The Courts, Coal, Cars, and Climate Action Plans; Things Aren’t Looking Good for the Environment
The Supreme Court acted this week to rein in the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant emissions, essentially throwing the question back to the Congress. And we all know what the Congress will do: nothing.
As late night tv host Noah Trevor observed: “The Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to protect the environment. So, what is their job now? Just gonna look at the environment and be like, ‘Oh shit!’”
The post-election hope of the federal government taking the lead in the effort to mitigate the impacts of climate change, is all but gone. Green activists are shifting their focus to state capitals, where actions inclusive of environmental justice are more achievable.
From Politico:
“There is no path to the U.S. meeting its climate goals if we don’t work in these places that have always been thought of as too hard or too difficult,” Hive Fund co-Director Melanie Allen said.
The shift to states and local communities is an acceleration of an overall trend in the past several years as more big green organizations sought to strengthen coalitions with environmental justice groups, said John Walke, director of the clean air, climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The concept of an overarching national strategy –whether you call it the Green New Deal or not– has fallen by the wayside. Politicians claiming to be sensitive to the issue of climate change have killed the idea with a thousand cuts.
Speaking on KPBS Midday Edition, climate advocate Nicole Capretz reflected on the road ahead:
There's nothing to celebrate here in this ruling and it does stymie progress," Capretz said. "But again, at the state and local level, there is an extraordinary amount of opportunity there. And that's really where we think the community really has to lean into."
"I truly believe California can still be at the vanguard of what is possible. And I do believe our governor still has the ability to mitigate and regulate greenhouse gas emissions again in California," Capretz said. "And if we can show it's possible and build a market for renewable technologies and more climate solutions and show it on the ground, the infrastructure on the ground, and the positive public health impacts and economic impacts of these projects, then I think the good news will spread and we will win."
***
The San Diego City Council’s environmental committee voted unanimously this week to support a 2022 Climate Action Plan, which will work towards getting to net zero emissions by 2035. Local environmental groups rallied outside city hall, urging the city to commit to an implementation plan with a timeline and cost projections.
The plan outlines over 100 things the city can do by 2035 to reach “net zero,” defined as reaching a balance between the emissions the region generates, and the amount of emissions absorbed either by the natural environment or through new technological means.
As it stands now, city staff will be tasked with producing a timeline by February of 2023 in time for consideration in next year’s budget proposal. If past efforts are indication, it will be long on promises and short on execution.
It’s easy to blame politicians for these failures, but the reality is that they’re trying to move (presently) immovable objects, namely the loudest mouths on each city block..
After years of embarrassing failures and court battles, San Diego County is working on a Climate Action Plan update, hoping to to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from activities within the community and generated by county facilities and operational activities.
Right now that update is in the middle of a series of five public forums designed to incorporate citizen input in components including building/transportation, energy, solid waste, water/wastewater, and agriculture/conservation.
Completion of the plan update is more than a year away, indicative of just how difficult it will be to strike any kind of balance between environmental needs, economic interests, and the cultural expectations of residents.
It’s that last part, which I deemed as cultural interests, that serves as the biggest stumbling block for implementation of the regional transportation plan proposed by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
The intergovernmental agency could serve as the gateway for state and federal monies for infrastructure projects. Major reform, pushed by then Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez via ABl 805, was supposed to address the issue of smaller cities having an outsized interest in the decision-making process.
Unfortunately, AB 805 also came with an independent auditor and audit committee to check financial projections and follow-through on projects. The news there was terrible: projected revenues were falling way short of expectations, and, to make matters worse, the agency was lying to the public about its ability to keep promises.
An ambitious vision for the future of transportation in San Diego created under the leadership of executive director Hasan Ikhrata is going nowhere because funding does not exist. The agency will likely miss out on its share of the $1.2 trillion in federal infrastructure money approved by congress in 2021 because a signature-gathering effort to place a half-cent sales tax increase proposal on the November ballot to provide for the plan fell short.
Moving toward a more environmentally friendly transportation system in the region is doomed for now, as small minded mayors of small cities have used the bully pulpit to leverage their complaints.
At present, and for the foreseeable future, the automobile (usually with one passenger) will be the primary mode for getting around. While electric-powered vehicles will come to dominate the market in the near future, the grid that recharges them is still a source of greenhouse gasses, particularly if coal is included in its mix of fuels. And the Supreme Court’s EPA ruling all-but-ensures a longer life for coal powered facilities in the United States.
Here’s what the nature of that mix of fuels means in real terms, via the New York Times:
An all-electric Chevrolet Bolt, for instance, can be expected to produce 189 grams of carbon dioxide for every mile driven over its lifetime, on average. By contrast, a new gasoline-fueled Toyota Camry is estimated to produce 385 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. A new Ford F-150 pickup truck, which is even less fuel-efficient, produces 636 grams of carbon dioxide per mile.
But that’s just an average. On the other hand, if the Bolt is charged up on a coal-heavy grid, such as those currently found in the Midwest, it can actually be a bit worse for the climate than a modern hybrid car like the Toyota Prius, which runs on gasoline but uses a battery to bolster its mileage. (The coal-powered Bolt would still beat the Camry and the F-150, however.)
Coming back to the issue of cultural interests, even the most incremental changes to make roadways less car centric run into a Buzzsaw of passionate opposition.
Despite evidence that making roadways user friendly for transit, bicycles, and pedestrians has a positive impact on communities, automobile owners seem to believe that the Second Amendment includes their God-given right to own vehicles, park them wherever, and drive them as fast as they can get away with.
Until this problem is addressed– via public education efforts and political entities willing to do the right thing for the future even when faced with passionate opposition– our transportation system will remain an obstacle to the best laid Climate Action Plans.
Here’s the deal: those Not On My Streets types have no alternative involving reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses as much as dethroning the automobile as the center of our transportation universe. (And, yes, we have one car for our household)
I’ll be perfectly willing to discuss bus or bike lanes or traffic circles, given a reasonable alternative.
Yes, we need a mileage tax tax, especially as gas tax (which went up today) revenues decline. Yes, taking the steps needed to adjust and mitigate the effects of climate change will be expensive. The alternatives are not pretty.
An article in today’s Los Angeles Times offers a glimpse into the future for Californians. Aridification needs to become a word you add to your vocabulary, as “Extreme heat, drought will permanently scar California and its social fabric.”
Lake Meade; getting lower all the time. NASA graphics.
****
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com
Lead photo: CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE