Instead it Lags Behind Many Other Communities in Terms of Current and Proposed Policies –
Last week’s discussion typified the problem as the city staff report showed that none of the recent developments that will account for much of the new growth in Davis over the next five years comes close to meeting even the city of Davis’ modest environmental goals. And in fact, Davis’ goals are trumped by what cities like San Francisco have already accomplished.
“We have a local global climate action plan to roll back our CO2 emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, twice as far as the Kyoto Protocols.”
But he doesn’t think it has gone far enough even though they have already reduced CO2 emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels at a time when Davis is just starting to talking about 1990 CO2 levels.
As Newsom put it:
“I love the bar, it’s certainly low enough that we can lay claim to leading the nation in terms of environmental stewardship.”
Berkeley is also well ahead of Davis, in 2006 the voters passed a measure that would set a goal of 80 percent reduction in GHG by 2050.
One of the key components of both the San Francisco plan and the Berkeley plan is energy efficient homes. Energy use in residential buildings according to the Berkeley report accounts for about 25 percent of Berkeley’s GHG emissions.
To remain on track, the Berkeley plan calls for a 35 percent reduction by 2020. Improving energy efficiency in building is an essential goal to achieving that target.
In 2008, San Francisco passed the green building ordinance. Their climate action plan found that energy use in buildings and facilities is responsible for approximately half of San Francisco’s GHGs.
For Davis, city’s GHG inventory suggests that one-third of GHG emissions come from residential energy use and 53% come from transportation.
Unlike San Francisco, Davis is looking at 1990 as the initial target year and allowing new projects to receive a per unit carbon allowance equal to 1990 levels. Recall San Francisco has already exceeded 1990 levels city wide.
The Davis Climate Action Team’s recommendations come in two stages. The first stage has been described as low hanging fruit. Those actions that may produce quick reductions in GHG but at the same time are not likely to require extensive study or investment by the city.
Some of these include: Educate the public on all facets of greenhouse gas reduction; create a city salvage yard to promote reuse; promote buying local produce and other local products; provide incentives for car and bike sharing; Encourage walkable, bikeable developments; synchronize traffic lights; form a Transportation Advisory Commission; and encourage a car sharing company to locate in Davis.
The second stage includes the following: Develop a citywide rainwater collection and use system; make all new residential development carbon-neutral; generate electricity through biomass and agricultural waste; and permit construction of very dense residential areas on infill sites.
For me, none of this goes far enough. I think we need to be looking along the lines of San Francisco and Berkeley as a baseline.
However, let me highlight two points that are going to need to be looked at very carefully. The stage one recommendation that jumped out to me is: “promote buying local produce and other local products.”
This comes right back to the issue of Target. At what point is the city going to set forth land use policies consistent with these goals. And is not counterproductive to promote these goals while at the same time moving forward to open a Target in Davis this year? Proponents of Target point out the following: (A) other businesses in Davis obviously do not use local produce and local products and (B) Davis residents currently travel to other locations to purchase these goods, so is it not better for Davis residents to at least not have to drive to Target.
On the other hand, people who like me live in West Davis, if we were to use Target, would likely still have to drive there a good distance through the stop and go city streets.
Regardless, we need to work for ways to shift from our current means of consumption to new more sustainable practices. We are going to have to change the way we consume products if we want to survive.
Moving on to stage II, making all new residential development carbon-neutral is a decent step. But the current plans are frankly dwarfed by efforts in other communities. Moreover all of our recently approved projects fall well short of these goals. That does not speak to issues of current residences. Again, one-third of our GHG’s come from residential buildings. That is not an insignificant point.
Furthermore as they point out, one goal is “permit construction of very dense residential areas on infill sites.” This is an issue of great controversy as we see with every new development, the desire by the neighbors to keep the density to a minimum. There is a strong desire to have densities of infill projects match those of current residences.
I have a very strong sympathy for residents who live in existing neighborhoods, most people have purchased their homes as the major investment of their lifetime and they wish to preserve the quality of their life.
On the other hand there are two huge issues with density. One is to reduce the encroachment on either farmland or natural habitat. The other is the need for designing more compact cities with work close residences to reduce travel. At least the summary of this report by the CAT does not seem to address that in stage two. As we can see from the city’s analysis, transportation accounts for more than half of our emissions.
To attack that source we need smart urban design, more compact cities, mixed-use development where people travel less far to work and also to purchase goods and services. We need to change the way we get to work.
California last year began the undertaking of a high speed rail transportation system. It was great to see that the Obama administration considers this a priority. Their report identifies ten high speed rail corridors including California as recipients of federal funding. This does two things, it pumps money into engineering and construction jobs. Second it moves us forward in the way that we travel.
As President Obama said:
“My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come. A major new high-speed rail line will generate many thousands of construction jobs over several years, as well as permanent jobs for rail employees and increased economic activity in the destinations these trains serve. High-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”
Vice-President Biden:
“Investing in a high-speed rail system will lower our dependence on foreign oil and the bill for a tank of gas; loosen the congestion suffocating our highways and skyways; and significantly reduce the damage we do to our planet.”
This is long overdue, imagine being able to hop on a train in San Francisco and arrive at your destination in Los Angeles in a matter of two hours. Green technology produces jobs and it also reduces our GHG emissions and our dependency on foreign oil.
At the state level, there have been some notable proposals, one pushed by Oakland State Senator Loni Hancock is a bill that would allow cities and counties to help property owners pay for solar energy systems and energy efficiency improvements. It passed the Senate yesterday. The Governor often prides himself on his environmentalism, if he signs the legislation which is modeled after the successful program from the City of Berkeley it would permit all cities and counties in California to adopt similar programs.
The bill gives cities and counties the ability to establish a local financing authority. This new authority would then help property owners pay for energy efficiency improvements and solar installations through a long-term assessment on the individual property tax bill. This legislation will authorize all cities and counties to provide the initial funding from a bond fund that will be repaid through an assessment on the tax bills of the participating property owners.
Senator Hancock said that she introduced the bill because the upfront investment cost is often a deterrent to property owners who want to install solar systems or make energy efficiency improvements to their homes.
“My bill will remove the primary financial hurdle that deters most homeowners from installing solar panels or making energy efficiency improvements – the upfront costs. Through this measure, cities and counties can assist homeowners by making solar energy and energy efficiency improvements much more affordable. SB 279 will dramatically increase the ability of individual homeowners and property owners to join the green building movement and use alternative energy to ‘green’ their homes.”
Davis discussed their own version of this, but this legislation would dramatically move the ball forward on a critical issue that will help address a huge amount of our residential GHGs.
Davis should be leading the way on these innovations. We were in the 1970s. Now we have fallen behind other communities. And we need to push our policies forward at a much faster rate than we have and we need to tie our land use policies to them much quicker.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David:
I disagree. Davis is actually doing a lot of good stuff.
You may be able to point to some small way another community is marginally beating Davis in one way or another but I think Davis certainly is a leader on this issue.
You have several Councilmembers and a couple dedicated staff that are working hard to address climate change internally within the city and on a regional basis.
Matt Rexroad
Where do I begin?
“And in fact, Davis’ goals are trumped by what cities like San Francisco have already accomplished.”
San Francisco has a lot more money to work with than Davis. To compare the two doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, San Francisco/Berkeley have enacted new expensive programs, that they may find will be a financial nightmare to implement in the long run. Fiscal responsibility is key when enacting any new program. For instance, Berkeley’s new program to pay for all the solar panels on new housing is extremely ambitious and probably not financially practicable in the current economic climate (pardon the pun).
Secondly, the largest polluters are China and India. No matter how much we conserve, it will not solve “global warming” if China and India go unchecked. Also, as one previous commenter has noted already, any conservation done at the local city level is like spitting into the ocean. It becomes a case of diminishing returns. This country could find itself going bankrupt coming up with all sorts of things to decrease our carbon footprint by tiny increments at extreme costs, while China, India and other countries pollute to their hearts’ content. And what will be the end result? We could financially implode as a nation from the effort, while China laughs w glee, and continues to destroy the planet for all of us.
It would make more sense for this country to enact a decent federal energy policy, that would make us independent of foreign oil. Heavily promote alternative fuels, such as wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, waterdriven, etc. That makes much more sense than for local communities to get involved with trying to develop expensive programs that address the pollution problem minimally.
“For Davis, city’s GHG inventory suggests that one-third of GHG emissions come from residential energy use and 53% come from transportation.”
So let’s promote fuel cell cars that don’t pollute.
“Some of these include: Educate the public on all facets of greenhouse gas reduction; create a city salvage yard to promote reuse; promote buying local produce and other local products; provide incentives for car and bike sharing; Encourage walkable, bikeable developments; synchronize traffic lights; form a Transportation Advisory Commission; and encourage a car sharing company to locate in Davis.
The second stage includes the following: Develop a citywide rainwater collection and use system; make all new residential development carbon-neutral; generate electricity through biomass and agricultural waste; and permit construction of very dense residential areas on infill sites.”
A lot of these solutions are inpractical or too expensive. Car sharing? We can’t even get people to carpool, let alone share a car! And I have had experience with carpooling, and it can be the pits. Nor would I want to share a car with a number of people. Sorry, but I like my own individual car. I have taken public transit, but it must be convenient, cheap, and go to the destinations I want to reach. In a country this size, that is not always economically feasible. For instance, the Sacramento light rail system does not come out to Davis. The bus does, but it is inconvenient as heck to get to a lot of destinations. The commute time is impossible in many cases. For instance, it takes a good two hours to get to CSUS from here – my son tried it. On the other end, he couldn’t even get back home bc the bus broke down.
High speed rail? Come on. Where is the money going to come from for such an expensive project at this time? And is it really practicable? Trains running from Washington, D.C. to New York City have been an abysmal failure, subsidized by the gov’t for lack of ridership. The reason high speed rail may not work here is this is such a big country – large distances to travel. We are not Europe, where you can traverse an entire country in a few hours.
As for density and infill housing, yuck. What you are going towards is tenement living. Who wants that? Not me. I come from an area back East that gives everyone a “yard”. Remember those? A place to sit, garden, for kids to play in, so there is some space between myself and the neighbor who is obnoxious. If you like city living, w its condos, apts, and the like, fine. Move there. But many get away from the city to suburbs, where there is more space between people. I would prefer promoting public transit over densification. And by the way, densification brings with it your derelict neighbors problems – roaches, rats.
“This comes right back to the issue of Target. At what point is the city going to set forth land use policies consistent with these goals. And is not counterproductive to promote these goals while at the same time moving forward to open a Target in Davis this year? Proponents of Target point out the following: (A) other businesses in Davis obviously do not use local produce and local products and (B) Davis residents currently travel to other locations to purchase these goods, so is it not better for Davis residents to at least not have to drive to Target.
On the other hand, people who like me live in West Davis, if we were to use Target, would likely still have to drive there a good distance through the stop and go city streets.”
Target is not the issue. You have admitted yourself people are going to go to Woodland to shop at Target. Now people can just drive to the west end of town to visit a Target, which is a reduction in carbon emissions, right? Besides, and more importantly, the City of Davis needs the tax revenue that Target will generate. Other smaller businesses will need Target as an anchor store. You yourself have admitted to shopping online rather than locally to obtain goods not found in Davis. We are now a global economy, so get used to it.
When talking about solving the problem of global warming, you have to keep a sense of perspective. Sometimes I think “greenies” get so focused on the method and details, they lose sight of the bigger picture. It is almost as if making an effort at being “green” is more important than really making a dent in the amount of pollution. For instance, why not hold Obama or whoever is president accountable for a solid energy policy?
I like the comment that dealing with GHG emissions at the local level is like spitting into the ocean to increase sea levels.
Is this what we should be talking about right now? People are worried about whether they will have food on the table tomorrow.
I don’t disagree with everything Obama does like some people, but pouring huge $ into that train project was reckless (pardon the pun). AMTtrack has been losing $ for years. WHat makes him think AMTrack II is any better?
Let’s assume we took all cars in Davis off the road tomorrow. What exactly would that give us? I’d like to see an analysis of that. If every person in davis stopped heating their home, driving their car, and doing other things, would that accomplish anything?
I’d also like to add to what the other person said. San Francisco is just starting to try this expensive program out. They may rethink that sometime down the road after they find out it isn’t so great.
Berkeley just backed off of a proposal to make home owners do $30,000 dollars worth of upgrades to their homes. Why? Because people could not afford it.So before you go around demanding all this state of the art housing you need to consider what the impacts will be on the affordability in a city where housing is not affordable.
“On the other hand, people who like me live in West Davis.”
People who don’t like you live in East Davis?
O.K “realistic 11” where do you suggest we begin? Or should we just continue down the “same ole, same ole” path and let the chips fall where they may. So what Davis does may only be a “spit in the ocean.” If enough cities spit, we might make a bucket full. Which suggestions that the city is entertaining do you really think is impractical or too expensive. They all sounded doable or at least worth trying. Densification can be done in better ways than one might think. Look at the Muir Woods co-housing. If the living unit design had been tweaked a bit to make them more comfortable, I think it would and is a great idea. And there are numerous other actions which could be taken. However, the most important thing is to educate the public, get a grip on non-essential consumerism, and begin to transition to a radically different way of perceiving ourselves and our lives. Google “transition town” for further ideas on this, if you are interested.
Resident,
Whatever. This apparently has little to do with protecting the environment, but to “get a grip on nonj-essential consumerism, and begin to transition to a radically diffeernt way of perceiving ourselves and our lives.” I am as liberal as the next guy is, but I’m not for turning the US into some sort of socialist community.
Plant shade trees to the south of unshaded houses. Wildhorse, Mace Ranch, and other developments have large houses without shade trees. This increases electricity use and increases GHG emissions. I have a shaded house and never had a large PG&E bill, even during the 2006 heat storm. Could we ask that the planning department personnel, who are sitting at their desks and doing nothing but thinking of ways for the City to spend the money that it doesn’t have, to go to each homeowner and ask that the City be allowed to plant shade trees close enough to their homes to reduce the amount of electricity that they use? This would reduce the homeowners’ utility bills but would increase yard maintenance.
this is all about CONTROL and billions in new taxes/fees to cover every facet of our lives–cloaked in some sort of earth-saving language to make unimportant lives and people FEEL important. How much more do you want to pay in every aspect of your life so China and India can continue increasing their carbon footprints? Like it or not, that’s what it comes down to.
“Plant shade trees to the south of unshaded houses. Wildhorse, Mace Ranch, and other developments have large houses without shade trees. This increases electricity use and increases GHG emissions.”
I think this is a great point. Compare College Park, for example, with any street in Davis built after 1980. College Park is cool and shady all summer long. Its trees were planned to provide shade over the whole street. It’s largely the same with most older streets. By contrast, the newest streets are much wider (why?), the homes have micro-front yards and the street trees that provide very little shade. I would guess it’s 10 degrees hotter on say, Moore Blvd, than it is on Oak Avenue on a hot summer day.
That’s not to say that newer houses don’t have a lot of energy efficiency advantages. They do. But I’m at a loss to understand why we have eschewed shade trees and shady streets and shady parking lots for the last 30 years.
I know this is not cost effective everywhere, but I’d love to see this kind of shade structure in our new parking lots, instead of drawings of trees (which never grow in our parking lots):
[img]http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/parking-lot-solar.jpg[/img]
There are a lot of programs to build structures just like your perfect parking lot. All you need is a location to get started. The City of Davis could design a parking lot structure with solar panels and actually earn money. It is too bad the City planning staff only thinks of ways to spend money. I think that there should be City employee layoffs that could only be rescinded if the affected staff start earning their way. The City staff should be applying for federal and state stimulus money. I know the programs and have access to the lists of funding sources if anyone wants them.
Certainly Davis should keep its eye on the environmentally-sound ball, but the city cannot afford measures that result in additional cost or that further restricts good commercial development.
Increase tax receipts so we can stop laying off teachers and stop cutting city services, and then ask what spits in the ocean we can afford. We should support all reasonable measures that are revenue/tax neutral, and otherwise focus on those that have tangible economic benefits.
The state of the state budget has already proved unsustainable the practice of do-gooders’ incessant milking of producers to fund their dreams of politically, social and environmental correctness without commensurate consideration for economic viability. The state of the state and the state of the city necessitates focusing on economics first and foremost. Spitting to “save the planet”, if it costs us a dime more, needs to wait.
Sorry Matt and others:
The Vanguard is absolutely right. Davis might be doing some things right, but they are way behind in many aspects of the climate change issue. Not long ago we had speakers her from Galt and Berkeley talking about their programs for energy efficiency and green building. These citis have adopted programs that help citizens pay for energy efficient housing and solar installation that might otherwise be cost-prohibitive. Berkeley’s program accomplishes this with a long term assessment on property tax bills. Where is Davis on this? Nowhere.
Davis’s claim to any sort of environmental leadership is sadly untrue. Davis has fallen behind other communities in this state and across the nation, even the world. We need to pull our heads out of the sand and get to work requiring strong green building standards, solar on all new construction, retrofitting of existing buildings, car and bike sharing programs, air pollution reduction through greater public transit and other measures, strong water conservation and recycling programs, pesticide and toxics reduction, and better solid waste management to name a few.
There needs to be serious discussion of these issues and that needs to start now. Reading most of the posts on this particular blog leads me to believe that there are a lot of developers and/or developer friends posting and/or there are a lot of folks in serious denial of the reality of the situation. Saying that China and India now pollute more than we do, so why bother is inane. We have to start at home and we have to start now.
“Is this what we should be talking about right now? People are worried about whether they will have food on the table tomorrow.”
In fact, we should have been talking about this for the last eight years. If we do not address this now, our children and grand children will be more than just a bit worried about having food on the table.
“I am as liberal as the next guy is, but I’m not for turning the US into some sort of socialist community. “
No liberal would use the term “socialist community” to describe environmental policies. You gave yourself away. I recognize your writing, you are the conservative that always posts on here.
“strong water conservation”
OK, I’ll pick just one of your suggestions and let’s see where it takes us. Residents consume only 5% of the water in CA, farmers roughly 85%, industry roughly 10%. Even if residents stopped using water altogether, which is not possible to sustain life, not much will be done in regard to water conservation by residents no matter how hard gov’t makes residents try. The real water wasters are farmers – who apparently are not being asked to conserve from what I can tell (correct me if I am wrong). If farmers (and industry), who’s water rates are cheaper than that of residents, were charged a much higher rate for water, farmers might change their tune. Of course that increase in cost would be eventually passed on to the consumer you understand.
To even conserve overall water 1%, residents would have to cut their water consumption by 20%. Are you willing to cut your water consumption by 20%, just to decrease overall water consumption by 1%? Does that make good sense to you? It is a case of diminishing returns, in which inordinate amounts of money are being spent for very small incremental improvements that are just not worth the money or effort.
Remember, “global warming” is a cottage industry, allowing hypocrites like Al Gore to fly jets and drive gas guzzling SUVs, wasting all kinds of energy. Meanwhile he makes millions advising the average consumer to drive gas saving puddle jumpers and live in densified houses to save energy. Sure he wants us to save – so he can consume to his heart’s content!
Davis’s claim to any sort of environmental leadership is sadly untrue. Davis has fallen behind other communities in this state and across the nation, even the world. We need to pull our heads out of the sand and get to work requiring strong green building standards, solar on all new construction, retrofitting of existing buildings, car and bike sharing programs, air pollution reduction through greater public transit and other measures, strong water conservation and recycling programs, pesticide and toxics reduction, and better solid waste management to name a few.
This is all pie in the sky with a big price tag. That rail system alone that we want in California is going to cost us 80 billion. That doesn’t begin to factor in all of the stuff you just mentioned.
There needs to be serious discussion of these issues and that needs to start now.
There needs to be a serious discussion about putting non-issues to sleep. Permanently. We also need a serious discussion about how rich Al-Gore has gotten off his book and film ever since his environmental fad started.
Reading most of the posts on this particular blog leads me to believe that there are a lot of developers and/or developer friends posting and/or there are a lot of folks in serious denial of the reality of the situation. Saying that China and India now pollute more than we do, so why bother is inane. We have to start at home and we have to start now.
What the devil do developers have to do with this I’m not clear. Besides which, the developers will get extra rich designing fancy green buildings. Also, we have to start with China and India because they pollute more. That is not irrelevant. Even in a nation filled with Hummers, we don’t pollute like China does.
Oh, and one more thing. I wonder when that high speed rail comes online that Obama is pushing how much he will use that instead of his fuel guzzling Air Force One.
Matt Rexroad,
With all due respect our city is way behind the times. A University City such as Davis should be way ahead of the curve and all we are doing now is playing catch up to cities that would normally seem to be behind a city like Davis, but in fact, are paving the way on climate change.
It sounds like you’re up to giving out compliments today to colleagues on the council which is fine, but at least back it up with facts.
Responding to Realistic II and China:
Al Gore has donated all the profits from his book and film to a non-profit foundation called the Alliance for Climate Protection. He also drives hybrids and has used all the latest GHG and carbon reducing technologies on his home in Tennessee to reduce his carbon usage. He is practicing what he preaches. Receiving the Nobel Prize was an acknowledgement of his 30 years plus of work on the Global Warming crisis.
Realistic,
Your statements are unrealistic. You appear to have no vision and very low expectations for our city. This is the problem with our city managers and department heads too: NO vision and LOW EXPECTATIONS.
If we keep doing the same thing we’ll be in the same place 5 to 10 years from now.
Al Gore has donated all the profits from his book and film to a non-profit foundation called the Alliance for Climate Protection*******
Just wondering but…. the above “fact”…isn’t mentioned in the profile of ol’ Al on climateprotect.org-I find that a bit odd to say the least. Care to explain how you came to know this, but it isn’t in his bio?
Did you bother to google “gore donate proceeds book”?
Responding to “old e/of tracks:
Last week Al Gore testified before Congress on Global Warming. During his testimony he was asked specifically by Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn about his business interests to which he answered under oath that all the profit from his book and film on Global Warming has been donated to the Alliance for Climate Protection.
For some time now “Fox (Faux) News” and the right wing echo chamber has been speading the myth that Al Gore has only been speaking, writing and warning about the Global Warming crisis to profit from it. No facts to back up the charge, but they enjoy repeating the allegation. And many of them go even further suggesting that the Global Warming crisis is a hoax. These fools remind me of the holocaust deniers.
[quote]For some time now “Fox (Faux) News” and the right wing echo chamber has been speading the myth that Al Gore has only been speaking, writing and warning about the Global Warming crisis to profit from it. [/quote] A bit off thread by I thought it was funny. Someone (on a baseball blog about the swine flu pandemic, aka “hamdemic”) refered to that TV channel overreporting the story as, “Pox News: We Infect, You Decide.” I thought that was quite clever, as was “hamdemic.”
“Al Gore has donated all the profits from his book and film to a non-profit foundation called the Alliance for Climate Protection. He also drives hybrids and has used all the latest GHG and carbon reducing technologies on his home in Tennessee to reduce his carbon usage. He is practicing what he preaches. Receiving the Nobel Prize was an acknowledgement of his 30 years plus of work on the Global Warming crisis.”
And what about the money he makes from speeches? You think he donates that too? I very much doubt it. The only reason he is practicing what he preaches now is bc his hypocrisy was pointed out, which embarassed him into “practicing what he preaches”. But I’ll bet my bottom dollar he takes plenty of private jet rides with his rich friends…
“Your statements are unrealistic. You appear to have no vision and very low expectations for our city. This is the problem with our city managers and department heads too: NO vision and LOW EXPECTATIONS.
If we keep doing the same thing we’ll be in the same place 5 to 10 years from now.”
Why not push the federal gov’t to pass a decent energy policy, that encourages our nation to become oil independent? That makes a lot more sense to me, than to create overly expensive programs that really do not address the problem of pollution to a very large extent, but only minimally at best.
Let me give you an analogy. We have huge numbers of people dying on roads every year. We could spend billions making cars a tiny bit safer than they already are. But the real problem is drunk driving. About 50% of all car crashes (or is it car deaths – not sure about this statistic) are the result of drinking and driving. So does it make more sense to address the drinking and driving problem, or car safety, if we want to solve the issue of so many traffic deaths? Now substitute “local green programs” for “making cars a tiny bit safer”, and “no national energy policy/China & India are going unchecked as polluters ” for “drunk driving” and you will finally get a more realistic picture.
I actually googled “gore donate proceeds book” and came upon an interesting article by the Denver Weather Examiner.
“Mr. Gore’s movie and presentations do come under a great deal of scrutiny and in the past have been proven to have inaccurate data in them.
Last month he was forced to pull a slide from his presentations that claimed climate change was causing “weather related disasters that are completely unprecedented” when the claim was shown to be untrue. That same claim was refuted when he made it in An Inconvenient Truth when the film intimated that Hurricane Katrina was a result of global warming. In Britain, a lawsuit was actually filed to prevent the movie from being shown to students and the court found in favor of the plaintiff when it was proven the film had a number of inaccuracies.”
Also, gore is chairman of the organization he is donating the proceeds to.
Also someone else mentioned the speaking engagements gore gets in addition to his book/movie, not to mention the private jet he uses, which gets poor gas mileage.
“You think he donates that too?”
The Bush ranch in Crawford Texas was converted to use all available green and energy conserving technology long before Al Gore did anything similar with his large mansion. At the time he was peddling his movie, he still hadn’t made a change. It was Fox News that first reported his energy use of 24-times the average house. Only after this did Al Gore retrofit his house and start buying carbon offsets.
Al Gore is a hypocrite, and those that treat him as some god of environmental correctness are idiots. Sorry.
“…the Global Warming crisis is a hoax.”
No, but it may be on the wane due to a major dampening of sunspots, solar flares and sun activity in general. According to The Independent, scientists are baffled by the recent and continuing sun’s lessened energy output.
The amount of money & energy it will take to move people from here to there is huge. Turning off lights, not watering your lawn, building smaller houses is one thing- reducing the amount of car trips & people trips is another. This sounds a little woo-woo but we literally need fleets of transportation (weather proof, grocery & person hauling) bicycles easily accessible by all citizens. 30,000 dollars will get us 15,000 of these bicycles. Another 30,000 for a nonprofit or bike collective to administer the program. No other town is as flat as Davis and as compact. We need to take the plunge and become visionary again! Bikes were here before cars and they’ll be here after cars- time is running out on our 1 person car 1 car problem.