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
It seems to me that Chico is already an extremely efficient city. Was city council told this?
I know, where I live, we are 10 times higher in terms of emissions per capita. Yes, we are very bad and quite evil and should be soundly scolded for this (if not subjected to the fingernails on a chalkboard torture treatment or worse).
Mark,
I think you are demonstrating what happens when there is a surplus of academics in the market place.
Anthony asked Mark
“Why would it be so bad to simply send $25,800 off to CCX for Carbon mitigation and disband the task force?”
Seems that CSU recently considered that very thing, in their 2010 Climate Action Plan:
http://acupcc.aashe.org/site_media/uploads/cap/22-cap.pdf
“Carbon offsets currently can be purchased for an average of $10/MTeCO2. It is clear that in comparing all of the suggested projects, even those without a payback schedule, implementing the projects will be more cost effective than the purchase of carbon offsets at an average price of $10/MTeCO2. ”
There seems a small discrepancy in the price of offsets here, since CCX lists a ton going for a nickel. MTE is metric ton.
Chico Mark says:
“This is not what I consider a community forum. I live in a community where people know each other, and they know when people are telling them the truth because they can see it in their eyes and hear it in their voice.”
Yanno, Mark, many of the people who post here are my friends IRL and here and on Facebook. It’s a real community. I ought to know something about it, I’ve run a real community for over a decade. I’ve come to call many my friends and have spent real life time with them, in addition to having them enrich my life daily online.
I know this is a bit rough-and-tumble, but for the most part, Anthony and crew have protected you from inappropriate abuse.
I and thousands of others want to know your position in full, and we’d like to see EXACTLY why you think Anthony is “lying” or spreading “BS”.
If you’re running away, well, fine, but you you have had Anthony’s and I’m confident, all of his moderators and a goodly number of readers committed to treating you civilly and interested in what you have to say. That you choose to evade REAL engagement is something that we will judge you by.
Mark
@ur momisugly Bill Illis –
You’re correct. Unfortunately Chico, and most of the rest of California, is already on the steep part of the cost/effectiveness curve when it comes to energy efficiency. My idea for reducing CO2 emissions is to charge a modest fee for all new development, then use that for electricity efficiency upgrades in Kentucky, West Virginia, and other places where the grid is 100% coal-powered. If AGW is truly a global problem (and I’m not convinced it is), then the rational solution is to look for the most cost-effective solutions on a dollar per ton of CO2E reduction basis. It’ll be a lot cheaper than trying to wring greater efficiency out of already-efficient California.
Greg
Truer words were never spoken. Consensus is not science.
The silliness is not limited to northern California though; in the central California city where I have lived for many years, the powers that be proposed, several years ago, painting a “blue line” through out the city to mark the pontificated rise in sea level due to AGW. So far as I know, average sea level hasn’t changed one iota – well maybe one or two iotas. The proposed “blue line” was so publicly ridiculed that the idea was shelved.
I really am lost for words… how can I express my admiration and gratitude for Anthony’s remarkable achievements… how can I express my contempt for the personal attacks he has to ensure.
Reading this thread is a case study in how the world is being turned inside out and upside down:
A city council that spends $70,000 on studies and plans that doesn’t change anything except their budget deficit.
An academic needing a $30,000 budget to audit emissions in a city of cars, traffic lights and air conditioners in Excel.
If these guys really wanted to make a difference with their $70,000 how about changing a few traffic lights for roundabouts… no traffic lights… less emissions… shorter journey times… everyone wins… or is that too sensible for the gravy trainers.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/unnecessary-traffic-jams/
PS: If I lived in Chico I prefer that my City Council spent that $70,000 putting up some frigging great neon signs proclaiming: CHICO – Watts Up With That?
PPS: I am proud to say that Malaga City Council invests in civic pride, public entertainment and tourism by arranging spectacular frigging great firework displays at every possible opportunity… just about everyone here enjoys a good BANG for their buck!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnuMg4GX8Oo&fs=1&hl=en_US]
woodentop says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Try 8 billion quid in Scotland (about 12 billion dollars).
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/health/Climate-change-law-to-rip.6526829.jp
From the link:
Officials have placed an £8bn price tag on achieving the target to reduce by 2020 emissions harmful to the environment by 42 per cent below 1990 levels.
Well, at least it sounds like the Scottish Parliament has a mentality appropriately suiting a Cave Dwelling lifestyle. [I’m lenient that way]
Dave L says:
September 13, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Because of the situation the LA Times uncovered in the City of Bell, the state Controller has mandated that all local governments submit such information for publication on the state’s site. I don’t know if it is live yet, but it soon will be.
If Chico is serious about their “carbon footprint”, subsidizing the insulation (and replacing of too-large windows with smaller, triple-glazed windows) of homes and the replacement of appliances with newer, more efficient models, together with zoning changes which encourage employers to locate close to residential areas and employees to live close to work are high impact moves. If, instead, they are just looking for checkoffs, they’ll come up with annoyingly detailed rules about what residents must and must not do.
Brego says: (September 13, 2010 at 3:17 pm) When I was a kid, rumor was, some other kids (not I, I hasten to add) would shoot out streetlights with powerful slingshots.
Don’t name me, Brego… please don’t name me…
The link below helps demonstrate the pointlessness of the actions of small town, small minded greenies.
http://www.chinamining.org/News/2010-09-10/1284090826d39023.html
One Eco-busybody costs New Yorkers $2,000+ a week.
George Pakenham is typical of the holier-than-thou eco-busybodies eager to inflict their ideas on those of whom they disapprove. Leaving your car’s engine running might not seem like a crime, but it is in New York, and dear old George is determined to eradicate it.
“…If he spots a car or van which isn’t moving but has the engine running, he’ll wait a few minutes to see whether it moves off before stopping to speak to the driver. With the aid of a printed card, Pakenham then explains that “engine idling” – keeping your engine running while stationary for more than three minutes – is actually an offense in the City of New York, and has been since 1971. It is a waste of expensive gas and pollutes the air and, as a consequence, contributes to global climate change. What’s more, it is punishable with a fine of $115…
“…Engine idlers are breaking the law and could be fined for their actions, but while, as Pakenham puts it, “there are 2,300 traffic cops in the City of New York who will write you a ticket for parking by a fire hydrant”, getting them to write one for idling used to be a struggle…”
But thanks to his sterling efforts, and support from the Environmental Defense Fund (whatever that is), in 2009 Mayor Bloomberg signed a bill clamping down on idling and giving traffic agents the right to issue and enforce tickets.
If that wasn’t enough, he actually records all his “encounters” with the evil idlers…”…To date, Pakenham has approached more than 2,500 engine idlers and reports a 78 to 80 per cent success rate. He keeps a record of every interaction, recording on a spreadsheet the date, location, type of vehicle and its plate, the gender and estimated age and race of the driver, whether they were aware of the law or not and a few comments on the incident…”
So there you have it. Big Brother comes to New York wearing a “green” outfit.
Read about it here
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/george-pakenham-man-on-emissions-2078395.html
Maybe I did not find the correct “Chica State University” on Google-Maps, but the one I found has an awful lot of parking spaces. What are they used for? Would it not be easy to rid the campus of all cars?
They do like to waste money, these guys. How do they ever get elected?
It is the same in the UK. We used to have councils declaring peace treaties with Russia, but now they try to divine the vagaries of climate. Why cannot they just stick to sewers, roads and rubbish collection?
.
Mark says,
“I know you do not believe in AGW. I do, and I am happy to debate that in a community forum.”
Mark, you actually “believe in AGW”? Just a poor choice of words, for which you have made yourself well known, or a Freudian slip? Gee, I thought climate science was, well, science. When is it that belief enters the world of climate science? Mark, when does belief exit climate science? I BELIEVE the entire, rational world wonders.
>>Mark says September 13, 2010 at 2:23 pm
>>“I have not received a single cent for my work, nor has my department. ”
Hmm. So you did all of the report in your own time, without using any departmental facilities or staff? Or did you, in fact, use university time, facilities and staff in composing your report?
The latter is ‘funding’, however you want to look at it.
(I am supposing that universities in Chico are predominantly local authority funded, as in the UK.)
.
Question?
If every city in the US is delegated to have a CO2 reduction plan and they ALL have to spend that kind of money on research individually (more for the bigger communities), that is an incredible amount of funding wasted.
Mark, the professor from Chico, called Anthony a liar, a bullshi**er, and used an insulting parody (Agony) of the name Anthony. In earlier societies this would be cause for a duel or a fistfight, depending on the protagonists’ social class . But most men and women would not lower themselves to indulging in such gratuitously ill-mannered behaviour. If that is the standard being set by a university-based teacher, he has forgotten the first precept of teaching; that respect for others should be paramount.
The lunatics in Chico seem to have taken over the asylum.
They do like to waste money, these guys. How do they ever get elected?
This is exactly the point .
Once people elect confused politicians to the council (or to the CA state office for that matter) , it is not astounding that they take confused and in this case obviously ridiculous decisions.
This Mark is just one among many opportunists who make a living from the existence of confused people .
And if he can manipulate them and it works , why should he stop ?
In any case I am very glad I do not live in this Chico town yet the only way to stop such nonsense is to show the council where the door is .
On the other hand if the majority of the voters doesn’t mind increasing taxes , increasing debt and budgets spent on ridiculous measures that bring no benefit whatsoever for them , then no help is possible in the short term .
What helps in the long term is to inform and ask over and over the one fundamental question : “What is the benefit of this measure for the population ? And if the answer is none , how to kill it ?”
Mark said “The low pounds per person figure reflects the fact that we do not produce much of what consume…”
Therein, methinks, lies the root of a lot of the problem. People who actually produce things, particularly farmers, usually have a firmer grasp of reality and priorities than passive consumers who all too often vector off into fringe items like AGW or such.
Why don’t they just turn the street lights off, dig up the poles and recycle the materials? Light pollution 🙁 Cars have lights. Bikes have lights. People have flashlights. Let’s just get rid of the streetlights and return the earth back to a more natural condition. Isn’t that what they want anyway. They’re
REPLY: Andy Holcombe, the same councilor who thinks having a coop pot warehouse in town is a good idea.
Huge indoor medical marijuana grow proposed at Chico airport
http://www.chicoer.com/ci_15910557
“Frankly, we discouraged it,” Burkland said. “This is not something we would support from a city staff level. I don’t think it’s appropriate for our city and I don’t think it’s the best use of that building.”
As evidenced by Burkland’s comment, the objections to the facility do seem to have more of an irrational basis than an irrational one, and that is a shame. I’m sure Chico could use the tax base, and jobs it would provide.
Ack, I meant of course, “more than a rational one”. note to self: always proofread first.