Keven Guillory

Climate Watch Sr. Editor Craig Miller with Producer Molly Samuel in the KQED studios.

After four years, numerous awards, and something just shy of 900 blog posts, the multimedia reporting effort that’s been known as Climate Watch is turning a significant page. KQED is combining our efforts with Quest, the station’s more broadly-based science and environmental news and programming effort.

We’ll continue to cover climate-related issues, as evidenced by the recent rollout of Heat and Harvest, a major multimedia project with the combined resources of Climate Watch, Quest and the Center for Investigative Reporting. Through a documentary now airing on public television stations throughout California, radio features on The California Report and an extensive lineup of online features, Heat and Harvest examines some of the ways in which climate change is already challenging farmers in the Golden State.

It’s by no means the first successful collaboration between Quest and Climate Watch. Past efforts have produced some high-profile “props,” including a 2011 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award for our TV segment on rising seas in the Bay Area.

The reorganization will, however, mean suspension of the Climate Watch blog, while we consider options for the most successful web strategy going forward. I’m proud of what we’ve done in this space, with groundbreaking work from our producers, Gretchen Weber and Molly Samuel, engaging, eye-opening posts from our freelance contributors, and unflagging support from our news director, Bruce Koon. I’ll miss doing it. I’ll miss writing and editing the posts and I’ll miss the lively discussions in our comments thread. Okay, most of the lively discussions.

I couldn’t resist going back and seeing what we were writing about when we first launched the blog, in the fall of 2008. Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor, organizing the first in a series of “climate summits.” The newly-elected Barack Obama would make a video appearance at that event and pledge swift, comprehensive federal action on climate change. We’re still waiting. Market analysts were speculating on what the price for a metric ton of carbon would be in California’s nascent cap-and-trade market (we still don’t know but will find out in about a month).

Though it may seem like the climate agenda has moved little in four years, climate change remains one of the critical challenges of our time. That’s becoming more evident with each passing year. Polls indicate that a strong majority of Californians agree, and expect policymakers to attend to both the consequences of a changing climate, as well as continued efforts to stem those consequences. So we’ll continue to monitor and report major developments on the science and policy fronts. Except now, we’ll be doing it with a much larger pool of talent. The KQED Science & Environment team includes a proven stable of writers, video producers and radio reporters, as well as specialists in education, digital production and social media. We’ll still be part of the climate conversation. We hope you will be, too.

Molly Samuel/KQED

Trucks are moving sand from the north end of Ocean Beach to the south end.

Portions of San Francisco’s historic Great Highway are closed for a massive sand-moving project, part of an effort to slow erosion along the stretch of Pacific coastline known as Ocean Beach. By the end of the project, trucks will have moved about 100,000 cubic yards of sand.

“It’s the equivalent of 31 Olympic-sized swimming pools,” said Tyrone Jue, spokesman for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. “It’s a lot of sand that we’re having to move in a short period of time and that’s why we’re closing down the lanes of the Great Highway to accommodate the truck traffic.”

The worst of the erosion is at the south end of the beach. Luckily, the north end actually has too much sand. The city is working with the National Park Service, to see if moving sand is more effective at stemming erosion than piling up boulders has been. The Park Service controls the south end of the beach, part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area known as Fort Funston. The GGNRA and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission have been involved in the creation of the Ocean Beach Master Plan, a bold initiative to stem erosion and prepare for sea level rise at Ocean Beach, though this particular project is not a part of that plan.

Southbound lanes of the Great Highway will be off-limits from 6:00 am until 5:00 pm on weekdays. The beach is still accessible, though some parking is affected. The project is supposed to be completed by the end of September.

Read more about the Ocean Beach Sand Management Project at the Ocean Beach Bulletin.

Josh Cassidy/KQED

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta plays a crucial role in the state’s water supply.

On Wednesday, Governor Jerry Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar are expected to announce a multi-billion dollar plan designed to fix California’s longstanding water war in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Their proposal for a 35-mile water tunnel is set to reignite the fight over how water is exported from the Delta. The announcement comes just months after federal and state wildlife agencies warned that the proposed version of the project could have dramatic impacts on Delta fish.

Political wrangling over the governor’s announcement has already begun. Two weeks ago, 11 members of Congress [PDF] urged officials to release more details about the costs and benefits of the plan before moving ahead. Senators Feinstein and Boxer sent a letter in support of the plan and urged them to meet the February, 2013 deadline to complete it.

History of Controversy

The Delta isn’t a place that most Californians know much about, as recent polls have shown, but the inland estuary just east of San Francisco Bay plays a crucial role in the state’s water supply. Delta water is pumped hundreds of miles across the state, reaching Silicon Valley, Southern California cities and millions of acres of farmland in the Central Valley.

California’s dependence on this supply has come with an ecological cost. Ten years ago, fish populations in the Delta crashed, including Delta smelt and longfin smelt. Numbers of endangered Chinook salmon were so low in 2008 that the commercial salmon fishery closed for two years.

Scientists point to a number of causes for this: loss of habitat, pollution, poor ocean conditions for salmon. But studies have shown significant fish losses at the massive pumping facilities in the south Delta, where water that would normally flow out to San Francisco Bay is diverted south. Others say that in some years, too much water was exported, not leaving enough in the ecosystem.

KQED / Bill Lane Center

California's Deadlocked Delta: Explore our series on the Delta.

After a decade of litigation over water exports, the state began developing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, largely financed by the water contractors that use Delta exports. The plan revives the idea of the “peripheral canal” – a massive water infrastructure project that would take water farther upstream of the Delta and divert it south. The plan also calls for 65,000 acres of tidal habitat restoration.

“The potential of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is enormous for the state of California,” says Karla Nemeth of California’s Natural Resources Agency. “It would be the most significant upgrade and modernization of the water projects in decades.”

Raising a Red Flag

The plan contains several alternatives for the “peripheral tunnel,” both in size and location. Earlier this year, the leading proposal was to build the largest tunnel facility with a capacity to move 15,000 cubic feet per second of water. A state analysis showed that it would export near-record volumes of water from the ecosystem (see page 34 [PDF]).

That raised concerns with wildlife agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. The agencies have the power to approve or deny a permit for the project based on its impact to endangered Chinook salmon and Delta smelt.

In April, the two agencies released a document [PDF] listing their concerns. “We need to be able to make a finding that the project as a whole is going to contribute to the recovery of the species,” says Carl Wilcox of the Department of Fish and Game. “If the analysis says, well, they’re going to do worse under the plan, we’re not going to be able to permit it.”

The plan showed an impact on endangered winter-run Chinook salmon, which depend on spawning ground below Shasta Dam. “The water quality conditions were going to be degraded to the point where they were going to be further jeopardized,” says Wilcox. “Longfin smelt is dependent on a certain amount of outflow through the Delta in the spring to achieve positive population growth. And what we were finding was that wasn’t going to be achieved and the population was going to decline.”

Since then, Wilcox says talks with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan writers have been productive. “Consequently, we expect to be seeing a change in the proposed project to respond to those concerns.”

That appeared to be the case at the Bay Delta Conservation Plan meeting in June, where officials referenced a smaller tunnel project that would move 9,000 cubic feet per second.

“We’ve been taking a look at some of the footprint issues,” says Nemeth. “We are very concerned about impacts to local communities and looking at ways where we can size a facility that can deal with securing water supplies and that can advance the recovery of fish species. That’s been the primary driver for the sizing of facilities as smaller as what had been proposed in February.”

Opposition Heats Up

The most heated criticism of the plan has come from groups representing farmers and communities in the Delta, concerned about the construction footprint. “Governor Brown’s plan, an enormous mistake, would exterminate salmon runs, destroy sustainable Delta family farms and saddle taxpayers with tens of billions in debt, mainly to benefit a small number of growers on the west side of the Central Valley,” said Restore the Delta, in a recent statement.

Financing the plan may still be the largest hurdle for the state. Water users would pay for the construction of the $13 billion tunnel, while funding for habitat restoration would come from state and federal sources, including part of the $11 billion water bond, recently pushed back to the 2014 ballot.

Water users haven’t come out against the smaller tunnel, but say deliveries will still be their bottom line. “It depends on how the 9,000 CFS project is operated,” says Jason Peltier of Westlands Water District, an agricultural area that depends on Delta water.

“If we build a 9,000 cubic feet per second diversion but the fishery agencies say you can only operate it this minimalist amount of time, it’s not going to provide the water supply and reliability benefits that we’re looking for. And maybe we don’t have a project.”

Still, Peltier says they’re willing to work with the state over the next decade as more scientific study is done. “We’ve evolved our thinking in recognizing that we can’t today, with anything other than a guess, say how the project will be operated in 15 years.”

Despite the fact that previous planning efforts have failed, Peltier believes that this time there’s a consensus on all sides that a solution needs to be found. “To not decide is to decide, also, and inaction is unacceptable. I think that’s a pretty uniformly felt feeling.”

A version of this post originally appeared on KQED’s News Fix.

This post originally appeared on KQED’s State of Health blog.

Getty Images

Farming in the Central Valley contributes to the poor air quality there.

As if there wasn’t already enough to worry about, now doctors are predicting that climate change will harm people’s respiratory health. The American Thoracic Society is so concerned it filed a report with two goals. The Society not only wants to raise awareness with doctors so they can take preventive measures with their patients but also is enticing researchers to take on the question for further study. They found that climate change has a direct impact on air quality. A hotter climate, wildfires, more pollen in the air and rates of airborne diseases are worsening respiratory health worldwide.

Climate change will likely affect different places in different ways, but in California it could mean hotter summers and more wildfires. The itchy eyes and sneeze-inducing allergies that plague many people during pollen season could also hang around longer if weather patterns continue to change. All of that is bad for asthmatics, children and the elderly, but also for poor people – as it turns out.

“It was really an eye opener for us,” said Kent Pinkerton, a professor of pediatrics at UC Davis and the lead author on the report. “We were really not aware of the implications of change in temperature on respiratory health. But it really is a global issue. It’s not just a concern for here in our country,” he added. In some parts of Africa and Turkey desertification and increased particulates in the air have already forced people to relocate, often into cramped conditions, which further heightens their risk for respiratory diseases.

In California, wildfires are a blazing example of how increasing dryness and changing weather patterns harm people’s lungs. Pinkerton pointed to the summer of 2008. “We had over 1000 wildfires burning at the same time. And that really had a significant impact on air quality and particle concentration within the atmosphere,” he explained to me. Another big change — doctors are seeing infections from molds not seen before in California. “I think a good example of this has been a fungal type of infection that was only found in Central America, that is now found as far north as British Columbia, in Canada,” said Pinkerton.

So far the people most at risk are those with preexisting lung conditions, the very old and the very young. But in California’s Central Valley some of these affects have gotten so bad that doctors are seeing them in all age groups.

“I’m seeing an increase in the last 19-20 years in the number of patients I’m seeing who are experiencing chronic lung disease,” Kevin Hamilton, deputy chief of programs at Clinica Sierra Vista in Fresno told me. ”If we see continued changes in the climate you will see resulting problems in people’s health,” he continued. Hamilton is a respiratory therapist who treats mostly low-income patients, often Latino farmworkers making their living in the Central Valley. He says in his experience if air pollution is high, people pass a threshold where they keep getting sick. He says the San Joaquin Valley often has more than 150 days a year that break the health statutes for particulate matter, fine particles in the air that can affect people’s lungs. Consistent poor air quality exacerbates — and can cause — illnesses like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In Hamilton’s 34 years of treating lung diseases he says he thinks it’s getting worse. Something else different — he’s seeing problems in all age groups among his low-income patients, something he doesn’t see with wealthier patients.

John Capitman, the Executive Director of the Central Valley Health Policy Institute and a professor of public health at CSU Fresno, says not all lung problems are created equally in the Central Valley. In fact, he’s also done research [PDF] that links the poorest air quality and the poorest health to communities that are low-income and often segregated. “In some of our more affluent communities we have health status outcomes that are similar to anywhere else in the country,” Capitman explained. “But in other communities, particularly low-income communities, places that are racially segregated basically, there is evidence that life expectancy is much lower.” Life expectancy is not linked solely to air quality, but exposure to high levels of particulate matter, ozone and pesticides are a contributing factor to the overall poor health that these communities experience.

That disparity is true around the world. Pinkerton’s report makes clear that many respiratory illnesses linked to a changing climate have a socio-economic component. The people in Africa being forced to relocate are often the poorest, just as the farmworkers in the Central Valley bear the brunt of poor air conditions and increased ozone.

Tesla Motors

Production on Tesla's Model X begins in 2013.

On February 8^th, Tesla Motors CEO, Elon Musk, unveiled the company’s latest electric car: The Model X. Probably the sleekest and sexiest SUV you’ve ever seen, and also the priciest. But what’s most remarkable — beyond the falcon wings — is that the car will be manufactured here in the Golden State, at the former NUMMI plant in Fremont.

Why did Tesla choose to locate its headquarters and manufacturing in the high-priced San Francisco Bay Area? Was it linked to the state’s ambitious clean energy targets and policies? The new rules approved last month by the California Air Resources Board require automakers to produce 1.4 million zero-emission cars for the California market by 2025, and are part of the aggressive goal of reducing the state’s emissions 80% by 2050.

Tesla spokesperson Khobi Brooklyn eschewed policy explanations and told me, “We wanted to build our cars in California, not only creating jobs in the U.S., but also California specifically.” She cited Silicon Valley as “an incredibly rich pool of talent” and said that purchasing an existing car manufacturing facility saved money and time in preparing for car production. I’ve no doubt the California sales tax rebates on capital equipment purchasing (estimated at $20 Million) helped too.

California’s Governor Jerry Brown attended the Model X unveiling, and basked in the Tesla limelight. He was obviously delighted to be part of some good news from the Golden State for a change. “We can work our way out of our mess with creativity, openness and the kind of spirit that’s willing to take risks,” he said to the rowdy audience of Tesla groupies.

Clean Energy, Really?

Two big advantages of electric vehicles, often touted by such green groupies is their cleanness and the efficiency of the electric motor: 88% compared to the 20-25% range for a traditional gas powered engines. But if the electricity for EV’s is coming from the grid and the grid energy is “dirty” (i.e. fueled by coal fired power stations) then why is it better for the environment?

Tesla Motors

Tesla CEO Elon Musk says his long-term plan is to build a Tesla with mass appeal for a lower price.

Elon Musk addressed the question at last week’s launch and asserted that driving an electric car in California and drawing power from the grid produces only a quarter of the CO2 emissions of a gasoline car. This is thanks in large part to California’s adherence to ambitious renewable energy standards, which require 33% of our energy to come from clean renewable sources by 2020. So electric car owners in California can drive with a wee bit of the green-goodness factor.

But before we Californians pat ourselves on the backs, think of Vermont, where almost 100% of energy from the grid is renewable. Driving your EV on grid electricity in the Green Mountain State produces almost zero emissions. So let’s save the backslapping for now. We’ve some way to go.

Except, of course, for California drivers who install home solar panels and use solar to power their electric cars. You might see their green halos glow if you look closely next time you’re on Highway 280.

Government Funding

But what of Tesla’s future in the post Solyndra era? In 2009, Tesla received a $465 million loan facility through the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Tesla’s Khobi Brooklyn confirmed that to date, Tesla has used less than half of this credit line and said the company is on track to begin repaying the loan at the end of this year when production and deliveries ramp up.

Tesla Model S sedans are expected to begin rolling off the Fremont Factory’s production lines this summer, and the Model X begins production in late 2013 with deliveries early 2014.

“California has a manufacturing plant of today but it’s also a plant of the future,” enthused Governor Brown.

National Context

Laurie Yoler, Managing Director at GrowthPoint Technology Partners and an advisor to Tesla, pointed out that Governor Brown’s endorsement of Tesla is important at a time when many in Washington D.C. are questioning energy efficiency investment. “The enthusiasm shown for the Tesla Model X confirms that consumers are eager for new vehicles that are beautiful, high performance and energy efficient,” she added.

Tesla has certainly shattered the golf cart stigma and is blazing the trail for electric vehicles by proving they can be sexier and more powerful than rival European cars, but its sky-high prices dwarf its tiny sales volume. Model S reservations total 8,000 and Model X has received 500 reservations in the week since its unveiling. Obviously, it’s still very much a niche product. Yet Elon Musk’s long-term plan includes a new generation Tesla priced more moderately and targeting higher volumes.

“The world desperately needs sustainable transport,” Musk said at the Model X unveiling last week. “If we don’t solve this problem this century, we are fracked.”

The green groupies may love the Model X, but the world is still waiting for the Tesla X factor: a mass market Tesla.