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.
Cool, Roger Peilke Sr. agrees with what I suggested to the NH Climate Change Task Force and Mark Stemen about separating climate change and conservation. From http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/11/sustainability-interviews-roger-a-pielke.html (found from a posting at icecap.us):
RAP: Energy policy and climate policy should be disconnected from each other. There are overlaps between the two, and the trouble is that people are using climate, mainly CO2, to invoke energy policy. I think that’s a very bad way to go about it. In terms of energy policy, which I’m not an expert on, you have to consider each energy source in terms of its pros and cons. The way it’s being done now, it’s just sort of one dimensional – it’s just assuming that carbon dioxide is the biggest threat to mankind, and I think that’s really an absurd oversimplification of the complexity of the issue.
It would seem plausible in light of this global economic downturn that is expected to continue at least another 18 to 24 months, if not longer, to record any noticeable reduction in man-made CO2 emissions. There should be some type of inverted bell curve spanning 2007 to 2012 with accompanying downward curve in temperature (considering lag time). As a believer in sunspot driven temperature fluctuations, I’m not sure how one would allow for that element of the equation. The current reduction in per barrel oil prices are a direct result of anticipated reduction in consumption, which should imply a reduction in emissions. I say we hold out another 4 years or so to test the theory to see if it holds before we start taxing people on carbon emissions.
To the City of Chico, California.
Doesn’t it feel good to do something for sustainability? It always feels so good to do something with someone else’s money. Doesn’t it feel good to do something about climate change. It doesn’t matter if you bankrupt the city, it’s not really your money anyway. And don’t forget that gas tax can always be bumped on up. Besides, then people won’t drive as much and that will decrease CO2! But wait, then the gas revenues will go down. Don’t worry though, there are plenty of things that can still be taxed. I understand that every citizen exhales CO2, so there is always that. And the businesses, everyone knows how deep their pockets are. So don’t listen to anyone. You are doing the right thing. Even if every business and every citizen leaves, it is a matter of conscience.
Hey con=against and science, well who knows what science means anymore.
Anyway thank you for making government more expensive and inaccessible. Texas says a big thank you also. Send us your overburdened, longing to be free. Send us your best and your brightest. Don’t worry, they can always send money back to their families in California. That will help you to sustain.
Mike Bryant
Code Tech has got it exactly right. As do the subsequent posters. Those parroting the evil mantra of ‘sustainability’ used to be known as Malthusians [who refused to believe that Man’s ingenuity could provide for a rising population], and Luddites [who smashed spinning jennies in the mistaken belief that they would starve due to automation; what actually occurred was a significant drop in unemployment and an increase in living standards, as textile mills required more, and better educated, and thus better paid workers].
The modern day Malthusian-Luddites [the AGW/”carbon is evil” contingent of the enviro movement] are already causing mass starvation through their deliberately misguided policies.
One-sixth of the world’s population lives on $1 or less per day; the ethanol mandate [which stems directly from the no-drilling contingent] has already caused the price of basic food stocks to triple, resulting in starvation among the world’s poorest, who must spend most of their $1 a day income on calories.
The organized environmental movement [as opposed to true conservationists] does not care how many of the world’s poor die as a result of their anti-human policies. As the linear philosophical descendants of Josef Stalin, they accept his Soviet dictum that “One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.”
Chico had a short-fall of US$4 million earlier this year. It is now US$10 million.
The California state legislature passed a budget with a built-in debt of US$7 billion. It is now US$10 billion.
The City of Vallejo has recently had a problem with sustainability. Vallejo declared bankruptcy in May and still has a US$3 million short-fall: Vallejo is asking most city employees to take unpaid time off work to help close an unexpected $3 million budget gap. City Manager Joe Tanner also volunteered to take a 10 percent pay cut off his $316,000 salary to help the ailing city, which filed for bankruptcy in May.
There is a bond on the ballot for US$10 billion, which is “seed” money for a coast-line high-speed train. Total cost over 30 years US$20 billion and this is only the “seed.”
Such is the sustainability of governments in the Golden State.
Hmmmm…. Tying several threads together (one gets a cloth!).
Noting that CO2 is a “Dangerous Pollutant” (prior thread) and that processes that use or emit it would be subject to EPA regulation in the (likely) near future.
How sustainable will be the lives (and limbs) of EPA staff be, who walk into bars (waving their badges) and declaring that FLAT beer shall be drunk by all – imagine the scenario where the bar is owned, operated and patronised by your local, friendly “Outlaw Motorcycle Gang”…
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Economically unsustainable actions cannot last.
Witness the former USSR and satellite states in eastern europe.
We will all reap the seeds sown by the “green” revolution.
And who will bail the US out?
Kum (15:03:11) says “think Waste”.
No – new terminology not ‘waste’ but ‘organic resource’.
You gotta make the most of what you’ve got, stop throwing it away, make use of it in the most efficient manner. That’s exactly what sustainability is about, and that is exactly why Brazil got it going ethanol going so well – they had to make the best use of ALL their resource (thanks, Fernando).
Biorenewables have been hijacked by the AGW lobby to a great extent, but there’s worthwhile stuff in there.
Before you brag about your EV, read this report: The electric car is no solution to smog in California’s cities, according to a new report published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdenv42.html
Another look:
Electric Car Pollution http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eajf96/eajf96n.html
Chico is said to rank third in bad air quality in the state of California.
CodeTech (15:37:42) :
I’m with you on the sustainability tax stuff, but the incentives in Europe might do some good in pushing better technology. That’s why Gussing (see earlier post at 07:30:56) is so engaging – they did it for prosperity not CO2.
Ellie,
So true, the people in Gussing are making money at it. Now that makes sense. Gussing is thriving, not pouring money down a huge government hole. Do you think that a wood fired power plant would ever be approved in California? And if it was, would the environmentalists let them string those power lines through the forests? Remember, it doesn’t have to make any sense in California as long as it feels so good. The taxpayers will pick up the tab. Until they decide to leave.
Nobody can define sustainability because nobody understands the ecosystem and the development of life.
In what conceivable way does sustainability have anything to do with limiting, controlling, and redistributing resources? No, as a species we have either progressed, or perished.
Our children are entitled to a far higher and more sophisticated standards of living than we ever dreamed, just as we have been privileged to have beyond our ancestors. Our children do not deserve some kind of wooly jumpered bicycle riding village locally grown carrot munching confined utopia. They would not thank us for that.
Nature isn’t about “balance”. It is about a struggle to evolve and develop. It is destructive and creative–many Eastern philosophies get this. The environment and limited resources are Nature’s way of telling us to progress harder, to become more ingenious and become more powerful. Our footprint should not be smaller, it should be bigger–we should develop ways to harness more and more raw material into life enriching capabilities.
Nature’s impulse is always to go forward. We have 6 billion today but only a small percentage have the most advanced lifestyle, healthcare, and technology? I define sustainability as being able to acquire for a future where all 10 or 20 billion equally have a higher standard of living than the richest enjoy today. Sustainability is a future where billions of people all commonly receive an education that makes them smarter and more capable and intelligent than what is possible in the best schools in the world today.
Hehe, just wait until Obama and the Democrats get their way with coal. And remember, we must only suffer for ten years under their tyranny, and then we will all have free energy. 🙂
Waiting for Obama supporter response…….
Echoes of Germany, 1939
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Barrack Obama
Ed Scott,
[Before you brag about your EV, read this report: The electric car is no solution to smog in California’s cities, according to a new report published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdenv42.html
Another look:
Electric Car Pollution http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eajf96/eajf96n.html
Chico is said to rank third in bad air quality in the state of California.}
You are buiding your arguments against the electric car on twelve year old reports.
We currently observe a revolution in battery development and energy storage technologies (super capacitators). The future batteries can be recycled, have a long service life cycle (3000 load cycles without loss of capacity) and high energy storage capacity at a low weight.
The idea is to create an intelligent grid where the cars that are plugged in the net function as a peak buffer. This eliminates a number of back-up power plants when applied. One other disadvantage of battery technology, the time you need to charge the batteries will be reduced from several hours to a few minutes.
The moment this new battery technology is available at low prices it will have a future.
At this moment in time we have conventional technology available with the potential to reduce the average fuel consumption of a car by 80%. http://www.tcengine.com/Our_Technology.html
This technology and many other car concepts will be on the road during the X-prize event for the 100 mpg car competition. The winner will get a prize of 10 million US dollar. (much cheaper than the 25 billion dollar gift to the US car industry to develop a fuel efficient car)
Because I am convinced that CO2 is not an environmental factor I have no objections against the use of carbon fuels but I am in favor of any technology that improves mpg performance and clean burning.
If you are interested in the top 100 of new (peer reviewed) technologies have a look at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100:Complete_List
It is clear that the land of the free are really free if they are able to obtain individual energy independence. Some of the technologies have the potential to achieve this.
Some are simple, some are complex.
The free market and competition should do the job but a well informed public always is a help.
As long as it is affordable and competative.
On Sustainability:
If any current level of life were “sustainable”, then life wouldn’t evolve. See ants.
Life is not sustainable, therefore it evolves.
For Smokey:
The Mission Statement of the Chico Sustainability Task Force
The Sustainability Task Force shall promote a culture of stewardship within our community to enhance our natural resources,economic interests and quality of life for present and future generations in the City of Chico by collaboratively developing
programs and initiatives which will distinguish Chico as a leader in sustainability efforts.
Sustainability – what a joke. Two weeks without oil and most of the US would resemble Mad Max. Who are we fooling?
Still not a definition of sustainability.
Mark:
Thanx for your Mission Statement, which gives marching orders to the committee — but which gives no official definition of the key word. It is also vague, dreamy-eyed nonsense that you can’t hang your hat on; it could mean almost anything to anyone.
I’m still waiting for Chico’s official definition of “sustainability.” If one exists. Which I’m beginning to doubt.
I also doubt that the Sustainability Task Force rules require that if someone misses meetings, they will be automatically kicked off the committee like Anthony was. Why don’t you look over the rules, and get back to us on that.
As I said in my 14:34:07 post above, without an official definition, “sustainability” could just as easily be defined as “a tax grab through the censoring of any and all opposing views.”
It’s beginning to look like that is pretty much the true intent of what the committee presumes is “sustainability”.
When you see the word “sustainability,” hold onto your wallet. Absolutely nobody knows what is “sustainable” on this fascinating planet.
Smokey,
I found a definition of “sustainability” here:
http://www.arch.wsu.edu/09%20publications/sustain/defnsust.htm
I have a feeling that this is a blueprint for the fulfillment of some radical agenda. Read it and see for yourself. Is this what our mayors are supposed to be doing? It seems like they would at least be kind enough to ask before they throw our cities into bankruptcy. I noticed that the mission statement gave lip service to “economic interests”, too bad the numbers give the lie to their efforts.
Guys, the paper industry has been off the fossil fuel habit for thirty years. They use waste biomass for process energy. They did it because it was efficient, and increased their bottom line.
Utilizing the energy in your waste grease, sewage, and landfill waste isn’t some dumb, greenie, CO2-enhanced mania. It’s Good Business. It also lends itself to better air-quality than burning coal, or oil. What’s wrong with that.
And, Smokey, Corn is selling for $0.07 lb. You can’t grow it any cheaper than that.
Look, if your area doesn’t lend itself to wind power don’t use wind power. Don’t be a sucker and send someone else money to use it. Same with Solar. If it works for your area (meaning it’s cheaper than other forms of electricity) use it. If not, use something else. Waste Always works. Insulation Always works. Better, more efficient engines always work.
Besides, it’s nice having a clean place to live, right?
@Mark,
If I wasn’t able to provide a clear, specific, measurable and quantified objective, my boss would rightly kick my A#$E.
What are the measures for sustainability – without measures that allow you to determine if you have succeeded or failed in achieving your objectives there can be no accountability.
Or is a lack of accountability a conscious objective?
The mission statement has many unanswered questions.
How do you know if you have in fact “promoted a culture of stewardship” instead of “degrading a culture of stewardship”?
How do you know that you have “Enhanced our natural resources, economic interests and quality of life” instead of degrading them.
Does enhancing natural resources mean that you will have quantifiable more natural resources available for use by the population? Or more efficient use of the same or diminishing natural resources? Is that a per capita measure? What is a natural resource as opposed to an un-natural (developed) resource?
What’s the relationship between “Economic interests” and the tax base?
Does improving Economic Interests mean more taxes on a per capita basis, or less on a per capita basis?
Who pays tax and who doesn’t? And is the tax base proposed to change – i.e who pays tax is to change.
Is there any concept of getting “value for money” in government/council expenditure and is this accountable to anyone?
Quality of life – one persons view of what is good for them can be diametrically opposed by another persons – witness an alcoholic drunk vs a tea drinking abstainer discussing the merits of their lifestyles.
Or is Quality of Life (QOL) defined? If defined, who has been demonstrated to accept the proposed definition?
How will you know if Chico is a leader in sustainability? Who will you compare yourself with? and using what measures on your performance?
Leadership to where? What is the end game for your objectives? Is the end game defined? Do you know what your goal posts are and have you got broad community acceptance of those goal posts? If so, how is your community acceptance measured?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Graeme,
You just don’t understand. Those questions are irrelevant. This sustainability thing isn’t about numbers and accountability, man. It’s about doing the things that make us feel good, man. Don’t you see?? It’s people like you that want things to make sense that are ruining this environment, buddy. The outcome is not important, it’s the journey. We’ll get there when we get there. It ain’t about money. When the money is all gone we’ll grow our own food and live off the fat of the land. Lighten up man. Can’t you feel the love?
/sarc off