About two years ago I was asked by my local city councilman Larry Wahl to serve on the city of Chico “sustainability task force”. I was initially enthusiastic, but the talk soon turned away from alternative energy solutions that I embrace, to getting a city wide inventory of carbon emissions. The task force, chaired by Vice Mayor Ann Schwab didn’t seem the least bit interested in solutions, but focused on tallying carbon emissions in town. That effort didn’t make a lot of sense to me then, since it gained the city nothing.
Now I know why, it was a prelude to taxation followed by wanton spending. They had to inventory to know how to tax. The “greenhouse gas” report they issued on September 2nd of this year had a number of oddball fees, taxes, giveaways, and edicts, such as a city wide gasoline tax, and even free electricity handouts to city employees for sustainable commuting. All of this while we are in an economic downturn and city financial crisis. This is why I can no longer support Ann Schwab, even though I worked with her.
There is a backstory to my involvement with this, but first things first, here is a copy of the sustainability task force “work plan” from September 2nd.
Link: cic-sustainability-090208
The local newspaper also did a story on the preliminary report, but not on the work plan from the link above.
Most important to note is that while my name is on this report, I had no hand in it whatsoever, as I was unceremoniously booted off the task force on December 20th, 2007 by vice mayor Schwab who sent me a letter advising of my termination. The reason? Attendance. But this goes to show how messed up things are with this task force, as they could not even get my termination straight and had me listed as a member 9 months afterwards.
For the record, there is little in this report I agree with and my name should not be on it. Two weeks ago I sent an email to Vice Mayor Schwab and the City Clerk Debbie Presson asking that my name be removed. No response.
When I was on the task force I had the distinction of being one of the few people that actually walked the talk, as I had put solar on my home and a local school, plus I drive an electric car (though I’ve since upgraded to a newer model electric).
No matter, I wasn’t well liked because I really didn’t want to play the carbon emissions tally game, preferring solutions instead. So I’m not surprised that Schwab booted me off when she had the chance.
The task force was made up of a few people like myself, that ran businesses in town, but the vast majority were city employees, university employees, and other publicly paid people. The meetings were on Mondays in the middle of the afternoon. People like me that run businesses found it hard to attend, because with us lost time at work means lost revenue, City and university employees don’t have those problems. Prior to my dismissal, another local businessman, Lon Glazner, voluntarily left because he had the same issues.
OK, enough about why my name is on the report, and why it tends to be public employee centric rather than more representative of our community makeup.
First there is the cost: $30,000 which went to a university employee (already on the public payroll) to produce this report. Another consultant fee in the same cozy city-university sustainability circle of friends. They did no outside bid advertisements that I’m aware of, they just picked the university “sustainability guru” to do the job.
Let’s look at some of the suggested “community reduction” actions in this report presented by Schwab and her task force:
- A suggestion to pay city employees to give up their parking spot.
- Require energy audits on residential units at the time of sale.
- Increased fees on waste disposal.
- A local gasoline tax to generate local revenue.
- Forcing a lights out policy on local businesses after hours
- Free electricity and free parking for city employees that drive electric vehicles
- Free or reduced cost electricity and parking for citizens that drive electric vehicles
You can find these items in Appendix C of the report, near the end under “Community Reduction Measures” which are designed to meet a carbon emissions target.
Here’s an interesting graph from the consultant’s report:
I don’t know about you, but spending 30 grand for information telling us that cars are the biggest source of CO2 in or city of Chico?. Shocker. No worries, we’ll attack that problem. On page 39 of the September 2 Greenhouse Gas Report there is this gem: “By implementing a local gas tax, the City could generate revenue to put toward sustainability projects”.
Yep, tax and spend. Darn those evil cars driven by irresponsible citizens.
The task force also favors doling out taxpayer money for “sustainability”, page 42: “For employees who own electric vehicles, the City could provide prime parking locations that offer free electric filling stations.” and for the public, page 39: “Electric fueling station-provide free or low-cost electric fueling stations for EVs.”
I drive an electric car. I’d gladly pay $1-3 per hour for park n’ charge. Vice mayor Schwab not only misses this dirt simple revenue opportunity, she wants to give away free electricity during a city budget crisis.
Just yesterday the state of California announced it was already 10 billion in the hole this year, and our county government announced it was 10 million in the red. Chico’s own sales tax revenue has been falling, and the city budget has been in the red for at least two years now, and there has been little substantial movement by city leaders to really solve the problem.
Image: The city General Fund and Parks deficit in red without transfers away from road and transportation improvements. Money from a gas tax we all pay has been transferred away from roads to cover the costs of other spending. If you wonder why bike routes are planned but not built, or why roads and traffic issues take so long to address, here is the culprit.
Source: Commision Impossible 10/22/08
For those reading that don’t live here, the business climate of our town is getting grim. Departments stores, restaurants, and other local businesses are closing almost daily due to the economic climate. The trickle down effect from state budget cuts will also affect the city’s largest state funded employers soon, such as Chico State University, and the Chico Unified School District.
So with the city budget headed for a certain train wreck, and the state economy in a shambles, I am absolutely gobsmacked that Schwab and her sustainability task force are suggesting gasoline taxes and free electricity giveaways at the same time. Then there’s the idea that businesses should be forced to turn out their lights at night. Saving energy is a fine idea, but at the expense of inviting crime into an unlit business?
This shows a level of disconnect that only a bureaucrat could muster. And, it’s why I strongly recommend that people reading this don’t vote for Schwab, but choose a city council candidate that has some business sense.
I’m all for efficiency and alternate energy ideas that are cost neutral or revenue generators, but the reality is those things aren’t being considered.
Public giveaways, new taxes, and visions of a sustainable future won’t solve the budget problems, sensible management combined with spending cuts and plans that will enhance the local business environment will.
Kum Dollison,
Solid waste into biogas too would be better. It is a more efficient energy conversion than making ethanol.
Sir Anthony (The Rev)
How beautiful it is your job.
How beautiful is your life.
Maybe. I am an isolated voice of the third world.
My sincere impression. As the politicians are universally idiots.
I unfortunately am not able to discuss internal U.S. politics.
But: The political activities of the world is mirrored in the actions of American leaders.
Conclusion: When the United States of America has a cold … we are dying of pneumonia.
ps: if the people of Chico need a warrior retired. just call
….Sorry for the bad English….
FM
Kum Dollison:
Flows?? Who said anything about flow? I compared reserves. In addition, there are massive reserves offshore under U.S. jurisdiction, and huge reserves on other federal lands.
But we can’t use our own reserves. The enviro lobby, through their sock puppets in Congress, won’t allow us to develop our petroleum sources — which would provide “sustainability.”
Thus, the price of oil remains very high due to artificially restricted supply.
And Middle Eastern potentates get rich at the expense of working Americans.
Ellie – That would be fine, also.
Smokey – Flows are Everything, my man. Reserves is just talk. Flows is what “does the walk.”
Ellie In Belfast:
What do you know about ethanol?
FM
Anthony,
You have an active and inquisitive blog. I will try to respond.
I define sustainability as maintaining our quality of life over the long haul. Sustainability entails environmental stewardship, social responsibility and economic prosperity.
I understand why the bloggers who do not subscribe to AGW think that this would be a waste of time. A majority of the committee does believe in AGW, and thus wanted to get a baseline inventory of GHG production in the city of Chico.
The city and university are broken out in the commercial sector, pg 11.
I am sorry. I did not mean to malign bumpkins or the people who post on this blog.
Some of the efforts the City of Chico has taken include LED traffic signals, energy efficient street lights, solar power for the waste water treatment plant, and “right-sizing” the city fleet to save fuel. These efforts were undertaken because they save money as well as reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Now that city staff have a baseline inventory, the software allows staff to quickly input any of these efforts and calculate the carbon savings.
I worked on this project on my personal time. City staff were on the clock. City staff sought other estimates, and they came in at between $60,000 and $90,000. Our $30,000 project came in early and under budget.
Take care,
Mark
A mains charged electric car emits between 200% and 300% more CO2 than an equivalent current model gasoline/diesel car when the electricity is generated from coal or oil. Its somewhat less for natural gas, but still far more CO2 emitted than gasoline.
The reason is coal generation, distribution, charging (step down to 12 volts) and batteries are all inefficient and waste energy and hence require more energy input, ie coal.
With clean coal the increased CO2 emissions go up to between 400% and 600% more CO2 emitted.
The only way electric cars can reduce CO2 emissions is by using solar/wind generated electricity SURPLUS to current requirements and I bet that is not even true for Anthony.
pattio (08:22:25) :
Here is the data provided by Dr. Tan of the Mauna Loa Monitoring Station.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Mauna Loa, Hawaii
2007 2.14
Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Global Average
2007 2.20
DOE data shows a pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2 of 288 ppm. This concentration of atmospheric CO2 increased to 368.4 ppm in October, 2008, an increase of 80.4 ppm. The contribution by natural causes was 68.52 ppm and the man-made contribution was 11.88 ppm. The ratio of natural CO2 emission to man-made CO2 is 5.76.
The Global Carbon Project (GCP) report gives the yearly increases of CO2 as: During the years 1970-1079, the increase was 1.3 ppm per year; During the years 1980-1989, the increase was 1.6 ppm; During the years 1990-1999, the increase was 1.5 ppm; and during the years 2000-2007, the increase was 2.0 ppm. Given the ratio of natural emission to man-made emission of 5.76 (before the year 2000), man-made CO2 contributed 0.226 ppm per year during 1970-1979, 0.278 ppm per year during 1980-1989, and 0,25 ppm per year during 1990-1999.
Now it seems that everyone assumes that the CO2 concentration increase of 2.14 ppm per year (Mauna Loa Station) is entirely man-made (GCP). What happened to natural CO2 emissions after the year 2000?
The new Global Carbon Budget will be launched on the 26th September 2008 (GCP), Based on the latest national time series and the preliminary national estimates, 2005 marked the first year fossil-fuel carbon emissions from non-participants in the Kyoto Protocol exceeded emissions from signatory countries.
Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Here is an 18 page paper you might want to read: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/other/Sicilypaper.pdf
THE INCREASING CONCENTRATION OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2:
HOW MUCH, WHEN, AND WHY?
Gregg Marland and Tom Boden
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335, USA
Phone 865-241-4850
Fax 865-574-2232
e-mail gum@ornl.gov
INTRODUCTION
There is now a sense that the world community has achieved a broad consensus that:
1.) the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing,
2.) this increase is due largely to the combustion of fossil fuels, and
3.) this increase is likely to lead to changes in the global climate.
This consensus is sufficiently strong that virtually all countries are involved in trying to achieve a functioning agreement on how to confront, and mitigate, these changes in climate. This paper reviews the first two of these components in a quantitative way. We look at the data on the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and on the magnitude of fossil-fuel combustion, and we examine the trends in both. We review the extent to which cause and effect can be demonstrated between the trends in fossil-fuel burning and the trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Finally, we look at scenarios for the future use of fossil fuels and what these portend for the future of atmospheric chemistry. Along the way we examine how and where fossil fuels are used on the Earth and some of the issues that are raised by any effort to reduce fossil-fuel use.
How does one overcome the inertia of a global hoax?
pattio (08:22:25) :
Here is the data provided by Dr. Tan of the Mauna Loa Monitoring Station.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Mauna Loa, Hawaii
2007 2.14
Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Global Average
2007 2.20
DOE data shows a pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2 of 288 ppm. This concentration of atmospheric CO2 increased to 368.4 ppm in October, 2008, an increase of 80.4 ppm. The contribution by natural causes was 68.52 ppm and the man-made contribution was 11.88 ppm. The ratio of natural CO2 emission to man-made CO2 is 5.76.
The Global Carbon Project (GCP) report gives the yearly increases of CO2 as: During the years 1970-1079, the increase was 1.3 ppm per year; During the years 1980-1989, the increase was 1.6 ppm; During the years 1990-1999, the increase was 1.5 ppm; and during the years 2000-2007, the increase was 2.0 ppm. Given the ratio of natural emission to man-made emission of 5.76 (before the year 2000), man-made CO2 contributed 0.226 ppm per year during 1970-1979, 0.278 ppm per year during 1980-1989, and 0,25 ppm per year during 1990-1999.
Now it seems that everyone assumes that the CO2 concentration increase of 2.14 ppm per year (Mauna Loa Station) is entirely man-made (GCP). What happened to natural CO2 emissions after the year 2000?
The new Global Carbon Budget will be launched on the 26th September 2008 (GCP), Based on the latest national time series and the preliminary national estimates, 2005 marked the first year fossil-fuel carbon emissions from non-participants in the Kyoto Protocol exceeded emissions from signatory countries.
Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Here is an 18 page paper you might want to read: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/other/Sicilypaper.pdf
THE INCREASING CONCENTRATION OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2:
HOW MUCH, WHEN, AND WHY?
Gregg Marland and Tom Boden
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335, USA
Phone 865-241-4850
Fax 865-574-2232
e-mail gum@ornl.gov
INTRODUCTION
There is now a sense that the world community has achieved a broad consensus that:
1.) the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing,
2.) this increase is due largely to the combustion of fossil fuels, and
3.) this increase is likely to lead to changes in the global climate.
This consensus is sufficiently strong that virtually all countries are involved in trying to
achieve a functioning agreement on how to confront, and mitigate, these changes in
climate. This paper reviews the first two of these components in a quantitative way. We
look at the data on the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and on the magnitude
of fossil-fuel combustion, and we examine the trends in both. We review the extent to
which cause and effect can be demonstrated between the trends in fossil-fuel burning and
the trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Finally, we look at scenarios for the future
use of fossil fuels and what these portend for the future of atmospheric chemistry. Along
the way we examine how and where fossil fuels are used on the Earth and some of the
issues that are raised by any effort to reduce fossil-fuel use.
Kum D:
I’m not trying to argue; maybe you’re just missing my point. First comes discovery of reserves. Then, development. Finally, extraction [‘flows’].
Until Congress allows drilling, our “sustainability” is going straight downhill. As it stands, we can’t even drill for the billions of barrels of oil in the ANWR wasteland.
Mark,
Does the $30,000 include the software?
Mike Bryant
REPLY: If I recal correctly the software was about $500 I think. – Anthony
Fernando,
I know a bit about ethanol. I know that in Brazil you produce more ethanol than anywhere else presently (by a long way), that you do so more cost effectively and sustainably (from sugar cane) than any of the other proposed feedstocks (even lignocellulose, although I guess one that will get better).
The thing about ethanol is that you have to separate it from water after fermentation. That requires energy. Overall ethanol production requires about three times as much energy (thermal and electrical) per tonne of feedstock than biogas. Gross energy yields are similar, but net energy is lower much lower.
Mark:
I am not surprised that you avoided answering the question I asked you [@11:42:48].
Instead, you state: “I define sustainability as maintaining our quality of life over the long haul.”
Yes yes yes. But what is the official definition of “sustainablility”? Does one even exist?? Or will an official city definition be ginned up, ex post facto? Like “climate change” was ginned up to replace “global warming” due to the fact that the planet is cooling?
Please, point me to Chico’s official definition of “sustainability”. Because without an official definition, “sustainability” could just as easily be defined as “a tax grab through the censoring of any and all opposing views.”
Tying in your own personal definition of sustainability with the fact that AGW does not exist in any measurable degree, and can not lead to runaway global warming [those are facts, BTW], results in a disconnect.
Aside from some laudatory but minor modifications like LED streetlights, etc. [which the market would have provided anyway], the policies suggested in the city’s PDF file would lead down the road to un-sustainability [according to your sustainability definition: maintaining our quality of life over the long haul].
If George Orwell were still around, he might well have written, “Down is up, black is white, global cooling is global warming, evil is good, and un-sustainability is sustainability.”
Government Newspeak, you see.
I understand, Smokey. It’s just that there really is no such thing as a “bottomless milkshake.” It might behoove us to husband our resources a bit till we get an absolute number on where we’re at. Some awfully smart people think that we’re flowing just about as much oil, right now, as we ever will.
The IEA is expected to announce in it’s report this month that existing oil wells are, globally, declining in production at a 9% Rate. That means to stay even we will have to, globally, replace one Saudi Arabia about every one and a half years. It seems logical, at least to one hillbilly, that we need to continue working on alternatives, and efficiency.
For instance, without knowing anything about Chico, Ca,, the number of restaurants, etc, or the size of it’s school system, amount of busing, etc, It’s highly likely that they could save many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Dollars/Yr by collecting waste yellow grease for conversion to biodiesel.
Is there logging in the area? What about Waste Wood from logging operations? It’s turning into a big business. Are you in a good “wind area?” John Deere will finance the wind turbines in a tax-credit swap deal.
I looked you up on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico,_California
You have all kinds of opportunities for alternative energies. You have several schools, hospitals, restaurants, etc. You could probably run all of your buses on “yellow grease.”
You have Sierra Nevada Breweries – waste sugar water (ethanol,) and Lundberg farms (rice stalks.) With your Mediterranean Climate, and these resources you could become 100% Energy Independent.
Think “Waste.”
Committee: a group of people who individually can do nothing but as a group decide that nothing can be done.
Well, I don’t mean, just “these” resources. I meant those, plus forestry/agricultural waste, Municipal Solid Waste, Anaerobically digestible sewage, Solar, and Wind, (Oh, How’s your “geothermal profile?)
Ellie’s post, above, about Gussing, Austria is Excellent. It should be an “eye-opener” for a community such as yours. It’s gotta be “doable;” they “did it.”
Think “Waste.”
jimB,
Do you have a website to have a closer look at the 100mpg car you have build?
Mr. Watts,
The link “electric car” is not functioning.
Would you be so kind to restore it?
In regard to the this topic I can only say that I am open for any technology that will bring an improvement to our daily life in terms of quality and costs.
The whole AGW doctine and the taxation schemes will prove a disaster and we should fight it with all our might.
Why:
1. the whole concept is based on false data
2. the tax schemes will not solve any problem
3. the proposed legislation will provide unlimited power to the government
4. it will undermine the the strength of the economy
5. it will undermine the security
6. it will promote world wide famine since the legilation will impact food production,
increased application of bio fuels and distribution
It is an act against humanity.
Mike Bryant (22:00:30) :
Meanwhile,
Texas is building lots of power plants and lots of people are moving in. When we need new easements for power lines, the state makes it happen, no lawsuits. This is and has always been a pro-growth state. Please, God, don’t let the contagion spread to Texas.
Mike
Mike Texas is going to become a very wealthy state exporting power to the dummies if transmission capability is sufficient. Also, as I understand Texas can secede from the union much easier as it was a Republic before becoming a state so there may be an out to escape the madness. Drilling for oil and gas should become a national security issue so that it cannot be stopped or delayed by the environmentalists.
Ellie:
The cane sugar, after grinding. It’s dry. And later, burned, generating electricity and thermal energy. The system is self-sufficient, and also sells surplus electricity.
Today, the fleet of vehicles is bi-fuel. (Alcohol / gasoline). you choose.
Today fortunately the government does not interfere with subsidies.
It was not something planned. Simply had no money to buy oil.
FM
Sadly (perhaps not so?), I’ve not yet learned the language of carbon trade-speak. How is the value of this new currency set? Is there some objective, internationally agreed upon yardstick by which we can determine per capita taxation? Can someone tell me how many hundredths of a degree celsius increase is yielded by one ton of Co2? And what is the value in tax dollars of one one-hundredth of a degree? Or, are we to just wing it, and bend over and take it and be a good sport about it? How do we measure the effect of our tax dollars at work? This isn’t like a new street curb or sidewalk that everyone can share. I see no accountability whatsoever.
Lucy Skywalker (01:27:27)
I read yesterday here of the scientist who’s discovered the Earth is being bombarded with “house-size” ice comets (tiny by other comets standards) who was ostracised – the full works – people here understand – and is only being recognized years later. He didn’t have the full political works to contend with, either. Big businesses dare not now be seen to support “skeptics” after their ’90’s records. But AGW get far more slush funding – if people did but know.
I read about a scientist from the University of Iowa many years ago who thought he discovered water vapor appearing in the atmosphere that he attributed to comets; however, his study was related to the question of where the earth got all of its water. Of course he met with a lot of resistance.
Mike from Canmore, yes, your are correct. But it is a Ponzi scheme that is destined to fall
The default condition of ANY city is not “sustainable”. It is growth, since growth drives improvement. Growth potential in North America has always been seen as almost infinite. As long as growth potential was seen as unlimited, economies boomed, prosperity increased, North America became the world’s greatest superpower (I have to say “North America” because I’m in canada and want a piece of this).
Now, along come a group that want us to no longer see growth as the driving force for our civilization. They want us to find some sort of equilibrium, where growth is stifled and quality of life is on hold. They scream for “sustainable”, which is not only an unattainable goal, but a foolish one.
The boogey-man is CO2, it’s global cooling, then global warming, then climate change… which has been repeatedly disproved. If the planet’s climate was really so fragile, the first major volcanic event would have thrown it far past the “tipping points” we keep hearing about. CO2 is not only an essential compound, but the planet’s ability to absorb or “sink” it is effectively infinite.
We’re seeing the same pushes for “taxed sustainability” every around the first world, and quite frankly it’s repulsive. Hiding an outright tax grab behind some idealistic pseudo-scientific crap is really getting old.
O/T rant:
Greenpeace, Sierra Club, WWF, Environmental Defense Fund, Suzuki Foundation, Pew, et al, should have their “charitable status” voided as they are involved in political advocacy.