Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Bob Dunning Doesn’t Understand that the City’s Declaration of a Climate Emergency Is No Laughing Matter

ClimateChangeComicWe are indeed in a climate emergency, and I am glad that the City Council has officially recognized it; big kudos also to the citizen activists who urged them to. I look forward to seeing the concrete actions that will be made in light of the recent Declaration.

Yet apparently not everyone feels this way.  In a pair of recent columns (here and here), Bob Dunning made fun of the Declaration with a series of obviously ridiculous proposals that, he suggests (tongue firmly in cheek) the City could implement.

Now, it is often difficult to tell where Dunning actually stands.  As he reminds us sometimes, his column is intended to be humorous.  Yet when there is not one, but two, articles lampooning the Declaration, I can’t help but feel he is genuinely opposed. 

But is there really anything objectionable in the proposal?  (In one article, Dunning mentions a commenter to the Council who suggested we should have fewer children, when Dunning himself has six.  But that is not part of the proposal).

Here are some of the actual resolutions (none of which resemble Dunning’s fictional ones):

  • The City commits to taking significant action to move toward net municipal and community carbon neutrality in the short term.
  • The City will pursue efforts via the local community choice aggregator, Valley Clean Energy, to supply clean electricity that is 100% renewable and increasingly locally sourced for municipal, residential, commercial and business, and other non-residential uses.
  • The City commits to providing outreach, information and education for Davis residents and City staff on the urgency of climate responses, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the policies and strategies to advance sustainability and resilience.
  • The City will explore city administrative review and assessment processes to incorporate consideration of greenhouse gas reduction impacts/effects for  all significant proposed policies, programs or actions approved by City Council.
  • The City recognizes community environmental justice and commits to keeping the considerations of disadvantaged communities central to the climate emergency mobilization planning processes.
  • The City will advocate for and join in climate mobilization at the local, state, national, and global levels and support emergency mobilization efforts to mitigate climate change.

(For complete list and full text, see the text of the Declaration linked above).

I see much to applaud here.  For example, the fourth bullet point is suggestive that all Council decisions going forward will take into account impacts on climate (although it’s unfortunate that this was not worded more strongly than “explore”).  The fifth bullet point will make sure that our actions always keep in mind the most disadvantaged among us.  The sixth bullet point will make sure we are part of larger movements to increase the impacts of our actions.

I see nothing to ridicule here.

For we are indeed in a climate emergency, and it affects all of us – humans, regardless of family size; non-human organisms; and ecosystems.

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

on

in

,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

6 responses to “Bob Dunning Doesn’t Understand that the City’s Declaration of a Climate Emergency Is No Laughing Matter”

  1. Ron

    Although I’m not the one who made the comment to Bob Dunning (regarding family size), that is indeed one of the primary factors in the global climate crisis (as well as every other environmental challenge).
    And, it’s a factor that one can consider “locally”. 🙂
    See link to related article (that I’ve previously posted), as well:
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article225350745.html

    Reply
  2. Roberta L. Millstein

    Ron, it’s certainly something we should be talking about.
    Here’s an article talking about people voluntarily choosing not to have children because of climate change:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-children.html
    “Some worry about the quality of life children born today will have as shorelines flood, wildfires rage and extreme weather becomes more common. Others are acutely aware that having a child is one of the costliest actions they can take environmentally.”

    Reply
  3. Ron

    Interesting article, Roberta. Yes, it’s definitely something to discuss. I suspect that it will affect some geographic locations, more than others. Probably disproportionately impacting those with fewer financial resources (e.g., in developing countries – as is usually the case).
    I’d expect Dunning to not take it seriously (and make fun of it), but you’d think that others who state that they care about environmental problems wouldn’t confront those who bring it up (e.g., with allegations of racist overtones – as occurred when I brought it up on “another” blog).
    Why would anyone subject themselves to repeated b.s., and attacks?
    Another reason that I’m on here now, instead of “another” option. 🙂

    Reply
  4. Roberta L. Millstein

    Interesting that people think that’s racist. Not all people contribute to global warming equally, by a long shot — wealthy people in industrialized countries contribute disproportionately more. The majority of these people, I’d venture to say, are white. So if anyone should be having fewer children, it is wealthy white people. I guess some might call that racist. Personally, I don’t think asking people to reduce their disproportionate impact on the planet can be considered racist, especially given that it is directed at people who are privileged.

    Reply
  5. Todd Edelman

    Roberta, you are therefore guilty of privilegeism! 😉
    Dunning is clearly overwhelmed… so not necessarily out of his depth, making jokes like someone about to be murdered at Auschwitz. Knowing that one’s children and grandchildren are going to have huge problems, depending on where they live and their own capabilities… it’s a kind of psycho-spiritual torture, yes? Perhaps the Declaration should have included a bullet point for a hug for local columnists…

    Reply
  6. Roberta L. Millstein

    Privilegeism, yes!! Daring to suggest that people not consume more than their fair share.
    I don’t have children and I face the future with fear and desperation. I am devastated at the thought of large-scale environmental collapse. I don’t know how people with children handle it. Maybe we do need more hugs.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Ron Cancel reply