Boulder’s one thing. Boulder’s small. Boulder’s landlocked.

But affixing a carbon tax-like program to a heavily-populated port city like San Francisco is a whole different animal. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District wants to charge businesses a fee of 4.2 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide. The draft regulation imposing the new fees would go into effect on July 1, 2008.

According to a fact sheet put out by the BAAQMD (PDF here), it would take stock of how much emitted greenhouse gases were reported over a year, and charge the fee before allowing a facility to re-apply for a permit to own and operate equipment that emits pollutants.

One example provided in the initial coverage of the proposal by the San Jose Mercury-News gives is that a Shell oil refinery in the affected area would be charged $186,475 a year for its carbon dioxide emissions.

That’s a lot of money, and even a huge corporation like Shell will take notice of it. But they’ll likely fight it, too. And they won’t be alone. (more…)

(UPDATE Mar. 21: The city has clarified that it does not intend to backpedal on Kyoto.)

Last night’s Climate Smart community meeting at the West Boulder Senior center was well attended, energetic, and constructive. Over 40 community members and city and county employees attended. I took extensive notes and will be writing much more about the event later.

But first, I was a bit surprised to hear city Environmental Affairs spokesperson Beth Powell note that her department may recommend to the City Council, “that we go beyond Kyoto to a 2020 or 2050 goal.”

…A little bit of background: Boulder’s major municipal efforts to address climate change began in 2002, when the City Council passed resolution 906 adopting the goals of the Kyoto Protocol — which would require the city to cut its greenhouse gas emissions reducing greenhouse gas emissions 7% below the estimated 1990 level. The Kyoto Protocol calls for that goal to be met by 2012 — which is when the current carbon tax sunsets.

Actually, the wording of the resolution included some wiggle room…

(more…)

Since another college town has been in the headlines as having endorsed a carbon tax, let’s get it straight that what Ithaca, N.Y., did not do was approve a municipal carbon tax in the Boulder mould.

But what Ithaca’s City Council did do had a significance of its own. It voted 9-0 approving a resolution urging state and federal officials to pursue a federal carbon tax. Here’s coverage from the Ithaca Journal and the Cornell Sun. Like a number of initiatives related to global climate change, perhaps this one will come from the ground up at the local and state level as well.

The Ithaca initiative was propelled forward by a local resident named Sylvester Johnson, a member of the Climate Change Action Group of Central New York who holds a doctorate in applied physics, and who believes the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaigns are wrong to for cap-and-trade emissions programs over what he considers a more equitable tax. Here’s his web site and a sample of the resolution that he hopes to see passed by other localities.

How far can this approach take the carbon tax concept? Share your thoughts below, or follow the discussion at our online forums.

The Colorado Carbon Fund, brainchild of the Governor’s Energy Office, seemed to become a more tangible, richer thing at the University of Colorado last week when CU pledged to spend about $50,000 on carbon offsets from the Fund. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter was even on hand to talk about it.

But what is it? Well, it’s an idea.

The Colorado Carbon Fund was started by the Governor’s Energy Office as a localized alternative to Renewable Energy Credits that would help Colorado make strides toward more voluntary environmentally-sound practices on a large scale.

Credits, which can be bought from middlemen like Community Energy, CU’s dealer over the past, function kind of like retroactive investments in renewable energy. For example, the credits that CU had been buying helped alleviate, in part, the startup costs of a wind farm in southeastern Colorado, according to Susan Innis, program manager of the Colorado Carbon Fund.

The new Carbon Fund functions differently. It’s designed to enable local entities like CU to help pay for local carbon offset projects. Innis gave the example of improving insulation in homes in Colorado to help preserve energy that would heat them.

“We obtain those carbon offsets from those projects and we would sell them to you,” Innis said. The functions of Renewable Energy Credits and the carbon offsets offered by the Colorado Carbon Fund are quite similar, in that they both provide money and encouragement for carbon-cutting measures, but the Colorado Carbon Fund would focus its efforts on local projects.

The CU Environmental Center learned about the Carbon Fund’s plans and opted not to renew their contract with Community Energy.

“We’re looking at a number of different certification standards and protocols for measuring,” Innis said. “There are some widely accepted methodologies for calculating greenhouse gas emissions.”

An advisory board that the Governor’s Energy Office will soon assemble will decide which standards to use, but three well-known programs they’re already looking at include the Gold Standard, the Voluntary Carbon Standard and the Green E Climate, she said.

More soon, as we talk to Dave Newport, director of the Environmental Center at CU.

Today’s Daily Camera features two editorials by associate editor Clint Talbott on Boulder’s latest greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

In Open that Database!, Talbott supports and amplifies my earlier request for the complete emission inventory database from the city. (Thanks!) Regarding the city’s claim that this database is proprietary, he wrote:

“In diplomatic terms, Gahran objected to the denial, arguing that the full inventory is a public document. She is right. The data upon which the city will measure the progress of its tax-funded emissions program is clearly a matter of public concern. It should be treated as a matter of public record.”

As I noted this morning, we seem to be making progress toward getting access to that inventory — not direct access at this point, but the city is will to supply data in answer to specific questions. That’s a start, and it’s my impression that the city intends to work with us on that in good faith.

However, I still intend to push for direct access to the database. I explained that in a comment I posted to Talbott’s first editorial… (more…)

Yesterday I discussed how it might be useful for the Boulder Carbon Tax Tracker project to acquire the dataset from the city’s new municipal emissions inventory. This morning, Boulder’s environmental affairs director, Sarah Van Pelt, clarified her earlier statement. It does appear, after all, that this project will have access to that data — but through the city, not directly.

Van Pelt wrote:

“The data are not proprietary but the inventory maintenance system is proprietary. I am happy to share any data that you want. Because we have a lot of data I would prefer to provide information that responds to specific questions rather than provide the entire data set that may not really get at the questions you have. In short, I’m trying to make it easier for you and others to understand the data rather than provide all of the data with no analysis or interpretation.”

As a journalist, my preference is to have the dataset so I can see for myself its patterns, organization, and intricacies. Also, I’d like to be able to offer it to independent experts for analysis.

But, for the time being, this offer from the city is a good start. So we’ll start here.

I’m looking over the data summaries Van Pelt provided yesterday, and considering what questions we might like to get answered from the latest emissions inventory.

In the meantime: What would you like to know about Boulder’s greenhouse gas emissions? Please suggest your questions in the comments below.

Boulder Dept. of Environmental Affairs

Summaries: 2006 greenhouse gas inventory (above) and 2006 inventory comparison (below). Click either thumbnail to view the full document.

(UPDATE July 11: The city clarified that it is willing to share this data.)

I just heard back from Sarah Van Pelt, Boulder’s environmental affairs directory, regarding the latest municipal emissions inventory I mentioned earlier. She offered two data summary sheets (click thumbnails at right to enlarge) and said:

“The inventory database is a proprietary product so I can’t send the entire system to you but I can provide data to address specific questions. I’ve attached two sheets from the inventory that I hope will provide the information you seek. If not, let me know what you are interested in and I will send additional information.”

I do appreciate Van Pelt’s (and her staff’s) responsiveness and willingness to engage in public conversation on this topic. The department of environmental affairs is obviously a key player in the carbon tax and local climate action issues, and this community journalism project has enjoyed a very positive, communicative relationship with that department. It’s always better to be on good professional terms with your sources.

That said, I do think we need to push further on this. Here’s how I replied to Van Pelt:

(more…)

ecenter.colorado.edu

Did CU cause a 4% increase in local CO2 emissions?

Way to go, Camera! The front page of today’s Boulder Daily Camera features a story by Ryan Morgan: Boulder spews more CO2.

Apparently a new CO2 emission inventory for the city of Boulder is, or is about to be, released. I haven’t seen this document yet, but I have requested it from the city’s department of environmental affairs. I am trying to obtain not just the city’s summary, but the complete inventory.

(UPDATE: I did just get some summary data, but am pushing for more.) 

The Camera noted an interesting aspect of the latest inventory: “Emissions across the city rose by 4 percent last year — the first time emissions have risen since city officials started counting carbon. Part of the increase comes from a decision by University of Colorado officials to stop burning natural gas to make electricity, and to instead buy it all from Xcel Energy’s coal plants.”

Emission inventories are crucial documents in understanding local greenhouse gas issues. In my work as an energy and environment reporter I’ve seen them before, and I know they often have many stories to tell. The Camera definitely found a good story here, but I’m sure it’s not the only one.

How can we dig deeper on this? The key is getting the inventory. Colorado’s open records law requires, among other things, that local governments produce upon request public records…

(more…)

GOBikeBoulder.net

GOBikeBoulder.net says I should take this route to lunch today. Thanks, but I prefer off-street riding.

It’s that time of year again: Walk & Bike Week is upon us — when Boulderites are cajoled and coaxed to get out of our cars and onto the town’s many trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes.

To celebrate, GO Boulder’s new local bike route resource, GOBikeBoulder.net, is finally up. The Daily Camera reports that this web application was a year in the making and cost a total of $150,000.

In about an hour I’m having lunch with a colleague from my former employer, E Source, to talk about the carbon tax tracker project. They’re located in the office park just north of Arapahoe and East of 55th. I’m biking to that meeting, so I thought I’d see how GOBikeBoulder.net would direct this trip…

(more…)

Amy Gahran

Buses idling in downtown Boulder.

Sometimes, environmental issues literally hit you in the face. Even so, they may not always be exactly what they seem. This is why “digging” is a crucial part of citizen journalism.

A couple of weeks ago I was having lunch with local science writer Catherine Dold at an outdoor table of the South Side Walnut Cafe. While we sat there, a large delivery truck pulled up in front of the restaurant. While the driver got out to make the delivery, that truck sat idling — emitting considerable noise and smelly fumes — for about 20 minutes. No kidding.

This annoyed us, and it got us wondering what impact lengthy bus and truck idling has on local air pollution — including, of course, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).

Then last week, as I sat at a Denver airport bus stop waiting for a Skyride back to Boulder after a long flight home, I chatted with an older gentleman who was also waiting for a bus. As we sat there, RTD bus after RTD bus would pull up and sit idling for anywhere from three to 12 minutes. He started coughing and grumbled, “You know, we’re paying for all that diesel fuel they’re burning up just sitting there.”

Fumes from large idling diesel vehicles are something you can’t help but notice, even in Boulder — especially if you use mass transit regularly. They’re an attention-getting annoyance. But how much do they really contribute to local greenhouse gas emissions?

I’m just starting to look into this angle, but I’d like to share my digging process with you. Here’s what I’ve learned so far…

(more…)