Andy points us to Nick Kristof’s column in the Times Sunday (yeah, yeah, TimesSelect bleccch), which suggests that arguments that dealing with global warming will hurt the economy are so much Chicken Littling:
But all across the country, states and local governments have chipped away at those arguments for delay â actually, pretty much demolished them â by showing that there are myriad small steps we can take that significantly curb carbon emissions and that are easily affordable.
A leader of that effort has been Portland, earnestly green even when it is wintry gray. In 1993, the city adopted a plan to curb greenhouse gases, and it is bearing remarkable fruit: local greenhouse gas emissions are back down to 1990 levels, while nationally they are up 16 percent. And instead of damaging its economy, Portland has boomed.
Because, like, spending less money on energy is good for everyone who’s not an energy company. That would be most of us.
Of course, with a Republican presidential wanna-be as our current figurehead, we can’t even keep our word to stay in the eminently sensible Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to bring down CO2 emissions.
The next few days are going to be an enormous energy drain for a region that really doesn’t have power to spare. Would a Portland-style plan in our region save us the trouble of having to create new nuke and coal capacity, and prevent further greenhouse gases? Uh, you think we should look into it?
Leadership, anyone?
UPDATE (by David): And here’s yet another article with evidence that global warming is a big, imminent problem (this one has to do with the ongoing drought in the Amazon rainforest). Alarmist claptrap? Solid science? You make the call.
conserve power. Portland’s efforts are commendable.
<
p>
But for a city unable to complete a minor roadway improvement project — just look at the Cambridge Street renovation project, it’s a mess, going on 5 years now — I think a comprehensive energy conservation program is not in the cards for Bean Town. Insert your own light-bulb-related Boston joke here.
<
p>
I can see it now … the MDC, the MTA, the MBTA and the city all fighting over who gets credit for replacing the high-pressure sodium street lamps along the Esplanade and Storrow Drive. Then the court case to determine who pays for it.
<
p>
I’d also like to see exactly what Portland’s cost-benefit analysis shows: is it really greenhouse gas reduction at any price, or a financially defensible energy program?
<
p>
Finally, just because the Portland economy is booming — is it? My brother-in-law there can’t find a job — doesn’t mean Portland’s energy program wasn’t a drag on the economy…like a 3% fee on a mutual fund earning 15%. That net of 12% looks good, but in a year with 1% returns, your portfolio loses money. It’s all relative.
<
p>
If Portland actually spent money and recieved a return on their investment, count me in. But show me the numbers. Otherwise, it’s just another liberal feel-good fairy tale.
Charley I am pretty convinced that the key to really combating the pollution issue is leadership on a local level. Let’s be frank, we aren’t going to get our national leaders to work against the interests of the biggest polluters. There is too much money to be had in national elections to convince a member of the House or the Senate to bite the hand that feeds them. On the local level however, the money is on a much smaller scale (there are a lot more people who can match $500 dollar for dollar than there are who can match $2,000). We also have a lot more direct and personal contact with our reps on the local level than we do federally.
<
p>
As for leadership, a recent example is, unfortunately, Gov. Ah-nold who signed a “polluiton pact” with the UK. It is these types of agreements that will chip away at the very large problem of global pollution and make it more manageable.
<
p>
(P.S. – Sorry if it seems like I am trying to pimp my blog, I am not, I just happened to have two fitting links that I thought were applicable, please forgive me)