The
LookOut is a monthly review of climate issues and recent developments
in our neighborhood.
Biomethane
may sound like a euphemism, but it’s good money these days. 350
Humboldt sponsored Kevin Fingerman, Ph.D., associate professor at Cal
Poly Humboldt, to give a presentation about biomethane
produced by dairies. Interest in this topic was sparked by news that Miranda Dairy in Ferndale is setting up a co-digester, and
Humboldty county may send its organic waste there by 2024 to be
turned into biomethane and digestate, a by-product that is spread on
fields.
Subsidies
from the state of California pay for dairies to manage their manure
in order to prevent methane emissions. The
Alternative
Manure Management Program finances a variety of composting systems to
deal with the problem,
but an increasingly popular method of manure management is anaerobic
digestion. Anaerobic digesters capture methane from manure in order
to use it as a fuel. With the help of generous subsidies from the
state, dairy gas has turned into a lucrative business. The title of
Kevin Fingerman’s presentation puts it in a nut shell: “Is
California creating manure farms that also produce milk?”
In
order to make a bigger profit, many dairies increase their herd size,
producing more methane in order to capture and sell it. Because
digesters leak and the process results in nitrous oxide and
other GHG emissions, not to mention ammonia, the whole goal of preventing methane
emissions and benefiting the climate has been severely undermined—and
at high cost.
California’s
Low Carbon Fuels Standard held a workshop on November 9 to discuss
modifying the avoided emissions credits program, which dispenses
grants and other aid to dairies. This letter from 350
Humboldt to the LCFS lays out several options.
Earlier
this year the county released a report
from the Humboldt Bay Sea Level Rise Regional Planning Feasibility
Study [HBSLRRPFS!]
that describes the complicated, enmeshed responsibilities of local,
state, and federal jurisdictions in regard to sea level rise [SLR].
The 229 page report, not counting appendices, doesn’t go so far as to
lay out a plan for collaboration. That will be the subject of another
report due before the end of 2022–so any
day now.
Jennifer
Kalt of Humboldt Baykeeper,
as quoted in a recent Lumberjack article,
commented on the
county’s
planning for SLR adaptation so far. “What I have seen as a
repeating theme is a lot of local jurisdictions getting grant money
to develop plans and then there isn’t a plan,” said Kalt. “It’s
a little depressing to see so much planning lead to nothing.”
A
great majority of the planners who work for all of these government
agencies are probably asking God why they were born at this time of
history. The task before them is daunting, to say the least. That’s
why starting
now is not too soon though the worst effects of SLR
aren’t expected for about
fifty
years (or
just
18 years if you count parts of King Salmon being underwater during
king tides, and
you probably would if you live in King Salmon).
PG&E
will have to move somewhere else by 2065 if it will stay in operation
beyond California’s deadline
for shutting
it down in 2045. And as we all know, a nuclear waste storage facility
is housed there as well.
As
reported in the LookOut last month, 350 Humboldt has discovered that
despite all the grant-funded research projects about SLR, the
county’s Local Coastal Plan makes no mention of climate change or
SLR. That should finally change although exactly when isn’t known. An
update of the Humboldt Bay Area Plan,
which is part of the Local Coastal Plan, is presumably in the works
after receiving grant funding from the Ocean Protection Council and
the Coastal Commission.
photo courtesy of Aldaron Laird
Two important
alerts from EPIC [The Environmental Protection Information
Center] have probably reached most LookOut readers, but read on in
case you missed either of them. Two post-fire logging projects
threaten to disturb vast tracts of forest already disturbed and
impacted by wildfire. One is proposed for the headwaters of Mad
River, where much of Humboldt’s drinking water comes from. The area
is already very sensitive, so churning up the ground is highly
inadvisable. A big storm could flood Ruth Lake with huge amounts of
sediment, which would be terrible for our drinking water. Click here for more information and contact info for the Deputy Forest
Supervisor.
The other project
has been in the works for a while and is still moving forward
despite widespread objection. It’s supposed to focus on removal of
hazardous trees but covers six thousand miles of roads and trail–that’s the largest ever logging plan affecting national forests in California. Considering that many of those roads are dead-end spurs and hardly
ever traveled, you have to wonder to whom the hazard trees are a
hazard. Plus live trees are also included in the logging plan.
Forests
recover from wildfire, but opportunistic logging greatly sets back
their progress. For more information about the R5 Post-Disturbance
Hazardous Tree Project, click here.
~
~ ~ ~
350
Humboldt members Deborah Dukes and Jamie Blatter spoke live on
KMUD radio on November 10. Dishgamu Humboldt is the name of the radio
program hosted by David Cobb and Michelle Vassel, who is a member of
the Wiyot tribe. Dishgamu is a Wiyot word for “love.”
Deborah
and Jamie talked about our link to the international organization,
350.org, how it was started, and our own founding as well in 2015.
They talked about activism and eco-grief, and the challenge of
channeling the force of eco-grief into action. It was a lively and
interesting hour. To listen, click here and scroll all the way down
to Thursday Night Talk on November 10.
~
~ ~ ~
Many
of us called on California to set more ambitious climate goals
when it released its draft 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan back in
May. The recently released updated draft disappointed many by
keeping the emphasis on unproven carbon capture technology, but
it also expands offshore wind targets to replace the projected need
for new natural gas plants. Plus, housing construction targets have
become greener, and the plan tackles transportation sector emissions
in two different ways.
Transportation
in California accounts for an impressive 50% of our emissions. One
helpful fix could be cleaner aviation fuels, yet Sustainable Aviation
Fuel made from a variety of biofuels all have serious problems.
(Treehugger has a condensed rundown.)
Hydrogen looks promising,
but it’s dubious that it will be available soon enough on a scale
to substantially reduce emissions before California’s 2030
deadline. Actually, that deadline is crucial for the whole world if
we’re to ward off catastrophic climate change. Simply flying
less—at least for now—seems like the more reliable path to fewer
emissions.
In 2021
U.S.ers traveled nine times farther by motorized road vehicles
than by air. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) refers specifically to
those miles. Once again, simply reducing them is the more reliable
path towards reducing road travel-related emissions although
widespread use of ZEVs will certainly help. California’s updated
Scoping Plan has increased its
goal of reducing VMT by 15% to a reduction of 25%. This is
great except that Californians for the past few years have
substantially increased their VMT.
Great
Ideas Department
Slow
down fast fashion and stop wasting all that energy – the latest
episode of Cool Solutions
How
can we live next to this big ocean and NOT have tidal energy figured out?
Take
a look at this Inflation Reduction Act calculator and start
planning how to improve the energy efficiency of your house
They
say this electric semi truck will soon change everything
Seaweed
is paving the way towards the highly desirable sodium-metal battery
California
wants to save water and produce clean energy with solar panels
over canals