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.
Anthony it seems you’ve uncovered the true motive behind the global warming movement. I think Papertiger makes a good point; perhaps the current “looter-in-chief” could be given the heave-ho if voters understood what she has in mind for them. And I think there is always room in government for one honest weatherman who makes his decisions based on facts and logic.
Snort! Huh!!! Ha Ha.
How stupid of me – of course – what was I thinking. In fact, why was I thinking at all.
La la la – la la la la – la la la…..
I’m beginning to draw the following conclusion.
There is a distinct cultural difference between, those who
(a) Those who have to competitively produce a commercially acceptable product or service to survive and prosper, and
(b) Those who are insulated from economic competition.
The former have to get real results and are judged by the customer, while the latter need to ensure that the tax teat keeps on squirting…
Unfortunately for everyone – if the numbers of (b) become too many, the numbers of (a) are likely to suddenly crash….
Watch out for the economic tipping point!
Kum Dollison,
Look, I’m not trying to argue with your point of view, but that point of view continually changes, so it’s hard to keep up.
I am a conservationist [not an environmentalist]. I think improvements in efficiency [like traffic light LED’s, EV’s, re-use of waste products, etc.] are desirable. But the free market is by far the most efficient way to acheive those ends. Government, on the other hand, wastes more resources than it saves. And businesses pay taxes. Government doesn’t; it only collects taxes.
[Also, corn is selling at way higher prices than it was only two years ago. See here: click]
And I note that Consumer Reports, in its October 2006 cover story, states that ethanol saves zero energy. It requires .7 gallons of fossil fuels, and 1,700 gallons of fresh water, to produce one gallon of ethanol. How can that be considered responsible conservation of resources?
Furthermore, it takes about 1.3 gallons of ethanol to push a car the same distance as one gallon of gasoline. That means that 1.3 times as much hydrocarbon exhaust goes out the tailpipe for every mile driven using ethanol. In fact, gasoline is a more “green” fuel than ethanol — which also has the undesirable side effect of placing a heavy demand on the corn crop, which in turn results in higher corn prices.
Finally, I want to thank Graeme Rodaughan for those excellent questions. I sincerely hope that Mark does not hide out from answering each one of them.
I also want to thank Mike Bryant for providing the original definition of sustainability:
According to that UN definition, the Chico Sustainability Task Force is doing a great disservice to the city’s residents. By buying in to the whole “carbon is an evil pollutant” meme, future Chico residents will be much worse off than current residents.
If the Chico Sustainability Task Force is ethically driven, it will embrace free market solutions, and jettison all the mindless drivel about “carbon credits,” AGW/CO2/catastrophic global warming, and “reducing our carbon footprint” in order to achieve the utopian fantasy of some wild-eyed green dream.
But don’t hold your breath.
Paging Lucy Skywalker: I would like to contact you regarding your web page but cannot find a contact address ~ RogerCarr@datacodsl.com
You want to feel the “Love?”
Try this. A car driven on electricity has a cost equivalent to $0.70 gal gasoline. And, if your electricity is produced from gassified waste (forest, or municipal,) or Solar, or Wind your air is fresh, and clean. If you own a retail business, what is that worth?
If the river your grandkids swim in is not polluted with coal slag, or other toxic chemicals, what is that worth? Feeling the “Love,” yet?
Whoops – thats “Watch out for the economic tipping point”.
Here is a working, draft definition of sustainability.
“A sustainable process is able to ensure the continued availability of all imputs and the disposal of all outputs.”
Applied to our economic activities that would be the following –
An economically sustainable process would ensure the ongoing “cost-effective” availability of Capital, Labour (manpower and know-how), Energy and Materials, and the “cost-effective” provision of goods/services to available customers, where goods are provided – full lifecycle for the goods to apply.
So what the Chico guys need to do is ensure that their local government is able to ensure the following.
1. Capital sustainability – balance that budget without overtaxing the people. Measure the budget and set a published per capita tax (Not to exceed) Threshold
2. Labour sustainability – ensure that people with useful skills want to live in Chico – Define useful skills and measure those who arrive and leave via survey.
3. Find the cost-effective sources of energy and use them – if any are “unsustainable” – define a migration plan that is cost-effective and use mature technologies to replace them when it is cost-effective to do so.
4. Materials – as for energy.
5. Customer Sustainability – ensure that customers needs are paramount and are being met and they will keep coming.
6. In general principle – avoid political fashions.
smokey, on Nov 1, 2006 corn was selling for $3.50 bushel. Today, it’s selling for $4.00 bu. That’s a difference of a tad less that One Penny/lb.
If you can eat a pound of field corn/day it will cost you $0.01/day to do so. If you eat a quarter pounder every day it will cost you a little less than a penny.
Thanks Smokey – just inspired by the blog.
As for those CR numbers, they’re just bad wrong. It takes about one gallon of diesel (or biodiesel, or ethanol) to grow enough starch for 700 gallons of ethanol.
Corn Plus, in Winnebago, Mn uses approx. 17,000 btus of natural gas to produce one gallon of ethanol (a gallon of ethanol in a properly compressed engine will deliver as much energy – 130,000 btu – as a gallon of diesel.
They are very efficient in that they gassify the syrup from their distillation process. Many other refineries, such as Chippewa Valley, and Poet, are, also, moving toward waste biomass for process energy. The industry is moving, rapidly, toward Zero Fossil Fuel usage.
Guys, Two Years, is two lifetimes when evaluating new technologies. The First Rule of Life Cycle Analysis is to make sure you have the most “up to date” data.
The most popular definition of sustainability can be traced to a 1987 UN conference. It defined sustainable developments as those that “meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”
I would like to propose a pro growth definition of sustainability:
“Sustainable developments are those that exceed present needs, while enhancing and improving the ability of future generations to exceed their needs, thus insuring the improvement of the human race.”
If you are only barely meeting your needs, there is nothing left for unseen occurences.
If anyone would like to improve or expand this definition, feel free.
Oh, that 1700 gallons of water? 1,697 of it is “Rain Water,” at least in 95 percent of it (about the only state that does much irrigating of field corn is Nebraska. And, most of the water supplied in that state is from mother nature.) It, actually, takes about 3 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol. And, it’s returned to nature, fresh, and unpolluted.
Your Sunday Newspaper, though, does IIRC require about sixteen, or seventeen hundred gallons of water.
Oops, This: It takes about one gallon of diesel (or biodiesel, or ethanol) to grow enough starch for 700 gallons of ethanol. is Wrong.
According the the U.N. that should be 8 gallons.
That’s an Old figure, also, though. It’s probably more like 5 gallons, now.
Kum,
“If the river your grandkids swim in is not polluted with coal slag, or other toxic chemicals, what is that worth? Feeling the “Love,” yet?”
Kum don’t talk to me about conservation. It was my generation that cleaned up the rivers, the lakes, the air and the oceans. I did my part. That work was accomplished and is still ongoing. The Port of Houston doesn’t burn anymore. Fisheries are improving all over the country.
You are living in the past. If you really want to clean up the Earth, perhaps you should move to China or India to complete the work that was begun here in the good ole USA.
Can we do more? Of course, but CO2 is not pollution.
You know, you keep talking about the price of corn. It’s only fifty cents a bushel more. Kum, you don’t live in Kenya or Uganda or Mexico. Fifty cents is something you walk past if you see it on the ground, but for the poor of the world it can mean the difference between feast or famine. Yes I really do feel the love.
The second largest producer of ethanol has declared bankruptcy. Yeah they made a bad decision, but the real problem for ethanol is the lower price of oil.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-verasun1-2008nov01,0,152878.story
Funny how money always reveals truth and beauty. 🙂
The writing is on the wall.
Hi Kum,
I’m all for conserving resources under a “waste not, want not” principle, and I do a lot of water conservation activities on a daily basis at my home.
However, there are two sides to the equation – Supply and Demand. I’m happy to minimise my “demand” provided I can do it in an efficient, and cost -effective way with minimal or no side effects on my actual enjoyment of life.
I’m also willing to pay taxes to support the construction of supply side infrastructure (e.g water = dam), provided that the selected infrastructure is an efficient and cost-effective means of generating the required supply.
Under these principles I would prefer to Dam rivers and build Coal fired power stations… – but not more than is necessary to meet the actual demand for water and electricity where I live.
Unfortuanately for me, successive state governments have failed to invest in basic water and electrical supply infrastructure while the population of the state has increased….
Hence demand limitation is being imposed by the state government through water restrictions.
Kum Dollison,
Do you even buy groceries?
I’ve been buying corn for 25 years for both feed and heating. I don’t know where you get your prices for November 2006, but it must be from a state that imports corn!
I don’t recall what the cash price for corn was exactly for November 2006, but it was well under $3.00. In about Sept it was it was well under $2.00, probably closer to $1.75. Nov 2005 was below $1.50.
Apr 2008 it was over $6.00
If you think this type of volatility doesn’t affect food prices, you’ve never been in the livestock business!
BTW, the electric car is for city dwellers living in a bubble, but I could see the logic in having one for those circumstances if you have $10,000 to blow on a glorified golf cart. In the world I and most others live in, they are useless. And no, GM didn’t “kill the electric car” so they could go belly up; they aren’t that honorable.
The Tesla roadster is not expensive because it is a sports car; it is a sports car because electric cars are economically impractical for long distance. If they built a Prius size electric car, who would buy it? A few Hollywood elites who fly in their private jets and live in 10,000 sq ft homes…..maybe to release some of their guilt.
Mike, poor people don’t eat field corn. Poor animals eat field corn, and they are then eaten by Rich people. Corn costs more in Mexico than it does in the U.S. Our corn exports go up every year, but we’ve never exported any corn to speak of to Kenya, or Uganda. We export most of it to Asia, and Europe.
Oh, and one of “My” generational duties was 13 mos in sunny southeast Asia. I’ll pass on the return trip.
You’ll notice I, personally, never mentioned CO2. I, also, think the whole CO2, anthropogenic warming deal is silly. I was, however, responding to a man trying to do affordable things to make his city more livable. I mentioned some things that are being done at the present that are not only efffective from an environmental standpoint, but “Positive” from a “Cash Flow” standpoint.
I didn’t bring up the economic viability of ethanol. I merely set the record straight. As for Verasun, the man obviously thought he could drive down the price of corn by shorting it. Bad idea. Then he went long at the Top. Too Bad, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the viability of ethanol. There are 157 other refineries that are doing just fine.
Nite all. It’s been a pleasure.
Speculation coming up.
Hi DR,- Hypothesis for the motivation for Guilt.
1(useful guilt). Hurt a member of the community, take responsibility for it (experience guilt), repair damage, gain apology (guilt expiated) – membership in the community maintained – survival chances improved.
2. (useless guilt (externalised)). Observe frightning event, ascribe responsibility for it to other (scapegoat – guilt externalised), outcast or kill other (guilt expiated) – sense of control in face of frightening event maintained – survival chances improved????
3. (useless guilt (internalised)). Observer frightening event, take responsibility for it (guilt), punish self (guilt expiated) – sense of control in face of frightening event maintained – survival chances improved????
Basic point is that guilt (implying power over the frightening thing) is more comforting than powerlessness.
I.e Guilt implies responsibility and responsibility implies the power to make a difference in the matter at hand.
This also implies that a willingness to accept powerlessness over something that is both frightening and uncontrollable would result in an absence of guilt.
I feel no guilt over the climate/weather, and I am not motivated by guilt to do anything about it.
I wonder if Hollywood elites who drive a Prius do so out of guilt or for a desire to be seen to be “fashionable”. I suspect that the motivations would vary…
DR, I was using the link Smokey gave me. This one Corn, CBOT, Historical Prices.
We ran cattle in the winter when I was a boy, DR. It’s a brutal business. A couple of Good years, then we lost half our herd to shipping fever. Like I said, “Brutal.”
The thing is a lot of things came together to raise commodity prices in general, and corn in particular. Rampant commodity speculation, poor crops around the world, some failed harvests in Australia, and China. Farmers’ strike in Argentina. Europe holding ten percent of it’s wheatland out of rotation. Huge increasing demand in China, and other emerging economies. And, yes, a little bit from ethanol. But, Ethanol production is rapidly increasing, and corn is back down. That’s gotta tell you something.
And, we’re “Still” paying farmers to keep 34 Million Acres Out of Production. And, DR, you’ve gotta admit that $1.75/bu corn was subsidized to the farmer to the tune of a dollar, or so. BTW, that $11 Billion/Yr that we were paying farmers in crop supports has now gone away. That’s “Plus Eleven Billion” to the taxpayer.
Hope you do good this year. I’m sure you deserve it.
Kum,
I’m interested in more information on the blue fire ethanol you mention. I checked their website and did not find much. The website seems to be outdated and reference a small plant in Japan with JGC but it only produced 300 liters of ethanol per day in 2004 and they only show wood chips.
Are there references or links for such plants using MSW to generate liquid fuels? I’m really interested if you have any more specifics.
You are suggesting that cities employ this MSW technology, but are there any commercial size plants operating. If so where and what size?
As you probably know there are no commercial size cellolosic plants converting wood chips to ethanol today. Range Fuels was claiming to be the first but the start up is delayed until late 2009.
As you may remember, I am very skeptical about the USA getting much liquid fuel from cellulose anytime soon and therefore believe we need to immediately save our economy by developing our plentiful fossil fuels to provide the needed energy today. Lying to the American public that we can provide our current energy with non demonstrated technology and taking fossil and Nuclear energy off the table is criminal. I think about my grandchildren suffering down the road because a bunch of selfish leaders believed that CO2 is a pollutant and decided to ban fossil fuels and force upon us a misguided energy policy.
Hi Graeme. I appreciate your sentiments. Let me ask you: If you could provide electricity for your citizens at a reduced rate, lower your cost of sewage treatment, greatly lower the cost of running your school buses, help clean the air, and set your city apart as a progressive, and healthy place to live wouldn’t you want to take a look at it?
The proposals that I laid out will, I believe, accomplish those particular goals. They would, of course, save the city money; and, could even lead to “lower taxes.” Jes sayin.
G’Nite.
Don, I used bluefire ethanol/lancaster county and came up with THIS, Plus Several More.
I mentioned them because they have successfully used their process, and they are doing this deal in Lancaster County, Ca. There are scads of these municipal solid waste projects just kicking off. They have (mostly) all done pilot plants, so I think they will be viable.
I, also, think it would be stupid to take coal, and Nuclear off the table. No “Prudent” businessman would do that. I, also, think it would be dumb not to keep spending a little money moving forward on biofuels, and waste gassification. A smart businessman is Always looking for ways to improve.
We’ve got our money back, “Big-Time” on Corn Ethanol. Just look at the “crack spread” on gasoline, today, compared to diesel fuel. The crack spread on gasoline, for which there is now an alternative, to the tune of 700,000 barrels/day (approx. 8% of consumption) is, basically, Zero. Maybe, even a dollar below cost. Diesel, on the other hand, which has no ubiquitous alternative is still very high.
Anyway, after following this for a few years, I’m pretty sure that the Bluefires of the world are going to be very successful. And, they could supply from a fourth to a third of all our transportation fuel needs. I’m not sure where you would find a complete list of the nascent gassifiers. I’m thinking “Biomass Magazine” might be a good place to start. Last I heard there were over thirty of them. Good Luck.
The Great Depression of ’29 > cut carbon emmission by 25%. Hottest year of 20th Cent. : 1934. Been there, done that