Eight Chapters, Thousands of Members, One Voice

sir francis bacon

Sir Francis Bacon on Pushing That Boulder Uphill

sir francis baconPaul Wermer of USGBC California Research reaches way back as he emerges from sustainable materials meetings: “In 1620 Sir Francis Bacon clearly identified the problem we are still struggling with today in the realm of advocacy and policy: The human understanding resembles not a dry light, but admits a tincture of the will and passions, which generate their own system accordingly; for man always believes more readily that which he prefers. He, therefore, rejects difficulties for want of patience in investigation; sobriety, because it limits his hope; the depths of nature, from superstition; the light of experiment, from arrogance and pride, lest his mind should appear to be occupied with common and varying objects; paradoxes, from a fear of the opinion of the vulgar; in short, his feelings imbue and corrupt his understanding in innumerable and sometimes imperceptible ways.” Bacon, Novum Organum From http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/1432

Why state’s water woes could be just beginning

As 2013 came to a close, the media dutifully reported that the year had been the driest in California since records began to be kept in the 1840s. UC Berkeley paleoclimatologist B. Lynn Ingram didn’t think the news stories captured the seriousness of the situation.

“This could potentially be the driest water year in 500 years,” says Ingram, a professor of earth and planetary science and geography.

Ingram has an especially long-term perspective. As a paleoclimatologist — a scientist who studies changes in climate by teasing data out of rocks, sediments, shells, microfossils, trees and other sources — she’s accustomed to looking back over eons. And according to the width of old tree rings (which can record the coming and going of wet or waterless stretches), California hasn’t been so parched since 1580.

“These extremely dry years are very rare,” she says.

But soon, perhaps, they won’t be as rare as they used to be. The state is facing its third drought year in a row, and Ingram wouldn’t be surprised if that dry stretch continues.

UC Berkeley professor B. Lynn Ingram analyzes sediments and archaeological deposits to determine how climates change over the course of millennia.

UC Berkeley professor B. Lynn Ingram analyzes sediments and archaeological deposits to determine how climates change over the course of millennia.

Given that possibility, the title of a recent book by Ingram seems grimly apropos. The West Without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climatic Clues Tell Us About Tomorrow, co-written with geographer and environmental biologist (and UC Berkeley visiting scholar) Frances Malamud-Roam, was released by the University of California Press last year. The NewsCenter spoke to Ingram about the lessons to be drawn from her research as California heads into what could be its worst drought in half a millennium.

Q: California is in its third dry year in a row. How long could that continue?

A: If you go back thousands of years, you see that droughts can go on for years if not decades, and there were some dry periods that lasted over a century, like during the Medieval period and the middle Holocene. The 20th century was unusually mild here, in the sense that the droughts weren’t as severe as in the past. It was a wetter century, and a lot of our development has been based on that.

The late 1930s to the early 1950s were when a lot of our dams and aqueducts were built, and those were wetter decades. I think there’s an assumption that we’ll go back to that, and that’s not necessarily the case. We might be heading into a drier period now. It’s hard for us to predict, but that’s a possibility, especially with global warming. When the climate’s warmer, it tends to be drier in the West. The storms tend to hit further into the Pacific Northwest, like they are this year, and we don’t experience as many storms in the winter season. We get only about seven a year, and it can take the deficit of just a few to create a drought.

You mentioned global warming. Is what we’re seeing consistent with the predictions that have been made about how climate change could affect California?

Yes. We’ve already started having a decreased snow pack and increased wild fire frequency. And we’ve been warming, and it’s gotten drier. With Pacific Decadal Oscillation [the ever-changing temperature of surface water in the North Pacific Ocean], every 20 or 30 years we go in and out of these positive and negative shifts that affect precipitation and temperature. But now we’re entering a period where it looks like we’re getting drier even though it doesn’t necessarily correspond to that cycle. It looks like a trend. It’s warming and drying, and that’s definitely a big concern for Western states.

What originally sparked your interest in all this?

I grew up in Santa Barbara and personally experienced big floods followed by droughts. In 1969, half our backyard was washed away from an atmospheric river during a wet year. Then the ’76-77 drought made a big impression on me because there was almost literally no rain that year. So I was drawn to trying to understand what controls climate and why it’s so variable. It’s definitely very complex. We haven’t explained it completely, but we’re on our way.

What’s an “atmospheric river”?

That’s when corridors of moisture come up from the tropics, traveling across the Pacific Ocean for thousands of miles to the West Coast and bringing the equivalent of, say, 10 Mississippi Rivers of water. There’s a lot of rain within two or three days. Almost all of our major floods in California correspond to these atmospheric river storms. The last one that was really major was the 1861-62 flood. It completely filled the Central Valley with something like 10 feet of water. Sacramento was underwater.

We don’t know why, but we see evidence for these major mega-floods every one to two centuries over the past 2,000 years. It’s been about 150 years now since the last one, and now there are all these major cities in the very places that were submerged. The U.S. Geological Survey created a scenario for this — the ARkStorm, it was called — and it showed that if we repeated the 1861 flood there would be something like $725 billion in damage to the state. It would be a major disaster.

So on the one hand we should be worried about a drought, but on the other hand we should be worried about a flood?

Ingram stands in front of an Arizona sinkhole known as the Montezuma Well. It served as a water source for the Sinagua people until they disappeared from the area around AD 1300.

Ingram stands in front of an Arizona sinkhole known as the Montezuma Well. It served as a water source for the Sinagua people until they disappeared from the area around AD 1300.

Yes. If you look at the past, you realize that our climate is anything but reliable. We’ve seen these big fluctuations. Extreme droughts and extreme floods. My co-author and I wrote a couple review papers about that, but those weren’t going to be seen by the general public. They were for people in our field. And we thought we should try to bring this message out to the broader public. Because if you’re going to buy a house in the Central Valley, I think you should know about these floods. And we have to start assuming that we could go into one of these longer droughts and maybe start doing some serious conservation and rethinking of agriculture here.

If you look at the archaeological record, you see that the Native American population in the West expanded in the wet years that preceded those long droughts in the Medieval period. Then during the droughts, they were pretty much wiped out. There was the so-called Anasazi collapse in the Southwest about 800 years ago. In some ways, I see that as an analogy to us today. We’ve had this wetter 150 years and we’ve expanded. Now we’re using up all the available water, yet our population is still growing.

We’re vulnerable just like they were, but on an even larger scale.

 

By Steve Hockensmith, NewsCenter | January 21, 2014

BERKELEY —

 

California sets stronger energy efficiency rules for buildings

The California Energy Commission votes to tighten regulations that govern lighting controls, hot-water pipes, windows, insulation and other systems in new buildings and building additions.

By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times June 1, 2012

SACRAMENTO — Construction costs may go up, but new and remodeled homes and buildings will consume much less conventional power starting in a year and a half when the state’s newest energy efficiency standards take effect. The California Energy Commission voted 4 to 0 on Thursday to tighten regulations that govern lighting controls, hot-water pipes, windows, insulation and other systems in new buildings and building additions. The rules, which kick in Jan. 1, 2014, would reduce wasted energy in heating, cooling and lighting 25% over current standards for new homes and about 30% for commercial structures, state experts estimated.

Home energy savings requirements and recommendations.

Over the next 30 years, the new standards would save energy equal to the output of six modern natural-gas-fired power plants, saving enough electricity to run 1.7 million homes or 40 million iPads, commission staff reported. The new rules are the latest in the triennial revisions under the 34-year-old law that has made California structures and appliances the nation’s most efficient. Energy efficiency — using less electricity and natural gas to run buildings without sacrificing productivity or comfort — is the priority in California’s official plan to save money, fight pollution and global warming and avoid construction of expensive power plants and transmission lines. “The update for building standards is the biggest incremental improvement in efficiency that we’ve ever made in California,” Energy Commissioner Karen Douglas said. The new regulations require that home builders put insulation on hot-water pipes, make rooftops more ready for eventual solar power systems and hire independent inspectors to verify correct air conditioner installation. They also recommend the use of, and set efficiency levels for, whole house fans, upgraded windows and improved wall insulation. Proposed changes for commercial buildings include solar-ready roofs, automatic controls that adjust lighting levels to sunlight, better refrigeration equipment, reflective roofing and heat-filtering windows. Tighter energy efficiency rules would affect all new construction and additions and major retrofits to existing structures. The upgrades by law must be cost-efficient, and the Energy Commission estimated that the new standards would add $2,290 to the cost of a 2,200-square-foot home but would yield $6,200 in energy-related savings over 30 years. Since 1978, tightened efficiency for buildings, air conditioners, furnaces, refrigerators, televisions and other products has saved Californians $66 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills, the commission said. Pollution has been reduced by the equivalent of taking 37 million cars off the road. The new energy efficiency standards enjoyed broad support from investor-owned utilities such as Southern California Edison Co., environmental groups, local government building inspection officials and high-tech businesses developing environmentally friendly building products. They also won grudging approval from two significant stakeholders: the California Building Industry Assn., which represents 90% of home builders, and the California Business Properties Assn., which lobbies for commercial building owners. “Given the [weak] economy, we would have preferred that the California Energy Commission not make any changes this time around, but they’ve got some ambitious goals to meet by 2020,” said Robert Raymer, senior engineer for the builders group. “We recognize that doing nothing was not in the cards. “The new regulations are not “unobtainable or economically infeasible,” said Matthew Hargrove, senior vice president for the business properties group. Full article link

 
 

USGBC California Support of Energy Efficiency for All

Text of letter to Assemblymember Nancy Skinner in support of her AB1124.

USGBC California supports the Energy Efficiency for All bill, AB 1124 (Skinner), which would make improvements to multifamily rental apartment heating and hot water systems eligible for financial assistance through the Low-Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE) program administered by the CPUC.

Under current law and CPUC practice, the heating and hot water systems of multifamily rental apartment buildings are excluded from assistance from the ratepayer-funded LIEE program. Excluding multifamily rental apartment heating and hot water systems from LIEE is not only an issue of equity (low-income owners have no such limitations, but renters do), it is fundamentally one of energy conservation. Heating and hot water systems represent one of the largest consumers of energy in most multifamily buildings. Moreover, nearly half of eligible low-income households live in multifamily buildings, such as apartments. As a result, current law and policy represent a huge, missed energy conservation opportunity.

AB 1124 makes improvements to multifamily rental buildings heating and hot water systems eligible for financial assistance from the LIEE program—but limits such access to those buildings subject to deed-restrictions or other affordability covenants (to avoid any perception that such assistance could lead to windfalls for landlords). In addition, AB 1124 would encourage increased leveraging of other funds, greater cost-effectiveness, administrative efficiency, and reduced barriers to accessing LIEE funds.