Kyoto Protocal: 139 Mayors On Board

[Back]

Seattle leads U.S. cities joining Kyoto Protocol (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/15/news/global.php)

132 mayors of cities in the US are making commitments to adhere to the Kyoto Protocal that went into effect last February despite the Federal government’s non-compliance.

This restores some amount of my trust in elected officials.

[edited title update]

[Edited on 5-18-2005 by Backlash]

[Parker]

Definitely. Hizzah's for the mayors, because they've at least got the gonads to stand up for what they believe, and not be typical politicians, licking the boots of the ones above them.

[Gan]

I'm curious if this is in lieu of federal dollars being withheld to state/city governments if they do not enact restrictions that emulate the Kyoto regulations.

I'll be watching to see if this movement is motivated by state/cities or if its motivated by federal funds and the threat of them being withheld if they dont follow suit.

The attached story doesnt mention any federal funding being withheld and it appears that everyone is still looking for a solution that is both environmentally and economically sound. Kudos to the cities and I hope that my city entertains involvement as well. Regardless of the argument on green house gasses and its effect on the hole in the ozone... there clearly is a benefit from reducing toxic and CO2 emissions for those who live in that area.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Backlash
This restores some amount of my trust in elected officials. Same. Definitely says something about the quality of leadership of an elected official to take the iniative and it says something about the support of their constituents. Whatever the motivation, hopefully it's contagious.

We will see how well it goes over when factories move to different cities because it will be cheaper to operate.

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave
We will see how well it goes over when factories move to different cities because it will be cheaper to operate.

This restores my belief in the inherent evils of capitalism.

I’m sure the bean-counters will be rabidly reviewing the projected costs of moving an entire factory vs. cutting emissions for profits, environment [life] be damned.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
We will see how well it goes over when factories move to different cities because it will be cheaper to operate.

Dave, there isn't a thing that I know of that we produce here in the US that China either already produces, or will be producing for less.

The only solace I take in that is that they are literally destroying their environment at a pace that makes the US seem like it some pristine garden of eden.

The cleanup costs for China will be staggering even to that economic juggernaut.

We only have this one planet so far to live on, it's in our own best interest to keep it in the best condition for us.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Dave
We will see how well it goes over when factories move to different cities because it will be cheaper to operate.

This restores my belief in the inherent evils of capitalism.

I’m sure the bean-counters will be rabidly reviewing the projected costs of moving an entire factory vs. cutting emissions for profits, environment [life] be damned.


As long as we the consumer will be price-seekers and gravitate where the cost is cheaper will we dictate how businesses (all types of) operate as well as where. If we really want to make a difference then we consumers should only consume from businesses who partake in environmental friendly practices regardless of cost. This is contrary to regular market behavior though.

The same example could be said for enforcing anti-drug operations. We can arrest the sellers all day long, but if there will always be buyers then there will always be sellers. Ergo, if there will always be buyers of cheaper goods and services then industry will gravitate that direction to sell it.

We could always go to government sponsored everything (markets, healthcare, industry) but that example fell on its face with the fall of the Berlin wall I believe. Socialism focuses on a market economy where consumers have a choice of substitute goods too, so the answer isnt there. Not saying that capitalism is the answer, but I'll be damned if I can think of what would fit the bill.

[Parker]

I wonder how much the taxes had to be jacked up to afford the renovations these mayors brought down?

[Gan]

Actually, except for the cost of monitoring I dont think the direct expense to the city to be all that high. Perhaps some office space, additional manpower for inspections, monitoring, and reporting. Regulation would also impose upon the courts if violators were found and failed to correct any variances to the new codes.

Money would also be received by the city for offending industries/businesses that were fined but that in turn would not be passed directly back to the citizens but would trickle through in the form of additional services (road construction, city projects, etc.) as well as help fund the offices used for monitoring and enforcing the new codes.

The burden of cost will be first on the industries/businesses affected by the new lower emission requirements. Then you could realistically see that additional cost being passed onto the next entity in the chain be it either a distributor, wholesaler, or consumer. In the end it will make the price of goods and services higher which hits everyone, especially those on the lower end of the income/tax bracket who do not have large amounts of discretionary income to absorb the impact of the higher prices.

Lastly, if the cost of doing business is higher then you could also see industry and businesses withdrawing from that particular market and relocate where the cost of business is cheaper as directed by share holders or executive leadership. This will impact employment and jobs of course. Additionally it will impact the tax base that helps support the city infrastructure. Eventually the people will go where the business goes in order to maintain employment, especially if a likely substitute can not be offered within a reasonable distance from the original location.

It will be interesting to see a) what the city does with the income derived from fines of offending entities and b) if the cost of living increases can be directly correlated with the implementation of said reglulations and c) if a downward shift in city population, employement, and industry location can also be correlated.

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Ganalon]

[Parker]

Well, I don't feel like going into it, but the article DID say that the cruiseships had to be retrofitted.

[Gan]

And guess who will pay for it. Definately not the city. I bet the ticket cost per cruise leaving that port of call just went up.

I'm not arguing with you Parker, just elaborating more on who will wind up footing the bill in the long run. I'm betting right now there are several of my economics professors that would be tickled pink that I'm having flashbacks of their classes regarding this topic. I can think of two (Environmental Economics and Industrial Organizational Economics) that encouraged many long papers and debates over this very concept. For some strange reason I miss those days... a little.

[Parker]

No, I hear, I'm just really tired, and not capable of forming long, coherent sentences.

Or that port jsut lost its cruise ship and 1000 jobs.

[Gan]

Thats definately an option; however since the article they did a retrofit already I'm guessing they're going to stay and just pass the cost through to the consumer.

[longshot]

After all the industry is gone from the city, maybe you can grow food in empty offices and tear up the carpeting to knit eachother blankets and hackeysacks?

Even Mr. Evironmental himself, Al Gore, stalled going to the conference because he knew what a complete failure the idea was. He showed up on the final day, spoke for twenty minutes, and ran out of there like a frat kid running to the bathroom after a Taco Bell eating contest.

Backlash, I commend your idealism, but not wanting to hug some stank hippie and call him brother does not make me an evil person.

[Gan]

:lol2:

Next time I'm in my front yard I'm going to give my silver leaf maple tree a hug in honor of Backlash.

[Back]

Bash me all you want, but its a bit absurd to bash something just because I posted it.

132 mayors, democrat and republican alike, from liberal to conservative cities, are setting a higher standard to protect their environments despite all the arguments.

[xtc]

Embracing the Kyoto protocol will in the long run be good for business. It will force companies to become innnovative, develop cleaner technologies. It also will create a wealth of jobs in companies that will help companies and nations reach the targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol. Already in Maine companies are profitting by offering services to help UK and European companies become compliant with Kyoto.

Here are a few articles on why Kyoto is good for business. The first is written by a friend of mine who is the head of the Green Party in Canada. I was quite suprised when he ran for the position as he is a business consultant with conservative views.

http://main.greenparty.ca/page56.html

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/business/stories/050401climate.shtml

[DeV]

Originally posted by Backlash
Bash me all you want, but its a bit absurd to bash something just because I posted it. Exactly.
Al Gore might have gone running but what does it say to you about the folks who didn't. Actually, who cares. Fools, possibly. The precedent was set with the Iraq War. Sometimes ideas we deem to be complete failures are just the motivation the people need.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
We will see how well it goes over when factories move to different cities because it will be cheaper to operate.

And just how much do you know about the manufacturing business? I'm guessing close to nothing ... if that.

Unfortunately for the general population, they equate manufacturing to smoke stacks and water contamination. The reality is simply the opposite. The manufacturing industry is largely a consumer of utilities. My plant alone pays over 500 grand in any given month just for electricity. In this area that's on the lower median for standard industrial consumption.

The protocol doesn't call for reduction in use, it calls for reduction in pollutants.

In that noggin of yours, what can any manufacturing company do to reduce the amount of pollutant causing power it uses?

Answer ... alternatives.

Boilers and air compressors are common place in over half of our factories. Air compressors run on electricity, boilers run on natural gas and petroleum fuels. Once the air or steam has done its job, it's waste. The steam is shunted into return condensers and the air, well it's just done.

It only behooves any manufacturing plant to reduce waste. Reducing waste reduces costs. It's just a matter of how far any plant will go and how it can justify.

17 plants in this area alone will be watching my little project in the next rear to gauge if the cost of reduction is profitable enough to utilize.

We will be installing solar heaters on the completely unutilized space called the roof to heat the water collected in the condensers prior to the feeds leading into the boilers. This will reduce the amount of natural gas it takes to heat the water to gas. We will install, in the next two months, three steam turbines on our three main condenser lines that will feed into the solar heaters. 400psi per line generates a good deal of electricity.

We will be replacing the waste gates on the air mains with smaller turbines. Each time the air pressure in the lines exceeds 800 psi, the waste gates open to release air pressure. This drops the psi by 250, the result is that the compressors kick in again to return the pressure. The wasted pressure is just dollars thrown away. With the turbines, it's a reduction in the dollars we toss away.

Any factory has wasted space, wasted resources, and wasteful processes. Recognizing these problems and working to utilize them in a productive and profitable way will only strengthen the value of that factory to it's corporate piers.

Utilizing the practices I listed will reduce our gas bill by roughly 30% and cut our electricity bill by just as much. Granted our projections are pretty conservative, we could see more.


Originally posted by Parker
I wonder how much the taxes had to be jacked up to afford the renovations these mayors brought down?

My guess ... zilch. In fact, depending on the way you want to look at it, it's an added benefit to the city that has a dependence on wind turbines. Increased usage (at a pretty low cost in comparison to those that rely on fossil fuels) equates to a need for more turbines. Constructing the wind towers, operating, and servicing ... more jobs.


Originally posted by Dave
Or that port jsut lost its cruise ship and 1000 jobs.

As Gan said, the ships are or have retrofit. Do you know what's involved in a retrofit to run off of a municipal power source instead of a diesel power source? Not very much at all. It's a matter of a transformer and a relay. Not much different that hooking up a fridge in an RV, just on a larger scale.

Despite the doomsday mentality, this protocol isn't going to cause any industry to uproot unless it was already in the works.

This is nothing more than reduction of waste. Turn off the engines unless it is crucial to run. Turn off the signs at night and get a security system. Install flow restrictive curtains where a constant steady temp needs to be maintained.

The costs, in the long run, are negligible.

[Gan]

Another benefit this will encourage is the retraining of old outdated industry into newer technologic industry. That means people learning new skills, plants hiring more or re-training their existing labor force. And the labor force benefitting from learning new skills some of which might even be transferrable to other markets.

I'm all in favor of tighter controls on emissions, even if it means I have to pay more for the goods and services I consume. What I dont buy into is the gloom and doom mantra of we're all going to hell in a handbasket because of the hole in the ozone... so everybody sell your car, hug a tree, and such. On that debate there is more to it than just the people factor. MOre people need to be on the bandwagon to create and implement new technology that will still move mankind forward without sacrificing our environment more than we already have. There has to be a balance that everyone can live with even those on the far left and far right.

Reminds me of playing that PC game Orion where you developed planets and determined the rate of advancement at a tradeoff of polluting the environment as well as where you focus the technology and resources on: (environment, defense, etc.).

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Ganalon
What I dont buy into is the gloom and doom mantra of we're all going to hell in a handbasket because of the hole in the ozone... so everybody sell your car, hug a tree, and such.

The flip side to that is also true. Tighter environmental standards are going to send our jobs over seas.

Environmental restrictions are pretty low on the list of concerns for any industry. Profit being the chief concern. No company is going to pull anchor and move from a profitable area of operations because they are told their shipping and receiving departments can't leave tractors running in idle. No cruise line is going to find a different port over a retrofit that costs less than a month’s fuel.

The flipside argument is just brain dead. Be it taxes, be it shut downs, be it outsourcing.

[Drew]

I'd be interested in seeing exactly what cities are doing this. You know, I just don't imagine that Pittsburgh, PA and Flint, MI are the ones doing it. So way to go cozy town by the ocean in California, good job adopting a resolution that has no economic or enviromental impact on your town.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Drew
I'd be interested in seeing exactly what cities are doing this. You know, I just don't imagine that Pittsburgh, PA and Flint, MI are the ones doing it. So way to go cozy town by the ocean in California, good job adopting a resolution that has no economic or enviromental impact on your town. New York City and Los Angeles just to name a few, but for the most part I'm guessing the bulk are coastal cities.

[Drew]

Neither of those cities really are manufacturing cities anyway. I'm sure there are some facilities, but they aren't exactly industrial. Personally, unlike Backlash I don't find it refreshing for these mayors to follow a treaty that has little to no effect on their city. Call me jaded if you want but that just seems like politics to me.

[DeV]

It's all politics. I'm sure the Mayors have their personal as well as political reasons for stepping up to the initative.

Los Angeles manufactures enough pollution to run neck and neck with some of the major manufacturing cities as it is.

Call me optimistic but it's a positive start.

[Back]

Up to 137 now.

List of participants (http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/quotes.htm#mayors).

[Drew]

Since I basically live here "John C. Rayson Pompano Beach FL" I can assure you that no pollution has been saved because John C. Rayson signed up. But hey, now we know for sure that if a group of 80 year old retirees ever decide to start up a oil refinery in our beach town they will do it with respect for the enviroment.

[Drew]

As best I can tell there are only six "rust belt" towns on that list.

[DeV]

Monkey see monkey do. The list will grow.

[Warriorbird]

That somehow invalidates the ones that do make a difference? I'm not an environmental radical like some folks, but just because your city isn't Gary Indiana or Insitute/Nitro West Virginia doesn't mean that all the other cities aren't.

Politics matters, too. We'd have better international standing if we'd bothered to sign the accord initially.

[Drew]

Well I wasn't for the accord to begin with. That being said, I'm much more in favour of local government enacting laws that they view as beneficial and not the federal government doing so. I just felt it was worthwhile to point out that just because these towns are enacting it doesn't mean that it will do anything for our enviroment.

[Warriorbird]

Reasonable enough.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Drew
Since I basically live here "John C. Rayson Pompano Beach FL" I can assure you that no pollution has been saved because John C. Rayson signed up. But hey, now we know for sure that if a group of 80 year old retirees ever decide to start up a oil refinery in our beach town they will do it with respect for the enviroment.

Sure there are cities on that list that don't know a factory from a Mc Donald’s ... that's not indicative of the entire list.

Hell, each city listed in IL, OH, and IN have more than their fair share of factories.

So while you may sit and dwell on how "worthless" it is for a non-industrial town to jump on that boat, I'll sit here and look at all of the industrial towns that are on board ... that will make a difference.

Hats off to you though, you didn't start off with the "say goodbye to those jobs" comment.




[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[longshot]

Originally posted by Backlash
Bash me all you want, but its a bit absurd to bash something just because I posted it.



Get over yourself.

I'm not bashing you, or the Kyoto agreement because you posted it.

Further, my disagreement with Kyoto neither means that I hate the environment, nor that I'm unconcerned with the implications of environmental policy.

It just means that Kyoto is bad. I feel there has to be a better way. My Al Gore example was to show that even those so that wish to see improvements to the enivornment believe it is fatally flawed.

This really has nothing, at all, to do with you.

Get over yourself.

[Warriorbird]

That post had everything to do with him, however.

[Hulkein]

John Street is too busy coordinating the not-so-secret corruption of Philadelphia...

Maybe he'll get to signing up for this list in a few days when he has more time, and when the wire-taps are removed from his office.

As it is now, only Erie is on that list from PA, I'm surprised.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That post had everything to do with him, however.

How?

I used the collective "you", referring to people that support the Kyoto arrangement. That's why it was followed by "eachother" in the sentence. I'll be sure to spell everything out for you next time...

When someone mentions that capitilism is inherently evil, I can respond by saying that that the person is well intentioned, but that it does not make me an evil person to disagree. This is what I said.

It wasn't anything directed in a negative way towards backlash.

Stop instigating.

[Back]

Up to 139 now.

List of participants (http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/quotes.htm#mayors).

[Back]

Denton, TX. Imagine that. Nowhere near a coast and swamped by suburbia. WTF was Euline thinking???