Comment 1973

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted November 10, 2006 at 03:48:11

When you say "Steve Leach, suggested that city council shouldn't be directly addressing these issues at all, although he does offer some promising ideas, including district heating and mass transit development." I think it's a bit misleading.

I didn't interpret his response at all like that. Rather, I get the impression that he understands that we can't tackle climate change as it's own single problem. It is too huge. Let the UN focus on the global view, and let us locally do everything we can that benefits us AND the planet. If we make the right choices locally, however small, we will be doing out part to invoke change on a global level.

I think pulling this quote would have been a better representation of his thoughts: "City Council should be trying to reduce energy costs for itself and for its citizens wherever possible, as a matter of course. "

In other words, we can't spend an entire mayoral term having meetings about the "Big picture" of climate change. Screw the big picture and let's find local reasons to (for example) get a light rail line in. Lets focus on how it will help us at a local level right now. The benefits to climate change will follow naturally.

I think it's a much smarter way of going about it than setting up a steering committee to discuss the details of an anti idling law. We need fewer cars NOW, not less idling 2 years from now.

I vote down for offensiveness and up for humour. I cast no votes based on my level of agreement.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds