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


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.


valerieeverett 8 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

RoeDapple 8 years, 4 months ago

Looks like valerie and heidi didn't read the TOS they agreed to just this morning


lounger 8 years, 4 months ago

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.....

Sunny Parker 8 years, 4 months ago

“green” energy jobs to the area.

Please explain exactly what that is! Does anyone know what a 'green energy job' is?

Zachary Stoltenberg 8 years, 4 months ago

Installing solar panels, digging geothermal wells, insulating, installing membrane and green roofs, etc, etc.

Sunny Parker 8 years, 4 months ago

Will you get $100 thousand for that sentence?

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 4 months ago

"Sustainability" ranks right up there with "tolerance" and and "social justice" as three of the lamest new catch-phrases of the 21st Century.

Godot 8 years, 4 months ago

Where did the grant come from? Who ponied up the $200,000?

quimby 8 years, 4 months ago

$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.

Godot 8 years, 4 months ago

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?

Godot 8 years, 4 months ago

There is no such thing as a "win-win" that is the result of spending money that Ben Bernanke prints out of thin air.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 4 months ago


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.

puddleglum 8 years, 4 months ago

i think marion would be a good candidate for this job.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 4 months ago


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.

whynaut 8 years, 4 months ago

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.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.