Forum Home | What's Going On | In The News
by escaping slave
on 7/6/2008 @ 6:05pm
|Tacoma City Council backs â€˜greenâ€™ goals
Tacoma supports drastic carbon emissions cuts despite steep growth
A couple highlights I find interesting:
If the plan is successful, Tacoma would produce 80 percent fewer carbon emissions in 2050 than it did in 1990 â€“ despite projections for a population almost twice as large as today.
They want an actual 80 percent drop in carbon emissions, despite the larger population, said Alisa Oâ€™Hanlon the city staff representative on the task force.
The goal is reasonable, Oâ€™Hanlon said, in part because concentrating population will mean fewer residents are commuting long distances to work. Also, new technology â€œfar beyond what we can imagineâ€ will be developed in the coming decades, she said.
The City's concern with emissions seems to be only about the citizens creating it. What about all the City of Tacoma vehicles that are on the roads, not to mention school buses and other tax-paid for transportation, that isn't "green"? Will that be getting fixed before they expect citizens to change their personal property (or how they use it) to fit the city's wishes? As well, will all the council members and people who represent Tacoma go "green" before they expect the citizens to? Whatever happened to leading by setting the example instead of just telling the subjects what to do?
On commuting long distances to work in the future, do these planners have ESP? Since when do these city employees/planners have such great insight that they know where people will be working in 20 years and how far they'll live from their jobs?
And new technology will be developed in the coming decades far beyond what we can imagine. So they don't even know what will help us, since it hasn't even been thought of or developed yet, but they'll depend on it. That sounds like a rock-solid plan.
Do any of these "planners" actually live in Tacoma, or plan on living here in the future? Or do they just get jobs here, decide what's best for a city they're not from and have never lived in before, and then move on to the next city they get hired in?
I look forward to the city council putting the "green" plan out to the people for a vote, just like the plan to get rid of 50% of crime in Tacoma. Oh, wait, we don't get a say in that do we? It's just the city employees who take care of that stuff, right? So glad someone knows what's best for me, because I obviously don't.
by fredo on 7/6/2008 @ 6:20pm
|ES- I had pretty much the same reaction to this news story that you did. As laudable as the goals are, an awful lot seems to depend on technologies not yet invented.
If Tacoma wanted to go green they could start today by getting rid of school busses, eliminating police cars "patrolling" aimlessly about, not sending fire engines and ambulences to every heart attack, & declaring a 5 year moritorium on all vehicle puchases. Some streets in Tacoma which are too wide should be narrowed and space given back to the abutting property owners. How about a 5% break on property taxes for every homeowner with only 1 vehicle, 10% with no vehicle. Just some random thought here, please excuse the rambling narrative.