Email Sherry Listgarten About this blog: Although climate change has a huge impact on the planet, it is still an abstract concept for many of us. This needs to change. I hope readers of this blog can better understand how our climate evolves... (more) About this blog: Climate change, despite its huge impact on the planet, is still an abstract concept for many of us . This needs to be changed. I hope that readers of this blog will have a better understanding of how our climate is evolving and how they want to respond, and will feel comfortable asking questions and exchanging opinions on this topic. It is important that we reach a consensus on the basic science and impact of climate change in order to understand our future actions and policy choices. My background is not climate science, and I am not even particularly green; I hope this helps make this blog more relevant. I studied mathematics and neurobiology on the east coast, and then moved here in 1987 to study at the Graduate School of Computer Science. After working in the technology industry for about 25 years, I retired a few years ago to better align my time with my priorities. I like to spend time outdoors and deeply feel our responsibility to this incredible planet we call home. (hide)

View all posts by Sherry Listgarten

We can hardly afford our home in Pennsylvania. Basically, the city’s goal is to further gentrify and retain only the millionaires and billionaires who can pay tens of thousands of dollars in renovation costs. Coupled with the very uncertain state of the grid, electricity prices are expected to rise sharply, and your hands are in a mess. We know that someone provided electricity to their home and spent more than $100,000 on upgrades. When the price of any reasonable electric car exceeds 40k and does not include expensive insurance, it is a joke to expect all of us to own an electric car... Palo Alto's affordability seems to be just lip service. Of course, if you are poor, there are some policies that can conceal the problem. If you are middle class, you should move out.

Unfortunately, if there is no international agreement to reduce the use of fossil fuels, these huge and expensive efforts will be meaningless. If Palo Alto reduces the carbon in the fuel, it will slightly lower the price of fossil fuels by reducing demand. The total amount of fuel consumed in the world will not change significantly, because other poorer countries will be happy to burn Palo Alto's fuel. The end result will be a surge in expenses and complexity for Palo Alto residents, some of the climate activists feel good, and have no noticeable impact on the climate. I am afraid it is typical California.

Unless the entire global universe follows suit, Palo Alto's electrification will not change the world. What's the chance? At home, we recycle aluminum cans and plastic bottles, but guess what? The United States is still a littering country, and the ocean is full of plastic garbage. If someone wants to drive the Prius and cook on the Jenn-Air stove, let it go, but don't expect others to follow suit unless the Viking stove and Corvette are banned. In other words, if it makes you feel good about yourself, do it.

I agree with the previous comments. Climate change, rising sea levels, burning carbon to release carbon dioxide, and boiling methane hydrate in permafrost all require action at the global/national level. "Look at the world, act locally" is a good philosophy, and I agree with it. (I'm not actually the grumpy person I sound like:) The house is double insulated, and after the earthquake, we recycle it religiously. Even if I don't have an electric car, I put it on the electric car charging stand. Etc., etc. I even put in a gas fireplace so that I don't burn real wood anymore. (Yes, I know... it was the right thing to do at the time) Having said that, the blog above asks "How will Palo Alto plan and pay for large-scale emissions reductions?" And, of course, "Pa​​ lo Alto"​​No. As the blog continues to point out, the money will come out of our pockets. Many people in this city cannot afford it. Many people don't care about spitting in the wind. Has anyone conducted a survey to determine whether citizens are willing to take these rather drastic measures? I am happy to see that most people in Palo Alto strongly support wearing masks to protect themselves and their neighbors from COVID. However, the event has obvious and current personal and social benefits. Buying or being forced to buy an electric car is not something I am willing to do, and the larger global climate problem has not been solved. I am happy to be a team member, but will not "take action for the team" when the rest of the world is slacking off. Oh, electricity is a secondary energy source. If I remember correctly, 50% of the electricity in the United States is still produced by burning fossil fuels. The carbon offset is just a transfer burden.

Sorry to invade Palo Alto's "politics", but I agree with the overwhelming emotions I think readers/residents have: 1) Please educate me about choices and issues, but please treat me as an adult and not a child! -I will decide what personal action to take! -Do not "decide" what I must do based on your opinion 2) Please pay attention to the economic impact of your opinions and orders on ordinary/middle-class residents:-Uber rich people will not be affected in any way, Uber poor people will not be affected in any way Impact will be subsidized! -The ones among us will pay 100%! -If you have a relatively fixed income, you will eventually be excluded from Bay Ares by price.-Have you noticed that the middle class is leaving California in droves? Please stop the legislation, but continue education!

It doesn't have to be so expensive and impossible to connect electricity to one's home. I bought a second-hand electric car for $17,000, and a friend of mine bought one for $11,000. If you are not ready to own an electric car now, the option of leasing a new electric car may be better. For $100, I got an induction cooker and two compatible pans. They now cover more than 90% of my cooking and microwave and toaster ovens. I like induction cookers; easy to clean, no extra heat in the kitchen, timer Function now means reducing boiled and burnt rice. I installed my own heat pump water heater, and the solar photovoltaic system I bought in early 2000 has now paid off, further reducing the cost of my electric car and electrical appliances. Although not everyone can install HPWH, or some of the other things I have done, you can do some simple things to get started. For those who say Palo Alto’s emissions reductions will not have any impact, this excuse for inaction has been used by the world, from small towns to some of the largest greenhouse gas emitters, to shirk them from taking care of the same planet. We have the responsibility.

None of us want to face the costs of climate change, or even the lower costs of preventing it. But as adults, we must do this, and our children will thank us for "growing up." I am proud to live in the Bay Area, and people like the Palo Alto team are working hard to solve difficult problems! I think the road to no regrets starts with the world's leading fulcrum developed locally, away from methane and gasoline. This gained time and helped the seawall last long enough to reap economic value from the land they could only protect temporarily. If we achieve widespread success in leading decarbonization, sea level rise may remain at taxation levels. At least it buys time to accept the fulcrum needed to protect a viable climate for our children. We now know that all new fossil equipment is stranded equipment, so we should rationally no longer deploy new gasoline vehicles, nor deploy new gas water heaters or new gas stoves. Stopping cutting is the first step to stop bleeding. All Bay Area construction departments can provide some practical guidelines to help customers and industry professionals start turning to climate protection. It would be helpful to just say that something is outdated now. No need to install things that need to be removed as soon as possible. There is no new one-way air conditioner. Spend 5% more to make it a two-way heat pump that can heat and cool and replace your need for expensive outdated stoves. There is no new gas pipeline expansion of thousands of dollars for gas tankless water heaters. Get a larger capacity electric heat pump water heater, which can provide hot water faster (the water tank is already very hot). There are now several good 240 volt models on the market. There will be 4 new 4 sizes of 120 volts by the end of 2021. Volt model. There are no more gas stoves installed now that need to be dismantled within 9 years. Use a 2-way heat pump to provide future-proof protection for your home. We can try to use messaging for a few months before we need to lift the cookie jar out of reach.

Sherry-I appreciate your comprehensive thinking and report on this. Hope the city has a plan that does not include the "100%" requirement to achieve the goal. I just can't see this happening. First, energizing all of Palo Alto’s homes requires us (roughly speaking) from now on, three times a day for the next 9 years. This is not to downplay the goal, but to realize that anything that involves population may not be 100% achieved. Moreover, even a medium-sized town like ours is very large. But I think this city can help inspire action, using carrots and sticks at the same time. Keep up the good work!

Another great article. A recommendation. Provide anyone who owns an electric car with a substantial discount on a parking permit. This will reduce the number of people driving gasoline cars to Palo Alto for work.

Thanks again Shirley. Before I get into my main point, there are a few quick items: Parcel tax-great! Offset-not good! "Will the community support this?... The mission of the city... is to inspire." The 2006 Palo Alto Green Ribbon Task Force has shown this! For me, New York City pays too much attention to emissions and not enough to convince residents of the nature of the problem! Let us start a mass education movement. I conducted a poll of 100 people in Palo Alto last year. In order to answer what is the biggest part of your carbon footprint, first two answers are given: garbage/plastics and cars. (Nothing to do with beef or airplanes) Check out the first 5 comments above, as well as the comments on Diana Diamond's post on the same topic. Not only do people often do not know where pollution comes from, but many people know very little about the moral responsibility to save lives and prevent suffering! Even Brad Eggleston was "surprised" by this question. I suggest him to read your well-written blog post. Our utility company has done a great job in their outreach activities-which item is placed in which color bin, efficiency wizard, etc.-why not use the same method to decorate the coolcalifornia.arb.ca.gov website Content? In order to strengthen such public relations activities, each council member (plus staff volunteers) can promote their own family's efforts to reduce the pollution they cause. Greg Tanaka started in this direction with his bicycle advertisement. In addition, I believe that if more residents are made aware of the urgency of the crisis, the resistance to pollution reduction measures as large as possible will be much smaller.

I think it is obvious that the goals set by this city are unrealistic. In other words, some measures can be taken to make Palo Alto more environmentally friendly. Some examples: Make it easier to install solar energy on residential and commercial buildings. The inspection process in Palo Alto is very onerous, and the city makes it much more difficult than necessary. It's much harder than other cities. Increase the amount that cities pay for electricity that people and businesses put into the grid. A few years ago, the city lowered the rate. This was wrong because we should encourage the use of more solar energy in the city. More parking spaces and more charging points are reserved for electric vehicles in urban areas and garages. Maybe electric cars park for free and ICE cars pay for parking. Subsidies for electric vehicle charging devices in multi-family buildings. Make it easier for people to own electric cars. In addition, in a somewhat related description, Castilleja wanted to build a garage. This will bring more cars to Palo Alto. Are they all electric cars? This needs to be part of the evaluation.

I am very happy to get my new electric heat pump water heater in a few weeks, which will greatly reduce my natural gas usage. My utility company in Los Altos (Silicon Valley Clean Energy) will provide me with rebates for most of the expenses. Palo Alto also provides generous rebates for the installation of heat pump water heaters. The solar panels I installed keep my annual electricity bill close to zero-and will fully pay for itself in about 6 or 7 years. Yes, we need the whole world to participate (I totally approve of carbon taxes), but we can also do things locally. I want to support Kim Stanley Robinson's "Future Department", which is a very interesting and interesting novel about how humans respond to climate change (and how the climate fights back).

Enforcement of Palo Alto's ban on gas-powered leaf blowers will greatly reduce our city's carbon emissions. I didn't see any mention of this in this article, which surprised me because it was a wise choice.

I support @sequoiadean's recommendation for "future ministries", but there are some caveats. It begins with a fatal recent heat wave, which some readers may find disturbing (although it inspired important parts of the rest of the book). It also gave a key role to the work of climate engineering, which I suspect is how things develop in reality.

Thanks for your comment on this important topic. They appeared in groups. Some of you have already taken action and did so without spending too much money, taking advantage of urban incentives, using electric vehicles, etc. One thing that cities must do is to make it easier for people to do this, so that more people truly understand and believe that they can save money and reduce emissions at the same time. Contractors need to promote cleaner options first. These actions need to become mainstream. I like the way Silicon Valley Clean Energy releases every discounted heat pump hot water system—who installed it, how much it cost, and so on. I think it makes it easier for people to believe and follow up to do the same thing. I hope to see this kind of transparency about contractors and prices in Palo Alto. Similarly, @Free is worried about being asked to buy a car worth $40,000 and make a $100,000 modification. However, the utility model cited here says that people will save money. I think it makes sense for cities to take some concrete examples from the model to show how people with different income levels (including the middle class) can save money. Many of you have made smart suggestions for encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles. Parking charges appeared twice. I'm pretty sure that in the next few years, electric cars will be cheaper and easier to park in cities than gasoline cars (and bicycles are also easier). I think we will also see 101 prioritize electric vehicles in this decade. @BobH's proposal on installing chargers in multi-family homes and developing a forward transportation demand management plan for electric vehicles will also be implemented. On the other hand, I have heard about crickets about leaf blowers. I am not as convinced as @PAMom that these are a big greenhouse gas emission issue. @BobH said Palo Alto should pay more for the solar energy returned to the grid. I disagree. A few years ago, Palo Alto switched to the "avoided cost" rate for reimbursement, which is fair. Most of the rest of the state is reimbursed based on retail rates, which actually levies a tax on solar energy provided to the rich by non-solar (especially low-income) households, up to 100 to 200 US dollars per year (!!!). I will write a blog about this at some point. The state is facing tremendous pressure to resolve solar pricing, and I believe it will do so soon. @StarSpring worries that “carbon offsets will only shift the burden”. The purpose of offsetting is to obtain the same reduction at a lower cost, not to shift the problem. A well-designed offset is not a burden. Some people, as always, say that there will be no difference, why bother, this is a signal of virtue, and action is needed in the rest of the world. I don't know what else to say. Most of the rest of the world will either take action or wait for us to take action, because we have more resources to spend on it, and historically have been responsible for more emissions than any other single country. As some of you have pointed out, we can still vote on whether we take action. Many other residents on the planet, whether they are people in developing countries or animals around the world, are suffering from our emissions and do not have the same voting rights. Will we consider them when we vote? I agree with @KOhlson's point that the transformation rate seems to be high. I also heard that Robinson's book is great. This is an important topic, so I appreciate all the comments. Many of us are worried about climate change, but we are not sure what action to take. Cities must make it easy for us to take meaningful actions to reduce emissions and help each other do so. This is how we will make changes.

@PA Mom, that's because there is no enforcement. Just like the anti-idling regulations, all of this is for show. I am happy to do so. I own two hybrid cars and was an early owner of Prius, but I have no interest in pure electric cars. I am a strong supporter of SARS-CoV-2 wearing masks and vaccinations, but the latest push by a few politicians in Palo Alto has made Palo Alto a shining example of global ecological correctness, which makes me sympathize with anti-masks. I will push back.

@Sherry Listgarten, I really believe this is a problem, just like COVID, an urgent top-down approach is needed globally. I am interested in all things that are happening at WRT, global warming, sea level rise, methane hydrate release, greenhouse gases, microplastics, species extinctions, etc. Looking at night images of artificial light covering almost the entire earth, it reminded me of mold on orange. I am frustrated that the proposed solution is to allow the rich in Palo Alto to spend more money to maintain their consumption levels. That is not sustainable. I'm just worried that we are in the Gary Larson cartoon where the ants are congratulating themselves on collecting a bunch of seeds for the winter, and outside the frame, a huge foot is about to trample on the entire nest :) I'm glad to be persuaded.

@Sherry Listgarten, I believe that man-made climate change is also a problem, but this does not mean that Palo Alto’s suggestion here is a good idea. I think it is actually a bad one. It is very expensive, inefficient, and can lead to political resistance to climate goals. The problem of transferring fossil fuel use to other (especially poorer) countries cannot hope to disappear. I think wealthy countries like the United States should invest more in energy technology, because cheap and reliable power generation and battery technology (cheaper than fossil fuels) are the best solutions.

These are good follow-up actions and have different perspectives. some thoughts. @StarSpring said: "I'm very frustrated. The proposed solution is to allow the rich in Palo Alto to spend more money to maintain their consumption levels. This is unsustainable." There are many ideas. At the moment, I just suggest that there are two main ways to reduce household emissions. One is to make people change their behavior, and the other is to use technology to make the same behavior reduce emissions. Most leaders will abandon the first one after a period of time and devote themselves to the second one, even if the first one has many common benefits (reduced expenses, healthier lives, faster impact, etc.). Maybe you are more optimistic about getting people to change their behaviors than getting them to adopt new transportation/building technologies? Or are you not optimistic about either? You are also skeptical about the motivations of city and public utility employees and leaders to promote this process, thinking that this is mainly for recognition and rewards. So, put it all aside. If you were the person in charge of this city, what would you do to solve the seriousness and urgency of the climate change problem we are facing? Source: www.climate.gov @Joseph: You mentioned a few things. 1. You said Palo Alto's proposal is expensive and inefficient. I agree *partially*, and so does the city. I think this is why they are considering a more regional approach to reduce the cost of some of the more expensive components. But other elements provide good value imo, and I hope we will go all out to invest in these. 2. You want the United States to invest more in energy technology. beautiful. You hope that the development of developing countries is clean. Absolutely. I recently heard an environmental foreign policy expert say that if the United States and China only agree on climate issues, it should be-to ensure low-emission development in developing countries. But I have a more moderate question, that is, what should we do in a place that has the highest per capita emissions in the world? I think you would say that we have no choice but to vote for a carbon tax and let the price guide us to change our behavior. The sad reality is that carbon taxes around the world have been ineffective, too cheap, and riddled with holes, let alone slow to start. Industry-specific standards (fuel efficiency, building codes, etc.) have proven effective. If you are fully committed to levying a carbon tax, then there are some important questions: at what level (federal?), at what price, at what frequency, what boundary adjustments, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that emissions fall fast enough? What is your support if/when it is not passed in time? Again, these are important points, and I thank you for clarifying them. Thanks!

@Sherry Listgarten, first of all I want to thank you for all the time and energy you put into this topic. This information is detailed, up-to-date, closely related, and frightening. Yes, I should not add comments about PACC and employees' hypothetical motivations. This is unnecessary, I apologize. They obviously care about the situation and strive to do their best. I am also very cynical. Good decision. :) You ask: If I were in charge of this city, what would you do to solve the seriousness and urgency of the climate change problem we are facing? My answer is "no" or "almost none". I think the seriousness of the problems we are facing far exceeds the resolution of any city. It must be resolved at the federal and global levels. This is a multifaceted problem involving many moving parts. For example, the San Francisco government is right to spend public funds to strengthen seawalls to resist rising sea levels. In order to achieve the same purpose, do they have the right or do they correctly restrict petrol vehicles within the city limits, even though the time is much longer? I would say "no". In my mind, I keep coming back to the issue of recycling. Palo Alto does a good job in this regard, but by remediating at the consumer level, does Palo Alto relieve the manufacturer of the responsibility of producing reusable or at least non-contaminating packaging? This is the real solution, right? Solve the problem from the source. In order to achieve this, the state and federal governments need to step in. Nevertheless, I did what you suggested to do. I own two hybrid cars, each light is LED light, solar energy is not drawn with a pencil, and I have a brand new water heater, I will not spend money to buy a heat pump. When this person dies, the heat pump will be at the top of the list. ……I do not have kids. I don't have them to save the climate, so I won't ask for credit there. :)

Shirley, you wrote: "Most parts of the world will either take action or wait for us to take action, because we have more resources to spend on it, and in history it is more against any other single country. Responsible for their emissions.” I think this is starting to get close to the real question—what is the (morally) “correct” share of each country’s allowable emission level? I think emission history, current population and geographic characteristics are all important factors, but it is difficult to convince many countries to reduce emissions significantly, especially if they think that major countries are evading emissions reductions. Of course, the key country is China, which is currently more than twice the largest emitter, and will become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in history by the end of this decade. China has stated that it will not even start to reduce emissions before 2030-in my opinion, this seems to be a huge obstacle to establishing public support for reducing emissions here. No one wants to feel that they are being played by a fool.

I am trying to use my 2019 non-food carbon footprint for a hypothetical all-electric conversion; any feedback on my calculations would be greatly appreciated. I chose 2019 because it was before Covid working at home, and non-food because I did not track my food consumption by type, quantity, etc. I use my online CPAU utility bill to get electricity and gas usage, and then mine my credit card bill to pay for gas. I used an estimate of the average gasoline price in 2019 to calculate the number of gallons used. After summarizing the different levels of natural gas and electricity usage, I used the coefficients Google recommended for each fuel to convert everything into pounds of carbon dioxide produced. Next, I apply the efficiency improvement factor (COP) to the use of natural gas and gasoline to represent the switch to new electric equipment. I chose a COP of 3 for natural gas and gasoline equipment because it seems reasonable based on my research. Finally, I summarized the converted energy use and calculated the new full power load, cost and carbon emissions. I got some interesting results, but due to space constraints I need to publish them separately.

Carbon Footprint (continued) First, the conversion of gasoline to electricity will bring the greatest cost savings and carbon emissions reduction. The point here is that electric vehicles are a huge victory both economically and environmentally, and I deserve one. Some Google searches show that even including the life cycle energy use of battery production, carbon reduction is real, so if you are ready to buy a new car and you can live with the current range limit of electric vehicles, there really is no excuse. Second, unless I am missing something, converting my natural gas equipment to electricity has no effect on my carbon footprint. This is because according to CPAU, our natural gas is 100% carbon neutral because they have purchased carbon offsets. If our natural gas is really carbon neutral, I think we can burn it as much as possible without any carbon impact. This seems wrong, but I can't think of why, unless there are other savings elsewhere in the system that my simple model does not take into account. Next, my model shows that switching to high-efficiency appliances will actually increase my utility bills in 2019. This is because although electrical appliances consume one-third of the energy of gas-fired appliances, they consume more than one-third of the electricity. The price (per joule) is several times that of natural gas. And this does not consider the tiered electricity price, which will make the cost increase more serious. But I need to estimate future energy prices to see if this increase will remain the same for the life of the appliance. The model also shows that my electricity consumption has almost tripled (an increase of 280%). This makes me think that I might need to upgrade my service to lower amperage, or better yet, install solar panels. I think CPAU must also strengthen their grid. However, once residential-scale (or community-scale) battery storage becomes truly feasible, this will no longer be a problem.

Carbon Footprint (continued) When I investigated the impact of my air travel on carbon, the last surprise came. Although I did not fly in 2019, I did travel to Sydney on business in 2018. The amount of carbon generated by that trip was twice the amount I used in 2019! Google told me that air travel only accounts for about 12% of global carbon emissions, but this is because 80% of the world’s people have never taken an airplane. But in Palo Alto, I bet 80% of residents do fly. It would be interesting to look at aviation fuel consumption in the region to find out Palo Alto's aviation carbon share. Knowing the travel habits of my neighbors, I bet the results will be amazing.

This is my 2c, fwiw. @Mondoman mentioned China. China? Shouldn't Palo Alto be more aggressive in promoting cost-effective electric vehicles, cost-effective heat pump water heaters, and more bicycles and public transportation space. Is the reason China? @StarSpring mentioned unexpected consequences. But can you imagine Palo Altans angrily refusing to wear a mask because it might slow down vaccine research? I can hardly believe that these are the real reasons why some people are not interested in taking action. I suspect that climate change does not seem to be that important. In theory, of course, there is a threat yada yada. But in practice? Do not. @Larry: Thank you for checking your carbon footprint! (FWIW, I think it’s easier to use this website-if you want, you can only use part of it-but scrolling your own is also possible!) Yes, transportation is huge, especially for air flights in this area. Driving the 2018 Toyota Prius for 12,000 miles will generate approximately 1.9 tons of emissions. The one-way round trip from SFO (economic) to London is better than this. I am glad that you have found good information about EVs. When you compare gas and electric heating, don't forget to consider the efficiency of gas stoves, not just the efficiency of electric heat pumps. For example, the efficiency of the tank water heater that I have used for 6 years is about 63%. You should have a label on it. You may also be interested in this blog, or at least in footnote 4. Yes, when you use all electric, solar energy makes more sense. This is why I think Palo Alto will offer discounted prices for all-electric vehicles. Or maybe they want everyone to use solar energy? (Their pricing is correct enough to do this, which is different from almost every other place in California, but I'm not sure when their solar contracts will expire.) Regarding the city's power grid, I think this city is *very* more Concern for supporting natural gas When people are far away from the distribution system, their support for the distribution system is compared to when people move. By the way, for what @StarSpring said, I don't think that the efforts of a city will prevent the efforts of the state or the federal. In fact, I hope that a city can get more aid from the state by being a pioneer and showing real efforts in matters that the state cares about. The state likes to see local initiative, not just the "what are you going to do for me today?" approach.

A few days ago, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle stated that San Francisco will spend $6 billion to renovate 240,000 houses, and surprisingly, cost may be a factor. Palo ALto claims that it cannot provide funds to keep the library open. They want to tackle this problem? ? ?

The article pointed to by @Online is here. Thank you for raising this question. Just to clarify, the article states that it may cost as much as 5.9 billion US dollars or as little as 642 million US dollars (if it is replaced). It proposes a variety of methods, including modification and resale or offering various rebates. FWIW, the public utility fund and city fund you are referring to are irreplaceable. But of course there will be trade-offs. One of the difficulties of climate change is that it has a longer vision than many people thought in the past, even though its impact on us today is increasing (wildfires, droughts, hotter temperatures). The important factor of "If it didn't happen to me, I don't worry", we have seen that this also affects Covid's preventive measures.

Thank you for your reply, Shirley! When comparing gas and electric heating specifically to their impact on global warming, if both energy sources are carbon neutral, the efficiency of new appliances and the efficiency of old gas appliances are not important. Conversion is simply substituting one carbon-neutral energy source for another; by definition, regardless of efficiency, the difference in carbon footprint is zero. This means that New York City is asking residents to make huge financial commitments for an electrical switch program that has virtually zero climate impact*. * If the life cycle carbon footprint of manufacturing and installing all new equipment and disposing of old equipment is taken into account, the climate impact may actually be negative.

I'm sorry, Larry, I didn't deliberately let you avoid the "carbon neutral" thing you kept mentioning, I just forgot, and then I was lazy. Palo Alto purchases offsets to "neutralize" the natural gas emissions we burn in our homes and offices. This may be well-intentioned, but this is not how carbon offsets should be used. The effect of offsetting is not particularly good, so when you have done all you can do to reduce emissions, they are the wan blessings. For example, if we have a large steel or concrete plant in Palo Alto, we may have to buy offsets for most of the emissions, because there is currently no good solution. But traffic? Home heating? Not entirely worth offsetting. There are plenty of articles on offset issues, although some offsets (and articles) are better than others. The offset used by Palo Alto is listed and described here. For example, Palo Alto is happy to protect some woodlands in North Carolina. "Without this protection, the forest will become wheat or corn." Now read this recent article by ProPublica. If it's too long or you just don't want to read it, please skip to the "illustration episode" in the middle, starring "Connor Carbon". Or, this is another article in the Guardian yesterday about compensation being used by airlines. The point is that there is no substitute for reducing our own emissions, and Palo Alto has clearly received this feedback. The city no longer reflects these offsets as a reduction in our natural gas emissions in their published charts (including the comprehensive Earth Day report cited here).

By the way, Larry, regarding emissions from air travel, you might find these very interesting. About 8 years ago, some Berkeley researchers tried to estimate the emissions per postal code. Their model is very rudimentary (a bunch of estimates are just based on income), the data may be ten years old (the population of Palo Alto has doubled since they did this), but they do understand that Palo Alto has carbon Neutralize electricity, and we like recycling, etc. You can see how Palo Alto's emissions compare with the overall U.S. emissions here. (Again, there are many caveats about the model used. More here.) Please note that the y-axis below is different in the two graphs. Please also note that these are consumption emissions. These are emissions measured based on the consumer's place of residence, not the more traditional measurement method, which is the producer's place of residence. For example, China's production emissions are greater than consumption emissions. The opposite is true in the United States.

Thank you for your explanation, Shirley. Very interesting, although it is frustrating to learn that carbon offsets are not actually the legal carbon mediation mechanism promoted. Do you know whether New York City’s carbon emission targets rely on offsets elsewhere, such as generating electricity, or covering carbon from visiting drivers? Will the proposed package tax be used to purchase them? I asked because it would be suspicious if they calculated the offset of other carbon sources and not the offset of natural gas. I will look at the resources you suggest and see if I can offset the whole thing around this. Thank you for your excellent work!

Larry, I am very confident that the city will not rely on natural gas compensation to solve these problems. (In electricity there is a concept called REC = Renewable Energy Credit. Palo Alto has been using these to reduce costs to some extent, but these issues are more technical.) But please see the last post on carbon neutrality discussion . This is a kind of compensation. Either the business pays to power the home instead of their own business, or Palo Altans pays to power the home elsewhere instead of their own. It saves money and loses some purity (rather than reducing Own emissions). I think this type of offset is localized enough and can be verified to be good enough, it has been proven and cost savings are needed, but ymmv. When these reductions in our own households and businesses become feasible, it is important to stop using offsetting methods. If you are interested, I did write a post about offset here not long ago. I also wrote an article about Palo Alto’s carbon neutral electricity here, although I did not introduce renewable energy credits there. I'm glad this helped you, you must be doing your homework! Thank you for the great question.

Thank you, Shirley. If you want me to give up this question or continue, please let me know. I read ProPublica articles and basic CarbonPlan research. Yes, calculating the offset is complex and error-prone in the real world. I am surprised to offset the excess credit error by only 29%. But the problem is easy to solve, IMO: buy twice the offset we actually need to make up for the error. Either way, it may be cheaper and more environmentally friendly to use these offset-driven "virtual" equipment conversions instead of real equipment conversions, because we will not waste the value of the remaining life of existing gas equipment. Not to mention the extra cost of modifying something into a structure that was never designed for it. In addition, virtual conversions can scale faster than real conversions. If New York City is eager to make a large-scale conversion, then virtual conversion seems to be the fastest (and most cost/energy efficient) way to achieve the goal. By the way, when you start talking about "purity", you will draw (legitimate) fire from critics of Palo Alto's "free elite". It won't help at best. I will definitely check your previous posts. You have a new fan ;)

"Buy twice the offset"-yes, this is the so-called buffer pool. They do. High-quality compensation—local, physical, verifiable—has their place imo. I think this is what Palo Alto focuses on when talking about carbon neutrality. But I do think these should be used very wisely, and they should be deleted as soon as possible. You should also limit how much of these you can use to neutralize your emissions. 10%? 20%? I am worried about double counting. Suppose Palo Alto decides to fund the electrification of all single-family homes in Manteca because it makes more economic sense there (higher heating/cooling costs, cheaper buildings, etc.). Then Palo Alto will claim Palo Alto is 50% carbon neutral, or whatever. At the same time, what does Manteca have to say? Probably they can't ask for anything until, what, they pay it back? Or more likely it is the cost of powering up in the future. So they will pay for... nothing? "Carbon neutral" proposition? It has to buy them something...I believe this can be solved, but the point is that it becomes a bit weird and very unintuitive for the local people who want to buy all of this. Sometimes, a money-saving program like this is seen as a scam rather than a legitimate mechanism. This is one of the reasons why I think you want to reduce emissions as directly as possible. I hope Palo Alto will go all out in *many* cost-effective things that we can do, and find ways to encourage residents who want to surpass, and maximize funding as much as possible *in the resort to use (high Quality, local, verifiable) offset to cover up the rest before local* (within the city) is reduced. PS The offset example above may not work because the electrification of Manteca may actually disappear, so it will (should) happen anyway. Discount on second-hand electric cars? But they also wrote it in pencil. This is tricky.

Hi Shirley. I agree that the money-saving "no regrets" conversion should not be affected by other countries/regions. However, in practice, many changes that should save money in theory do not do so in the real world. For example, our new gas water heater will never be more expensive than a heat pump because it has already been paid for. Our 14-year old car can be used for at least another 10 years, and since it has already paid for it, it will not be cheaper to replace it with an electric car. In this case, people will soon be asked to spend a lot of extra money for limited emissions reductions, because they know that if spent in different parts of the world, the same money may reduce emissions by a factor of three or more. This is a difficult IMO to sell. PS-like all the data you post. I want to know that your US average box shows that 63% have a graduate degree, while in Palo Alto only 46% have it. Maybe I did not understand the data source correctly?

Very informative post. Thank you for writing it. We definitely need to make changes to reduce our carbon footprint, and we need to fund these changes fairly. I want to know if the state legislature plans to fund these changes. The state has its own goal of reducing its carbon footprint. This shouldn't be something Palo Alto has to do on its own. I would also like to know if there is a way to help pay for the rewards by imposing a surcharge on the amount of gas used per month. Hope this will fall on bigger houses owned by richer people. The city’s goals seem to be citywide, not every family. If the city does manage to add a lot of housing between now and then, it will be even harder for them to satisfy. If the best-case scenario is that more than half of the cars are still powered by gasoline, then the way to reduce the impact is to make driving alternatives more attractive. The city may not be able to control the work of VTA or Caltrain, but it can improve its bicycle infrastructure.

@Mondoman, these are good points. So, for example, cities may need to electrify when replacing gas appliances, selling houses, and/or major renovations, and allow compensation for the rest. It's still not easy, but it helps. AFAICT, it is inevitable that the power transformation of our city will not be as economically viable as places with less temperate climate (more efficient HVAC) or places with lower construction costs. So the question is, how do you weigh the cost-effectiveness of the change against local liability, and do you limit the number of transactions that can be made? Wow, this is weird for a graduate degree, and I agree that it looks wrong. This paper is here, and in Appendix A it explains the source of the Bay Area degree data, but there is no sign of the United States. @LKA: Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Regarding natural gas surcharges, one thing I understand is that there are many restrictions on what utilities can charge for natural gas and what it can do with revenue. Your suggestion seems very wise, but I expect that it will take some important legal work and a citywide vote to achieve.

I guess the city government staff who reduced the cost of parking permits for employees in the downtown and California Avenue areas missed the memo on controlling greenhouse gas emissions. For high-tech office workers who mainly use these licenses, these licenses cost less than $5 per day. In general, we do not like to require companies to pay any fees, and are more willing to let residents bear all the burden. Palo Alto has never performed TMD. They have always been a joke. Ask the city government to make a copy of the TMD submitted by the developer, and you will find that you can't even find them. It's just a formality submitted by the developer.

As Sherry and others pointed out here, because of our climate, we don't do as much heating and cooling, so the efficiency of building heat pumps will not be as great as elsewhere. However, we still need to heat the water, usually a lot of water. Heat pump water heaters seem to be a good choice, but at least some of us have older houses, and for some reason, this device cannot replace current water heaters. What happened to solar heat? I heard that these systems can be added to an existing hot water system (basically pre-heating) without having to replace the current heater. Since there are no compressors, they use less energy than heat pumps, but of course they are unlikely to meet all the hot water needs of the house. I think such a system may be an effective bridge for many families. As a buyer rather than a compulsory person in the conversion process, I want to see comprehensive shopping resources so that I can at least have various choices in the real world (electric cars, hot water, space adjustment, etc.). What is the implementation cost of each hidden? What is the actual installation life? Is a certain technology stable or in rapid development? Any upcoming regulatory changes? Now it seems that anyone needs to be prepared to spend dozens of hours of research to get a rough idea of ​​what is possible (even after the dozens of hours of research you show here, Shirley!).

I did some homework and researched the sources of information provided by Sherry. I believe I have found the source of the inconsistency between my logic and New York City’s perception of our natural gas consumption. My understanding is that the fundamental motivation of the New York City climate goals is to control temperature rise by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) we produce. I think any strategy that can achieve this goal responsibly, such as using less natural gas or buying carbon offsets, is effective. Therefore, when we achieve net zero carbon natural gas by purchasing offsets, we are done. Greenhouse gas production was zero, my personal carbon footprint spreadsheet showed that my gasoline consumption was the only (non-food) offender, and I started buying new electric cars. However, New York City now believes that compensation is only the “first step” and that we can “do more” by forcing a reduction in natural gas use. The problem is here: New York City changed its fundamental motivation from eliminating CHC production to eliminating natural gas consumption. Although they are definitely related, they are not the same thing. Therefore, it is no wonder that New York City now ignores natural gas compensation in its target analysis, even though we are still paying for them.

(Continue) Okay, okay. I get it. Offsets are cunning, and we should not rely on them to achieve our goals. However, I don’t think New York City should be allowed to pick where they can apply offsets to the target and where they don’t. That will be a boiled book. Offsets should be calculated or not, regardless of the source of greenhouse gas they reduce. I think the biggest danger of New York City’s campaign to eliminate natural gas is the collateral damage it can cause. In addition to "taking away" the economic value of our remaining gas appliances, the city government will also force residents to bear huge retrofit costs because they can. As far as the HVAC in my beautiful and historic craftsman bungalow in 1915 is concerned, I might be looking at the decline in new services, new instrumentation main panels and circuit breaker panels, new piping that may have an impact on the structure, asbestos removal fees , And who knows what else will happen during the conversion process. My neighbor will have to live noise with my heat pump because I will have to live with her. I seriously question whether the carbon footprint of all these jobs will not make the carbon emissions of the entire project positive from a life cycle perspective. Especially when I am still paying for the nasty offsets in the ads to make my gas carbon neutral. Bottom line: electric cars? I am here. Yes, it may require a new power system, but it will pay for itself soon, and then some. In addition to the huge carbon savings, I am trying to be a good citizen. Electric hot water? It may be temporary, especially if the electric service is upgraded for the EV. Even though my $1,000 gas "high-efficiency" water heater has only one month of use, I eventually joined it. Electric HVAC? It is difficult and expensive for my situation, even though the electric upgrades of the car and the water heater have been completed. There are no real benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are compelling, and I would reject it.

@Carol: These are good ideas! @Mondoman: I agree that installing these must be very easy, much easier than it is now. I'm just guessing to renew solar water heating, but solar panels may provide better value and may not be more expensive. The panels will provide more benefits (and roof space). @Larry: Yes, electric cars and heat pump water heaters are usually more economical than a full renovation of space heating in our area. People with air conditioners usually benefit by switching to heat pumps, but not many people have air conditioners. The only thing I want to mention is that in a surprising number of cases, these conversions can be used with existing panels, even as low as 100 amps. One method that people take is to partially use space heating. Their goal is to reduce gas usage in winter and get some air conditioning by putting a mini room in a public room in summer. It's not too expensive (around $5,000), and it's great value for money. I visited some houses that do this. They use very little (or no) gas in winter and enjoy the benefits of air conditioning in summer (especially during hot smoky periods, when you can't open the windows at night). By the way, the outdoor unit of the heat pump didn't make me noisy at all. I hope you will find someone like this, listen to it and see what you think. To offset again, yes, you have to assume that at least the city will stop buying them because we use less natural gas. Thanks for your really thoughtful comment.

Thank you for your article. To calculate the natural gas content of my electricity, I think using the California average is more honest than using the Palo Alto average. We can pay a little more to associate Palo Alto's use with certain renewable generators, but in reality this just means that others may get better deals on natural gas resources. Statewide, California is still good, but there is still a lot of natural gas. (And I think carbon offset is part of the rationalization/belief system, but I should read Sherry’s article.) I have been working hard to study my carbon footprint, and one unknown is what I consume—the type of food I eat, I buy The old electronic products thrown away 4 years later, the carbon dioxide content of such cheap and easy-to-obtain products, the other is my workplace: the amount of energy used on the HVAC and computers in my office... it will Take a new way of thinking.

5000 dollars? The money is best spent in court to combat such nonsense.

Sorry, I should clarify. You can spend less money on these installations, but almost all of the six families I visited chose the most efficient heat pump, but the price was higher. These families are very satisfied with their efficient cooling and fossil-free (or at least less fossil) heating. If the city is not thoughtful and respectful in its handling, expensive and time-consuming litigation will occur, which is correct. I think we all strongly hope that we can find ways to make retrofits easy and valuable to those who need it, and avoid forcing expensive, low-value retrofits for those who don’t need it. When the city government begins to clarify its methods and solicit feedback, we can all speak freely. Thank you again for your research and speech.

Hi Shirley: I updated my carbon footprint spreadsheet. I calculated the distribution of my natural gas consumption between space heating (I don't have air conditioning) and hot water + cooking gas by looking at my summer and winter consumption. This assumes that I use about the same amount of hot water and cooking gas throughout the year, and I do turn off the gas stove in the summer. Calculations show that I use about 54% of heating and 46% of hot water and cooking. Then I ran a "partial conversion" scenario where I converted everything to electric, except for the furnace that was difficult for me to convert. According to New York City's new bookkeeping method, the spreadsheet does not include any natural gas offsets, of course I still consider this to be BS. As a result, I reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 86%, which greatly exceeded the city’s "80x30" target. Therefore, perhaps a viable compromise is to allow homeowners to choose the conversion that best suits their situation, as long as they can prove that they meet or exceed the 80x30 goal. Considering the amount of money my conversion will cost, I am more than happy to hire a certified consultant to do the calculations. In terms of the low-hanging fruit and ladder analogy, the trade-off is more like using a taller ladder to get most of the fruit, rather than renting a helicopter to get the last piece at the top.

One more question: Do you know whether the emission inventory report of the city consultant AECOM is publicly available? If so, I hope they can point out our progress in achieving the state's 80x50 goal. I also hope that they will explain their reasons for not standardizing carbon emissions with the size of the population. As far as I know, New York City is only concerned with emissions within its geographic boundary, regardless of how many people the boundary contains. It makes no sense to me. According to this logic, don’t Los Altos and Los Angeles have to have the same emissions?

@Robert, I agree, it is difficult to understand consumption emissions and figure out whether you are doing well or not. But I think consciousness is the first step? @Larry, I really like the idea of ​​giving homeowners a choice, a bit like a point system used with building codes. You can achieve your goals as you wish. I think these things are difficult to design well. For example, what if we don’t know your 1990 emissions? What if your family has expanded since then or the house has been expanded? Or the opposite? FWIW, I 100% agree that "the last piece of the cutting edge" should be left on the tree. This is the purpose of the offset. IMO If everyone switches to EVs or better electric bikes, and everyone switches to hot water, as you suggest yourself, then for the rest, we rely on a big renovation, slightly higher gasoline prices, and all-electric specials We will be in good condition for electricity bills and so on. I think that by then, the city will have to increase gas prices and maintain its gas infrastructure at a lower cost, which will also keep things going. The emission inventory I have seen is Annex B of the employee report (pages 17-42). I don’t know if more information will be made public. Remember, the state also has a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. Calculated in terms of per capita emissions, Los Altos and Los Angeles had different scales in 1990, so they would not have the same goals. However, if one person grows much faster than the other, then one of them may be more difficult than the other. Related to this is that population is not important to some cities because they have huge factories or farms. I don't think you can be too precise about this kind of thing. You only need to eat the real big mouthfuls again and again, and know roughly where and how to eat them. My 2c Thank you again for having a very good discussion on this topic. We need to constantly think about which policies can best inspire and promote our emission reduction.

-"...The key country in this is China. It is currently more than twice the largest emitter and will become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in history by the end of this decade. China has stated that it will not even before 2030 Start to reduce emissions-in my opinion, this is a huge obstacle to building public support for emissions reduction here. No one wants to feel like playing as a fool." China also needs to strengthen. If Palo Alto does everything it can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and China continues to produce in large quantities, how far have we gone?

Follow this blogger. Sign up to receive notifications of new posts from this blogger.

Send Palo Alto Online's headlines of the day to your Express newsletter inbox.

New Austrian cuisine: Naschmarkt replaces Palo Alto's Anatolian Kitchen By The Peninsula Foodist | 3 comments | 4,900 views

Please save Palo Alto's empty city center first. By Diana Diamond | 30 comments | 3,297 views

Can we build enough clean and affordable electricity on time? By Shirley Listgarten | 7 comments | 2,665 views

"Attached." Author: Amir Levine, MD, and Rachel SF Heller, MA By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,763 views

Holiday Hoopla in the City by Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,613 views

Home News TownSquare Blog A&E Community Calendar Sports Family and Real Estate Visitor Information

Send news alerts, subscribe to print edition/file express/weekend express promotion, special bar obituary circulation and delivery

About usContact usAdvertising informationTerms of usePrivacy policyVoice of Mountain View TheSixFifty.com

© 2021 Palo Alto Online All rights reserved. Embarcadero Media PR MediaRelease Sponsored Content Mobile Site