The Great Global Warming Debate: In California, Things Are Really Heating Up.

Want to talk economic stimulus? Think about what turning an economic outlook from one that’s bleak into one that promising, would mean. This could be achieved through increased job opportunity that would come through more dense, green infill development in our central city cores. Think jobs won’t need to be created for these “carbon footprint-reducing” endeavors? Think again. The very fact that upgrades are made on homes, offices, etc., along with new green building projects, whether done in urban, suburban or rural areas, if conducted on a widespread basis, creates private-sector jobs. If this action isn’t economy stimulating, I don’t what is!

Just yesterday, and along these lines, Sacramento Bee political columnist Dan Walters himself, in his column: “California growth will lead to more development conflicts,” mentions “greening” ideas such as high speed rail, improved public transportation, sound development practices, etc.

Walter’s writes: “Generally speaking, California needs about 200,000 new single-family homes, apartments, condos or mobile homes each year,” what with the projected population growth. He asks: “Will it be a resumption of the horizontal development that California traditionally has embraced, with new single-family subdivisions creeping outward from core cities and reached by the automobile? Or will it be higher-density vertical development like that of Eastern cities (and San Francisco), served by mass transit?”

In response to this, Senate Bill 375, carried by Sacramento Democratic Senator Darrell Steinberg, “and backed by a coalition of environmental advocates and, in simplest terms, would strongly push local governments into adopting anti-sprawl, high-density, greenhouse gas-reducing policies,” writes Walters. “State funds, most importantly transportation funds, would be the stick to enforce the dictum.”

What really caught my eye, though, was where Walters writes of the debate: “The conflict lies at the heart of debates over how transportation funds should be allocated, including whether California should build a high-speed “bullet train,” and whether the state should develop new water supplies or rely on conservation. Simply put, should we supply more water to irrigate more suburban lawns?” Good question.

Meanwhile, London, England will have to come to terms with the mayor’s planned and pending $50-a-day “carbon dioxide emissions charge,” which would be up from the current $16 per-day fee if approved. This action is supposedly being taken in the name of countering the effects of global warming, or so it was expressed in a Los Angeles Times report. The report, written by Staff Writer Kim Murphy, also reveals that, “San Francisco has studied imposing a charge as a way of easing central city traffic jams; cities in Norway and Sweden also have flirted with congestion pricing; and Singapore has been charging downtown drivers since 1975.” Action in New York appears to be following suit as an $8-a-day charge to be imposed on drivers entering Lower and Midtown Manhattan, is being considered also. The proposed “three-year trial program”, to limit the number of vehicles entering these areas, awaits state legislative approval.

Is resorting to this kind of action going too far? On that I believe the jury is still out.

The crux. While there are those who refuse to accept that global warming is a human-caused phenomenon and others argue it simply can’t be attributed to anything else and base this on scientific study, this doesn’t change one iota the fact that pollution, congestion and gridlock, sprawl, a reduction in farmable agricultural acreage, water and energy availability, all have, since the early 19th century, become issues of either moderate or considerable concern and importance to a significant number of Californians and those who reside outside our borders. There’s no disputing this. The rise in global temperature - whether perceived or real – has, nevertheless, led to fierce, heated and intense global debate. Irrespective of what a person’s position is on this subject, it tells me people are paying attention, advocating change, and seeking, if not demanding, improved quality of life. I don’t know about you, but I view this as a good thing.

Alan Kandel is a concerned California resident advocating for new, improved and expanded freight (and passenger) rail service. He is a retired railroad signalman previously employed by the Union Pacific Railroad in Fremont, California.