American cities consider action on climate change

More than 100 US mayors are attending a summit in the western city of Seattle to share and develop policies aimed at tackling climate change.

The meeting's host is Seattle mayor Greg Nickels.

The report emphasises the non-partisan nature of the meeting.

In a linked article, Nickels comments that

Seattle just went to the top of my "American cities" list.

I just watched the Documentary/movie on the electric car and how it was "killed", unless these ideas make money or bring in businees most won't happen.

Anyway unless someone DOES something about it talking will do nothing, that is one of my beefs with the Democratic party is how they talk about what they should be doing.

Looking back at it, I mistitled the thread. The title should have been
"American cities are acting on climate change, despite the government", or something of the sort.

So yes, they are doing something about it.

Illustrative quotes from the two articles:

(IMHO, that's a really good sign; intelligent experimentation.)

It's a good start, but you know when you have a hole in your boat and have to scoop out water faster than it comes in, it's like that.

Indeed. Complain to the captain.

Kudos for a much more constructive reply than I could manage at the time...

I know I'm a little dour at times but our captain, Bushy boy really has other things on his mind than environmental issues.
Anyway I'm sure that the meeting will be productive overall, Chicago is a great example of how "green" a city can become even with it's industrial background, Hell even Detroit is re-developing and greening up the downtown riverfront area.

That would be why he's put time and effort into stuffing the EPA with White House censors and industrial mouthpieces, then?

If we ignore the Federal Government, maybe they'll go away.

He's a straight shootin' Texas boy.
His money is big oil and he (no racism intended) also has the Mexican support who tend to be conservative as well.

In another side topic, Rush Limbaugh was talking about how even if we are to have hybrids, electric,hydrogen or even solar powered cars that the big time executives,rich,upper class would still have there Hummers and power boats Etc... and I thought how is this different than driving a 10 year old car next to a 2008 Benz?
So if we go towards something better for the environment, less costly (in the long run) that we will do without the (qoute) "creature comforts" that the executives, upper class and wealthy will have.

Also according to the movie "Who killed the electric car" the thinking is being smart about energy use, using alternatives would lead America to live like Europeans what with there small cars, cold apartments, high fuel costs.

there was a radio interview with the Austin mayor the other day about his visit to this. It sounded pretty interesting. There was a lot of the usual key note speaker(Bill Clinton and Gore)/polite applause/rubber chicken dinner type bullshit that normally goes along with these conventions. There were also some fairly animated and productive meeting sessions with mayors sharing various ideas. It sounded like transportation was a top topic; smart car rental stations, improved mass transit, switching government vehicles to hybrids and ethanol...that sort of thing. also water and power useage and access to green energy producers.

I suspend my cynicism for a bit and wonder how things might improve, especially in larger urban areas, if steps are taken by local government leadership without waiting for it to roll downhill from the federal politicians who have to find their way out of whomever's pocket they happen to be in.

You say that as if it's excusable. What he's done is
a) actively dishonest ("straight shootin'", my arse);
b) stupid - he seems to think that ignoring bad news will make it go away;
c) bad for America and Americans.

I'm glad to see Mr Limbaugh is beginning to catch on. The rich will no doubt continue to use energy at an astonishing rate. That's what being rich means; you can do stuff nobody else can afford. What has that to do with what's good for the population in general? Nothing.

Yes; which means that the Feds have to look as if they are taking it seriously; which means actually taking some real action, at the Federal level.

I agree entirely, and I apologise for my poor quoting. Local results are worthwhile in their own right, absolutely.
However, getting the Chinese to pay attention will require Washington to do something concrete, as well.

Local research is needed to predict the effect of greenhouse gases..

Individual responsibility translates well to local responsibility, but less well as the collective entity gets larger.

I agree with the individual responsibility part. My biggest complaint is that the local government seems to find ways to repeatedly make money off individuals doing things to reduce emissions.

Cuyahoga county in Ohio has mandatory emissions testing, which i don't mind, i keep my truck in prime running condition, my emissions aren't null, but they're very satisfactory for a 14 year old truck, i've actually rolled up, passed my test, while cars 13 years newer than mine fail.

I don't mind the testing, i think it should be mandatory in all counties. What i mind is the way the testing is performed. It's a government agency and it's just run horribly bad. Organization and record keeping are just horrible. The last time i went i had to argue that my truck existed so that i could get the testing completed in order to renew my plates.

In the summertime, my truck gets parked for the most part, and i ride my motorcycle that gets close to 40 Mpg and puts out a helluva lot less emissions than my truck. It's the closest thing to green that i can afford.

Ohio tried to pass a law that said motorcycles should be tested for emissions, and the charge for the test would be the same as the test for vehicles. That's $20 bucks every year for my truck, and $20 bucks for my bike, for a test that is normally poorly executed.

I wouldn't mind having my motorcycle tested, but here comes my complaint. I do everything i can to keep my truck and my motorcycle in top running condition, and in the meantime i watch City Trucks, City equipment, City transportation, Power trucks and public transportation belch out black smoke, leak oil, have rags as gas caps and just be poorly maintained. They're exempt because they are city vehicles.

The individuals can make a difference, but the local government needs to step up and start making the same changes that the individuals are, or it's just going to plateau out.

Like i said, i don't mind putting forth the effort, but it would be really nice to see my local government step up to the plate and do what Seattle's is trying to do.

I certainly wasn't making excuses for Bush just saying to complain is pointless, action,education changing habits is better.

Rush was saying in a kind of "why bother" type tone and seeming to try to convince his listeners (which already love eating his drivel) that it's a futile effort to do this so just carry on, maintain the status quo.

I take your point, but I do think complaining is a necessary first part of a useful cycle. Stoic silence only lets the Limbaughs ignore the problem altogether. Him putting effort into decrying the problem is at least a recognition that people are concerned by it. (That attitude of his may yet come back to haunt him; isn't it funny that he isn't worried that lots of poor gun owners will decide to act against the ruling class?)

Rich people needn't worry that the poor will kill them en masse. They can easily hire other poor people to defend them.

That does not always work out that way tho.

But, but but... what's the point of being rich then???

</irony>

True enough. Ideology "wins" over practicality most times. See Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

Back to the topic though, it sounds great to use waste to generate energy rather that vice versa. The promoters will need something compelling to counter that Hindenburg argument, though. It doesn't have to make sense if it appeals viscerally. See above.