Controlling Carbon Emissions

The National Building Museum recently hosted a panel discussion entitled "Whose Carbon is it Anyway?"  Harriett Tregoning of the DC Office of Planning presented the city’s green building law, launched in 2006 with the expectation that the public sector would lead the creation of sustainable buildings, only to have the private sector race ahead with 204 projects now in the permit pipeline.  These are privately-owned sites slated for LEED certification.  

At least some of DC’s buildings will soon emit less carbon, but the vehicles on our streets are a far more significant problem.   Signs are now prevalent that prohibit idling cars. Yet, half of all trips generated in the city are three miles or less; a distance someone could walk, ride or jump on mass transit if they choose to do so.  The DC Circulator attempts to wrestle America’s car clinging tendencies. Streetcars painted for the District are now being tested in Prague.  Paris’s bike-sharing program, where one can swipe a kiosk card to borrow an instant bike, is nearing implementation.  Even the selective placement of grocery stores throughout the city is a means to get people out of their cars and onto sidewalks.  At least DC has moved beyond rhetoric to actions.

The second speaker presented a mind-boggling building in Germany that does it all; low cost ventilation through windows that open, cooling by water transported from a manmade lake; harnessing natural wind currents through integrated channels; vast natural lighting to reduce the usual 30% energy consumption for lighting and geo thermal storage of solar collection.  The architect espoused the need for a team approach to balance energy at initial discussions, long before a design on paper or a spot marked on land.  The inside of the building in Germany looked like elevated walkways at the National Botanical Gardens, only with nice wood trim and wide paneled platforms.

This magnificent office complex offers no individual offices.  Workers carry in laptops and plug into a new surface each day.   All interior spaces are designed to capture a view.  Starbucks-style groupings of chairs are placed for both spontaneous discussions and pre-arranged meetings.  But, there are no cubbies, no cubicles and no place to store your street-worthy shoes.  When asked if the people working there are happy, the response was "they accept it".  How accepting are American workers? Try suggesting to an SUV owner there are better car choices….

Scott Barrett, author of "Why Corroborate?" gave an international perspective and called for international leadership willing to make hard choices.  To date, the issue receives rhetoric with no action; comparable to a rowing team with no movement on open water.  A UN agreement in 1988 called for a 20% reduction in emissions by 2005, yet instead there was a 30% increase.  Barrett saw this as a 50% failure, but any increase rather than a reduction puts true failure at 100%.

Melissa Levinson of PG&E spoke, but she spoke so fast that showcasing her employer was lost.  As a member of the U.S. Climate Partnership Association (USCPA), she supported the use of caps to limit future emission, but called for a market-based solution that would allow "trades" amongst emission producers within the caps.  Most environmentalist see trading allowances as a license to pollute. 
 
According to their website, USCPA is the only U.S. organization dedicated exclusively to developing and implementing cost-effective greenhouse gas practices, strategies and performance targets. Yet, USCPA is fully industry-controlled; "open to companies beginning to address greenhouse gas emissions to those well on their way to achieving greenhouse gas goals". USCPA provides value "not only as a learning organization, but as a public policy issues management resource". As in, we say what they want to hear (?).  Again, their mission statement begs the fundamental question: Doesn’t an approval to trade generate an approval to pollute?

Congresswoman Fran Pavley wanted the audience to know that California’s Emission caps permit no such trades.  A renewable portfolio standard has been imposed on California utilities for over twenty years.  California’s Energy Commission sets standards on cooling towers and kitchen appliances.  Coupling, rather than trading, amongst energy companies is a standard practice.  With 40% of emissions coming from vehicles, Pavley lead the charge towards hard choices with her "tailpipe emissions bill", now under judicial review by an auto industry challenge that the bill interferes with interstate commerce.  Pavley seems willing to wait it out, but still supports a blend of both market-based solution and "command and attain" regulations.

All speakers supported the need to produce energy near the client.  Obviously, this is a wonderful concept, but those living in the far reaches of a metropolitan area will soon be calling for a cap on the number of generating sources that can be sited within a single jurisdiction.  Wouldn’t it be great if the utilities used to support a particular community were required to be within the same jurisdictional boundaries?  Fringe jurisdictions would have enough leftover energy to sell as an exported commodity.  Instead, outlying counties pay to have the leftovers from the urban core transported back.  Sort of like paying more for unleaded gas, when it initially cost more to add the lead.

The evening ended with a discussion at to whether there should be penalties for non-compliance of emission reductions.  So far, the use of penalties has been more like blackmail.  When the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the U.S. tariff on Japanese steel violated treaties for balancing costs, the U.S. didn’t feel like changing its position.  That is until the WTO reacted with a whopping tariff on Florida’s orange juice.  In 2002, possibly because he owed Florida a favor, the offending steel tariff was pulled by the current president and orange juice once again flowed internationally.

There will be heavy costs to pay to reduce carbon emissions and if penalties are added, costs will only go higher.  Does the WTO have the resources and means to decide which countries can and should reduce emissions?  What to do with emerging countries who can barely feed their citizens?  Shouldn’t their emerging industries be designed to meet minimum emission standards, but then who pays?  The magnitude of the problem goes way beyond controlling utility costs and emissions within the maintenance of a single building.  But the real question is not "should" we start, but "when" do we start?

Linda Bronsdon
LBronsdon@earthlink.net