Climate action: Sustainability by any other name

Today is something called "Blog Action Day" and nearly 10,000 bloggers have signed up to write about the topic of "climate change." (Who knew there were 10,000 bloggers?)

I am often asked about where Ventura stands on California's legislative goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 back to 1990 levels. I usually respond by acknowledging that there are differences of opinion in our community from those who think it is the most serious threat to our species in history to those who think it is a giant hoax perpetrated by Hollywood eco-fascists. But, I always note that while debate is healthy in a free society, it is a scientific fact that the Governor signed AB 32 into law, requiring us to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions throughout California.

I'm no expert in the science. As City Manager, my role is to carry out the policies of the City Council and State and Federal law. But it seems obvious to me that no matter what your views on climate change, most, if not all, of the actions needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions make sense independently -- and in California, at least, that IS the law.

"Fossil free by '33," the catchy slogan of Santa Barbara's Community Environmental Council, may seem overly ambitious to many -- and even offend those engaged in the locally still important oil business. But we all know that the price of oil is not just a monetary question of whether we can afford it. Much of the world's remaining oil supply -- whether abundant or dwindling -- lies under countries run by dictators and/or kleptocrats. They certainly aren't our friends -- or the friends of the people in those countries. Our addiction to oil is helping prop up their brutal and oppressive rule.

Then there is the environmental price. Here again, there is passionate debate about whether to drill in our local channel -- or on Alaska's North Shore. But the cumulative impact of extraction in ever more remote locations is at the least very troubling -- especially to keep our gas tanks full while we idle in traffic jams.

Then there is the huge indirect economic cost of the vast network of streets, highways and bridges and the staggering expanse of parking in lots and structures. The cost of health care is the number one topic of national political debate -- yet locally we are trying to figure out how Community Memorial Hospital will be able to afford the added cost of a big parking structure on top of the State requirement that they completely replace their current hospital to meet new earthquake codes. If you had $20 million for local healthcare would you spend it on a . . . parking structure?

Finally, there are all sorts of "minor" impacts from our addiction to cars and the oil that runs them. Like the battery acid and lead and other toxic unmentionables that end up in our groundwater, rivers and oceans -- and that local cities are bearing an increasing burden of responsibility to control and clean up. Or paving over prime farmland to accommodate the sprawl of auto-oriented suburban development.

In the end, reducing our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels isn't just good for the planet. It's good for kid's lungs, the American dollar, municipal budgets -- and you, the next time you swim at our beach.

Sustainability is about pursuing our own quality of life and standard of living in ways that doesn't cheat future generations out of the same opportunities. That's a good standard for our actions -- independent of whether you accept the argument about climate change or not.