the stark situation in Legal Planet:
According to Brookings researchers, the 53 largest metros account for over 95% of the nation’s population growth and 73% of the employment gains since 2010. Rural areas—those with no metros over 250,000 –are losing population and account for a declining share of the national economy. In other words, Brooking says, “9 percent of the population lives in smaller metros that are stagnant or slipping as a group and another 14 percent in rural places that are almost all declining.” It’s not hard to see why people are unhappy.
He then cites some of the ways that climate and environmental policy could help. First, rural areas will be disproportionately affected by a changing climate, particularly to agriculture. So they may be amenable to policies that address these impacts. Second, while they are not as affected by air pollution, drinking water contamination is a factor. So policies that bolster safe drinking water could be winners.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, clean energy policies could usher in a “Green New Deal” for rural America that boosts local jobs and economic development. That means jobs installing, constructing and managing renewable energy facilities, both small- and large-scale, plus related energy storage facilities. Energy retrofits of existing buildings can boost local contractor opportunities. Zero-emission vehicle technologies like battery electrics mean people can fuel their vehicles with local clean electricity instead of with the global commodity of oil. Those oil and gas purchases otherwise enrich far-off corporations and nations, representing a failure to circulate and invest that money locally. Natural and working landscapes in rural areas could also potentially receive carbon offset funding to be preserved as carbon sinks.
It would be a winning climate recipe that could also have the benefit of addressing the extreme inequality in the country. The politics, economy and global climate could all come out ahead with a Green New Deal.
People who don’t like infill development cite electric vehicles as an excuse to continue to sprawl. People who don’t like cars like to point out the environmental limitations of electric vehicles.
And so we have a simmering tension, recently manifested in Alissa Walker’s otherwise engaging Curbed piece “When Electric Isn’t Good Enough” on the need to reduce vehicle miles traveled and reliance on single-occupancy vehicles — even if they’re electrically powered.
Reducing driving and building more walkable, bikeable and transit-friendly neighborhoods are obviously imperatives. Environmentally, we need the reduced emissions and more compact buildings that use less energy and water. Health-wise we need the exercise and social interaction. And economically, we need the savings on housing, transportation and utility bills. Walker’s piece helps makes that case.
But electric vehicles are still a crucial technology. Driving will continue regardless of development patterns, and we must decarbonize it. We should think of it as a “loading order” (to borrow an energy phrase for prioritizing efficiency over new electricity generation): first we try to reduce driving miles, then we decarbonize all remaining driving. Walker’s article is helpful in emphasizing the need for action on the first priority.
But missing from the article is mention of the crucial co-benefits of vehicle electrification. The battery revolution propelled by EV purchases means cheap energy storage to balance intermittent renewables like solar and wind power on our grid, which helps to decarbonize our electricity sector. Cheap batteries also mean we can now have battery-powered transit buses, not to mention e-bikes and e-scooters — some of the emission-reducing technologies hailed in Walker’s piece.
Overall, the article is a helpful reminder that we need to build better neighborhoods and encourage efficient modes of transportation. But we shouldn’t downplay the significance of electric vehicles as a crucial clean technology. In short, EVs are a necessary — but not sufficient — climate-fighting technology.
In California, trees in the Sierra Nevada are dying due to climate change-induced droughts. Worldwide, humans are in dire need of sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere — a process that trees embody.
So could using more wood products from dead and small trees in tall buildings be a solution? Specifically, cross-laminated timber (CLT), with precisely cut layers of wood layered on top of each other, provides a lumber building block that is efficient, sturdy — and can be comprised of lumber from those same small and dead trees.
Europe has been using cross-laminated timber for a while, and now the United States is catching on. The benefits for the climate are potentially multifold. Since one of the challenges to thinning forests to prevent devastating fires and removing dead trees from drought-stricken areas is that it’s expensive, cross-laminated timber presents a potential economic revenue stream to help fund the projects. Otherwise, timber harvesters have to cut big trees to make the thinning work pencil out, while cash-strapped governments lack the public dollars to tackle such a large-scale problem.
Meanwhile, wood in tall buildings means that sequestered carbon from the trees is captured in the building, instead of released to the air from inevitable wildfires. Not to mention that more tall buildings means denser urban environments that can reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy and water usage.
Policy action will be needed to deploy environmentally beneficial cross-laminated timber, from permitting changes on the harvesting, building codes that allow cross-laminated timber, and demonstration projects that prove the feasibility and desired environmental outcomes. But given the scale of the challenge, we’ll need to explore innovative solutions like cross-laminated timber as a solution for both healthy forests and the climate.
The electric revolution has hit scooters, as the battery-powered versions are hitting urban areas across America. It seems like a good thing for the environment at first glance, but the real story may be more complicated.
We don’t yet have any data from the scooter companies themselves, but E&E News [paywalled] discussed some of the factors that would affect the environmental footprint:
- Replacement trips: e-scooters are an environmental win if they’re replacing what would otherwise be an automobile trip. But if they’re replacing a transit ride, it’s usually more efficient to ride in a bus or train than take a single e-scooter ride.
- Electricity source: if the energy to produce the electricity for the scooter’s battery comes from coal, these rides may not be so clean after all.
- Charging process energy: the e-scooter companies pay people to collect the scooters at the end of each day, to bring them somewhere to charge. If those individuals are driving around in fossil fuel-powered cars with excessive miles traveled, those emissions could significantly offset (or even swamp) the e-scooter benefits.
- Disposal: at the end of their useful life, how are the e-scooters disposed? There will be an emissions footprint to disposing or recycling them, as well as a potential toxicity issue.
So while e-scooters certainly hold a lot of promise for reducing emissions, without more data — and potentially some policies to ensure positive environmental outcomes — we don’t yet know for sure if that’s the case.
California Governor Jerry Brown has made a major global impact on climate change. As he nears the end of his fourth term in California, Calmatters profiles one of his top environmental aides, Ken Alex, in a piece that gives him well-deserved recognition for his remarkable behind-the scenes efforts:
At the podium, California Gov. Jerry Brown delivered remarks about a new multinational agreement on climate change. Brown’s near-evangelical leadership on climate issues was unsurpassed among the dignitaries, many of whom would sign under the force of his persuasion.
But the document itself was made possible by the quiet man at the back of the room: Ken Alex, always in the background but hardly on the sidelines.
During 36 years in state service, Alex has operated outside the warmth of the spotlight, and he is far from a household name. But insiders say he may be the most consequential environmental authority California has ever known.
Ken has also mentored numerous environmental attorneys over the years (including me), leaving in place a legacy of both policy accomplishments and individuals throughout the field of environmental law who reflect his influence.
I’m also thrilled that Ken will be joining the Center of Law, Energy and Environment (CLEE) at Berkeley Law after he leaves the public sector next year, joining me and others in our climate policy work. So while he’s already garnered an incredible list of accomplishments in his career, there is still much more to come from Ken — for the benefit of all in the worldwide fight against climate change.
The HHLA Container Terminal Altenwerder (CTA) in Hamburg, Germany, features an automated handling facility using low and zero-emission equipment, similar to the Port of Long Beach. This video shows the cutting-edge technology and attendant environmental benefits:
It’s easy to see why labor groups fear the automation technology, as no workers are now needed in this facility. And it also points to the continued need to deploy zero-emission trucks, as once the cargo leaves the facility, it’s still carried by dirty trucks polluting nearby neighborhoods.
