Last Updated Projects in Environment
|project id||project title||project type||project status||project scope||address||zipcode||city||county||state||country||description||desired outcome||published by||publishing date||forwarded by||forwarding date||creator||creating date||archived||featured||page id||page title||issue ids||agency ids||official ids||last modified||latitude||request||longitude||initiator cover photo||allow moderator photo upload||pinned solution id||sponsored||banner image||profile image||step ids||active step id||archetype||group id||person id|
|910431||State’s Progress on 5 Million Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) by 2030||Active||Global||Sacramento, CA, USA||Sacramento||Sacramento County||CA||US||As part of the AB 32 climate change program, Executive Order B-48-18 administratively created a goal of 5 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on California roads by 2030. This action expands on the prior Executive Order B-16- 2012, which set a goal of 1.5 million by 2025, with a sub-goal that their market share is expanding at that point. While these goals were set administratively, they are embodied in the state’s climate change strategies, and both public and utility ratepayer funds are being used to create the refueling infrastructure required for these motorists.
Rather than only true ZEVs, the numbers in the Executive Order and previous interpretations by the agencies indicate the goal is to be achieved by both BEVs that run only on electricity and combustion PHEVs that run on both electricity and motor fuels. Consequently, only a portion of the vehicles being counted to meet the zero emission goal—roughly half based on current sales volumes—will in fact produce zero emissions when driven. Additionally, FCEVs (fuel cell electric vehicles) also would count towards the ZEV total, but CNCDA data show total market share for these vehicles to date at around 0.1%. Using this more flexible interpretation that includes both true ZEVs and combustion PHEVs, total PEV sales since 2009 account for 11.9% of the 2030 goal. True ZEV sales, however, account for only 6.7%.
In addition to the distortion that comes from including combustion vehicles in the ZEV total, the Executive Orders also refer to ZEVs on California roads while the agency accountings rely on sales as the measure of progress. Using prior Energy Commission reviews to account for ZEVs no longer on the roads as a result of accidents, moves out of state, and other factors that over time remove vehicles from the active fleet, the actual progress rate consistent with the Executive Order language of “vehicles on California’s roads” would be 11.0% rather than the 11.9% shown in the chart below.
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||2019-11-05 23:48:31||no||0||320678||Proj:989409||100||60010,500||51168,546||2019-11-06 04:17:37||38.5815719||No||-121.4943996||Yes||950264||no||Project banner 910431.jpg||0||97||7074449|
|546455||Restoring New Zealand's Environment and Original Birdsong||Active||Global||Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand||Auckland||Auckland||NZ||The RMA is silent on property rights. It treats environmental habitat as public property, even though private owners bear the costs of improving and maintaining them.
Last weekend I visited a man many of you will know who has created several hectares of wetland on the shore of the Kaipara Harbour.
The compliance issues he’s faced from Council have been enormous. As he put it ‘they keep talking about how important wetlands are until you try to give them some.’ Now that he’s done good work, he risks further ‘public interest’ in his property.
It’s a common theme. I’ve visited other farmers who’ve done their best to conserve habitat on their farms only to have it declared a Significant Natural Area under the RMA.
Ditto planting native trees. Who would plant a Kauri tree after what happened to the couple in West Auckland?
The situation is ridiculous. The reward for doing good conservation is to lose your property rights. We must reform the RMA to respect property rights. Extinctions since human settlement include one bat, at least 51 birds, three frogs, three lizards, one freshwater fish, four plant species, and a number of invertebrates.
The sad reality is that we are losing the battle.
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||davidseymour||2019-06-01 04:11:51||no||0||319950||Proj:546455||103||997354||999630||2019-06-01 05:59:49||-36.8936302||No||174.7743333||Yes||546455||no||Project banner 546455.jpg||0||0||0|
|282393||Re-Opening Irvine Lake: A Win-Win for Taxpayers and Outdoor Enthusiasts||Active||Local||Irvine, CA, USA||Irvine||Orange County||CA||US||Irvine Lake is the largest fresh water body in Orange County. Since 1941, the lake has provided the residents of Orange County with a unique opportunity for a variety of recreational activities. In 2014, The Irvine Company made public its intention to transfer certain land parcels it owned surrounding Irvine Lake to Orange County in perpetuity for the benefit of its residents. The land transfer triggered a series of negotiations among, primarily, Orange County Parks, Serrano Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District, seeking agreements on certain matters to move the action forward. Those negotiations stalled and in March 2016, Irvine Lake was closed to the public for fishing, boating and other water recreation. This closure has and continues to result in lost revenues for Orange County taxpayers in addition to lost recreation for its residents.
The three public agencies involved in the future operations of Irvine Lake have not announced a plan for its reopening for recreation use since its closure in 2016.
Without sufficient historical financial information from SWD, OC Parks cannot project future financial opportunities at Irvine Lake. Minimal effort to engage one another, a lack of creative proposals and slow responsiveness between OC Parks and the water districts have allowed negotiations to stall.
Although not a party to any recreation rights, IRWD does have a right of approval over decisions affecting water use rights and water quality. Therefore, settling easement rights issues in a successor document to the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among SWD, IRWD and TIC is required prior to concluding negotiations on recreation rights. Parties expect to complete this in the first half of 2019.
A master plan for recreational activities remains to be developed.
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||ocgrandjury||2019-05-25 05:47:19||no||0||319823||Proj:282393||103,76,75,77||47445,997350,997349||999616,999625||2019-05-28 05:40:44||33.777143||No||-117.7182772||Yes||282393||no||Project banner 282393.jpg||8816396,5969397||5969397||0||0|
|405176||Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong||Active||Global||New Haven, CT, USA||New Haven||New Haven County||CT||US||The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change.
The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. The finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings of climate science and statistics.
The most recent thorough survey by the leading scholar in this field, Richard Tol, finds a wide range of damages, particularly if warming is greater than 2 degrees Centigrade. Major areas of concern are sea-level rise, more intense hurricanes, losses of species and ecosystems, acidification of the oceans, as well as threats to the natural and cultural heritage of the planet.
|We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science. Current economic studies suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.
Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. A look at my study shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||williamnordhaus||2018-10-16 04:44:02||no||0||316916||Proj:634801||101||46947||51140||2019-05-24 08:06:15||41.308274||No||-72.9278835||Yes||576774||no||Project banner 405176.jpg||0||0||0|
|231573||Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion||Active||State||New Orleans, LA, USA||New Orleans||Orleans Parish||LA||US||Louisiana has lost 1.2 million acres of land since the 1930s, exposing communities to increased risk of flooding and threatening wildlife habitat and industries. The state is losing a football field of land every 100 minutes, and without action, Louisiana is projected to lose an additional 2,250 square miles – the equivalent of 33 Washington, D.C.s – over the next 50 years. Coastal Louisiana suffers from some of the highest rates of sea level rise and land loss in the nation, further exacerbated by storm and hurricane events. One quarter of the country’s waterborne commerce moves through Louisiana ports. Wetlands loss risks coastal fisheries and a third of the nation’s domestic oil production.||0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||waltonfoundation||2018-06-10 04:30:25||no||0||315322||Proj:690513||103||46804,60022,47156||51213,51214,51215||2018-06-11 11:26:03||29.9510658||No||-90.0715323||Yes||171353||no||Project banner 231573.jpg||0||0||0|
|158207||Who's Stealing Los Angelenos Water Supply?||,Fictional||Active||Local||Los Angeles, CA, USA||Los Angeles||Los Angeles County||CA||US||Since 1913, the Owens River had been diverted to Los Angeles, causing the ruin of the valley's economy. By the 1920s, so much water was diverted from the Owens Valley that agriculture became difficult. This led to the farmers trying to destroy the aqueduct in 1924. Los Angeles prevailed and kept the water flowing. By 1926, Owens Lake at the bottom of Owens Valley was completely dry due to water diversion||0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||whiterabbit331||2018-05-17 10:13:35||no||0||314932||Proj:267981||100||60017,15611||51184,51185,51195||2018-10-04 04:51:09||34.0522342||No||-118.2436849||Yes||565110||no||Project banner 158207.jpg||0||0||0|
Top Agencies in Environment
Top Officials in Environment