By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – There is no doubt that we face a catastrophic climate crisis—and we are only now starting to see the magnitude of the impact of that crisis on our world.
For a long time, when the federal government and world governments refused to act, I believe we had to model proper carbon reduction at the local level. Moving away from fossil fuels, going to more energy efficient homes, driving less—all of that are things we should be doing.
It is important to practice what you preach, otherwise you end up looking like the governor going to a restaurant with a large group of people with no masks—it just looks bad.
But at some level, the critics are right about this stuff. In the scheme of climate change, we are not going to turn things around on the margins. It is going to take deep work and that can only happen at the multi-national level, not the local level.
Modeling proper practices—disparagingly called at times “virtue signaling”—is actually important on a lot of levels, but sometimes it becomes counter-productive.
It turns out you can be locally wise and globally foolish at the same time, and that’s where I think we have to be much more careful.
We are likely going to see this argument return when DiSC-2022 comes on the ballot.
DiSC-2022, like its predecessor, will be attacked for increasing Davis’ carbon footprint. They will attack this as a freeway-oriented 
project and show how it blows up Davis’ carbon goals.
We saw all of this back in 2020.
The opponents attacked the project for increasing traffic, creating congestion and, yes, increasing the carbon footprint.
In the opposition ballot argument, the opponents wrote: “Directly resulting from this debilitating traffic, these greenhouse gas emissions will destroy our City’s Climate Emergency Resolution mandating carbon neutrality by 2040. The projected unmitigated emissions from DISC alone will increase the City’s annual emissions by 8% or over 83 million pounds/year!”
They added: “Although the Developer promises DISC will be carbon neutral, this can only be achieved by buying cheap offsite carbon credits that do nothing to reduce the City’s real carbon footprint. It is unfair to burden our children and grandchildren with this legacy of harmful greenhouse gases for the sake of Developer profits.”
It sounds like an impressive argument against the project. Even projects that strive to obtain carbon neutrality are vulnerable to it, because you are often purchasing off-site offsets in order to cancel out your carbon impact.
But is this helpful? You could argue that any project that adds population to a given area will be increasing their carbon footprint unless they manage to somehow make their carbon footprint to be actually zero. The problem is—from a global standpoint it really doesn’t matter what a community’s carbon footprint is. At least not in this way.
If I move 1000 people into Davis and therefore increase our traffic and energy use, I’m really not impacting the global scales at all. Why? Because I’m not creating more people, I’m simply moving pieces on the chessboard.
Basically, the world is a zero-sum game. If I add 1000 people to Davis, that means I take 1000 people from everywhere else.
One of the problems with climate change is that all impacts are marginal anyway. If I create a new development that is more efficient than the average development in the world, I lower the carbon footprint of the world but only in a tiny miniscule fashion. And the inverse is also true.
That’s a huge problem for attempting to solve the climate crisis—you end up with a collective action paradox, to borrow from game theoretics. In short, we have a free rider problem where I am always incentivized to shirk my climate responsibility because my individual impact on climate change is usually going to be negligible but the costs of compliance might be high.
But there are also unique problems in that I could increase a community’s climate impact even though I decrease the overall global impact. That’s the real question about DiSC-2022—it’s not if it adds to Davis’ annual emissions by 83 million pounds/year, cut in half for the decreased size, but rather whether it is more efficient than a comparable park of its size elsewhere.
Hard to fit that concept on the back of a campaign flyer, but it illustrates that the problem is much more complicated than it might seem on the surface.
Ultimately the answer to this is where I have been leaning for some time—we have to solve this at the national and multi-national level, not the local level. We have wasted so much time with pointless debating over climate change, and human causes of climate change, that we are at the point where we actually have to take drastic rather than marginal actions.
We actually could have done this a lot easier last year, except the previous administration was part of the problem. When the economy was shut down, and carbon emissions and pollution were way down is when we should have put plans into place to start transitioning to a new economy.
Not all is lost of course, because we learned a lot about how to reduce emissions, how to utilize technology to continue our economy, and how to buffer the overall economy in the wake of huge and massive changes.
The bad news is that we have also seen just how reluctant people are to making changes to their lives, even when their own survival is at risk.
That’s exactly what David is advocating for, in this article and others. That’s why the global climate problem exists. (In fact, governments have this same attitude – it is NOT limited to individuals.)
Sure – compare it to a development that doesn’t exist, but is somehow “worse” than DISC.
I’d compare it to one that doesn’t exist at all – which is not only more accurate, it’s a fact.
Sort of like saying, “Hey – I bought a Toyota 4-Runner, but at least I didn’t buy a Hummer like I would if I lived in Texas.”
“I’m doing my part.”
The point being if you only look at local impacts, you actually could be reducing GHG but not picking it up.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Again, you’re comparing a development proposal with a different proposal (which not only does not exist, it may never exist). You’re also claiming that NOT building it will CAUSE it to be built elsewhere.
Not building DISC does not equate to having it built “elsewhere”. Not even close to making any logical sense.
Those are the false assumptions you’re putting forth, though you’re not explicitly stating it.
As one might expect, I completely disagree with David’s viewpoint. In any change, their are early adopters, mid range, and those who are slow to adopt a change even if it is clearly to their advantage.
This is how I see the problem of global change. I want Davis and California to be earlier on that scale rather than later. I do believe what we choose to do influences the actions of others, both locally, regionally and ultimately globally. The United States used to be looked to by other countries for leadership. California and the west coast have been seen as national leaders on a number of fronts. We, meaning those of us associated with UCD, worked very hard to shape the university from a primarily Ag campus, to the leader in multiple fields it is today. Small but persistent actions can make a huge difference.
I want to see Davis in the forefront of this effort, not as a slow adopter because we do not see our potential,
That’s literally “virtue signaling” and it’s an unrealistic and impractical stance to make policy decisions. Lead the way? You know what leads the way? MONEY and AMMENETIES. The cities that lead the way have the best school districts, the best shopping, entertainment, parks and rec services, good roads, low crime…. Do you think Roseville looks at Davis with envy because it has the best solar grown organic farm to fork kale gardens?
This reminds me of the South Park episode: “Smug Alert” back when hybrid cars were new. All of the smugness from people driving hybrid cars along with other contributors created a massive smug storm that threatened the country and would devour San Francisco.
So sure take local action to help the environment if it’s proven that it will actually make a significant impact at the local level but otherwise it just becomes an exercise in smugness. Most environmental regulations and laws need to be adopted and enforced at the federal and state level. For example, if Davis had been the only city in the US to stop using leaded gasoline, most areas would still be using leaded gasoline and it wouldn’t make any difference locally if Davis used leaded or unleaded gasoline. That kind of thing has to happen at a state and federal level to make any difference.
We need to focus on where we can get the biggest reduction in impacts first and work down from there. The two biggest things we can do is stop leaking methane into the atmosphere at the wellhead and breed cattle that don’t produce methane or produce much less per animal. I recently read where these two sources of methane account for around half of our heat trapping impacts.
Should be interesting to apply this principle when the Climate Action plan goes before the city council next year.
The council does have to adhere to state law
The present recommendations being gathered into the Climate Action plan go well beyond anything required by the state. Example: https://www.daviscaap.com/forum/building-energy-design/__a-2/
That’s a good point, my only reason for mentioning that is that the council really doesn’t have full discretion here.
Shocking proposals.
I imagine if this is implemented and I’m forced to switch to electric heat I’ll need to tear down the house and rebuild before the ordinance goes into effect. The cost of a retrofit on a 50+ year old Streng and the ongoing costs of electric heat will be prohibitive. I wonder how many watts of solar I’ll need to get through the short cold days of winter?
Probably we will need to start burning wood to keep the house warm.
On the other hand, what would the cost be if you owned a home that is going to be inundated with water in the next ten years? No matter where the mandates come down from, there is going to be a huge cost in the next ten years or we are simply not doing enough.
Very few places in Davis that face that risk.
No place in Davis faces that risk, the problem is that without global action, many people in this country and this world will and that means at some point here, you are going to see mandates come down that will be costly and disruptive. The longer we put them off, the more costly they will be. Want to argue that shouldn’t come down from the local government – I agree – but it’s going to come from somewhere.
As far as mandates are concerned, that will depend upon where one lives within the state, country, and world.
And if/when mandates are perceived as too onerous, someone like Trump gets elected.
By the way, who wasn’t kind of impressed by his audacity, when Trump said that the climate will cool down, soon? (I think he said something like that when visiting the Sacramento area last year.)
The person who he said that to didn’t seen to even know how to respond – sort of taken aback by it. (The guy who asked a related question.)
I’m guessing it comes from the ocean.
Make up your mind, is it going to be a 50 ft. wall of fire or a wall of water?
It’s both – simultaneously.
Reminds me of a great Far Side cartoon, showing a “crisis clinic” facing a similar dilemma.
As I recall, it’s floating down a river heading toward a waterfall while the building itself is on fire, so 3 things simultaneously.
David, Its easy for you to argue for a policy that you, as a renter, won’t have to pay for. I’m sure much more fossil fuel would be saved and the costs distributed more equitably by requiring people to stop using gas powered cars.
I’d like to see some cost estimates on the retrofit and the ongoing costs of heating with electricity for a fifty year old house that was designed to be heated by gas. My experience with heating a house totally with electricity is that its much more expensive than with gas. Perhaps the technology has changed but I’m doubtful.
Also I’d like to see the comparable cost benefit analysis for a broad range of carbon sequestration policies. My guess is that the bang for the buck on forcing people to go electric is low.
Ron, I don’t think you understand how renting works. Renters will certainly have to pay for any investments in new technology added to their homes just as they have to pay all the property taxes, maintenance and improvements. Nobody rents their property out with the intent of subsidizing renters. Rental property breaks even or makes a profit for rational property owners.
My question is that if all of us have to substitute electricity for natural gas (space heat, hot water, the cooktop and electric vehicles) how is the electric utility grid going to accommodate that? All of our pre-2000 homes with 100amp service will need 150 or 200amp service and a utility grid to supply it. That is the only question of real substance.
Ron G’s comment was directed to David, who has acknowledged that he does not live in market-rate rental housing.
As such, he does not pay the full cost of the items you listed.
For that matter, the property owner may not, either.
As far as state mandates are concerned, keep in mind that this is the same state that has done almost nothing to discourage development in high risk areas (e.g., fire and flood zones), and has actually done the opposite (in terms of spreading those costs to everyone else).
And that actually IS something that the state can control – unlike global decisions. The problem is that the system is too corrupted to make that change.
I take that as a “no”, in response to the question asked.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/catalytic-converter-thefts-rampant-16589060.php
And also in opposition to “minimum off-street parking spots required” for new developments.
Out in the street for you, buddy – probably several blocks away (in a not so well-lit or safe area).
All part of the “beat you with a stick” strategy to discourage cars, which never seems to work. Mostly, it just pushes people to live in places where they CAN park.
Except for those who simply don’t register or smog their cars at all, and park wherever they want. They get a “pass”, according to some.
There are a lot of issues with your reasoning David, I’ll focus on one here.
If this had anything to do with the DISC project, it might have some validity. In fact, if this is what was going to happen, it would be good for the regional carbon footprint. But this is not what is going to happen and has very little to do with this proposal. What this project is designed for is for people to work here, but live elsewhere and commute.
Three quarters of our environmental impact is due to vehicular travel. If we don’t address that, addressing the other quarter is actually pretty futile. And this is actually something local zoning can address, especially if coupled with a local and regional commitment to transit. The transit part is also completely absent from this proposal.
“But this is not what is going to happen and has very little to do with this proposal. What this project is designed for is for people to work here, but live elsewhere and commute.”
Assuming that is true – which I think its part true – that’s what is happening everywhere. Most people are commuting to work a fair distance. DISC at least puts some of the housing on sight – I would prefer more of it, but ironically the reason why it’s not a lot higher percentage are generally the very people complaining about the above. There is a lot of both ways ism going on with this. All I’m doing is pointing out at the very worst, you are shifting the pieces on the board rather than actually creating an impact on the global system.
Your whole article says, “We can’t do anything, so we have to wait for someone else to tell us what to do.” And then you end with that line. Wow.
In my experience, real change always comes from the bottom up. Our ‘leaders’ only act when left with no other choice by those who choose them.
One of our biggest, if not the biggest, contributions to climate degradation is our commuting culture. This is a zoning issue, which is done at the Municipal level. I believe municipalities can and should do the most to change the status quo.
There’s a lot of talk about the problem, but no desire to change behavior. Your article exemplifies this more clearly than almost anything I’ve read.
The problem is that you’re looking at the issue through a single eco-warrior lens. Dogmatic beliefs often don’t accomplish much. The rest of us want multiple things. Do we want to help reduce carbon footprints? Sure. But do we also want economic growth for the city of Davis? YES.
The most fiscally sound model for the city would be to approve the business park and rake in the business and sales tax revenue and not have to pay to service any pesky homes. In this fictitious scenario it would mean 100% commuting to Davis.
But we’re willing to compromise. So some houses to support the business park and some commuters.
This sort of goes back to the earlier article about weather it’s worthwhile to push environmental requirements and restrictions at the local level when the rest of the area isn’t going to be as restrictive. At what point is Davis shooting itself in the foot for the sake of virtue signaling.
And, whether or not there will be more serious consequences related to the weather, due to inaction at all levels of government.
Again, waiting for someone else to fix the problem is not limited to individuals – it includes governments, as well (at all levels).
So does a sense of futility.
I’d suggest investing in manufacturers of waders, HVAC systems and the like. 🙂
Oh, and giant backyard water storage tanks, assuming that they don’t outlaw backyards.
Might even be more popular than the neighborhood “toilet paper stands” that popped up during the pandemic. (Actually, I was kind of hoping to see one, instead of the more traditional lemonade stands.)