Special Series
Word on the Street
In a Series
Who's the Pusher Man, Anyway?
As CAP points out, though, there’s help – not a 12-step program, but just 5 steps! Here’s what they say (and we agree): “The good news is that we can transition to a low-carbon economy with tools that are already available to us.” They outline five key steps to “radically transform our security, economy, and environment”
Your City's Carbon Footprint
There's a big carbon footprint report out today from Brookings. It ranks cities according to their per capita carbon emissions. Sort of, anyway.
Before I pick on it a little, I guess I should mention that Northwest cities do exceptionally well. Out of the 100 cities in the analysis Portland ranks 3rd, Boise is 5th, and Seattle 6th. There's very little difference between them.
That's wonderful and all, but the analysis only covers about 50 percent of emissions. It excludes, for instance, commercial and industrial energy, maritime and aviation emissions, and some other signficant pieces of the pie.
The scope of the research is understandably limited to available and comparable data, which makes the rankings possible. Specifically, that means the numbers for residential energy and transportation. And that's a winning hand for Northwest cities simply because the region's electricy grid is based heavily on hydroelectricity (and hydro doesn't emit greenhouse gases). Now, there's nothing wrong with taking credit -- our electricity system is pretty darn clean -- but in an analysis of such narrow scope, it tends to make us look better than we really are.
What's surprising to me is how well the Northwest cities also do in terms of transportation emissions. Portland ranks 10th, Boise 11th, and Seattle 27th. Frankly, I'm surprised both by the rankings and the differences between them; surprised enough that I'm a little skeptical. But what do I know?
Maybe the most important lesson from the report is a semi-geeky one.
Where's My Decoder Ring?
Today, the Seattle Times has something of a landmark op-ed on the eternal viaduct debate. It's jointly signed by Governor Gregoire, King County Executive Sims, and Seattle Mayor Nickels.
It seems to say some good things:
In the year 2008 — not 1950 — we need a viaduct solution that not only moves traffic but addresses these larger issues so our children and grandchildren don't have to wrestle with the legacy of shortsightedness.
By pulling together transportation, climate pollution and environmental health, many voices and interests are shaping a path to success. A joint recommendation for the future of the central portion of the viaduct will be presented at the end of this year.
That sounds right to me. The viaduct clearly has implications beyond just moving cars. But as is often the way with joint statements, the article seems so hashed and rehashed that it's hard to make any sense of some parts.
Consider:
Today, we are looking at the existing transportation system as an integrated whole and determining how to make better use of what we have. We are looking at improvements to I-5, downtown streets, transit service and the existing Highway 99 corridor. We're also contemplating policy changes. We believe a combination of solutions will bring us more bang for the buck.
The 10 options referenced in a recent Seattle Times article ["Viaduct alternatives have expanded to 10," Local News, April 30] are just one dimension of the challenge. We have multiple options for what could replace the viaduct on the central waterfront. However, equally important are other considerations that will influence the future of this vital waterfront travel corridor.
Uh... what?
What are the "other considerations"? What are these "policy changes" they're contemplating? And what does "bang for the buck" even mean in this context?
Somebody help: I'm not being facetious, I'm just confused. (And I'm not the only one, apparently.) Is this statement supposed to be telegraphing something?
If anybody finds my secret op-ed decoder ring, please return it.
