US Dept of Energy and China agree to conduct an EcoCity policy study

December 8, 2008

From the Press Room of the U.S. Department of the Treasury

December 4, 2008

U.S. – China Joint Fact Sheet: Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation

Recognizing that energy and environmental challenges represent two important issues facing our two countries, the United States and the People’s Republic of China signed the Ten Year Framework on Energy and Environment Cooperation in Annapolis, Maryland during SED IV on June 18, 2008. Building upon the Ten Year Framework, the U.S. and China agreed to the following:

  • Building upon existing bilateral agreements and recent accomplishments between the United States and China, the two countries reached consensus on initial areas of cooperation and identified milestones and actions to be taken in efforts to achieve the Ten Year Framework goals of Clean, Efficient and Secure Electricity Production and Transmission; Clean Water; Clean Air; Clean and Efficient Transportation; and Conservation of Forests and Wetlands Ecosystems;
  • The United States and China agreed to establish a sixth goal on energy efficiency cooperation under the Ten Year Framework;
  • Building upon the announcement made at SED IV, the United States and China signed the Framework for EcoPartnerships under the Ten Year Framework, aimed at developing new models for energy security, economic sustainability, and environmental sustainability in both countries. The following seven initial EcoPartnerships were announced:
    • Energy Future Holdings Corp. and China Huadian Corporation;
    • Denver, Colorado, USA, Ford Motor Company and Chongqing, China, Changan Auto Group Corporation;
    • Wichita, Kansas, USA and Wuxi, Jiangsu, China;
    • Floating Windfarms Corporation and Tangshan Caofeidian New Development Area, Hebei, China
    • Port of Seattle, Washington, USA and Dalian Port Corporation, Liaoning, China;
    • Greensburg, Kansas, USA and Mianzhu, Sichuan, China; and
    • Tulane University and East China Normal University (ECNU).
  • The United States, through the Department of Energy, and the People’s Republic of China, through the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction, agreed to conduct an EcoCity policy study, strengthen capacity building, promote science and technology development, and design an EcoCity demonstration project under the Ten Year Framework;
  • The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) will jointly develop a curriculum and training to expand capacity within the Chinese national and provincial governments, and within industry, on conducting energy efficiency audits to promote pollution reduction and energy efficient enterprises;
  • Under the MOU on energy conservation and environmental protection signed at SED V, the United States, through the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the U.S. Export-Import Bank, and the People’s Republic of China, through the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Export-Import Bank of China, will jointly support public private partnerships to address deficiencies in energy efficiency in Chinese enterprises; the U.S. and Chinese export-import banks will facilitate the financing for select projects that involve U.S. exports; and both sides will jointly organize trade facilitation activities;
  • Under the MOU on clean water signed at SED V, the United States, through the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the People’s Republic China, through the Ministry of Environmental Protection, will cooperate to establish a partnership, working through U.S. trade associations, to leverage U.S. private sector expertise and resources to build on current bilateral efforts under the Ten-Year Framework to support China’s high priority clean water program.


Building a Better Bay Area

November 29, 2008

East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy has put together a guide titled “Building a Better Area: Community Benefit Tools and Case Studies to Achieve Responsible Development.”

Containing close to 200 community benefit policies and fifteen case studies, Building a Better Bay Area shows that a wide range of innovative efforts is being implemented all across the region. More and more local jurisdictions are finding that “development as usual” is not enough to improve conditions for residents, and are realizing instead the value of steering development to create concrete community benefits. Spearheaded by coalitions of community stakeholders working with elected officials and developers, these responsible development efforts are helping to build a better Bay Area where prosperity and opportunity are shared more broadly. 

 

 


West Coast Green tackles a sustainable future for West Oakland

October 7, 2008

The concerns of West Oakland got a hearing at the latest edition of West Coast Green, the eco-builder conference held last week in San Jose that otherwise featured the usual suspects: a trade show floor packed with green building goodies and speakers such as Al Gore and environmentalist David Suzuki, host of the long-running Canadian TV show “The Nature of Things,” talking the righteous green talk.

 Tucked away in one corner of the conference, though, a discussion was going on about the future of West Oakland, a place not commonly thought of as having much of a bright future, green or otherwise.

The people doing the talking weren’t green movement celebrities, but a collection of more than 160 developers, government officials, designers, architects and community activists – all stakeholders in the future of an industrial and residential part of Oakland that has long suffered from high crime, pollution and neglect.

They were gathered together as part of what’s known as a planning charrette, a term used in urban planning circles (and other disciplines) to describe meetings designed to elicit input on a project from a wide range of affected parties.

Organized by Oakland’s Ecocity Builders, a nonprofit involved in the theory and practice of sustainable city design, the charrette was to help flesh out a report dubbed “The Sustainable Urban Villages Project.” Ostensibly a blueprint for a sustainable makeover of the area, the report is being funded by a $73,000 grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management Board. When completed in late 2009, Ecocity will share it with other cities such as Richmond.

Ecocity’s idea for the future of West Oakland, an area surrounded by freeways and streets full of big rigs going to and from the busy Port of Oakland, is to create affordable homes within “urban villages” in the area.

Executive Director Kirstin Miller defines an urban village as a neighborhood about a half-mile long where residents can easily walk or take public transportation to just about any activity – work or school, shopping and recreation. The idea is in keeping with Ecocity’s mission of “thinking through how to re-design cities more for people rather than cars,” Miller said.

The nonprofit also wanted to study a place that needed help. “That’s why we didn’t go to Montclair,” Miller said, referring to Oakland’s pricey hillside neighborhood north of Piedmont with a vibrant shopping district.

By contrast, West Oaklanders don’t even have a supermarket. An area that Ecocity foresees as a possible urban village is on Seventh Street across from the West Oakland BART station where there is currently a retail strip.

Another reason for choosing West Oakland is that Miller foresees a return to cities by suburbanites no longer able to afford their commute or McMansions. While it usually leads to the development of expensive urban lofts, Miller said community leaders she’s talked to want to make sure development in the area doesn’t leave local residents priced out.

To lead the charrette, Ecocity brought in developer John Knott whose company, the Noisette Co., is in the process of building affordable housing units on the site of a former Navy base in North Charleston, S.C. – an area similar to West Oakland, where residents wait and wonder to hear the fate of the nearby vacant Army base. Created with the help of community leaders, the development is seen as an enhancement to existing neighborhoods and property values are rising.

Among the ideas bandied about at the charrette were proposals to grow bamboo in West Oakland’s soil, long contaminated by local industrial runoff. Apparently, bamboo doesn’t need pristine dirt to grow and can be irrigated with reclaimed water. Bamboo is in demand for products such as flooring and rows of it would also break up the industrial landscape of the area. Another idea was to raise food crops in elevated beds to avoid using the toxic soil.

If an urban village is built in the area, activists made it clear that they want zoning laws enacted to preserve the many newly remodeled Victorian homes, such as those in the Lower Bottom, a part of West Oakland where a housing development is being built on the site of the Central Station, the former West Coast terminus of the transcontinental railroad.

Perhaps the greatest asset attendees came away with from the charrette was a sense of empowerment over a process they normally would feel left out of. The process showed them that by “thinking through the big picture vision an urban village has a logic to it. It’s not something that’s too obscure to figure out,” Miller said.


Excerpt from The Kathmandu Post

September 6, 2008

The eastern part of the Tarai (plain) area of Nepal and northern part of Bihar State of India have been badly affected by the Sapta Koshi flood. Hundred of thousands people are now homeless, thousands of acres of land are submerged. Many people lost their lives. Since this, being a man made disaster, one country blames another. In view of this is an excerpt from Deepak Gyawali’s interview with The Kathmandu Post.

INTERVIEW WITH DIPAK GYAWALI
Dipak Gyawali, former Minister for Water Resources, heads Nepal Water Conservation Foundation and is a hydropower expert.

Excerpts

Q: Why did the Koshi breach its embankment? Who was responsible for the repair work– India or Nepal?

DipakG: It is important to step back a bit to realize that this catastrophe happened because of the unholy confluence of three things: wrong technological choice for this kind of a hydro-ecological regime, wrong institutional arrangements resulting from the Koshi Treaty that are not right for managing this kind of a trans-boundary river system, and wrong conduct in public service over the last half-century, which includes aspects of corruption … But let us start with the technological aspect, when the lateral, left-bank embankment (not the barrage across the river) collapsed on 18th August: it was not a natural disaster, but a man-made tragedy. The river flow at the time was lower than the minimum average flow for the month of August, and hence not even close to a normal flood, which had not even begun during this monsoon. In the Koshi, it generally occurs from mid-August to mid-September, and when this natural stress is added to a man-made tragedy, together they have all the potential to become a major calamity of a generation.

Q: Why is this project the wrong technological choice?

DipakG: Koshi is one of the most violent rivers in the world because it is not just a river with water in it but also a massive conveyor belt of sediment from the Himalaya to the Bay of Bengal. This is a natural geological process that is responsible for creating not just Bangladesh but also much of Bihar out of the ancient Tethys Sea. Some one hundred million cubic meters of gravel, sand and mud flow out of Chatara every year. Lest we forget, all the collected water and matter brought by Tamor, Arun and Sun Kosi rivers, all the way from Kanchenjunga in the east, through Makalu and Everest to Langtang in the west have to pass through this one gorge at Chatara. And as the river slows down in the flat Tarai plains, the sediment settles down raising the river bed and forcing the river to overflow its bank before finding a new course.

This process has essentially created the inland delta over which the Koshi has swung from Supaul in the west to Katihar in the east, like a pendulum suspended at Chatara. In the last half century, this process has been arrested by “jacketing” the Koshi within embankments at the western extreme of the delta; but this has only forced the river to deposit all the sediment within this narrow “jacket”, raised the river bed, perching the river some four meters above the surrounding land. It was a recipe ripe for this kind of catastrophe to eventually happen, as it has now.

You have to be extremely careful when you start fooling around with such awesome forces of nature. What happens when you do so without proper understanding can be easily studied on the Tinau, south of Butwal: in 1961, India built the Hattisunde barrage on the Tinau’s inland delta to supply irrigation water to Marchawar in the south, but the river changed course in the following year and the barrage has been standing high and dry since then, a tribute to man’s stupidity, and an equally great tribute to his incapacity to learn from mistakes. You don’t build such hydro-technical structures on an unstable delta fan, and the Koshi today is just Tinau repeated at a more massive scale.

Q: What do we know of the science behind these things?

DipakG: We have been studying the Tinau and its problems since the mid-1990s, which is just the same as the Koshi except at a much smaller scale. For the Koshi, the best example is the comparison of current river flow conditions of the lower Ganga with the map prepared in 1779 by Colonel Rennel for Governor General Warren Hastings. His map shows us that the Koshi actually joined the Mechi-Mahananda, which joined the Teesta. While the Koshi has swung west, the Teesta itself has swung east to meet the Brahmaputra, while the Brahmaputra has swung from meeting the Megna to meeting the Ganga. This shows how extremely volatile the dynamically shifting pattern of this region’s hydro-ecological is.

This disaster was waiting to happen because the intervention into the natural regime through the Koshi project was bad science that ignored the problem of sediment in the river. As regards science, we should also remember that deforestation has really no significant linkage with Koshi sedimentation: we have more forest cover in the Koshi catchment today, thanks also to community forestry, than we ever did in our past history; and the Myth of Himalayan Degradation (that floods in Bangladesh are due to poor farmers in Nepal cutting trees) has been scientifically debunked over two decades ago. It is Himalayan geo-tectonics coupled with the monsoon regime that is the cause of Koshi sedimentation and floods, and that cannot be battled against with bad science and even worse policy prescriptions of indiscriminate embankment building following from such bad science.

Q: Can we repair the breach once the monsoon is over?

DipakG: I doubt it, simply because the breach now is no longer a rupture in the side embankment that can be plugged once the water level goes down and the Koshi starts flowing along its original main channel. What we are seeing is the main stem of the river itself flowing through it, capturing centuries’ old channel and changing its course. To change it back is like damming the Koshi anew with a new barrage, in addition to making the river do a “high jump” of at least four meters to flow along its recently abandoned bed.

Believe me, it won’t be too happy doing that now or in the coming years, and will find some way to continuously breach the embankment in other weak spots, and no engineer can guarantee that this won’t happen, although they will have lots of fun playing with all kinds of expensive toys “to tame the Koshi”.
The problem now is no longer just the breach at Kusaha in Nepal: it is totally uncertain where the new Koshi channel will be in the middle and lower delta in Bihar. Currently, satellite pictures show that it might be moving along the Supaul channel; but I think this might just be a massive ponding that is occurring with Koshi filling every depression, canal, old oxbow lake or the space between the indiscriminately built embankments. Since the land naturally slopes eastwards, depending upon whether the coming September floods are a four lakh cusecs flood or a nine lakh one (as happened in 1968) the new Koshi could be as far east as Katihar. Even if it does not go that far this year, it is inevitable it will do so in the years to come. This river morphology dynamics has to be looked at before any new embankments or repairs of old ones can be considered.

Q: What might be correct technology then?

DipakG: First, let us put to rest another wrong technology, a high dam on the Koshi. It is wrong because it would take two or more decades to construct, thus failing to address problems of current and immediate future concerns, is extremely expensive, does not address the primary problem of sedimentation (the reservoir will fill up too soon with Himalayan muck), has no convincing answer regarding the cost of attending to high seismicity in the region as well as diversion of peak instantaneous flood during construction (it is a major engineering challenge with no easy solution), and will create more social problems when indigenous population in Nepal have to be evicted from their ancestral homes. A Koshi high dam would be tantamount to Nepal importing downstream seasonal floods as permanent features of its landscape for questionable benefits to it. I think neither India nor Nepal is in a position to afford the technical, economic and social costs associated with it.

The immediate requirements of Nepal and Bihar (and by immediate I mean from now till ten or so years) will have to be met by new and alternative technologies suited to an unstable but very fertile flood plain. Such adaptive technologies with strong social components have been traditionally used by people in the form of houses on stilts and building villages with raised plinth levels that keep life and property safe but allow the flood to easily pass by leaving fertile silt behind. It will also call into serious question the current design practices in the transportation, housing, agriculture and other sectors, forcing the adopting of new approaches that look not so much to the watershed but to the ‘problemshed’ for answers. There is nothing called a permanent solution (how ‘permanent’ is a permanent concrete dam, after all?); but building houses on stilts is a cheaper, more ‘doable’ and thus a better solution.

Q: Why do you say that the current management setup of the Koshi barrage and embankments was a wrong institutional arrangement?

DipakG: The answer to that question can come from looking at the highly undiplomatic and breathtakingly ill-informed statement that came out from the Indian embassy in the immediate aftermath of the breach by blaming Nepal for it. When forcing the Koshi Treaty on Nepal in the 1950s, India took upon itself all responsibility for design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Koshi project, leaving Nepal absolutely no room to do anything except allow India to quarry all the boulders they like (which incidentally are rarely used in the Koshi but find themselves black marketed to all the aggregate crushers from Muzzafferpur to Siliguri!!)

The Koshi Treaty has been criticized very often for many reasons, but the reason some of us from the socio-environmental solidarity to criticize it is because of the neo-colonial mode that is built into its institutional make-up. Instead of a proper bi-national management arrangement, Nepal can only be a by-stander even for matters within its own territory: it can’t order the opening of gates during floods or the supply of irrigation waters to its fields during the dry season. Everything is in the hands of the Delhi hydrocracy, which has conveniently (and to my mind, illegitimately) washed its hands off it by hiving it off to the Bihar hydrocracy. There is institutional irresponsibility built into the treaty at every level, which was seen at the time of its signing as a “construction” treaty rather than a management one, hence you can never get sustainable and scientific management out of it. In a tragic and perverse way, the current catastrophe has washed away the very foundations of that treaty and calls for revisiting the management of the Koshi in a more sane and equitable manner.

Q: What exactly did you mean by “bad conduct”, then?

DipakG: Even if you had a wrong institutional arrangement, right conduct could have still got things done more than semi-right. What happened here was that the entire Koshi project has become a synonym for the corruption that goes by the name of Bihari politics, which “New Nepal” seems to be importing with glee.

Consider the following quote  from an Indian scholar studying the problem.
Such is the racket of breaches that out of the 2.5 to 3 billion rupees spent annually by the Bihar government on construction and repair works, as much as 60 percent used to be pocketed by the politician-contractors-engineers nexus. There is a perfect system of percentages in which there is a share for everyone who matters, right from the minister to the junior engineer. The actual expenditure never exceeds 30 percent of the budgeted cost and after doling out the fixed percentages, the contractors are able to pocket as much as 25 percent of the sanctioned amount. A part of this they use to finance the political activities of their pet politicians and to get further projects sanctioned. Thus the cycle goes on. [The result is that...] the contractor’s bills are paid without verifying them. The same lot for boulders and craters are shown as freshly purchased year after year and the government exchequer is duped of tens of millions. Many of the desiltation and repair and maintenance works shown to have been completed are never done at all and yet payments are made….So much is the income of the engineers from the percentages that the engineers do not bother to collect their salaries.

(Fighting the Irrigation Mafia in Bihar, by Indu Bharati in the Economic and Political Weekly from Bombay in 1991, quoted by Dipak Gyawali in his book Water in Nepal/Rivers, Technology and Society, Zed Books, London and Himal Books, Kathmandu, 2001.)

This is what I mean by “wrong conduct”. My understanding, based on information filtering out of Saptari and Sunsari and on local FM channels, is that local cadres of ruling political parties got wise to the corruption practiced from across the border and began to demand a share, which was difficult for the Bihari contractors to agree to because of the high rake-in demanded by their traditional political and civil servant bosses in Patna and higher up. There were, it seems, tough negotiations going on before the start of the monsoon season, but no agreement could be reached. No formal approach was made by the Koshi officials to the most India-friendly government in power in Nepal because the issue to be resolved was not doing the work but sharing the booty. Which is why the complaint that the contractors had come on August 8 to strengthen the embankment but were not allowed to, itself begs the question: how come you come to do the repair works (if that is what you wanted to do) in the middle of the monsoon and not in January?

Q: What should be the priority now?

DipakG:  There are three things needed to be done on a war footing in order of priority:
First, this is a major humanitarian tragedy of global proportions, and it should be attended to with an open heart, generous pockets and caring hands. If Biharis are coming into Nepal because that is where the only high ground is, they should be welcomed, all relief should be provided to them too, but a record should be kept and they must be handed over to the Indian government soon after the monsoon. It must be recognized that the displaced fifty thousand or so Nepalis are in all probability permanently displaced (over their village, the new Koshi probably runs and will do so for the forseeable future) and need to be housed in camps before a permanent settlement is found. Perhaps the now emptying Bhutanese refugee camps should be used for the purpose.

Second, a bridge should be constructed over the Koshi at Chatara on a war footing and the traffic along the Mahendra highway restored to connect east Nepal with the rest of the country as soon as possible. The current Kosi barrage bridge will in all probability remain as the Hattisunde barrage on the Tinau, a defunct monument of interest to future archaeologists; but even if restored, we will need a ferry system over the new Koshi channel before we can get to it.

Third, a serious public review and debate must ensue over the Koshi project and the treaty that brought about this catastrophe. The investigations and debate must be conducted jointly by civic movements in Nepal and India so that a sane path forward can be charted. Hydrocracies of both countries can contribute to this exercise, but their judgment and legitimacy are now in question, as is their hitherto unchallenged policy hegemony.



California Moves on Bill to Curb Sprawl and Emissions

August 30, 2008

By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: August 28, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — California, known for its far-ranging suburbs and jam-packed traffic, is close to adopting a law intended to slow the increase in emissions of heat-trapping gases by encouraging housing close to job sites, rail lines and bus stops to shorten the time people spend in their cars.

The measure, which the State Assembly passed on Monday and awaits final approval by the Senate, would be the nation’s most comprehensive effort to reduce sprawl. It would loosely tie tens of billions of dollars in state and federal transportation subsidies to cities’ and counties’ compliance with efforts to slow the inexorable increase in driving. The goal is to encourage housing near current development and to reduce commutes to work.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has not said whether he will sign the bill.

The number of miles driven in California has increased at a rate 50 percent faster than the rate of population growth for the past two decades. Passenger vehicles, which produce about 30 percent of the state’s heat-trapping gases, are the single greatest source of such emissions.

The fragile coalition behind the measure includes some longtime antagonists, in particular homebuilders and leading environmental groups in California. Both called the measure historic.

“What California is doing for the first time,” said Ed Manning, a lobbyist who represents the state’s 25 largest homebuilding companies, “is planning for housing needs, transportation needs and climate-change needs all at the same time.”

Thomas Adams, the board president of California’s League of Conservation Voters, said the changes were “all going to support a development pattern that will help the state meet its climate goals.”

The bill yokes three regulatory and permit processes. One focuses on regional planning: how land use should be split among industry, agriculture, homes, open space and commercial centers. Another governs where roads and bridges are built. A third sets out housing needs and responsibilities — for instance, how much affordable housing a community must allow.

Under the pending measure, the three regulatory and permit processes must be synchronized to meet new goals, set by the state’s Air Resources Board, to reduce heat-trapping gases.

Seventeen regional planning groups from across the state will submit their land-use, transportation and housing plans to the board. If the board rules that a plan will fall short of its emissions targets, then an alternative blueprint for meeting the goals must be developed.

Once state approval is granted, or an alternative plan submitted, billions of dollars in state and federal transportation subsidies can be awarded. The law would allow the money to be distributed even if an alternative plan fails to pass muster.

State Senator Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat who is sponsoring the bill, said in an interview that he expected the Senate to approve the bill soon.

Mr. Steinberg, who will be the Senate majority leader in the legislative session beginning next year, said Wednesday that he met with Governor Schwarzenegger this week and received “positive signals, no guarantees.”

Environmentalists have long blamed profit-driven land-use planning around the country for creating the expansive, sometimes redundant network of roads that have carved up farmland near urban areas.

They have also praised regional planners in Portland, Ore., for that city’s clustered growth and pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly communities.

The tools Portland planners have used are called urban growth boundaries, efforts to control sprawl by encouraging higher density development within an area and largely prohibiting it outside.

These boundaries have gained little traction in California, where developers have seen them as too restrictive and local governments have been jealous of their own planning powers.

Sacramento and San Diego have recently tried to build coalitions to support clustered development.

Most environmental groups strongly support the pending bill. Among them is the Natural Resources Defense Council, a major force in the development two years ago of the landmark state law to limit heat-trapping emissions from all sectors of the economy.

But some groups have expressed reservations, objecting to the relaxation of some existing environmental constraints on developers.

Jan Chatten-Brown, an environmental lawyer in Santa Monica, wrote in an e-mail message that the bill “gives up an important tool” by relaxing some requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and making it harder for citizen groups to sue developers.

Communities that take part in the process will be able to revise their housing plans every eight years instead of five; developers working with a state-approved plan will have to do less extensive environmental reviews of their projects.

Ms. Chatten-Brown also said the legislation overlapped with some of the provisions of the 2006 law committing the state, by 2020, to a 30 percent reduction in the projected level of emissions of heat-trapping gases.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters estimate that $15 billion to $20 billion in annual federal, state and local transportation grants support highways, bridges, bike paths and light-rail systems.

Because there is no assurance that regions would lose transportation dollars if their plans fail to win state approval, a few environmental groups stayed in a neutral corner.

But Mr. Adams, with the League of Conservation Voters, said that “a land-use bill of this magnitude had not been successful since the 1976 passage of the California Coastal Act.”

The New York Times