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

Category: Ethics

  • 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

  • State Protections Sought for Vanishing California Burrowing Owls

    (From press release) Conservation groups petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission today to protect five imperiled populations of the western burrowing owl under the California Endangered Species Act.

    The petition seeks endangered status for burrowing owls in southwestern California, central-western California and the San Francisco Bay Area, and threatened status for burrowing owls in the Central Valley and southern desert range.

    “These fascinating ground-dwelling owls need relief from being bulldozed or evicted to make way for urban sprawl,” said Jeff Miller, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “I’ve witnessed the disappearance of burrowing owls from much of California over the past two decades, and it pains me to watch their extinction trajectory. They need immediate protections if we want to keep these owls around to grace our grasslands and open spaces.”

    The only owl species that nests and roosts underground, the burrowing owl was formerly widespread in California and commonly nested in grasslands throughout low elevation areas of the state. Burrowing owls have suffered significant habitat loss due to urban development, conversion of grasslands to agricultural lands, and large-scale wind and solar energy infrastructure. They are also killed by rodenticides and collisions with wind turbines and cars.

    The owls rely on burrowing mammals such as ground squirrels to excavate underground burrows for nesting and roosting. Urban development removes suitable nesting and foraging habitat, while ground squirrels are routinely eradicated from ranching and agricultural lands.

    “When a formerly common species disappears from our landscape, what does it say about the health of our ecosystems? Abundant burrowing owls once brought so much joy to residents of our valley, but development has pushed them to the brink of extinction,” said Shani Kleinhaus with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society.

    Protecting the burrowing owl under the California Endangered Species Act would require state and local agencies to manage threats. That would include ending the state policy of allowing owls to be evicted from lands slated for development and requiring adequate mitigation for habitat loss. Regional planning efforts, and in some cases direct intervention to boost owl abundance, are needed to prevent the imminent disappearance of burrowing owls from many areas of the state.

    “State protections are urgently needed since the environmental review process hasn’t meaningfully protected or conserved burrowing owls,” said Catherine Portman with the Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. “We’ve tried to get mitigation for owl habitat destroyed by scores of development projects in Yolo County, but owl colonies are routinely evicted without requiring habitat protections. For example, 103 acres of prime burrowing owl breeding habitat in Yolo County were developed in 2015 in exchange for only 19.5 acres at a mitigation bank that has never hosted nesting owls.”

    (more…)

  • Tonight at City Council: Weigh in on I-80 widening

    By Roberta Millstein

    Just a quick heads up to let folks know about an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed I-80 widening project.  The subcommittee of Councilmbers Arnold and Neville have drafted a letter for City Council consideration that recognizes the objections raised by many Davisites to the project and expresses concerns.  See proposed letter here: Download 04-Subcommittee-Recommendation-Transportation-Letter

    I think it is a fairly weak letter, and would urge something stronger, but I think it's also important to acknowledge that it is at least more of a stand than the City Council has been willing to give prior to this.  So a comment on the order of, "thanks, this is good, but we can do better" seems appropriate.

    As a reminder:

    • In person public comment: This is item #4 on the agenda, tentatively scheduled for 6:55 PM.
    • Submit written public comments to CityCouncilMembers@cityofdavis.org. Emails are distributed to City Council and staff. To ensure the City Council has the opportunity to review information prior to the meeting, send emails by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
    • Submit comments by voicemail prior to the meeting: Call the city’s dedicated phone line (530) 757-5693 to leave a voicemail message for public comment. Staff will play comments during the appropriate agenda item. Comments will be accepted from 12:00 noon until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Voicemail public comments will not be accepted after 4:00 p.m. Speakers will be limited to no more than two minutes.

  • I-80 A Threat to Housing Affordability?

    Blinder siloVideo: A Widening Goal is for More Bay Area ”Super Commuters”

    By Alan Hirsch 

    The Davis  General Plan is on Tuesday’s city council agenda- not just in the item so labeled, but reverse  of the city policy of “strongly supporting” the I-80 widening.

    I-80  is not just about climate, it also impacts having housing, affordable housing for local residents.

    While we in Davis can zone in more density like Cannery,  push Davis developers to increase their affordable set aside a few percent points, and even  vote a tax on ourselves to fund a housing trust, the benefits for current resident will easily be diluted by demand generated from over  ten thousand commuters a day  the 33% increase in freeway capacity enable.

     Prices are set by demand vs supply,  If  more people have access and want housing here the prices will go up- as will demand for subsidized affordable units.

    (more…)

  • Will Davis Council get serious about Climate & I-80?

    Cartoon fist grabing freewayReview of policy to “Strongly Support” the widening at Tuesday Meeting

    By Alan “Lorax” Hirsch

    On Tuesday March 5th  Davis  Council  Meeting, there will FINALLY be a full discussion of the I-80 policy for the City of Davis. it will likely be in cryptically worded agenda item called Legislative Policy.  

    This is follow-up to the January 9th Council meeting where the city council wrote a highly critical letter about the problems with the environmental analysis for the widening.  And the June 6th 2023 meeting Caltrans pressured the city council and said “agree to partner with us- tonight–  or you won’t get mitigation money.”

    Currently,  Davis City policy is expressed in letter written to federal government and California Transportation Commission to “strongly support” the I-80 freeway widening. This is based on two lines slipped into a 10 page city council’s lobbying policy agenda item three years ago (2/16/21).  The BTSSC (Davis city transportation Commission) has never been consulted on this policy, neither has the council ever before had a in depth discussion targeting support or opposition this $465Mil project. Contining this  policy put obtains the missing $200- $350 mill need to complete construction of the project- and funding it mitigation of its GHG above real transit improvements. 

    ACTIONS NEEDED:

    If residents  want to speak up on this project, they can do one of these actions:

    • Show up council chambers and make a 2-minute comment— (you can make comment in general comment period before 7 pm and still make an election night party)
    • Leave Voice msg noon at 4pm on Tuesday 5th. 530-757-5693
    • Email: Davis City Council citycouncilmembers@cityofdavis.org

    Talking Points:

    (more…)

  • Letter: No to PG&E Contributions

    I recently read the Enterprise’s article about campaign contributions in the District 4 Yolo County Supervisors race. I was very disappointed to learn that a candidate in that race took money from PG&E. As a climate advocate, PG&E is the last corporation I want to see involved in our local elections. PG&E is responsible for dozens of wildfires, hundreds of deaths, and thousands of homes destroyed in California. As a Davis resident, my rates have also been hiked by PG&E, all while my service worsens.

    PG&E has been flexing its political power to pass its liabilities onto ratepayers. Who could forget the money PG&E spent to defeat Yolo’s effort to join SMUD? As a community, we need to create a locally-controlled energy grid that relies on 100% renewable energy. Electing people who take money from PG&E is two steps backwards.

    Yolo County is also beginning to implement its climate action & adaptation plan. As PG&E cuts investment in renewables due to their bankruptcy, the last thing we need in Yolo County is a Supervisor beholden to PG&E. The Enterprise reporting also begs the question: how can PG&E even give money to candidates with their recent bankruptcy? Is that what my higher rates are paying for?

    I encourage everyone to read the Enterprise coverage of the contributions to the Supervisor race. I will be voting for a candidate who did not take money from PG&E.

    Elias Bunting

  • Analysis of Vaitla’s Statements in Davis Enterprise Article on Merging Commissions

    By Elaine Roberts Musser

    If you parse through Councilmember Vaitla’s statements appearing in the Davis Enterprise, it shows:  a  lamentable  lack  of  understanding  about  how  commissions  work;  a  complete disregard  for  the  opinion   of  commissioners   who  are  the  ones  effected   by  merging commissions;  and  an  extremely  questionable  and  ill  informed  rationale  for  what  he  is proposing. Furthermore, because of his refusal to appoint applicants to commission vacancies, the FBC is no longer providing citizen oversight of the city budget. That, together with his proposal the city pay to create new city public health services that are the responsibility of the county, will sink the chances of any tax increase proposed for the November ballot.  

    1. Vaitla: “…either City Council is not proactive in asking the commissions what to do; or the membership of the commissions is such that people have interests of their own and they are kind of deviating from what Council is asking, outside of the authorizing resolutions of the commissions…”
      • If the City Council is not proactive in asking commissions what to do, whose fault is that? The commissions cannot read the City Council’s collective mind. The City Council needs to be more communicative as to what information it wants.  Why should commissioners be punished by being forced to merge with another commission because of the fault of the City Council?
      • If commissions are deviating from their authorizing resolutions, city staff will rein them in if necessary.

    (more…)

  • The Commission Subcommittee Song (Matchmaker Parody)

    F5328efe-49ad-423b-90ca-c009c2feb87d

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Sung at Tuesday February 21st City Council meeting, to the Tune of 'Matchmaker' from 'Fiddler on the Roof':

    Parody Live at City Council (time – 20:15): 

    https://davis.granicus.com/player/clip/1665

    Original Song: 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8J5hNqELzI

    (more…)

  • The Ever-Changing Justification for Widening I-80

    Why can’t Caltrans Tell Yolo County the True Cost?

    By Alan Hirsch

    On Tuesday March 5th the Davis City Council will review and hopefully reverse the current city policy that endorses I-80  freeway widening for cars. This policy was set quietly in 2021 as two line buried  a 10 page policy  statement  on thing the city would lobby by an ad hoc committee of Lucas Frerich and Dan Carson.  But now I-80 has surfaced before council as a threat to the City Climate Change Plan its clear the current council needs to reexamine it if it want to be taken seriously on climate change.

    The January 9th ye open staff report to reviewing the I-80 Draft EIR also heighten interest.. At that meeting,  Councilmember Will Arnold the former Caltrans Director Of Media Relations, shared Caltrans policy  which he  summarized:  believing  freeway widening will fix anything is the definition of insanity. (Link to transcript of Arnold’s remarks)

    Every-changing Justification for I-80 Widening

    (more…)

  • Dark, Anti-Democratic Forces Sue the Davis Vanguard

    E7bb1eb8-86af-4d5e-ad6c-866e31092a14

     

     

    These dark forces are believed to be funded by the Dark Underbelly of Davis. 

    In true Davis Vanguard journalistic style, no information on who the dark forces may be or why they are suing, but the Vanguard did ask for money to the tune of $100k.  Statement:

    (more…)