[sustran] Re: U.S. Mayors Respond to Washington
Leadership Vacuumon Climate Change
Lee Schipper
SCHIPPER at wri.org
Thu May 4 05:05:51 JST 2006
Well put, Eric. And not to mention the monorail boondoggle in Seattle.
>>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun at earthlink.net> 5/3/2006 2:37:19 PM >>>
Todd E
As a Seattle native and one who has been following developments there
closely, allow me to express
my skepticism.
Seattle is a faux green city. Lots of talk. little action. The car
remains king with few places that bus transit
gets preferential treatment. Bus headways are also longer than average
for a city of its size and density due to excessive use of articulated
buses in a misguided attempt to save money. The corridor that actually
needed rail transit the most - University District to Downtown -- is
still many years from completion. Politicians insisted on an extremely
expensive, deep, and long tunnel instead of street running because they
didn't want to take any lanes from cars.
I note that there have been numerous struggles for years to improve
transit there, with anti-tax groups, futurists who claim rail transit is
obsolete, and the state's own gag laws against public officials in the
runup to elections all helping torpedo almost every important proposal.
The futurists and anti-tax people said to improve buses instead, but
this was probably insincere. They knew that bus lanes were very unlikely
given the car-is-king attitude of most politicians. Support for transit
from these "environmentalist" politicians in the face of these groups
has been lukewarm, but efforts by the same politicians to reopen the one
pedestrian area in downtown to cars and to build two expensive stadiums
has been strong.
The transit investment package that would actually have made a dent in
the transportation problems of the three county region and that the
public ultimately voted on in 1995 won in King County where Seattle is
located. It lost by small margins in the counties to the north and
south, so the politicians decided to not build any of it. Meanwhile most
politicians didn't want people to vote on the stadiums. One of them got
forced on to the ballot and it got voted down. It was built anyway.
Meanwhile the City and State claim poverty when it comes to keeping
school buildings in good repair. (The truncated project approved in
1996 is nothing but a minor start on a huge, utterly unsustainable
transportation mess involving horrendous automobile traffic, huge
volumes of trucks, and a congested freight railroad network due to the
huge container port. It is also taking a pathetic 13 years to be
completed.)
One more thing. Paul Allen, the third richest person in the world got
his new football stadium at public expense. He could have built it with
pocket change. He bought a personal yacht for $200 Million! Can it be
coincidence that most polticians are actually enthusiastic about one
particular transit project? It is a streetcar that will connect downtown
with Paul Allen's new real estate developments. The only green that most
politicians in Washington State are concerned about is the paper that is
died green.
Eric Bruun
-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd Edelman <edelman at greenidea.info>
>Sent: May 3, 2006 1:00 PM
>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>Subject: [sustran] U.S. Mayors Respond to Washington Leadership Vacuum
on Climate Change
>
>Hey! Check this out!
>
>My only (predictable) comment: Just imagine if Seattle actually did
retire
>148,000 cars a year and all the positive effects that would have
besides
>just less carbon emissions:
>+ More space for no parking
>+ More quiet places to sit next to un-cars
>+ Better visibility of ground because of no cars
>+ Save concrete for other things
>+ Active people instantly created
>+ PT moves easier
>... and so on.
>
>
>Eco-Economy Update 2006-3
>For Immediate Release
>May 3, 2006
>
>
>U.S. Mayors Respond to Washington Leadership Vacuum on Climate Change
>
>http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2006/Update53.htm
>
>
>Janet Larsen
>
>
>Recognizing that global warming may fast be approaching the point of
no
>return and that the world cannot wait for the U.S. government to act,
>hundreds of U.S. city mayors have pledged to cut emissions of
greenhouse
>gases. By signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, these
>mayors�representing some 44 million Americans�have
committed
>their cities
>to meet or beat the U.S. emissions reduction target in the Kyoto
Protocol,
>despite the federal government�s refusal to ratify that
treaty.
>
>This grassroots political revolution, spearheaded by Greg Nickels,
Mayor
>of Seattle, Washington, and endorsed by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors,
>responds to the mounting concerns of the American people. It calls
for
>reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by
2012.
>As Burlington, Vermont, Mayor Peter Clavelle noted: �We can't
wait for
>this vacuum of leadership to fill.�
>
>Since February 16, 2005, the date the Kyoto Protocol came into effect
for
>the 141 countries that ratified it, 227 U.S. cities have joined the
>mayors� agreement, including New York, Los Angeles, and
Chicago,
>the three
>largest cities. The Northeast, the Great Lakes Region, and the West
Coast
>are particularly well represented, and the list keeps growing. (See
map
>and additional data at
>www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2006/Update53_data.htm.)
>
>The group includes both communities with an eye on global problems
and
>those concerned about climate-related impacts closer to home. For
example,
>a dozen coastal Florida cities that risk destruction from storms and
>rising seas have signed on. Mayor Ray Nagin noted a similar concern
when
>adding New Orleans to the agreement, stating that �the rise of
the
>Earth's
>temperature, causing sea level increases that could add up to one
foot
>[30.5 centimeters] over the next 30 years, threatens the very
existence of
>New Orleans��and this was before Hurricane Katrina.
>
>The cities� action plans vary in both content and completeness,
but
>the
>common refrains include increasing automobile efficiency, improving
public
>transportation systems, curbing sprawl, and encouraging walking and
>cycling. The plans emphasize using and generating electricity more
>efficiently, with renewable energy sources playing a prominent role.
>
>Seattle�s pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions translates
into an
>annual cut of 683,000 tons, the equivalent of retiring some 148,000
cars
>each year. In March 2006, the Mayor�s Green Ribbon Commission
made
>numerous recommendations on how to achieve this goal. The local role
model
>is the municipal government, which has already slashed carbon
emissions
>from city operations to more than 60 percent below 1990 levels. This
was
>achieved in part by switching a share of the government fleet to
>hybrid-electric vehicles. By cutting fleet fuel use by 7 percent
between
>1999 and 2005, the city saved at least $300,000 a year.
>
>Seattle City Light became the nation�s first major electric
utility to
>achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 through a
combination of
>energy conservation, renewable energy (principally hydropower), and
>offsets for the remaining emissions. To capitalize on this success,
the
>Green Ribbon Commission recommends improving energy efficiency in
>buildings and requiring new housing to be energy-efficient.
>
>For Seattle as a whole, the city�s 400,000 registered vehicles
are the
>number one local producer of greenhouse gases. The commission suggests
a
>number of ways to reduce automobile dependence: Broaden the
availability
>of �frequent, reliable, and convenient public
>transportation,� which could
>be funded in part by new regional toll roads and a new commercial
parking
>tax. Encourage car sharing. Add bike lanes and trails, improve
sidewalks
>and crossings, and develop �compact, green, urban
>neighborhoods� built for
>people, not cars. With the average Seattleite spending more than one
work
>week sitting in traffic each year, such measures have the benefit of
>greatly enhancing residents� quality of life.
>
>To reduce carbon emissions from vehicles still on the road, the
commission
>supports tailpipe limits on car pollution (as now required under the
>California �clean car standards� adopted by Washington
State
>in 2005) and
>greater use of biofuels. Cutting emissions from diesel trucks, trains,
and
>ships also improves local air quality, leading to fewer cases of
asthma
>and respiratory disease.
>
>Suggestions to move beyond the Kyoto goals include using rooftop
solar
>energy systems and heat pump water heaters. Other innovations that
make
>the Seattle commission�s list are pay-as-you-drive insurance
to
>discourage
>unnecessary driving, and plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles that for
short
>trips can run on electricity, preferably produced by renewable
>sources�virtually an 80+ mile-per-gallon car.
>
>Of the other cities signed on to the Mayors Agreement, Portland,
Oregon,
>has one of the most advanced plans for change. In 1993 Portland became
the
>first U.S. city to develop a global warming action plan. Now,
together
>with the rest of Multnomah County, Portland aims to cut greenhouse
gas
>emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Had Multnomah
County
>continued with business as usual, today it would be emitting more than
12
>million tons of carbon dioxide; because of its deliberate action to
reduce
>greenhouse gases, however, the latest tally shows emissions have
fallen to
>9.7 million tons�just 1 percent above 1990 levels.
>
>Portland has managed to increase public transit use by 75 percent
since
>1990. This was aided in part by the addition of new major light rail
lines
>and the 2001 reinstatement of a central city streetcar, a throwback to
the
>old trolley system that had been supplanted by polluting diesel buses
and
>personal automobiles. City workers receive monthly bus passes or free
car
>pool parking, and businesses that subsidize employee parking are
>encouraged to subsidize public transit commutes as well. Portland also
has
>267 miles (430 kilometers) of bikeways, which it hopes to double
within 10
>years.
>
>In 2002, Multnomah County established energy efficiency standards for
>�lighting, heating and cooling, appliances, and personal
>computers.�
>Throughout Portland, traffic signals have been converted to LED
>(light-emitting diode) bulbs that cut energy use by a whopping 80
percent,
>saving the city more than $500,000 each year in energy and
maintenance
>costs. And the city is investigating the possibility of powering all
its
>facilities completely with wind energy.
>
>Elsewhere, city and county office buildings in Salt Lake City, Utah,
have
>removed inefficient incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact
>fluorescents that use a third of the energy and last up to 10 times
>longer. In chilly St. Paul, Minnesota, an efficient combined heat and
>power system warms most downtown buildings. In Washington, DC, 414
diesel
>buses have been replaced with ones that burn cleaner compressed
natural
>gas. And Austin, Texas, is quickly turning to wind and solar power to
>reach its goal of meeting 20 percent of its energy needs from
renewable
>sources and 15 percent through energy efficiency improvements by
2020.
>
>Response to the Washington climate action void is not limited to
cities.
>States and businesses also are taking part. The challenge now is to
>multiply these initiatives and take them farther. With the U.S. making
up
>5 percent of the global population but responsible for a quarter of
the
>world�s greenhouse gas emissions, there is no substitute for
>leadership
>from the top.
>
>
># # #
>
>Additional data and information sources at www.earthpolicy.org or
contact
>jlarsen (at) earthpolicy.org
>
>For reprint permission contact rjkauffman (at) earthpolicy.org
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>Todd Edelman
>International Coordinator
>On the Train Towards the Future!
>
>Green Idea Factory
>Laubova 5
>CZ-13000 Praha 3
>
>++420 605 915 970
>
>edelman at greenidea.info
>http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain
>
>Green Idea Factory,
>a member of World Carfree Network
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.
================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
is on urban transport policy in Asia.
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list