First of all, I'm no fan of California's initiative process. In the best of circumstances I believe it leads to piecemeal legislation, and is still beholden to the moneyed interests that it was meant to circumvent. In the worst of circumstance, it is a vehicle for out of state commercial interests and real estate developers to wage a wholesale war on our way of life. Proposition 90 is so bad that I regret having to give any space in my blog to talk about it. It will gut the planning and zoning process currently carried out by local government, and cause irreparable harm to our environment, our communities and our individual rights.
It certainly seems reasonable that large groups of people living together should establish basic laws that promote the general welfare and protect the resources that sustain them. Throughout our history we have organized ourselves to protect agricultural and environmental resources that ensure that future generations will be able to live as we do. However, Proposition 90 would remove the protections we have built for our environment. If passed, it would erode our ability to pass laws protecting natural resources, ensuring water quality and supplies, and regulating growth and development.
Our communities and our infrastructure will be hard-hit if Proposition 90 passes. Lawsuits brought under Proposition 90 would cost our local governments billions of dollars, forcing deep budget cuts for public safety, law enforcement, education and transportation. Proposition 90 will make it more difficult to enact new consumer-protection and anti-crime laws. Proposition 90 would restrict capital investment projects in the state, including flood control, school construction, utility system upgrades, highway expansions and mass transit projects.
Proposition 90 would also erode individual property rights. Because local governments would no longer be able to enact zoning regulations the way they do today, no one will be protected against a Wal-Mart or a subdivision of McMansions next door. Citizens will no longer be able to determine how our communities develop. Developers will no longer have to live up to our democratically set standards. Decades' worth of community plans and growth management will go down the toilet.
This is why pretty much everybody in the state of California opposes Proposition 90. It's so sad - and simply ridiculous - that we all have to spend our money and work so hard just to turn back a handful of evil out-of-state speculators. Please vote NO on Proposition 90 on November 7.
If you would like to go the extra mile and help encourage good planning, and not just fight bad planning in California, I urge you to check out the Planning and Conservation League, one of the many good advocacy groups that our state has to encourage stronger California communities.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Climate Change and the California Economy, Part 2
There was an interesting interview in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle with Peter Darbee, the CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric. I don't want to repeat all of the points that I made in last Friday's post, but I think this piece merits some extra attention. If any of you out there doubt that renewable energy is a growth sector for the economy, check out these numbers from the Chron article:
The interview also highlights the work of Stanford University's Steve Schneider, who has advised PG&E on climate change. Dr. Schneider is speaking at the Oakland Museum on Thursday, October 19 at 12:30pm, on "Global Warming: What Can California Do About It?" Admission is free.
PG&E is indeed taking action. The company's San Francisco utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., now gets 12 percent of its power from non-hydroelectric renewable sources -- wind, solar and geothermal. By the end of the year, Darbee said, that number should reach 14 percent, climbing to 20 percent by 2010.
The interview also highlights the work of Stanford University's Steve Schneider, who has advised PG&E on climate change. Dr. Schneider is speaking at the Oakland Museum on Thursday, October 19 at 12:30pm, on "Global Warming: What Can California Do About It?" Admission is free.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Climate Change and the California Economy
California's recent Assembly Bill 32 will help the Golden State reduce its carbon emissions. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations and market mechanisms that will ultimately reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Mandatory caps will begin in 2012 for significant sources and ratchet down to meet the 2020 goals.
Impressively, the Union of Concerned Scientists was able to organize a letter from sixty of California's leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, addressed to Governor Schwarzenegger and state legislators, urging them to accelerate policies to reduce global warming emissions. “The most expensive thing we can do,” they wrote, “is nothing.”
Critics of this recent legislation claim that it will cost California jobs, or that it will only curb carbon emissions by a small percentage compared to global carbon emissions. These criticisms miss the point. California's recent legislation is as much about the economy as it is about climate change. Even the state's largest investor-owned utility, PG&E, vocally supported the legislation.
This legislation will create new jobs in new sectors. It is an investment in California's economic future while we still have a strong economy and before any negative impacts from global climate change are severely felt. A recent study by the University of California at Berkeley projects that meeting AB 32's emissions limits can boost the Gross State Product (GSP) by $60-74 billion and create 17,000-89,000 new jobs. More importantly, it pushes California back out in front of the technological curve. The technologies that will be developed in California between now and the 2020 deadline will be vital to the whole world over the coming century.
Impressively, the Union of Concerned Scientists was able to organize a letter from sixty of California's leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, addressed to Governor Schwarzenegger and state legislators, urging them to accelerate policies to reduce global warming emissions. “The most expensive thing we can do,” they wrote, “is nothing.”
Critics of this recent legislation claim that it will cost California jobs, or that it will only curb carbon emissions by a small percentage compared to global carbon emissions. These criticisms miss the point. California's recent legislation is as much about the economy as it is about climate change. Even the state's largest investor-owned utility, PG&E, vocally supported the legislation.
This legislation will create new jobs in new sectors. It is an investment in California's economic future while we still have a strong economy and before any negative impacts from global climate change are severely felt. A recent study by the University of California at Berkeley projects that meeting AB 32's emissions limits can boost the Gross State Product (GSP) by $60-74 billion and create 17,000-89,000 new jobs. More importantly, it pushes California back out in front of the technological curve. The technologies that will be developed in California between now and the 2020 deadline will be vital to the whole world over the coming century.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Future Trends in California's Food Supply
In honor of The Instigator Blog's "Blog About 5 Things Week", here are my five predictions for future trends in California's food supply:
1. Efficient Food Production
Conventional farming relies on fossil fuels, and that's neither economically sustainable nor energy efficient. As fossil fuel supplies dwindle and energy costs rise, agricultural producers will increasingly look to harness the sun - both from solar electricity and the solar energy stored in plants and organic manures - and use this energy efficiency to keep costs down and as a selling point to their consumers.
2. Increase in Organic Acreage
In increasing numbers, agricultural producers are transitioning their conventional lands in order to plant Organic acreage. In fact, over the past decade, sales of Organic products have shown an annual increase of at least 20%, the fastest growing sector of agriculture. Why? Because Organic is lucrative. This premium earned on Organics may be due to the demographics of the customer base, increases in demand, reduced costs for the producers, or something else, but the fact remains that Organic is far better for our environment than conventional farming practices. Environmental stewardship is an important selling point for many consumers, and as we increasingly incorporate externalities into our economy, respecting the environment is important for all agricultural producers.
3. Local Supply
A great example of increased reliance on local supply was in a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle’s Food Section about the direct marketing of grass fed beef. Ranchers in Central California who have turned to grass fed ranching practices can't command a premium in the wholesale market, so in recent years have turned to farmers markets, home deliveries and FedEx shipments to sell their products directly to consumers.
4. Diversified Production
Rapid changes in California’s energy portfolio will drive up the costs of refrigeration and transportation of food products. As the profit margin traditionally bestowed upon large monoculture producers is narrowed, more producers will diversify their products. For example, farms like Fully Belly Farm and Happy Boy Farm will become increasingly important to consumers in the San Francisco Bay Area as they will be able to provide superior products and a similar price to the conventional products available in supermarkets - which up until this point had a market advantage due to their lower price.
5. Increased Awareness about Health Benefits of Responsible Foods
Michael Pollan's recent book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" discusses America's fad diets and the nutritional benefits bestowed by traditionally- or sustainably-produced foods. The American diet of the future - there will be no "fad" about it - will focus on fewer processed foods, the balance of omega-3s to omega-6s, and the higher nutritional value of in-season, field-ripened fruits, to name a few.
1. Efficient Food Production
Conventional farming relies on fossil fuels, and that's neither economically sustainable nor energy efficient. As fossil fuel supplies dwindle and energy costs rise, agricultural producers will increasingly look to harness the sun - both from solar electricity and the solar energy stored in plants and organic manures - and use this energy efficiency to keep costs down and as a selling point to their consumers.
2. Increase in Organic Acreage
In increasing numbers, agricultural producers are transitioning their conventional lands in order to plant Organic acreage. In fact, over the past decade, sales of Organic products have shown an annual increase of at least 20%, the fastest growing sector of agriculture. Why? Because Organic is lucrative. This premium earned on Organics may be due to the demographics of the customer base, increases in demand, reduced costs for the producers, or something else, but the fact remains that Organic is far better for our environment than conventional farming practices. Environmental stewardship is an important selling point for many consumers, and as we increasingly incorporate externalities into our economy, respecting the environment is important for all agricultural producers.
3. Local Supply
A great example of increased reliance on local supply was in a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle’s Food Section about the direct marketing of grass fed beef. Ranchers in Central California who have turned to grass fed ranching practices can't command a premium in the wholesale market, so in recent years have turned to farmers markets, home deliveries and FedEx shipments to sell their products directly to consumers.
4. Diversified Production
Rapid changes in California’s energy portfolio will drive up the costs of refrigeration and transportation of food products. As the profit margin traditionally bestowed upon large monoculture producers is narrowed, more producers will diversify their products. For example, farms like Fully Belly Farm and Happy Boy Farm will become increasingly important to consumers in the San Francisco Bay Area as they will be able to provide superior products and a similar price to the conventional products available in supermarkets - which up until this point had a market advantage due to their lower price.
5. Increased Awareness about Health Benefits of Responsible Foods
Michael Pollan's recent book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" discusses America's fad diets and the nutritional benefits bestowed by traditionally- or sustainably-produced foods. The American diet of the future - there will be no "fad" about it - will focus on fewer processed foods, the balance of omega-3s to omega-6s, and the higher nutritional value of in-season, field-ripened fruits, to name a few.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
A Brief History of California's Future
California is a wonderful place. From the gold rush to recent technological revolutions, Californians have been a powerfully dynamic and pioneering group. However, as we look forward from our current place in time, we see challenges ahead of us that our foundation myths are ill-equipped to handle. Solutions will not be found by blasting open a hillside to look for precious rocks, and it will not be found in the garage of local college students. All Californians need to sit down, think critically, and talk to each other about our future.
The future holds a mythical quality for us. It has been visualized as a new horizon where there are opportunities for growth and development. If we hold onto these old myths, we run the risk of overstretch, and making our home state uninhabitable for our children. We need to establish new ideas about the future which promote prosperity and sustainability. This will be a long process which will not be successfully concluded when you finish reading this blog, or when you point your browser toward the next set of daily headlines or news factoids. Visioning the future of our state is a wildly important idea that I'd like us all to keep talking about.
In order to bring you back to this blog in the coming days, weeks and months, I'd like to give you a preview of the issues that we're going to discuss here:
Population
More than 36 million people live with us in our state. During the 20th century, no other developed region of the world experienced population growth rates as high as California’s. If these trends continue, most demographers predict that California’s population will be between 44 million and 48 million in 2025. Where will these new people live and work?
Economy
California has the world’s 5th largest economy. Can we expect future growth rates to match the meteoric expansion we’ve seen in the past? Can we safely assume that California’s strengths in the service and technology sectors will continue to produce increased economic opportunities for residents of the Golden State?
Good Governance
If the continued strength of our economy provides steady tax revenues, we have questions over how we will allocate it and how we will elect our leaders. These are broad and profound questions with many possible answers. Will it be more effective to focus first on ourselves or on our elected officials? How do we reach out to the half of the state that does not vote? Would removing term limits in the State Legislature encourage better long-term planning by our public officials?
Health Care
As reported by both the California Healthcare Foundation and the Kaiser Family Foundation, growth in health spending in California this past year increased more than twice as fast as workers’ wages and overall inflation. In fact, health care premiums have increased 87 percent over the past six years. Family health coverage now costs an average $11,480 annually, with workers paying an average of $2,973 toward those premiums, almost twice as much as we did in 2000. How do we find a long-term solution to our health care needs?
Education
California's economy is centered around a highly-educated workforce. It's ironic that during the recent budget crisis, the State of California cut spending on education, threatening our ability to provide a tax base for the future. During a time when our largest population increase has come from demographics that tend to be the least educated, can we reaffirm California's long-standing commitment to education?
Climate Change
Recent scientific research indicates that global climate change will profoundly affect the hydrology of the American West and we may suffer from decreasing water supplies, less hydropower and more wildfires and flooding. With possible decreases by as much as 90% by the end of this next century in the annual Sierra Nevada snowpack (which provides roughly one-third of California’s surface water), what kinds of impacts could we see in our daily lives?
Energy
Recent legislation commits California to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 25% by 2020. Will this legislation, along with rising prices for conventional energy, drastically increase the percentage of renewable energy sources in the state’s portfolio? Will it help us to break our current addiction to fossil fuels?
Housing
Our current land-use strategy is to pave over agricultural and wild lands to provide more sprawl outside our urban centers. This degrades the environment, lowers our agricultural productive capacity, impacts our water portfolio, increases commute times and carbon emissions, and makes the construction of mass transit corridors much harder (see below). Could we take a meaningful step toward introducing market forces into our planning paradigm by repealing the property tax provisions of 1978's Proposition 13?
Transportation
Assuming we successfully encourage more population density in our urban centers, we will increasingly rely on mass transit for our daily needs. As a jumping-off point for this discussion, the California Department of Transportation recently published their California Transportation Plan 2025. Looking forward 20 years, this report focuses on improving our state's environment, social equity and quality of life.
The future holds a mythical quality for us. It has been visualized as a new horizon where there are opportunities for growth and development. If we hold onto these old myths, we run the risk of overstretch, and making our home state uninhabitable for our children. We need to establish new ideas about the future which promote prosperity and sustainability. This will be a long process which will not be successfully concluded when you finish reading this blog, or when you point your browser toward the next set of daily headlines or news factoids. Visioning the future of our state is a wildly important idea that I'd like us all to keep talking about.
In order to bring you back to this blog in the coming days, weeks and months, I'd like to give you a preview of the issues that we're going to discuss here:
Population
More than 36 million people live with us in our state. During the 20th century, no other developed region of the world experienced population growth rates as high as California’s. If these trends continue, most demographers predict that California’s population will be between 44 million and 48 million in 2025. Where will these new people live and work?
Economy
California has the world’s 5th largest economy. Can we expect future growth rates to match the meteoric expansion we’ve seen in the past? Can we safely assume that California’s strengths in the service and technology sectors will continue to produce increased economic opportunities for residents of the Golden State?
Good Governance
If the continued strength of our economy provides steady tax revenues, we have questions over how we will allocate it and how we will elect our leaders. These are broad and profound questions with many possible answers. Will it be more effective to focus first on ourselves or on our elected officials? How do we reach out to the half of the state that does not vote? Would removing term limits in the State Legislature encourage better long-term planning by our public officials?
Health Care
As reported by both the California Healthcare Foundation and the Kaiser Family Foundation, growth in health spending in California this past year increased more than twice as fast as workers’ wages and overall inflation. In fact, health care premiums have increased 87 percent over the past six years. Family health coverage now costs an average $11,480 annually, with workers paying an average of $2,973 toward those premiums, almost twice as much as we did in 2000. How do we find a long-term solution to our health care needs?
Education
California's economy is centered around a highly-educated workforce. It's ironic that during the recent budget crisis, the State of California cut spending on education, threatening our ability to provide a tax base for the future. During a time when our largest population increase has come from demographics that tend to be the least educated, can we reaffirm California's long-standing commitment to education?
Climate Change
Recent scientific research indicates that global climate change will profoundly affect the hydrology of the American West and we may suffer from decreasing water supplies, less hydropower and more wildfires and flooding. With possible decreases by as much as 90% by the end of this next century in the annual Sierra Nevada snowpack (which provides roughly one-third of California’s surface water), what kinds of impacts could we see in our daily lives?
Energy
Recent legislation commits California to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 25% by 2020. Will this legislation, along with rising prices for conventional energy, drastically increase the percentage of renewable energy sources in the state’s portfolio? Will it help us to break our current addiction to fossil fuels?
Housing
Our current land-use strategy is to pave over agricultural and wild lands to provide more sprawl outside our urban centers. This degrades the environment, lowers our agricultural productive capacity, impacts our water portfolio, increases commute times and carbon emissions, and makes the construction of mass transit corridors much harder (see below). Could we take a meaningful step toward introducing market forces into our planning paradigm by repealing the property tax provisions of 1978's Proposition 13?
Transportation
Assuming we successfully encourage more population density in our urban centers, we will increasingly rely on mass transit for our daily needs. As a jumping-off point for this discussion, the California Department of Transportation recently published their California Transportation Plan 2025. Looking forward 20 years, this report focuses on improving our state's environment, social equity and quality of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
