Polling data show that most Americans believe climate change is real.
But our view has always been there are really three camps when it comes to man-made climate change – (1) those who don’t believe in man-made climate change, (2) those who believe that man-made climate change is real and (3) those who are consumed with climate change hysteria.
On the national stage, the climate change hysteria camp is dominated by the far-left wing of the Democratic party – people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - and their signature proposal is the so-called “Green New Deal.”
We won’t debate the merits of the GND here but will note the rhetoric of its proponents –
You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake, ok?
- Bernie Sanders
The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
This is the language of climate change hysteria.
Now let’s return to Manhattan Beach.
If you didn’t already know, City Council voted in 2018 to switch all Manhattan Beach residents and city facilities over to the Clean Power Alliance (CPA) for their electric energy generation. In our view, this decision was a no-brainer.
CPA provides three levels of service – (1) Lean energy (36% generated from renewable energy sources), (2) Clean energy (50% renewable) and (3) 100% green (self-explanatory).
Each of us gets to choose the level of clean energy power generation we want for our home. Unless you choose otherwise, you default to the Clean Energy (50%) plan, which is roughly equivalent, cost wise, to your old Edison plan.
Likewise for city facilities, which are currently on the 50% plan.
However, at the recent May 21 City Council meeting, Council voted 4-1 (with Suzanne Hadley casting the lone no vote) to immediately convert our city facilities’ commercial account to 100% green renewable energy for its electricity needs (again, as noted, our city’s facilities were already at 50% renewable energy, which is a goal for all of California by the year 2030).
Cost to the city of making this switch - $100,000 per year for starters, with the likelihood that the cost will rise from there.
Meanwhile, City Council recently lopped $1.5 million of annual expenditures from the city budget, a good thing in our view (we like fiscal responsibility).
And yet, with all the budget-cutting, Council saw fit to require the city to spend an additional $100,000 (at a minimum) per year of our city’s revenues on energy costs, an expenditure that will have zero impact on the quality of life here since Manhattan Beach will just be paying more for the same energy consumption at its municipal facilities.
Keep in mind that liberal-progressive California already has a requirement in place for converting all electric power consumption in the state to 100% renewable energy sources and is one of only two states to require this (Hawaii being the other).
But that 100% green requirement doesn’t kick in until the year 2045. By jumping the gun in order to hit that mark ahead of time, Manhattan Beach will incur a total of $2.6 million (minimum) in additional energy costs for our city’s municipal facilities, like City Hall, over the next 26 years.
I submit to you that the residents of Manhattan Beach will never see any of the supposed benefits of this expenditure, which is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power generators that supply the electricity to our city municipal facilities. So why incur this cost when there are so many better ways to employ that money to improve the quality of life for our residents here and now in Manhattan Beach?
The answer appears to be that, with the exception of Ms. Hadley, our councilmembers – particularly Nancy Hersman and Hildy Stern – find that throwing our City’s tax dollars at 3rd party energy providers makes them feel good that they are somehow combating climate change.
It’s also worth noting that, with 3 councilmembers (Hersman, Montgomery and Napolitano) up for re-election at the end of next year, there is obviously some concern that voting against this expenditure might lose them the Manhattan Beach ‘green’ vote.
Looking at the tape of the council’s discussion (freely available for all to view on citymb.info), I was astounded to hear Ms Hersman make the following statement in defense of this needless, additional utility cost.
It’s not about the long-term viability of the city, it’s about the long-term viability of the planet.
AOC could not have said it better.
So, by that ‘logic’, you cannot spend enough of the city’s tax revenue on climate change if the planet’s very existence is at stake; that’s what Hersman and Stern (and the two concurring councilmembers), in effect, voted for by increasing our city's expenditure on green energy for public facilities just so we'll exceed liberal California’s already liberal green energy time-line by more than a quarter century.
Folks, in my view, this is getting pretty close to climate change hysteria. And now it’s hitting our city in the pocketbook.
Suggestion - let’s employ city funds to get our own affairs in order first by addressing things like rising property crimes and homelessness before we start trying to solve the planet’s problems.