A Political Departure: Comment on the Sustainability Action Plan
April 18, 2009 
19 Comments
While the Spovangelist is weary of polarized two-party politics, we are not apolitical and we certainly aren’t afraid to jump in on important civic dialogue when something groundbreaking is at stake.
The Spokane Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) is just such an effort. It is the first attempt by a U.S. City to undergo a comprehensive public planning process that addresses the challenges of peak oil and climate change simultaneously. That’s right folks, we are a trend-setting city in something other than hosting history’s smallest World’s Fair!
What follows is my appeal to the Spokane City Council to approve the recommendations of the Mayor’s Taskforce.
This letter is written in direct response to a ten point criticism circulated in a Spokane GOP party memo. Local Republican talking points are included verbatim in bold below.
________________________________________________________
Locking our city into a huge process of “sustainability mandates” from the State Dept. of Ecology is a mistake. See Cap and Trade legislation pending and the awful Senate Bill 5735, the Cap and Tax bill which passed Wednesday. We want to keep our local government flexible and local!
1.) In no way do the sustainability recommendations “lock in” local government. Strategies and guiding principles are by definition flexible (this is pointed out in the plan) and open to interpretation and change based on new information as it becomes available. The members of the Taskforce anticipated this criticism when they explained: “This Action Plan … is not a bundle of regulations and mandates. The Plan is a portfolio of principles, strategies, and recommendations.” Furthermore, guiding principle #3 says to “Lead with incentives and education before mandates.” Because of this it is *inappropriate* for the GOP to sing the ‘big bad government’ song in opposition to this plan.
It will cost taxpayers BIG TAX DOLLARS to retrofit governments office buildings to make them more energy efficient when the return on investment will be dubious. Corruption and cost over runs will, as usual, be rampant. Our region has the cheapest, most plentiful and least polluting energy in the world…hydropower! We sell to the entire western U.S. and east to Chicago, then up into Canada and down in to Mexico. BEST PLAN?? Expanding the dam system electrical output which would be easier and very beneficial to our region.
2.) The Sustainability Action Plan specifically includes guidance to adopt only those energy efficiency measures that have desirable and demonstrable cost-benefit outcomes. Asserting that “big tax dollars” will be marshaled to some inefficient end is *simple paranoia*. Plans to improve the economic vitality of our City now and into the future should NOT be abandoned due to wrongs in the past that make certain Republicans feel that all local government is “rampantly corrupt.”
The suggestion that hydropower be pursued as an alternative to the Sustainability Action Plan does not make sense and does not hold up. The plan puts in place a strategy to determine the best approach to advancing local clean energy alternatives. Clearly this will involve more than just hydropower. Furthermore, Strategy #5 to “Conserve water everywhere” was included in part to protect our capacity to tap into hydropower sustainably. Hydropower is no silver bullet, what is needed is the comprehensive framework provided by the plan.
It will cost us businesses in our region when they are forced to “retrofit” their own buildings to make them more energy efficient. (Savings will be small compared to costs of renovations.) Is bankrupting one half of all local businesses and the resultant job losses really worth it?
3.) I have scoured the Sustainability Action Plan looking for any hint calling to “force businesses to retrofit their buildings.” The fact of the matter is that NO SUCH SUGGESTION EXISTS. The opposite is portrayed in explaining how the City will be a model for the surrounding community, and how green collar jobs could be created through strategic partnerships. Private sector businesses can choose to adopt or reject green practices as they see fit. Claiming that half of all Spokane business will automatically go “bankrupt” is nothing less than *counterproductive misinformation*. Please keep in mind that much of the opposition you may have encountered is based on an incorrect understanding of what the plan actually entails.
Changing over to electric cars and buses could be very expensive. Is it worth it? Is it needed? Will this really make the environment in Spokane cleaner? Our city is already purchasing ten new electric buses to do a “trial run”. Do our city officials really need the State Dept. of Ecology to tell us when to do this and how to do it?
4.) Valid questions about the best approach for achieving a leaner City fleet will be answered by “Developing and implementing a plan to increase the City’s use of electric vehicles.” Given the detailed strategies for efficient and effective planing set forth by the SAP, as well as innovations in measuring financial performance and total cost-savings, you can be confident that changing over to electric cars and buses will be well justified before it actually occurs.
Do citizens really want all government to function primarily around environmental concerns? Do we want BIG GOVERNMENT watching us to make sure we comply?
5.) Again, playing the “big bad government” card is silly in regards to the Action Plan as already explained. Questions about citizen desire have clearly been answered:
“The Task Force received more than 800 unique contributions to its base of information in the form of Work Group recommendations, citizen comments, citizen and staff complaints about current City practices and policies, and general suggestions.”
“Each contribution was inventoried, addressed and prioritized during the nearly year-long planning process.”
“A well-communicated public outreach plan produced significant citizen input that guided the overall direction of the final recommendations. The process yielded one simple message, accepted by members of every constituency the Task Force encountered during its work: Strive for good stewardship and efficiency in all things.”
FOX Business news announced on Tuesday…..Spain, one of the :”green showcase” countries, has now put out a study of some of their innovations. Among other surprises, for every green job produced, the cost was 2 traditional, “fossil fuel” based jobs.
6.) Drawing a 1:2 trade-off between “green” jobs and “fossil fuel” jobs is *over-simplified* at best. Sometimes emerging green industries do not directly impact traditional markets, and many studies demonstrate that “Green Collar” jobs are of a higher quality and greater growth potential than so-called “non-green” jobs. The many research sources drawn upon by the Sustainability Taskforce are clearly more credible than an off-handed broadcast by FOX Business News.
The Mayor’s sustainability study was based on UN and their surrogate ICLEI studies that based their science on “global warming” scientific models that are now showing signs of being faulty. The earth may be cooling, not warming. The science is still in flux. We need to wait and not make dire changes to our government structures based on fads or junk science.
7.) As a trained scientist I find the unsupported claim that global warming is a “fad” or “junk” science *downright embarrassing*. The people and the City of Spokane simply can not afford to be on the wrong side of science and the wrong side of history with regards to this important issue. According to Princeton researchers, by the time I am 73 the global average temperature will have climbed by 9 degrees Fahrenheit – and that is assuming that the the current rate of carbon emissions stays constant (this conservative estimate does not include projections for the growing demands of the developing world). Even if you consider yourself a “hardened skeptic” when it comes to global warming, please watch this video that logically argues the only responsible decision is for a proactive response.
One big premise upon which this report was based is that we are running out of oil….and that our dependence on foreign oil is a huge problem. Is it? How much oil is possible to drill in the U.S. and offshore? In the next ten years, will technologies improve to make safe nuclear power more attractive and plentiful? Are wind and solar panel energy dependable and constant? Are they sufficient to give our people and industries in the U.S. enough energy to still be a super power, or will we become a broken, corrupt, poverty-stricken socialist country like Brazil and Indonesia, where these plan models were created by the UN agencies? (Our Mayor signed an international agreement to implement international standards in Spokane.)
8.) The impacts of peak oil are not a matter of “if” they are only a matter of “when”. Many experts concur that we will never produce as much oil in a month as we did in July of last year. Even in the most optimistic nuclear power scenarios (nevermind toxic outputs and security concerns), the pervasive use of fossil fuels in all aspects of material production and transportation can not be ignored. Legitimate questions about wind and solar energy will be given a framework for consideration under the Sustainability Action Plan.
Suggestions that going green somehow risks “a broken, corrupt, poverty-stricken socialist country like Brazil and Indonesia, where these plan models were created by UN agencies” not only sounds *alarmist*, it smacks of *xenophobia*and a dogged unwillingness to even consider global best practices.
Avista has been an enthusiastic participant in the Mayor’s Sustainabililty Task Force process….why?
9.) Avista has been actively involved in developing the SAP because:
“Our history of responsible stewardship reflects the spirit of the region. You and others like you — who care about things like conservation, recycling and the natural beauty around us — embody that very spirit. We do it because it is the right thing to do, because it’s what you expect of us, and because, honestly, the next century depends on it.”
If you look at the “fiscal note” attached to the state cap and trade bill, you will see that expenditures will involve hiring new government officials who will build a whole new series of government agencies to monitor “sustainability.” Thus, government at the state as well as our local level will expand, and expand, and EXPAND! This will cost taxpayers more money. Do citizens really want more government that will be more intrusive?
10.) The proposed Washington State Climate Action Plan is in no way linked to the Spokane Sustainability Action Plan. The local plan does not call for a carbon exchange market. Opposition to one plan should not be confused with or transferred to the other.
________________________________________________________
In closing I would like to make one last plea for the adoption of this plan that has nothing to do with environmental concerns. It has everything to do with the impact on COMMUNITY TRUST AND FAITH IN PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT that will be had by your decision.
The introduction to the Sustainability Action Plan states:
“This initiative included dozens of meetings and many individual hours invested by the Task Force, meeting four hours every three weeks since April 2008. Such community participation shows that Spokane is a valued home, well worth the time and energy invested to ensure its future as a livable city.”
If in the face of public testimony you refuse to adopt this plan,you will effectively be issuing a vote of “no confidence” in the value of public participation in local government. As a local community activist and former City volunteer, I can’t caution you enough against sending such a devastating message to the broader Spokane community.
As you probably would agree, an effective City depends on the active involvement of all its citizens. This ensures accountability, innovation, responsiveness and collective capacity. While I myself am an avid sustainability advocate, I choose not to participate in the Mayor’s Taskforce precisely because I feared that the resulting plan would not be incorporated into City operations. Instead I chose to invest my limited time and energy doing independent organizing work that focused on relationship building among my immediate neighbors and peers. I was concerned that the Taskforce would consume an enormous amount of time attention and energy, only to ultimately burn out and embitter local sustainability proponents.
I want to believe in our ability to work together to achieve regional resiliency and well-being. In order to bring my disenfranchised young friends into this process with integrity, I need to believe that our vision will be taken seriously, and that our efforts will not be tabled or ignored. Please help me rekindle my confidence in local government as a viable means by which to achieve positive change. Please approve the Sustainability Action Plan.
Sincerely,
The Spovangelist
About the Author
Well done, Mariah. I had an interesting discussion with a brother-in-law recently in which he declared bicycle riders were selfish because they take away jobs. He, on the other hand, supports the oil industry, auto mechanics, parts manufacturers, the medical profession, etc., by driving every day. It was done entirely tongue in cheek, but apparently some people really think that way.
I don’t think the Republican party realizes how bankrupt they are. The hype over BIG GOVERNMENT is more about leaving the private sector as unregulated and unmonitored as possible, even when receiving bailout money from said BIG GOVERNMENT. If only the rest of us would understand that an unfettered free market works. Just look at where it got us today.
Excellent response Mariah.
I also really appreciated your closing. You were exactly right. It did take an enormous amount of time from local sustainability advocates and volunteers and certainly has had mixed results so far, including some of the fears you mentioned, but I hope that some of the burn out is only temporary and that we can all, like you, give a little bit more to ensure that all of this work moves forward.
Thanks for all that you do,
Kitty
Thank you for this, Mariah.
If there is any hope when such an important thing is challenged by so many, it is to be found in our city’s history.
Both the airport and Expo were opposed by many in our area and even voted against. It was by the action of the committed that they came to pass at all. Someday our city might look back on the SAP in much the same way that we look upon so many things that we take for granted, but only if we do the work that it will take.
Good job. . .
Out of control. My thoughts:
“FOX Business news announced on Tuesday…..Spain, one of the :”green showcase” countries, has now put out a study of some of their innovations. Among other surprises, for every green job produced, the cost was 2 traditional, “fossil fuel” based jobs.”
This is an emotional arguement. Without a cited study I can only speculate on the statement. . .But speculating, it is possible that energy conservation reduces the deamand for ‘fossil fuel’ and hence fossil fuel jobs, but this isn’t a bad thing! There are less ‘negative externalities’, (polution, mortality, global warming) people save money, and oh, somebody in a declining industry needs to get retrained. A similar thing happened when we needed fewer buggy whips after the car became popular. . . . .
And then with regard to the new giant bureaucracy, CTED just started implementing a new mandate to make all state funded affordable housing ‘green’ and while some additional reporting is required I was blown away when they didn’t hire a single person! Now, I’m not saying that you can always do more with less, but I doubt that we are going to see a new IRS of sustainability pop up. . .
Again, thanks for posting this. Good job to Spokane for moving forward and not squandering the future. It’ll make the city’s economic and environmental future brighter.
Wow, way to crush the GOP argument, Mariah. Nice work.
It is hilarious and maddening all at the same time to see them persist in their delusion that global warming and climate change are divisive and hotly-debated topics within the scientific community. “Junk science”? “Fads”? Give me a break.
“1.) In no way do the sustainability recommendations ‘lock in’ local government. Strategies and guiding principles are by definition flexible (this is pointed out in the plan) and open to interpretation and change based on new information as it becomes available. The members of the Taskforce anticipated this criticism when they explained: ‘This Action Plan … is not a bundle of regulations and mandates. The Plan is a portfolio of principles, strategies, and recommendations.’ Furthermore, guiding principle #3 says to ‘Lead with incentives and education before mandates.’ Because of this it is *inappropriate* for the GOP to sing the ‘big bad government’ song in opposition to this plan.”
I’m not sure whether that statement reflects simple naivete, or is a calculated move in a strategy of incrementalism. No government plan is ever merely a statement of “principles, strategies, and recommendations.” There is an old quote of uncertain origin (often mistakenly attributed to George Washington): “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it makes a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.”
Governments do not prepare planning documents to edify and educate the populace. They have no special talents or qualifications for such a mission, and no one would pay the slightest heed to any list of of principles and recommendations regarding energy conservation proffered by City bureaucrats. The “greenie” activists who sought to enlist city government in support of their religious agenda did not do so because the apparatchiks at City Hall are masters of “reason and eloquence” who could spread their gospel more effectively than they themselves could. They approached the City because government has a wonderful tool of persuasion of which mere soapbox preachers are insanely jealous and which they can rarely acquire — the ability to use force.
Governments develop plans as a framework for regulations and mandates, which invariably follow. Land use plans also consist of “strategies and recommendations.” Those strategies and recommendations are quickly implemented in zoning and development regulations. Likewise with traffic and circulation plans, environmental plans, health and education plans, and so on. They are but preliminary steps to regulations and mandates; but for the regulations and mandates envisioned, no one would bother to prepare the plans.
The “Sustainability Plan” is loaded with cues as to the form those eventual regulations will take. We could spend hours on exegesis and analysis, and become sidetracked with quibbles over details — with questions of comparative advantage and cost-benefit analyses of this or that “recommendation.”
But the plan is flawed in its very concept, in two fundamental ways.
The title itself indicates the first: “Sustainability Action Plan.” Anyone riding the “sustainability” bandwagon is traveling a road to nowhere; anyone advocating or hoping for a “sustainable” economy reveals that he or she simply does not understand what an economy is, and lacks the slightest understanding of how they work.
Economies are “complex adaptive systems.” These are systems which are driven by millions — even billions — of independent variables which interact with one another in ways that are utterly unpredictable. Nature is dominated by such systems; weather and biological evolution are other examples. Future states of CAS’s are unpredictable, except in the very short term, *in principle.* No meteorologist can predict the weather more than a few days in advance; no biologist living 500 million years ago, no matter how great his expertise or the scope of information available to him, could have predicted the emergence of the elephant, the star-nosed mole, or *homo sapiens*. Or any other organism.
Economies, like all other systems, are a succession of states — at any given instant their billions of of variables all have discrete values. But even if the values of all those variables at a given instant could be known, their values at future times could not be predicted, because the number of allowable interactions among them is too vast. Syncophants for a “sustainable economy” labor under the delusion that the current state of the economy (or some idiosyncratic variant of it) is the “optimum” state, which they hope to “sustain” into the indefinite future. They seek, in effect, to freeze this complex dynamic system into a stasis — one necessarily constrained by their own myopic perspective and which (of course) promises to serve their parochial interests. The notion is ludicrous; few of the determining variables can even be known, much less controlled.
But all states of an economy are temporary; none of them are optimal except as solutions for the current values of the system’s variables; none of them are terminal, and none of them need be, and will not be, “sustained” for very long. Every feature of the present economy — the technologies employed, the raw materials consumed, the variety of goods desired and produced, are but transitory pixels in a single frame of a million-year long movie.
Are we about to run out of oil? Well, we almost certainly will eventually. We need not take the predictions of the doomsayers too seriously, however, since they’ve been making that prediction for the last 50 years (“We’ll be out of oil in another five years!”). And out of copper, magnesium, chrome, fresh water, arable land, etc., etc. You name it, and some Chicken Little has predicted its imminent disappearance.
But given that we’ll run out of oil eventually, what should we do about it? Well, the same kinds of things we humans have done in the past when we ran out of some mainstay of the then-current economy — we adapted. We found or invented substitutes, devised practical technologies for obtaining the material from previously impractical sources (think of the tar sands), or we simply changed our preferences, and suddenly the scarce good became less scarce (because nobody wanted it anymore). One thing we *can* predict: when we do run out of oil, it will not be overnight. It will only be after a long period of rising prices, reflecting the increasing difficulty in locating or recovering new deposits. As those prices rise, people begin investing their time, attention, ingenuity, and money in developing alternatives, because now there is an incentive. And long before the last drop of oil is ever pumped, the market for it will have moved elsewhere. That last drop will remain in the ground.
I said that economies are complex *adaptive* systems. As the values of variables change, the system adapts accordingly; a new equilibrium is reached — for a while. But how does the system adapt? Well, it is able to adapt because each of the agents constituting it is an independent actor who can adjust his own trajectory in response to the combination of forces impinging upon him *locally*. Global forces always act locally, i.e., their effects differ from place to place and from agent to agent. Because changes manifest themselves differently for different agents, adaptations workable for one agent will not necessarily work for others. An ecosystem evolves when each plant and animal affected by a change — loss of a food source, introduction of new predator or disease, loss of a water source, etc., can respond differentially to the change. Some animals may change their diets, experimenting with different foods; others may migrate, choosing different destinations. Others may change their activity patterns to require fewer calories. *The system as a whole can adapt only if each agent is able to adapt to the changes as they affect him*. When that can occur without restraint — when each agent enjoys the maximum possible number of “degrees of freedom” — the system can reconfigure itself in an optimum way. Furthermore, even though no solution will work for everyone, any given solution will likely work for *some* others. If everyone is maximally free to experiment, more solutions will be generated which others will find useful.
Needless to say, government planning is poison to economies, as it would be for any other CAS. It is not merely unproductive; it is downright destructive, because the myopic fantasies of planners, when enacted into law, throw sand in the gears of the system, disabling the mechanisms which enable the system to maintain an equilibrium through continuous and unpredictable changes in system variables. Stalin could not plan Soviet steel production, Mao could not plan Chinese rice production, and Spokane’s Mayor cannot plan the City’s energy economy.
That, of course, is the second flaw in the “Sustainability Plan” — the notion that bureaucrats can predict the consequences of, say, a decline in petroleum supplies and decide, for an entire population, how best to respond to such an economic change. It is as though the biggest moose in the valley, facing a shortage of suitable browse, forced all the other moose to accompany him to the next valley, where, being thus concentrated, they will quickly create a new shortage (if there wasn’t one already). There is utterly no possibility of such predictions being accurate, and the bureaucrats’ proffered “solutions,” if enacted into law, will inevitably foul the only mechanisms by which real solutions can be found. But they are secure in their arrogance:
“City government performs many vital functions and has a complex role in addressing issues of climate change and peak oil that go beyond routine operations. The City is simultaneously a leader, a model and a symbol for the community.”
Well, sorry, folks, but you have no such role (a “leader” and and “model”? Of and for whom?). Your job is to keep the streets free of potholes and muggers. People can and will deal with economic changes just fine without your ham-handed “help,” if you’ll but stay in your cubicles and out of their hair.
Very thoughtful comments Mariah. Thanks for this.
It is refreshing to see that someone has actually read the report and not just shooting from the hip. The opposition’s motivating factor appears to be fear, fear that their way of life will be changing, which it will, regardless. The change can be managed, planned for, transitioned or their can be systemic collapse.
The Task Force struggled with whether to motivate folks out of fear or from a place of potential. We chose the positive. Now I am not so sure that was the best angle, especially when there is so much to fear when we do nothing!
Things are moving very fast. Oil geologist, Colin Campbell said just yesterday, that we peaked in conventional oil in 2005 and all liquids in 2008. This does not bode well for any substantial economic recovery. It might be best if we could all move past anger and denial and get to work … quickly.
“It is refreshing to see that someone has actually read the report and not just shooting from the hip. The opposition’s motivating factor appears to be fear, fear that their way of life will be changing, which it will, regardless. The change can be managed, planned for, transitioned or their can be systemic collapse.”
The fear, Juliet, is not of the prospect that one’s way of life will change. One’s way of life changes constantly over the course of one’s life, and from generation to generation. Those changes are expected and are welcomed by most. The fear here is that the options open to people for responding to change will be foreclosed by religious zealots and arrogant bureaucrats convinced they are in possession of Ultimate Truth and who are determined to herd the clueless masses along what they have deemed to be the Path of Righteousness.
That — the foreclosure of options and that forced march to the Promised Land of the greenies’ fantasies — is what will lead to systemic collapse, if anything will.
I was debating and waiting before I commented on this post and now think a succinct quote from the Nazi Party Platform will work just fine-
” Common utility above individual utility.”
But now I read the the last two comments and have more thoughts.
Action for actions sake is dangerously fascist.
Contrarian- Do you ever read Thomas Sowell? Your “sand in the gears” argument is right out of Basic Economics. Great Job.
“The title itself indicates the first: “Sustainability Action Plan.” Anyone riding the “sustainability” bandwagon is traveling a road to nowhere; anyone advocating or hoping for a “sustainable” economy reveals that he or she simply does not understand what an economy is, and lacks the slightest understanding of how they work.”
** “Sustainability” refers not only to economic matters, but to environmental ones as well. The plan certainly addresses economic issues and your points on that are interesting. For me, though, sustainability is also about maintaining the Spokane region as a suitable habitat for humans for as long as possible. Human beings have made an impact on the Spokane area and, indeed, we have adapted to those changes over the years (for instance we’ve learned to live without salmon at our doorstep). But some changes we cannot adapt to, such as an insufficient water supply or a polluted air or water supply. These are the sorts of changes we must work to prevent.
Planning ahead is also a reasonable action to prepare for possible future threats to our environment. How would we handle an increased demand for our water from other parts of the country? How would we manage a steep increase in population? These are problems that we may or may not ever have to deal with, but planning for them ahead of time may allow us to address them while sustaining the integrity of our environment.
“But given that we’ll run out of oil eventually, what should we do about it? Well, the same kinds of things we humans have done in the past when we ran out of some mainstay of the then-current economy — we adapted. We found or invented substitutes, devised practical technologies for obtaining the material from previously impractical sources (think of the tar sands), or we simply changed our preferences, and suddenly the scarce good became less scarce (because nobody wanted it anymore).”
** Your argument sounds nice, but I am unable to think of a time in recent history when a resource so fundamental to the culture and economy of so many people became scarce. Do you know of such an example? I cannot imagine any such transition being easy or peaceful, but I would be interested in knowing how humans have responded to it previously.
“One thing we *can* predict: when we do run out of oil, it will not be overnight. It will only be after a long period of rising prices, reflecting the increasing difficulty in locating or recovering new deposits. As those prices rise, people begin investing their time, attention, ingenuity, and money in developing alternatives, because now there is an incentive. And long before the last drop of oil is ever pumped, the market for it will have moved elsewhere. That last drop will remain in the ground.”
** I would also say that this solution to dwindling oil supplies sounds nice in theory, but it relies heavily on people behaving rationally. People would resist this change the way they resist all change when it comes from a place that is beyond their control (Just as people now resist planning for this eventuality). The difference is that 1) the plan now is open to and has received public input and 2) we will have time and money working against us if we wait too long.
“That, of course, is the second flaw in the “Sustainability Plan” — the notion that bureaucrats can predict the consequences of, say, a decline in petroleum supplies and decide, for an entire population, how best to respond to such an economic change. It is as though the biggest moose in the valley, facing a shortage of suitable browse, forced all the other moose to accompany him to the next valley, where, being thus concentrated, they will quickly create a new shortage (if there wasn’t one already). There is utterly no possibility of such predictions being accurate, and the bureaucrats’ proffered “solutions,” if enacted into law, will inevitably foul the only mechanisms by which real solutions can be found.”
** You are correct in saying that nobody can truly predict the consequences of declining oil supplies and/or increased prices. But, that still does not negate the importance of planning ahead for that eventuality. Oil is simply too big a part of our culture and our economy. The transition away from it, which I think we would agree is inevitable, will be long and painful for many people. Why not start to think about it now? Why not encourage people to take the first steps away from oil?
Certainly this thought and this encouragement can come from sources other than the government, but the government has unique resources and tools at its disposal to help this process along. Furthermore, the government has a huge interest in moving people away from oil: national security. While a natural shortage of oil may not happen in the near future, a politically-imposed shortage of oil is possible and it is in our governments best interest to limit our susceptibility to such an attack.
“Sustainability” refers not only to economic matters, but to environmental ones as well. The plan certainly addresses economic issues and your points on that are interesting. For me, though, sustainability is also about maintaining the Spokane region as a suitable habitat for humans for as long as possible. Human beings have made an impact on the Spokane area and, indeed, we have adapted to those changes over the years (for instance we’ve learned to live without salmon at our doorstep). But some changes we cannot adapt to, such as an insufficient water supply or a polluted air or water supply. These are the sorts of changes we must work to prevent.”
I certainly agree with you, Nick, that threats to the environment, i.e., to the “natural commons,” is a valid concern. I even agree that government is the only agency positioned to deal with such threats.
There is absolutely no current threat to the local environment, however, nor any in the foreseeable future. And if there were, local governments are not properly positioned to deal with it. The Spokane River (and the aquifer) traverses two states, several counties, and numerous towns; the airshed over Spokane is continuous with the Earth’s entire atmosphere. Governments with wider reach than that of the City of Spokane are the appropriate entities for managing such commons. And they do so, of course.
Needless to say, I refer here to bonafide threats — insults to the air or water supplies which have measurable consequences for human health, or the health of other organisms upon which humans depend. I.e., we don’t count as “threats” or “pollutants” any substance which humans may introduce into the atmosphere or waterways, just because it is manmade and therefore not “natural.” Every organism on this planet introduces substances into the atmosphere which would not be present otherwise. The Earth’s ecosphere is a giant multi-stage chemical processing plant, and it is constantly outgassing exotic molecules. Humans are as natural as every other organism on Earth, and thus so are our products and byproducts. We happen to be the only species who can assess the inpacts of our activites on other systems and modify them if those impacts prove undesirable.
“Planning ahead is also a reasonable action to prepare for possible future threats to our environment. How would we handle an increased demand for our water from other parts of the country? How would we manage a steep increase in population? These are problems that we may or may not ever have to deal with, but planning for them ahead of time may allow us to address them while sustaining the integrity of our environment.”
Er, no. We don’t waste current resources trying to plan for every conceivable future scenario. We certainly don’t promulgate edicts for coping with these speculative scenarios which reduce the options and resources available to people for dealing with the real, current problems in their lives, such as obtaining rewarding employment, feeding and housing their families, educating their kids, and living the lifestyles they prefer. E.g., we do not impose penalties and restrictions on the use of private automobiles — thereby increasing the costs, time investment, and inconveniences of getting around the city today — merely because such restrictions might be warranted in some theoretical future when there are 10 million prople in Spokane County. Nor do we impose restrictions on water usage when there is no local shortage of water, none in sight, and *when any unused water cannot be preserved anyway*. The Mayor’s “water conservation ordinance” does not *conserve” anything, because water not used today cannot be stored for future use. It simply runs to the sea, unused by anyone today or in the future.
Should the City prepare plans for a meteor strike? An epidemic of ebola? An alien invasion? Should it enact requirements that every new building be equipped with a 100 ft. deep shelter and an isolation room? The time to begin planning is when some conceivable scenario crosses some threshhold of probability and the prospective probable losses exceed those which preventive measures would entail. (This is standard cost-benefit analysis, of course — a calculation studiously avoided by global warming doomsayers). Then the question arises — who should do the planning? But I’ll get to that below.
“Your argument sounds nice, but I am unable to think of a time in recent history when a resource so fundamental to the culture and economy of so many people became scarce. Do you know of such an example? I cannot imagine any such transition being easy or peaceful, but I would be interested in knowing how humans have responded to it previously.”
There have been unnumerable times in history when some key resource for some population or other became scarce. When trees for building shelter became scarce (which happened in many areas) people learned to make brick and cut stone. When wood for fuel became scarce, people turned to coal and peat. As whales became scarcer in the 19th century and the price of whale oil rose, people began playing with crude oil, learning to distill useful fuels from it. Most significantly, when natural plants and animals used for food became scarce in Asia and the Near East 10,000 years ago (and 3000 years ago in the New World), hunters and gatherers learned to farm. All of these transitions (and unnumerable others) occurred without the oversight of government planners. Amazing!
“I would also say that this solution to dwindling oil supplies sounds nice in theory, but it relies heavily on people behaving rationally. People would resist this change the way they resist all change when it comes from a place that is beyond their control (Just as people now resist planning for this eventuality). The difference is that 1) the plan now is open to and has received public input and 2) we will have time and money working against us if we wait too long.”
People cannot resist market-driven changes, Nick. As oil becomes harder to find and recover its price must rise. Everyone who uses oil will have to pay those prices or find alternatives. The only question is, Who decides which it will be, and which alternatives are chosen? Who decides which possible alternatives are worthy of consideration, investigation and investment? Each individual consumer and investor, taking into account the consequences of each option in relation to his personal preferences and circumstances, or some arrogant commissar who chooses for everyone? What people *will* resist is others who would presume to do their planning for them and impose the results of those plans upon them by force.
“You are correct in saying that nobody can truly predict the consequences of declining oil supplies and/or increased prices. But, that still does not negate the importance of planning ahead for that eventuality.”
Granted. The question is (as above) Whose planning?
A. most of the long diatribes above don’t realize that most of the plan is an effort to reduce the cities impact and advocates minor incentives for the general population. . . this is pretty minor
B. To those that think they are smarter than 95% of scientists. Please see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
C. If your comment is longer than the original post there is a real problem.
“(This is standard cost-benefit analysis, of course — a calculation studiously avoided by global warming doomsayers)”
In my experience the exact opposite is true, global warming NAYSAYERS are the ones not doing the cost-benefit analysis. Why? I suppose there is no real benefit if you don’t believe that global warming is man made. Unfortunately, all of the credible scientific evidence points to the exact opposite – that global warming is man made and will exact a real and staggering cost on the world economy. Every study or analysis that I’ve seen suggests that the best way to deal with this cost is to try to head off this problem with “green” technology.
Another thing to keep in mind when advocating for a purely marketplace driven solution to our current oil based economy, the cost at the pump for consumers hardly reflects the true costs we are incurring. Relying on oil causes major national security issues,contributes to global warming, and causes other environmental problems (oil spills).
To suggest that we are throwing money away by regulating or advising industry and consumers to adopt “green” technologies is nonsense. Man made global warming is not some speculative fantasy, it is the overwhelming global scientific consensus.
Furthermore, abdicating local solutions for the problem simply because the federal government can do it more effectively, at some unspecified time in an unspecified manner, seems the height of irresponsibility. Everyone should do their part, while pressuring their federal representatives to do theirs.
As with the now deceased MetroSpokane blog, I find myself agreeing with Contrarian in this. Less government is better. As we all can see with the Obama movement, it’s about giving firm direction and laws to control things. With control usually comes method of enforcement…..which is costly in terms of stifled imagination and in money……….in this case money we don’t have. Big enforecement requires big dollars.
While there is no provision that there must be retrofitting of office buildings, what many don’t know is that the movement and indeed a proposal from the lib Dems……(cozzying up to the Unions and Labor and Industries as usual) is that there is now a proposal that monitoring (for heating efficiency) must be done in ALL buildings with government depts or government functions. SO what to do with the results of monitoring? Change the buildings to meet the new rules of the governements “green” movement or face loss of tenants and fines levied at the building owners for noncompliance. It costs to change a building.
SO while some can say ( even with a straight face) there’s no requirements, they’re just plain wrong. The requirements for the future are in the codes……they’re just called something else and poored defined so owners feel unmolested….for now.
In America, not everything demands laws that might conform with someone’s ideas.. Sometimes the right thing happens because it’s better in the long run, cheaper in the long run and generates more options in the long run. We don’t need bigger governement..or bigger rules/laws. We just need to be reasonable.
“In my experience the exact opposite is true, global warming NAYSAYERS are the ones not doing the cost-benefit analysis.”
Calculating the costs and benefits of higher mean temps themselves is impossible. It would require long-term prediction of the behavior of a complex adaptive system, which is impossible in principle. The factors are much too numerous and the uncertainties intractable. Temperate regions of the world will enjoy longer growing seasons and lower heating costs. Warmer regions will suffer higher cooling costs. Agriculture in all regions will have to alter its crop mix to acccomodate the changed climate, but since CO2 is a plant nutrient, agriculture overall should be more productive.
Any change in climate, whether warmer or cooler, will entail costs, simply because human habitats and economies are adapted to the current climate. Whether the net effect after new adaptations are made would be positive or negative is impossible to tell. In fact, the question is meaningless. It is simply nonsensical to try to assign a monetary value to the net output of a future economy about which we can know nothing. The economy of 2100 will be characterized by technologies, products, and services which we cannot now imagine, any more than an economist in 1900 could visualize and assign a value to the economy of today.
What we do know is that the Kyoto Protocol will do virtually nothing to reduce those costs, whatever they may be, because it will do nothing to reduce the warming, even given full compliance by all targeted countries. The Kyoto authors themselves foresee a reduction of a mere 0.07 degree in the IPCC’s projected temperatures. Those using more realistic carbon sensitivity factors estimate 0.02 degree. Estimates of the costs to the US economy for this trivial result range from $90 billion/year to $850 billion. Spending even $1 to achieve such imperceptible benefits would be asinine. That $1 could buy something useful.
“Man made global warming is not some speculative fantasy, it is the overwhelming global scientific consensus.”
You greenies will simply have to give up that particular article of faith (or piece of propaganda). There is nothing like an “overwhelming global scientific consensus” on the causes of the small temperature increase of the 20th century. A petition is circulating bearing the signatures of some 31,000 scientists, including 9000+ PhDs, who dispute the IPCC’s conclusions. See:
http://www.petitionproject.org
Also,
“Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, lamented the current fears over global warming.
‘Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,’ Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.”
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
(be sure and get that URL all on one line)
Also,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html
A “consensus” is agreement among all parties knowlegeable about an issue. There is nowhere close to a consensus on this issue.
“Furthermore, abdicating local solutions for the problem simply because the federal government can do it more effectively, at some unspecified time in an unspecified manner, seems the height of irresponsibility. Everyone should do their part, while pressuring their federal representatives to do theirs.”
Everyone should “do their part” who can actually do something useful. Enacting measures which will trample the liberties of Spokane’s citizens and harm the local economy while doing absolutely nothing to mitigate the alleged “problem,” merely to display one’s “green” bonafides and pay homage to one’s chosen gods is false economy. It is mere posturing.
The most amusing thing about the SAP is that the two “problems” it purports to address — global warming and “peak oil” — cancel each other out. As oil becomes scarcer and prices rise, more attention and investment are directed to developing alternative energy technologies and to improving their efficiency. The conversion efficiencies of solar cells, for example, have improved continuously for the last 10 years and prices have fallen, while the price of oil has increased. The rising costs of carbon fuels will *itself* reduce CO2 emissions. And no government meddling is required.
As it turns out, I had a chance to review the plan with one of the Council members who is all for the plan. Yes the sustainability the mayor and her followers would like is presaged by the principles to be somehow ratified by the Coucil. Unlikely that will happen. He idea is to set forth principles and then to enforce them. I was a bit puzzled as to why the sustainability supporters would go to the trouble…….and the answer was clear. It’s meant to be step 1. Next step is gradual funding for enforcement. Then comes the rules……and the enforcement.
Not as innocent as “me and the boys were just sitting around the other day and we just began spitballing some fine ideas….” It’ll recur again too. Whether it should recurr is another question. I don’t live here but something should be done with the roads before flying off to another program…just my opinion though….
‘You greenies will simply have to give up that particular article of faith (or piece of propaganda).’
Unfortunately, faith and propaganda have nothing to do with science, which is clearly indicating that the current global warming trend is heavily influenced by humanity. We can debate global warming and it’s cause until I’m blue in the face, but the intellectual dishonesty of naysayers is tiring. Entrenched interests have poured a lot of money into the science against global warming, but all they have really managed to do is created a lot of disinformation (see anon’s link above). Also, the petition you link to is easily discredited with a quick google search, as is every study/interest group purporting to disprove man made global warming. When not obscured by political and petro dollar campaigns, the science showing man made global warming is convincing.
I’ve wasted way to much time on this thread, I think I’m going to ignore the rest.
“Also, the petition you link to is easily discredited with a quick google search, as is every study/interest group purporting to disprove man made global warming.”
You mean *attempted* to discredit the petition, don’t you?
From the Wikipedia entry:
“In 2001, Scientific American reported:
‘Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.’”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Eleven of the 20 contacted represents 55% of the sample, or over 17,000 dissenting scientists when extrapolated to the entire list. That is a far cry from a consensus. Climatologists, BTW, are not the only specialists qualified to have an opinion on this issue. Physicists and physical chemists are at least as well qualified, and probably better qualified, since the AGW theory relies on principles and methodology from their disciplines.
“When not obscured by political and petro dollar campaigns, the science showing man made global warming is convincing.”
Not to at least 17,000 scientists.