Monday, June 9th, 2008
While the State of California plays with the idea of restricting growth based on adequate water access, Los Angeles continues to move forward on its plan to recycle waste water. Los Angeles is modeling its plan on a similar project already in use in Orange County. The Los Angeles Times describes the OC plan as:
“There, officials use multistage, state-of-the-art reverse osmosis, microfiltration and ultraviolet light exposure with hydrogen peroxide to take sewage effluent to near-distilled water quality. The water is then pumped to spreading grounds, where it filters through purifying substrata to mix with underground supplies serving 2.3 million residents across the county.”
An interesting graphic representing the Los Angeles plan can be found here.
The big question to us seems to be: is Los Angeles taking a responsible step towards the continued health and sustainability of our society, or is it inadvertently exposing the population to a process that is unproven and potentially dangerous?
While current studies have shown that the process of recycling waste water removes known pollutants and dangers, we wonder about the potential for chemicals that are only recently being found to be present and dangerous in drinking water, such as pharmaceuticals and antibiotics, as well as other unknown dangers that may come to light in the future. Intuitively, it seems a little scary to think that we (and generations to come) will be drinking the same reused water that has been looped multiple times throughout the system, although scientifically, no heightened risks have yet been identified. Nonetheless, for something so integral to human health as drinking water, it seems we should be very sure about what we are doing before implementing such a plan.
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Human Health, Los Angeles, Water | No Comments »
Wednesday, June 4th, 2008
The world famous ferris wheel at the Santa Monica Pier got an upgrade last week. The new wheel, which cost $1.5 million, contains 160,000 energy efficient LED lights and will draw energy from solar panels installed on the pier from the previous wheel. The new ferris wheel joins the Santa Monica Civic Center parking garage as the latest local iconic structure to have an environmentally friendly design.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Energy, Green Design, Of Interest | No Comments »
Monday, May 19th, 2008
For anyone who grew up in Southern California in the late 1980’s or 90’s, the concept of water conservation is a familiar one. However a concerted public effort to conserve water in this arid region over the last decade or so has been surprisingly absent. This is all going to change due to a major water conservation and reuse plan introduced by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa.
With concerns over a growing population, which is predicted to increase LA’s water demand by 15% in the next 25 years, coupled with fears that climate change is going to decrease the already limited natural water supply, it appears government officials are beginning to take action.
The Mayor’s plan to reduce water usage entails a combination of enforcing already existing water laws regarding the watering of lawns and sidewalks, as well as introducing some new stricter restrictions. However, it is the plan to recycle local water that is cause for some controversy. Currently one of the largest single sources for LA’s water is the groundwater basin under the San Fernando Valley. However years and years of pumping out this water has left the basin running out of new supplies. To deal with this shortage, the Mayor intends to revive a proposal from years ago that would use highly treated waste water to refill the Valley’s underground water basin.
While this proposal has elicited cries of “no water from the toilet to the tap,” it is clear that dramatic steps are required to continue supporting this massive civilization we have placed in the middle of a desert. According to the plan, half of the 15% projected increase in water use is to come from conservation efforts, and half is to come from recycling of waste water. The plan is projected to cost $1.5 billion in infrastructure and conservation programs.
Photo credit. [The photo is of the Owens Valley in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, where much of LA’s water is taken from.]
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Los Angeles, Water | No Comments »
Monday, May 5th, 2008
Since the New York State Legislature failed to approve congestion pricing in Manhattan, the US Dept. of Transportation has offered the federal funds that were slated for New York to Los Angeles. In order to receive these funds, Los Angeles will be required to implement congestion pricing on short stretches of Interstate 10, 210, and possibly the 110. This will not be the first time congestion pricing is incorporated into the Interstate Highway system, but it will be the most visible.
The $213 million being offered would be used to convert carpool lanes into congestion pricing toll lanes. The HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes would become HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes.
We are in favor of trying out this partial solution to Los Angeles’ traffic woes. The way we manage society is always a balancing act, and every citizen will not always be happy with the ultimate solution. Congestion pricing critics argue that driving on the roads should be an egalitarian experience and that the rich shouldn’t be able to go faster just because they have more money. However, as long as the funds raised from congestion pricing go towards improving public transportation, the pricing system actually does benefit the poor, as they usually rely on public transit more than the rich.
Our only complaint is that the funds are slated to go towards the purchase of about 60 buses that will use the new toll lanes. Given the dire need for expansion of public rail in LA, and its constant budget shortfalls, we would prefer to see at least some of the congestion pricing funds go towards rail development.
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Los Angeles, Transportation | No Comments »
Friday, April 18th, 2008
A study conducted by a research team at Purdue University ranked U.S. cities based upon their aggregate carbon emissions. According to this article, the calculations were based upon CO2 outputs from the burning of fossil fuels from sources including factories, power plants, roads, etc.
An assistant professor involved with the study stated, “It’s interesting that the top county, Harris, Texas, is on the list because of industrial emissions, but the second highest CO2 emitting county, Los Angeles, California, is on the list because of automobile emissions. So it’s not just cars, and it’s not just factories, that are emitting the carbon dioxide, but a combination of different things.”
This project was funded by the federal government and involved Purdue University, Colorado State University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The numbers next to the city names are for millions of tons of carbon emitted per year.
1. Harris, Texas (Houston), 18.625 million tons of carbon per year
2. Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles), 18.595
3. Cook, Ill. (Chicago), 13.209
4. Cuyahoga, Ohio (Cleveland), 11.144
5. Wayne, Mich. (Detroit), 8.270
6. San Juan, N.M. (Farmington), 8.245
7. Santa Clara, Calif. (San Jose), 7.995
8. Jefferson, Ala. (Birmingham), 7.951
9. Wilcox, Ala. (Camden), 7.615
10. East Baton Rouge, La. (Baton Rouge), 7.322
11. Titus, Texas (Mt. Pleasant), 7.244
12. Carbon, Pa. (Jim Thorpe), 6.534
13. Porter, Ind. (Valparaiso), 6.331
14. Jefferson, Ohio (Steubenville), 6.278
15. Indiana, Pa. (Indiana), 6.224
16. Middlesex, Mass. (Boston metro area), 6.198
17. Bexar, Texas (San Antonio), 6.141
18. Hillsborough, Fla. (Tampa), 6.037
19. Suffolk, N.Y. (New York metro area), 6.030
20. Clark, Nev. (Las Vegas) 5.955
Photo credit.
Hat tip to MetroRiderLA.com
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in General, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Los Angeles | No Comments »
Tuesday, April 1st, 2008
Living in Los Angeles, we’ve kept a close eye on New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to enact congestion pricing in Manhattan. This proposal got another boost yesterday when the city council approved a measure urging the State Legislature to adopt the plan.
As we noted in a previous post, some of the highlights of the plan include: charging all drivers entering Manhattan below 60th Street an $8 fee between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., requiring the revenue (estimated at nearly half a billion a year) to be reinvested into mass transit, and providing cost breaks for the poor.
The only hurdle left is State Legislature approval, which if given, will allow congestion pricing in Manhattan to begin as early as March 31, 2009.
It is our feeling that this system will substantially increase the quality of life in New York City. Of course, congestion pricing is somewhat controversial because it takes a public resource (roadways) and charges a fee for their use. Fortunately, New Yorkers are used to paying for roadway access. (Just work backwards from the West Coast term “freeway.”) Therefore, imposing another toll on New York drivers would not be an unnatural concept.
As for the argument that it unfairly discriminates against the poor, who have less money to spend on tolls, the answer to this criticism is contained within the proposal itself. By reinvesting the revenue generated into mass transit, poor people (who rely more heavily on mass transit than the rich) should reap much of the benefit.
In attempting to apply congestion pricing to a city like Los Angeles, these two points, unfortunately will not be quite as applicable. First, most California drivers have never paid a cent for roadway access (aside from a handful of bridges and private roads). Convincing them to pay for something that has been, up to that point, completely free, will be difficult.
Second, unlike New York, Los Angeles has a horrendous public transit system. The way to reinvest any revenues from congestion pricing is not nearly as clear as in New York, which has a fully developed and integrated public rail (and bus) system. Nonetheless, as we noted recently, mass transit in LA is possible (and once was amazing), so maybe the windfall revenue from congestion pricing would be the catalyst needed to finally get a real solution implemented.
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in General, Governmental Regulations, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Los Angeles, New York, Transportation | No Comments »
