Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

How voters can fight climate change

Last week the City Council considered a proposal to let Mountain View voters set specific goals for reducing the city's carbon emissions. Then they unanimously rejected the idea.

The proposed measure, put forth by some (but not all) members of the city's environmental sustainability task force, would have asked Mountain View voters whether the city should push for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and create a plan to meet that goal. Modeled after a Berkeley measure, it would have cost $25,000 to put on the November ballot.

The council was right to reject it, for two interrelated reasons. First, climate change is a global-scale problem, and from a policy standpoint it is best dealt with on the state or national level. Although reducing carbon emissions is also the responsibility of individuals, setting policies to do so should be up to our leaders in Washington, not City Hall.

The second reason was stated above: Reducing carbon emissions is the responsibility of individuals, and that means local citizens should do what they can to make sure they're living in an environmentally friendly way. But no city government can force them to do this. Conversely, no city government needs special permission from the voters to run its services, design its buildings, plan its streets — or even provide incentives to its citizens — with the goal of minimizing carbon emissions. They should just do those things anyway.

This last point was made at the council meeting by Cynthia Kapphahn, one of the task force members opposed to the measure.

"The council should take leadership, it should not be looking behind to find out if the community supports it," she said.

In light of all this, last week's street protest by MoveOn.org members was at least looking in the right direction, i.e. towards Washington. The protesters, waving signs with messages such as "Big oil buys another president," said they wanted the public to know that Republican Sen. John McCain would be a bad choice this November.

Why? Because, they said, his connections to the oil industry will lead to even higher gas prices and increased carbon emissions.

This is strange reasoning, since higher gas prices have been so effective in getting people out of their cars. Years of dire predictions and several-hour commutes had no effect at all on drivers. But gas hits $4 a gallon, and it's standing-room-only on Caltrain.

It seems to us that a surefire way to get even more people out of their cars would be through a gas tax. That's a policy no one at City Hall can set — but the next president would be well positioned for it. (We suspect McCain would be much less inclined to support such a tax than his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.)

Mountain View voters already have an important decision to make this November when it comes to climate change: Choose your next president wisely. As for the rest of the year, we can fight climate change by living responsibly — biking or walking, buying local produce, etc. — and on this score the environmental sustainability task force will no doubt be a great help and resource for the people of Mountain View.

Posted by David, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2008 at 11:16 am

The editor is saying reduced driving and increased carbon emissions can't go hand in hand, but that's false. People could drive less, but pollution over all can still increase if industries that pollute or make products that pollute aren't forced to reduce emissions.

In fact, Bush and company are trying to stop California from reducing the pollution coming from new cars remember?

If you believe that our pollution problems really need to be tackled, higher prices is only going to go so far, which is not to say less driving is a bad thing, but much more is needed.

Also, if the price drops some amount will people just adjust and start driving more? This isn't really a plan is it? If you are really for reduced driving you should be asking for a higher gas tax.

(You could start by taxing windfall profits first - if you believe the rich should be taxed, no? Then you could add a tax based on cost to keep cost high and reduce driving, at least that seems to be what the Opinion wants.)

Finally, note headline in news today "Exxon Mobil 2Q profit sets US record". Reduced driving sure hasn't hurt profits for the oil industry.