Notebook Lost, Work Ethic Found
Rob Schmitz continues his dispatches from Japan, where he's reporting on that country's aggressive approach to energy efficiency–and what lessons we might take from them. Rob returns to KQED's Los Angeles Bureau in October–with his notebook.
Today I left my notebook on the train to Ota. In it were notes of all the interviews I had conducted since arriving in Japan. Throughout my day of reporting, I repeatedly asked to borrow my interpreter’s notebook, and by the end of the day, I was depressed with the thought of having to listen to hours of tape that I had meticulously transcribed over weeks of interviews. When we returned to the station, my interpreter, Chiaki, took me to the station master’s office. That’s where I met Mr. Aiba.
My Travelling Notebook
Aiba-san was in his 50s, tall, thin, graying hair, glasses, and, like most Japanese in his position, incredibly polite. He wore a blue uniform and a green band around his arm with ‘security’ written on it in Kanji. Aiba-san listened intently to Chiaki’s every word describing the notebook, where I left it, and how important it was to me. He asked follow-up questions: “What are the approximate dimensions of the notebook? Is your name on the notebook?” and so on. As Chiaki answered, he took notes.
When he was finished, he offered us a seat, briskly walked to his desk, and picked up the phone. He called other stations, he called cleaning companies, and he consulted timetables. In between calls, he updated us: “The train you were on has made three round trips from Tokyo to Akagi today. Cleaning crews in many cities have cleaned the train several times.” Aiba-san briefly left the room while he waited to hear from the cleaning crews. He returned with some tea for us. A minute later, he received a call from the cleaning crew in Akagi, a city in the mountains at the end of the line: they found my notebook. Nobody had claimed it, so it had been tossed into a recycling bin. It was waiting for me on the platform there.
Aiba-san, going the extra kilometer.
“But you’ll have to hurry,” said Aiba-san, looking at his watch. “The train to Akagi leaves in less than one minute.” He escorted us, running frantically in the lead, to the platform. We barely made the train. I had a few seconds to reach into my bag to give him a box of See’s chocolates that I had brought as a gift for my interviewees. He sternly declined the gift, but I insisted.
When we arrived to the tiny Akagi station, two elderly custodians with brooms in their hands were waiting for us on the platform. They bowed in unison to me and handed me my notebook. They had neatly wrapped it in a copy of the train’s timetable. This is just one of many examples of the generosity and commitment to service that I’ve experienced in my short time in Japan. Had I lost my notebook on a train or a bus back home, would anyone care? They probably would’ve laughed me out of the station at the thought of tracking it down.
Now, take this behavior to a macro level and you start to see why Japan, an island nation with no fossil fuels and few resources of any kind, has become the second largest economy in the world. When Japan puts its collective mind to something, it not only gets the job done, but it oftentimes excels at it. From my conversations with government officials, business leaders, and those in the non-profit sector here, it’s obvious that Japan is not only committed to reducing greenhouse gases, but perhaps more importantly, it wants to make a lot of money from doing so.
In short, it wants to ensure that its companies own and make as much of the technology that goes towards this global effort as is possible, and it’s got a head start. Japan leads the world by a long shot in registered patents in the green technology sector, according to a report from CERNA, the Centre d'Economie Industrielle. Check out the final pages of that report, which compare countries, and you'll see Japan leads in every patent category except one. Japan is getting the job done, just like Aiba-san stepped up to do his job when I sought his help. It’s a spirit that’s refreshing to be around. We could use a few more Aiba-sans back home.
Plugged In, in Long Beach
Rob Schmitz heads KQED's Los Angeles Bureau and is a frequent contributor to Climate Watch.
A Chevy that gets 230 miles to the gallon. A Hummer that gets 100.
Plug-in 2009, the 2nd annual industry conference in Long Beach, was wall-to-wall with such apparent oxymora. Just roving around the exhibition floor on Tuesday, I got the sense that our electric vehicle future is closer than I had originally suspected. I spoke to conference-goers who are already investing millions in what is assured to be an enormous infrastructure that’ll be built around these new cars.
Electric vehicle charging stations from Campbell-based Coulomb Technologies. Photo: Rob Schmitz
I met Tom Tormey, Vice President of Technology at the Silicon Valley-based Coulomb Technologies. He raised a lot of important questions about where we’d charge these vehicles when we’re not at home. Of course, the answer came in the form of something he could sell you: car-charging stations. His company manufactures automated posts where you can use a credit card to charge up your car when you’re away from home or at work. He’s already sold dozens of these to cities across Europe. The stations will even help calculate taxes for the government through a network that hooks up to Coulomb’s servers here in California: a potentially big business for an electric future.
Speaking of big, check out the electric Hummer. If you thought this beast was nearing extinction (with the sale of Hummer to the Chinese and all), think again. With a new electric version that allegedly gets a 100 miles to the gallon, you may continue to see this American icon on our freeways.
Jim Spellman of Raser Technologies, standing in front of the 100-mpg electric Hummer. Photo: Rob Schmitz
Jim Spellman of Raser Technologies showed off the Hummer to me, complete with his company’s power train and electric generation system. He says they took it out for a test drive a few weeks ago and it ran 50 miles on electric power with 30% of the battery left to go.
With momentum building among the plug-in players, it's not surprising that Mike Howard of the Electric Power Research Institute predicts there will be 16 million electric vehicles on the nation’s roads by 2030.
Plan Moves Climate Adaptation to Front Burner
A one-fifth reduction in per capita water use by 2020 is among the goals outlined in a new state report on adapting to climate change.
Released by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) as a "discussion draft," the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy is being billed as the nation's first comprehensive game plan for adaptation to climate change.
Photo: Reed Galin
Most of the state's high-profile climate initiatives (and battles) have been about mitigation; how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow down warming. This report swings the spotlight over to adaptation; what needs to be done to accommodate the climate change effects that are already "in the pipeline."
While the California's centerpiece climate law was passed three years ago, this week's CNRA report concedes that "adaptation is a relatively new concept in California policy." The 161-page white paper comes in response to an executive order from the Governor last fall, calling for a statewide adaptation strategy.
The draft divides the strategy into seven "sectors:" Public health, biodiversity and habitat, ocean and coastal resources, water, agriculture, and forestry.
Tony Brunello, Deputy Secretary for Climate Change and Energy at CNRA, says "This is the first report that really looks at how climate change is going to impact the state and what we need to do about it."
But Brunello stopped short of conceding that mitigation is a lost cause. "You only have half a deck if you're only focused on mitigation," he said. "You need to focus on both mitigation and adaptation to truly be prepared."
Some strategies attack both. Brunello points to water conservation measures, which save both water and energy (20% of the energy used in the state is deployed moving water around).
The plan is designed to work in consort with the California Air Resources Board's implementation plan for AB-32, the state's multifaceted attack on greenhouse gas emissions. CNRA says one of its goals is to "enhance" existing efforts, rather than create new programs and offices that need funding.
CNRA also promises to use the "best available science in identifying climate change risks and adaptation strategies." Andrew Revkin has a useful overview of the mounting challenges to climate scientists, published this week in the New York Times.
One planned product from the adaptation plan is an interactive website devoted to climate adaptation, with maps and data to assist local planners. CNRA hopes to have that in place by early next year. The draft plan now enters a 45-day period for public comment.
California's EPA Waiver: Does it Still Matter?
Deja vu all over again. Photo: Craig Miller
Today the federal Environmental Protection Agency formally granted the waiver that California has sought since 2002, allowing the state to set its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars.
But wait–didn't this already happen for practical purposes, last month? That's when the Obama administration announced its intent to essentially put California's proposed standards in place nationwide.
Well, yes–and no. Bernadette Del Chiaro, who represents the group Environment California, says that having the waiver is more than a legal technicality. She says it means that the state can get started sooner, cleaning up tailpipe emissions. Del Chiaro explains that: "California's standards kick in now, through 2016. The federal program that President Obama has extended throughout the entire country, starts in 2013 (also through 2016)."
That gives the states, in effect, a three-year jump-start. In 2013, everybody should be on the same page.
California's chief air regulator, Mary Nichols said, in a written statement:
"The waiver affirms California’s authority to set the standards for the cleanest cars in the nation and recognizes the ability of forward-thinking states to continue to adopt them. Now we can begin to work with the manufacturers to make a new generation of cars that deliver all the comfort and power we have come to expect but with improved efficiency and far fewer greenhouse gas emissions. "
Thirteen other states had also pursued the waiver and can now proceed with their own programs.
While automakers have long argued that the tighter regs will make cars more expensive, Environment California calculates that they'll "save consumers $36 billion at the pump by 2020." That projection assumed that gasoline would would average about $2 per gallon over that period. Higher pump prices (which seem a lot more likely) would in turn, increase expected savings, as the underlying premise is that we'll be driving cars that get better gas mileage.
But of course those cars will cost more than the clunkers we're wheeling around in now. The state Air Resources Board estimates that the clean car regulations will tack an average of $1,000 onto the price of a new car by 2016. Obviously that would offset some of the pump savings.
Speed Bumps on the "Hydrogen Highway"
Seems like the Governor is spending a lot of time looking at cars lately. If the rest of us spent as much time cruising Auto Row, the recession might already be fading in the rear-view mirror.
Governor Schwarzenegger at the wheel of a Volkswagen Passat Lingyu. Photo: Governor's Office
But California's chief executive isn't interested in run-of-the-mill rolling stock (he will, of course, happily take credit for inventing the Hummer). He's into exotics: the alternative-fuel cars of the future–and in some cases, present.
At least five times in the last three weeks, the Governor's Office has created photo ops with alt-fuel autos, prototypes or refueling stations; from a fuel-cell Volkswagen (June 3) to the Mutt-&-Jeff of electrics, Hummer and Peapod (May 28 & June 10, respectively), he's kicked the tires on a whole generation of not-widely-available wheels–not to mention the home ethanol refinery (June 4) or the hydrogen refueling station in Santa Monica (May 27).
All of which got us to wondering: "Dude, where's our Hydrogen Highway?" You may recall the Governor's promise five years ago, that California would by now be coming down the home stretch on a whole new infrastructure for the coming swarm of cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
Monday morning on KQED's weekly Quest radio feature, David Gorn reports that we've apparently hit a few speed bumps:
"The technology clearly has promise, but it's behind schedule. Schwarzenegger’s original plan called for 100 to 150 hydrogen fuel stations by next year, and so far there are only about two dozen. He also wanted 2,000 hydrogen-powered cars on the road, yet fewer than 200 are being road-tested today. The lack of progress has prompted California’s non-partisan state legislative analyst to recommend scrapping state funding for the hydrogen program. And on the federal level, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has asked Congress to cut about half of the national hydrogen-research budget. Chu said hydrogen technology is too far from fruition."
None of these details stopped Governor Schwarzenegger from hyping the 2009 Hydrogen Road Tour, a recently concluded San Diego-to-Vancouver rally, designed to highlight fuel-cell technology:
"We will keep pushing, and thanks to our public-private partnerships and the commitment of these automakers and energy companies, the era of pollution-free transportation is dawning."
The Governor's statement went on to say that "Auto manufacturers expect the number of hydrogen vehicles to increase to 4,300 by 2014 and more than 40,000 vehicles by 2017." Of course, that was before Energy Secretary Steve Chu announced that R&D funding for hydrogen fuel cells on the road didn't quite make the cut for the next DOE budget. Plug-in hydrid, anyone?
Transportation's Tricky Carbon Footprint
Kristine Wong is our Climate Watch intern for the current term. She's a student at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism.
Study comparing environmental impact of transportation modes yields surprising results
By Kristine Wong
You may not believe that during peak commute hours, Boston’s light rail system generates more greenhouse gases (GHGs) per person than a gas-powered, fully occupied SUV–or a commercial airliner filled to capacity, traveling the same distance.
Yet this is what UC Berkeley researchers found in a study released this week. Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath compared the environmental impacts of cars, buses, planes, and rail after adding up all the energy costs and emissions (both GHGs and local air pollutants) over their entire life cycle–not just by what came out of the tailpipe. The authors say no such comprehensive study had been done before.
The researchers developed a method that evaluated each transportation mode based on the energy inputs needed for production and maintenance of the vehicle itself. They also looked at the infrastructure for each mode, such as construction of supporting components like rail station platforms and airport runways, bus and rail station lighting and parking, and the source of power for each mode (e.g. gasoline, jet fuel, diesel or electric–and the costs of distributing and producing these inputs).
In total, Chester and Horvath compared 79 components across all transportation modes. Within each they also selected a few variations to represent differences, depending on factors such as vehicle make and mileage, passenger occupancy, and size.
The results were both logical and surprising. Most of the energy consumed and GHG emissions from auto, bus and air travel originated from the operational period, not from the materials needed to produce and maintain the vehicles. Rail produced the greatest amount of GHGs compared to all other modes over their life cycle. But Chester and Horvath point out that there is a big difference in GHG emissions from light rail systems in the Bay Area versus, say, Boston due to the portion of fossil fuel-based electricity used. Boston's fuel mix is 82% fossil, while the Bay Area’s BART system clocks in at just 49% fossil fuel–a major factor in efficiency and GHG emission rates.
Finally, passenger occupancy was a key factor influencing efficiency. Not surprisingly, each mode was most efficient when used to capacity. But the researchers caution that boosting passenger occupancy is not a magic bullet. They say minimizing fossil fuel inputs and adding pollution filters and controls would have a greater effect on efficiency.
Chester and Horvath say that they hope their results will provide a framework for more comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts of transportation, and to assess the impact of hybrid or electric vehicles and alternative energy sources such as biofuels, solar power, and wind power, none of which were included in the study.
There are more details of the study posted at the websites for Green Car Congress and Sustainable Transportation.
Head-to-Head: Chevron and The Sierra Club
Two giants of California's energy debate squared off at a Commonwealth Club forum in San Francisco last night.
Chevron CEO Dave O'Reilly and Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope fielded questions from moderator Alan Murray of The Wall Street Journal and a sometimes impassioned audience, about renewable energy opportunities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and predictions for the future of the United States' energy economy. Several questions also concerned Chevron's high profile court battle in Ecuador and the oil company's presence in Richmond, the Bay Area city where a major Chevron refinery dominates the skyline–and some say, local governance
From left to right: Sierra Club chief Carl Pope; WSJ Online Executive Editor Alan Murray; Dave O'Reilly, CEO of Chevron. Photo: Gretchen Weber
In what was less of a debate than a discussion, Pope and O'Reilly agreed that the United States needs to make major changes towards greater energy efficiency and that the country must begin to rely more on renewable energy sources.
Their views diverged significantly, however, on the timeline for such changes. While Pope supports a 90% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from today's levels by 2050 and says he believes this goal possible, O'Reilly projected that by 2050, the United States will have reduced its GHG emissions by no more than 20-25% from today's levels.
O'Reilly said that even if the U.S. replaced the entire transportation system with a zero-emissions system, the country would reduce GHG emissions by just 34%–and that doing likewise with the nation's power generation would reduce GHGs by another 40%.
"So we have to ask ourselves, can we replace our entire energy system–transportation and power–in just a few short decades?" said O'Reilly. "I think the transition is going to take some time."
According to O'Reilly, his company is already the largest provider of geothermal energy in the world and yet only 2% of Chevron's income currently comes from renewable energy.
"The challenge of scale demands that we acknowledge that conventional energy sources will remain indispensable for decades," said O'Reilly. "We must be realistic. For the foreseeable future we need to develop it all: conventional as well as non-conventional energy, as well as renewables and alternatives."
When asked what his prediction was for how much of Chevron's income would come from renewable energy sources by 2050, O'Reilly said he thought the number would be about 10-15%.
Pope responded, "The world will have room in 2050 for a very small company, 90% of whose energy comes from fossils [fuels]. The world will not have room, or tolerance, in 2050 for a big energy company [that does], so if Chevron wants to be successful, I think Chevron's going to need to change those numbers.
Pope also called on Chevron to "come to the table" with local communities in which Chevron operates, such as Richmond, CA, and he proposed that all oil companies donate 10% of their profits to a global fund to clean up areas of the world damaged by the petroleum industry.
Not surprisingly, Pope and O'Reilly agreed that the highest priority for reducing GHG emissions is to replace coal with natural gas or another less carbon-intensive energy source, and while on stage, the men shook hands on an agreement to lobby the issue together in Washington.
KQED will broadcast the entire Commonwealth Club event at 8 p.m. on Friday, June 19, with a rebroadcast at 2 a.m. the following morning.
Carbon Offsets in the Air
Friday on The California Report's weekly magazine, Rori Gallagher reports on ways to assuage your carbon guilt with a quick stop at an airport kiosk.
By Rori Gallagher
Photo: Reed Galin
I first got the idea to do a story on carbon offsets back in December, when San Francisco International Airport announced it was partnering with a private company called 3Degrees to install carbon offset kiosks.
Originally, the kiosks were supposed to be installed sometime "in the spring." But there seems to be a delay with the contract negotiations. I kept checking in with 3Degrees about a launch date. At first they were saying Earth Day–then it was pushed to May, and now "by the end of June."
But there are already other options out there. I found that Virgin America, the only major airline based in California, was the first to offer carbon offsets in the sky. Other airlines do offer customers the chance to purchase offsets but Virgin allows you to do it during the flight through the in-flight entertainment system.
Carbon offsets are supposed to stop carbon emissions that would have otherwise taken place. That’s really difficult to substantiate. Projects like wind farms for example, certainly seem good for the environment but likely most of them would be built anyway and produce power without this type of third-party incentive.
Virgin's program managers say they stringently vetted carbon offset programs, and that theirs are among the most credible out there. But as I point out in my radio story, there is very little regulation of the voluntary carbon offset industry and it’s difficult to know if they'll do what they say they will.
There are some independent efforts to separate the sheep from the goats, for example the Natural Resources Defense Council has produced a buyer's guide for carbon offsets.
Trucks line up at an IdleAire terminal, which provides "carbon offsets" for airlines. Photo: Rori Gallagher
New Tailpipe Regs are an "Alternate Reality"
Amy Standen specializes in science and environmental reporting for Quest. She's among the guests today on KQED's Forum program. Listen to the archived program here.
Hazy day in L.A. Photo: Craig Miller
Yesterday afternoon, as I started working on my news spot about the new federal standard for tailpipe emissions, I dug up my notes from over a year ago, the last time I covered this story in any depth.
The contrast in tone between then and now amazed me. Back then, I was describing accusations of outright lying, government actions that California enviros called "completely illegal," and California officials "sharpening their knives" as they marched into battle with EPA former Administrator Stephen Johnson. It was September, 2007, and Democratic lawmakers, led by Henry Waxman (D-CA), were accusing the White House of strong-arming the EPA into denying California its "waiver," or permission to regulate auto tailpipe emissions. The mood between California environmentalists, many of the state's elected officials, and the Bush administration couldn't have been more hostile.
Today, it's as if we've landed in an alternate reality. Not only has California been given its more fuel-efficient cars, but those same laws are taking effect nationwide. The new rules actually exceed anything that California–traditionally the most ambitious state in the union, when it comes to greenhouse gas regulation–could have asked for.
Instead of knives being sharpened, California enviros are singing the praises of "an historic blueprint to carry out rigorous greenhouse gas emission standards," to quote one email I received today. Another group told the New York Times: “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.” Compared to the fall of '07–actually make that since '05, when California first asked for the waiver and the EPA first started stalling–it's like night and day.
Still, listening in to the White House background press briefing on Monday afternoon, you could hear the seeds of criticism taking root in a few reporters' questions.
Sure, American automakers will be making more fuel-efficient cars, one reporter asked, but what is the White House doing to encourage consumers to buy them? (in addition to restricting tailpipe emissions, the new rules also substantially increase fuel efficiency standards for manufacturers' fleets–SUVs and trucks will still be available; they'll be more fuel efficient than before, but less efficient than smaller cars.) The question takes on new relevance as the federal government finds itself a major stockholder in auto companies.
President Obama says the new regs will have the equivalent impact of taking 177 million cars off the road.
Change Your Diet, Change the Climate?
Climate Watch contributor David Gorn has been looking at the link between climate and the food we eat. His latest report aired recently on NPR's All Things Considered.
So I have to admit, when I first got this story assignment from National Public Radio, my reaction was mixed. You want to reduce global carbon emissions by changing your personal DIET? Oh, come on. I mean, how much of an impact could diet change have on climate change?
Quite a bit, apparently.
A United Nations report says livestock accounts for 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gasses, much of it from the methane produced by cows, as well as goats and sheep.
Shipping beef and dairy products across the country and around the globe also contributes heavily to that carbon footprint, in the form of emissions from trains, planes and trucks.
So the idea is that by cutting out beef and cheese from your personal diet, you can significantly reduce your personal carbon footprint. Chris Jones, a staff researcher at UC Berkeley’s Institute of the Environment, says the production and distribution of beef, pork, lamb and cheese are particularly high offenders on the greenhouse gas emissions chart.
In my story for All Things Considered, I focused on an Earth Day event where the University of San Francisco cafeteria and about 400 other food service outlets across the country, managed by Palo Alto-based Bon Appetit, were cutting all beef and cheese out of the menu for one day. Yes, no cheeseburgers in a university cafeteria. Scary thought, eh? The students didn’t seem to flinch, though.
It looks like this approach to the low-carbon diet it may be catching on among Bay Area hospital cafeterias, as well.
It’s unclear what effect the current efforts might have on climate patterns but it’s a familiar pattern to Americans; using personal buying power to influence public policy decisions.
-
RSS FEED
Subscribe to our blog feed and you'll never miss a post!