« Enloe Appeal of SEIU Vote Reportedly Denied | Main | Double Edged Sword »
March 21, 2007
Doing Something Better than Doing Nothing?
 |
| The Mayor's Sustainability Task Force is
getting ready to meet for the first time next week. I've been appointed
to the commission as Councilor Steve Bertagna's pick. I'm not aware of
all the other members of the group but David Little wrote an editorial
(here)
that names a few people. A major thrust of this body seems to be the creation
of a Climate Action Plan. I think if I had to categorize myself, I'd be one of those awful global warming "deniers". I'm hoping I won't be burned at the stake anytime soon. Knowing a little bit about science, math, computers, and people, I don't see how any definitive announcement of global warming's cause can be made. In fact, the angry response to people that disagree with the premise of human caused climate change seems more like religion than science. But still, doing something is better than doing nothing, right? Maybe... Seeing Al Gore, John Edwards, and Arnold Schwarzenegger pay for carbon credits just reminds me of buying absolution for your sins. If Chico was to follow these "leaders", then we could simply stop funding local non-profits with our hotel tax, and instead buy carbon credits. Problem solved. Is that better than doing nothing? |
| I doubt that's what Chico is looking for out
of this task force. It is funny that these politicians get a pass on paying
to cleanse their sins, but the rest of us know it's B.S. to solve a problem
that way. Even though I haven't jumped aboard the global warming bandwagon I think this commission could do some positive things. Reducing energy use and finding synergy between waste and commercial needs could save the City money. And if there is some way for Chico to sell carbon credits to Arnold, Al, and John, that would be great as well. I don't believe that "doing something" is necessarily better than doing nothing. That would imply a moral value to the "something" you do that exceeds the fiscal value. That's a slippery slope I hope this commission decides to avoid. Virtually anything could be proposed if the objective is to meet a moral obligation. As an example, let's say we build a parking structure in Los Molinas to solve the downtown parking problem and limit green-house gas emissions in downtown Chico. You simply drive to Los Molinas and then take a bus into Chico. Is doing that better than doing nothing? No, it costs too much and doesn't effectively address either issue. I'm looking forward to learning about sustainability as part of this Mayor's task force. But I will be asking two questions every time a new program is discussed. 1. Does it reduce energy use or waste? 2. How much does it cost? I may be in the minority in making the answers to those questions a priority. But I think the public is better informed when they have that information on new sustainability proposals. |
Posted by Lon at March 21, 2007 09:39 AM
Comments
I don't disagree with your test questions. We do need cost analysis when spending scarce resourses. But tell me how do you value an existing 150 year old tree under your system? Can all questions about our future and that of our children be based only one or two criterior. I know you do not really think that so and I suppose you will read about sustainability before you start work on the task force. Your job on the task force has important implications far beyond our city limits. If you were a betting man I would suggest that you bet on reducing the 25% or the world's polluting gasses the the USA generates and watch all the other 5 billion people follow your good example. We all have a lot to lose if you are wrong and surely "be prepared" is a better motto.
Posted by: Alan at March 26, 2007 03:46 PM
But tell me how do you value an existing 150 year old tree under your system?
At about $4.50 square/foot if used for flooring. Just kidding. I like trees just like everyone else.
No, not all things can be judged by my two criteria. I suspect other people will play a part applying moral virtue to environmental questions. That's not where I will focus my energy. Those people might be somewhat sad when the economic realities of this town prevent great changes from occuring. But if local politicians and environmental crusaders are sure that the public wants big changes, they should float a "global warming" bond to pay for them.
"Be prepared" might be a good motto. But lets say, globally, that you are wrong. And the other 5 billion people (many of whom were never covered under Kyoto) do not follow our errant lead. "Be part of a destroyed economy" might be my new motto.
I am absolutely in favor of reduced pollution and energy use. I like the idea of green buildings. I even ride my bike to work and take public transportation (unlike many of my fellow citizens [he says while pointing angry finger at citizens]). I do have an open mind on the global warming thing. I don't believe judgement day is coming. I think we can get where you want to be by taking a measured approach, letting the science play out, and being smart about changes we make.
Having just returned from the first "task force" meeting, I think I can easily work with the people involved. They all seem to want good things for Chico, just like me.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at March 26, 2007 05:48 PM