Y'know, Nickels' hypocrisy about global warming is really a reflection of the Seattle populace's hypocrisy about global warming. The public keeps saying, "We want to do something about global warming." But at the same time, the public doesn't really want to make any of the substantial changes that would actually combat global warming. In a way, Nickels is like a marketer who has perfectly positioned his product.

This is why I get a bit queasy about the repeated Nickels-bashing. Yes, he deserves it; yes, he's a hypocrite. But there's a difference between demonizing the guy and trying to win over the consumers/citizens who don't see his hypocrisy for what it is.

Of course, a real leader would find a way to make the tough changes happen. But how many politicians today truly are "inner-directed" and not just ambitious individuals who are happy to put their fingers to the political winds? And we wonder why Maria Cantwell and Mike! McGavick both have such a hard time getting their stories straight. As my mama likes to say, "We get the politicians we deserve."

I always found it puzzling anyway that the media and the public so gullibly accepted Nickels' basic claim -- that global warming is an issue that can be addressed by mayors. Fundamentally, this looked to me like a mayor declaring war on another country.

Okay, so the United States wasn't going to ratify the Kyoto protocol, so somebody had to do something. But at bare minimum, global warming is an issue that needs to be addressed at the regional or metropolitan-area level. I mean, the city of Seattle proper can always meet all his global warming goals by pushing residents and businesses to the suburbs. Now if Nickels put his weight behind seeing Governor Gregoire and the state legislature mandate substantive efforts against global warming, then I would be impressed. (For all I know, maybe he has mandated them to take trivial steps.)

The sad thing is that global warming and energy independence are the two, intertwined major issues of the day where the current "conventional wisdom" is a far cry from serious thought. Conventional wisdom = let's pour billions of taxpayer dollars into subsidizing research into alternative fuels. And until alternative fuels are cheaper than gasoline, what difference will it make? Of course, there's nothing wrong with biofuels per se, but if anybody thinks government-funded research into these fuels is the path toward their adoption, they obviously haven't learned the lessons of economic history.

Now, from a political standpoint, it's obvious why this approach is so much in vogue:

• The public likes it because it's ostensibly painless and makes you feel that you're doing something.
• The Democrats like it for the above reasons and because it's a big-government solution.
• The Republicans like it because it's a big-government solution. Hence, they know it will fail.

Correction to: "For all I know, maybe he has mandated them to take trivial steps." Should read: "For all I know, maybe (Nickels) has convinced (the state) to take trivial steps."

It is mostly good reporting. The tunnel and Nickels' opposition to the monorail certainly point to some blatant hypocrisy.

However, I'd make a minor argument that adding bike lanes in Seattle is of limited usefulness. Erica cites Portland and Davis CA as examples. However, both cities are flatter and warmer than Seattle. Sure, you'll get a few die hards doing serious bike commuting in Seattle. But with all the hills and the long wet winters (it is raining and 45 degrees as I write this), you'll never get a substantial number of people out of their cars and onto bikes, no matter how many miles of bike lanes you install.

Amsterdam has a fairly famous bike parking garage which is packed daily with many thousands of bikes from bike commuters. Great example for Seattle? No. Amsterdam is flat as a pancake, their gas is more than twice the price of ours, and with a maze of narrow streets that predate the automobile, it is often easier to get around on a bike than in a car.

Seattle is not, and never will be a particularly good city to bike around in. Not because of a lack of bike lanes, but because of basic weather patterns and a very unfriendly topography.

Good clean fast reliable transit options are the only real way to get significant numbers of people out of cars. That, and maybe a $2 per gallon gas tax.

Put a bike lane on the Ballard Bridge, and a safe bike lane along that busy road that cuts straight downtown, and folks that wanna commute by bike will move to Ballard.

Also, I've been getting around town on a bike for 15 years—it can be done. And more people would do it if there were more paths for bikes. Look at the numbers of people out there now—without paths, in the rain, on our hills. Build in some safety and rights-of-way, and you'll get even more people on bikes.

I refuse to accept the "oh, it'll never work here!" Seattle answer on this. Mass transit? Oh, it'll never work here. Density? Fine for all other cities, but it'll never work here! ADUs? Never work here. Taking out an elevated urban freeway/blight? Fine for SF, Portland, Milwaukee—but you know, it'll never work here. Because Seattle is just so unique, so special—so special that nothing works here, nothing at all.

I don't know whether or not Nickels deserves his enviro accolades, but surely his stance on the monorail and the tunnel are defensible on other grounds. The monorail was a disaster in progress, a nonintegrated, nonregional, uncompetitive technology that would have been a millstone around the city's neck for decades. I'm as pro-transit as they come, and I opposed the monorail because it was a lemon from the start. And as much as it might be nice to dynamite the viaduct and replace it with an herb garden, the tunnel is the most politically viable way to establish a decent waterfront.


Barnett seems like a good reporter, but her hatred of the mayor is getting in the way of her analysis on this one.

And Dan commutes from where to where? Probably less than a mile, and I'd be willing to bet not much of it is uphill.

Less than 3% of Seattle's work trips occur on bicycles. You could double that figure and it would still be a pittance. Facts suck, don't they?

But then again, so does Nickels...

Next thing you know you'll write a story on how in this "green" city we have more cars per person than almost any other city, and most of those are SUVs and trucks we only drive to the grocery store.

Mr. X: And Dan commutes from where to where? Probably less than a mile, and I'd be willing to bet not much of it is uphill. ...Facts suck, don't they?

Yeah, like the fact that thousands of people are moving to the Seattle core, where they will have a bike or pedestrian commute, to work or transit, that is far shorter than Dan's allegedly is. Yeah, Mr. X, facts do suck, don't they?

Now this is something I can agree with ECB on. Mayor Gridlock is a fat hypocrite who has sold this city out and will continue selling it out.

Another thought on how global warming is, at bare minimum, a regional or metropolitan-area issue...

Consider that the most effective (though not only) way to combat global warming for any region is the dreaded combination of density and mass transit. Well, this inevitably means directing growth towards urban cores -- not necessarily just Seattle, but Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, etc. So the irony may be that the best way for Seattle to combat global warming is to do exactly what causes Seattle, in and of itself, to contribute more towards global warming.

Cressona,

Exactly what does that have to do with the price of eggs in Ethiopia?

Double 3% of work cummute trips and that gets you to 6%, which still ain't shit (btw - the City had assumed that biking would increase from 3% to 5% between 1994 and 2004. It didn't increase by even 1%).

Oops, commute...

I agree with Cresona. Too much yip-yapping in this city. Time to show some guts, people....even if "guts" is simply agreeing to pay the taxes to get things done.

Look out, though; you remember when Nickels was over at ST? A lot of money spent and, um, it's ten years later. 2009? Right on.

Still, Seattle: Enough complaining about everything. Let's go!

"(M)andated by the Kyoto Protocol, which was rejected by President Bush ..." Believe it was rejected by the US Senate, which has treaty authority, by a vote of 99/0, or close to that. Niether Clinton nor Gore, who burned jet fuel by the truckload in his Kyoto diplomacy, cared or dared to fight for ratification.

& no, this is not another instance of blaming everything, absolutely everything, on Clinton. Some of us are far more nuanced than that. We blame almost everything on Clinton, and all the rest on Carter.

i dislike this mayor a lot. i will happily vote for whomever runs against him if nickels has the temerity to stand for re-election. unfortunately, though, this article was written by the wrong person.

erica has no credibility with me when it comes to transportation issues. she's a clear partisan advocate for the PWC. i understand and read everything she writes (grain of salt) within that lens. i honestly believe that she would obfuscate or spin any information in favor of the surface option & against anything else, so her manifesto holds little weight.