There was a lot of love for Portland’s green goals this afternoon at city council. Portland is aiming to be the most sustainable city in America, a verdant town littered with eco-districts. And crucial to that goal is the Climate Action Plan city council unanimously approved today. The plan pushes Portland to cut its total greenhouse gas emissions a whopping 80 percent between 1990 and 2050.
Mayor Adams, sporting a chic green-striped tie, lauded the Climate Action Plan (pdf) to standing-room only council chambers. “Portland is recognized as one of the most sustainable cities in America,” said Adams. “That is very high praise on an incredibly low standard… I’m afraid, as one of your leaders, that we will sit on our laurels.” Adams’ Bureau of Planning and Sustainability drafted the plan in conjunction with Multnomah County. Portland’s carbon emissions have decreased 19 since 1990 percent while the rest of the country has increased emissions 20 percent (though since Portland’s population has jumped in the past 20 years, our overall carbon emissions have only dropped one percent).
- Where we’ll cut our greenhouse gasses – click to enlarge!
Some small criticisms of the plan emerged during the mostly congratulatory testimony. “Only a federal carbon cap will leverage the kinds of technologies that will enable the city and county to meet its goals,” noted Angus Duncan, chair of the Oregon Global Warming Commission. To get on track to end global warming, says Duncan, the country needs to not just decrease its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent, but by an order of magnitude (about 1000 percent). On a less dire note, Portlander Randy White also harshly criticized the high local price of worms for compost.
Transportation activist and Planning Commissioner Chris Smith drew a contrast between the $4.2 billion Columbia River Crossing freeway and the Bicycle Master Plan unveiled last night. “We have projects with dollar signs attached but no funding. Let’s move the funding from projects that don’t help us meet our goals to projects that do,” said Smith.
“The Gordian knot has been how are we going to pay for this,” acknowledged Adams at the beginning of the meeting. “Right now, Americans can go out and get a loan for a motorcycle or a power boat but you’ll find very little opportunity to get the financing for a green energy retrofit for your home.” Adams pointed to the development of Portland Clean Energy Works, a pilot program that will allow homeowners to pay for energy-saving remodeling on an installment plan rather than up front.
One speaker mentioned the need to watchdog the process, noting that although the council is supposed to check in on the plan in 2012, it’s likely that no one who wrote the plan will be around in 2050 to make sure the city follows through. Commissioner Randy Leonard took offense. “I will be 98 and I will be sitting right here,” he joked.
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!
The plan says each Portlander should have an annual carbon footprint of 1,7 tons in 2050, down from 11.9 today (see page 28). That’s about enough for two yearly jet flights back and forth to New York City. So, all you young creatives, stay put, don’t travel or emigrate to some thriving west coast metropolis filled with streetcars, naked bike rides and DYI porno festivals. If you do, you’ll be messing up the carbon balance. Do your part for global warming and start a microbrewery or paint some bike lanes back in New Jersey, or Minneapolis or wherever it is that you came from. You’ll be doing yourself, your hometown, and your planet a favor, and you’ll make Blabby and me happy too by giving us back our hometown.
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.