amber
05-24-2007, 03:24 PM
It sounds bad, but we'll all have to do this anyways, due to the fact that we've let the problem get to the point of emergency. Plus, if we have the technology to do it, we should. Some things are necessary even if they are a pain in the ass, and take a little more effort. Like "work". :laugh: Plus, the more people who use these efficient technologies, the more prices will drop.
"IT WON'T BE EASY BEING GREEN
Berkeley sets tough course for its residents to follow to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in city
In Berkeley's green future, there will be no incandescent lightbulbs, Wedgewood stoves or gas-powered water heaters. The only sounds will be the whir of bicycles and the purr of hybrid cars -- and possibly curses from residents being forced to upgrade all their kitchen appliances.
Six months after Berkeley voters overwhelmingly passed Measure G, a mandate to reduce the city's greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050, the city is laying out a long-term road map for residents, business and industry. It includes everything from solar panels at the Pacific Steel foundry to composted table scraps.
While San Francisco, Oakland and other local governments in the Bay Area have approved policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Berkeley is the first to begin spelling out how people would be expected to reduce their carbon footprints.
Some measures will be popular and easy, like a car-share vehicle on every block and free bus passes. But others will be bitter pills, such as strict and costly requirements that homes have new high-efficiency appliances, solar-powered water heaters, insulation in the walls and other energy savers.
"It will challenge people, and it will be difficult," said Cisco DeVries, chief of staff to Mayor Tom Bates and one of those coordinating the city's greenhouse gas reduction efforts. "But if Berkeley's niche isn't leadership on this issue, then what is it? This is what we should be doing."
It won't be quick, and it won't be easy, especially in a city where even the most mundane zoning minutia can become mired in months of debate. Few of the proposals have been approved yet, and some might not be ready for decades.
Berkeley started with an estimate of all the emissions attributable to residents and businesses in the city. These include sources within the city limits, such as cars and trucks and natural gas consumption, and Berkeley's estimated share of those outside the city, such as electricity generation and solid waste sites.
The city generated, directly or indirectly, 696,498 tons of greenhouse gases in 2000, the benchmark the city will use to measure its 80 percent reduction. That figure has already dropped almost 9 percent, but that's due largely to greener energy practices by Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
To reach an 80 percent reduction, sacrifices would have to be made in all quarters of the city.
Under the emissions crash diet, builders will use only recycled and green materials. Residents will be told exactly how many carbon units they're generating based on the cars they own, the distances they drive, the waste they generate and the energy they consume. Landlords will be required to provide free bus passes to tenants.
To help out, the city plans to create an assessment district to help residents buy solar panels for their homes -- an idea Berkeley officials think other cities will copy. The costs would be tacked on to property tax bills over the course of 30 years so homeowners won't be stung by the steep up-front price, which can reach thousands of dollars.
Berkeley's green blueprint calls on people to take small steps on a daily basis as well. Incentives and legislation will make common many activities only a few practice now -- walking to work, using cloth shopping bags, buying locally grown produce, shutting off appliances and reducing their use of nonrecyclable packaging.
Bates thinks it all will be an easy sell.
"I think people are looking for ways to lighten their footprint," he said. "People are willing to make these lifestyle changes, and the cumulative effort will add up. It's not rocket science. We can do this."
While virtually everyone in Berkeley agrees that reducing greenhouse gases is a worthy goal, not everyone agrees on the process. Former Mayor Shirley Dean [Aside: My new boss is her son, but he's way cooler] questioned whether the city's enthusiasm has eclipsed its common sense.
"There's a funny quote about a man who jumped on his horse and rode off madly in all directions. That reminds me of the Berkeley city government," Dean said. "I think they need to prioritize and come up with some more immediate, practical measures."
Dean supports many of the ideas Bates has put forth, such as solar water heaters, but wonders how many of the ideas would be funded, especially when Berkeley residents already pay some of the highest taxes in the state. She also notes that the city's method of tabulating emissions seems "fuzzy."
The city is omitting Interstate 80, UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory from its calculations because those are controlled by state agencies that have their own, and in some cases tougher, greenhouse gas reduction plans, DeVries said.
The city also is counting emissions reductions that occur far outside city limits, such as reductions from PG&E plants and garbage dumps.
But the accounting details are irrelevant, said Dan Kammen, a professor at UC Berkeley's Energy and Resource Group.
"Berkeley is one of the first cities to do this, and I think they're entitled to some creative bookkeeping," he said.
He also doesn't think the city will suffer economically from these measures. Developers still will build in Berkeley, housing prices will remain among the highest in the Bay Area, and business will continue to operate. It is Berkeley, after all.
"There's still a huge cachet to be in Berkeley. I think we'll see that these plans will actually improve Berkeley's economy," he said. "And let's face it, a lot of cities will be doing the same thing in the future. If we don't, we're cooked."
LET THE SUNSHINE IN
To meet the voter mandate of reducing greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050, Berkeley officials propose:
Bus passes for apartment dwellers and eventually for everyone. Landlords would be allowed a small rent increase (equal to $7 per month in today's costs) to pay for tenants' passes; funding of passes for all residents has not been identified.
Increased incentives to install solar panels, especially for water heaters.
Mandatory green building requirements, such as using recycled materials, even for small residential projects.
Strict energy efficiency requirements for all new buildings, resold homes and renovations requiring permits. Older appliances would be have to be replaced, insulation upgraded and added to walls, windows upgraded and garages equipped with outlets for electric cars.
Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions
In 2005, residents, businesses and industry in Berkeley emitted 634,798 tons of greenhouse gases, an almost 9 percent drop from 2000. Where the gases came from:
-- By sector
Transportation: 47%
Commercial/industrial: 27%
Residential: 26%
-- By energy type
Natural gas: 36%
Vehicle gasoline: 29%
Electricity: 18%
Vehicle diesel: 17%
Source: City of Berkeley
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/24/MNGJSQ0N671.DTL
"IT WON'T BE EASY BEING GREEN
Berkeley sets tough course for its residents to follow to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in city
In Berkeley's green future, there will be no incandescent lightbulbs, Wedgewood stoves or gas-powered water heaters. The only sounds will be the whir of bicycles and the purr of hybrid cars -- and possibly curses from residents being forced to upgrade all their kitchen appliances.
Six months after Berkeley voters overwhelmingly passed Measure G, a mandate to reduce the city's greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050, the city is laying out a long-term road map for residents, business and industry. It includes everything from solar panels at the Pacific Steel foundry to composted table scraps.
While San Francisco, Oakland and other local governments in the Bay Area have approved policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Berkeley is the first to begin spelling out how people would be expected to reduce their carbon footprints.
Some measures will be popular and easy, like a car-share vehicle on every block and free bus passes. But others will be bitter pills, such as strict and costly requirements that homes have new high-efficiency appliances, solar-powered water heaters, insulation in the walls and other energy savers.
"It will challenge people, and it will be difficult," said Cisco DeVries, chief of staff to Mayor Tom Bates and one of those coordinating the city's greenhouse gas reduction efforts. "But if Berkeley's niche isn't leadership on this issue, then what is it? This is what we should be doing."
It won't be quick, and it won't be easy, especially in a city where even the most mundane zoning minutia can become mired in months of debate. Few of the proposals have been approved yet, and some might not be ready for decades.
Berkeley started with an estimate of all the emissions attributable to residents and businesses in the city. These include sources within the city limits, such as cars and trucks and natural gas consumption, and Berkeley's estimated share of those outside the city, such as electricity generation and solid waste sites.
The city generated, directly or indirectly, 696,498 tons of greenhouse gases in 2000, the benchmark the city will use to measure its 80 percent reduction. That figure has already dropped almost 9 percent, but that's due largely to greener energy practices by Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
To reach an 80 percent reduction, sacrifices would have to be made in all quarters of the city.
Under the emissions crash diet, builders will use only recycled and green materials. Residents will be told exactly how many carbon units they're generating based on the cars they own, the distances they drive, the waste they generate and the energy they consume. Landlords will be required to provide free bus passes to tenants.
To help out, the city plans to create an assessment district to help residents buy solar panels for their homes -- an idea Berkeley officials think other cities will copy. The costs would be tacked on to property tax bills over the course of 30 years so homeowners won't be stung by the steep up-front price, which can reach thousands of dollars.
Berkeley's green blueprint calls on people to take small steps on a daily basis as well. Incentives and legislation will make common many activities only a few practice now -- walking to work, using cloth shopping bags, buying locally grown produce, shutting off appliances and reducing their use of nonrecyclable packaging.
Bates thinks it all will be an easy sell.
"I think people are looking for ways to lighten their footprint," he said. "People are willing to make these lifestyle changes, and the cumulative effort will add up. It's not rocket science. We can do this."
While virtually everyone in Berkeley agrees that reducing greenhouse gases is a worthy goal, not everyone agrees on the process. Former Mayor Shirley Dean [Aside: My new boss is her son, but he's way cooler] questioned whether the city's enthusiasm has eclipsed its common sense.
"There's a funny quote about a man who jumped on his horse and rode off madly in all directions. That reminds me of the Berkeley city government," Dean said. "I think they need to prioritize and come up with some more immediate, practical measures."
Dean supports many of the ideas Bates has put forth, such as solar water heaters, but wonders how many of the ideas would be funded, especially when Berkeley residents already pay some of the highest taxes in the state. She also notes that the city's method of tabulating emissions seems "fuzzy."
The city is omitting Interstate 80, UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory from its calculations because those are controlled by state agencies that have their own, and in some cases tougher, greenhouse gas reduction plans, DeVries said.
The city also is counting emissions reductions that occur far outside city limits, such as reductions from PG&E plants and garbage dumps.
But the accounting details are irrelevant, said Dan Kammen, a professor at UC Berkeley's Energy and Resource Group.
"Berkeley is one of the first cities to do this, and I think they're entitled to some creative bookkeeping," he said.
He also doesn't think the city will suffer economically from these measures. Developers still will build in Berkeley, housing prices will remain among the highest in the Bay Area, and business will continue to operate. It is Berkeley, after all.
"There's still a huge cachet to be in Berkeley. I think we'll see that these plans will actually improve Berkeley's economy," he said. "And let's face it, a lot of cities will be doing the same thing in the future. If we don't, we're cooked."
LET THE SUNSHINE IN
To meet the voter mandate of reducing greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050, Berkeley officials propose:
Bus passes for apartment dwellers and eventually for everyone. Landlords would be allowed a small rent increase (equal to $7 per month in today's costs) to pay for tenants' passes; funding of passes for all residents has not been identified.
Increased incentives to install solar panels, especially for water heaters.
Mandatory green building requirements, such as using recycled materials, even for small residential projects.
Strict energy efficiency requirements for all new buildings, resold homes and renovations requiring permits. Older appliances would be have to be replaced, insulation upgraded and added to walls, windows upgraded and garages equipped with outlets for electric cars.
Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions
In 2005, residents, businesses and industry in Berkeley emitted 634,798 tons of greenhouse gases, an almost 9 percent drop from 2000. Where the gases came from:
-- By sector
Transportation: 47%
Commercial/industrial: 27%
Residential: 26%
-- By energy type
Natural gas: 36%
Vehicle gasoline: 29%
Electricity: 18%
Vehicle diesel: 17%
Source: City of Berkeley
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/24/MNGJSQ0N671.DTL