Having long lived in Huntington Beach, I often joshed with others about Irvine as the “beige city.” But after having lived here two and a half years, I’ve succumbed to its charms. I mark off on a map the many parks where I’ve walked my Pomeranian, Ollie. I enjoy the libraries, recently refurbished after the declared independence from the Orange County Public Library system.
The city is a university town and the world center of medical-device companies, as well as other lucrative high-tech firms. Its city and school budgets are balanced and the burg generally is well run. But all that means the officially nonpartisan City Council, actually including five Democrats and two Republicans, can consider splurging on luxuries other cities can’t afford.
The Voice of OC reported that the city will receive $9 million as a repayment from the Orange County Power Authority after “Irvine loaned the green power agency $7.5 million when it launched at the end of 2020 to cover startup costs.” It received its first payment this month and will receive another in January.
Ideally, the money ought to be sent back to the taxpayers. After all, we paid for it. One way would be to send each of 318,629 residents a check for $28. Or $112 for a family of four.
Alternatively, the city could make improvements to benefit everyone. But at its Nov. 12 meeting, the council voted unanimously “to earmark repayment funds with a preference for projects regarding sustainability and mobility,” the Voice of OC wrote, preferring “green projects specifically aimed toward low-income communities.”
Said Councilmember Kathleen Treseder, “It seems fitting that it would be allocated toward green infrastructure projects.”
There are a couple of problems with this.
First, with Section 8 and SNAP (food stamps), low-income residents generally are scattered through the city, not isolated in massive “projects,” as in the 1950s. The giant Irvine Company offers special Affordable Housing Programs to help those eligible get Section 8 housing in their fine apartments.
Second, much of the “middle class” here basically is poor. The average home value, according to Zillow.com, is $1,524,631. And the average home rental for “all bedrooms and property types” is $4,800.
Build more infrastructure and amenities, yes, but for all of us. Because most of us find it increasingly difficult to live here due to the cost of living.
The most questionable part of how the $9 million could be spent is for “sustainable” projects. For that, Linda Fontes, the city’s public information officer, pointed me to Irvine’s “Final Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan,” released on Sept. 2, although so far unadopted.
Specifically, this number: “The foundation of the CAAP is built upon the city’s communitywide GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions profile. Using 2019 as the baseline year, the city’s total GHG emissions were estimated at 2,247,593 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO₂e), spread across five different sectors.”
The overall goal is this: “CAAP demonstrates the city’s commitment to creating a sustainable and resilient future for all community members.”
It noted the city already has met state mandates for reductions by 2030. But the city’s own goals are more ambitious: “(1) 44% below 2019 emissions levels by 2030; and (2) 90% below 2019 emissions levels by 2040.”
Here’s the problem: None of that matters globally. Any of the $9 million spent on “sustainable” projects would be a wasted effort. The California Air Resources Board reported in 2023 the state’s total was 360.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Irvine’s 2.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, even if eliminated entirely, would reduce the state total by just a fraction of a percent.
Related Articles
Prop. 50 likely to stay intact no matter the fate of Texas gerrymandering Industrial policy isn’t being done poorly. It’s just bad economics A spate of new studies gives the lowdown on California’s sky-high living costs Sacramento’s spending addiction continues Trump the peace candidate became another war president Even if the Irvine “sustainable” projects are inspirational, hoping to influence the world, they are irrelevant. Bjorn Lomborg, a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and author of “Best Things First,” believes climate change is happening, but is a realist. The ultimate comparison always has to be with China, our giant economic rival. In the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 11, Lomborg debunked the idea that China is racing ahead converting to clean energy.“In reality, the country has dramatically scaled up energy use across the board – buoying ‘green’ manufacturing with coal expansion – and grown rich in the process,” he wrote. China, indeed, supplied 39% of the world’s green-energy investment in 2024, compared to 34% for the U.S. and the European Union combined. However, “Every Chinese silicon smelter, an essential solar-panel material, requires its own coal-fired power station.”
Advancing “sustainable” spending in Irvine in this context is just posturing. The council should take care of residents the best it can, and not push global climate schemes that won’t make even the smallest of dents in the grand scheme of things.
John Seiler is a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board.
Hence then, the article about irvine s climate spending is just posturing was published today ( ) and is available on The Orange County Register ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Irvine’s climate spending is just posturing )
Also on site :
- Hollywood mourns loss of beloved makeup artist Jasen Kaplan
- Suspected mountain lion attack in Colorado mountains under investigation
- Rose Parade Viewers 'Floored' by 'Disaster' Finale Performance: 'Yikes'