One thing you can say about the Los Angeles Times, they are consistent in their miscoverage of global warming.

On January 27, they committed “journalistic malpractice,” as climatologist Michael Mann tweeted, for omitting any mention of global warming whatsoever in their article seeking to explain why the U.S. “seems to have largely escaped winter.”

On Groundhog day, coincidentally enough, they did it again.  Hmm.  Maybe this is like the movie and they are just going to keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again…..

As the L.A. Times “explains” in the article:

“It’s mild,” said Pastelok, a meteorologist from AccuWeather, in one of the bigger understatements of the season.

“The departures have been way above normal this season, maybe in a top five or top 10 category,” he said when asked to rank how unusual the winter from the Plains eastward had been in terms of temperatures and lack of snow.

The situation has stymied forecasters, who study previous years’ patterns to predict the future. This year has been unique because even when there have been cold snaps, they have been extremely brief and followed by long, mild stretches.

If only scientists had predicted years ago that spewing billions and billions of tons of heat trapping greenhouse gases into the air would cause more frequent extreme heat waves — ones that covered a bigger area and lasted far longer than before.

And no, confusionists and their enablers, those scientists didn’t say that global warming would be responsible for 100% of all heat waves.  But we are now pushing so far beyond the historical norm that we are seeing  unprecedented uber-extreme heat waves (see Hansen et al: “Extreme Heat Waves … in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 Were ‘Caused’ by Global Warming”).

The good news is that while the L.A. Times remains clueless, NBC news got the story just right — global warming piles the heat on top of whatever natural variability, like La Niña, we see.  Here’s their excellent story on the heat wave so unusual, people were “calling it JUNuary”:

Again, one can always tell the difference between good  journalism and not so good journalism by whether they quote real climate scientists who have actually studied the issue in question.

In this case, they went to the source, Dr. Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).  You can read about his work here:  “Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.”  NCAR explained their findings in a news release:

Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

“Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States,” says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting.”

Of course, it’s not warm winters that cause the big problem, it’s the blistering summers.

Here’s a Stanford release for Climatic Change study (PDF here) I wrote about in June:

Stanford climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers

The tropics and much of the Northern Hemisphere are likely to experience an irreversible rise in summer temperatures within the next 20 to 60 years if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, according to a new climate study by Stanford University scientists….

“According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years,” said the study’s lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh, The study, based on observations and models, finds that most major countries, including the United States, are “likely to face unprecedented climate stresses even with the relatively moderate warming expected over the next half-century.”

I interviewed Diffenbaugh for my book, Hell and High Water, and in 2008 wrote about his earlier work in a post titled, “When can we expect very high surface temperatures?”

Bottom line: By century’s end, extreme temperatures of up to 122°F would threaten most of the central, southern, and western U.S. Even worse, Houston and Washington, DC could experience temperatures exceeding 98°F for some 60 days a year.

The peak temperature analysis comes from a Geophysical Research Letters paper that focused on the annual-maximum “once-in-a-century” temperature. The key scientific point is that “the extremes rise faster than the means in a warming climate.”

The results, depicted above (in °C), are quite remarkable, especially when you consider that this is just the A1B scenario. In 2100, A1B hits about 700 ppm with average global temperatures “only” about 3°C (5 F) warmer than today.

In fact, on our current emissions path, a 3C temperature rise will happen much sooner (see Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C  warming by 2100 on current emissions path and M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F).   And remember, the worst-case scenario is that this happens by mid-century [see Royal Society special issue details ‘hellish vision’ of 7°F (4°C) world — which we may face in the 2060s!]

On our current emissions path, these record temperatures could be seen closer to 2060 than 2100:

… values in excess of 50°C [122°F] in Australia, India, the Middle East, North Africa, the Sahel and equatorial and subtropical South America.

As you can see from the map, extreme temperature peaks are only slightly lower over large parts of this country. The study notes:

Such temperatures, if lasting for some days, are life threatening and receive relatively little attention in the climate change debate.

On our current emissions path, we may well exceed the A2 scenario and hit A1FI, 1000 ppm (see here).  In a terrific March 2010 presentation, Climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe has a figure of what the A1FI would mean:

Mother Nature is just warming up.

The time to act is yesterday.

Related Post:

• Science stunner — On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter:  Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models”

"I'm new here. So far my big challenge is getting started. I do have a question. I do want to eat organic. Let's say I get a small plant, like an herb, from Home Depot or a similar store, I plant
it and grow it organically with no man-made chemicals are pesticides. Does that make the plant organic? Is it kind of organic? If I keep it growing year-after-year and grow it organically, will
...

Deep in the heart of Silicon Valley, an office building home to Google is about to become a prototype for a cleantech product that’s capable of harvesting the sun’s power in a whole new way.

The product in question is EnFocus Engineering’s Diamond-Power panel—a high-tech module that’s one part skylight, one part solar panel.

Offering building occupants a real alternative to artificial lighting, the Diamond-Power panel can control the sun’s power more efficiently than any skylight on the market while utilizing the sun’s full range of light better than the average solar cell.

“In many situations people have plenty of daylighting, but they don’t switch the electrical lights off so there’s no savings,” says EnFocus’ President and Chief Technology Officer Jason Lu. “The point of our product is to provide a good lighting source so people actually can leave their electrical lights off.”

The Power of Daylight

Even when it’s not being used to create power, sunlight still has an abundance of potential. After all, what better source of free, nonpolluting lighting is there than natural daylight? Plus, there are tangential benefits: studies have shown students perform better, shoppers stay longer and buy more, and workers tend to be more productive.

Still, streaming sunlight into a building can lead to a host of cleantech conundrums. Solar heat gain is the primary one, and it’s why many glass-walled office buildings need air conditioning even in the winter.

The light coming through the skylight is cool. One advantage you have is you’re not adding heat load to the building.

“What this system does is take that hot light and efficiently transport its power to the grid,” explains Stan Sutton, President of Inland Metal Technologies, a provider of the skylight’s materials as well as an investor in the company. “What you get as a byproduct of it all is light that isn’t directly from the sun. This means the light coming through the skylight is cool. One advantage you have is you’re not adding heat load to the building.”

A second advantage is that the remaining spectrum of light is similar to what you’d experience standing under a tree on a sunny day—there’s plenty to read by, but it’s not hot and glaring.

“The reason the light is better distributed is that we select a portion of the sunlight that is already diffused,” he explains. “It’s much more comfortable, and also it doesn’t change that much when you’re under a cloud.”

The Ultimate Multitasker

Its ability to make the full spectrum of light useful is what makes the Diamond-Power panel stand out in the realm of cleantech. “We’re using what is typically the waste light that photovoltaic technology can’t use well,” Lu says.

Using triple junction solar cells, the panel captures roughly 80 percent of sunlight, converting close to 40 percent into power while allowing 20 percent of waste light into the building for illumination.

These highly efficient cells, coupled with the glass and the aluminum structures that hold it together, make the Diamond-Power skylight quite the multitasker in solar power use.

“With the solar skylight, what you have is daylight passed through—and it’s not glaring, it’s not hot,” Sutton explains. “And because it’s putting power back into the grid, it’s offsetting the cost of consuming the power for artificial [lighting]. You’re attacking both sides of the equation. You’re powering up the grid a little bit, and you’re also reducing the heat load, thus consuming less power from the grid.”

One of the reasons Google liked it is the aesthetics. People look at it and say it looks awesome.

Lu points out that using daylight as interior lighting first is actually the most efficient use of solar energy there is.

“Normally when energy is converted into electricity, we lose a lot of energy in that process,” Lu points out. “Conversion, unfortunately, is low-efficiency. And when you use electrical lighting, you have to convert that power back into light. That process is also, unfortunately, very inefficient.

“If you look at it that way, when we directly use sunlight, we are actually using the light much more efficiently than electrical light.”

Designer Style

Although traditional skylights present myriad cleantech challenges, they’re still a favorite for many businesses due in part to their visual appeal. There’s hardly a high-end hotel that doesn’t have a glass atrium; newer government buildings sport them; even shopping malls have enough foresight to know shoppers would like a patch of sun here and there as they stroll through.

“Humans in general do better in daylight—we are an animal that needs the blue light of daylight,” Sutton remarks. And certainly, there is an element of beauty associated with the look of a skylight and simply getting that sunshine from the outside into the inside that all the physics and chemistry and engineering out there might never be able to quite pin down.

The Diamond-Power skylight antes up on this quotient, too.

“We were at the annual solar show in San Francisco, Semicon, and we had probably 500 people come by,” Sutton says. “The comment most everyone had is that this is a beautiful piece of sculpture.”

Says Sutton, “It’s highly attractive; it’s cool-looking. It has an aesthetic and it doesn’t need to be hidden or covered up. One of the reasons Google liked it is the aesthetics. People look at it and say it looks awesome.”

Illustration by Chaz Russo

 Layla Bellows is a writer and editor based in Atlanta. She focuses on sustainability in the built environment, including materials and design, as well as its relationship to renewable energy and resources.

Related posts:

1. tenKsolar Doubles Residential Solar Setup Performance
2. SolOptics Solar Film Increases Panel Output 10%
3. California Doubles Solar Power Installations in 2008

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has filed two proposals with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that, if approved, may allow you to choose electricity generated by solar energy instead of fossil fuel-based energy, whether you own a home or not.

SDG&E is applying to begin two pilot programs. Information for each of them (and they’re worth checking out) is detailed below.

Note: for pricing on a residential solar system, click here.

Share the Sun Solar Farms

The first program, called “Share the Sun,” would allow solar contractors to purchase and install their own “solar farms” on their own or purchased property. San Diego customers would then be able to purchase a portion of the electricity generated from the provider installations.

You would be able to choose the size of the portion you wish to acquire, and would receive credit on your electricity bill for the value of the solar energy generated. In effect, this program would be similar to group-buying or community solar gardens.

Get a percentage of solar energy through SunRate

The second pilot program, called “SunRate,” would indirectly allow customers to purchase solar electricity produced by SDG&E’s own solar projects. SDG&E would establish a “green” rate that would reflect the cost of the solar energy generated by these projects.

In a twist that puts the power right in your hands, you could choose to have 50 percent, 75 percent or 100 percent of your electricity at the new, green rate. Although you would have to agree to a year’s subscription, the price (and reduction in energy costs) would be guaranteed for the term of the contract.

Why are utilities going solar?

In California, a utility’s renewable energy portfolio must represent 20 percent of that utility’s total energy distribution by 2013, and 33 percent by 2020. SDG&E has been showing progress towards reaching those goals, with several solar farms of their own up and running–and with more planned.

Recently, however, SDG&E proposed that the CPUC allow them to demand a “network usage charge,” a $20 to $30 a monthly fee, on homeowners who own or lease residential solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. The CPUC struck down the proposal.

SDG&E provides service to 3.5 million customers in San Diego and Orange County. The company is a subsidiary of Sempra Energy. Recently, Sempra Energy stock hit a new 52-week high. Before applying to the CPUC for the two pilot programs, SDG&E met with solar providers, community leaders and policymakers for input.

SDG&E is also proposing that the CPUC oversee a series of workshops where interested parties would be able to help shape the pilot programs to ensure transparency. Homeowners in San Diego can already save quite a bit on solar costs due to rebates, incentives and the like.

Should the CPUC approve the two pilot programs, many residents in the area will have the opportunity to go solar without installing a home solar power system at their own homes. As solar energy produced by larger solar installations typically costs less, residents may have the chance to lock in cheaper rates for their electricity, proving, once again, that going green can add green to the wallet, too.

The potential leak was detected about 4:30 p.m., and the unit was completely shut down about an hour later, Southern California Edison said.

Many utilities are using new electronic “smart meters” to adjust the price of electricity as often as every hour, to reflect supply and demand.  And charging more when electricity is in short supply can be good news, increasing the value of solar by 33% or more.

Time-of-use (TOU) pricing is a different billing method for electricity, where the customer pays based on the time of day of using electricity rather than a flat rate per kilowatt-hour consumed.  The premise is that electricity is more expensive when in high demand (e.g. by air conditioners in the afternoon on hot, sunny days) and that pricing accordingly will help reduce demand.

For example, customers in San Francisco on a TOU pricing plan pay more for electricity during peak hours (12 PM to 6 PM).  In the cold months (November through April), the peak rate is 11.1 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), compared to 8.3 cents during non-peak hours.  But in the warm months (May through October), electricity used from 12 PM to 6 PM costs 31 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while off-peak electricity is 7.9 cents per kWh.

This pricing scheme can act as an incentive to go solar, because solar panels tend to operate at their highest capacity during summer months.  The following chart shows the solar radiation falling on San Francisco during the “winter” and “summer” seasons (as defined by the utility).  The average insolation during the summer is 6.42 kWh per sq. meter per day, compared to 4.46 in the non-peak season.

Solar panels also tend to have higher output during the peak hours of the day.  In fact, the California Public Utilities Commission found that solar tends to have a 60% capacity factor (produce 60% of its maximum) during peak electricity periods.  The following chart from SolarStik illustrates:

The Economics of Time-of-Use Pricing for Solar

So what will a time-of-use pricing plan mean for the economics of solar in San Francisco? It means solar customers save more money.

Just over a quarter of a solar panel’s output comes at the summer peak period, when the value of electricity is over 30 cents per kWh.  A further 18% happens during the winter peak, when prices are a third higher (at 11 cents) than off-peak rates.

But this is just the start.  These rates (and those in the chart) only reflect the rates that PG&E charges for using up to ~250 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month (their “baseline” or Tier 1 rate).  But baseline rates only apply to the first 3,000 kWh consumed per year, one-third the U.S. average.  Very few customers use so little electricity.

Rather, most customers will consume electricity in Tier 2, which applies to consumption from 3,000 to 6,900 kWh per year, or even Tier 3, which applies to consumption up to 14,500 kWh.  And the electricity rates in these tiers are substantially higher.

For electricity used in Tier 1 (the baseline) during peak times, a customer pays 28 cents per kWh.  But once they’ve used up their baseline amount, each peak kWh will cost 29.6 cents in Tier 2.  If the customer hits Tier 3 rates in a summer month, their peak electricity will cost 44.6 cents per kWh!

A solar array provides two benefits under this scenario.  First, it produces electricity during peak periods, and second, it also reduces overall consumption.  Thus, the electricity offset by a rooftop solar array is the most expensive, and it also can push the customer into a lower usage tier, reducing the rate paid on grid electricity.

A few examples:

1. A customer uses 3,000 kWh per year (the Baseline) and has a 2 kW solar array.  The solar array provides 97% of the annual household consumption, and the value of the electricity produced by the solar array (based on the cost of grid power at the time it produces) is 22% higher than under a flat rate plan.
2. A customer uses 6,900 kWh per year (Baseline and Tier 2 power) and has a 2.5 kW solar array.  The solar array provides 53% of the annual household consumption (but nearly all of the Tier 2 electricity), and the value of the electricity produced by the solar array (based on the cost of grid power at the time it produces) is 36% higher than under a flat rate plan.
3. A customer uses 10,000 kWh per year (Baseline, Tier 2 and Tier 3) – the U.S. average – and has a 2 kW solar array.  The solar array provides just 20% of the annual household consumption (but nearly all of the Tier 3 electricity), and the value of the electricity produced by the solar array (based on the cost of grid power at the time it produces) is 253% higher than under a flat rate plan.

The following chart illustrates the good matchup between solar and time-of-use rates (the rates shown are for summer weekdays).  The bars show the pricing by hour, as well as the higher prices in higher tiers of consumption (for Residential Schedule E-6).  The green line shows the percent of daily solar output that falls during a particular time-of-use pricing period.

Overall, solar power is a pretty good fit with time-of-use pricing, a policy that should be used in more locales to improve the economics for local solar power.

This post originally appeared on Energy Self-Reliant States, a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s New Rules Project.

Related posts:

1. The Economics of Distributed Renewable Power — Why We Should Democratize the Electricity System, Part 2
2. Chicago's New Distributed Solar Energy Pilot Project
3. Distributed Solar Power Gets More Affordable

As energy prices continue their never-ending climb, consumers are finding more ways to fight back. Proper home insulation, turning to highly efficient appliances, complete home weatherization—even things as seemingly small and simple as installing low-flow showerheads and compact fluorescent bulbs are tools in the energy tightwad’s arsenal. Now, a relatively new industry is springing up to support energy misers.

While home energy monitors are nothing new, the field is getting increasingly crowded. There are stores on the Internet devoted solely to the technology, which provides real-time feedback on energy consumption to homeowners so they can change their energy using behavior. A search of Amazon’s tools and home improvement section turns up close to 200 results for “home energy monitors.” The growth in the segment is justified. Various studies have shown a reduction in home energy use of up to 15 percent through use of a home energy display.

image via FutureDash

The segment just got a little more crowded with the release of the EnergyBuddy home energy monitoring system by California-based FutureDash. The EnergyBuddy collects energy usage data through a current sensor and transmitter installed at the electrical panel or direct from a compatible smart meter. The data is transferred to the EnergyBuddy gateway device. That device, which features a glowing, translucent top to give an intuitive indication of energy use, transmits data to any number of monitors, including smart phones, laptops, tablets, computers and even some compatible smart TVs.

image via FutureDash

The EnergyBuddy displays the data in what they call an easy to use dashboard that allows consumers to understand their true energy consumption and costs of running a home or small business. With this information users can modify energy usage to cut their costs, better manage an energy budget and lower environmental impacts. Individual appliances and circuits can be monitored and controlled from FutureDash provided or other compatible smart plugs.

image via FutureDash

The EnergyBuddy also has a number of customizable features including real time and historical data, charts and graphs of usage and costs. The device can also display things like cost per hour, kilowatt-hours per day, goals and budget comparisons. If that’s not enough to make you an absolutely obsessive power penny pincher, the EnergyBuddy also features around the clock alerts and alarms that can be sent to your devices, warning you if your using more than your pre-set level of power.

The basic EnergyBuddy kit sells for under $100 and includes the gateway, current sensor and transmitter. For a few bucks more, the company will throw in a couple wireless smart plugs.

The “Going Solar” workshop will feature experts who will answer questions about the rebate application process, technical and legal requirements, how to calculate energy and cost savings, choosing a vendor, types of solar panels and meters available, financing options and lease agreements. Solar generation and battery storage during emergency power outages will also be discussed.

Space is limited and reservations are required. Reserve your spot at www.cityofpasadena.net/solar.

Residents who install solar receive a tax credit from the federal government of up to 30 percent of the system cost through 2016 and are eligible for utility rebates.

PWP is urging customers to start their projects now to maximize incentives. Rebates from the Pasadena Solar Initiative are expected to decrease early this year.

The Pasadena Solar Initiative, which aims to help PWP customers install 14 megawatts of solar power by 2016, will advance the city’s renewable energy goals outlined in the Green City Action Plan as well as California’s goal of installing 3000 MW of solar statewide.

The author's website describes the book:

A unique guide to launching and sustaining successful new ecovillages and sustainable communities -- and avoiding the typical mistakes in the process.

Photo by Flickr user shutterhacks, used under a Creative Commons license.

The amount of electricity produced via rooftop solar panels in Los Angeles nearly tripled over the past two years, putting it within striking distance of San Diego, California's biggest solar-electricity producer, according to a report released today.

As of September, Los Angeles has 4,018 rooftop solar installations, second to San Diego's 4,507, according to the report by Environment California.

San Jose, Fresno and San Francisco rounded-out the state's top five solar electricity producers.

The maximum output in Los Angeles is 36 megawatts, slightly less than San Diego's 37 megawatts, according to Environment California.

Electrical current is measured in megawatts -- a million watts -- and kilowatts -- 1,000 watts -- and usage is measure in kilowatt-hours or 1,000 watts per hour. An average American household uses about 10,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity over the course of a year.

Los Angeles nearly tripled the amount of rooftop solar energy in the last two years to surge to the No. 2 spot in California, the report said.

Per capita, however, only about 1 in 1,000 Angelenos have rooftop photovoltaic panels.

"If the city of Los Angeles achieved the same levels of solar penetration as Santa Cruz and Chico, it would have more than 50,000 solar rooftops and 400 MW of solar power," the report said.

Germany now gets about 4 percent of its electricity from solar panels, thanks largely to a government incentive program that has helped create about 100,000 jobs over the past decade.

reDiscover Center, 12958 Washington Blvd, Mar Vista 90066 310-393-3636

In the near future, Santa Monica residents might find that the city's goals such as those aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption are legally mandated.

With overwhelming support from high school clubs, neighborhood and grass-roots organizations, and environmental activists, the City Council voted Tuesday night to look into giving teeth to a voluntary "sustainable-city plan."

It approved a resolution declaring that in conjunction with revising its six-year-old sustainability plan, it would draft this year policies that would allow residents and the city to sue to protect local, natural resources threatened by corporations.

The resolution is also the first step toward enacting a "Sustainability Bill of Rights," written and approved in June by the Task Force on the Environment.

As drafted, the bill of rights would cork the legal rights and powers of corporations that "have the potential to interfere" with residents' "rights to sustainable water, food, energy, air, soil and waste treatment." It would go so far as to strip corporations of their rights as people, and would bar them from using any state or federal license or permit that doesn't jibe with the bill of rights.

Neighborhood organizer Cris Gutierrez called the council's decision on Tuesday night a "big step."

On the same night, however, the council voted not to support Move to Amend's calls for formal resolutions to amend the U.S. Constitution to end "corporate personhood." A growing number of cities have signed on in the wake of a new-ish Supreme Court ruling that rolled back legal limits on corporate spending in the electoral process and affirmed that corporations have the rights of “persons.”

If the Santa Monica City Council does adopt a new sustainability ordinace and bill of rights, they would give residents more legal standing, said Linda Piera-Avila, a board member of the Pico Neighborhood Association.

The Pico neighborhood, she said, will see the bulk of the city's new development in the next few decades. She and others want protections in place to curb proposals from corporations.

"The thing I hear the most is concern about air pollution and traffic," she said.

Santa Monica's first sustainability plan was adopted in 1994. Specific environmental targets were set. For example, in the last update in 2006, the plan stated that by 2010, overall water consumption should drop by 20 percent of the average 2000 level of 13.4 million gallons daily. Also by 2010, the goal was to divert 70 percent of trash away from landfills.

The city considers these targets "aggressive yet achievable."

In 2009, water use dropped for the third straight year to 11.9 million gallons per day, but was still far below the 2010 goal with only a 5 percent change from 2000. As of 2006, the most recent data available on the city's website, the city was diverting 68 percent of trash away from landfills.

Still, in the past couple of years, as attention on green issues has grown, so has the environmental community's concerns with reining in the rights of corporations to build and operate without regulation from government, at the federal, state and, now, the local level. 

In December 2010, the city of Pittsburgh became the first major city in the United States to adopt a community bill of rights that bans corporations from drilling natural gas within its city limits and elevates the rights of people, the community, and nature over corporate rights.

The draft Santa Monica sustainability bill of rights proposes that the city "exercise its police powers" to require even stricter rules that what was contained in the 2006 plan, such as 100 percent reliance on the local water by 2020.

Supporters led by Santa Monica Neighbors Unite said that without any legal protections, the city's sustainability plan in its current state could hypothetically be ignored by utility companies. They could, for example, opt to switch to "hydrofracked" sources of energy, hurling the city backward in its efforts to rely on sustainable energy sources.

Member Cris Gutierrez organized a rally in support of the City Council's decision Tuesday night, attended by Occupy Venice and Santa Monica High School students representing clubs Team Marine, the Solar Alliance and Heal the Bay. 

She admitted that it would be tough to enact such strict standards, but, likening it to the city's ban on single-use plastic bags, said it wouldn't be impossible.

"Everyone thought that would be the end of the economic well-being of the mom-and-pop shops," she said of the plastic bag ban.

Santa Monica High School senior Charlotte Biren got involved with drafting the  sustainability bill of rights last summer. She loves science wants to study ecology in college.

She said the decisions being made by the current City Council will affect her generation and the ones to follow. She worries that if all local, natural resources are tapped now, the reliance on foreign commodities such as oil will only grow stronger, leading to wars and other international conflicts.

"When we get older, this is what we'll have to work with," she said of the newly-enacted resolution, which she said will protect the "simple things, like the right to clean air."

The resolution declaring the city's committment to sustainable rights begins: 

The City of Santa Monica recognizes the following rights of the people of Santa Monica: the right to clean, affordable and accessible water from sustainable water sources for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes; the right to a sustainable energy future based on sustainable renewable energy sources; the right to a sustainable natural climate unaltered by fossil fuel emissions; the right to sustainable, comprehensive waste disposal systems that do not degrade the environment; the right to clean indoor and outdoor air, clean water and clean soil that pose a negligible health risk to the public; and the right to a sustainable food system that provides healthy, locally grown food to the community...

NASA’s video depiction of our changing climate. Breathtaking.

read more