The Dirt
Polluted air, scarce water, dumping, sprawl. In The Dirt, reporter Stacey Shepard examines the numerous environmental problems facing Bakersfield and Kern County.

A blog about Business & Finance and Family & Home.
About TheDirt


Member Since:
January 22, 2008
Last Signed In:
September 02, 2008
Profile Views:
524
Blog Views:
5760
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Public workshops on Big West expansion
Who uses Amtrak?
Olympic venues and sustainability
Could you buy nothing new for a month? A year?
Move over monster trucks, smart car has arrived
New option in refinery expansion
Photos: Bike path beaver's back
Big West under scrutiny: Take II
Small ammonia leak at refinery Sunday
Cars damaged by tainted gas sold at 25 local stations
Archives
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


TheDirt - > The Dirt -> Bakersfield shows up on carbon map
Bakersfield shows up on carbon map

Last week, the Vulcan project released a map of carbon emissions across the United States. Unsurprisingly, it looked pretty much like a population density map. This week, there's a new version: carbon emissions per capita.

Check out the Wired blog post.

If you look at the high-res map, the Bakersfield area looks red. When you zoom in, though, I think Bakersfield proper is actually green, and it's surrounding areas that are red — areas with high emissions and few people. It's hard to really pinpont Bako on the map, though. Maybe somebody with more mashup skillz than I can turn it into a layer and throw a highway layer on, so we could see better.

-- James Geluso

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by TheDirt on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 114 times
11 comments from 8 users

1

posted by aceyou on Apr 18, 2008 at 09:21 AM

 I might add, that the "map" referred to in the original post shows emissions per unit population. There are a helluva lot more people in LA than here in the Valley. So, that probably has more of an effect on why we show "red" and they show "green."

posted by aceyou on Apr 18, 2008 at 09:17 AM

 Actually, you've touched upon a controversial aspect of proposed climate change regs - who gets charged for all the emissions. There is a school of thought that producers of the fuel should be charged from "cradle to grave", e.g., an oil company would be charged with all emissions associated with exploring for oil, drilling and producing the oil, transporting it to refineries, refining it, transporting the fuel, and then even the combustion by its customers.

As for LA, you don't see a lot of heavy, fuel intensive industry there anymore.  The utilities all burn gas or import their electricity from elsewhere. The refineries are still there, but oil production has declined. Heavy oil production, such as what goes on here in the valley, is extremely carbon intensive. They have to generate steam to inject into the ground to move the oil to the surface. Steam generation is accomplished by burning natural gas on site. Most folks don't realize it. Drive out to Taft, Buttonwillow area some day (heck, even Kern River oilfield in Northeast Bako) and you will see what I mean. Steam generators are all over the place, although the numbers have declined with energy efficiencies and production declines.

posted by citybeat on Apr 18, 2008 at 08:36 AM

 Ace:

The gas from those refineries largely heads out of town to be consumed by people elsewhere, no? Maybe that's why Los Angeles is so green — it's externalized the emissions from the production of its gasoline up to here. If you transferred emissions from production of a good to where it's consumed, we'd look a lot better.

 

posted by adampayne on Apr 18, 2008 at 07:52 AM

 Ace, thanks for the link and the chart info. I've got a question. There is a Merchant Owned sector in the Inventory Chart that has gone from a little over 2.3 metric tonnes to around 28.5 metric tonnes of inventory over 16 years while the Utility owned sector has declined from just over 30 metric tonnes to around 5 metric tonnes over the same period. Do you know what the relationship of these two sectors is? Is it a shift to private usage?

I note that Commercial Industrial inventory of CO2 have jumped significantly from 14.5 metric tons to 22.5 metric tons in a 16 year period. Also as you mentioned, Ace, Transportation and Freight are the two major sectors with severe upward trends throughout the state. Once again, thanks for providing the info, and I'll take your response off-air.

posted by aceyou on Apr 17, 2008 at 11:37 PM

 About 4 to 5 million metric tons (yes, I said million, it's not a typo) of CO2 equivalent emissions comes from Chevron's oilfield operations here in the Valley. I don't know what AERA, ExxonMobile, and all the other little guys make, but, it's directly proportional to their thermally enhanced oil production operations. The San Joaquin Valley is one of the world's largest sources of such operations.

Chevron's refineries alone,  in L.A. and SF Bay Area, contribute another 10 million or so metric tons. The other refineries make similar emissions.

Throw in all of the transportation sector, other fuel combustion sources, transportation (commercial and you and me), and California is doing over 400 million metric tons.

You'd have to turn the entire state into a tropical rain forest to make a CO2 sink big enough for all of that.

Something to think about when you hear people talk about reducing a couple of pounds here and there. Just to keep it all in perspective.

P.S. The amount of pollution blowing into the Valley from other areas is a red herring. Sure there is some, but the overwhelming majority of it is home grown and/or from drive thru emissions on I-5 and Hwy 99.

P.P.S. Here's a link to a 2004 CA inventory - take the numbers with a grain of salt, but, most of it is directly proportional to statewide fuel consumption:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/in...

 

posted by TomW on Apr 17, 2008 at 11:18 PM

 James, took a look at this earlier and it just looked like a gif.  There is some raw data on the site, but it looks like a bear to convert.  I was flirting with kml a while back and got too busy to pursue it, but I may be able to sweet talk someone into checking it out.

 

posted by randomfactor on Apr 17, 2008 at 04:21 PM

He's just holding his breath.

posted by antiextremism on Apr 17, 2008 at 04:20 PM

 Hey! Superman can breathe in space, he don't need no stinkin' oxygen.

posted by randomfactor on Apr 17, 2008 at 02:36 PM

It most likely *IS* our emissions.  We're in the top 25 counties (Harris, TX is #1.)

.

And to answer your question, BakerSuper, it has to do with human-caused global warming.  But then, you knew that. 

posted by catpaw on Apr 17, 2008 at 01:58 PM

Bakersfield is the southern most  major city located inside the San Joaquin Valley. Our polluted air drifts from other locales and nestles against the surrounding mountains. Small wonder the map would show high emissions and low population density. It is most likely somebody else's pollution, not farmers, dairy cows, wood-burning fireplaces, oil wells, or any other scapegoat's.

posted by BakersfieldSuperman on Apr 17, 2008 at 01:10 PM

What does it matter if we haae high carbon emissions?

1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
   

Our readers recommend: