The LookOut is a monthly digest of climate issues and recent developments in our neighborhood.
350
Humboldt calendar
350 Humboldt’s
social summer begins on July 14 on the deck of
the Interpretive Center at the Arcata Marsh at 2:00.
The main event will be a guided walk focused on sea level rise, with
time for conversation before and after. This will be a public
event, so bring a friend! Please note that there will
be no General Meeting in July
In August and
September the General Meetings will be held on
Zoom on the first Wednesday of the month at 6 pm as
usual, but we’re also having get-togethers in
person. There will be a pizza party at Redwood
Park on August 25 at one o’clock and a short
presentation for new people who want to know what we do. The
September get-together will be a hike at the Headwaters Forest. We’ll
let you know more as soon as the date is set.
If you’re
not a regular meeting attendee, this summer is your
chance to meet us and find out more about how we operate. If you
are a regular, invite a friend to come along! We want to get to know
each other better and new people as well–and have a little fun while
we’re at it.
Speaker Series:
This date is coming right up—July 8 for our next
speaker, Cody Warner. He’ll speak about what electric utilities
need to do to best avoid wildfire. As a UC Berkeley energy and
environmental economist, climate change adaptation in the electric
power sector is his specialty. Please register soon.
https://actionnetwork.org/events/how-can-electric-utilities-prevent-wildfires
Thanks to our co-sponsors, EPIC,
Friends of the Eel, Humboldt Friends, and HUUF Climate Action
Campaign.
Other 350
activities: The letter-writing group meets every Sunday
evening on Zoom at 7 PM.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84789051501?pwd=L3pJL0t1am5EblJRVWZhUWFIenpIdz09
The book club
meets on the fourth Monday of every month at 7 PM. The book for July
is Fire Weather: A True Story from a Hotter World by John
Valiant. The book for August is Guardian of the Trees by Kinari
Webb.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87104876080?pwd=Q1Z2Z0d3K3V0UE9EN2Z0TlFweTZndz09
One-time
Bus Adventure rolls on July 26. To celebrate Redwood Transit’s
summer program for seniors and kids [see next article], 350rs are
invited to meet each other on a bus going to Friday night market in
Eureka. The target arrival time is 6 o’clock. If traveling from the
north, catch the bus that arrives at 4th and D in Eureka
at 5:59. If coming from the south, get off at 5th and D at
5:43. (The Market’s address is 2nd and E.) Check the
Redwood Transit System schedule for
the bus stop nearest
to you but just to
give you a clue—you can take the 5:14 bus from in front of the
Safeway in McKville, or if starting from the Arcata Transit Center,
catch it at 5:38. The bus coming from the south leaves College of the
Redwoods at 5:17. You get the idea.
The
news
If you’re 62
years old or older OR if you’re 17 years old or younger, you’re
in luck. Opulent public transportation privileges are yours for
the taking this summer. Ride Redwood Transit buses from Fortuna to
Trinidad for free during the months of July and August. Buses in
Eureka and Arcata are also free. All you need to do is to show ID if
your age is in question.
This
is a good opportunity to vote for the climate-friendly benefits of
mass transit by swelling the ridership numbers. A well-developed
transit system would be a huge boon to even a rural county such as
Humboldt. It takes vision and investment from
our transportation agencies plus
willingness from the public to ride large vehicles with other people.
Relax and enjoy
the scenery.
¤
¤
¤
On
June 4th the Board of Supervisors heard about the proposal to build two wood pellet factories in Tuolomne and
Lassen counties. The report included both good news and some
specious information. Patrick Blacklock of the nonprofit agency,
Rural County Representatives of California [RCRC] told the
supervisors that its spinoff, Golden State Natural Resources [GSNR],
has commissioned a life-cycle analysis of the projected emissions of
making wood pellets and shipping them overseas to be burned at power
plants. The LookOut asked Blacklock if the analysis would include the
CO2 emissions of incineration but hasn’t received an answer.
Blacklock
seemed to acknowledge those high emissions when he suggested that the
wood pellets could possibly be gasified to make airplane fuel instead
of incinerated. He said the extra step of making pellets in that case
is worth it because pellets are more easily shipped and handled.
Supervisor Arroyo commented that once the pellets are made, the
likelihood seems low of changing the plan from burning them.
Dismissing
concerns that the proposed factories could incentivize cutting down
trees that don’t need to be cut down, Blacklock pointed to
California’s mandate for fuel load reductions on a million acres
every year. He said that amount of genuine waste wood would far
exceed the capacity of the wood pellet factories. However, this
statewide target is irrelevant to the transport range around each of
the proposed factories. According to GSNR’s Notice of Preparation,
that range is a hundred miles.
Making
and selling wood pellets is a way to finance fuel load reductions
that most foresters believe are necessary to reduce the risk and
severity of wildfires. Blacklock described environmental opposition
to the project as coming from organizations that oppose any
“intervention” in the forest. But GSNR’s partnership with Drax,
the largest stationary source of CO2 emissions in Great Britain,
inspires no trust. Drax’s history of buying timber from clear-cuts
and old growth trees to feed the boilers makes very clear what its
priority is.
If
you’d like to watch the RCRC presentation (agenda item G 1), click here.
¤
¤
¤
According to the
Humboldt County Planning Department, the deadline for
the Climate Action Plan is now sometime in July. The department
released in May a list of 24 possible measures—such as making 95%
of new non-residential buildings all-electric–that were tabulated by
the amount of greenhouse gases they could prevent.
Members of the
general public and public officials of the Humboldt jurisdictions
that will vote on the plan were invited to select the most desirable
measures that would add up to 160,000 MT CO2e, which is the minimum
target of the plan. This represents a 40% reduction below estimated
1990 emissions as mandated by the state.
The questionnaire
was viewed over a thousand times; 160 members of the general public
submitted their choices. The three highest priorities were keeping
organic waste from ending up in landfills, increasing use of ZEVs
(zero-emission vehicles) and the use of public transit. Public
officials also chose the same three. (Diverting
organic waste from the landfill is already state law, and
the county is working on
compliance.)
Many public officials
also chose establishing a region-wide Climate Committee to help
implement the Plan, a measure not associated with a particular amount
of reductions.
Once
the draft Plan is released, the public will have a chance to comment
during the initial Scoping Period and again after the draft
Environmental Impact Report is complete.
Getting ready for an entirely new and novel industry
as big and complicated as offshore wind poses
challenging logistics. The county’s Economic Development
Division [HCED] has hired Xodus Group, global engineering
consultants, to help Humboldt figure out the many different steps to
take. Work force and supply chain issues are two of the biggest
priorities to analyze. HCED’s director Scott Adair wants to “ensure
that Humboldt County workers and businesses can fully participate in
this emerging industry.”
If Humboldt’s piece of this is complicated, consider the statewide
picture. At least nine state agencies in addition to other federal,
local and tribal governments must coordinate together for wind energy
developments installed off California’s coast in federal waters. AB
525, passed by the California legislature in 2022, called on the
California Energy Commission [CEC] to write a strategic plan for how
this will happen.
The offshore wind committee for 350 Humboldt, in conjunction with
Climate Action California, has commented on the draft plan as
it becomes available. The short version of their critique is that the
Draft Strategic Plan for Offshore Wind Development brings together
much useful information but falls far short of a guide that will get
us to the goal. Vague recommendations do not serve as guidelines for
how a myriad of agencies will work together. Specific tasks were not
assigned and timeframes were not set.
The CEC will consider the final version on July 10. To find all three
volumes (overview, detail, and appendices), click here.
¤
¤
¤
A controversial
state bill, AB 3238, that speeds
up the construction of electrical transmission lines has almost made
it through the legislature. The controversy has to do with what
critics see as a shortchanging of legal processes designed to protect
the environment. The Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council,
EPIC, The California Native Plant Society and 350 Humboldt oppose
this bill until sufficiently amended.
The bill’s
supporters, which include many utilities and energy producers, say
that the existing permitting process is “duplicative, lengthy and
costly” because it goes through three separate agencies—California
Energy Commission, California Independent System Operator, and
California Public Utilities Commission. They say the proposed reforms
do not eliminate the CEQA process for projects requiring a
construction permit but only for the expansion of existing rights of
way through state lands.
That exception is a
primary reason why environmental organizations oppose AB 3238. The
bill makes the presumption that new transmission projects provide
benefits that automatically outweigh environmental impacts, making it
unnecessary for individual project developers to provide evidence for
that case. Several more reasons for opposition were cited in the
letter, which can be read here.
At a Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications hearing on June 24, the bill’s author, Eduardo Garcia, expressed urgency about the need to expand the transmission infrastructure much more quickly. The bill passed but was referred back to the committee on Environmental Quality, where it may be further amended. From there it will go to the governor.