Sigh

The energy incentives are great - and available at state and fed levels.
But I will once again bang my head against the brick by stating the climate can not be legislated. Passing laws to control nature is now deemed sane to make people feel better about themselves.
On the other hand - there'll be no businesses or commerce in Portland by 2050 anyway, so I guess they may hit their target.

I pledge to cut nuclear waste, organic or otherwise, in this and all other galaxies by 398 percent by 6:30 tonight. That's as likely to occur as any plan the city lays out re: greenhouse gas.

Can't city hall address a few problems they actually have a chance of fixing?

Too little too late. F for effort.

D - you might want to rephrase that comment, you sound like you're saying climate change is natural, and I'm prepared to give you enough credit to think you're not that dumb...

Legislation can help. But not by itself, it needs other measures (by both individuals and corporations) as well. I don't think the council (or anyone else) are naive enough to believe that they can achieve the aim by themselves. Then again, there are some pretty big egos around there...

Oh, and since Graham's being uncharacteristically slow on the anal correction department - you can't reduce something by 1000%. Unless you really mean we're planning to extract nine times more emissions from the atmosphere than we currently emit...

@Stu: Good catch. An order of magnitude would be a 90% reduction in green house gases; not really that much different from the 80% proposed.

Climate change is natural.
The continent used to be covered in glaciers before there were humans. Now we have the Great Lakes.
Tell me how that happened.
Humans are natural. We are part of nature.

OK, apparently I gave you too much credit...

Yes, natural climate change has happened in the past. No, that does not imply that what's happening now is natural. Pretty simple logical fallacy, even a five year old can see through that one.

My point is we have always lived in a dynamic planet.
It's easier to adapt to change (which some of these ideas address, of course) than to try and stop the inevitable.

yeah, we might even evolve to having gills like in Waterworld!

80% isn't nearly enough anyways. 90% is the minimum to avoid really serious consequences, but we need to go over 100% (by yes, removing the stuff we've already emitted,) to actually solve the problem.

It makes me sad when people pass laws like this. It makes it look like they are working on the problem when:
1) They aren't really.
2) Even if they were, what they plan to do is too little too late.

hey guys,

I want to clarify that the Climate Action Plan isn't a law—it's just like what it sounds: a plan. Though it lays out guidelines and goals, there's no punitive measures or legally binding language that forces the city to enforce climate goals on specific businesses, citizens or development projects. The council is bound to interpret the plan's language as they see fit and, I'm sure, make exceptions. Depending on your perspective, that's either a good thing about the plan or a big shortcoming.

@smirk: So this was like the Council's big masturbatory single-payer healthcare reform thing from last week? Godamn, the Council needs to pass some laws, not make suggestions. Fuck, the UN does more actual work than the Council.

I think they should make it a law. Set binding targets for each year for the city, divide that by the population and then punish people up that aren't in compliance. Use too much electricity? You'll have to pay a fine that would be enough to pay for PV panels you need. Drive too many miles? Your car gets a boot until your average miles per day is back in compliance. Fly too many miles? Your name is added to the terrorist watch list and you can no longer board a plane. (And yes, I think the terrorist watch list is the appropriate place for your name: You are terrorizing the people of Bangladesh.)

Right now this plan is just "like some 6 year olds arguing what color Porsche they want." (not the exact quote) -Joe Cortwright

The "natural-change" argument comes up every time, in every venue (even on KBOO). Our planet has experienced climate change previously, but over periods of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The current warming, at the current trend, would result in much of the current farmland on Earth being unfarm-able in another generation or two. That's not enough time to evolve, obviously.

I'm not talking over your heads, am I? I realize this isn't Scientific American I'm posting to. Still, pretty basic concept.