by Dan Wolk
Davis boasts a long and celebrated history of environmental achievements. Our city is a bikeable, tree-lined oasis, filled with innovative housing and food cooperatives, and surrounded by protected open space and farmland, and a restored Putah Creek. However much these are now a settled part of our community, but every one of these achievements started with a pioneer who saw something others did not, or as a radical experiment of forward thinkers.
We need such forward thinking today. Over the next few decades, our economic, social and environmental resilience will be challenged by the all-reaching effects of climate change. We can look forward to increased competition for energy and water, environmental and economic challenges to our open farmland, and a future for waste where simply expanding a landfill is not the answer. We have made a good start with our Climate Action and Adaption Plan, which will see us carbon-neutral by 2050, but our true task is much greater than this.
We must recommit ourselves to environmental sustainability, both as a matter of good and ethical governance and as a matter of necessary prudence. We must develop smart, sustainable practices today for a healthy, vibrant Davis tomorrow. An ancient Native American proverb states: “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” It is high time we asked ourselves: what kind of community are we leaving to our kids?
I would like to see the community get behind a number of measures, including:
- Promoting solar power. We must look to every level of government – federal, state, and local – to find programs to promote locally generated solar energy, and where these programs do not exist, we must create them. The PACE/AB 811 program should have made it easier for homeowners to finance and install solar panels, but this program has been halted by the federal government. It is our turn to pick up the ball by implementing our own PACE program for commercial users. We should look to other solutions as well. For instance, Davis is a sponsor of SB 843, which would allow residents to purchase off-site solar power.
- Starting our own municipal utility. Just over ten years ago, we faced needless shortages, price hikes, and rolling blackouts. Our energy is a matter too vital to leave in the hands of a private power monopoly or a volatile market. We should create an energy system more in line with the values and needs of our community. Wherever possible, we should source our energy locally, renewably, and in a way that insulates us from price and availability fluctuations. A number of communities have already successfully started their own public utilities, or employed Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) to choose the source from which they draw power. What they did, we can do as well.
- Providing incentives to make homes more efficient. While we transition to a more sustainable energy model, increasing energy efficiency through simple, relatively inexpensive changes to homes is low hanging fruit we can pick now. We can do a better job of getting the word out so that homeowners reach up and pick this fruit, taking advantage of state and federal programs in the process.
- Initiating a “Silicon Valley of Sustainability.” We need not just economic development in our community, but the development of a new kind of economy. Davis has everything it needs to become a worldwide center for innovation in green technology and sustainable practices. Certainly there are great companies in our community already doing this. But to help realize this vision on a larger scale, our city should encourage technology transfer from UC Davis and foster other kinds of innovation. We should provide incentives so that ideas in a laboratory can become startups, and so that startups can become businesses that remain here. Davis Roots, for one, could help with this.
- Greater waste reduction and composting. Our city was the first in the region to adopt a zero-waste resolution, but we can go further by encouraging waste reduction in the community. We should work with Davis Waste Removal and others to develop a community-wide curbside composting program, and reduce the use of plastic shopping bags, using Washington D.C.’s successful program as a model. We should honor the spirit of our resolution by making all city events, including this coming July 4th celebration, zero-waste.
- Strengthening our water conservation program. My general position on the water project is well known by now, but one aspect of my platform on water – the need to strengthen our water conservation program – is worth singling out. We can start with simple steps, like providing incentives for residents to reduce water consumption through changes to landscaping, plumbing and other habits. We should also advocate for monies for water recycling and wastewater and water treatment in all state water bonds.
The things we now admire as part of our civic heritage once started as the ideas, vision and experiments of forward thinkers. Let’s do as those before us did, and look to the future. Perhaps what we see as an idea today will become the proud achievements of tomorrow. For now, this is just a beginning. I hope you will join me to see it through.
Dan Wolk is a candidate for Davis City Council. He was appointed to the council in February 2011. All candidates for Davis City Council have the opportunity to submit opinion pieces for publication.
“Our city was the first in the region to adopt a zero-waste resolution, but we can go further by encouraging waste reduction in the community.”
Negative waste! Now that is visionary.
A guest written article should identify the author.
Also, is it just me, but I thought the City Clerk’s image should niot be used for campaign purposes? She is the one person in City govt who should be neutral, right ?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]
“A guest written article should identify the author.”[/i]
Michael, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Do you not see in big bold letters immediately above the beginning of the article’s first line of text, the words [b]by Dan Wolk[/b] Do you not see the two words [b]Guest Commentary[/b] in the article’s title?
You have been reading the Vanguard long enough to know that that is how David identifies articles written by others. Do us all a favor and back your finger off your hair trigger.
Who would disagree with Dan Wolk’s “feel-good” vision for the future of Davis presented here? This kind of campaign material along with his Council record of assiduously “straddling” controversial issues,IMO, does not assist the voter in weighing the candidacy of Dan Wolk . Name recognition can only go so far.
So far, this vision of pursuing a green economy has proven to be substantially premature and overly ambitious. The simple fact is that green technology is still largely in R&D mode: the products are too expensive and problematic and require government subsidies to pencil out.
I worry that our pursuit of a feel-good green agenda prevents us from pursuing a more effective economic development vision.
I do not necessarily agree with every point, but very thoughtful article…
Jeff Boone: “The simple fact is that green technology is still largely in R&D mode: the products are too expensive and problematic and require government subsidies to pencil out.”
You have got to turn off the oil industry financed right wing media; solar hot water, insulated windows and ceilings, energy efficient appliances, wind generation, fuel efficient vehicles, hybrid autos, car pools, bikes, recycling, buses, trains, car pools, low flow showers and toilets are all energy efficient.
Its a good question Mike did Dan or David come up with the photo?
“You have got to turn off the oil industry financed right wing media”
Yeah Jeff, you better start listening to the Solyndra financed left wing media.
Toad: I’m sure you agree that it is not easy being green! =)
Environmentalism is just a modern religion of the left. We must keep church and state separate. Green technology will develop based on market realities… when the costs of alternative sustainable energy drops below the cost of fossil fuel energy.
Jeff Boone: [i]”the products are too expensive and problematic and require government subsidies to pencil out.”[/i]
When did the fossil fuel industry stop receiving government subsidies?
Mark, I couldn’t help snickering. And when did the fossil fuel industry start building reserves to cover their latent environmental costs?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[quote]energy efficient appliances[/quote]
Let me tell you about those so-called “energy efficient appliances”. A repairman told me recently that the new appliances last only about 12 years as opposed the the former 25 years that they were expected to/and did last in the “good old days” (remember the lonely Maytag repairman – Maytag was bought out by Whirlpool and there went the quality of Maytag appliances). I now have a brand new energy efficient refrigerator and dishwasher. The thermostat even on the coldest temperature setting on the refrigerator is just barely cold enough. To turn it any lower would cause a health hazard/food borne illness in my opinion. The dishes have to be washed before putting them in the dishwasher to make sure the dishes get clean after the dishwasher supposedly “washes” them. The new low flow toilets are a joke. They don’t provide enough water to flush, so you have to flush them a second time to make sure everything does get flushed. I’ll take the way appliances were any day of the week…
[i]”When did the fossil fuel industry stop receiving government subsidies?[/i]
Mark, good point… but two wrongs don’t make a right.
They are different though. Oil company subsidies tend to be in the form of royalty discounts to encourage exploration and production of an existing product. Green energy “investments” are in the form of direct loans and tax credits all directed at a single goal to re-engineer society and manipulate energy markets. The fact is we do not know what green technologies will prevail. The government trying to make winners and losers out of certain technologies over others is a terrible idea as Solyndra proved.
Elaine, I hear you on the energy efficient appliances. They last about 1/3 as long, and cost 50% more. When you consider the extra cost and the cost of more frequent replacement, a person never realizes the savings from reduced energy consumption. The same is true for hybrid cars… you never recoup enough gas savings to make up for the extra cost.
However, I am happy with the pending future for LED lights. They are too expensive now, but the price will come down. They will start to replace all incandescent and florescent lights at some point… not because the government says so, but because the market says so.
[quote]…not because the government says so, but because the market says so.[/quote]
Yes, the market can be a very useful determinative of what products are best…
IMO, the “energy efficient” appliances are not energy efficient at all, not in the aggregate when taking into account all their downsides. The environmentalists/politicians need to go back to the drawing board on this one…
What? No mention of toad tunnels or light pollution, awwww…man…
To AdRemmer: LOL