\naddressed the Planning Commission<\/strong> on July 28 about Nordic
\nAquafarm’s proposed project on Humboldt Bay that the commissioners didn’t have time<\/a> to make a
\ndecision. Presentations from planning staff, Nordic, and Larry
\nOetker of the Humboldt Harbor District took an hour and a half, and
\nthen the public commented for almost two hours. By that time it was a
\nquarter til ten, and the issue was deferred to August 4th.<\/p>\n
Most of the project While Cuevas-Uribe’s Although the <\/p>\n screenshot from Planning Commission meeting<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Humboldt Hydrogen HTA has been cooking up ambitious plans to provide mass transit on a <\/p>\n >>><<<<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Eureka’s If you missed the We were supposed to Humboldt County <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Another prong of Participation in the The <\/p>\n >>><<<<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The The The Infill development is the best <\/p>\n image courtesy of Lost Coast Outpost<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Governor Newsom Many climate The goal is to California is <\/p>\n Links<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The latest California’s Offshore wind Does the fate of
\nproponents were engineers from the Local 3 union who took turns at
\nthe podium to “implore” the commission to approve the
\nproject. Another proponent was Rafael Cuevas-Uribe, a fisheries
\nbiology professor at Cal Poly Humboldt who heads up its seaweed farm.<\/a> He called Nordic’s system “cutting-edge technology.”<\/p>\n
\nendorsement was encouraging, many local environmental groups had
\nconcerns and criticisms about the many impacts of this large-scale
\nproposed project. 350 Humboldt members targeted the climate
\nramifications. They pointed out that Nordic’s EIR omitted a massive
\namount of the proposed facility’s GHG emissions, giving many people
\nthe false impression that Nordic had found a way to produce 25,000
\nlbs of Atlantic Salmon per year without a large footprint. This comment<\/a> from 350 Humboldt and Climate Action Campaign lays out
\nthe details of why we should be skeptical.<\/p>\n
\nproposed electricity usage is far from the only source of uncounted
\nemissions, Nordic’s footprint would substantially improve once
\nHumboldt starts generating renewable energy in appreciable
\nquantities. An offshore wind farm, for instance, would be nice.
\nConsidering the uncertainties at this point, however, we can’t count
\nthose megawatts until they hatch.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com\/uploads\/data\/000\/686\/272\/original\/jack.png\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n
\nTransit Authority scored<\/strong>
\na 38.7 million<\/a> dollar grant,<\/u>
\nwith
\na little help from Peter Lehman of Schatz Energy Center, to buy
\nhydrogen fuel cell electric buses and also to help finance Eureka’s
\nnew transit hub in the making–the EaRTH Center<\/a>.<\/u>
\nWith a range of 300 miles, these buses will save 120,000 gallons of
\ndiesel every year. Test drive it here.<\/a><\/p>\n
\nfuel cell electric technology means that the vehicle’s batteries can
\nbe recharged by the onboard fuel cells, eliminating the need for long
\nstops to recharge. Other technological advantages are described here.<\/a> However, many critics still say<\/a>
\nthat straight-up BEV vehicles, including buses, make much more
\nfinancial sense than anything involving hydrogen fuel cells.<\/p>\n
\nbigger scale. It is working with the transit authorities of Mendocino
\ncounty, Del Norte, and Lake to connect their systems with Humboldt’s,
\nenabling passengers to travel farther and farther. Fare-capping
\nagreements will make those trips financially economical, and zero
\nemissions buses will make them environmentally low cost as well.<\/p>\n
\nRecycling Center <\/strong>on Hawthorn Street <\/strong>permanently closes<\/strong>
\non the first day of August. That space will be re-purposed as a
\n“tipping floor” for organic waste collection in order to
\ncomply with California’s ambitious law, SB 1383. Until a new location
\nopens (maybe on West End Road in Arcata), there are some alternatives<\/a> for your recycling.<\/p>\n
\nrecent, excellent Journal article about Humboldt’s efforts to get
\nwith the 1383 program, you can read it here.<\/a> The goal of the
\nlegislation is to reduce by 75% the amount of organic matter that
\ncurrently gets into landfills, rots, and emits methane, one of the
\nworst greenhouse gases. California’s landfills are responsible for
\n20% of the state’s emissions.<\/p>\n
\nbe compliant as of January this year but got a late start for some
\nreason. Humboldt Waste Management Authority, Solid Waste Local Task
\nForce and Local Enforcement Agency, plus local waste hauling
\ncompanies are racing to catch up. State grants could help the county
\nwith all the expenses, but the increased cost<\/a> of curbside waste
\ncollection will be borne by ratepayers. The county hired a consulting
\nfirm, Edgar and Associates, to help figure it all out. Here is the roadmap<\/a> it produced last year.<\/p>\n
\nlacks facilities to do anything with organic waste on a large scale.
\nAfter it is sorted and baled at the HWMA facility, it will be trucked
\nout of county to a facility for processing. The amount of methane
\nprevented will far outstrip the extra carbon of increased trucking.
\nEventually, Humboldt county will have its own central composting
\nfacility or multiple regional facilities or perhaps an aerobic digester.
\nTreating our garbage as a local resource will have the most benefits
\nfor us and our environment.<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com\/uploads\/data\/000\/686\/266\/original\/possible.png\")
screenshot from Solid Waste Local Task Force meeting<\/p>\n
\nSB 1383 mandates <\/strong>recovering surplus food<\/a> before it
\never hits the waste stream. Many grocery stores and restaurants, etc.
\nalready donate surplus food to the 49 food recovery organizations in
\nthe county. California bolsters this effort to address not only the
\nmethane emissions of rotting food but also the age-old problem of
\npeople lacking food while others throw it away..<\/p>\n
\nedible food recovery program is mandatory. If you are a “food
\ngenerator” in California, you must either participate in this
\nprogram or prove to Cal-Recycle that your store, restaurant, or
\ncafeteria does not throw away any food. According to the initial
\nsurvey undertaken by Edgar and Associates, the consultants Humboldt
\ncounty hired, more than 300 food generators in Humboldt county might
\nqualify.<\/p>\n
\nbiggest challenge for food recovery organizations,
\nsuch as Food For People<\/a>,
\nSalvation Army, and the Betty Kwan Chinn Foundation,
\nis lack of infrastructure. Cal-Recycle can provide grants for
\nrefrigeration and trucks, etc. Edgar and Associates also suggests
\nthat organizations with surplus refrigeration capacity or room in
\ndelivery trucks could help out by sharing and coordinating with food
\nrecovery organizations. No doubt it will get complicated and perhaps
\neven awkward, especially at first, but making
\nequitable food distribution a bigger priority is a worthwhile cause.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nArcata Planning Commission<\/strong>
\ndiscussed<\/strong> the
\nGateway Plan<\/strong> with
\nCommunity Development Director David Loya, and the public
\non July 26. Arcata has
\nsaid it welcomes
\npublic engagement with the process of designing the Gateway
\ncommunity, so that part of the plan–input from people who
\ncare–seems to be working.<\/p>\n
\nmain topic of Tuesday’s meeting seemed to be something called
\n“form-based code” and how it will be reviewed and
\nfacilitated. Code
\nrefers to zoning, and form-based means that the overall look of a
\nneighborhood and streetscape is formed by design requirements that
\npreserve community character. It
\nalso encourages mixed use
\ninstead of focusing on one prevalent use as traditional zoning often
\ndoes.<\/p>\n
\nmost contentious aspect of the Gateway Plan<\/a>
\nis population density and height of buildings. 3500 new
\nhousing units, including a
\nfew 8-story buildings, have been proposed for the 138 acre area. Many
\nresidents of the area question<\/a> whether Arcata has the infrastructure, including wastewater treatment
\ncapacity, to accommodate such an ambitious build-out.<\/p>\n
\nway to provide much needed housing without sacrificing agricultural
\nor forested lands. Making these developments as green as possible is
\nthe best strategy we have. Here<\/a> is a great website that tracks
\nthe developing plan from the perspective of informed and involved
\nresidents.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com\/uploads\/data\/000\/686\/273\/original\/gateway.png\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n
\ndeclared a state of emergency<\/strong> on July 23 in response to the Oak
\nFire and vowed to redouble California’s efforts<\/a> to combat
\nclimate change. The governor seems to agree with critics that the Air Resources Board’s
\nscoping plan for the next decade doesn’t go far enough, and he
\npromises to accelerate the development of offshore wind, facilitate
\nclean fuel for the aviation industry, and deploy six million home
\nheat pumps. However, he still favors unproven and expensive carbon
\ncapture technology as a tool to help the state de-carbonize.<\/p>\n
\nactivists are a little confused by some of the governor’s strategies. A controversial bill<\/a>, SB 122, in the original version, expanded
\nthe authority of the state’s Energy Commission to quickly approve
\nelectricity projects. Many agencies, including the Coastal
\nCommission, were unhappy about having their own authority shorn in
\nthe process, so the final bill that passed in June restored many
\nagencies’ oversight of aspects of the Energy Commission’s decisions.
\nAt the very same time, however, the bill greatly expanded the
\nauthority of the Department of Water Resources to not only quickly
\napprove electricity projects but also construct, own, and operate
\npower plants, removing the jurisdiction of Coastal Commission and
\nmany other agencies. Compliance with existing state or local
\nenvironmental laws is not necessary.<\/p>\n
\nstreamline approval of solar, wind and geothermal projects. However,
\nmany environmentalists and bureaucrats are unhappy with California’s
\nstrong-arm, trust-me approach. The new policy is true to Newsom’s
\npromise to not build new gas plants, but it will most likely prolong
\nthe use of some natural-gas plants that were scheduled to close down
\nnext year. The closure of some of these plants have already been
\ndelayed for three years. Keeping Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
\nopen past its deadline is also very likely.<\/p>\n
\nattempting to transition away from fossil fuels, yet SB 122 could
\nallocate billions of dollars to fossil fuel power plants. This
\nprecarious juggling act may be necessary to keep the lights on during
\nextreme weather and wildfires.<\/p>\n
\nepisode of Cool Solutions<\/strong> talks with climate activists<\/strong> who
\nsuccessfully walked through state and local doors<\/a> when the
\nfederal government banged theirs shut.<\/p>\n
\noffshore wind opportunities<\/strong> look like a modern day gold rush<\/a>
\nto some people.<\/p>\n
\nfarms might benefit<\/strong> marine biodiversity as well. Let us hope.<\/a><\/p>\n
\ncivilization really rest on dumb politics<\/strong> such as changing the name of a bill?
\n<\/a><\/p>\n