Archive for Thursday, October 8, 2009
Sustainability position created
The city and county have agreed to match funds for a new position to promote energy efficiency and recruit green energy jobs to the area.
October 8, 2009
Advertisement
A position has been created by the city and county to promote energy efficiency and help recruit “green” energy jobs to the area.
In a unanimous vote during Wednesday’s Douglas County Commission meeting, commissioners agreed to match the city in funding the salary and benefits for a new sustainability coordinator.
The agreement has the city and county paying $100,000 each for a two-year employment agreement. Any employment after that period will be decided at a later date.
The city has received grant money to help fund their commitment to the position.
Douglas County Commissioners said they were satisfied that by creating this position, the new coordinator can closely examine energy efficiency standards throughout the area. The coordinator will also help promote Lawrence and Douglas County to “green” energy companies.
More like this
- Commissioners want to create position to examine energy efficiency and promote county 7 comments / June 15, 2009
- New Sustainability Coordinator job created 8 comments / October 14, 2009
- Stimulus fund spending on city's agenda Tuesday 5 comments / May 25, 2009
- City to pursue energy director 8 comments / May 27, 2009
- HORIZON 2020 DRAFT SUMMARY February 24, 1996
Top ads RSS
- Tax Prep Help Wanted Full-time, Temporary Position for the 2009 ...
- ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Fundraising and public relations firm seeking full-time administrative ...
- KU Center for Educational
- *********** Customer Service Reps At Vangent, we’re unlike other call ...
- RN, LPN and CNA/CMA positions available in family practice setting. ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009 · 91 comments
- City gives signal for traffic lights November 25, 2009 · 13 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 68 comments
- Dropping home values may not accurately reflect market November 25, 2009 · 31 comments
- Stay or leave? It's business as usual for Mangino in wake of probe November 25, 2009 · 34 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 39 comments
- On the street: Is Thanksgiving your favorite holiday? November 25, 2009 · 38 comments
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009 · 4 comments
- Blog: Tasering Your Preteen: Can You Imagine? November 24, 2009 · 66 comments
- Lambert performance causes stir November 25, 2009 · 32 comments
- Lawrence likely to land distribution center November 24, 2009
- Budget cuts lead to plans to close 18 National Guard armories November 25, 2009
- Stay or leave? It's business as usual for Mangino in wake of probe November 25, 2009
- Cornish hens: a special little meal November 25, 2009
- Dropping home values may not accurately reflect market November 25, 2009
- Research: Giving thanks brings health, happiness November 25, 2009
- Former OU basketball coach Billy Tubbs to speak at Lawrence Chamber of Commerce meeting November 24, 2009
- Haskell freshman dies in Montana jail November 24, 2009
- KU says student didn't follow proper lab procedures before exposure to toxic chemical November 25, 2009
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009
8 October 2009
at 6:26 a.m.
Permalink
valerieeverett (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
8 October 2009
at 6:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Maybe buggy whips and 8-track tapes will make a come back.
Darwin bless you all
8 October 2009
at 7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…
Looks like valerie and heidi didn't read the TOS they agreed to just this morning
x-D
8 October 2009
at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lounger (Anonymous) says…
This is pretty cool-too bad it will be an out of towner who has a silly amount of schooling from an outside university. How about they just hire on joe public and revolve the position every three months. No degree, no pomp just regular people working this position. Maybe then something will get done…..
8 October 2009
at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
quimby (Anonymous) says…
this is good news for our city!
8 October 2009
at 9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sunny (Anonymous) says…
“green” energy jobs to the area.
Please explain exactly what that is! Does anyone know what a 'green energy job' is?
8 October 2009
at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
zstoltenberg (Anonymous) says…
Installing solar panels, digging geothermal wells, insulating, installing membrane and green roofs, etc, etc.
8 October 2009
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sunny (Anonymous) says…
Will you get $100 thousand for that sentence?
8 October 2009
at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
“Sustainability” ranks right up there with “tolerance” and and “social justice” as three of the lamest new catch-phrases of the 21st Century.
8 October 2009
at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Where did the grant come from? Who ponied up the $200,000?
8 October 2009
at 12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Well, Barack Hussein Oabama has all sorts of “czars”.
Will this position be like a minion or familiar, maybe?
Court jester, anyone?
8 October 2009
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
quimby (Anonymous) says…
$100,000 for this position came from Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG funds through the Department of Energy. It doesn't have anything to do with “czars” - which, by the way, is a term first initiated by Ronald Reagan. Sustainability is a legitimate term/concern - it's a win-win for all, as it addresses not just environmental concerns, but also economic and social.
8 October 2009
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
thanks, Quimby, so the first $100K is coming from our grandchildren's future earnings. Where is the other $100,000 coming from? Increased property taxes?
8 October 2009
at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
How “sustainable” are the wood-fired ovens and smokers located in Downtown?
8 October 2009
at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
There is no such thing as a “win-win” that is the result of spending money that Ben Bernanke prints out of thin air.
8 October 2009
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Get used to it.
It's part of the developing infrastructure associated with “going green”. It's going to happen in much the same way our lives changed when “horseless carriages”, “television”, “computers”, “wireless communication” and “the Internet” arrived.
Get used to it. Invest in it. There's money to be made making America more efficient, less harmful to the environment and (think about it) less dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. Ya wanna spend another $700 billion in quicksand wars with no value added to anyone except companies like Xe Services LLC / Blackwater, and KBR / Halliburton?
Nothing wrong with retooling for a vast infrastructure yet to be built, “at home”, which will generate jobs, value and revenue.
8 October 2009
at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
porch,
If the environmental movement had not been highjacked decades ago by the fringe of the fringe, those of us in the center-right would be a lot more trusting, a lot more accepting. Unfortunately, we have the Earth Liberation Front arsonists and Sierra Club kooks to deal with.
Don't be surprised when the majority of Americans reject calls for higher taxes in return for less energy, which is what some of these “sustainability” movements represent.
8 October 2009
at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lawrenceguy40 (Anonymous) says…
I'll do it for $50k a year - I'll give it the real title though - the self-sustainability position!
Where is this country heading? Frightening……
8 October 2009
at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
SettingTheRecordStraight,
Ok, now that you know all the “treehuggers” were right, why are you still resisting change *which will benefit you and your children* based upon propaganda from oil companies?
That's the beauty of arguing with “the center-right” (you're nowhere near the “center-right”, STRS. I've read your content). All you have to do is point out the inconsistencies.
STRS, you don't consider blowing $700 billion as “an extra tax”, do you? It's what Bush wanted, and that's good enough for you.
You don't mind getting bent over by some misogynistic Arab at the gas pump but have some “tree hugger” or “Al Gore” suggest getting more efficient and less dependent, you scream “fringe”, and anything else Rush Limbaugh tells you to say.
We can either work smarter or continue to watch our balance of trade get worse and worse. I vote for working smarter.
Working smarter might involve changing some of our conceptions and changing our lifestyles. You've already indicated that you realize that some of those “environmentalists” might have been right all along. The next step is to reevaluate whether uncritical subscription to some of the “center-right” BS is worth your allegiance.
Sometimes the hardest thing to accept is that your opinions might be wrong and (to a certain degree) manufactured by others.
8 October 2009
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
puddleglum (Anonymous) says…
i think marion would be a good candidate for this job.
8 October 2009
at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
Porch,
First of all, I'm not pro-war, so I oppose our involvement in Iraq just like you do. Please don't assume all conservatives are neo-conservatives.
With regard to reasonable energy policies, here are some of my thoughts. I firmly support efforts to increase renewable energy, but not in the name of reversing global warming, which mankind has no power to do. I also won't support unrealistic goals or relying on wind, solar and biomass as suitable for satisfying baseline energy needs. There's simply too much demand. I'm also 100% opposed to CAFE standards which are nothing more than our government telling private industry what products to manufacture. It's completely un-American, in my opinion. I also stand against cap and tax policies which will do nothing but transfer even more wealth from the people to the special interests. I am also opposed to treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, which was rejected by the Senate 95-0, because I know these hare-brained schemes will cripple our economy. And finally, the US would be foolish to kowtow to environmentalists while we literally write checks to foreign nations to implement environmental standards that they will never actually implement. We need to be smart, not naive.
I'm certainly all for a steady march toward more and more renewables while embracing an “all of the above” mentality - wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal, oil shale, tar sands, biomass, etc.
8 October 2009
at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
SettingTheRecordStraight,
So you're “certainly all for a steady march toward more and more renewables while embracing an “all of the above” mentality - wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal, oil shale, tar sands, biomass” after spending most of the post declaring that you're against them. You found ways of being against them because they would reduce global warming and be “unrealistic”.
Sounds like you've got your heart in the right place but I see a bunch of pro-business BS I'm having to fight my way through. Opposition to CAFE standards, Kyoto Protocol, environmentalists, etc.
What I'm hearing is it's all too inconvenient for the current business status quo to change.
What is “unrealistic” is the inertia to change in a situation where change is indicated from environmental, political and economic fronts.
8 October 2009
at 5:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
whynaut (Anonymous) says…
STRS says: “I also won't support unrealistic goals or relying on wind, solar and biomass as suitable for satisfying baseline energy needs. There's simply too much demand.”
Then we need to reduce our demand at some point. While the term “sustainability” has certainly been abused and misused plenty of times in recent years, it is by no means a term that is meaningless or inconsequential. In general, over time, sustainability=life; unsustainability=death. This is true whether your talking about an organism, an ecosystem, an economy, a government, or whatever*.
My point is that it's irrelevant whether you think the goal of relying primarily (if not entirely) on renewable resources is unrealistic. It's not like you can tell the Earth, “Hey, there's simply too much demand here” and she'll produce more coal and oil. Doesn't work like that.
I agree that we should all be wary of opportunists looking to capitalize at the expense of the genuinely concerned. Furthermore, we shouldn't naively and inefficiently expend the resources we do have for counter productive non-solutions. But if we're going to stick around for any appreciable amount of time, a transition toward full sustainability is inarguable.
$200K over 2 years is a pretty good salary, but not an overly inordinate amount of money considering the city budget, and given that our source of (hopefully) renewable wind is putting our state in a pretty good position to become a leader in green energy production, I'm anxious to see what the right person in this position could bring to the most progressive town in KS.
* most annoying word reference.