Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceNo one argues that the Gaviota Coast isn’t unique. Not only is the 50-some-mile stretch of pristine coastline one of the top biodiversity hotspots in the world, but it is one of the final California frontiers that developers haven’t gotten their hands-and houses-on.
Not that they aren’t close. Matt Osgood’s Naples project has been going through Santa Barbara County for the better half of a decade, and it seems far from a resolution. After years and years, what will eventually end up happening at Naples remains uncertain.
Furthermore, millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent as the Naples issue has inched through the county system. For these reasons and more, the usual advocates for the preservation of the Gaviota Coast-ranging from the Environmental Defense Center to the Naples Coalition and the Gaviota Coast Conservancy
-came out to the Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, hoping the board would spring on a plan to outline policies and needs specific to that irreplaceable stretch of earth.
Even though the state recommends updates every five to 10 years, such a plan unique to the Gaviota Coast has never existed, though policies impacting the area currently sit in the county’s Coastal Land Use Plan-which hasn’t been updated for 26 years-and its General Plan .
The board-with 4th District Supervisor Joni Gray dissenting-eventually did okay the Gaviota Coast Rural Plan. Similar to a community plan, the Rural Plan would address the specific needs of the Gaviota Coast, building upon the standing policies the area already falls under. Specific policies on public access, design standards, water and viewshed protection, and agricultural open space can now be worked on through a public process with its special character in mind. “This is an opportunity for the community to step up and look at the Gaviota Coast in a comprehensive way,” said Mike Lunsford, president of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy.
While the plan will set the county back $234,000 next fiscal year and $1.4 million in total, the supervisors encouraged staff to work with the supporters of the plan to find grant money and other sources of funding, as the county is trying to pinch as many pennies as possible.
But the plan was just one of two top priorities set forth by the supervisors, the other being a Climate Action Strategy. State policies are already beginning to reflect the reality of climate change. Most significantly, Assembly Bill 32 will require a 15-percent reduction in greenhouse gases. The goal: to bring the state’s carbon footprint back to what it was in 1990. Several other related bills are in place that will require action over the next several years. “The process is already unfolding,” said Dave Matson, long-range planning deputy director.
The county, through a Conservation and Sustainability Team founded by 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, has been working to reduce the county’s carbon footprint as an example to the community. Though more than likely contributing less than one percent of the community-wide carbon footprint, Santa Barbara County government is nonetheless focusing on efforts to both save the county money and make it greener. “We have a responsibility to lead the way and set the example,” said General Services Director Bob Nisbet. From shutting off fan and pump systems in county buildings at night to expanding the use of technology to allow people to work at home, the county is making big efforts to reduce its carbon footprint.
The hope is to inspire the community in helping the state achieve its target. And, in theory, the passage of some of these principles in support of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will open the county up to state grants and federal stimulus money that will help the county in its roles as a greenhouse gas producer and regulator.
Previous Month
Comments
Individuals CAN prevent Global Warming
I am not completely convinced CO2 has anything to do with Global Warming. That notwithstanding, I am certain that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is both a good idea and necessary, for a large number of obvious reasons.
The good news is that we can all make a difference. It goes way beyond buying a few (polluting) low energy light bulbs, and will have a real impact if even half of those concerned about Global Warming follow the proposals. The beauty is that even if only half do this, it makes no difference what the rest do! Renewable energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels with enough investment in the technology, and everyone will move over naturally!
JER0ME (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2009 at 1:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Firstly, buy renewable energy.
As far as I am aware, you have the choice to buy renewable electricity in all developed countries. If you cannot now, you should campaign for that inalienable right immediately. Currently our own household buys 25% of our electricity as renewable, costing us about US$33 extra per year. 100% would cost US$183)*.
Some argue that if millions of householders (and industries, I would hope) buy renewable energy, there will not be enough. If you do not buy it, there will NEVER be enough. If you do, the money will be used to INVEST in infrastructure for future renewable energy, so making the expense just as effective.
Merely by choosing to buy this, you are immediately and directly investing in the renewable energy industry, and sending a powerful and undeniable message to those who matter, the people who actually generate electricity, not environmentalists or politicians who may have different agenda.
JER0ME (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2009 at 1:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Secondly, stop investing in 'Big Oil' and 'Big Coal'.
It comes as a shock to many ordinary citizens to be told that the huge greedy corporations actually make money for THEM, not for some faceless consortium. Sure, corporate flunkies may make millions of dollars, but WE, as investors, make billions, and even trillions. Their huge payouts and massive junkets are insignificant compared to the profits the companies make for their investors.
You may well think that you do not invest in these companies, but if you have a pension or investment fund, you almost certainly do. These funds will, quite obviously, be invested in the very companies that make the most profits and returns for their investors. All these corporations are doing is actually acting effectively YOUR instruction, ie to get the best possible return. If WE stop investing in them, they fail, and will be forced to change their practices to survive in a capitalist environment.
The answer is to choose ethical investments (there may be different names). Talk to your financial adviser and make the switch now. ONLY YOU control your investments. Make the choice and stop letting others do it for you.
You control the future, not governments or environmentalists.
The message is that YOU control the future of energy production with your wallets. The bad news is that it will cost, but nothing the environmentalists or governments will ever do about this issue will cost you less than this, and most of what they want to do will take control away from you and waste most of your expenditure in bureaucratic bungling and misguided foolishness, in my opinion. This simple two-step approach has all the potential to work and with no complex side effects that I can see immediately. It has a direct and immediate effect.
It is so rare that we are able to do something so straightforward in this complex world. If Global Warming concerns you, I urge you to put your money where your mouth is, and make an immediate difference TODAY, before the power is taken away from you.
* Based on a usage of 5,000 kWh of electricity.
Source: http://www.originenergy.com.au/1142/G...
http://www.carbonclimate.info/2009/03...
JER0ME (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2009 at 1:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I personally think that CO2 global warming is a hoax, but I am also not in favor of fossil fuels. Alternative, renewable energy should be a top priority for humanity as individuals. Unfortunately our government has been been subsidizing fossil fuels militarily probably before we overthrew the Shah in Iran in 1952. Ever since then our foreign policy towards the Middle East and South America has been atrocious, and all to keep the price of oil as low as possible.
Alternative energies would flourish in a free market environment where we were not heavily subsidizing both foreign and domestic oil. However first we must stop subsidizing foreign oil. Tell Obama to bring the troops home NOW. All of them, from all corners of the globe. We can't afford it, we need the money here, given back to individuals so we can afford to invest in renewable energies. The answer is not government, the answer is the individual. The individual can free himself from the system using alternative energies, and I believe that is one of the main reasons these technologies have not been allowed to flourish by the big energy corporations. They want us tied to a grid and continually 'taxed' on energy. Let's work on creating our own!
loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)