we've received recognition from our climate award in addition we've been recognized for our green building policy by the world business council and our commitment to wakeable community. in addition there are many, many things that need to get done and we need buy in from all sects private-public and government. no one what make the changes overall to make our target. what's the challenge. in san francisco we're already if we think about climate change in under a do nothing scenario we could face billions of dollars in damage because of the impacted sea level we're impacted all over.

we're seeing the impacts of sea levels with high tides and their offer a preview of coastal effects interest if anyone has taken the opportunity at pier 6 it's underwater just to give you a sense of what were we fatiguing today. the report this side slide illustrates what we've achieved is 14 point reduction below other levels. the red line you see here that's if we basically do nothing it's our worst-case scenario. the orange line represents our project of the emissions under current policies everything

we're doing this today, we'll go back to the other levels. the blue lines represents if all 35 recommendations are laid out in the action strategy are complemented again, i fwl underscore. just to give you a sense of what a exhaustible in san francisco >> just a question regarding those slides we talk about the goals and benchmarks do we have limits that we have to abide by compared to that are the limits binding? >> the goals we set forth in san francisco are not binding the statistical has goals to achieve targeted numbers they're all goals that the state and us locally are working towards

achieving. >> thank you. >> next, i want to spend a little bit of time how we calculate emissions so you have an idea. this slide in particular give us a snapshot of san francisco's current emissions so with the protocol the green house gases inventory is focused on looking emissions with fossil fuel and electricity consumed within the city. in other words, we are measuring the tailpipe of the emissions. the concerns addressed in the climate action strategy and we talk about how emissions are calculated the ports speak this method of tracking emissions, you know, underestimates the

climate impact on san francisco's economic. why everything imported to san francisco or manufacturers here has a con sumgsz. take cell phones f we have have one. it's important to science think about it every time a cell is generated think about the material that were extracted and the heavy metals and the water and public comment and every kind of material we consume in san francisco whether a cell phone or a plastic water bottle approximately 70 tons of materials were mfrtsdz upstream. within 6 months there's another produce and those end up in the

landfills but when you think about the traditional model we may not be capturing all the impacts so the vice president is working is academic institutions and worldwide organizations to take responsibility for the emissions we use here in san francisco. an alternative way to look at the consumption level this slide represents the same information the san francisco footprint using a different model but this looks at our consumption so while san francisco is recycling and compost more than ever before we're generating more

waste we've done a great job at compost but every year we're producing more than ever before. in addition >> how it is possible can you give us a professional. >> certainly we're beau for products and maybe sorting better but our increase in the weight of the blue benefit and the green bin is going up and not necessarily at the expense of the black bin so we're doing an excellent job at dissipating out waste into our various streams we're consuming more as san franciscans. in addition even though our miles per gallon fuel average san franciscans are driving more. so again, we have more efficient

cars we have more efficient fuel but with your driving more and even though our energy portfolio in san francisco is good we're using for energy we have to think about this context. the biggest change to using the consumption methodology that food is the biggest part of the pie and energy is consumed in the process. taken into the entire life cycle the cost of the produce it important >> so we're using the consumption model. >> the reference is you can imagination why lots of governments and academic institutions are struggling with trying to find on appropriate method for the calculations you start tackling with the

manufacturers methods and it's a lot more challenging. the more, you know, example i'll switch to the next slide. here's the two slides in comparison to give you a sense climate change i mentioned food and beverage is a significant amount and it was recently studied the amount of food and groceries that are throwing away because the product on shortfalls missed their expiration date well produce is no longer appealing to you and i that's ended up, you know, it maybe come posted portfolio but we're still not takes into account all those different

items. the other examples we use to explain in terms of calculating and how you measure and draw the line and garlic clove that's grown in gilroy we only account it's an emissions value once ♪ a restaurant but the consumption model you have to look at when it w it w it was cultivated and brought into san francisco >> water itself is used a lot in agricultural and used to grow in a place as where things are hard to buy so it seems like, you know, well, we can't haven't written into law the consumption

model it's not an anecdotal way of measuring our consumption in the city and relative to climate change is good to do. >> this is one of the reasons the climate action strategy update in this iteration of the report we need to take ownership of the emissions we're producing and try to elevate what kinds of recommendations we can created in order to truly he'd that if you look at transportation in san francisco the model they account for models into san francisco and we take that responsibility and claim that in or numbers but f sf o traffic many of obvious travel and where do we calculate that impact is

that assigned to our county when every san franciscan comes and goes when you take the snapshot you - the ad age if you can measure it you can address it and the challenge and the debate between a model of emissions and do on the consumption side it becomes personal we can measure that emission and control and making sure that, you know, one of the recommendations in the report is for mta and muni to go to one hundred percent bio fuel but it's about what you and i do when we go shopping what else to plug both our power industrial

strip all our power strips are plugged in if we can identify those tougher choices we can develop the policies and procedures that's around the report and i'll have any colleagues go into the policies and procedures. >> if you can talk about where are rein terms of the 1990 baseline or the emissions where we're at exactly is that later on in the presentation or - >> again you're going the traditional model we know our footprint of 1990 and go back

and give us baseline we tracked that the slide i put on the screen from 1990 to present we projected we've hit our initial goal of the 14.4 percent of reduction. we'll hit our upcoming targets implicit based on our policies and procedures. the challenges with emissions data in the way it's calculated we're 20 to 3 years behind the capturing of the baseline data. i know my colleague cal can get into the details >> thank you. >> actually, i have a question i know i think the department of the environment is not their

restrictions in terms of the environmental land use is that in the chart. >> yes. our department doesn't get involved with the land use issues. >> i suspect the rationale we have a planning department and planning commission we don't want the department of environment to be the shadow commission i get that but apart from planning and zoning and land use decisions which is typically in the planning department or board i don't understand how you can have a full decision about the environment or climate change without talking about housing and transportation policies we know that if people are living all sprawled out as opposed to living in a transit assessable and urban in his it's hard to

really get a handle open climate change so it seems like sometimes in this building some of the housing decision that are made or transit funding the decisions are made happen in a volume and separated from some of our environmental goals. so i want to see if you can comment on that >> well, maybe my colleague cal can address some of that. >> cal department from the environment related to the planning department i'll say someone in our department is talking about with the planning department weekly we've worked around ordinances that we've had and a in the eco districts that

have an opportunity like looking the heating systems we've been active in the planning department. >> i'm not critical i get it when it comes to the roles of housing and land use and the environment and climate change. i actually i wish the vice president of the environment were permitted to be more active in commenting to the decision makers and the board of supervisors and the planning commission on some of the environmental issues we know that wherever we have, you know, projects that come up that provide the dense he walkable housing or the proposals to address the capacity and reliability of muni for example, things happen in this building. and that big picture doesn't get put in line i understand the

research and you work with the department >> we don't want to see this role over and over but there are standards and decisions to abide by the department and the environment should be involved. >> anytime we can provide value we're interested in participating. >> so to continue with our presentation excuse me. to create the climate action strategy update this is the update from the original 2004 document we convened a set of climate action panels in 5 areas incorporating non-public and private and over a hundred stakeholders were involved. we participated with puc and rec and park and the planning department. because this was an update we

included the highlighted achievement for the stiff partners they've accomplished to date. the major message we as we said is we have a number of 35 measures. we think of them in boiling them down to 4 issue easier zero, 50 and one hundred. i'm going to talk about that and the carbon urban effort. first our zero waste program we want to get to zero waste going to the landfill there are also be a concern amount of wastes people using things longer than etc. the 50 is the 50 percent mode

shift meaning 50 percent of the trips people are taking now from single use or a single occupancy vehicle they shift into walking and bike riding and muni, etc. so every other trip they leave the keys at home. we're already two-thirds of the way towards the goal of the 50 percent mode shift. and the one hundred percent stand for the one hundred percent renewable energy we can go on this in greater detail with you we are we're tubing energy we're talking about energy efficient. the message border in those we're not talking about skaifk

by doing things nor efficient. the energy efficient to date are saving the san francisco building owners over $40 million a year we've reduce the peak voyage and have reduced over one hundred thousand tons of green house gases missions this year that's since 2002, the opportunity is about doing things differently not taking things away. we want to achieve our one hundred percent renewal by eliminating the green house gases footprint piece through the remain sectors in the small business sector and the muni sector hetch hetchy has done a great job to getting us to two

hundred percent renewal that's focusing schools. we need other partners like bart to be one hundred percent renewalable and caltrain's. just recently in the time the mayor talked about how we can get to the residential side and i hope we can get closer to the goal of one hundred percent and talking the energy efficiency and solar but if we looked at the numbers that will gutting get us a portion of the way interest we have a ways to go by respectfully yours, the other energies >> supervisors there's been talk about the zero energy home and the context of the existing

building a leaky victorian building in the bayview they're very inefficient how tight can you make the building they're going to use some amount of energy. if you're in a home that has solar access you might make it zero percent energy but large downtown building or building that have shadowed by another large building they don't have solar we've done a calculation guessing we can achieve about 70 percent of our electrical load throw in city solar using every single rooftop that the fire code will allow. if we cut the energy used in the buildings in every building

across the city homes and businesses, etc. we'll get get to 14 percent if we cover the golf course or off of roof taupes we might get 20 percent but we're talking about a fraction of the power we have to import energy >> or build our own energy program. >> yes. but again, it's going to a lot of that is outside the city because we only have certain real estate. we have a potential for wave energy there are other things we could settlement some of the power. other alternatives might be - let me go back to the urban

effort i'm come back to the issue of alternatives >> so every tree we plant becomes a carbon sync it puts the carbon into the groin in the form of roots and helps to reduce the or pull carbon out of the air i believe we're talking about 50 thousand trees planted every year between 2030. yeah. so looking at those g h emission charts the one on the left is 2010 and the one on the right is where we're going in 2030 pr i wanted to point out that you notice that most of the electricity has disappeared that was the plan of clean power sf.

short of that we will looked at the other piece of that is natural gas how to get it out of the city and a lot of that on the chart on the left it's residential. not commercial. it's no our homes it's what leaks out our windows and doors so the residential retrofit program is important we'll be bringing an amended to the conservation ordinance that might help to reduce more gas in residential homes. but there's another part of natural gas that e.r. month was talking about the consumption looking at our footprint and there's another part the leakage age of natural gas a molecule is

80 times more powerful in the emissions gas in the one hundred years if we are leaking one and a half percent something less than 2 percent of our natural gas that's equal or request greater than all the natural gas we're burning so a small amount of leakage we've retrofitted 4 hundred homes there our stimulus program and of those percent of them have gas leaks that were undetected by the property owner they're in a crawl space or whatever. those have are leaks we have to go after and that's not on the chart so we're finding new

things >> pg&e has a plan around gas leaks. one of the requirements of every one of the home energy upgrades you need to have a gas leak test when you go into the building to find out what it is this is important we do this throughout the city. in addition >> when so pg&e when can he going into the homes they do a test for gas leaks. >> yes. they'll come in and in addition the certified krashthsd who are involved in this program have the gas leak testing. >> that's determined by state law. >> i wouldn't tell you it's a program standard we're users.

so the emission savings over time you can see we're hoping to save most of it in electricity and the wedge has disappeared we're hoping to capture that. and i'd like to point out if we meet those goals we need to have buy in at all levels when we craft our plans and our ordinances we need to make sure we've got input from the stakeholder and could to an agreement political as well as economically it's going to work for the building owner and contractor and city policy it's got to work on all levels. and ultimately even with zero

energy homes it comes down to behave and the choices people make well, i'm going to leave the light on in another 10 minutes or leaving my television on because i think it might keep burglars out arrest one i've heard about is having wine cell last year's in their homes. the decisions we mange about our homes and the equipment determines a lot of our energy use. in order to get there people have to change their behavior not giving things up but we're looking for public support we have a number of efforts we have in place to effect bailiff

change and we have partners we work with the bystanders borders and the list it long to help to develop our policies. and finally we turn to the community so we have people who need to make simple choices make it as simple as possible and then it is also when it comes to behavior we can lay out the framework but people have to use it. imagine having hundreds of bicycle panels and no bicycles on this would be a disaster. we have a whole team of people that