Looking to Local, Regional, and National Transportation Goals

There was an interesting note in the Davis Enterprise yesterday about the rising Capitol Corridor ridership. Ridership jumped by nearly 20% over this time last year. Truth is, iti's the 10th consecutive year that ridership has increased.

Gas prices are only one factor in this equation, congested roadways and stressful commutes have played a role as well according to the article.

One of the huge keys to our future will be solving our transportation puzzle. There are some who believe that Americans will never give up their cards. They might be right. The real question is whether you can get them to drive less in cars that are more energy efficient.

I voted for Proposition 1A this year in part because I believe if we had a reliable high speed rail system that could conveniently get us from point A to point B, we would ride the train.

One of the best public transit systems is in Washington DC where the Metro is a cheap, convenient, and safe way to travel within the city and into the suburbs. When I worked in DC over a decade ago, I did not own a car. I did not need a car. The few places the Metro did not take me, I could either take a bus or a cab--and this was rare.

I also lived in Pittsburg, California right next to Antioch one year and took classes in Berkeley twice a year. I would drive five miles in my car, park at the BART station, and take the train to Berkeley. It was quick, convenient, and I could always finish my reading on the train before I arrived for class.

When I took a summer seminar in Stanford one summer, I would come home on the weekends, and I used to take the Capitol Corridor to Emeryville, the Train Bus to San Francisco, and then the Cal-Train to Palo Alto.

Why do I share all of this? Because I believe that we can live in a world where we can take mass transit, and have it be cheap, fast, and convenient. I would love to see a system that efficiency and conveniently connects the Sacramento Light Rail service with BART and Cal-Train. I'd love to see a service of this sort that connects cities across the country, so that you can ride the rails to where you need to go in a quick, cheap, and convenient way.

Europe is way ahead of us in that respect. People will get off the highways and out of their cars if they have an alternative. Unfortunately we need to create that alternative. Our highways are old, antiquated and badly need of being redone. Obama is talking about a public works investment, but if we are going to invest more money and create jobs in upgrading our infrastructure--something we definitely need--we need a 21st century infrastructure plan.

Eisenhower's greatest accomplishment was the creation of the modern interstate system which linked up the country via road. Obama needs to do the same but with alternative transportation.

As we look to the future, let us not merely rebuild the 1950s interstate system that has served us well. Let us make 2010s system of high-speed rails and alternative fuel vehicles that can get us into the next half-century, help us to reduce our reliance on oil, reduce greenhouse gases, reduce driving times, reduce congestion on the highway that leads to pollution and frustration. That is what we really need now.

As gas prices plummet, I have real mixed feelings. On the one hand, it's nice to fill up the car again for $20 or less. On the other hand, I hope it doesn't take people's eyes off the ball. Gas prices at $4 a gallon made alternative fueled and fuel efficient cars economically feasible. It put a priority on developing alternative transportation.

The collapse of the oil market runs parallel with the collapse of the economy, it is also temporary based largely on fallen demand worldwide rather than increased supply. As soon as the economy improves, the prices are headed right back where they were, if not higher. The fallen gas prices are a nice respite to ease the burden on our wallets, but they do not change the bigger picture.

It is interesting that on Saturday, I wrote an article on Obama, talking about the hopeful change in the partisan tone as the result of the new presidency. So far so good. But we still have tremendous challenges that we are facing. That is reality, not a lowered bar. The economic situation worldwide is far worse than many of us realized in September and October. The bailout that used $700 billion was not well-planned or administered. There is no functioning executive office right now in this country.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, there are just some really severe problems that must be dealt with and they cannot wait. The economy is only one, we must restore our standing in the world after Bush drove it into the ground, we must focus on health care, we must focus on global warming, we must focus on transportation which is linked to both foreign policy and the environment, we must restore our moral standing by removing torture from our policies and closing down Guantanamo, we must restore our rights to privacy, we must restore our environmental laws and enforcement mechanisms. It is unbelievable how much damage one man in a one eight-year period has wrought. And people dare to challenge why I urge that we might not be able to do this in a short period of time--have you looked at the world lately and see how bad things are?

Fortunately, we do not have to wait for the federal government to act. I am hopeful that Prop 1A funding is put to good use, that our region, our state, and our local governments can look toward the issue of transportation, even in these economic times as a priority. We fight over trivial issues and then fail to deal with the real problems as they stare us in the face.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City of Davis Global Warming and Carbon Goals

I continue to be somewhat perplexed by the entire push for carbon neutrality at the city level. I watched the council meeting on Tuesday, and it is obvious that the city has put in a lot of staff hours looking into this. I have not yet attending a Climate Action Team meeting, and I suspect I will not do so. It is not really that I think the issue is unimportant--I think it is one of the top 5 issues facing the new Obama administration along with the economy, health care, human rights, and re-orientating our role in the world.

There is a lot to critique and comment on, so I will pick just a few things to discuss. I really would like to see the comments actually of what people in this community think about these efforts and what they believe we should do.

One of the interesting assumptions that the city makes here is that the existing houses will last until at least 2050. In fact, we do not attempt to get to carbon neutrality until that point. Depending who we talk to about the state of the climate, that may be too late. But we need to leave that issue aside. If there is an aspect of this that I most strongly supportive of it is the idea of new energy efficiency in home design. This plan almost cedes that issue. I am sure we can retrofit homes with photovoltaic cells, but frankly that is the beginning of energy efficiency, not the end. There are whole host of passive features for homes that can make us more efficient. Start with good insulation to keep the heat in during winter months and the heat out during summer months. Making use of the position of the sun to gain maximum sun exposure during the winter and minimizing direct sunlight during peak heat hours in the summer can help. Orienting cross-ventilation can enable people to utilize nature's cooling device--the delta breeze during evening hours in the summer to reduce air conditioning usage. But if we are conceding that these changes will not be implemented for 42 years, where are we?

The next issue is both a local land use issue and a global issue--transportation. We can have the best designed houses in the world, but if you have to drive to work, it helps us none. Last night on the Vanguard Radio show, representatives of Lewis Planned Communities talked about the prospect of people biking to Amtrak and taking the Capitol Corridor train to work. That would certainly be a start. But unless we are going to get serious about a transportation system at the regional level, those people are going to be exceptions, not the rule. The prospect of smart urban design is to put housing where the jobs are. There is little doubt that is a smart principle, but it involves us figuring out what our true internal needs are and then determining a way to provide housing for those needs. There are pitfalls to that strategy as well, as you end up attracting people more to places like Davis with new residential growth which contributes to the problem of commuting. Until we change that mindset, transportation is going to remain a problem. We seem to be as a society sitting back, waiting for new technology to save us here. But will it be too late?

The third prong to this is obviously going to be business development. I hate to keep coming back to Target, but it is a glaring contradiction. If we are serious about global warming and reducing our carbon footprint, then we cannot continue to practice unsustainable consumer practices. I will be frank--as a society, we do not want to sacrifice. We want to innovate our way out of this problem as we have innovated our way out of many problems in the past. I am unsure we can do that. I think to some extent we are going to have to change the way we live. Housing and transportation are only part of that equation. The other part is our wasteful consumer habits. Target is the perfect model for what is wrong with that approach. The great irony is that we have put Target in the LEED-certified building. We might as well put a HUMMER car lot in a LEED-certified building for all the good this does us.

There are so many problems with the Target model, but let's go over a few. Cheap disposable goods that end up taking large amount of energy to produce and they end up in the landfill. Production is off-sight. The goods are transported from a long way from here to centralized locations where they are then transported here. There are harmful economic impacts as well, but in terms of an environmental model, it is the worst possible model. Where are most of the product manufactured? Oversees in factories that are environmental hazards on a large number of levels. The products themselves are generally not environmentally friendly. You have wasteful packaging that ends up in landfills unless they are recycled. The products themselves are inexpensive, which means they have a limited life, and one needs to purchase more. In short, it is not a sustainable business model for an environment such as ours.

And yet, with all of our time and energy and planning that has gone into the CAT and mitigating global warming, I have seen no consideration of the impact of Target and places like Target on global warming. Unless we are willing to change the way we live and consume products, it is going to be difficult to combat global warming. I see us willing to have bells and whistles and to pay for those bells and whistles, but I do not see us willing to sacrifice.

It is on this point, that I illustrate a further problem. For new development involving housing, the city is moving toward developing greenhouse gas reduction guidelines. Sounds reasonable.

However, now you have at the meeting on Tuesday, a developer who happens to be a member of CAT warning of the danger of putting too many restrictions on developers. To be honest at one level I can understand his concern--this is the person's livelihood, who can blame him for being concerned. But on another level, it is yet another example of the unwillingness to sacrifice. Moreover, I have seen the efforts of a few of the more recent proposed developments who have put almost of this into their proposals already. Why? Because, they have to sell their projects to the community and this is what most people in the community want. So I think largely these fears are unfounded.

The developer suggested that we were the verge of actually shutting down new residential development in this community and that the city will not be able to achieve any of its goals related to housing. I do not buy it. Has anyone seen any indication that the pressure to develop will stop? There is too much money to be made. Developers are more likely to do this voluntarily in order to get their projects approved.

The bottom line here is that this illustrates the peril of such goals. We need to start coming into the mindset at some point that we need to sacrifice. I think there are new technologies and that green technologies and innovations are a driving economic force in the future. There are other jurisdictions with some pretty innovative plans already on the books. But at the core and in the final hour, we need to acknowledge that we are going to have to give some things up. Maybe for the developers it is a bit of the profit margin. Maybe for the city it is a bit of our plans. Maybe the consumers it is some of our cheap and convenient consumer goals. Perhaps it is the luxury of huge gas-guzzling SUVs. Perhaps in Alaska, it is the acknowledgment that drill-baby-drill is in fact incompatible with global warming reductions rather than its cure. I don't know, but it seems to me that we have a lot of tough choices ahead if we want to try to head off the potential fall-out from global warming.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

California On Verge of Re-Writing the Book on Land-Use--Links Growth Goals and Climate Issues

A bill sponsored by Sacramento's State Senator Darrell Steinberg would change the way California does land-use--fusing the issues of urban growth and global warming. The state would use roughly $12 billion per year in transportation funds as an incentive to steer communities toward land-use policies that contain sprawl.

But it is even more sweeping than that. As the California Progress Report cites broad negotiations between a variety of stakeholders.

"The triumph of this bill reflects months of intense negotiations between major environmental groups, the building industry, affordable housing advocates, and state and local governments. Senator Steinberg has been lauded for bringing these groups, often at war with each other in the past, together for this bill. SB 375 marks the first time major environmental organizations, local governments, major homebuilders and affordable housing advocates have agreed on a plan to account for California’s population growth and achieve AB 32 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals at the same time. In return for a quicker process to approve housing under California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), new development will have to consider transportation in planning."

Senator Steinberg said:

"If California is to fully implement AB 32, we must address how our communities grow. SB 375 will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks and improve Californians’ quality of life through smart, coordinated regional planning. I urge the Governor to sign SB 375.”

The Governor now has to sign the bill, he has not taken a position on it, but has championed some of its goals.

According to one analysis the bill would work like this:

"Under the measure, the state Air Resources Board would establish targets for 17 regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of a broader campaign to curb global warming. It then would be up to local planning agencies, such as [SACOG] – to help cities and counties implement land-use policies that would meet those goals.

Regional agencies are expected to encourage more compact development, linking residents to transit, jobs and shopping."

The key to this bill though was Steinberg able to forge broad coalitions together.

"The legislation offers builders density concessions, relief from time-consuming and costly environmental reviews, stronger safeguards against litigation aimed at stopping projects, and assurances that proposals complying with general plans will not be arbitrarily derailed."

The California Progress Report quotes the heads of California League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council--both of whom sponsored the bill--along with the Chair of the California Building Industry Association with strong words of support.

One of the key provisions of the bill is taking RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) and adjusting it to become aligned with the land use plan in that region's Sustainable Communities Strategy which will account for greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The California Progress Report quotes Tom Adams, who is President of the CLVC. He put the bill into historical perspective. The key to this bill is that it puts housing into areas that will decrease drive times. It will create more compact and denser development rather than the continuation of sprawl.

“In my view, SB 375 is the most important land use bill in California since enactment of the Coast Act. It has taken 32 years since that bill was enacted to bring a coalition together who could make major land use change in California. Senator Steinberg has accomplished that in this bill and it is an amazing achievement on his part and we are tremendously grateful for his leadership.

“This is the equation for solving the problems that we face in terms of housing, getting shorter commute times for people. When you have shorter commutes, you reduce vehicle miles traveled. It’s also important to recognize that you reduce traffic congestion.

“What this bill will do is say that regional housing needs assessment and the strategies that will be adopted under the regional transportation planning process will be aligned. The housing distribution throughout the region will be put in locations that will help California achieve its strategic environmental goals of climate policy, air quality, and energy conservation.

“Finally, the bill amends the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental quality act that is California’s premiere statute for protecting the environment….So that the procedures for environmental review of projects rewards projects that are consistent with strategies that achieve our climate goals, air quality and energy conservation and helps us promote the kinds of transit priority projects that are needed for the future of California.

“Each of these issue areas—land use, the regional housing needs allocation program, and the California Environmental Quality Act are regarded by many people as sacred cows. They certainly are, at a minimum, a minefield for anyone who want to amend them.

“I think to say that we would have just done land use would have been incredible. Or just to have done the housing program or just to have done CEQA. This bill is a trifecta of the impossible. Senator Steinberg has managed to pull together a bill that brings some of the most important and most difficult statutes in the state of California into alignment so that we can achieve housing that is needed, environmental quality, climate policy, air quality, reduced congestion, increased housing choices, and have a better transportation policy for California.”

What does this all mean?

It is difficult to assess what it means for communities like Davis. But I think overall it has several worthwhile goals.

First, we have to start looking toward the development of public and alternative transportation. One of the key hurdles to a good and unified public transportation system in California is our land-use policies that has continued to build out rather than up or create more density. The result is that public transportation is inefficient, it takes too long in many cases to take public transit from the suburbs into the cities. As that changes, we can begin to develop infrastructure that takes us out of our cars.

Second, by building more compactly, by placing precedence on locations that are closer to jobs, we begin to reduce drive times. Frankly, I think most of us would like to eliminate the need for commuting, and this is a good first step.

Third, some may raise eyebrows here, but I think it makes sense, in order to get the other side on board, they attempted to streamline the process of getting approval for projects through CEQA and the environmental review of projects. What this does is say that if projects are consistent with the goals of his project, approval is streamlined and hastened. The goals of the environmental review process are now aligned with achieving reduction of carbon emissions and energy conservations.

This is such a sweeping bill however, that the full consequences of its enactment may not be known for some time. Again, it is unclear how it will impact a place such as Davis. However, even in Davis, the move has been away from sprawl and towards higher density and more infill projects as a means not only to preserve farmland but also to reduce drive times.

One thing that is certainly true, we could not continue with our prior land-use polices of unmitigated sprawl development in the broader sense in California. Encroachment onto farmland not only puts farming at risk, but endangers the environment and increases our dependency on oil. This is a broad step that shows the political skill of Senator Steinberg.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Takes Aim at "Low-Hanging Fruit"

According to last night's Davis Enterprise:

"The city of Davis is working on a comprehensive plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, operating under the theory that changes at every level of government will make a difference."

Claire St. John, who covers the city council for Enterprise writes:

"In the meantime, the City Council is approving small, easy steps to show its commitment to the cause."

What new measures is the city taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

"On Tuesday, the council will consider programs to lend commuter bikes to city employees, replace aging city fleet vehicles with hybrid models and fund staff training, keeping the city up to date on emerging trends and technology about climate change and sustainability.

If the council approves, staff members also will begin exploring ways to encourage contractors to use alternative fuels.

Easy measures — such as providing recycling bins for employees, conducting an energy audit offered by PG&E and purchasing recycled paper — also are on the agenda."

The staff report admits that these "are not likely to result in major GHG [that's greenhouse gas for the layman] emission reductions," however more importantly, "they do show the city's commitment to addressing climate change."

St. John continues:

"City staff calls the measures being implemented "low-hanging fruit." But they will set the stage for a larger effort, staff members say."

What are these larger efforts:

"A greenhouse gas emissions inventory, which will identify major emissions sources in Davis, is under way. Expected to be completed in January, it will be used to target and address the city's emissions.

In mid-October, the council approved the formation of a Climate Action Team [CAT] and a Technical Advisory Committee [TAC] and recruitment is under way. The council also approved an ordinance that restricts city sales or purchases of disposable bottles of water, with the intention of relying on tap water and reusable water containers.

Earlier, the city approved a construction and demolition recycling ordinance that requires a 50 percent diversion rate for all projects.

City representatives say they hope that once the Climate Action Team and Technical Advisory Committee are formed early next year, more extensive reduction measures will be studied and implemented."

After the CAT discovers that combustion engines are the largest source of GHG emissions and that disposable bottles sold at city events are not, we will be all set to make major changes on the climate front.

On the other hand, did I recently mention what Berkeley is doing?

Berkeley's city council voted for the city to finance the cost of solar panels for property owners who agree to repayment over a 20 year period.

Berkeley is taking tough and innovative new steps at climate change while Davis is aiming for symbolic low hanging fruit.

Why has it taken until 2007 for the city of Davis to use recycled paper, have recycling bins, and look at trends on climate change and sustainability? Rather than leading the way, Davis is simply following trends set by more innovative and climate conscious municipalities.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Talks the Talk on Global Warming

But Other Cities Like Berkeley are walking the walk.

In an effort to help fight global warming, the city of Davis has vowed to stop selling or using disposable water bottles at city events or city concession stands.

One idea was to sell reusable water bottles with the city logo on one side and instructions on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the other side.

Even City Councilmember Don Saylor seemed to acknowledge it was symbolic:

"In some ways, this resolution will be largely symbolic, a way for the public to see us doing something... It's a way to get the word out. Every small thing makes a difference."

One intriguing aspect that I would like to see the city do is what they did at the Whole Earth Festival--in addition to no disposable cups, they also charged a deposit on all plates and cups so that people would return them for them to be composted. No reason that the city as a whole cannot adopt those policies and not just for city sponsored events.

However, you will forgive me if I say that I have grown tired of this city council's rhetoric on global warming.

Last spring, there was a long and lengthy debate over whether a new housing development ought to be required to install solar panels on the roofs. Such an endeavor would add a large cost of perhaps $20,000 to the property, but that would have a very real impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Much more than say, banning the city from using disposable cups.

Along those lines this week, the City of Berkeley put Davis in its place and showed Davis who was the boss and the leader in terms of environmental thinking. I know there is a natural resentment in Davis to anything Berkeley. My only response to that is to get over it.

According to an article yesterday in the San Francisco Chronicle,

"Berkeley is set to become the first city in the nation to help thousands of its residents generate solar power without having to put money up front - attempting to surmount one of the biggest hurdles for people who don't have enough cash to go green.

The City Council will vote Nov. 6 on a plan for the city to finance the cost of solar panels for property owners who agree to pay it back with a 20-year assessment on their property. Over two decades, the taxes would be the same or less than what property owners would save on their electric bills, officials say."

Now officials in San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, and some state agencies are looking into the plan. Where is Davis on this list?

"This is how Berkeley's program would work:

A property owner would hire a city-approved solar installer, who would determine the best solar system for the property, depending on energy use. Most residential solar panel systems in the city cost from $15,000 to $20,000.

The city would pay the contractor for the system and its installation, minus any applicable state and federal rebates, and would add an assessment to the property owner's tax bill to pay for the system.

The extra tax would include administrative fees and interest, which would be lower than what the property owner could obtain on his own, because the city would secure low-interest bonds and loans, officials say. The tax would stay with the property even if the owner sold, although the owner would have to leave the solar panels.

The property owner would save money on monthly Pacific Gas & Electric bill because electricity generated by the solar panels would partly replace electricity delivered by the utility. After the assessment expired, the solar panels - of a simple technology that requires little or no maintenance - would continue to partly replace PG&E electricity.

Bates' chief of staff, Cisco DeVries, came up with the idea about eight months ago when he was looking for ways the city could meet its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under a measure that Berkeley voters approved last year. Measure G mandates that the city cut its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050...

If the plan succeeds, Berkeley would be about 10 percent closer to its Measure G target, Burroughs said. Solar panels shouldn't be a tough sell in Berkeley, he said, which already has more solar systems per capita than any other Northern California city."

I actually think that is a conservative guess as to how much the taxpayer/ ratepayer might save on electricity. For instance, I know someone who installed solar panels, and now does not have an electricity bill from PG&E. That is probably not realistic for some, but the amount of cost mitigated by solar panels would make sense over the long term. However, many people do not have a 20 year or even 10 year interest, the city of course does.

This is something that the city of Davis ought to look into if they are serious about moving being symbolic measures and wish to help lead the way toward green energy and reductions of greenhouse gases.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Things We Can Do in Our Community to Help Save the Planet

The issue of global warming has finally captured the media, public, and politician of the left side's attention. Yes, it is probably about 20 years later than it should have been and the effects of global warming appear almost undoubtedly to be upon us. We have wasted too much time with debates as to whether global warming is happening and what is causing it and not enough time figuring out ways to mitigate the damages.

I give the city of Davis some credit in looking into ways that the city can reduce its carbon footprint. But I do not believe the city has gone far enough. And in many ways, the measures that it has taken on other issues, will counteract efforts to reduce our carbon footprint.

Here are three ideas that I have come up with.

First, require solar panels on all new homes. Last weekend I visited my parents in San Luis Obispo. Sitting outside in the backyard with their neighbor, I spied their solar panels. He informed me that they have paid all of $35 in electrical bills in the year since they installed the panel. Now solar panels are extremely expensive to install, costing what it would cost to buy a decent new car somewhere between 15 and 20 thousand dollars. However, the belief is that it would pay for itself within ten years. More importantly, it would take a tremendous amount off of the power grid in the city if this were done on a mass basis.

It is probably not realistic yet to require retrofitting of the devices, but when you buy a new house it makes sense. First, what is an extra 15 to 20 thousand on top of $400,000 to $600,000 you would pay for a new house. And second, if you plan to own the home for any length of time, you will make up the money in electrical bills. And there is always the expansion of technology discounts, the more that one buys of this technology, the cheaper it gets.

Unfortunately, the council in April got caught up in the debate on a new project as to whether or not to require such things and many on the council majority argued against it. That makes no sense, this is such an energy saver--utilizing the sun, especially in a place like Davis where perhaps 90% of the days are sunny.

Second, expand the greenbelts and bike routes to accommodate Gem cars as well. Our current infrastructure is not set up to accommodate energy saving electric cars rather than fossil fuel burning conventional cars. If we are serious about conserving, there is no reason that in-town trips should be done with conventional cars--none. But as a friend pointed out, here the city is supposed to be environmentally conscious, councilmembers even drive gem cars, but will not be able to get to the new Target store in them. How much sense does that make? Imagine being able to drive in your gem car downtown without having to use many of the major roads? Expensive, but how much gas consumption would we be able to reduce just by reducing greatly the number of in-town trips.

Third, the Whole Earth Festival taught me a very valuable lesson. Every day, we buy a huge amount of packaging including disposable food containers. At Whole Earth, plates and cups were charged a deposit that was returned to the customer up the return of their plates and cups. The plates and cups were then recycled or composted. That leads to the question--why not do that in town? Why not do that at Farmer's Market? Why not greatly reduce the amount of packaging and disposable food containers that we use and instead either return for re-use, recycle, or compost? It would cost us nothing but an initiative to implement that practice city-wide and it would greatly, greatly reduce waste.

If we are serious about global warming and protecting the environment, then we need to get serious about finding new ways to conserve. Innovation and other saving policies need to increase. So far the council majority has talked the talk when it is convenient, let us see them walk the walk and actually propose policies that impact us all.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Making Tough Choices on Global Warming at the Local Level

This year for the first time marks a real shift in the issue of the global warming. It seems that for years there was a destructive debate over the issue of whether global climate change was caused by human activities--a debate that fundamentally missed the point because while we had a political debate--often muted--on this question, we missed out on many opportunities to mitigate climate damage that would not have disrupted the economy and were things that we ought to do regardless of whether or not this issue exists.

However, this has all changed this year, you can see it in the focus from the scientific community, you can see it the production and publicity that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" has received, and you can see in the response at the state, county, and local government levels.

Global warming is a well-documented problem that is far bigger than just the city of Davis. However, many of the changes needed on an international level begin with practices at the local level.

Tuesday night at the Davis City Council meeting, there was an agenda item on global warming and the things that the city needs to do to reduce emissions.

The real question I had after watching both the presentation and the council exchange following it is whether or not this is window dressing by the council majority to appear to be environmentally friendly and socially conscious or whether this marks the beginning of real changes--tough changes--that we have to make in order to affect the global climate and must be undertaken at a community-by-community level.

The city is putting together an action plan to reduce the carbon footprint which they claim is already low and already many of these items are in place. The big one of course is to drive less. Vehicle emissions represent a huge amount of the carbon problem.

An interesting thing that came up at the county level perhaps a month or month and a half ago was Duane Chamberlain, the County Supervisor who represents much of rural Yolo County talked about his conversations with local farmers about how much fuel they used per acre of their land. It was a fairly low number when he compared it to how much fuel was used in a medium density city neighborhood. You are talking about multiple dwellings on that land where people are using hundreds if not thousands of gallons of fuel individually, and you may have several dwellings on that acre. Whereas, Chamberlain was suggesting that many farmers perhaps used 40-60 gallons per acre.

And that is just driving fuel. What that suggests is in terms of carbon footprint, urban land use is much higher than rural land use.

The council majority of course suggests their support for these types of issues and yet their policies do not seem consistent.

At the previous meeting there was a long and sustained debate as to whether they should mandate solar panels for a new housing development. The council majority's position was that it should be optional. If you have a commitment to reduction of energy usage, how can solar panels which are clean and sustainable uses of energy be optional?

Moreover, one of the big problems of the Covell Village proposal, was the traffic impacts. Increasing traffic adds greatly to carbon emissions because the higher the intensity of the traffic, the more vehicles idle and less efficient they use their fuel. Covell Village would have produced vast traffic problems and that would have increased greatly the amount of carbon emissions in Davis. That does not mean that we can never develop or add subdivisions or communities, but it does mean that we need to start planning for traffic, alternative transportation and cleaner burner transportation at the very least in conjunction with new housing development.

Then there is the entire Target and big-box issue. This is a corporation with a huge and vast global carbon footprint. This is the type of non-sustainable use of resources that we need to start changing. The debate over this was glossed over last fall. The Target building in Davis was marketed to the Davis consumer and voter as being green--the color of the building is green, it is put in a LEED certified building. As one person put it last fall--you can put a Hummer car dealership in a LEED certified building, that is not going to make it environmentally friendly or address the top concerns of global warming at a local level.

So the council majority is going to have to decide if global warming and reducing our carbon footprint is an actual priority.

Are they willing to make actual tough choices that impact people's lives?

They talked about easy to implement plans that require "no vision" to implement--those are things that we can all agree on and we should do. But to really get into this problem we need to make tough choices on development and building construction and neighborhood planning.

There was also talk about not reinventing the wheel. I think Councilmember Lamar Heystek make the crucial point, "in terms of a vision, I think we need to look at what other communities do and then exceed them. I think competition is a good thing."

Mayor Sue Greenwald finally pointed out that there was no mention in the action plan about city planning, land use patterns, floor area ratios for houses, she asked if there was anything about making use of land use planning. Staff gave a vague answer on this but suggested it was an important component.

Councilmember Saylor suggested at one point--"it is not a question of who is greener than the other one"--and yet I think it is exactly a question of that. Are some of the land use policies that this city employs consistent with the goal of dealing with global warming? I think Sue Greenwald was exactly right that this component of the discussion was largely missing.

Councilmember Souza made the point that the burning of fossil fuels is what is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions and that in this area that is the consumption of gasoline. And I agree with that, what I was disappointed in is the lack of recognition that fuel usage is not merely a site-based problem. That if we consume goods that need transportation or that were manufactured elsewhere, guess what, we are contributing to the greenhouse gas emissions in a real way, even though the emissions are occurring elsewhere and the rest of the world is also doing the same thing.

Finally concern was raised by both Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek about the 18 month visioning process. Both suggested we should do things quicker. Mayor Greenwald was concerned that we would lose momentum and also fall behind what other communities are doing. Heystek suggested earlier in the discussion that this ought to be a one-year process rather than an 18-month process.

My overall concerns echo these--there are things we can and should do now and we also have to discuss the tough issues of land use, city planning, commercial development, and transportation.

Davis indeed does many good things environmentally, however, we should not pretend that the current policies and recent developments have moved us in the right direction.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting