HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/3/2019 Item 18, Pearse
From:Erin Peter James Pearse <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:I strongly support the proposed Clean Energy Program for New Buildings
Dear San Luis Obispo City Council,
I strongly support the proposed Clean Energy Program for New Buildings. As per the IPCC, the leading experts
on climate change, governments around the world must take "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes
in all aspects of society" to avoid disastrous levels of global warming.” It is heartwarming and inspiring to see a
government actually heeding the IPCC’s advice; such an event is all too infrequent.
My only negative comments are that the measure does not go far enough, nor fast enough.
We need to act as if the truth is real.
We need to see remodels and updates to existing structures addressed, and in a short time frame. We need to
see incentives programs for getting commercial kitchens off gas. The climate does not care if your building is
“grandfathered in” to a certain code, it only cares about whether or not you are producing carbon.
Why is rooftop solar required only for nonresidential buildings? Rooftop solar should be required for all new
buildings, especially for multifamily dwellings, which suffers from the same barriers to going solar as rental
properties. Why not rooftop solar for new single family homes? With a median home price of $735K, solar
installation can be accomplished for less than 4% (at retail prices).
Why is there even an option for in-lieu fees to offset the introduction of new gas? The necessary reality is to
decrease carbon output, not keep it at present levels. New gas appliances should not be allowed to be
introduced without a plan to eventually eliminate them; at a minimum, in-lieu fees should be incremented
yearly at a substantial rate.
We are in the unpleasant scenario where political feasibility and scientific reality are in conflict, and I am sure
that some people will object to this measure on the basis that it is too inconvenient, too costly, or moving too
quickly.
There
is never going to be a convenient time to address the climate crisis.
It
will always involve an initial outlay of money (although climate strategies are, on the whole, extremely
financially advantageous in the long term).
It simply cannot move too fast. We are starting 30 years too late and the
window is closing quickly.
1
We have the option to be comfortable during the transition to being carbon-zero city, or the option to be
comfortable afterwards, but not both. If we make the transition slow enough to suit everyone, it will take too
long and we might as well just be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It is greatly preferable to suffer a little
discomfort now, so that future generations can inherit a habitable planet. We’re past the point where we can
get there comfortably.
I am in favour of government that follows the will of the people, but there is one very important exception to that
rule, and that is when there is an emergency. In times of great peril, decisive action needs to be taken, faster
than can be accomplished by the usual multilayered consensus building approach. In such times, government
leaders need to really lead. We are presently experiencing the most severe, most broadly-reaching emergency
in human history.
It may require more than gentle nudging.
It is not the responsibility of San Luis to fix the climate crisis for the world, but it is our moral obligation to lead
the charge and show the world what can be done. San Luis is a place of great privilege, affluence, and an
excellent climate. All of these things make this city uniquely positioned to trailblaze a path to a better future.
Let’s step up our game.
Sincerely,
-Erin Pearse
~~~~~
Imagine if trees gave off WIFI signals … we would be planting so many trees, and we’d probably save the planet, too!
Too bad they only give off the oxygen we breathe.
2