Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Turns Out, Seattle Isn't So Green: How About Your City?

By Erica Barnett, AlterNet. Posted November 21, 2006.


Seattle's mayor is dubbed an environmental hero but other cities are making real progress toward addressing climate change.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Erica Barnett

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In the summer of 2005, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels convinced hundreds of urban mayors around the country to pledge to enact laws aimed at reducing greenhouse gases to levels mandated by the Kyoto Protocol, which was rejected by President Bush. The gutsy move earned him political points in magazines from Rolling Stone (which dubbed him an environmental "hero") to Vanity Fair (which praised him as a rising green star). But in his own city, Nickels's policies are frequently at odds with his professed green agenda. Meanwhile, other cities across the country are making real changes that will help them meet and even exceed Kyoto targets.

Nickels's much-touted "Climate Action Plan" -- the final product of a so-called Green Ribbon Commission charged with crafting climate solutions for the city -- calls for spending $37 million over two years to reduce Seattle's greenhouse-gas emissions by increasing fuel efficiency, building sidewalks and bike lanes, planting trees, conserving energy, and increasing the use of biofuels.

All are laudable goals. But only eight percent of that $37 million is new from this year's city budget (the rest comes from a ballot initiative that primarily funds road and bridge repairs.) The Climate Action Plan also includes many policies that have already been implemented -- such as maintaining zero emissions at the city's hydropowered utility, City Light -- and assumes large emission reductions from policies such as "strengthen the state residential energy code" and "substantially increase natural gas conservation" whose success is a matter of speculation.

As environmental policy, Nickels's Climate Action Plan ignores Seattle's real environmental problem: too many people driving too many cars too many places. Because much of Seattle's energy comes from clean hydropower, the overwhelming bulk of the city's contribution to global warming comes from cars. So if we're going to cut our emissions (7 million tons in 2000, with 8.2 million tons projected for 2010), it follows we'll have to drastically reduce our reliance on cars.

But the vast majority of Nickels's commitment to funding alternatives to driving focuses on building bike lanes and sidewalks to the exclusion of other strategies to get people out of their cars. Pedestrian and bike facilities are obviously important (Portland, Oregon, a smaller city than Seattle, has six times as many miles of bike lanes) but local government won't get people out of their cars without creating disincentives to drive (tolls, a moratorium on road expansion) and incentives to get around without a car (fast, reliable transit, something Seattle currently lacks). Nickels's plan includes substantial praise for a separate county ballot measure that would pay for $10 million in new bus service a year. But it includes no policy changes at the city level to break Seattle's car addiction.

On that score, Nickels is pushing Seattle backward. Last year, he worked his political will to help kill a 14-mile monorail line, abandoning two remote parts of the city that are ill-served by transit and dooming Seattle to a future in which a single light-rail line and slow, stuck-in-traffic buses are the only available transit options. And despite pledging in his climate plan to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 170,000 tons by "reducing Seattle's dependence on cars," he continues to push for $4 billion-$5 billion tunnel to replace the city's aging Alaskan Way Viaduct on the downtown waterfront-a position that only compounds his failure to stand up for transit. The underground freeway would provide capacity for 140,000 cars a day --the equivalent, coincidentally, of the 170,000 tons of auto-produced carbon Nickels says he wants to eliminate annually. No other city in the nation is building a freeway on its waterfront; in fact, the prevailing trend is to tear freeways down, as Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Portland, Oregon, New York City, San Francisco, and other cities have done.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: climate change, seattle, greenhouse gas emmissions, kyoto

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
excellent
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 21, 2006 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An excellent compendium on what is being done right and what is being done wrong environmentally. Dismantling of freeways is the beginning of the end of gross polluting transportation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Establish a life preserving in-city speed limit of 25 mph
Posted by: SBean on Nov 21, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and imagine the benefits:

• Narrower automobile lanes, shorter crossings for pedestrians, and space for bicycle lanes would become desirable--even necessary--design features due to their traffic calming effects. Ultimately, narrower roadways might be possible, reducing stormwater runoff and the heat island effect, allowing more space for trees, etc.

• Insurance costs would be lowered.

• Buses and bikes would be less disadvantaged in terms of travel time relative to now-slower automobiles.

• Buses could be exempted from lower speed limit to make them a 'preferred' mode of transit (although massive, higher-speed vehicles might be too contrary to the goal.)

• Roundabouts would be more preferred and feasible, which would decrease emissions (greenhouse gases and other) from idling and accelerating from full stops, as well as decrease system costs for maintenance and operation of traffic signals.

• Impact in a collision is a function of mass and speed, so smaller/lighter vehicles could be allowed to go faster while larger/heavier vehicles could be required to go even slower (like trucks on the expressway.)

• Safety is also a function of stopping distance, so vehicles that can stop more quickly at a given velocity could be allowed to go faster than longer-stop-distance vehicles. This would allow for faster speeds if vehicles undergo technological advances to lower their weight or (otherwise) decrease their stopping distance.

• Residents, taxi companies, car-sharing programs, and possibly commuters (especially those who drive alone) would have an incentive to buy smaller, more efficient vehicles--which could be allowed to travel faster or which simply make more economic sense--sooner than they otherwise would.

We're starting the process of examining the prospects for this type of policy in Ann Arbor. Maybe it would make sense for Seattle as well.

Do a Web search for "lower speed limits" to learn why 25 mph is life preserving (and I'm not referring to bugs on your windshield.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as gas and cars are affordable...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 21, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...they will remain the preferred method of transportation. Besides, forcing folks to change behavior has a long history of poor success.

Elevated rail, subways, busses, and (heck, even) trollies have a bright future, especially as putting gas in that '76 Pontiac Hooptie or that '81 Ford Nobbie Wheeler becomes uncomfortably expensive.

As a side note, our government would serve us well to tell us the truth about it's (our) debt (unfunded future Social Security and Medicare liabilities, in particular), so that we might think twice before paying $3.00-$5.00 for gas, rather than buying a bus ticket and saving that gas money for retirement or for medical care.

But that's not going to happen: not from Wa$hington; not from our Congresscritters, nor our Presidential administration. Best advice then? Be fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative in your personal behavior. Being "green" follows quite naturally when you're a spendthrift. :)

Then again, it's a free country, and lots of folks are going to want to spend liberally. Hey, if Uncle Sam can do it, why shouldn't we? Or rather, if *we* can spend liberally, needlessly, as a society, why in the world would we vote for people who don't share that free-wheeling world view?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seattle's dirty secret
Posted by: SBK on Nov 21, 2006 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even Boeing had to escape the Seattle traffic jams that last for miles, their employees couldn't get to work on time! They have been fighting about public transport for 40 years and it's the same argument year after year. Nichols is just continuing the old trend of public pronouncements of glorious sustainability while doing his best to keep growth sprawling and cars stuck in I-5 traffic. Even with busses worse than the developing world, no parking places, disconnected suburbs and a rarely used commuter rail line, they still can’t get mass transit built. Business owners whine and the public just gets paralyzed and angry, voting again for the same initiative, a monorail plan that passed 3 times and has never been built. Seattle, you have been exposed, break your deadlock and grow up! You need the economic development trains could bring anyway!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Location, Location, Location
Posted by: jwg on Nov 21, 2006 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I would agree Seattle could always do more to become the Emerald City you would have to understand the geography to know why the viaduct/tunnel is important. With the bay on one side and Lake Washington on the other there is a narrow corridor for moving traffic. The I5 parking lot is all there is other than city streets to get people to and from work. The current viaduct a two story freeway running down the water front has been compromised by earthquakes and must be replaced. Do you remember what happened when that kind of structure collapsed in SF?

Building a tunnel under the bay and removing the viaduct open up some high priced water front property. So some rich guys get richer so what. I ride a motorcyle but most people are not hardy (some say foolish)enough to brave the rains on two wheels.

Where are the hydrogen filling stations?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» SF SF Posted by: launcher
Shame on Alternet for promoting Glenn Beck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Nov 21, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody find it rather odd that Alternet is advertising for Mr. Rightwinger punk Glenn Beck (excuse me while I puke)?!? The advertisement is above to the left. At first I saw the title “Exposed. The Extremist Agenda” with a picture of mr. right-wing idiot and I thought it was an advertisement for some program showing what a homophobic idiot with an agenda he is. Well, it ends up it is an advertisement for my favorite person’s special on CNN News about what airs in the middle east against the U.S.
No doubt the underlying purpose of his special program will be to fuel more fear of, and anger at, middle easterners, with the goal of justifying further war and turmoil, in other words, the promotion of the agenda of the republican party; hey, isn’t that what Glenn boy is all about?!?
Glenn-boy is so right wing, one would not even know if the program is true or fabricated to further his agenda. So why the hell is Alternet taking his money?!?
Shame on Alternet for advertising for this moron!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» On the contrary... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» I see your point, but... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» And, I absolutely see your point... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» the rightwing and the FakeLeft have a symbiotic relationship Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature
» it's lonely out here Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature
» RE: it's lonely out here Posted by: ABetterFuture
Wow! More penthouses for the rich...
Posted by: ignition on Nov 21, 2006 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...thats what Seattle needs! More skyscrapers downtown for the rich to live in. There's a goal we should all support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We must change how we live and work
Posted by: Bobsays on Nov 21, 2006 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I travel around North America (after being away for a number of years) what gets me is how many more cars there are, how they are just huge, how most farmland has been replaced by monster homes and big box shopping centres, most restaurants are fast food, and you are considered a retard if you are spotted actually walking somewhere.

Most people are fat, rarely do any significant exercise, and live hurried lives of sadness.

From what I can see, the world I lived in over a decade ago, has become one where fewer people cycle, most people live in monster homes, drive over-big cars, and eat junk. I see no evidence that things are getting greener.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the rightwing and the FakeLeft have a symbiotic relationship
Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature on Nov 21, 2006 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they depend on each other to keep the so-called "politically aware" americans stirred up with emotional, unsolvable race and gender and sex wedge issues. Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows.
Limbaugh/beck/Oreily/Savage denigrates Alternet/Air America/etc, and then vice versa.

They could not survive without each other. And if they were not in existence, we Americans would have a progressive tax base and universal healthcare. But we don't, and we never will until the fakeleft sees the light...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A disaster for the Fakeleft Posted by: Bobsays
First Thing
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 21, 2006 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop the massive subsidization of auto and truck traffic. Fuel taxes and license fees do not begin to offset the immense costs associated with the highways and grid of ever widening roads that make it possible.

If you raise sales taxes on cars, fuel taxes, and vehicle property taxes to reflect the true cost of the auto/SUV/light truck culture, you won't have to try very hard to get people used to mass transit. First, you have to have the mass transit in place.

Portland's stats look good next to Seattle because Oregon mandated regional planning decades ago. It has reduced the amount of sprawl, forced urban pathways and other changes that have made a great deal of difference over time. The entire Seattle DMSA is much larger than King County and it will take intervention from Olympia to get the counties to work together in earnest.

Most American cities outside of the Northeast have had most of their growth occur since WW II, when the Interstate and car culture have jointly conspired to make suburban sprawl and urban flight possible. It's way past time to stop acting like we are living in the age of 25¢/gallon gas. We are going to have to swallow hard and make the investment in time, money, taxes and policy to make the transition from a car culture to a more sustainable urban culture.

King County's population, just a part of metro Seattle, has doubled in about 50 years and is growing at a rapid pace. The surrounding counties have transitioned from farmland to suburbs, all based upon the sprawl model. Changing the homes of 1.5 million people from a sprawl based to a mass transit-based, more sustainable model is going to cost money, take time and careful planning. A good start is to change zoning and tax policies to discourage more sprawl and encourage in-fill and increasing density in places already developed.

Most of this could be applied to any number of other American cities. Metro Atlanta now sprawls over 5 counties and is now encroaching on 2 more. Fulton County is but a small part of what most people consider Atlanta.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Future Belongs To Pedestrians, Bicycles, Horse Carts and Mass Transit
Posted by: Douglas on Nov 21, 2006 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world, and especially America, is addicted to petroleum and most Americans currently live a petroleum-addicted way of life. Because of our addiction to oil we have "fouled" much of the planet and have made our own future existence as a species on the planet problematic. The single greatest contributor to the "fouling" of the environment is the automobile. As a society, we have too many cars, they are too big, they guzzle too much gas, they produce far too many dirty and health harming emissions, and they are the single greatest cause of global warming as well as dirty air and dirty water. We need to immediately curtail (and eventually eliminate) use of private automobiles and, as a society, build suitable mass transportation sytems to take the place of the private automobile. As individuals, we need to walk more, take up bicycling and, depending on where we live, take up horseback riding or driving horse drawn carts to get around. Not only will it help save our environment but it will also help us improve our health. We will be in better shape and less obese. Out with the car!! In with walking, bicycling and the horse and buggy!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A donkey cart in 2006? Posted by: LtL
seattle's split personality
Posted by: dhardisty on Nov 21, 2006 10:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is truly bizarre how Seattle has so many green leftists that buy organic, and yet has one of the worst mass transit systems of any major city in the country. Does anyone have a good explanation for why this is? I love Seattle, but the lack of mass transit is truly appalling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: seattle's split personality Posted by: mountainsrock
Use what you can afford
Posted by: gellero on Dec 11, 2006 8:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what if we are addicted to petroleum. Those who want it can afford it. Why shouldn't we have a jet if we can. I don't see the so called 'progressive' democratic politicians renouncing their use of personal jets. They just want the rest of you to believe you need to take the bus But of course, not them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]