NASA/JPL-Caltech

The Santa Ana winds in Southern California sweep down across the deserts and across the Los Angeles Basin.

With climate change continuing to create a myriad of new and uncertain weather and water-related issues, no state in America is better at getting ready for our environmental future than California.

As reported by the Hermosa Beach Patch, a recent study by the National Resources Defense Council found that California is one of only nine states (including Alaska and Wisconsin) that has created strategies to deal with the host of predicted situations like water shortages and droughts.

“Because of the significant risks to the state from increasing temperatures, changes in precipitation, sea level rise, and ocean acidification, California has been one of the leading states in the U.S. on climate change action,” states the report, titled “Ready or Not: An Evaluation of State Climate and Water Preparedness Planning.”

By contrast, as many as 29 states (including Texas and Ohio), have done next to nothing to get ready for potential weather-related climate impacts.

"They are not doing anything to cut down on carbon pollution or to prepare for climate change impacts," Said Ben Chou, a water policy analyst for the NRDC and one of the report’s authors to the San Francisco Chronicle. “On the state level it doesn’t seem like climate change exists to them. It’s not on their radar.”

Of the several California programs that earned the top ranking include the state’s Air Resource Board cap-and-trade program (which looks to reduce greenhouse gases), the California Environmental Quality Act and the Climate Action Team.

"Other states have been proactive on water conservation but they don't require a certain level of water conservation in the future," Chou added to the Chronicle. "That's what California is doing here and it will certainly pay dividends if and when California is impacted by climate change."

Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images for AEG

American businessman Steve Bing, President and CEO of AEG Timothy J. Leiweke, former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Casey Wasserman pose for a photograph during the seventh Annual Meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City.

As of 4 o’clock, all the comments have been submitted concerning the draft environmental impact report for Farmers Field. It’ll be interesting to see how the city planning office responds to some of the criticisms leveled publicly, at meetings in recent weeks, and via letter.

Among them are complaints that AEG hasn’t explained how it will achieve the goals created by SB 292 for fewer car trips and carbon neutrality at the proposed downtown football stadium.

For what they’re worth, AEG made another set of promises too. While it was drumming up public and political support for Farmers Field plans, AEG announced it entered into a set of commitments with the Clinton Global Initiative. What does that mean? According to the Initiative itself:

Commitments help CGI members translate practical goals into meaningful and measurable results. CGI works with each member to develop an achievable plan, and members report back on the progress they make over time.

Since CGI was founded in 2005, our members have made more than 2,100 commitments, which are already improving the lives of nearly 400 million people in more than 180 countries. When fully funded and implemented, these commitments will be valued at $69.2 billion.

Basically, the core of the mission for the Clinton Global Initiative is to make sure its members follow through on its commitments.

Here’s one example of AEG's goals: According to the draft environmental impact report, while AEG builds Farmers Field, the company “would target 50 percent and 75 percent of the non-hazardous construction and demolition debris by weight to be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.” Once the stadium is built, AEG would recycle 50 percent of its waste, the report’s authors wrote. So, basically, half of its waste would go to the landfill.

That seems problematic on its own. Fifty percent diversion at a huge stadium is actually a rate worse than the city’s present claimed diversion rate. Remember, too, that the city of LA is aiming for zero waste by the year 2030. (In fact, three years ago, I went to a planning conference that the city’s sanitation department held about this issue…in the West Hall of the Convention Center, which would be torn down to make room for the stadium.)

But AEG promised something different to the Clinton Global Initiative about waste management at Farmers Field--something more. On the CGI website, AEG says it plans to divert 90% of its waste from landfill during construction, and 75% of its waste from landfill during operations: “Farmers Field will divert waste from landfill through a robust recycling, the donation of durable goods, and implementing a front of house composting program that includes sourcing biodegradable concessions packaging.”

AEG’s plans on water conservation differ among the places they record them too. In the environmental impact report, it says that building Farmers Field “with incorporation of the City’s water efficiency requirements” will create “annual potable water demand of approximately 84.3 million gallons or 258 acre-feet (AF) per year.” Adding in AEG’s own “specified commitments with respect to water conservation” would create water savings of “3.1 million gallons or 10 AF per year.” Then AEG takes credit for “water consumption associated with the existing Project Site uses to be removed” to come up an annual demand of 63.5 million gallons or 194 AF per year.

I know that’s a lot of numbers. Let’s boil them down. Cutting 10 AF of water a year on a total demand of 258 is less than 4% in water savings. If Farmers Field wants to claim credit for removing existing uses too, that’s a total water demand of 194 AF down from 258. A 25% savings.

According to AEG’s commitment on the CGI site, AEG says Farmers Field “will conserve water by installing the best available technology for water fixtures and equipment and educating our employees on water efficiency through our Environmental Management System. Special projects under analysis include: technology to reclaim water from sinks and showers for use in toilets and cooling towers and xeriscaping.” Doing that, it says, will cut water use 35%.

When AEG announced its environmental commitments last fall, former President Bill Clinton came down heavy and publicly, squarely in favor of the stadium. “AEG has proven to be the world’s most environmentally conscious venue operators (sic),” he said in a statement, “and Farmers Field will be another true example of their mission to marry design, innovation, social responsibility and community engagement, resulting in a measurable impact for future generations. I commend AEG as a model socially responsible company that is the hallmark of CGI.” The move earned AEG kudos on environmental blogs as “the most sustainable stadium in the United States" around the same time as Sacramento lawmakers were considering fast-track state Environmental Quality Act bills. 

I emailed both CGI and AEG to ask if it means anything that AEG is making one set of commitments in an environmental impact report now after making slightly harder-to-pull-off commitments to the CGI last fall. Will AEG go back to CGI and amend its goals? As for the consequences of "fast-tracking" big projects like this, they'll likely take years to unravel. 

www.energy.ca.gov

Parabolic solar would have delivered solar power for the Blythe Power Project, until Solar Trust switched to PV panels. What happens now is anybody's guess.

While I've been off participating in the daily dispensation of justice under the law, a big solar project in Riverside County is hitting the skids. Solar Millennium is the German parent company behind Solar Trust, the Oakland-based company backing the Blythe Solar Power Project, and it's seeking Deutsche court protection for its debts.

Blythe's Solar Power Project won more than 2 million dollars in loan guarantees from the federal Department of Energy last year. Cue the turmoil: originally slated to use parabolic photovoltaic technology, plans shifted when project managers later ran the numbers and figured out that using solar photovoltaic panels penciled out better, largely because the price of PV had dropped precipitously. That forced the Solar Trust of America to gave up the loan guarantee. 

It's the only economic development going in the immediate area, and the town of Blythe is looking for a big boost from the project's growth. Maybe still looking. The California Energy Commission and the federal Bureau of Land Management both approved the project in the fall of 2010. Blythe has a footprint now, where preparation work had begun on the site. In its story today, Reuters reports that the city of Blythe isn't giving up hope: 

"We have been working with Solar Trust of America for a couple of years in getting this project going," David Lane, Blythe's city manager, said in an interview. "Although the project is not in the city limits, we are the only city within 100 miles. My sense is that with the large investment in what was to have been the world's largest solar power plant, someone somewhere will buy it and build it."

We last talked about Blythe when reporting about the "road map" the federal government drew up to help encourage solar development in some federal lands in western states. An area next to Blythe that stretches to Joshua Tree is the largest in the "road map," even after it was shrunk by a quarter of its size last fall. 

Opponents from the desert conservation community and from the Republican party could easily unite behind this bankruptcy news. Desert conservationists including the Wilderness Society and the National Parks Conservation Association have criticized the several "fast track" solar projects approved for California deserts for, among other reasons, threatening desert tortoises and having a significant footprint size that they contend disturbs the desert ecosystem. It could be an opportunity for them to again argue for caution. And a particular brand of anti-Solyndra sentiment, documented here and in the Debord Report, has never quite burned away in the GOP even though a year of investigation has yielded little beyond maybe sort of embarassing emails written by federal officials, even when the inquiry has been expanded past Solyndra. 

Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

A new study by Climate Central finds that as much as 32 percent of America’s coastal regions could potentially be affected by rising sea levels caused by global warming over coming decades. As reported in the New York Times, up to 3.7 million Americans live within four feet of high tide, where the effects would be the most drastic.

"Sea level rise is not some distant problem that we can just let our children deal with. The risks are imminent and serious," said Ben Strauss, a member of Climate Central and primary author of two papers outlining the research to NJ.com. "Just a small amount of sea level rise, including what we may well see within the next 20 years, can turn yesterday’s manageable flood into tomorrow’s potential disaster."

While Florida is the most vulnerable state, California is among the top five alongside New York, New Jersey, and Louisiana. According to Strauss in the Chicago Tribune, Southern California is particularly susceptible as the area rarely sees storms that rise beyond three feet, and "they'll be seeing water to 4 feet regularly,” resulting in “coastal flooding like they've never seen before."

While Strauss considers “a lot” of rising sea levels as “inevitable,” there are still precautions that can be taken.

“If we reduce our greenhouse emissions rapidly, we can make a big difference,” he stressed to the Chicago Tribune. “But no matter how much we cut, we've already kind of locked ourselves into a future with a lot higher seas."

[author's note: see comments for an apparent dispute between Nat Geo & GP over what, if anything, they've discussed. Following...]

It's not spring yet, but corporate responsibility, and maybe some new savvy about rainforest politics, has been blooming all over.

National Geographic makes books in addition to magazines; they're the latest paper consumer to respond to a years-long joint campaign by several environmental groups to pressure retailers and other companies to end their paper-buying relationship with the Asia Pulp and Paper group of companies. [UPDATE: This may be wrong. See below for my explanation.] The World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace have been increasing the profile of their separate-but-related pushes in the last six months or so. WWF released a report entitled Don't Flush Tiger Forests: Toilet Paper, U.S. Supermarkets and the Destruction of Indonesia’s Last Tiger Habitat.

Greenpeace, you might remember, raised questions a year ago about Mattel's packaging after tests revealed mixed tropical hardwoods in cardboard around Barbie products. (Asia Pulp and Paper disputed the test results, but El Segundo-based Mattel updated its sourcing policies to exclude APP anyway.) And now Greenpeace has released an investigation and a video a year in the making that it says shows more evidence of rainforest abuse by Asia Pulp and Paper:

All this is on top of…well, basically, a pile of toilet paper. In the last couple of months, more than a dozen grocers have decided not to carry toilet tissue (that's what the squeamish call it, I think) processed by a controversial company long associated with Asia Pulp and Paper. Oasis Brands is a U.S.-based distributor of Paseo, Livi and other branded products. The World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and others consider Oasis closely related to Asia Pulp and Paper, and have been pressing companies in various industries to end their relationships with APP. It appears they've successfully lit a fire under the Kroger company, parent to Ralph's here in Southern California. In addition, Harris Teeter (the Teet! if you live in Virginia and the DC area), Food Lion, SUPERVALU, Kmart, BI-LO, Brookshire Grocery Company, Food Lion, and Weis Markets have signed on to stop signing off on purchases from Oasis.

Naturally, WWF is in heaven. “Consumers shouldn’t have to choose between tigers and toilet paper,” said Linda Kramme, a WWF forest expert. “We’re asking retailers, wholesalers and consumers not to buy Paseo or Livi products until APP stops clearing rain forests in Sumatra.” For its part, Greenpeace says it's continuing to investigate Asia Pulp & Paper's operations and find ways to connect its paper to customer companies. Not just National Geographic, but also Xerox, Barnes & Noble, Acer and Walmart. 

Asia Pulp & Paper is strenuously objecting to Greenpeace's latest investigation and video, denying illegal activity. But I wonder if its response about the supermarket controversy, via spokeswoman Aida Greenbury, was somewhat more muted than, say, the one APP gave KPCC when we asked about Mattel and packaging last year. “We commit to transparently reporting on our program in implementing these actions. We embrace sustainability as an important value in all aspects of our operations and supply chainm," she said in a statement. "We recognize the need to ensure that all our supply chain partners act in accordance with our sustainability values and we are taking steps to ensure this is the case.  We welcome inputs from all stakeholders, including customers and all responsible NGOs such as WWF to focus on solutions for sustainable paper products,” Greenbury concluded. 

Separately, Oasis Paper, the U.S. distributors of the controversial tissue, has now said it will cut ties with APP and "branded retail tissue products will be made from FSC-certified base paper sourced domestically." That's interesting for two reasons. First, it's a flip flop: the CEO of Oasis initially responded by saying that "[c]alls to action against Indonesian products, especially without verified claims, are unconstructive." Second, until recently, APP was the company's primary supplier, and the only named supplier on its website. Oasis is privately held. Activists including Rolf Skar, a San Francisco based campaigner with Greenpeace, argue the circumstances suggest that Oasis and APP have a very close relationship. Well, until now. "It's almost like APP is breaking up with itself," says Skar.

Together, these campaigns and their results suggest that companies perceive a growing ethos about rainforest protection among consumers. Which means they're either embracing those values, or trying to look like they do. Either way, the non-governmental organizations campaigning about these issues perceive that as a victory.

[UPDATE, 4:00 PM: So, something's most likely changing at National Geographic, but it may or may not be due to a campaign by Greenpeace. Check out National Geographic's fact sheet about its sustainable business practices, among other things. It pre-existed the Greenpeace campaign. However, National Geographic has not offered an explanation for its achievement in the Sinar Mas Print Awards; a book about birding very clearly has National Geographic on the cover, and the Sinar Mas Print Award website very clearly says books must be printed on Sinar Mas paper to qualify for the awards. That's just part of the evidence Greenpeace relied on for its assertions about Nat Geo, and the book award from Sinar Mas came in 2010. If National Geographic is now saying it will not source from APP, that IS a change, and one made since the Greenpeace campaign started. I suspect what's happening is that National Geographic is tightening up its supply chains, and I know this is getting murky quick. But I think my original thesis holds up, which is that companies with presences in the US are increasingly sensitive to the optics around rainforest policies, at a minimum, and sometimes the policies themselves.]