The LookOut is a monthly digest of climate actions and developments in Humboldt county.

 

So many people
addressed the Planning Commission
on July 28 about Nordic
Aquafarm’s proposed project on Humboldt Bay that the commissioners didn’t have time to make a
decision. Presentations from planning staff, Nordic, and Larry
Oetker of the Humboldt Harbor District took an hour and a half, and
then the public commented for almost two hours. By that time it was a
quarter til ten, and the issue was deferred to August 4th.

Most of the project
proponents were engineers from the Local 3 union who took turns at
the podium to “implore” the commission to approve the
project. Another proponent was Rafael Cuevas-Uribe, a fisheries
biology professor at Cal Poly Humboldt who heads up its seaweed farm. He called Nordic’s system “cutting-edge technology.”

While Cuevas-Uribe’s
endorsement was encouraging, many local environmental groups had
concerns and criticisms about the many impacts of this large-scale
proposed project. 350 Humboldt members targeted the climate
ramifications. They pointed out that Nordic’s EIR omitted a massive
amount of the proposed facility’s GHG emissions, giving many people
the false impression that Nordic had found a way to produce 25,000
lbs of Atlantic Salmon per year without a large footprint. This comment from 350 Humboldt and Climate Action Campaign lays out
the details of why we should be skeptical.

Although the
proposed electricity usage is far from the only source of uncounted
emissions, Nordic’s footprint would substantially improve once
Humboldt starts generating renewable energy in appreciable
quantities. An offshore wind farm, for instance, would be nice.
Considering the uncertainties at this point, however, we can’t count
those megawatts until they hatch.

 

screenshot from Planning Commission meeting

 

 

Humboldt
Transit Authority scored

a 38.7 million dollar grant,
with
a little help from Peter Lehman of Schatz Energy Center, to buy
hydrogen fuel cell electric buses and also to help finance Eureka’s
new transit hub in the making–the EaRTH Center.
With a range of 300 miles, these buses will save 120,000 gallons of
diesel every year. Test drive it here.

Hydrogen
fuel cell electric technology means that the vehicle’s batteries can
be recharged by the onboard fuel cells, eliminating the need for long
stops to recharge. Other technological advantages are described here. However, many critics still say
that straight-up BEV vehicles, including buses, make much more
financial sense than anything involving hydrogen fuel cells.

HTA has been cooking up ambitious plans to provide mass transit on a
bigger scale. It is working with the transit authorities of Mendocino
county, Del Norte, and Lake to connect their systems with Humboldt’s,
enabling passengers to travel farther and farther. Fare-capping
agreements will make those trips financially economical, and zero
emissions buses will make them environmentally low cost as well.

 

>>><<<

 

Eureka’s
Recycling Center
on Hawthorn Street permanently closes
on the first day of August. That space will be re-purposed as a
“tipping floor” for organic waste collection in order to
comply with California’s ambitious law, SB 1383. Until a new location
opens (maybe on West End Road in Arcata), there are some alternatives for your recycling.

If you missed the
recent, excellent Journal article about Humboldt’s efforts to get
with the 1383 program, you can read it here. The goal of the
legislation is to reduce by 75% the amount of organic matter that
currently gets into landfills, rots, and emits methane, one of the
worst greenhouse gases. California’s landfills are responsible for
20% of the state’s emissions.

We were supposed to
be compliant as of January this year but got a late start for some
reason. Humboldt Waste Management Authority, Solid Waste Local Task
Force and Local Enforcement Agency, plus local waste hauling
companies are racing to catch up. State grants could help the county
with all the expenses, but the increased cost of curbside waste
collection will be borne by ratepayers. The county hired a consulting
firm, Edgar and Associates, to help figure it all out. Here is the roadmap it produced last year.

Humboldt County
lacks facilities to do anything with organic waste on a large scale.
After it is sorted and baled at the HWMA facility, it will be trucked
out of county to a facility for processing. The amount of methane
prevented will far outstrip the extra carbon of increased trucking.
Eventually, Humboldt county will have its own central composting
facility or multiple regional facilities or perhaps an aerobic digester.
Treating our garbage as a local resource will have the most benefits
for us and our environment.

 

screenshot from Solid Waste Local Task Force meeting

 

Another prong of
SB 1383 mandates
recovering surplus food before it
ever hits the waste stream. Many grocery stores and restaurants, etc.
already donate surplus food to the 49 food recovery organizations in
the county. California bolsters this effort to address not only the
methane emissions of rotting food but also the age-old problem of
people lacking food while others throw it away..

Participation in the
edible food recovery program is mandatory. If you are a “food
generator” in California, you must either participate in this
program or prove to Cal-Recycle that your store, restaurant, or
cafeteria does not throw away any food. According to the initial
survey undertaken by Edgar and Associates, the consultants Humboldt
county hired, more than 300 food generators in Humboldt county might
qualify.

The
biggest challenge for food recovery organizations,
such as Food For People,
Salvation Army, and the Betty Kwan Chinn Foundation,
is lack of infrastructure. Cal-Recycle can provide grants for
refrigeration and trucks, etc. Edgar and Associates also suggests
that organizations with surplus refrigeration capacity or room in
delivery trucks could help out by sharing and coordinating with food
recovery organizations. No doubt it will get complicated and perhaps
even awkward, especially at first, but making
equitable food distribution a bigger priority is a worthwhile cause.

 

>>><<<

 

The
Arcata Planning Commission

discussed
the
Gateway Plan
with
Community Development Director David Loya, and the public
on July 26. Arcata has
said it welcomes
public engagement with the process of designing the Gateway
community, so that part of the plan–input from people who
care–seems to be working.

The
main topic of Tuesday’s meeting seemed to be something called
“form-based code” and how it will be reviewed and
facilitated. Code
refers to zoning, and form-based means that the overall look of a
neighborhood and streetscape is formed by design requirements that
preserve community character. It
also encourages mixed use
instead of focusing on one prevalent use as traditional zoning often
does.

The
most contentious aspect of the Gateway Plan
is population density and height of buildings. 3500 new
housing units, including a
few 8-story buildings, have been proposed for the 138 acre area. Many
residents of the area question whether Arcata has the infrastructure, including wastewater treatment
capacity, to accommodate such an ambitious build-out.

Infill development is the best
way to provide much needed housing without sacrificing agricultural
or forested lands. Making these developments as green as possible is
the best strategy we have. Here is a great website that tracks
the developing plan from the perspective of informed and involved
residents.

 

image courtesy of Lost Coast Outpost

 

 

Governor Newsom
declared a state of emergency
on July 23 in response to the Oak
Fire and vowed to redouble California’s efforts to combat
climate change. The governor seems to agree with critics that the Air Resources Board’s
scoping plan for the next decade doesn’t go far enough, and he
promises to accelerate the development of offshore wind, facilitate
clean fuel for the aviation industry, and deploy six million home
heat pumps. However, he still favors unproven and expensive carbon
capture technology as a tool to help the state de-carbonize.

Many climate
activists are a little confused by some of the governor’s strategies. A controversial bill, SB 122, in the original version, expanded
the authority of the state’s Energy Commission to quickly approve
electricity projects. Many agencies, including the Coastal
Commission, were unhappy about having their own authority shorn in
the process, so the final bill that passed in June restored many
agencies’ oversight of aspects of the Energy Commission’s decisions.
At the very same time, however, the bill greatly expanded the
authority of the Department of Water Resources to not only quickly
approve electricity projects but also construct, own, and operate
power plants, removing the jurisdiction of Coastal Commission and
many other agencies. Compliance with existing state or local
environmental laws is not necessary.

The goal is to
streamline approval of solar, wind and geothermal projects. However,
many environmentalists and bureaucrats are unhappy with California’s
strong-arm, trust-me approach. The new policy is true to Newsom’s
promise to not build new gas plants, but it will most likely prolong
the use of some natural-gas plants that were scheduled to close down
next year. The closure of some of these plants have already been
delayed for three years. Keeping Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
open past its deadline is also very likely.

California is
attempting to transition away from fossil fuels, yet SB 122 could
allocate billions of dollars to fossil fuel power plants. This
precarious juggling act may be necessary to keep the lights on during
extreme weather and wildfires.

 

Links

 

The latest
episode of Cool Solutions
talks with climate activists who
successfully walked through state and local doors when the
federal government banged theirs shut.

California’s
offshore wind opportunities
look like a modern day gold rush
to some people.

Offshore wind
farms might benefit
marine biodiversity as well. Let us hope.

Does the fate of
civilization really rest on dumb politics
such as changing the name of a bill?