Seattle v. Berkeley on Climate Change
Greg Nickels has gotten considerable credit and political capital, including in both Vanity Fair and the Stranger, for convincing some 300 US mayors to endorse a resolution supporting Kyoto-level reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming. Meeting the Kyoto targets, while a good first step, is a relatively paltry goal: complying with Kyoto would require Seattle to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by just 7 percent, or about 680,000 tons a year. We could do much better. (And we need to: According to a recent study, snowpack in the Cascades, which provides our region’s water, could be reduced to 20 percent of current levels within 80 years, with temperatures in the Puget Sound region rising 2 degrees by 2050.)
In Berkeley, California, they’re taking the threat of climate change far more seriously. Earlier this week, Berkeley’s city council just voted unanimously to put a measure on the ballot that would encourage efforts toward an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. (Funding would come from the city’s general fund or from taxpayers through a second vote). Since cars are the main source of greenhouse-gas emissions, cutting emissions by 80 percent will require a drastic reduction in car use and ownership, something Nickels’s own policies (which emphasize maintaining capacity for cars rather than encouraging people to combine trips and seeks alternatives to driving) scarcely address.
I wonder why Nickels is more focused on car capacity over transit. Was he soured by experiences with Sound Transit? The crappy management of the monorail project?
It's such a bizzare contradiction on his part...