Loading
WatchSonoma
WatchSonoma Watch

Santa Rosa examines greenhouse gas emissions

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions has long been a priority for Santa Rosa.

In 2005, the city set aggressive goals of reducing emissions to year 2000 levels by 2010, and to 1990 levels by 2020.

Is it working?

“We have no idea,” city planner Gillian Hayes acknowledged.

Because of staff reductions and the budget constraints, the city has not devoted resources toward figuring out if any progress has been made.

But armed with a new Department of Energy grant, the city has hired a consultant to help it come up with a Climate Action Plan that does just that.

The plan will set a baseline for greenhouse gas emissions, forecast future emissions, and explore other possible emission-reduction ideas to help the city meet local and state-wide goals, Hayes said.

“I want to grab people and pick their brains and find out what else they are thinking,” Hayes said.

Ideas will be evaluated to determine their effectiveness and likely costs, and will then be prioritized. The end goal of the work is to have a set of consistent greenhouse gas reduction standards that streamline future development projects, Hayes said.

The work is being funded through a $200,000 chunk of a $1.5 million federal Department of Energy grant the city was awarded in 2009.

The city kicks off the work with a community workshop on Wednesday from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. The meeting will take place at the Bennett Valley Senior Center, 704 Bennett Valley Road.





12 Responses to “Santa Rosa examines greenhouse gas emissions”

  1. Joe Public says:

    They got a grant, that’s free money, NOT!!!

    Quit wasting taxpayer money on this B.S. There isn’t any “true” factual evidence for this stuff, when the facts do come out it’s on how those who are behind all this manipulated data to support what they want.

    All this crap is a way for government to control what businesses and people in their own homes are allowed to do.

  2. Josh Stevens says:

    What stories like this represent,is the fact that those of us who have a problem with this no longer have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines bitching and moaning about it.

    Let’s get busy!

  3. FedUp says:

    Try this. Go the the craigslist Northbay farm and garden section. Notice that 30% of the listings are related to indoor pot growing. Notice the number of 5kW “systems” for sale.

    The city could meet its goals in three months with a few well planned sting operations.

  4. Kay Tokerud says:

    According to a map showing energy use, it appeared that the two largest energy use areas in Santa Rosa were the two Simon Malls. When council members asked exactly where the two ‘red’ areas were, they refused to give the exact addresses of these areas. Is the city going to make the malls put solar panels on all of their roofs? Probably not. But they are wanting to make the rest of us retrofit our buildings. There are two programs being implemented, one is a State rebate program for retrofitting homes and businesses. Another is a Pilot program in Cotati and Windsor being conducted by the Water Agency to manipulate water rates in some way to ‘encourage’ compliance. Details were scarce, why are they hiding the details? The PD article completely left out any mention of the new programs, why?

    People need to demand full transparency from our elected and appointed officials so we can weigh in on the new programs. They want us to invest thousands on our ‘underwater’ homes when we can barely make our mortgage payments now. Retrofitting buildings to save energy is a good idea if it’s completely voluntary and people can afford to do the work. Putting more debt on homes (SCEIP Program) is like putting gasoline on a fire. The devil is in the details of these new (voluntary/mandatory) programs.

    Go to the meeting tonight at the Senior Center to get the scoop.

  5. FedUp says:

    Amusing in light of SR’s recent head scratching about how to be more “business friendly”.

  6. James bennett says:

    By signing us up as ICLEI charter members,Santa Rosa made the citizens participants in the largest fascist fan club the world has ever seen.By doing so they have turned their constituents into victims of a multi-faceted incremental oppression.Aside from being illegal(they can’t officially take directive from an NGO)and unconstitutional, treasonous and not nice.The BASIS, the FOUNDATION for this NGO’s Agenda(Agenda21)is man induced global warming(Google Club of Rome).MAN INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST HOAX EVER PERPETUATED ON MODERN CIVILIZATION!I think it’s time the citizens made some ‘goals’.

  7. Greg Karraker says:

    Does Ms. Hayes even know what the 1990 emission levels were, compared to the 2000 levels?

    I don’t, but I have a hunch: given that cars are becoming more fuel-efficient, is it possible that the 1990 emission levels are actually higher than the 2000 levels?

    Unlike many who post here, I don’t claim to know every answer; just asking the question.

  8. Fiscal Conservative says:

    Here we have the red collective spending our hard earned green dollars based on a debunked theory.

    Is this about government power and control? You bet!

    The only thing sustainible in our local government is communist ideals and the answer”no”.

  9. Mike says:

    Another boondoggle born in the city that loves its boondoggles. How would Santa Rosa ever measure its air quality unless the wind stops blowing in from Sebastopol and Bodega Bay?

    We all know the City Council lives on the left coast of fantasy island, but they seem to have forgotten Mother Nature. Air currents blow things around even gas emmissions given off by federal and city politicans.

    Another excellent example of tax dollars and time wasted and squandered on schemes that should have never been approved or requested.

    This is why the Republicans want to put a stop to these types of studies. We need to cut these types of programs and spend money on basic things like repairing and maintaining roads, bridges and getting the economy back on track.

    What bright idea did the city come up with to spend the other $1.3 million federal tax dollars on? The mind is overwhemed by the possibilities.

  10. Reality Check says:

    //In 2005, the city set aggressive goals of reducing emissions to year 2000 levels by 2010, and to 1990 levels by 2020.

    Is it working? “We have no idea”//

    Is what working? One might assume the reference is to policies implemented to achieve the goal. But the article says nothing about implementing any policies of any kind. How do you measure something when, apparently, nothing has been done that one might measure?

    So, it’s time to “grab people and pick their brains and find out what else they are thinking . .” says a city planner(!).

    No, the above is not a scene from a recent Broadway satire on government.

  11. Beef King says:

    ….”The end goal of the work is to have a set of consistent greenhouse gas reduction standards that streamline future development projects, Hayes said.”

    That is ‘Progressive’ speak for “We want to use the environment as a foundation for local political control’.

    Wake up Sonoma Voters, you will soon be irrelevant, if you’re not already.

    Enough about climate change, let’s get down to the real business at hand which is climate control; how do we do it and how fast can we get it done?

    ‘Progressives’ have shown themselves as failures. Let’s dispense with those failed nanny government notions and get back to what made America great- the freedom to pursue dreams without permission from the local communists.

  12. Jim says:

    $200k… for a $20k job?

    Well, they must use nice paper when they print the report.