I plan to use this site to post news, commentary, and analysis of current environment and development issues. Of course, I reserve the right to rant about politics now and then.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Climate Federalism
is this what the founding fathers had in mind? Hopefully this kind of action will force the hand of the feds to act internationally on our behalf.
I found this article very encouraging, showing that steps to curb climate change are not only practicle and possible in the U.S., but also being implemented by the mayors of over 400 cities. The fact that the goverment has stepped in to try to boost climate change is appealing because it shows that government is acceping, thus no longer ignoring, this potentially large problem. At the same time, government is often inefficient, and it would be more cost-effective if private firms had the incentive to advance climate change policies on their own. In other words, I believe providing this incentive for private firms to act would be a better role for government. At the same time, it looks like Seattle is moving in the right direction, but I wonder how much these changes truly cost, in both financial and nonfinancial terms?
As 400 cities try to abide by the Kyoto protocal, perhaps they will pave the way for many more and eventually the entire nation. By continuing to discover the actions that work and those that do not, these cities can ease the decision of the federal government as to which policy to promote. Hopefully this will make the issue a little less complicated to appraoch if at least we know what does not work.
This article shows that while Congress may refuse to do anything about climate change, others will. If mayors of big cities like Seattle can reduce emissions to Kyoto levels then so can the other big cities in the country. It is encouraging that people are taking the initiative to clean up the country even though the national government refuses.
Interesting article. It really does show how climate goals on the city level can come to affect those on the state/national level. I hope more cities continue to get involved..it is a step in the right direction while waiting for national climate policy but is also likely a catalyst in achieving the national policy in the first place. In Virginia, the cities of Alexandria, Blacksburg, Charlottesville, Richmond, Virginia Beach and Williamsburg are all involved. VA Beach neighbors Newport News and Norfolk...all 3 of which house a LOT of Virginia industry...maybe having VA Beach commit to this agreement will encourage Norfolk and Newport News to join which would seem to have a noticeable impact on VA emissions. If bigger cities sign on, the possibility for a domino effect on other cities might be huge...
I wonder if Houston, typically America's dirtiest city, is on this list. It seems like it would be a place that could make drastic improvements without much start-up costs. Perhaps the federal government could attempt this city clean-up on a smaller urban city through subsidies, in order to find effective and efficient manners to reduce CO2, NH4, etc. Then move on to much larger cities that have effects on more than just the urban area. Nat
6 comments:
I found this article very encouraging, showing that steps to curb climate change are not only practicle and possible in the U.S., but also being implemented by the mayors of over 400 cities. The fact that the goverment has stepped in to try to boost climate change is appealing because it shows that government is acceping, thus no longer ignoring, this potentially large problem. At the same time, government is often inefficient, and it would be more cost-effective if private firms had the incentive to advance climate change policies on their own. In other words, I believe providing this incentive for private firms to act would be a better role for government. At the same time, it looks like Seattle is moving in the right direction, but I wonder how much these changes truly cost, in both financial and nonfinancial terms?
-Andrew Sims
As 400 cities try to abide by the Kyoto protocal, perhaps they will pave the way for many more and eventually the entire nation. By continuing to discover the actions that work and those that do not, these cities can ease the decision of the federal government as to which policy to promote. Hopefully this will make the issue a little less complicated to appraoch if at least we know what does not work.
This article shows that while Congress may refuse to do anything about climate change, others will. If mayors of big cities like Seattle can reduce emissions to Kyoto levels then so can the other big cities in the country. It is encouraging that people are taking the initiative to clean up the country even though the national government refuses.
Interesting article. It really does show how climate goals on the city level can come to affect those on the state/national level. I hope more cities continue to get involved..it is a step in the right direction while waiting for national climate policy but is also likely a catalyst in achieving the national policy in the first place. In Virginia, the cities of Alexandria, Blacksburg, Charlottesville, Richmond, Virginia Beach and Williamsburg are all involved. VA Beach neighbors Newport News and Norfolk...all 3 of which house a LOT of Virginia industry...maybe having VA Beach commit to this agreement will encourage Norfolk and Newport News to join which would seem to have a noticeable impact on VA emissions. If bigger cities sign on, the possibility for a domino effect on other cities might be huge...
I wonder if Houston, typically America's dirtiest city, is on this list. It seems like it would be a place that could make drastic improvements without much start-up costs. Perhaps the federal government could attempt this city clean-up on a smaller urban city through subsidies, in order to find effective and efficient manners to reduce CO2, NH4, etc. Then move on to much larger cities that have effects on more than just the urban area.
Nat
Post a Comment