A sense of perspective is critical to wise and effective political advocacy. Deeply rooted social and environmental problems can be ameliorated and entrenched systems of power can be civilized by collective action, but as we wade into the currents of history we find that our programs and principles come up against the necessity to accommodate and improvise.
The great poet William Stafford once said: “Choices are always Hobson’s choices. All you have to do is get a little more alert to see that even your best moves are compromises—and complicated.”
That’s a good message for political purists. There is no rainbow magic unicorn candidate or cause. There are challenges to our common security and wellbeing that can be improved by wise governance, but you still have to work out your own salvation.
Case in point. Talking about a loss of perspective, what do you think about the lawsuit filed by two environmental attorneys who work under the title California River Watch? They are seeking to block the implementation of the Bay Area Climate Action 2020 program. On August 15th, the Sonoma City Council tabled the rollout of this innovative plan, which has been nearly ten years in the making.
All nine Bay Area counties have spent tens of thousands of hours of staff time and countless public hearings with reams of expert testimony to craft a voluntary plan to reduce GHG’s (greenhouse gas emissions) under The Regional Climate Protection Authority. Each county has produced a “Climate Action Plan” (CAP) designed to meet state-mandated targets of reducing GHG levels to 25 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020.
A major component of that plan is to produce public education materials to encourage voluntary reductions in carbon footprint. Those measures include solar installations, water conservation methods and restrictions on idling cars. There has been a major effort by Sonoma County and city governments to upgrade their vehicle fleets to low-emissions cars and trucks as well as increasing the stock of electric vehicles.
Let’s keep this exercise in perspective. All of the measures together are not going to solve the global climate crisis. However, the CAP 2020 is already considered a pioneering project around the U.S. Please bear in mind that in the 30 states with Republican governors and legislatures, this modest pilot project would be laughed out of town as a climate science hoax. This is a start, not a final draft.
The lawyers involved in this case are willing to stop the CAP 2020 implementation in its tracks because they claim that all the numbers need to be recalculated, after nearly a decade of work, in order to capture a much wider set of variables. Granted, there are credible consultants who have issues with the baseline levels and various technical elements of the plan. But these other experts are not suing to block this pilot project. What’s going on?
There’s a hidden agenda behind this lawsuit. Attorney Jerry Bernhaut charges that: “The CAP was designed to promote the illusion that the County and cities can continue to approve permits for new vineyards, wineries, hotels and other tourist destinations while reducing GHG emissions…” OK, now the real target of the suit comes into focus. “If we keep on building more hotels and have people getting on more planes, the mitigation they’re including in those programs, even if they work well, are not going to offset all those additional (climate) impacts,” said Bernhaut. This suit represents another bite at the apple from the losers of the Measure B vote. The plaintiffs are misusing the CEQA process to block development (like the proposed downtown hotel) in Sonoma County.
In fact, it appears that Mr. Bernhaut has taken it up another notch. Not only does he want to block construction of hotels and permitting of vineyards, but he also wants to end the tourism trade in the county by condemning the use of cars and jets to transport visitors to the county. This scheme would put about half the town out of work, a concern that he apparently does not share.
I’ve tried to imagine the world that he wants to engineer with his suit. We would all be reduced to living out our lives within the confines of the county, trundling our homegrown organic produce by ox-cart to the nearby villages, where we would barter with our vegetables and artisanal craft items. Really? Americans will not live like third world peasants. Not going to happen.
I spoke with Mayor Laurie Gallian at the Sonoma Valley Democratic Club picnic and she was firm about moving forward with implementation of the CAP 2020 plan, now that she and the staff have had the opportunity to read the suit. That is what leadership looks like.
We can’t allow a small cult of zealous paleo-environmentalists to block progress on such a benign voluntary pilot project. We need to keep some perspective and not get wrapped around our own ideological axle.
I hear from Ben a Thomas L. Friedman-type tone, where only technology and more buying and selling will save us, and to hell with conservation or dialing back the sick conspicuous consumption that is taking the whole world down with it. Americans aren’t going to change? In that case, we’re finished. And likely we will be, as historian Barbara Tuchman said, “people don’t change until the sewage is coming in the front door.”
The Transition movement lays it out, dialing back to a more local, simpler life is one of four possible futures, one we need to take seriously along with possible tech salvation and green energy replacement. The future will likely be a messy combo of all three. Future number four? Collapse.
Like Jerry or not, the fact is he has some strong points that are based on the sustainability paradigm of triple bottom line, and full cost accounting. My own detailed reading of the CAP for the CSEC led to many of the same conclusions as Jerry. The CAP seems to address only environmental factors, emissions, and does not take into account the socio-econ system that is generating them. The CAP is basically stuck on tech hopeful and green energy replacement without much baseline dialing down of consumption, and conservation. The CAP is like saying to an obese diabetic, keep packing face, we’ll just change your ingredients. That’s not cutting edge, that’s enabling indulgence.
Big questions about the CAP aside, on a pragmatic local level, the CSEC recommended the city do a lot more than being dead last in the county for local measures.
Everybody now, including Jerry, is calling for local municipalities to adopt their local measures. Many started pushing for that the day after the suit was filed. We have to go forward from where we are now and play the hand we’re dealt, and getting the CAP back on the council agenda ASAP and approving the initial local measures plus eight is the first step. After that, the city needs to reduce its carbon footprint by 9% a year until 2020 to meet our share of the target of 25% below 1990 GHG levels. Then we need to gear up to get us 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
Leadership in this matter will mean insisting on and finding a way to pay for staff to figure this all out. All we need is a motion and three votes, pretty simple.
I doubt that the city will fund a staff person to redo a plan that has taken nearly a decade of regional meetings and tens of thousands of hours of work to produce. How about the reactionary green faction use their time and energy on implementing the existing plan and work to fund a v.2.0 by 2020? That’s sounds more feasible and constructive to me.
It appears Ben is under the impression that those of us who have been and are concerned about over-commercialization of Sonoma and Sonoma County crawled into a hole and retired from making efforts to affect public policy after Measure B lost by less than 1% in 2013. Name-calling and personal attacks betray the weakness of Ben’s arguments, however. Innacurate “base” numbers will set the stage for innacurrate and misleading evaluations; making sure the underlying assumptions are valid ensures more valid conclusions going forward. It’s called doing things right and not simply acting in an expedient manner.
Larry, I’m disappointed in you. Show me where my article engages in name-calling. I have gently mocked the reduction ad absurdum of the paleo-environmentalist argument, but no humans were harmed in that thought experiment.
Your energies would be better used in advocating for vigorous implementation of the existing plan and lobbying for funding for a broader study. You know enough of the science to recognize that none of the measures in the existing CAP or even the revised update you support will make a dent in the inevitable climate change scenario. You are swatting at flies while a saber-tooth tiger is eying you as prey.
You may find your “gentle” mocking amusing, but it sounds dismissive and too much like name-calling to me.
Larry,
Why do none of you address my actual argument rather than whacking on a straw man (the uncritical trade union boss) and then trying to divert the discussion by harping on tone issues. Sounds like a dodge to me. That’s probably because you know that you’re playing a weak hand in this debate. I would be thrilled if any one of you would take on the actual case I’m making (with ample documentation curated for your benefit). Until then, it’s hard for me to take all this fulminating seriously.
Ben Boyce
You’ve expressed yourself sufficiently, for my taste. I’ve heard your arguments and explanations and feel no inclination to argue or try to change your mind. Why bother? You believe you are right and I, and what you might call my “ilk” are wrong. I dislike being lumped into some abstracted, stereotypical “class” you have subjectively defined. I find your manner too strident, too self-assured. Whatever your message, for me its lost amid your “tone,” revealed in aggressive/defensive statements like “you’re playing a weak hand.” Why would I engage in a conversation like that? It’s not a real conversation at all. To me, it sounds like you want to pick a fight. Nonetheless, Ben, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with some, not all, of what you’ve said. So be it.
Ben opposed the Measure to limit the size of hotels in Sonoma because in his view it would limit the number of new hotel jobs. This is a stance labor has taken whenever environmental and social issues have advocated limits and regulations inherent in these clashes.
The lawsuit in question simply requires that claims made by CAP are accurate and bona fide and not whitewashing what the actual data are. In addition it questions the mindset that demands more and more growth and development encouraging non-stop tourism and what those impacts are on the disaster of global warming.
This isn’t a personal matter and to say so reveals Ben’s uncritical and small-minded thinking.
That would be “greenwashing”, Will.
I’ve coined the term “reverse-engineered green-washing” to describe the process by which NIMBY’s justify their parochial objectives with some vaguely’green’ talking point.
Well, Will, you have not addressed my actual argument now or during the campaign on Measure B. You have chosen to lie, making a mischaracterization of my stance, using phrases I have never employed. This discussion has become tribal for you and reason and generosity have been left at the door. I can no longer maintain the pretense that we are friends when I see that you are willing to stoop to slander in defense of your delusional thinking. Tell the truth or stop talking to me.
I couldn’t help but notice that Ben never takes issue with the central point of the suit brought by Riverwatch, that the stated GHG emissions of the vineyard, wine and wine tourism business in the CAP 2020 plan are woefully inaccurate and not properly measured.
Yes, perspective is important. That cuts both ways. Many people have worked on the plan with good intentions. That doesn’t make the numbers right, and the fact that it is considered a “pioneering project” makes it all the more important to make sure the numbers, and the methodology for determining those numbers, is accurate and not influenced by politics or money.
Yes, Riverwatch wants to stop the CAP, TEMPORARILY, until we make sure that the numbers going in are comprehensive and correct. That is not “misuse” of CEQA. It is exactly what CEQA provides for.
By the way, Ben, consultants don’t usually sue their employers who’ve paid them handsomely. Besides, they are consultants, not environmental advocates.
The rest of Ben’s arguments are reduced to name-calling, reductio ad absurdum arguments and ascribing “hidden agenda” motives to Mr. Bernhaut and Riverwatch.
There is nothing in the suit that precludes cities adopting any measures to reduce GHG emissions, which is vital for us all. Bear in mind, as well, that the entire program is “voluntary”, a fact mentioned twice in Ben’s column, which apparently gives him no pause at all. The plan has no teeth.
I would advise Mr. Boyce to follow his own advice to “keep some perspective and not get wrapped around our own ideological axle”.
As an author of a monthly column in a small local paper, getting feedback from readers is rare enough that I don’t even look in the comments section. When I went to forward this link to some friends, I noticed an uncommon flurry of activity in the comments section. That’s very gratifying, even if the comments were not complimentary. Since these comments are not just trolls out to vandalize my page, they deserve a proper response.
My goal with the columns is to bring avant garde political commentary (based on my voluminous consumption of progressive publications, blogs, and podcasts) in a condensed and curated format to the readers of The Sun. My goal is to draw a through-line from national political themes and trends down to county and city politics. I’ve been writing this column going on four years and I get a lot of in-person affirmation and a small but loyal social media following who appreciate my work. As long as I stay on national, state and regional topics, the progressives like my work. When we get down to local politics, the fur starts to fly. I have a long and consistent track record (in print) outlining the progressive case for accountable development.
None of my critics, including the usual suspects here in the comments, have actually engaged my arguments. They go straight to mischaracterizations and ad hominem digs. That tells me that I’ve struck a nerve. The reason that I’m getting such a reaction is that I’ve exposed the hidden agenda behind the stated objectives. It’s a process I call “reverse-engineered green-washing.” Try to use a generally agreed upon environmental agenda (global climate change) to justify a much less justifiable opposition to specific proposed developments, on an ad hoc basis.
I will post excerpts from my past articles to see if these critics can address what I actually say as opposed to the straw man they want to swat at.
#1
https://new.sonomasun.com/2013/11/08/we-can-create-the-sonoma-community-consensus/
The mission of this monthly column from Day One has been to answer the question: What is the Progressive agenda?
The title of this column is “Progressive Majority Coalition,” so I have not been shy about stating the premise and making the case for a coherent and politically viable progressive agenda. As much ink as I’ve poured into this project, I must admit that my grand vision has not yet had the impact I had hoped. As fellow Sun columnist Larry Barnett noted recently, nobody remembers a newspaper column after 24 hours.
Through this column and as a regular guest on the local radio station KSVY, my views are matters of public record. Until I started writing on the topic of the Sonoma Hotel and Measure B, all my local progressive allies thought my work was a good addition to the local political dialog. In reviewing the year’s columns, the hotel issue has been the #1 topic.
Taking the ‘No on B’ stance has been hard on long-standing political alliances and personal friendships. The ‘Sonoma Brouhaha’ is a contact sport, and I have skinned up a few knuckles along the way. I must be doing this out of conviction, because I don’t get a dime for taking the grief.
I do appreciate the concerns of the local activists promoting the Preserve Sonoma referendum. Larry Barnett requested a meeting with me early on and as fellow practitioners of contemplative meditation, we agreed that we will still be on speaking terms at the end of this campaign. One of my best personal friends, Georgia Kelly, executive director of Praxis Peace Institute, is on the steering committee for Measure B! We finally decided to simply avoid the topic so that we can stay friendly. My old pal Will Shonbrun and I were on the verge of an internet flame war, so we had to agree to talk after the election, when the heat of battle has cooled. So I am very familiar with the respectable part of the hotel opposition.
I have no idea which way the election will go, but there are important stakes for the city of Sonoma, whatever the outcome. When the dust settles, we’ll all still be here.
We come by our perspectives based on our experience. My previous work as a progressive policy advocate for the Accountable Development Coalition (ADC) in regional networks like TransForm, Greenbelt Alliance, and the Great Communities Collaborative focused on land-use, energy and water policy, transit connectivity, environmental sustainability, job quality and labor rights, urban planning and Smart Growth.
There are now two main schools of environmentalism: “Environmentalism 1.0” (conservationism of natural spaces) and “Environmentalism 2.0” (enlightened public policy to shape development at a regional level). It’s time to evolve beyond the site-fight perspective of 70’s land-use activism to the 21st-century holistic-systems approach. Our regional problems cannot be solved one city or one parcel at a time. The old clichéd political battle of “slow growth vs. business-friendly” has lead to a political dead-end. We need a new paradigm.
#2
https://new.sonomasun.com/2013/12/05/the-election-is-over-time-for-a-reboot/
Our local and regional concerns must be resolved by applying a consistent set of principles embedded in an integrated public policy structure. These policies govern general plan land-use, energy and water systems, transit connectivity, environmental sustainability, job quality and labor rights, urban planning and Smart Growth. Our regional problems cannot be solved one city or one parcel at a time. We need a holistic approach.
The environmental movement in this county had some success from the 1960s through the 1990s in blocking runaway development by using public process and mobilizing opposition to development projects. That method has crystallized into what I call “Environmentalism 1.0”, which is characterized by a reflexive opposition to almost any proposed development. The distinction between “development” and “accountable development” is not part of their vocabulary. “Environmentalism 2.0” is about using enlightened public policy to shape development at a regional level. It’s about systems: transit, housing, water, and energy — set in bio-regions.
The transition from 1.0 to 2.0 is the shift from site fights to policy systems. The 21st-century evolution to a bioregional systems modality will eventually supersede the 19th-century county-based political structures. This task of rebuilding our civilization from the ground up to be more energy efficient, environmentally sustainable, and socially durable is the great work of our time. That is the lens through which I view any local policy issue.
Regional accountable development advocates employ a decision matrix for objectively evaluating proposed projects. As a professional member of the Accountable Development Coalition (ADC), which brings together labor, environmental, housing, transportation and land-use organizations, I have had the opportunity to participate in evolving a new paradigm, sustainable development with shared prosperity, which is taking root across the U.S.
The accountable development core principles encompass five core domains of sustainability and social equity, each of which has a set of corresponding policy prescriptions. (1) Affordable Housing (2) Land-Use Standards (3) Environmental Standards (4) Transit-Oriented Design (5) Economic Development.
#3https://new.sonomasun.com/2013/05/02/what-defines-community-character-for-sonoma/
My work as a community organizer during my tenures with the Living Wage Coalition and the Accountable Development Coalition has included: pass Living Wage ordinances in Sonoma, Sebastopol and Petaluma; enact green building code upgrades around the county; protect established UGB’s (Urban Growth Boundaries); pass a CIR (Community Impact Report) ordinance in Petaluma; advocate successfully for affordable housing measures; and support multiple union organizing drives. Most recently, I initiated the Sonoma Formula Store ordinance, which is now nationally recognized as a model for other similar cities. I’m still waiting for the Chamber of Commerce, Jennifer Yankovich, and Joanne Sanders to thank me for helping protect the Plaza from getting junked up with ticky-tacky chain stores during a down market. It’s a strange season in this town when a left-wing political activist is providing better commercial land-use planning advice than an organization that is supposedly representing business interests.
Against this backdrop of professional accomplishment in promoting sustainability and social equity, I also find it odd that I am being shunned and castigated by many of the liberals who are promoting the ‘preserve Sonoma’ referendum. My first take, honestly, when I heard about the prospect of a four star hotel near the Plaza, was: “This is exactly what the Plaza needs. We helped keep it upscale through the Formula Store ordinance, and now it can support a high-end destination attraction. Excellent!”
I have been subjected repeatedly, often vehemently, to the arguments for the referendum campaign, and I continue to find them uncompelling. From a public policy perspective, the hotel project is a winner: the developers are not asking for a dime of public money; it is an in-fill development on a brown-field site; it is being built to silver LEEDS standards; and, it is in conformance with the General Plan. What’s not to like?
#4https://new.sonomasun.com/2013/08/08/hotel-wage-agreement-could-set-wine-country-standard/
I, for one, would certainly regard a Living Wage workplace as a seal of approval when deciding where to spend my vacation dollars and here in the Bay Area I know that many people share that commitment to fair trade and living wages. I predict that this will be a new trend in the Wine Country hospitality sector that will provide a competitive edge. Our carefully crafted agreement can serve as a realistic, step-by-step template for how other hospitality-oriented businesses can budget responsibly for a transition to achieving the status of living wage employers. That would be a most welcome development.
Fellow combatants, let’s take this to e-mail. I am annoyed that no one will respond to my actual written positions, but I am in danger of becoming the very excess that I decry. I am starting to wrapped around my own axle.
Hey. kinda fun to watch all the progressive folk squabble amongst themselves. Ben has been known to take the wrong side of the right argument and Barnett always likes to have the last word. Will is like the Elder statesman and Allebach is like the dumpster diving ex dead head. The gang is all here.