Transit Agencies are increasingly investing in Marketing to boost ridership. Climate change is sometimes a focus.

The automobile industry spent about $21 billion on advertising in 2007, according to DM News. Clearly they would not spend this kind of money to convince us all that we can’t live without a car unless it actually worked.  If public transit agencies want to increase their “customer base,” why are they not advertising too?  Apparently, some are.

Los Angeles’ Metro is marketing its products and services much like the auto industry with the end goal of reducing traffic, cleaning the air and reducing commute times. The streets of LA sport buses of bright colors and a number of playful ads on billboards encouraging Angelinos to take the bus, rail or carpool.  Matt Raymond, the Chief Communications Officer for Metro and the creator of LA Metro’s marketing push, said the marketing team aimed to make public transportation cool.

The ads and the re-branding of Metro seem to be having success.  The recent passing of Measure R – a 1/2 cent sales tax that is expected to generate 40 billion dollars over the next 30 years for improving transit services in LA – required a 2/3 vote and showed that the vast majority of Angelinos, most of whom commute by private car, are willing to pay for transit out of their own pockets.  Metro’s marketing is also finding success in convincing people to start using its services, with the percentage of discretionary riders (those people who have the choice to commute by car or transit) rising from 24% to 36%.

Smaller transit agencies have tried similar measures.  In 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality District gave grants to transit agencies around the San Francisco Bay Area for marketing to help promote walking, biking, and taking transit.  For Petaluma Transit, it worked.  Ridership increased 20% during the campaign.  Petaluma’s marketing campaign also included connecting driving with global warming by asking people to, “Cool the Planet One Ride at a Time.”

While current budget crunches may mean less money for transit operations, as funds recover, it will be imperative to support expanded transit services with marketing.  Such advertising can help create a culture shift away from the use of personal cars and towards more sustainable lifestyles.  It may be obvious to transit agencies that driving causes traffic, pollution, and climate change, but the average person still needs a reminder and a convenient alternative if they are going to ditch their car for good.

Richard Register of Ecocity Builders has created a rendering of the de-urbanization of now sprawling Denver, CO. TDR could help achieve this end with the benefit of reducing vehicle miles traveled and thus, carbon emissions and restoring needed farmland.

When local governments want to encourage density and prevent or undo suburban sprawl, one of their most powerful tools for doing so may be transfer of development rights (TDR) programs. The loss of farmland to suburban development and the subsequent loss of forest to farmland is a big piece of the climate change problem. TDR programs have the potential to become a major part of the solution both by increasing density and thus, decreasing vehicle miles traveled per person, and by preventing said deforestation.

How TDRs work
At first, a region may be completely devoted to agriculture. However, over time, as a region’s farms face development pressure from a growing urban area, pressure to develop makes preserving such farmlands economically inferior to developing the land. When left to traditional zoning, market pressure often causes low-density development, aka suburban sprawl.

At this point, regional government leaders can decide to preserve their agricultural spaces. Under traditional zoning the only option would be to tell some farmers that they cannot sell their land for development. Instead the government can institute a TDR program. Farmers in a less dense corner of the county can sell their development rights to builders in an area designated for more density.

Benefits
TDR programs are very useful because they offer landowners a way to recapture some lost economic value when a property is down-zoned from residential use to agricultural use for preservation purposes. TDR programs do not replace zoning, but a well-constructed TDR program reduces the demand for zoning variances, since developers will use the market to secure additional development rights.

TDRs also offer a way to fund development that is beneficial to an entire region using free market forces. As regions begin to address their greenhouse gas emissions, TDRs can play a vital role in increasing density and decreasing per capita emissions from vehicle miles traveled in a region. Moreover, developers benefit from the certainty that TDR programs offer around zoning laws. Instead of incurring the costs and risks of negotiating for variances, developers can exceed certain zoning regulations simply by purchasing development rights from other property owners.

While zoning rules can change over time and with new administrations, TDR programs discontinue development rights forever so that public values such as open space and historic buildings can be restored and permanently protected.

The Process
While TDR programs hold a lot of promise for reducing the farmland lost to suburban development each year (and the subsequent loss of forest to create more farmland), TDR programs only work in conjunction with strong zoning ordinances and good comprehensive planning. Building political consensus on zoning issues is always a challenge, but vitally important.

The Challenges
Successful TDR programs start with strong comprehensive plans. TDR programs may be more complicated and expensive to implement than traditional zoning, as local governments must oversee deed restrictions, easement documents and other related documents. Since successful programs require community buy-in, local governments must market the program to citizens, real estate professionals, lawyers, assessors and planners.

As parts of the U.S. like Flint, Michigan begin to de-urbanize, local governments may see new opportunities to use TDR programs to fight deforestation and sprawl and thus, climate change. While this process may not be as swift as Joseph Conrad’s invading jungle, it has the potential to solve many of our largest problems simultaneously.

Source: Jason Hanly-Forde, George Homsy, Katherine Lieberknecht, Remington Stone, Cornell University

Freiburg is known as an ecocity. The newly built neighbourhoods of Vauban and Rieselfeld were developed and built according to the idea of sustainability. The citizens of Freiburg are known in Germany for their love of cycling and recycling.

This past December, as climate talks in Copenhagen commenced, I sat in talks in Istanbul listening to local government representatives, building professionals and academics discuss concrete actions that can and have been taken to reduce greenhouse gases in cities around the world. The 8th annual Ecocity World Summit posed a compelling alternative to the fights and frustrations that mired the climate talks of Copenhagen in conflict. Cities represent about 75% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and the birth of the “eoocity” concept a few decades ago may have marked the beginning of our most tangible solution yet. From recycling, wastewater treatment and green building to smart urban planning, public transit and renewable energy generation, ecocity plans and ideas have emerged with a list of seemingly “no-brainer” action items to pursue.

While in theory, the “ecocity” may seem like a very straightforward concept, in practice the challenges prove tough to transcend. The urban and suburban sprawl that plagues regions in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand may seem like an almost insurmountable barrier to reducing carbon emissions. However, in Istanbul, a city of 13 million and growing, sprawl is compounded by the fact that much of the development is unplanned. This is also true for other mega-cities like Rio de Janeiro where families often add stories to their own homes, creating unsound structures that may collapse during natural disasters. Such unplanned settlements also make it difficult to create underground tunnels for a metro system, as there may be no record of where gas and electricity lines run underground. Traffic and a lack of environmental practices like wastewater treatment are also a major issue for such megacities.

Historical considerations also present challenges, as the rich cultural heritage of ancient cities demands a certain authenticity of design. Moreover, as cities like Istanbul go to dig tunnels for eco-features like an underground metro, they may discover archeological treasures that force them to stop digging.

In modern cities of intense density like Hong Kong, Tei Pei, and Singapore, a lack of space to erect renewable power generation and urban farming operations create challenges to meeting energy and food demands without importing food and energy. In many developing nations, a lack of laws to regulate pollution and a lack of enforcement for existing environmental laws also create little incentive to move towards renewable energy. Some regions lack the resources to produce renewable energy, forcing them to make a decision between a local energy economy and a clean energy economy.

Approaches to creating an ecocity to solve these problems vary. According to Elizabeth Rapoport of the University College of London, there are three main categories of ecocities. Ecovillages, such as Cerro Gordo in the U.S. are small pastoral communities. Masterplanned ecocities such as Tianjin, China and Masdar, Abu Dabi, are new cities that incorporate ecological principles from day one. Models in already retrofitted ecocities like Curitiba, Brazil and Freiburg, Germany have the greatest potential to transform the already developed world, where builders and planners will have to make improvements on the existing infrastructure and building stock. Taking lessons from other more advanced cities will be an important step in the process if cities want to avoid reinventing the wheel. Conversely, avoiding some of the mistakes that more established cities have made will be crucial for nascent cities in the developing world.

The term “ecocity,” like other trendy terms including “green” and “sustainable” will likely be the subject of abuse over the coming years and decades. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the cities of the world, the sooner the international community comes together to define an ecocity that really does live up to the name, the more clear direction and success cities will have in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution while improving the quality of life for their residents. Hopefully the local governments involved in redesigning our cities can learn to work together more effectively than did the participants in Copenhagen. Unfortunately, that’s a low bar.

In an ideal smart grid system, energy users have a “smart meter” that tracks their energy consumption (and how much it’s costing them) in real time and allows them to make adjustments accordingly.  In addition, ample renewable power is available on the grid, and renewable power producers can sell their excess power back to the grid easily through “net metering.”  As smart grids slowly emerge across the globe with a patchwork of features, we discover some exciting new projects and programs, as well as some generous room for improvement.

The Southeast Asian island city-state of Singapore recently announced that its Energy Market Authority (EMA) is launching a three-year pilot project aimed at helping households and businesses save more on electricity bills.  EMA’s “Intelligent Energy System” project will develop smart electric grid solutions including the deployment of more smart meters that provide households with real-time information on electricity usage. Such information can help residents shift demand away from peak periods. The smart grid also will ensure reliability in electricity supply, using renewable energy sources, and will allow electric cars to be used as an energy storage system to feed power back to the grid during peak periods, also known as V2G (Vehicle-to-Grid).

As far as generation of renewable energy goes, according to AsiaIsGreen.com, Singapore has been putting in much effort to attract renewable energy companies to Singapore, yet the local adoption of renewable energy has been lackluster. There are no renewable energy targets specified by the government and the lack of subsidies for the technology means that renewable energy is still not price competitive with conventional forms.  The government prefers to have local adoption of renewable energy (as opposed to piping it in) because they believe it is an investment for the future, ensures energy security and retains talent, creating jobs.  Perhaps one of the key hurdles in Singapore is the intense urban density of the city, which offers few viable places to erect solar panels and wind turbines.

Meanwhile, American cities are making their own strides toward a smart grid.  As far as smart metering goes, as of January in 2009, smart meters represented 4.7% of installed meters in the U.S., up from 1% in 2006, according to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) report on demand response and advanced metering programs.  In February of 2007, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), the largest municipal utility in the U.S. with close to 1.5 million customers, announced that it would expand its advanced metering infrastructure serving its commercial and industrial customers. LADWP had already purchased 9,000 smart meters as part of an earlier deployment initiative completed in 2004.  The utility awarded the new contract to SmartSynch, a provider of wireless smart meters, who will supply 6,000 such meters to the utility, to operate on AT&T’s wireless data network.

While American utilities are beginning to track energy use and are expanding renewable energy production, overall rates of net metering adoption (allowing solar panel owners to sell energy back to the grid) leave something to be desired.  A new report from the Network for New Energy Choices highlights net metering standards for various U.S. states. “Freeing the Grid 2009” (pdf, 2.4 MB) shows that 27 U.S. states received A or B grades in net metering standards, up from 13 in 2007. While Oregon was lauded in the report for its best practices in net-metering, eight states – Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas – still have no net-metering program at all and 15 states received a failing grade.  That means nearly half of all U.S. states fail to provide adequate net metering programs, according to the report.

Clearly if U.S. communities hope to reduce carbon emissions, the utilities will have to adopt policies that encourage the installation of solar and wind technologies (net metering).  They will also have to invest in tools that actually measure how much electricity is being used.  Nearly 95% of all U.S. utilities currently employ energy management practices akin to trying to manage weight without owning a scale. Perhaps by looking to cities like Singapore as a model, American cities can learn how to generate tax revenue via smart metering investments, while Singapore may have to consider renewable energy goals like LA’s, even if it means importing solar power.

A new study finds that Asia’s rising “clean technology tigers” – China, Japan, and South Korea – have already passed the U.S. in the production of virtually all clean energy technologies

Local economies that wish to harvest tax revenues from the burgeoning clean energy sector must turn to federal governments to support policies that encourage investments in clean energy. Upon examining countries that have the potential to bring in significant revenue from new clean energy technologies, it becomes clear which local communities are likely to benefit from the influx of dollars earned through selling solar, wind and other renewable energy technologies.

A major new report released today by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, is the first to comprehensively benchmark the competitiveness positions of the United States and key Asian challengers in the global clean energy race. The report – “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant” (pdf, 5.1 MB) – examines the competitive position of each nation in key clean energy technologies, including solar, wind, and nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, advanced vehicles and batteries, and high-speed rail, as well as the government strategies each nation hopes will strengthen their position in the competitive global clean technology sector. The study finds that Asia’s rising “clean technology tigers” – China, Japan, and South Korea – have already passed the United States in the production of virtually all clean energy technologies, and over the next five years, the governments of these nations will out-invest the United States three-to-one in these sectors. These Asian nations will attract a large share of private sector investments in clean energy technology, estimated to total in the trillions of dollars over the next decade.

While some U.S. firms will benefit from the establishment of joint clean tech ventures overseas, jobs and tax revenues generated by these investments will flow primarily to these Asian countries, enriching their communities and stimulating even more economic growth. The U.S. may eventually wean itself off of Middle Eastern oil, but if the country doesn’t start investing in clean energy technologies more aggressively, the U.S. may find itself addicted to clean technologies imported from Asia.

The Solar Expansion Project is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. In March, the Forest was given $400,000 to add 250 additional solar panels to a facility that already had 50 previously installed. D.J. Group from Beverly, Ohio was awarded the contract. Photo by Alex Snyder

According to the New York Times, the Indian government approved a plan last week that aims to increase energy production from solar technology to 20 gigawatts (20 million kilowatts) by 2022, up from six megawatts (6,000 kilowatts) today.  Compare that with 530,000 kilowatts of direct current solar (kWdc) connected to the grid in California and you begin to understand where India stands in the world and where it wants to go.  The Indian government will spend about 43 billion rupees ($922 million) in the first of three phases of the program, and the total cost for all three phases could approach $20 billion.  Moreover, India isn’t just setting goals, but taking action on the ground.  As I wrote in a previous post, Indian cities are partnering with U.S. cities to bring more solar power online.

While all of this seems to point to major progress in solar adoption, government officials in India estimate that they will fall 20% short of their target for new power capacity for the five years that end in 2012, according to the New York Times.  Much of the country does not have an electrical grid, so one of the first applications of solar power has been for water pumping, to begin replacing India’s four to five million diesel powered water pumps, each consuming about 3.5 kilowatts, and off-grid lighting. Some large projects have been proposed, and a 35,000 km² area of the Thar Desert has been set aside for solar power projects, enough to generate 700 to 2,100 gigawatts.  However, Indian policy makers are adamant that they will not agree to any mandated reductions in emissions.

So what determines if countries and regions will be able to meet their goals for renewable energy?

According to a new report (pdf, 4.2 MB) from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. states with strong renewable energy portfolio standards or goals tend to outperform other states in adding solar, wind, biomass and other renewable energy production facilities.

Some statistics from Environmental Leader:

• Standards: To date, 36 U.S. states have renewable energy portfolio standards or goals, and 43 have net-metering laws.
• Solar: California has close to 530,000 kilowatts of direct current solar (kWdc) connected to the grid, followed by New Jersey (70,000 kWdc), Colorado (35,000 kWdc), and Nevada (34,000 kWdc).  All these states have renewable energy portfolio standards goals of at least 20% renewables by 2021.
• Non-hydro Renewables: Excluding hydroelectric renewable energy, California leads at 24 million MWh, followed by Texas (10.2 million), Florida (4.3 million), Maine (4.2 million) and Minnesota (3.9 million).  All of these states have goals of at least 20% renewable energy by 2025, with Maine already at 30% (since 2000) and aiming for an additional 10% by 2017.

Incentives in other countries may also be driving solar installations.  Germany and Spain – where solar has been booming in recent years – now have “feed-in tariffs” that allow property owners that are producing solar power to sell it back to the grid.  Spain goes even a step further by offering the option of incentives for sales into the wholesale electricity spot market as well as fixed incentives.

In addition to other incentives, financing mechanisms are a key component of getting more solar online.  As noted in a previous post, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden recently announced that the solar financing plan that was inaugurated in Berkeley in 2007 will become a national model. The program, called Recovery Through Retrofit, creates a framework for cities, counties and states to set up tax districts that allow residential and business property owners to install solar panels and make other energy efficiency improvements. The investment will be paid off over a 20-year property tax assessment.  Moreover, the economic stimulus in the U.S. is playing its part in stimulating the solar market.  According to Reuters, the U.S. federal government this month fast-tracked more than 2.4 gigawatts of renewable energy projects in California, which may help them clear regulatory hurdles in time to qualify for stimulus funds.

Incentives, renewable portfolio standards, and financing mechanisms are proving crucial to the growth of the renewable energy market.  If nations and states don’t create standards as well as financing mechanisms for the local level, they may see their lofty goals in powerpoint presentations at UN gatherings, but they will not see the corresponding solar panels, wind turbines, etc. in the cities on the ground.

More than 200 volunteers helped to transform the turf and landscape around Petaluma City Hall into a water-saving area. The project will save the city about 3.5 million gallons of water and $25,000 annually.

All those urbanites growing organic food in the city has a certain appeal for the media, but to the average person, it may feel like a temporary marginal fad at best. So why are city governments around the world taking it so seriously? As it turns out, this trend has the potential to solve some of the worst problems that cities face – namely, climate change and water shortages – with a simple element: Topsoil.

Over the last several decades, many of the rainforests that act as our “carbon sinks” have been slashed and burned to make way for agricultural production. Likewise, grasslands and savannas in Africa and America are routinely burned to make space for agriculture. The farms that consequently inhabit those places feed the world’s cities – from Buenos Aires to Anchorage, Tokyo to Sydney, and everywhere in between. Moreover, as cities expand to make room for sprawling communities, former farmlands are converted to suburbs because land-holders typically sell to the highest bidder – developers. Consequently, more farmland must be created and more wild places (habitat) destroyed to make room for more farms.

The global market for agricultural products has obvious implications for climate change, as carbon-sequestering forests are cleared and products are shipped long distances using vast amounts of fossil fuels. However, what may be less obvious is the solution to feeding the world’s cities without encroaching on our wild lands and carbon sinks.

Most people know by now that forests pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, helping to fight climate change. What might be less apparent is that soil sequesters carbon with far less risk than forests. As temperatures rise due to climate change, bark beetles have begun to infest many of North America’s forests, killing off thousands of acres of forest and priming these vast swaths of land for massive forest fires. Once the trees are dead, one lighting strike or one match will be all it takes to send all that sequestered carbon back up into the atmosphere. If sequestering carbon in forests is our plan, this is quite a gamble.

Healthy topsoil, on the other hand, can soak up carbon with a remarkable rate of absorption and no risk of loss to the atmosphere during forest fires. Collectively, tillage management and cropping systems in the U.S. are estimated to have the potential to sequester 30–105 million metric tons of carbon per year, says R. F. Follett in an abstract on ScienceDirect. Unfortunately, we are losing topsoil around the world at an alarming rate. According to Allan Savory and Christopher Peck of Natural Investment Services, LLC, it is estimated today that our crop and range lands lose 4 tons of soil every year for every person alive. That’s 21 gigatons of soil lost to the sea, lost to productive use on land and releasing vast amounts of carbon (New Scientist, December 2006). Thus, the problem with our current practices lies not only in deforestation, but also in our astronomical loss of topsoil to the world’s oceans because of overgrazing, poor farming practices, resulting erosion, and urban runoff.

Topsoil is not the only thing we are giving away to the world’s oceans. Fresh water is systematically being diverted from our aquifers in an attempt to avoid flooding. The unintended consequence of our diversion strategy is that we are depleting our aquifers and causing severe water shortages for ourselves and for species that rely on fresh water. The water wars that happen every year in communities around the U.S. have as much to do with our ecological illiteracy as with a drought in any given year. Our cities’ lack of permeable surfaces and topsoil to store the water mean that it’s not sinking into the ground and reaching our aquifers, nor is it being caught and stored for use in the dry season. Instead, this fresh, drinkable rainwater is often contaminated by chemical lawn fertilizers, motor oil, and other products before hitting the asphalt and concrete gutters that will carry it to storm drains and ultimately, to the ocean.

Although the system may seem too set in asphalt and concrete to change, cities are catching on and, along with community-based organizations, pioneering a new pathway to solve many of their woes at once. They are addressing climate change and water shortages (and epidemic obesity) simultaneously by building sustainable local agricultural systems that feed their residents on-site while acting as a giant sponge for both water (to recharge the aquifers) and carbon.

One example of such a city is Petaluma, CA. On October 24th of this year, the City of Petaluma, along with nonprofits Daily Acts, Rebuilding Together Petaluma, and Petaluma Bounty, came together with over 200 citizens to sheet mulch 25,000 square feet of unused lawn at City Hall and install edible landscaping, community gardens, and a rooftop water catchment system. Leaders at the event spoke about carbon sequestration in the soil, replenishing the aquifer, and providing a source of local organic food for city residents. Large-scale private-public partnerships include the City of Detroit and Hantz Farm, which together may soon create the world’s largest urban farm, although it’s unclear what their plans are as far as sustainable farming practices go.

According to a U.N. climate change paper on agriculture last year, by 2030 an estimated 5.5 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent a year could be avoided by agriculture with about 89% achieved by soil carbon sequestration. Cities have an opportunity to build carbon sequestering capacity, thus potentially qualifying for carbon credits while also reaping the benefits of tax revenues from the sale of agricultural products within their borders. By creating permeable surfaces and building topsoil, cities will also begin to recharge their aquifers, avoiding the water wars with farmers that are so common in today’s system. Perhaps those urban farmers are really onto something.

Vancouver is already known for savvy city planning.

Vancouver’s Mayor Gregor Robertson recently announced an ambitious 10-year plan to make Vancouver the world’s greenest city by 2020.  Robertson presented the plan to the “Gaining Ground-Resilient Cities” conference at the Vancouver Convention Center. Robertson says that Vancouver is still far too reliant on cars and on food from far away, and that every day, the city produces too much waste and consumes too much energy and water.

Its goals are:

• Setting up a low-carbon economic development zone to attract investment for advancing renewable energy, energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies, with the object of creating 20,000 new green jobs.
• Making all new construction in the city carbon-neutral and improving efficiency of existing buildings by 20% by 2020.
• Encouraging greater green mobility by having more than 50% of residents walking, cycling or using public transit to move around the city. (According to Robertson, green travel now comprises 37% of trips).
• Reducing the amount of solid waste per capita that goes to landfills or is incinerated by 40%.
• Maintaining the highest international standards for drinking water but reducing the per-capita consumption of water by 33%.
• Achieving the cleanest air of any major city in the world.
• Becoming a global leader in urban food systems and reducing the carbon footprint of food production by 33%. Robertson wishes to take advantage of the Agricultural Land Reserve surrounding the city.
• Giving every citizen easy access to nature by providing “incomparable access to green spaces” by expanding “the world’s most spectacular urban forest in Stanley park” so that by 2020 every person would live within a five-minute walk of a park, beach or greenway. Another 150,000 trees will be planted in the city within the next 10 years.
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 33% from 2007 levels.  (According to Robertson, Vancouver currently produces less than five tons per capita – only a few European cities beat that).
• Reducing the ecological footprint of Vancouver by 33% on the way to realizing the “one-planet footprint.” Robertson said the city now has a “four-planet” level of consumption and waste, and the goal is to reduce this footprint from seven hectares to 1.8 hectares per person.

To date, many city planner look to Vancouver as an example of the best practices in urban development.  Apparently, they are just getting started.

The program is expected to greatly boost solar installations.

According to Vice President Joe Biden, the solar financing plan that sprouted in Berkeley in 2007 will become a national model. The program, called Recovery Through Retrofit, creates a framework for cities, counties and states to set up tax districts that allow residential and business property owners to install solar panels and make other energy efficiency improvements. The investment will be paid off over a 20-year property tax assessment.

Since Berkeley adopted its financing plan, cities around the nation have adopted similar models, and California, New York, Texas and 11 other states have passed legislation making it easier for municipalities to create their own financing plans. The federal plan and those adopted in most other cities allow property owners to make other energy-efficiency upgrades as well, including installing new windows, insulation and weather stripping.

Berkeley’s plan aims to eliminate the up-front cost of solar installation and to attach the debt to the home and not to the property owner (the assessment stays with the property, not the person). Property owners pay no money up front but pay about $180 a month on their property tax bill, an amount that is offset by the energy saved from generating solar power. The plan, along with federal, state and utility rebates, allows property owners to nearly break even on their investment. According to the city’s energy department, of the 40 original Berkeley participants, 38 have completed or nearly completed solar panel installation.

San Francisco recycling facility.

On October 21st, San Francisco’s Universal Recycling and Composting Ordinance took effect. The ordinance requires everyone in San Francisco to separate their refuse into recyclables, compostables and trash. According to SF Environment’s website, no one may mix recyclables, compostables or trash, or deposit refuse of one type in a collection container designated for another type. Furthermore, all properties are required to maintain and pay for adequate refuse service, but properties with insufficient space may apply for a waiver.  While residences have been required for decades to subscribe and pay for refuse collection service, this ordinance extends that requirement to commercial properties. Now any property owner who fails to maintain and pay for adequate refuse service is subject to liens, fines, and other fees. Fines can go up to $1,000, but may not exceed $100 for small generators (anyone producing up to one cubic yard of refuse per week—about six standard 32-gallon carts).  The City will not create liens without a hearing or issue fines without warnings, and fines can be appealed.  Sf Environment says on their website that they see warnings as opportunities for education, and expect fines to be levied only in egregious ongoing situations.

In addition, building owners or managers and managers of food vendors and events are required to maintain appropriate, color-coded (blue for recyclables, green for compostables and black for trash), labeled containers in convenient locations, and educate tenants, employees and contractors, including janitors, on how to separate materials. The Department of the Environment and collectors will provide free consultation, container labels, signage, educational materials, and other assistance that best suits the building.

Lastly, food vendors that provide disposable food service ware or to go containers must have appropriate containers for recyclables, compostables and trash for use by customers and visitors, placed inside near a main exit. The Department of the Environment will provide assistance to help produce zero waste events.

More information about the program is available here.

The City of San Jose also has plans to become a “Zero Waste” city.  On October 30th of 2007, the City of San Jose, California adopted a Green Vision. Part of that green vision is a “Zero Waste” initiative that will divert 100% of the city’s waste away from land fills. As of that time, the city recycled 62% of their garbage and trash citywide.

For more infomation on their program, click here.