Commission Impossible

Lon, I completely agree.

These issues are too important and need to include everyone.

The brightest and most open minded people from all the different political persuasions need to rally and not let their objective dialog get dumbed down by their subjective politics.

I ran into Jimmy Brobeck when I was helping my girlfriend set up the BEC table at the Farmers Market. He is a brilliant and reasonable guy who is very knowledgeable about the forests, vernal pools, the park and the aquifer. He was pretty bummed out about the editorial. David does have a valid point about single issue Preservationist fundamentalism, but I see Jimmy and BEC as much more "big picture" oriented.

I told Jimmy to just see it as an invitation to respond, to help clear up misinformation and get the message across to some of the folks that most need to hear it.

It would really be great to get you, David Little, Michael Jones, Barbara Vlamis and Jimmy all together to compare notes and recognise how much common ground our brightest (and controversial) citizens really do have.

Jennifer can facilitate and I'll be the bouncer.

Gregg

Hey Gregg,

Meetings like that are fine, they definitely keep people from jumping to assumptions about one another.

I doubt the local news editor would attend, but your friend Jim should contact him and ask for a detailed discussion with whoever wrote that last paragraph.

It's difficult to break off from a core group of supporters, which is what the preservationists are to local environmental groups. But when the local paper says "stay away" from their seminars you should pay attention.

Little (assuming he wrote the piece) is no right-wing nut job.

I want to point out that I'm not sold on the belief that climate change is being caused by people. But a balanced apolitical approach to how we interact with the environment is good for everyone. And I'm willing to learn, listen, and ask questions. I'm not willing to have the answers dictated to me.

It was a conference not a debate. Professionals and sometimes pseudo-professionals come and present information that they have organized into a presentation. Some of them are really good and some not so good. That is part of the problem. There are so many sessions that they have to put 5 or 6 on at the same time in different rooms. You get to choose which expert you think will inform you the most and sometimes you choose wrong. It is about sharing information, not about coming to a conclusion. If someone feels like they have enough information from one seminar to come to a conclusion, well, that is their own personal problem.

I went to all 3 days and didn't see anyone arguing about whether or not global warming exists because sustainability is much, much more than polar ice caps and species depletion. It is not possible to go to every session, so maybe I missed the one that Little was referring to. Instead, I went to seminars about preserving our overused electrical grid, another about reducing construction wastes that are quickly and needlessly filling up our county dump. I also learned about new PG and E rebates for the governators solar initiative and about affordable housing projects that HUD is sponsoring to Non-profit organizations. I suppose you could debate these issues but, why?

Unfortunately, I was 1 of only about a dozen local people to show up. I might be mistaken but I also did not see any of the city council or their green advocates their either. They wasted a Tuesday evening calling each other names about how green they are and tout our town as joining in on the Green City Initiative and I did not see it or hear it there at all. I don't think the editorial discouraged people from going as much as it just gave them an excuse to sleep in and blow it off as inconsequential. I was embarrassed last year with the poor local turnout but there was a fee last year and it was the first one. This year wasn't a much better turnout and it was even free this time. I am doubly embarrassed after this year. Some of the ones that did show up were pretty rude anyway so maybe it is all for the best. The next time someone in Chico tells me they are an environmentalist I am going to call them on it.

Sustainability starts and ends with population growth. Population growth needs to be addressed among teenagers. Teenagers, boys and girls, need to be taught how their bodies function - that's not S-E-X, it's B-I-O-L-O-G-Y.

I don't think the schools address the actual mechanics of a woman's cycle adequately. Of course, at 12, they take all the girls in a room and show them movies about how to use Tampax, but they never tell you how you can only get pregnant about 4 or 5 days a month, or that those 4 or 5 days always come at about the same time.

That is the knowledge that can significantly reduce our current population growth, but politics always gets in the way of S-E-X E-D-U-C-A-T-I-0-N.

I hope you people do not find this discussion as uncomfortable as it was for my teenager.

Tj,

It may have been planned as a conference, but it definitely became a political subject because of the Council liberal majority insistance that the "Cool Cities" treaty(?) be signed at the conference, and without serious consideration or review.

I read about the verious speakers and classes somewhere (paper/web site), and the only names that stood out to me were of people widely considered as "preservationists".

I drew the same conculsion that the ER did. And for that reason it wasn't an event I wanted to go to. But what do I matter?

Next year, organizers might consider contacting the business community to see if they are interested in being involved (maybe you did, I wasn't there). From your description the subject matter is interesting. I think the topic of sustainability (from what I know) is a topic similar to efficiency. Efficiency is good for any organization.

Lon

Juanita,

I thought that the US basically had a level population growth with the exception of immigration (both legal and illegal). I don't know if the source below is biased, but it showed up in a quick web search.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/sactestimony701.html

I don't have any problem with sex (or S-E-X) education. I think parents do that job best, but it has a place in our schools.

What really pisses me off are the sexy toys for girls. The example below feeds into sex and materialism and is designed for very young children.
http://www.bratz.com/

I would like the message to teens to be don't get pregnant until you can afford to be pregnant.

Lon:

I agree that there needs to be greater civic dialog on this issue, and as Gregg notes there is more common ground than most people realize. However, to have these debates take place in the context of a City Council meeting is certainly not ideal; too many people are just dug in. (I am reminded of a quote by Daniel Kemmis in his book The Good City and the Good Life that “the last place anyone listens in America is at a public hearing�.) Also, now that the biennial ‘silly season’ is nearing a close, I think there will be a greater chance for a reasonable civic discussion on sustainability, including what role municipal government should or should not take.

As for the business sector I am in, (development and construction) there has been a noteworthy change in awareness over the last 4-5 years regarding sustainability. Not the least is that builders have become aware that there is a significant market for energy efficiency and sustainable building practices. The US Green Building Council, a national organization with very broad private, public and non-profit sector participation, has developed several rational benchmarking systems for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. Known as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) these systems have gained broad currency over a decade. In 2007, the USGBC will also initiate a pilot program for LEED-ND, a rating system for neighborhood development.

Over the past year or so, David Little has been frequently critical of the word ‘sustainable’, suggesting that the term has no meaning since anyone can offer their own definition. Hence it can become a cudgel, to be used against political rivals, etc. His point has a certain validity, but in my view not for long. With rigorous, objective and measurable standards like LEED, much of the discussion about sustainability can move out of the political realm into a broad, civic discussion. Here’s hoping.

Tom

Lon,

I must correct myself.
I did see Anne Schwab at the conference this year and last year as well. Sorry for not acknowledging it with the previous post.

One more thing.
I have studied and participated in sustainable practices for over 10 years now and I am also disappointed that there were not better presentations by more cutting edge people at our conference and by more professionals from outside of our immediate local community.

But I have to say that although much was redundant for me, I have learned something from every CSU conference session that I have taken the time to attend. Even the worst were only mildly disappointing. Incidentally, I am not a rabid environmentalist by any means. There really is something for everyone at the conference and it is a shame that the most vocal part of our community can only get behind something if there is a line drawn that you have to get on one side or the other.

It is incredibly myopic and a cultural injustice to throw out all of the good things that are involved with sustainable practices because someone doesn't believe in the threat of global warming. From my experience so far, it seems that for too many people in Chico, being an environmentalist is more about the individual recognition and their self-rightous, "noble cause" they stand up for in a public way.

It makes me think that this is a town that will never see the gray within the obvious black and white and will never really have a clear understanding of its own direction or character, except for the character trait of being devisive. I realize that you are blaming the local election politics for a lot of this most recent nonsense, but I have noticed this since I moved here 7 years ago.

Both sides are destructive because I am pretty sure there are other people in this community like myself who are not interested in wasting our time and energy working with people who are so eager to publicly express their closed minds and more importantly, to ignore the opportunity to expand and challenge their positions. Sustainability is not a single-issue subject and it is just stupid to filter it down to that. I am afraid other communities are going to figure that out before we do. More reason for me to be embarrassed.

Also, the population discussion did also occur at the conference with pretty alarming statistics about how the western world is leveling off rapidly and even countries like Russia are having negative population growth. Like I said, something for everyone at that conference.

All good commments.

It seems like many good ideas, that could initially be described as "common sense" essentially get boiled down to sloganeering. "Smart Growth" and "Quality of Life" fit those molds. They have no specific meaning to me, just vague emotional responses.

I understand Tom's "New Urbanism" only because I see the buildings, and sometimes visit the Doe Mill area.

I've found recently that "sustainability" triggers in me a negative reaction. That reaction was reinforced by the ER article. I wrote the original piece because the story was mostly positive and then ended right on the issue that created those negative feelings in me.

But that's not entirely fair (baby with the bath-water and all that). I'll try to learn more about "sustainability", and hope it doesn't get shoved down my throat before I'm ready to swallow.

Lon

Lon says >>I've found recently that "sustainability" triggers in me a negative reaction.

I find same. It's just a buzz word, and most of the discussions around this issue focus on band aid fixes, like New Urbanism, instead of answers to the problem itself.