California Takes Steps Toward Kyoto Standards
By Ann Diener [ from: http://www.lightconnectiononline.com/ ]

When the Kyoto Protocol came into effect on February 16, the decision of the United States not to participate carried a significant influence in the world's eyes. Non-participation by our government is ironic, as we are the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide and other gases, often called greenhouse gases. Now the key focus of the international community is how to persuade the United States to participate in the agreement.

What looks promising is that after President George Bush's recent visit to Germany at the end of February, Germany and the US are beginning to outline plans to improve energy efficiency and cut emissions of heat-trapping “greenhouse” gases, without setting targets or giving details, according to a draft agreement obtained by Reuters.

The two countries will agree to improve environmental and energy-efficient technologies, to cooperate in expanding climate research and to find common measures to cut greenhouse gases at home and abroad, according to Reuters on February 25.

In the meantime, California and several other states are beginning on their own to do something to reduce greenhouse gases, raise energy consciousness, and work toward achieving the goals of the Kyoto Protocol
.
Background: The US and Global Warming
In 1997, the United States originally signed the protocol under President Clinton, but the Senate refused to ratify it. At the time, 17 environmental groups opposed President Clinton 's stance on the proposal just to “freeze greenhouse emissions at 1990 levels,” according to a news release sent out by Jon Coifman at Environmental Media Services on October 9, 1997 .
Later in 2001, President Bush renounced the agreement, and his administration has expressed strong doubts about the link between gases believed to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and climate change.

According to a report written for the U.S. Defense Department by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall of Global Business Network, “The recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean's thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world's food production. With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth's environment.”

This report suggests that global warming could present a potential for national security risks and, while deemed plausible, scientists interviewed by Schwartz and Randall expressed that the occurrences in the report, “would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.”

The big question is, do the greenhouse gases contribute to global warming?
According to a National Academy of Sciences study that was requested by the White House, global warming is “real and particularly strong within the past 20 years.” The report's lead author, Ralph Cicerone, says scientists “really do know that CO 2 is the main driver” behind global warming. This story was published by Associated Press on June 7, 2001 .

Additionally, Researchers at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) said there's a 90% chance that the global average temperature will rise by 3°–9° Fahrenheit over the next century. By comparison, the global mean temperature rose 1° in the 20th century. This information was published by NCAR on July 13, 2001 .

We think of global warming as a recent occurrence; however, just last month Scientific American (March 2005), published an article by William F. Ruddiman that states, “A bold new hypothesis suggests that our ancestors' farming practices kicked off global warming thousands of years before we started burning coal and driving cars.”

Well, regardless of who started global warming, one thing is certain: reducing CO 2 emissions is a good place to start lowering the effects of global warming. Even without US participation in the Kyoto Protocol, there has been much work done within our cities and states to launch their own “War on Global Warming.”

California 's Community Choice Law Sparks Action
California has started its green-power revolution with the Community Choice law, AB117 or Chapter 838. This law was passed in 2002 and was authored by Paul Fenn, of the Oakland-based Local Power, and Carole Migden, former chair to the state Board of Equalization from District One.
Now, according to Local Power, thanks to this law, over a dozen cities representing three million residents—and over ten percent of California's investor-owned utility market—are actively seeking to implement the new law with at least 40% green power in their mix—twice the level required by state law. Fenn has been working for ten years on a national campaign to pass laws, similar to California 's new Community Choice law, in other states. Community Choice Aggregations now form a major U.S. market, with over a million households and business customers in Ohio alone. Among these, the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC) is a Community Choice Aggregation com?prising 113 member regions, cities and towns, large and small, spread across eight northeastern Ohio counties, and includes 500,000 customers.
Millions of Americans are now receiving energy via Community Choice laws that have passed in Massachusetts , Ohio , New Jersey and Rhode Island in recent years. One aggregation involving over half a million customers has already achieved a 33% greenhouse-gas reduction in its electricity without a rate increase.

San Francisco 's Experience
Here in California , San Francisco has declared “Energy Independence” by approving an ordinance to find a new electricity provider and build a citywide solar-power network. Electricity is the nation's largest single cause of greenhouse-gas pollution, according to Local Power, and causes one quarter of San Francisco 's emissions.
On May 11, 2004, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved legislation to utilize the state's Community Choice law to switch San Francisco residents and businesses to a new power supplier for electricity service—and to finance a network of renewable energy and energy conservation projects that will dramatically reduce dependency on natural gas and nuclear power plants.

The move in San Francisco was sponsored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano from the 9th District, and follows a recent California Public Utilities Commission decision to make room for communities like San Francisco to break away from utility power contracts to control their own energy destiny under California 's Community Choice law. This move also answers a 2001 voter mandate for green power from San Francisco 's 2001 Solar Bond Authority, Proposition H.

In San Francisco, the Energy Independence Ordinance directs city departments to prepare an implementation plan and request for proposals for the Board of Supervisors to solicit new electric service providers interested in: 1) supplying power to San Franciscans as soon as this year, and 2) building 360 megawatts of new solar photovoltaic installations, distributed generation such as fuel cells, wind turbines, hydrogen, energy efficiency, and conservation technologies as standard components of the city's electricity service. The City Controller's office has agreed to assist in developing the analysis necessary to develop the draft implementation plan. Under Community Choice, power would be “wheeled” over PG&E's lines. Ratepayers would also have the option to opt-out and remain with PG&E as their power supplier.

The conversion, say proponents, would protect residents and businesses against increasingly volatile natural gas prices, assist in closing power plants that potentially cause breast cancer and childhood asthma, and make the city a leader in the global effort to stop climate change.
On an average day, San Francisco requires 650 Megawatts of power at night and 850 Megawatts during the day. A 360 Megawatt investment in green power—as called for in the City's adopted Electricity Resource Plan—will far exceed the Renewable Portfolio Standard called for by state law. In addition, the local manufacturing plants for the photovoltaic systems will provide local manufacturing jobs and construction jobs. According to a CALPIRG Charitable Trust study in 2002, on an average, solar photovoltaic construction jobs are created at a ratio of seven to one when compared with Natural Gas-construction created jobs.

According to the study, “Much of the cost of electricity from natural gas power plants is from the ongoing purchase of fuel. A higher portion of the generating cost goes to labor for renewable energy than for traditional energy sources.”

For the cities like San Francisco it is a good deal. The cities who invest in power from renewable energy find that their investment is a solid one. It's better than depending on the ongoing purchase of fuels where prices are variable.

“What is more, after their investment is paid off, this infrastructure will continue to provide power to San Franciscans at considerably lower rates for decades,” said Fenn. “Energy independence offers San Franciscans permanent protection against future energy crises, and hard savings that cannot be taken away.”

Supervisor Ammiano sponsored the successful H Bond Authority for renewable energy and conservation projects in 2001. Proposition H, coupled with the proposed ordinance, will allow the City to finance the green power projects, allowing for a more gradual repayment of the solar, wind, conservation and efficiency investments without a rate increase.

“This ordinance will offer a kind of insurance against wildly fluctuating energy prices and permanently reduce the amount of power San Franciscans need to buy from the grid,” said Ammiano. “We can work towards closing the City's polluting power plants and make the City comply with the Kyoto Treaty, all at the same rates PG&E charges—now I call that a bargain.”

==================================
For more information on Community Choice please see www.local.org. Watch for more environmental news in next month's Light Connection . Also send an e-mail to President Bush to follow through and work toward the elimination of greenhouse gases by supporting laws like Community Choice and the use of renewable energy products for power generation. You can e-mail President Bush at president@whitehouse.gov. To contribute information or story ideas, e-mail Ann Diener at Raven_Knight@SBCGlobal.net.