Russ Steele
Some insights from the Board of Supervisors Meeting this morning and their response to the Nevada County 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, which was conducted by the Sierra Business Council. The presentation was made by Nicholas Martin and B.J. Schmitt from the SBC. This was a report on Phase II, establishing the base line for reducing CO2 emissions to the 1990 levels as mandated by AB-32. The survey team used 2005 as the base line year, because the data was not available for 1990.
Now let me ask you, how can we return to the 1990 emission levels if we do not know what those levels were? By their own admission Martin and Schmitt said it was “too hard to collect the data on 1990.” So, now can we return to a place we cannot identify? It was a wonderful opportunity for one of the Supervisors to shine by asking the question.
The SBC Team collected information on the Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions. They collected information on emissions from gas and diesel emissions, but not propane. Why not propane? By their own admission it was not a regulated source and the data was too hard to collect. Must not be important if it was “too hard to collect”.
Never mind, the SBC will soon be moving on to Phase III to develop Climate Action Plans to reduce County CO2 emission to the mandated 1990 levels. However they have no idea what those level were. You cannot get to there, from here if you have no idea where there is?
The questions asked by the Supervisors were interesting, well some were.
Lamphier: His focused his comments on how to implement a future AB-1900 Bio Gas regulation, on how methane emitted by the Landfill and Waste Water Plants could used to generate electricity. The SBC team had no idea.
Weston: Wanted to know what ICLEI meant and what was their role in the evaluation process. The SBC Team did not know what ICLEI stood for. They just used the ICLEI Tools to make the emission calculations. [International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.] The County is not a member of the ICLEI but Nevada City is.
Beason: He asked if the Inventory was being driven by AB-32, which the SBC Team responded that it was. He also made the point the county was reducing energy use as an economic measure with out regard to air quality. He wanted to know if the inventory considered Ozone, since it was a bigger problem for citizens.
Scofield: He ask George Rebane to tell everyone what ICLEI means and what the organization does. Ed also have very insightful comment: A Climate Action Plan will only result in more regulations.
Owens: He asked the most probing question. If the SBC Team was using software provided by the ICLEI what action has been take to valid the programs to insure they were accurate models of the real world. The SBC Team proclaimed they had no knowledge of software validity. They just used the protocol and calculation tools without question.
Weston: Hank had a follow up question. What is the IEAP reference in the report? According the the SBC Team it was the model used to make the calculations. They did not offer anymore information on the models or it’s heritage. According to the ICLEI web site:
Building on 17 years of experience through the CCP Campaign, ICLEI has developed the first version of the International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP) that follows principles of the GHG Protocol.
The IEAP consists of the general principles and philosophy that any local government, regardless of location, should adhere to when inventorying GHGs from its government operations and community as a whole.
The emission sources that should be included in a GHG inventory and the methods used to quantify theses sources are generally consistent between local governments, but are unique when compared with any other type of entity.
The International Protocol is informed by developments such as:
- IPCC 2006 methodological changes;
- GHG Protocol by WRI */ WBCSD**;
- ISO 14064 Greenhouse Gases series of standards;
- GRI Public Sector Agency Supplement.
Since November 2007 key peer organizations around the world – including United Nations Environment Program, World Resources Institute, International Energy Agency, California Climate Action Registry, Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Center for Neighborhood Technologies – have reviewed the International Protocol. It has also been reviewed by ICLEI member cities and stakeholders during a public comment period.
A US national supplement of the IEAP, Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) was further developed as a collaborative effort of The California Air Resources Board, The California Climate Action Registry, The Climate Registry and ICLEI. The Climate Registry adopted LGOP in 2009 for use by local government reporters, including from Canada and Mexico with country-appropriate supplements.
* WRI: World Resources Institute
** WBCSD: World Business Council for Sustainable Development
More about ICLEI HERE. Though not much mention that there goal is implementation of UN Agenda 21. This was explained in the public comment by George Rebane and Judi Caler. More on Agenda 21 HERE, HERE and HERE.
What did we learn? We leaned the the software tools and evaluation protocols used by SBC, without any validation and verification, was developed by International Environmental organizations and then modified by the California Air Resources Board and the California Climate Action Registry. If you go on the CARB web site you soon learn that Phase III may required mandated greenhouse gas reporting. Under Phase III instead of just using modeling and estimation tool, local government will have to measure and report green house emissions like the power companies and other large energy users in CA have to do now.
What troubled me the most was that none of our Supervisors even questioned the need for an inventory. They just accepting the AB-32 mandated requirements without questioning that human generate greenhouse gases cause global warming. See my post on that issue HERE. Scientific calculation have demonstrated that AB-32 will not have any measurable impact on global temperatures. The idea that reducing carbon dioxide emissions in California will affect the climate of the entire planet is totally absurd.
However, implementing AB-32 will have a huge economic impact when cap and trade sucks millions of dollars out of the economy. And Phase III Climate Action Plans will create more regulation and increase government operating costs, collecting emissions data can be expensive. Who will buy the instruments and pay the staff to collect and report the data? Costs that we tax payers may have to shoulder.
We need a Board of Supervisors that will just day NO to Phase III! We cannot afford anymore regulations! Tell SBC when they come calling for Phase III to just pound sand!
I will have more on the young Forest Service Scientist, on his own time, who claimed that I was wrong when I spoke, and later accused George and I of lying, and being lied to, when we say the CO2 emissions were not a danger to the planet.
Update (05-22-12: 1700) George Rebane at Ruminations has some more comments on our encounter with the “young scientist” and Agenda 21.
Recent Comments