San Francisco currently recycles about 72 percent of its waste, the best percentage in the country. Composting food waste could up that figure to 90 percent, according to some estimates. Additionally, food scraps, plant waste and other organic materials decompose in landfills, creating methane, a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more potent than CO2. According to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, an organization dedicated to environmentally friendly development, the global warming impact of methane emissions in the short term is 72 times greater than the impact of CO2. (See Methane to Energy post above)

In a June 2008 report, Stop Trashing the Climate, the Institute noted that reducing materials going to landfills and incinerators could be equivalent to shuttering 21 percent of the country’s 417 coal-fired energy plants.

“San Francisco has the best recycling and composting programs in the nation,” Mayor Gavin Newsom said. “We can build on our success.”

The city sends its food scraps and other compostable material each day to the Jepson-Prairie composting facility in Vacaville, Calif. Owned by Recology, the facility uses the scraps to create soil amendments that it sells to vineyards, retail soil bagging operations, landscapers and the erosion control industry,

The Jepson-Prairie composting facility turns San Francisco's food waste into soil amendments.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund www.edf.org, the U.S. has 30 percent of the world’s cars but emits 45 percent of the world’s global automotive CO2 emissions; an estimated 450 million tons are emitted by personal vehicles alone.

So, on the 22nd, give your car the day off. Hop a subway or ride a bike. The planet will be grateful.

Riverside, California is planning to convert a former landfill into a photovoltaic (PV) farm that produces solar energy. But city officials were concerned that some residents might oppose the project, so they held a community meeting and erected E-Z Up tents so residents could see just where the solar panels would be.

The plan to engage the community worked so well that nearly all concerns about the project had melted away by the time the meeting ended. The idea – giving residents something visual – can be replicated in other city projects and probably will be, city officials said.

“People like to be shown. They tend to be visual on utility projects,” Riverside City Councilman Mike Gardner said. “We are used to seeing a power plant or a transmission tower. It just doesn’t intuitively fit that, ‘Well, I just won’t see it (the PV farm).’”

Riverside Public Utilities initially is proposing to generate 1 MW of power on a 10-acre patch of the capped, 200-acre landfill using largely existing power lines. One megawatt would provide enough power for about 750 homes. The initial phase of the project would cost between $8 million and $10 million.

The utility’s long-range plan is to produce 10MW of solar power on 100 acres of former landfill, enough power for 7,500 homes. That larger project, which would include planting groundcover in the area to further reduce the visual impacts, would cost $80 million to $100 million.

The project is part of an ongoing effort in Riverside to develop solar energy resources and to maintain “clean and green” practices. The city has adopted the Green Riverside Action Plan, with 38 goals that outline ways residents and city officials can collaborate to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion and otherwise preserve the environment. The plan highlights seven vital areas: energy, greenhouse gas emissions, waste, urban design, urban nature, transportation, and water. Of the goals, 34 have already been reached or are on target.

For example, earlier this year, just eight years after its first solar energy project came online, Riverside surpassed the milestone of producing more than 1 megawatt (MW) of local solar energy, enough energy to power 750 homes in Southern California. The City also has implemented rebate programs for residential and commercial customers that will increase solar generation in the City to 3MW by 2020. The farm would help the city reach those goals and help reduce greenhouse gases emissions.

The community meeting hammered home the point that the former landfill is pitched, like the roof of a house, and therefore will prevent residents from seeing the photovoltaic panels. The panels will be tucked into the side of the landfill that is opposite from the side that faces the only houses in the area. Only someone standing directly on the landfill – which is not allowed – will be able to see the panels below.

The effort appears to have worked. So far, no one has expressed opposition to the idea to take a vacant piece of land and use it as a source of clean energy. The city is moving forward with the plan after receiving conceptual approval from the Riverside City Council. That allowed the utility to proceed with preliminary engineering.

“It’s important that the residents feel that the city and the city utility care about what they think rather than just doing what is expedient for the city and utility,” Gardner said.

The PV farm effort is being led by Riverside Public Utilities, a consumer-owned water and electric utility governed by a board of nine community volunteers. The utility, which is committed to increased use of renewable energy resources and sustainable living practices, provides high-quality, reliable services to more than 106,000 metered electric customers and 63,400 metered water customers throughout Riverside.

The landfill property has been owned by Riverside for nearly a century and operated as a landfill until 1985. The city’s Public Works department considered putting the land to recreational use, but the site’s location makes that difficult. The land cannot be irrigated because of potential damage to the cap on the landfill; water would eventually percolate into the refuse.

Riverside Public Utilities, however, sees great potential in the landfill. The utility has proposed building a small project initially, then possibly expanding it to include more solar panels, and more clean and green electricity, in the future.

Utility officials were confident that the plan would be well-received if they could get enough information into the hands of nearby residents. Conversely, they were concerned that, without the public information effort, the project would hit a roadblock before it even got off the ground.

Utility staff members hand-delivered dozens of letters that outlined the merits of the project and invited the public to a meeting. They explained that the proposed Tequesquite Solar Farm would be on the portion of the 200-acre site that slopes towards the Santa Ana River, not toward homes. They also encouraged residents to view the project site from their backyards on the day of the public meeting and assured them that if they could not see the E-Z Up tents that day, they would not see the solar panels once they are installed.

Gardner, who lives nearby, said the landfill was there when he moved in 35 years ago. He said it was noisy and that neighbors could hear the equipment, especially at the end of the day when that day’s trash was covered.

“The bulldozer ran all day,” Gardner said. “Clearly you could hear it. It was convenient to have it there, but overall, I am glad it is gone.”

Gardner said only one or two people have asked him about the photovoltaic farm project and, so far, nobody has been against it. And, he said, they likely will end up actually liking the aesthetics.

“Right now, the top of the landfill is bare dirt, so if we can put some panels out there with a bluish or greenish tint, people might actually prefer that,” Gardner said.

The rankings here are especially useful because they explain the criteria used and the method of scoring: air quality, energy production and conservation, environmental standards and participation, green building, green space, recycling, transportation, standard of living, and water quality and conservation.

Cities are rated for each criterion and the 15 top ranked cities for all categories are highlighted in each group. Seattle, Washington is the top large city. Madison, Wisconsin is the top medium city. Bellingham, Washington is the top small city.

In addition, there is ranking for each criterion. For example, in the small city category Bellingham has the cumulative top ranking and individual top ranking in air quality and green space. Mountain View, California, is ranked highest for transportation, energy production and conservation, and water quality. Petaluma, California is ranked top in standard of living. Beaverton, Oregon is rated highest for green building. Fayetteville, Arkansas is ranked top for environmental standards and participation. Mission Viejo, California is ranked highest for recycling.

You can add your city if it is not already included in the database.

The President is a fan of high-speed rail. In June 2008, noting that engineers in China were developing a 300-mph train, he told the U.S. Conference of Mayors, “I don’t want to see the fastest train in the world built halfway around the world in Shanghai. I want to see it built right here in the United States of America.”
The U.S. currently has just one high-speed rail system – the Amtrak Acela Express system that connects Boston to Washington, D.C., via New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Acela trains average 68 miles per hour but do reach 150 mph during the trip.
Internationally, trains are considered “high-speed rail” if they reach 125 mph. But the FRA defines express, regional and emerging high-speed rail as three separate entities.
• High-Speed Rail – Express: Frequent, express service between major population centers 200–600 miles apart with intermediate stops. With top speeds of at least 150 mph, these systems are intended to relieve air and highway capacity constraints.
• High-Speed Rail – Regional: Relatively frequent service between major and moderate population centers 100–500 miles apart with some intermediate stops. Top speeds of 110-150 mph, grade-separated, with some dedicated and some shared track. These systems are designed to relieve highway and, to some extent, air capacity constraints.
• Emerging High-Speed Rail: Developing corridors of 100–500 miles with strong potential for future Regional and/or Express service. Top speeds of 90-110 mph on primarily shared track (eventually using positive train control technology) with advanced grade crossing protection or separation. Intended to develop the passenger rail market and provide some relief to other modes.

In April, the FRA released it’s a plan for development of high-speed rail in the U.S., identifying 10 corridors as potential funding targets.
• Northern New England Corridor—Boston, Portland/Auburn, Maine; Montreal, Canada; Springfield, Mass.; and New Haven, Conn.;
• California Corridor—Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego;
• Pacfic Northwest Corridor—Eugene and Portland, Ore.; and Seattle and Vancouver, Wash.;
• South Central Corridor—Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Okla.; Little Rock, Ark.; and Dallas and San Antonio, Texas;
• Gulf Coast Corridor—Houston, New Orleans and Mobile, Ala.;
• Chicago Hub Corridor—Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Kansas City and St. Louis, Mo.; Louisville, Ky.; Milwaukee and Minneapolis/St. Paul;
• Florida Corridor—Tampa, Orlando and Miami;
• Southeast Corridor—Richmond, Va.; Raleigh and Charlotte, N.C.; Columbia, S.C.; Atlanta; and Jacksonville, Fla.;
• Keystone Corridor—Pittsburgh, Philadelphia; and
• Empire Corridor—Buffalo and Albany, N.Y.
On June 17, the FRA issued interim guidance to applicants covering grant terms, conditions and procedures until final regulations are issued. The agency will evaluate grant proposals for their ability to make trips quicker and more convenient, reduce congestion on highways and at airports, and meet other environmental, energy and safety goals. The FRA plans to begin awarding grants in mid-September.

“To really make a dent in carbon emissions, solutions are needed that incentivize more concentrated and pedestrian-friendly development patterns that reduce auto dependency,” said ULI Senior Vice President Dean Schwanke, at a press conference announcing the publication.  “Focusing solely on energy efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels will not sufficiently address the problem.”

Schwanke pointed out that as much as two-thirds of the development expected to exist in the U.S. by 2050 is not yet built. As a result, he said, there are significant opportunities to lower transportation-related carbon emissions through more compact development that provides transportation options and attractive urban settings. “Sticking to sprawling development patterns of the past will leave us spending more time behind the wheel, putting more cars on the road and adding to gridlock,” Schwanke noted. “That’s not a good answer to climate change. A much better response is well-planned, compact development that offers a mix of uses and encourages walking, biking and taking public transit. The greenest car is the one that is not needed for every trip to get from one place to another.”

Land use is one of nine categories of strategies considered by Moving Cooler, along with transportation pricing and taxes, public transportation improvements, non-motorized transport such as walking and biking, regulations to moderate vehicle use and speed, intelligent systems, expanded highway capacity and more efficient freight movement. The effectiveness of each strategy in cutting greenhouse gas emissions is measured against a baseline that represents current trends.

Moving Cooler points out that economy-wide pricing measures — such as an increase in the gasoline tax, carbon pricing, and pay-as-you-drive insurance – would produce the most significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, due to the likelihood of substantial shifts in driving behavior mandated by the high costs. However, outside of these pricing measures, the land use strategies produce the most emission reductions of any of the other strategies analyzed. Moreover, the costs of implementing such changes in development patterns are offset by the substantial savings in the cost of vehicle ownership and maintenance, the report adds.

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA has a free webinar for anyone in local government  on How to Make Your School Buses Cleaner this Friday, June 5 at 1-2 p.m. Eastern

You can learn how to make your school buses cleaner, more efficient, and reduce harmful pollution associated with diesel exhaust. Get the tools and resources needed to start a program in your school district to:

• Complete technology retrofits on school buses to burn diesel more efficiently;
• Switch from petroleum diesel to a biodiesel blend; and
• Reduce vehicle idling around school buildings.

The webinar will introduce three toolkits (click to get them immediately) designed to help your school district.  Each toolkit contains a step-by-step guide, fact sheets, outreach materials, case studies, and more.

A few days before the event, participants will be sent an email with instructions on how to participate in the webinar.  You will need a computer with internet access and a phone.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGJt_YXIoJI&feature=player_embedded]