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

<

>

75% fossil fuel reduction by 2030

As the group of students, staff, and faculty whose meeting with Chancellor May in December 2021 led to a plan to eliminate fossil fuel use by UC Davis (Fossil Free UCD), we are pleased to see the release of the Fossil-Fuel Free Pathway Plan (FFFPP), as reported in the Davis Enterprise.  We are grateful to Chancellor May for his continuing dialogue and leadership. 

The FFFPP calls for eliminating 95% of fossil fuel use from university operations by 2040.  Equally important is the shorter-term goal contained in the plan: a 75% reduction of fossil fuel use by 2030. 

This shorter-term goal is essential because deep and swift emission cuts from burning fossil fuels is the only appropriate response to the dramatic consequences of climate change we are already experiencing.  To meet this 75% reduction target, UCD will need to work together with other UCs and our state and federal legislators to secure funding.

As a leading university, UCD educates our students for a successful future. Our teaching mission comes with a responsibility to ensure that we graduate our students in a world where they enjoy a stable climate. UCD is showing by example that we can greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels within years, not decades. This leadership will hopefully inspire other universities and government entities to swiftly enact plans to go fossil-fuel free as well.

UCD affiliates who wish to join our ongoing efforts are encouraged to contact us via our website at https://fossilfreeucd.org/

Cort Anastasio
Patrick Cunningham
Mark Huising
Brianna Mcguire
Helene Margolis
Elizabeth Miller
Roberta Millstein
Emma Saffel
Suzana Sawyer
Stephen Wheeler
Sandy Xie

On behalf of Fossil-Free UCD

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

29 responses to “75% fossil fuel reduction by 2030”

  1. Tuvia ben Olam

    This is Ecof*ckingtastic and needs to be UC-wide policy – I imagine that there can be economies of scale benefits if multiple campuses buy e.g. various equipment, and then also for campus communities everything becomes normal and eventually transparent (I think I mean that in three different ways!).
    Does the report clearly indicate an estimate of what proprotion of GHG and other reductions will be the “UCD business” out of the “total business at UCD”, i.e. taking into account city, county and regional commitments and specific things like private vehicle travel to UCD campuses, materials produced elsewhere and used at UCD campuses, student/staff/faculty housing, travel by UCD administrators and others, etc.
    As far as travel goes, how are this and perhaps even more so related UCD plans being applied to e.g. private travel by staff and patients to UCDMC, which – like most medical centers in the USA – likely have well over 90% private car modal share? (Don’t want to be a jerk, but is there a Campus Travel Survey for UCDMCs?)…
    … about that and I suppose all of this I think my summary question is: How are the complements to this great plan moving along?

    Reply
  2. Roberta L. Millstein

    Here is a link to the FFFPP:
    https://sustainability.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-fossil-fuel-free-pathway-plan-posted
    I think we still need to do more with travel.

    Reply
  3. Tuvia ben Olam

    I SAW that, looked etc but missed the proportion thing, I assume that all my questions are answered there?

    Reply
  4. Roberta L. Millstein

    Sorry, I can’t spin off the answers off the top of my head, so I’m not sure what is answered and what isn’t.

    Reply
  5. Ron O

    From the FFFPP:
    UC Davis has already invested $111 million in the Big Shift – a massive construction project that will allow the campus to heat its buildings with electricity instead of natural gas. However, the majority of funds required to actualize the FFFPP and complete the multiple phases of the Big Shift are yet to be identified.
    “The Big Shift is a cornerstone of the FFFPP. Its completion will reduce the Davis campus’s fossil fuel consumption by 80%,” said Carla Fresquez, interim director of UC Davis Sustainability. “We can’t decarbonize without it. The two are inextricably linked.”
    Uh, huh. One would have to look at how that electricity is produced, to determine if it’s free of “fossil fuels” (not to mention any other environmental impact). Including a deep dive into how the infrastructure itself is produced, installed, disposed of, etc. Seems like no matter how many times this is pointed out, some organization will claim that it’s “fossil fuel free”. Perhaps to be expected in a community where some claim that DISC would have had a positive impact on such issues.
    And as others have pointed out, the biggest use of energy is probably from people (students, staff, contractors, etc.) traveling to/from campus.
    On a related note, how much fossil fuel was used to create, deliver, install, and ultimately dispose of the concrete (or any other material) for the football stadium – or any other structure on campus over its life cycle?

    Reply
  6. South of Davis

    Since close to half the electricity in CA is from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gasses if UCD wants to cut them by 75% in six years they better get to work on covering farmland on campus with solar panels over batteries since they will need to go off the grid to get a reduction that big,
    https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2022-total-system-electric-generation

    Reply
  7. Victoria Whitworth

    I’m interested to hear about UCD Fossil Free and FFFPP’s input on the current debate regarding widening I-80. Please excuse me if there was some, and please publicize it.
    The Davis City Council is leaning heavily in favor of allowing CalTrans to add additional lanes to I-80, despite every single example of extra lanes doing nothing to diminish congestion and only adding to more fossil-fuel pollution.
    I really hope that Davis can be a leader in strongly supporting better public transport. This has to start locally and there’s no better place than Davis.

    Reply
  8. Roberta L. Millstein

    Hi Victoria, we’ve had discussions about it during several meetings, but have mainly just done so to encourage members to speak as individuals. I’m not sure how many of us have done so, but Professors Steve Wheeler and Mark Huising (our informal co-leaders — Mark also served on the committee that developed the FFFPP) have spoken at more than one Council meeting, as have I. (And I’ve posted about it on the Davisite several times).
    But perhaps we should speak as a body — I can’t recall if we explicitly decided not to do that for some reason. We may have just been so focused on the FFFPP. I’ll raise the issue at our next meeting. Thank you for the suggestion.
    I too wish that Davis would stand up for the values that it claims to stand for, but Tuesday night’s City Council meeting showed (by a 3-2 majority) that they are not yet willing to do that.

    Reply
  9. South of Davis

    Victoria may want to know that getting rid of the lane on Mace was a nightmare and adding it back has been great (in both reducing congestion and pollution). Another example is the two lanes (and roundabout) added to Hwy 89 in Tahoe City that have been a game changer at reducing the congestion of people heading home from the West Shore that had been there for at least 50 years. If you add a lane and then add people it will not diminish congestion just like getting a bigger bed for a baby will not stop their feet from hitting the end of the bed but 99% of the time getting a twin extra long bed for a 6’+ teen boy will avoid his feet from hitting the end of the bed. They widened 101 south of San Jose when I was a kid, but the reason traffic is bad there now had to do with the 10x increase in the population South of San Jose over the past 50 years not the extra lanes on 101.

    Reply
  10. Roberta L. Millstein

    South of Davis, there you go again denying the phenomenon of induced traffic. I’ll skip the part where I explain it yet again and you admit yet again that in fact it is a real phenomenon. I’m tired of the game.

    Reply
  11. Ron O

    I suspect that “induced demand” is nearly impossible to accurately measure, in a location that’s growing.
    One might also have to examine the impact on ALL roads in a given area, to see if existing traffic simply changes routes when a freeway lane is added.
    Vs. those who say, “hey – there’s a new lane – let’s drive” (when we wouldn’t, before). Those are the only ones who meet the “formal” definition, I understand.
    But for sure, new development takes advantage of freeway access. That’s why most development occurs alongside/near freeways.

    Reply
  12. Roberta L. Millstein

    I look forward to your reading all the peer-reviewed research and detailing the problematic assumptions made by it. Until then, I defer to the researchers at UC Davis and elsewhere who have spent many hours analyzing induced traffic.
    Note that even Caltrans accepts that induced traffic is a real phenomenon.

    Reply
  13. Ron O

    There’s always a danger in simply stating that “the experts have examined a given issue, so I won’t even bother to look into the assumptions”.
    And I will use that as an “argument in-and-of itself”.
    Another question I would have regarding induced demand is whether or not those who simply choose to wait until traffic dies down are considered in these studies. In other words, overall use of the freeway – not just during peak hours.

    Reply
  14. Roberta L. Millstein

    There’s always a danger in simply stating that “the experts have examined a given issue, so I won’t even bother to look into the assumptions”.
    So, then, have you actually bothered (your word) to look at the studies to see what assumptions they are making? Please cite the studies you’ve looked at and the places they have made problematic assumptions.
    And I will use that as an “argument in-and-of itself”.
    It’s not an argument if you don’t know what the assumptions actually are and what situations have and have not been taken into account. It’s just armchair skepticism.
    Another question I would have regarding induced demand is whether or not those who simply choose to wait until traffic dies down are considered in these studies.
    That is part of the induced traffic phenomenon. Add lanes and there are briefly more periods when there is less traffic, so those who would have chosen to wait just go, until the roads very quickly fill up again.

    Reply
  15. South of Davis

    I’m not “denying the phenomenon of induced traffic”. If we we had six lanes in each direction between Sacramento (doubling the number of lanes) there may be some “induced demand” but the traffic would not “double” anytime soon.
    It sounds like Roberta is “denying every traffic study that recommended making a road wider in CA over the past 100 years” (unless she can show proof that every time CalTrans added a lane to a highway that the “study” by the “experts” they got said adding the lane would make traffic worse, but they built it anyway.
    P.S. I don’t need an “expert” to see that traffic moves better on Mace every morning M-F (with the Pioneer parents in the right lane waiting to make a right and the Harper parents driving straight through in the left lane) now that the second lane is back and moves WAY better every afternoon (with people using the Waze Pedrick road cut off in the right lane waiting to get on I80 and people that want to cross I80 in the left lane)
    P.P.S. Remember it was “experts” that told us that Iraq had WMDs (these same “experts” are probably the ones that said removing a lane Mace a few years ago to cause the “Mace Mess” was a good idea)…

    Reply
  16. Ron O

    So, then, have you actually bothered (your word) to look at the studies to see what assumptions they are making? Please cite the studies you’ve looked at and the places they have made problematic assumptions.
    You’re the one referring to the experts, not me. Have you looked at the assumptions and limitations of their studies?
    As you noted, the “experts” (CalTrans) are recommending another lane.
    And I will use that as an “argument in-and-of itself”.
    By “I”, that was not necessarily a reference to “you”.
    It’s not an argument if you don’t know what the assumptions actually are and what situations have and have not been taken into account. It’s just armchair skepticism.
    I don’t doubt that traffic lanes often fill up as soon as a new lane is built. But one of the questions I asked above is whether or not traffic is funneled from other streets (which are currently handling the traffic).
    What I have (generally) noticed is that some (including those in the media, at times) never bother to analyze the same thing you suggested to me (in regard to assumptions and limitations).
    Another example of this is the claims regarding “housing shortage”. Most of the time, this is just repeated (and referenced back to “experts”). This is a recipe for misunderstanding, which is OFTEN purposeful and political in nature. (In the case of the “housing shortage”, there was a state audit which questioned the lack of support for the claims.)
    Much of the claims regarding “housing shortage” are based upon historic patterns of growth. Which of course does not apply in a state that’s losing population.
    More importantly, “experts” are often referred to support one’s pre-conceived “opinion”, at which point it’s more of a political position. David Greenwald is an “expert” regarding generally referring to “data” and “studies”. Periodically, I’ve looked at those types of studies, and have found them to be flawed and biased.
    But it does take a lot of work to actually analyze studies, especially if they’re from outside of an institution which conducts “peer reviews”.
    Question: Another question I would have regarding induced demand is whether or not those who simply choose to wait until traffic dies down are considered in these studies.
    Response: That is part of the induced traffic phenomenon. Add lanes and there are briefly more periods when there is less traffic, so those who would have chosen to wait just go, until the roads very quickly fill up again.
    Thanks. So in that particular case, adding a lane is not increasing (overall) traffic (e.g., over a 24/7 period).
    Personally, I’m “against” adding freeway expansion due to “my” study – that it encourages and accommodates sprawl. (Though I’m pretty sure that’s widely-acknowledged and somewhat obvious, if one simply opens their eyes to observe “where” it occurs – throughout the country.)

    Reply
  17. Roberta L. Millstein

    SOD says, “I’m not “denying the phenomenon of induced traffic”.
    Good.
    Yes, temporarily making travel faster is part of the phenomenon of induced traffic. That’s what “induces” more people to drive. In this case, even Caltrans’s own projections show a very minor improvement, as Bapu Vaitla noted early on.
    Ron says: “You’re the one referring to the experts, not me. Have you looked at the assumptions and limitations of their studies?”
    Yes, quite a while back, when this issue first rose to the surface, I looked at the studies and was satisfied that they were well done and the assumptions reasonable. I’m certainly not going to re-do that process and do the work for someone who just wants to make criticisms from the armchair without even knowing what the studies actually say.

    Reply
  18. Ron O

    Roberta, I’m not “criticizing” the studies. Though I did note that some folks use studies to justify or reinforce what they already believe.
    Since you read them, do you know if they examine the impact on surrounding roads when a new traffic lane opens? (That’s the question I asked.) In other words, do the new lanes simply funnel existing traffic from surrounding roads onto the new lanes?
    If so, that (plus the other example I mentioned) would not mean that there’s an overall reduction in traffic in a given locale. It would simply mean that existing traffic “shifts” from roads (and times) that they currently use roads/freeways in a given area.
    I suspect that most people think of “induced” usage as an overall reduction, which is also possible.
    In general, when the “cost” of something goes up, people use less of it or pursue alternatives (supply/demand). And cost in this case could include time/hassle.

    Reply
  19. Roberta L. Millstein

    Roberta, I’m not “criticizing” the studies.
    Good to hear it.
    Since you read them, do you know if they examine the impact on surrounding roads when a new traffic lane opens?
    I don’t recall exactly — as I said, it has been a while — but I encourage you to a look yourself before implying that they didn’t do so.

    Reply
  20. Ron O

    Roberta: I wouldn’t know where to find those studies.
    But if anyone is going to accept them, those are generally the type of questions they’d ask to ensure that they understand what the studies actually say.
    When I hear of “induced” traffic, I tend to think of traffic that wouldn’t otherwise exist. And it seems that neither one of us can conclude that, based upon our respective knowledge.
    The first example (drivers avoid congested periods) simply means that they drive at a different time – not that (overall) traffic is reduced.
    The same thing regarding the second example (traffic is redirected from existing roads, when drivers realize there’s a new lane/less congestion).
    Neither of these example would represent a reduced amount of traffic (overall) in a given area.
    Again, this is different than what some might think of in regard to “induced” traffic. I believe that most people assume that this represents an increase in overall traffic (which might not be the case).

    Reply
  21. Roberta L. Millstein

    Ron, Google is your friend. Between the experts who have the relevant training in these areas and your armchair speculation about their assumptions and methods, I’ll take the experts. Should you produce anything actually directed at what they said, I will go take another look. Until then you’ve not said anything of use.

    Reply
  22. Ron O

    Thanks for the invitation to discuss the issue, Roberta. It’s so welcoming.
    You don’t even know the answer to the question I asked, yourself. Which is key to understanding what “induced demand” even means in the first place.
    If induced demand means that (for the most part) folks are just changing routes or time of day, it’s not having an impact on overall traffic – the latter of which might be one of the primary concerns that some have regarding contributions to climate change.

    Reply
  23. Roberta L. Millstein

    Right, I’m not that welcoming to people who aren’t willing to put any effort in. To be honest, I haven’t even given your question any thought. I’m waiting to see if you make the effort to put forward an informed opinion. Until that time, I’m not putting in any effort of my own to respond.

    Reply
  24. Ron O

    O.K. I spent a few minutes skimming through articles, and am not finding an answer to the question I asked there, either. Which seems strange, given that one of the fundamental purposes (of not expanding freeways) is supposedly to reduce overall driving – on all roads (and not just the freeway that’s being considered for expansion).
    That is, does existing traffic simply shift from using existing roadways, when a freeway is expanded? Sort of like how WAZE redirects traffic, depending upon congestion?
    You already acknowledged that the study you’re referring to shows that some drivers simply shift the “time of day” that they travel.

    Reply
  25. Roberta L. Millstein

    The point of induced traffic is that the supposed benefits of adding lanes don’t last very long, regardless of where the additional traffic comes from (see below). The whole point of adding lanes is supposed to be to improve transit times, right? But if it doesn’t do that — if pretty quickly commute times just go back to where they were — then you’re back to square 1 and people are clamoring for still more lanes. The process never seems to end, which suggests that we should try a better and different solution, one that does not burn so much (or any) fossil fuel.
    Places where additional traffic might come from:
    * People taking freeway instead of alternate routes (sometimes just for one or two exits) — this is your point
    * More people moving to an area/more building in an area — this is SOD’s point
    * More sprawl — this is your point and SOD’s point
    * People driving at the formerly congested time of day
    * People choosing to take several trips rather than combine into one
    * People not making the effort to carpool, but instead driving alone (for places with carpool lanes)
    * People not taking available public transportation
    * People deciding not to go after all (trip not essential, closer alternative available/good enough)
    This is just off the top of my head — no doubt there are other reasons. But they all add up to the same thing. You’ve added a lane to improve transit times, but as people see that transit times are better, they change their behavior and pretty soon transit times are bad again and you are back to where you started, only with more cars on the freeway than you had before.

    Reply
  26. Ron O

    The whole point of adding lanes is supposed to be to improve transit times, right?
    Conversely, I think that the reason some people advocate against adding lanes is due to climate change concerns. In which case, the question(s) I asked regarding “overall” traffic (on all roads) in a given area might be of interest to them.
    I’m sure that there is at least (some) reduced “overall” traffic (accomplished by restricting roadway expansion), since some people will simply decide that it’s no longer worth it at all.
    In other words, “punishment” (in a sense) has some positive impact in regard to those concerns. Same with parking restrictions/fees, tolls, etc. As does the price of gas, as well as the cost of ski lift tickets (e.g., in Tahoe).
    Ultimately, it’s the wealthy who don’t have to be concerned about cost (e.g., those who fly into the Truckee airport, or someone like Kobe Bryant who paid a “different type of price” to avoid congestion).
    From my own experience (and observation of others), one of the more-effective ways of reducing everyday workplace commuting is when a “carrot” is used (e.g., employer-subsidized public transportation). I don’t know if UCD offers this.
    Of course, telecommuting is also probably having a positive impact.

    Reply
  27. Roberta L. Millstein

    when a “carrot” is used (e.g., employer-subsidized public transportation). I don’t know if UCD offers this.
    Yes, it does, although I think it could do more to get people out of their cars.

    Reply
  28. South of Davis

    I would be interested if UCD reports the percentage of employees that take public transit to campus. Yesterday the two Unitrans busses I saw were totally empty. Today I rode the ~4 miles from “South of Davis” to the Nugget Fields and the two Unitrans busses I saw had less than three passengers. In recent years ~90% of the TART busses I see in Tahoe are totally empty and they recently started an UBER like on demand service up there called TART Connect:
    https://tahoetruckeetransit.com/tart-connect/
    I just typed my address into Google Maps and it says it will take LONGER than walking (over an hour) to go the ~4 miles from my house to the Nugget Fields if I use public transit. In WWII my grandfather took a bus across the GG Bridge every day packed with other guys building Liberty Ships in Marin (who all packed into busses for the drive back home to SF), but today with less people starting work at the same time or working at big plants or canneries traditional bus service does not work for most people and I bet an app based on demand system would get a lot of people out of cars (and driving people around in a $75K van like the Mountaineer service in Olympic Valley would cost a lot less than driving them around in a mostly empty $400K bus). https://www.mountaineertransit.org/

    Reply
  29. Roberta L. Millstein

    I would be interested if UCD reports the percentage of employees that take public transit to campus.
    Yes, every year.
    And yes, UCD/Davis could do better with microtransit, etc.

    Reply

Leave a comment