Oh, wait, you mean he hasn't clued in that he can't afford to build the tunnel boondoggle yet? Man, he's as clueless as a Bushie is about the Iraq War ...

But it is not.

It must have been great for a business back in the day smoke stacks with black plumes of smoke were seen as a sign of industrial and societial progress... leave it to the lefties to reframe the image of societal progress as doing no harm to all living things, either in your local or world-wide scale. Whats wrong with limiting business' from doing evil harm? The cost of running a business should be within the wishes of society, not outside of it at the wishes of an owner/board-of-directors/stake-holders.

I would vote in support of a limit to create a maxium amount of C02 spilled into the environment. Even going so far to micro-license private polluters (based an established sliding scale of payments on the real amount of emmission, of course), such as wood burning stoves in private residences. Then earmark the funds only for cleaning up the CO2 in the air and no other concern, enivromental or other use.

Hey, good for the goose, good for the gander, as the saying goes.

The Surface option - by itself - will only increase pollution, and CO2.

Meanwhile the oceans are turning acidic.

What alternatives? There is no $$$ for enhanced transit (which there isn't), and alternative routes won't reduce cars or CO2 - but they will increase surface level idling and gridlock.

I keep checking with all the electeds, but there's no money for the tunnel.