The town I live in, Chico, CA is sometimes known as “Berkeley North” due to the liberal influence of Chico State University (CSUC). In this case, CSUC’s sustainability cabal, led by Professor Mark Stemen and Mayor Ann Schwab, has snookered our town into passing a “Climate Action Plan”.
Last Tuesday, our city council (who’s been deep in the red financially) approved by a 6 to 1 vote, the “Climate Action Plan” (CAP) from the “Sustainability Task Force”. It’s quite the hoot, because as I point out, they could buy “carbon indulgences”, for less than the cost of the “studies” money, and be done with it rather than continue to waste everybody’s time and effort. But in my opinion, the CAP really isn’t about results, it is about a continued agenda and public funds being used to support that agenda.
Here’s the story on it:
Full story here
Here’s what went down in discussion:
But Councilor Larry Wahl contested whether a Climate Action Plan, or its subsequent directives, would produce any “tangible benefit” to Chico.
“I do not literally see what this will accomplish … Will the sky be bluer? Will anything be prettier?” Wahl asked.
Holcombe said he didn’t want the city to take the chance that it wouldn’t.
“Nature is not waiting and certainly I don’t want the city of Chico to wait,” Holcombe said.
The rest of the council supported Holcombe.
By a 6-1 vote with Wahl dissenting, the council directed the creation of a Climate Action Plan, simultaneously approving a number of actions to be implemented in the first phase of the plan.
Here’s the Climate Action Plan (PDF) as it was approved that night. You’ll find it starting on page 80 of the meeting agenda. The Enterprise Record wrote a scathing editorial on it:
Full editorial here.
I had identified the same issues, but took it a step further with my letter to the editor I sent, citing what I recently discovered about the Chicago Climate Exchange:
============================================
Dear Editor:
Regarding the recently passed city “Climate Action Plan,” one good idea is the installation of LED street lighting. While it won’t do much to offset carbon dioxide (since power plants program for lower idle loads at night) it will save money due to increased power efficiency. Anything minimizing expense and waste is a good thing for our spend-happy city government.
Besides this misguided but fiscally sensible idea, I note this in the Climate Action Plan: “Carbon Offsets Goal 1: Purchase Carbon Offsets Where Cost Effective.”
Since Team Schwab seems determined to waste money on this, I’ll point out three things:
1. Carbon offset trading in the USA is essentially dead. Even Sen. Harry Reid admits this. The Senate failed to pass cap and trade.
2. If they must waste money, don’t wait, do it now, because carbon offsets at the Chicago Climate Exchange are going for the bargain price of 5 cents per ton, down from the heyday highs of $7.50 per ton. See www.chicagoclimatex.com.
A bag of charcoal briquettes is worth more right now.
3. The plan said Chico emits 516,000 tons of carbon. At that price, we can offset the whole town for $25,800, far less than the cost of the actual city “Climate Plan.”
Maybe the council should buy boatloads of carbon credits at 5 cents per ton then resell it to the clueless Europeans trading carbon at nearly $20 per ton (see www.ecx.eu).
Yeah, that’s the ticket out of our city financial crisis.
Anthony Watts,
Chico CA
===========================================
Here’s the price today:
Waste money now, or later? That is the question.
For the record, I like LED lighting, and I put my money where my mouth is.
My view of carbon offsets? The City of Chico could buy them here, save our public funds, and they’d be just as effective. In fact, if they print them on this paper, the 69 cents a sheet paper would actually be worth more than the 5 cents per ton of carbon they “offset”.
Such a deal, sounds just like a job for our city government.
=========================================
UPDATE: I’ve added the PowerPoint presentation given at the City Council Meeting which you can download here: CityCouncil9-7
re previous just do
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ and then click on 600mb my bad sorry
Mark says: September 13, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Mark, please give some details on “our Research Foundation”.
“Thirty thousand went to pay the researchers who gathered the data for the greenhouse gas inventory I co-authored.”
“Ten thousand went to pay two interns who worked at the city.”
“The remaining $30,000 has yet to be allocated.”
Well, it’s good to see that $70,000 from the poor taxpayers of Chico, CA trying to keep their heads above water in our awful economy went to such a great use.
I suppose next the ruling class of Chico can vote to allocate themselves $100,000 to study the impact of unicorn mating habits on groundwater contamination…hey, it’s fun playing with other people’s money!
There were some really choice recommendations in the report.
Stuff like ‘free bicycle maintenance’ and ‘stop paving roads with asphalt’.
Just dig up the roads and install a goat path!!!
John Galt says:
September 13, 2010 at 1:28 pm
How about construction, making concrete creates a lot of CO2.
John, if I remember correctly, the creation of Portland cement which is used to make concrete creates a lot of CO2. Ground limestone and other minerals are heated in a kiln and a lot of CO2 comes from driving CO2 from the limestone and from the kiln to heat the limestone and other minerals. When the Portland cement is hydrated, it absorbs CO2 while curing.
Portland cement used in concrete construction will have already produced the CO2 and won’t create CO2.
Warren
From the ChicoER article “One called it a “symbolic gesture.” They said there would be no mandate, just a commitment by the city to lead the way in protecting the environment”.
This is such a bizarre statement by the “one”. How can a symbolic gesture having no mandate to do anything, protect the environment, let alone lead the way in doing so?
Is this their idea of leading by example? Make symbolic gestures, and pass no-mandate action plans? Leading the world in doing nothing, and saving the environment at the same time. My God these people are seriously confused.
Anthony
Golly gee willikers, 5c a tonne for Carbon? And BBQ briquettes sell for more?
I drive to work and occasionally observe bumper stickers etc advertising “Carbon Neutral”, blah, blah.
I’m a thinking of a new bumber sticker “Carbon Positive and Proud of it – because I’m a carbon based lifeform”. or a big black foot sticker with C +ve ?
No as pithy as I would like, however, and maybe we could use our resources here to come up with something better? Heck, as a carbon based life form the bigger our carbon foot print the better.
Wow, Chico, what an interesting place. Could not the city counsel perhaps begin a weekly television series based upon these stories? Seems to me that would generate ample income to support these insanely comical and useless ideas.
From afar, all I can do is think to myself “hmmmm” .. and laugh.
Professor Mark is a prime example of the very sad and sorry state of our so-called “educational” system in this country. What a complete waste of some poor students money. Just glad it isn’t my daughter wasting her time in an environment such as that. (note to self; do not employ someone graduating from Chico, CA)
Greg Cavanagh says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:31 pm
“… How can a symbolic gesture having no mandate to do anything, protect the environment, let alone lead the way in doing so?”
========================================================
lol, its symbolism over substance!! The west coast has perfected the “form over function” thought! Forget reality, we’ll invent a new one! Yes, its a horrible reality, but look at the beautiful thoughts we can provide to counter the invented reality!
“Huge indoor medical marijuana grow proposed at Chico airport”
How else, can they convince the average joe that global warming is real?
Try 8 billion quid in Scotland (about 12 billion dollars).
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/health/Climate-change-law-to-rip.6526829.jp
Pass laws in haste, repent at leisure.
Silence on all fronts about this here at the moment but I don’t expect that to last.
Peter Miller says:
September 13, 2010 at 4:16 pm
“Anthony
This has got to be a spoof – there’s no way this Mark guy can be real.
Anyhow, no one wastes money like local government can.”
Have you been paying attention to the Feds? A trillion here, a trillion there and pretty soon you’re talking real money. Oh wait…. they’re just printing it. Never mind.
@Mark: Please post. Please?
.
.
.
.
Still waiting for the lies in Anthony’s post to be pointed out Lovely ad hom, though.
Are Carbon Indulgences significantly different then those old style indulgences that got M. Luther so excited?
Actually, I was just catching up on some reading earlier today and came across a disturbing article illuminating a disturbing trend in this country, the replacement of asphalt roads with gravel. Because of the tremendous increases in cost of asphalt, many cities and states are opting to replace asphalt roads with gravel instead of rebuilding or repairing them. South Dakota currently ranks towards the top in this trend.
interesting post….
and apparently the left is happy to drive all industry or farming out of California unless its marijuana…(who knew?)
as far as the professor types, i recently enrolled for some Computer Science classes at American River JuCo at the age of 40 and was so disappointed by the self-centered instructor that i dropped the class after the first meeting…when i went to college ~20 years ago the professors were humble and happy to help the students learn but if the prof. at ARC was any example, things have changed for the worse….privatization of the UC’s and CSU’s in this state might be the answer – it might force some of them to behave in a decent manner as well as get rid of their bloated salaries and pensions and the silly idea of tenure….
Here’s some good news.
My local Council (Richmond, London, UK) introduced a “Green Tax” about four years ago with the same sort of “start with the answer” research and potty finance behind it.
£30,000 in legal fees alone as I recall. They had to “consult” the locals five times before they got the “mandate” they wanted to go ahead.
Three years in one of the Councillors pointed out that the amount of CO2 saved could have been bought on the EU carbon markets for about £850. Sound familiar?
Did I say good news? Oh yes. A few months ago that Councillor’s party won control. Tax repealed. Nonsense over.
(Something for you to look forward to)
Chico sounds like it is already an extremely efficient city.
The average US CO2 emissions per capita is 19 tons of CO2 per person.
Wiki says the city has a population of 87,700 so, on average, the emissions should be close to 1,666K tons (while the inventory says Chico is only 516K tons or less than one-third of the US average).
So either Chico is extremely efficient or the greenhouse gas inventory was done wrong.
I would also be very happy to see Mark discuss his position on AGW in depth. Especially, I would like him to start with a discussion of the quality of the data that goes into determining national and global average temperature, and also the error ranges of that data. That is something I have never seen fully addressed in a way that makes sense to a non-statistician.
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm
“Are Carbon Indulgences significantly different then those old style indulgences that got M. Luther so excited?”
========================================================
Well, I don’t think you were required to pay for horse flatulence back then.
The editorial headline says it all
From the story:
But Councilor Larry Wahl contested whether a Climate Action Plan, or its subsequent directives, would produce any “tangible benefit” to Chico.
“I do not literally see what this will accomplish … Will the sky be bluer? Will anything be prettier?” Wahl asked.
Politicians will get more control and more money to control. The believers will get a good feeling. “Green” entrepreneurs will make money (maybe). Meanwhile, a lot of human endeavor will be misdirected and frittered away on useless projects that in the end will have no redeeming social value. This is what we and the Europeans have been doing for some time now, instead of building a stronger economy that benefits everyone.
We’ve recalled the township board twice in the last 15 years; the whole lot of them. Once was for trying to force an ethanol plant on us after we voted the measure down. The even had the gall to hire an attorney with our money to fight us!
The second was for them, “new” elected officials years later, passing draconian ordinances infringing on our property rights, paying consultants and general money wasting that politicians are so good at. Oh, and of course reassessing our property values, with outside hired assessors which was odd since we elected a township supervisor and clerk to do that. Most of us have lived in this area our entire lives. It is out in the country, a small population, but these city slickers [no offense to city dwellers 🙂 ] come in and decide they know what’s best for us. Our philosophy is leave us alone and go back to your big lib city politics, we don’t want them; don’t tread on me.
People now pay more attention to who is running for office.
Only until the citizenry of Chico, California take control and boot out the board can the situation be improved. That would be my suggestion, but then again maybe the citizens of Chico like what their government officials are doing to them.
Just when you thought Chino was kooky, we had a Climate Action Plan for Maryland since 2008. Look what our enviro wackos are shooting for:
reduce GHG by “90 percent by 2050”
90% by 2050, yep.
Gov. Martin O’Malley has bought into this hook, line and sinker!
Dear Mark –
Although I am accustomed to strange things coming out of California, I assume you are a real person, and that you hold a real post at a real institution in a real city with a real city council. Were it not for the trust I place in Anthony based on past experience, I might well have assumed the whole post was a spoof, especially the comments made under your name.
Since you have publicly accused Anthony of BS, deceit and lying, please have the courtesy to substantiate these allegations. I have seen no such substantiation so far. Indeed, I have read and re-read the relevant documents, and find Anthony’s letter to the Editor to be entirely fair and factually correct.
Even better, why not take up Anthony’s offer to make a guest post setting out your side of the story in full? That might well alter the opinion I have now formed of you, your institution, and your city council.
Best regards
Bill Illis says:
September 13, 2010 at 6:07 pm
So either Chico is extremely efficient or the greenhouse gas inventory was done wrong.
==========================================
Bill, actually it’s worse than that.
There is no industry in Chico that would contribute to CO2. No coal plants, manufacturing, etc.. Chico’s industry is the university, medical, etc.
They spent the first $30,000 to hire the university ( that’s professor Mark who’s posting here) to do a “greenhouse gas inventory”.
A greenhouse gas inventory to tell them it’s coming from cars…….
Anyone with half a brain could have told them that for free…………..