Is St. Louis Sticking to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement?

Seven mayors in the St. Louis Region have all signed on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The mayors, all from Missouri municipalities, are as follows:

• Ben Uchitelle; Clayton
• Robert G. Lowery; Florissant
• Mike Swoboda; Kirkwood
• Mark Langston; Maplewood
• Francis G. Slay; Saint Louis
• James A. Hobbs; Sunset Hills (note: John Hunzeker is current mayor)
• Joseph L. Adams; University City

From an Oct 18, 2005 press release from the Ozark Chapter of the Sierra Club we know St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay signed the agreement in October 2005:

A coalition of conservation-minded groups applauded Mayors Mark Langston of Maplewood, Joseph Adams of University City, and Francis Slay of St. Louis for making commitments to reduce global warming pollution in their cities. The event was the result of a grassroots campaign and part of the Sierra Club’s national “Cool Cities” tour. The event featured a fuel-sipping hybrid Mercury Mariner that is made in Missouri.

At the news conference in front of Maplewood City Hall, the mayors were presented with certificates of thanks for signing onto the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, an effort initiated by the mayor of Seattle earlier this year and now supported by 185 mayors nationwide. Mayor Slay, who signed the agreement last week, did not attend, but his office provided a written statement:

“`I am particularly interested in considering environmental policies that will create jobs for the residents of our City,’” said Slay in the statement. “`As we assess implementation of new policies, their potential to create new jobs will be the priority consideration.’”

The list of mayors is now over 300 strong. Here is the agreement to which they’ve signed on:

ENDORSING THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously adopted strong policy resolutions calling for cities, communities and the federal government to take actions to reduce global warming pollution; and

WHEREAS, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international community’s most respected assemblage of scientists, has found that climate disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of global warming pollution; and

WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate disruption include average global sea level increases of four to eight inches during the 20th century; a 40 percent decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness; and nine of the ten hottest years on record occurring in the past decade; and

WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now predicted by the scientific community will cause extremely costly disruption of human and natural systems throughout the world including: increased risk of floods or droughts; sea-level rises that interact with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat waves; more frequent and greater concentrations of smog; and

WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to address climate disruption, went into effect in the 141 countries that have ratified it to date; 38 of those countries are now legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and

WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than five percent of the world’s population, is responsible for producing approximately 25 percent of the world’s global warming pollutants; and

WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target for the U.S. would have been 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and

WHEREAS, many leading US companies that have adopted greenhouse gas reduction programs to demonstrate corporate social responsibility have also publicly expressed preference for the US to adopt precise and mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a means by which to remain competitive in the international marketplace, to mitigate financial risk and to promote sound investment decisions; and

WHEREAS, state and local governments throughout the United States are adopting emission reduction targets and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan, coming from Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike; and

WHEREAS, many cities throughout the nation, both large and small, are reducing global warming pollutants through programs that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as reduced energy bills, green space preservation, air quality improvements, reduced traffic congestion, improved transportation choices, and economic development and job creation through energy conservation and new energy technologies; and

WHEREAS, mayors from around the nation have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as amended at the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, reads: The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement

A. We urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels;

B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes

1) clear timetables and emissions limits and

2) a flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries; and

C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and communities such as:

1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan.

2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities;

3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit;

4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in “green tags”, advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology;

5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money;

6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use;

7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program or a similar system;

8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel;

9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production;

10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community;

11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and

12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting and urges mayors from around the nation to join this effort. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The U.S. Conference of Mayors will work in conjunction with ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability and other appropriate organizations to track progress and implementation of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended b73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting.

I’ve searched through St. Louis’ website looking for any evidence of action on the part of the Slay administration with respect to this agreement but I’ve come up empty handed. In fact, in searching the city’s press release system for the dates in which the agreement would have been signed I could not find a single mention of even having agreed to the concept. Who is working on this initiative? In particular I like #2 above:

Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities

Well, in St. Louis we are sticking with our 1947 pro-sprawl zoning which supersedes our new strategic land use plan so we are not doing so well on the reduction of sprawl. If fact, the mayor seemed supportive of Ald. Florida’s McDonald’s drive-thru in a walkable urban community and is advocating reducing public park land. I’ve heard nothing of looking into bio-diesel for the city’s fleet of trucks or hybrids for city vehicles. I have not even seen the establishment of any kind of committee or group to begin investigating options for compliance by 2012, much less any real action.

The City of Clayton has an ‘Ecology and Environmental Awareness Committee’ (see April 2006 Minutes). Looks like Clayton is talking with Centene about LEED certification for their project — a start. It also looks like Clayton is making room in their budget for hybrid vehicles for city use. Nothing major but clearly open progress.
In August of 2006 Kirkwood announced an award:

The City of Kirkwood has received an award from the U.S. EPA Blue Skyways Collaborative for efforts to reduce air pollution and decrease U.S. consumption of foreign oil. The city’s efforts have included the city fleet’s Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Bio-diesel program; the city’s commitment to the Mayors’ Climate Protection Plan known as “Cool Cities”; Kirkwood Electric’s “Plug in Partnership” and energy savings program with LED street lights; and the Sanitation Division’s recycling program.

I found nothing on the websites for Maplewood, Florissant or Sunset Hills. On University City’s website I found a newsletter announcing the signing but nothing beyond that. Looks like Clayton and Kirkwood are leading the region in this area.

Did the idea of Leed certification come up in the talks between the city over Ballpark Village? If not, why? And where is the new zoning to make the 2005 adoption of the Strategic Land Use plan meaningful? Otherwise, the land use plan becomes yet another long-series of plans trumpeted and then added to the pile in city hall to collect dust.

It is certainly hard to acheive a goal without putting forth any effort to get there. Budgets are always tight and time is limited, you must have the political will to make it happen — otherwise don’t sign the agreement. Mayor Slay: do something or ask that your name be removed from the list!

Speaking of political will, I wonder if our aldermen even know about this agreement… I’m also curious to ask Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury and his challenger Ald. Lewis Reed how they feel about the agreement and what they think the city should be doing (or not doing) in this area.

Loughborough Commons: Getting the Lead Out?

I’m more than a little confused how DESCO plans to deal with lead contamination at Loughborough Commons. Site contamination, you might recall from a prior post, was among reasons cited in a report on why it was in the public’s interest to blight the site and offer tax incentives for redevelopment.

Today’s Post-Dispatch indicates removal as the means of remediation (emphasis mine):

A Desco spokesman said the company would finish preparing the ground before signing any additional leases. Among the tasks is removing lead residue from a site formerly used to make paint, the spokesman said.

Last week the Suburban Journal had a piece on the contamination issue that also seemed to suggest removal (emphasis mine):

“There is lead underground,” said Lori Willis, a spokeswoman for Schnuck Markets, Inc. “When it is removed as part of Phase 2 of our project, the work will be done in accordance with state and federal laws and under the guidance of the (state) Department of Natural Resources.”“DESCO is experienced in handling this. They don’t anticipate any problems and they will follow all safety procedures relative to the lead removal process,” Willis said.

But in the same article it is suggested the solution is not removal, but containment (emphasis mine):

The remediation effort will primarily involve containing the material in place so that it poses no risk, Willis said.The lead isn’t harmful if it’s covered, Brian McCurren, an environmental engineer for the state Department of Natural Resources, said. It’s only harmful to construction workers who come into contact with it, he said.

From the looks of the site they are going with containment but it seems odd even the spokesperson keeps saying removal.

Grand Opening, 8 More Miles of St. Louis’ MetroLink Light Rail System

Metro & elected officials kicked off a series of ribbon cuttings this morning at the Forest Park Station in the City of St. Louis. This station was part of the original 1993 alignment but it was completely rebuilt to serve as a transfer station where the line now splits off to the airport vs. Shrewsbury.

I managed to stay ahead of the train and make it to a number of station openings: Forsyth, Brentwood and Shrewsbury. Below are videos taken at these openings. Interviews with a number of officials look and sound great but unfortunately they are not sync’d with each other (I can’t complain as YouTube is free). Many thanks to Pete at ArchCafe for giving me guidance on converting the clips from the camera format to Apple’s Quicktime Format (mp4) so the sound is sync’d.

You can also look at my photos from the opening on Flickr.

As you will learn in the videos this corridor has been held for more than a decade, awaiting this use. Also, the ribbon cutting was not done by a big pair of scissors but at each station they had ribbon that broke away as the train pulled in.

Arriving at Forsyth Station in University City

This is the big circular hole in the ground and yes, this is University City — barely! A local band was playing before and after the train arrived, keeping the crowd entertained. A number of vendors set up on the sidewalk just outside the station. One managed to block the artsy bike rack.

… Continue Reading

Come for the Pesto, Stay for the Documentary

September 16th is a very interesting sounding event, Pesto Feast! There are few things that I like better than a nice plate of fresh pesto but what interests me about the event is the documentary film, Ivory Perry: Pioneer in the Struggle Against Lead Poisoning.

Civil rights activist Ivory Perry grabbed S.t Louis headlines in the 1960s for his daring acts of civil disobediance, such as lying down in the street to stop traffic for the cause. He was shocked to discover that lead poisoning was ruining childrens’ health. By starting a movement to eradicate this silent killer, he was one of the first to call for environmental justice.

All the details are on the image at right. If you click on the image you’ll be taken to the event website which has even more information on the pesto and Mr. Perry.

– Steve

GM, Bush & CARB Killed the Electric Car

Man I am pissed off. I just sent an email to General Motors which helped but only a little. Why am I so angry? I saw the documentary ‘Who Killed the Electric Car‘ at the Hi-Point Friday night.

Basically, GM F’d up big time. They started their electric vehicle program in 1988 with a concept car shown in 1990 and entering limited production in 1996 (the EV1). GM was actually out front and ahead of the curve on this one. Toyota & Honda, today’s leaders in hybrid technology, were following GM! In 2000 GM dropped the EV1 in favor of the Hummer and other large gas guzzling SUVs (Ford did the same thing). Today GM and Ford both are struggling to be profitable as free market consumers continue to purchase fewer and fewer of their products. They are scrambling to close plants and fire workers to remain solvent. Meanwhile, other manufacturers such as Toyota and Honda are opening new plants in the U.S. to meet increased demand for their products.

But the stupidity didn’t stop at the GM & Ford Board of Directors. No, the stupidity continued at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and finally stopping at the Oval office with Dubbya. Before all the free market people start bitching about how we cannot force people to drive tiny cars please read carefully — government policy has been and continues to encourage the use of large vehicles and the burning of fossil fuels. From tax incentives offered for corporate vehicles to not improving requirements for average fuel economy to dropping the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate government policy has encouraged the proliferation of large vehicles and the stagnation of the U.S. auto industry.

Pollution and dependence upon foreign oil continue to be major issues. Had CARB stuck to their requirement for ZEVs (2% in 1998, 5% by 2001 and 10% by 2003) we may be well on our road to cleaner air and not be fighting a war over oil. Instead the Bush administration and others are pushing hydrogen fuel cells as the wave of the future. However, like electric cars, R&D takes time and money. Many experts say affordable fuel cell vehicles are a good 15-20 years away.

In the meantime we are supposed to continue burning fuel in internal combustion engines using alternate fuels. The 85% ethanol blend E85 is being promoted as a green product for flex-fuel vehicles and Biodiesel has similar claims. Here is the problem, it takes a lot of energy to grow corn or other products and process them into the so-called green fuels. With the exception of biodiesel made from waste, both are at best a break-even in terms of overall energy consumption and offer little difference from gasoline with respect to emissions.

We were so close and GM was leading the way. Yes, GM a leader! The movie assigns blame to GM, big oil and others for killing the electric car. I pretty much agree with their conclusions.

Of course, electric vehicles are not dead. What is dead is the mandate for a percentage of a manufacturer’s vehicles to be zero emissions. With that GM and Ford can talk about their hybrid vehicles that don’t get as good of milage as my ’06 Scion or even a 10-year old Saturn. Good job guys!

Zap (Zero Air Pollution):

First I want to disclose that I have a miniscule amount of stock in this company. They’ve got some interesting products, including a cute new 2-seater. Alas, some of these are way above average in cost. ZAP is also an importer of the Mercedes-built smart that I am quite fond of.

GEM (Global Electric Motors, LLC):

This company makes the electric vehicles you may have seen around downtown of late. A couple of developers have these and I know at least one loft owner that does. These are considered a Low Speed Vehicle (LSV) which has less requirements for being driven on the road. They are electronically limited to 25mph. This class of vehicle are often referred to as the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) as use is often limited to the immediate neighborhood. This company is a subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler.

A number of vehicles exist on the market, some costing well over $100,000 but offering performance that you’d expect from a car costing that much.

GM is responding to the film with their own take on the situation (click here). Here is what GM says are the facts:

GM invested more than $1 billion in the EV1 program, which included money for installing a charging infrastructure and for marketing the product.

Even with extensive publicity, award-winning advertising and customer incentives the Electric Vehicle program was not a commercially viable business.

GM leveraged advanced technology to create the Saturn Vue Green Line Hybrid. It will hit showrooms later this summer, incorporating a new, more affordable gas-electric technology.

Nobody is disputing GM’s investment. However, the film disputes claims about demand, basically saying the advertising campaign was botched and that GM discouraged anyone from leasing an EV1. GM is not making a very good case in my view for disputing this claim. And finally we have a hybrid version of an existing Saturn Vue SUV that GM says will get 27 city and 32 highway (read review). Wow, those are horrible numbers. GM’s advantage is the Vue’s pricetag being about $7,000 or so less than the nearest competition, the Ford Escape Hybrid. However, the Saturn is considered a “mild” hybrid as it uses a regular gasoline engine for acceleration from stop rather than electric motors as on more traditional hybrids. It is the use of the electric motors to accelerate that enable cars like the Toyota Prius to get their outstanding milage.

I have to wonder what if CARB hadn’t lessoned the requirements and the various manufacturers had met the 10% rule by 2003. Would 10%+ of us in present day 2006 be driving electric cars? If so, things would certainly have come to a halt after our recent power outages caused by storms. How sad would that be to not be able to leave your hot house because your electric car needs charging?

The big downside to full electrics over hybrids like the Prius is battery life. With hybrids it is thought the batteries will actually last the life of the car as they are never fully charged or drained. When it comes to disposal of the vehicle that is a good thing. With full electrics I have to wonder what the environmental impact would be with all those batteries being manufactured and then disposed of every 2-3 years.

Ultimately the most sustainable car will combine a number of technologies, we’ll have the flex-fuel (or biodiesel) plug-in hybrid. What’s that you say? Imagine a future generation hybrid that uses E85 for the internal combustion engine (or a biodiesel) but needs very little because you plugged the car into the grid allowing it to act as a full electric until the batteries are nearly dead. That, combined with a solar roof, will be the car of the future. It will not be hydrogen powered. For a list of manufacturers that make electric vehicles, including scooters, see the Electric Auto Association.

Simply replacing our existing vehicles with some new technology isn’t going to solve many other problems and it may in fact create others. Reducing auto trips and distances traveled must be part of a bigger picture.

– Steve