ebmgh.com

This week, CARB, or the California Air Resources Board released a draft of the state’s cap and trade program to limit the emission of CO₂ from major polluters. From the original passage of California’s landmark global warming bill AB32 in 2005, cap and trade was intended as a centerpiece for reducing the state’s contribution to global warming. KQED’s Climate Watch has a few details, including some enviros’ disappointment that CARB has not spelled out some of the most pernicious details, including auctioning of allowances (who gets their existing level of pollution grandfathered in, and how much do polluters pay for the right to pollute), offsets (can I pay for a re-forestation project in Borneo instead of making actual changes at my plant?), and markets (are we seriously thinking of allowing hedge funds to create new exotic financial instruments called “carbon derivatives”?).

A group of scientists has released an update to the IPCC‘s 2007 Report, called the Copenhagen Diagnosis. It includes “policy-relevant climate science published since […] the last IPCC report” and is intended to guide policymakers who will meet for climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

Sea Level Rise Projections from the Copenhagen Diagnosis

Overall, it indicates what many scientists already know: the Fourth Assessment Report underestimates many of the anthropogenic climate changes that are happening and likely to continue. Specifically, ice is melting faster in Antarctica and Greenland than was predicted, contributing to global sea level rise about 80% higher than earlier projections. The latest forecasts predict sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters considered an upper limit by this time. In order to avoid the worst impacts, we must move to de-carbonize our economy, and global emissions must decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for the world to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the very worst impacts of climate change

“Carbon dioxide emissions cannot be allowed to continue to rise if humanity intends to limit the risk of unacceptable climate change. The task is urgent and the turning point must come soon. If we are to avoid more than 2 degrees Celsius warming, which many countries have already accepted as a goal, then emissions need to peak before 2020 and then decline rapidly.”

–Professor Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, USA

I continue to be impressed by the Cycling in Cities project at the University of British Columbia, the people behind the Cycling Route Planner for Vancouver,  and an impressive body of research. This is what cycle mapping looks like when it’s done with academic rigor and proper funding. Instead of assuming they know what needs to be fixed to get more people on bikes, they did the unthinkable: they actually went out and asked them!

Their opinion survey found:

Of the 73 features that might influence likelihood of cycling, the following were the top 10 motivators with average scores from +0.5 to +0.8 (with a maximum possible of +1=”much more likely to cycle”):

• the route is away from traffic noise and air pollution
• the route has beautiful scenery
• the route has bicycle paths separated from traffic for the entire distance
• the route is flat
• cycling to the destination takes less time than travelling by other modes
• the distance to my destination is less than 5 km
• I can make the trip in daylight hours
• I can take my bike on the Skytrain at any time
• a 2-way off-street bike path has a reflective centre line for night and poor weather cycling
• secure indoor bike storage is available at my destination

The following were the top 10 deterrents with average scores from -0.9 to -0.6 (with a minimum possible of -1=”much less likely to cycle”):

• the route is snowy or icy
• the street has a lot of car, bus, or truck traffic
• the route has glass or debris
• vehicles drive faster than 50 km/h [30 mph]
• the risk from motorists who don’t know how to drive safely near bicycles
• the risk of injury from car-bike collisions
• it is raining
• the route has surfaces that can be slick when wet or icy when cold
• the route is not well lit after dark
• I need to carry bulky or heavy items

Additionally, and relevant to the what we’re trying to do here in the Bay Area, the survey found that “the availability of a web-based bicycle trip planning tool was a motivating factor for both current and potential cyclists.”

I think it’s relevant to ask: how much do Vancouverites’ attitudes coincide with those in the US? We are all North Americans right? We share a dependence on fossil fuels and motor vehicles for transportation. How similar would the survey results be if they were done in an American city like San Francisco or Oakland?