Public Comment

One of the difficult things for me about greenwashing has been getting into arguments over the years with people whose goals I share. These people are often strong advocates for the environment and so am I. 

The issue is that I see problems with their reasoning that they do not. And the stakes are often very high, quality of life and the future of humanity. Neither of us wants to back down and admit they were wrong. 

SUCH IS THE CASE NOW. 

In my previous article "No Science but Plenty of Money Behind Greenwashed SB 827", I wrote that I couldn't find any scientific studies of SB 827. Since then I found a report titled "Right-Type-Right-Place" that analyses the kind of housing construction specified by SB 827. 

This report was commissioned by the pro-SB 827 Next 10 organization set up by wealthy venture capitalists. And it doesn't seem to have been peer-reviewed by neutral scientists like a legitimate research paper would have been. 

As a result, the report is very biased toward SB 827, possibly even fraudulent. 

THE REPORT HAS TWO GLARING OMISSIONS 

- The report does not consider the huge amount of carbon emitted by tearing down and rebuilding the housing units that are currently on property being developed. Many of the densely populated areas that have BART stations and high-frequency bus routes don't have vacant lots. Certainly Berkeley has almost none after a century of urban development. So something has to be torn down.  

THIS IS A MAJOR SOURCE OF CARBON EMISSIONS THEY HAVE EXCLUDED FROM THEIR CALCULATIONS. 

- The report does not consider the increased carbon emitted by the additional buses required to carry the new riders. AC Transit gets about 30 passenger-miles-per-gallon, around half that of a driver-only Toyota Prius. A large increase in the number of bus riders would likely require an increase in the number of buses. This would effectively turn 50-passenger-miles-per-gallon Prius-driving commuters into 30-passenger-miles-per-gallon AC Transit riders and thereby POTENTIALLY INCREASE RATHER THAN DECREASE THE CARBON EMITTED BY TRANSPORTATION. 

With these two major biases, the report claims that SB 827 slash-and-burn type housing construction near transit can save 201 million gallons of gasoline every year in California. 

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT 

In reality it is ONE PERCENT of the gasoline used in the state. 

So the damage to neighborhoods, the evictions of elderly and disabled tenants from the their rent-controlled homes, the apparent outlawing of affordable units in the new buildings, is all to remove A CLAIMED ONE PERCENT of California's gasoline use. 

And gasoline use is only responsible for around ONE QUARTER of carbon emissions. So even with these biased projections, SB 827 is expected to reduce California's carbon footprint by less than ONE-THIRD OF ONE PERCENT. 

I HAVE SOME NEWS FOR THE AUTHORS OF THIS REPORT 

A third of a percent reduction in carbon emissions, which the authors claim "provides the best outcomes for meeting the state’s climate goals", is a drop in the bucket. And that is if the reduction actually occurs, which is highly doubtful. 

When the torn-down-unit-rebuilding carbon increases and the additional-trains-and-buses carbon increases are factored in, as they would have been in an unbiased report, that one-third percent number will decrease and quite possibly will go negative. Meaning SB 827 would end up emitting more carbon than would have been emitted without it. 

We need more than just empty gestures and pretend solutions, we need real solutions that make a significant dent in our carbon emissions. 

THERE IS A REASON THEY CHOSE TO BIAS THE REPORT 

The authors of the report could have chosen to include these very significant sources of increased carbon emissions in the report. But they made the decision to exclude them. And they made that decision for a reason. 

The only reason I can think of is to cover up the fact that SB 827 DOESN'T HELP PREVENT GLOBAL WARMING. According to my calculations, SB 827 MAKES GLOBAL WARMING WORSE. 

So Scott Wiener and Nancy Skinner have protected their developer donors' projects from a legitimate environmental review. And SB 827 supporters have concocted a deceptive report. Even that report admits that any possible carbon reductions would be insignificant. 

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE 

We as a society need a way to measure how good or bad a proposed project like SB 827 is. Something that is accurate and easy to understand. 

I suggest that for each project like this, scientists calculate: 

- An unbiased estimate of any reduction in carbon emissions. 

- An unbiased estimate of the number of years until carbon breakeven. 

By "carbon breakeven" I mean the number of years it would take for the expected annual carbon reductions to overcome the initial carbon emitted by constructing the project. 

If a project has a short breakeven time, maybe 10 or 20 years, it might produce real improvements in the environment. 

If a project has an intermediate breakeven time, maybe 100 years, there is still some chance it might be worth doing. 

If a project has a long breakeven time, maybe 1000 years, it will just make the current situation worse. 

Armed with these numbers, policy makers and voters can easily separate good projects from bad ones. And we can start making real progress on global warming. 

WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW 

There is a tendency for any project that would actually reduce carbon emissions to be lobbied against by big corporations and super-wealthy individuals because it reduces the profits they make off their carbon-emitting activities. 

Any project that increases carbon, and increases their profits, isn't lobbied against. 

The result is that good projects don't make it to fruition and bad projects do. This needs to change if we want to really do something about carbon emissions and global warming. 

WHILE MONEY CONTROLS OUR GOVERNMENT, CARBON CONTROLS OUR GOVERNMENT 

One of the reasons to get money out of politics is that money and carbon are closely related and effectively the same thing for political purposes. Projects need to be judged on their effects on the environment and the American People, not their effects on profits made by extremely rich people. 

As voters, we will likely have to solve this problem for ourselves. Enact strong campaign finance laws. Recall corrupt politicians. Demand real solutions. 

If we do these things, I think we can make some improvements and have the bright future we deserve