We are constantly reminded that Planetary Doom is inevitable if we don’t get our greenhouse-gassing/carbon-emitting/arctic-melting/deforestating/overfishing/over-eating/under-exercising/over-dumping and plastic under control by 2050.
After that, the planet as we know it (yes, even the Plaza) will become a giant Apocalyptic movie set. And Humans with our gassy/trashy/smashy/TicToc ways are 100% responsible for The Inevitable.
Pretty depressing. Think: Daily monster storms blowing Dorothy and Toto to Oz and beyond; smothering atmospheres of noxious gases; Noah-level floods; and solar/polar vortexes scouring a desolate, vineless landscape to a horizon littered with bones of pets and rotting flesh of countless corpses strewn across a sea of rusted hulks of gas-guzzling cars as far as the eye can see. If there are any seeing eyes left.
Yep, that’s 2050, if we don’t get our act together ASAP.
The Good News is that ASAP is almost 30 years away and most Dear Readers will be spared because they — we? — will be long dead from Old Age or other self-inflicted disasters that have been extincting people and trashing since Eve’s first taste of apple.
Despite eons of religious incantations since, and in several different languages, we’ve been unable to shake The Curse of Death. [CDC keeps a list of Death’s most popular interventions at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm.]
But Smart People have read the Graffiti On The Wall and know that a species which can’t agree on who won the last election and — after 500,000 years — still hasn’t figured out how to stop killing each other isn’t likely to agree to save a planet which many of them couldn’t find on a map.
Instead, Generation Omega is figuring out how to live with extinction, and make a profit doing it.
And who can blame them? Since 1995 there have been 27 annual meetings of the Conference of the Parties (COP) allegedly to reverse global warming. For readers uncertain as to what COP has accomplished, it’s right in the name: it throws Parties! And discusses how to make money as the planet goes dark, underwater and/or up in smoke.
For if 300 years of capitalism has taught us anything, it’s that there’s always money to be made, even on the Road to Perdition. For readers immersed the latest Recycling flyer (e.g., rinse trash using saved drought water; no food in the ‘garbage’ can, but Dog poop is OK; food — but not Dog poop — goes in the green can with grass cuttings from the lawn your Dog pooped on; etc.), here are just a few investment opportunities lurking on the way to Oblivion:
- Microwave home cremations, for when it’s too hot to drive to Duggans.
- Winter cruises to the tiny island of Antarctica, pre-paid, one-way, cash only.
- Cheap Bering Sea homesites. Gluten-free upon request.
- Lucrative beachfront property on East MacArthur Street.
Yep, with a little imagination, the End Of Times could be the Be$t of Time$.
Fred Allebach
5/22/22
Climate justice brief (550 words, a typical newspaper op-ed length)
Will climate justice really be included as part of the new Climate Action Commission’s purview? Or is the new CAC just about city GHG reductions? GHG reductions are important but not the only flavor of sustainability, which also has economic and social sustainability pillars to address. If equity and bear-ability are not in the CAC, where in city sustainability policy?
What is climate justice?
“Climate justice” is a term, and more than that a movement, that acknowledges climate change can have differing social, economic, public health, and other adverse impacts on underprivileged populations. Advocates for climate justice are striving to have these inequities addressed head-on through long-term mitigation and adaptation strategies.”
This “movement” is the sustainability paradigm shown by the diagram above.
A local example
An 85-year-old Moon Valley resident cannot safely drive out of town to shop for less expensive food. As a result, she pays twice as much (verified by my expert comparison shopper) for food at Lucky or Safeway than she would at any Grocery Outlet in Napa, Petaluma or Santa Rosa, for the exact same items. On a fixed income, overpaying for food takes away funds to set up her cheaply-built mobile home with AC, and/or insulation or reflective roof paint to mitigate extreme summer heat. Her swamp cooler won’t work if there is 20% humidity or above.
With climate change having adverse impacts (heat, smoke, fire, power outage, drought) on this person and many other low-income city and valley residents, can there be some space carved out under the name of climate justice at the CAC to address these unfair disparity issues with more than just words?
City Climate Emergency Resolution
The city CER clearly refers to climate justice and inequity.
City Climate Action Plan
The CAP has nothing about equity or climate justice.
City Climate Action Commission
CAC membership specifically names climate justice/ equity as a position that can be filled. If such a person applies, or if other members focus on climate justice, does staff intend to be responsive?
The CAC charter as written and approved by the City Council mentions only “environmental sustainability” and being consistent with the CAP, which are both all about GHG reduction and not any mention of climate justice or equity. Despite there not being any wording that specifically includes climate justice, staff said that the CAC purview would include climate justice.
Climate Action Joint Subcommittee track record
Despite multiple attempts to provide guidance to city CAJS staff on climate justice, specifically the last CAJS meeting, where the members, including council members Felder and Agrimonti unanimously gave staff guidance to put some meaningful equity onto the city Sustainability and Sustainable Tourism web pages, nothing has been done for many months. My experience with trying to get climate justice on the table at the CAJS was that I was ignored and told it was not in the purview of the CAJS.
Upshot
How can staff be held accountable for assuring the City Council that addressing climate justice at the CAC was do-able when all signs point to that there is no intention of doing that?
At the second reading of the ordinance creating the CAC, will the council assent to an ordinance that says one thing and informally promises another?