We need a class action lawsuit to sue those that insist we are emitting greenhouse gases, and that they are changing planet temperature.

It would appear that Legislators have a technical vision of disaster that they (alone) can fix by raising taxes and spending money on “carbon sequestration” and other FIXES. What is entrophy and please define carbon sequestration in terms of physics, anyhow.

Lets fix the weather first, smog second, and then hot air from non technical legislators who can only get re-elected by putting MTBE’s in gasoline without understanding the consequences.

Maybe they don’t care. All in the name of saving our planet.

NUCLEAR is the only clean solution and politicians do not mention the subject.

Burt

Forty percent of the planet-heating gases that Californians emit come from transportation, according to the report’s authors, and with its booming population and sprawling suburbs, the state’s greenhouse emissions will continue to soar unless it dramatically changes the way it builds cities and suburbs.

The report, “Growing Cooler: Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change,” analyzed scores of academic studies and concluded that compact development — mixing housing and businesses in denser patterns, with walkable neighborhoods — could do as much to lower emissions as many of the climate policies now promoted by state and national politicians.

ULI has never supported sustainability in its history and this report is another broad brush to lobby developer interests, promoting major policy shifts with little analysis of either atmospheric or transportation systems.

Becoming livid about pouring asphalt over urban open space? Perhaps another trademark idea for urban living? EcoLividity.

Green EcoLowDensity is the key. Practice that.

EcoDensity story is here.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/09/21/EcoDensity/

That is what the “urban service boundaries” in California’s cities are doing. Instead of allowing the footprint of our cities to naturally expand, we are mandating “infill” in places where the market (the PEOPLE) would never want more housing. Mandated infill can never make up for zero expansion of a city’s footprint, so housing prices rise and urban housing becomes less affordable. Meanwhile, mandated infill destroys the quality of life within cities, driving people to migrate to the exurbs - i.e., these artificial mandates actually worsen urban sprawl at the same time as they make housing unaffordable.

I’m alarmed too about forcing infill, making law for carbon and not for culture, converting space into institutional compounds, using force in the form of increasing rules that hide blatant social management….

Crap. It’s often futile to find a place to run my spring spaniel.

Expediency has always used moral vision and will protect us from grand threats. But life has shown time and again, and communist central planning proved it too, that only the most vigorous participation of the folks on the ground will create workable solutions. That’s all Plato wanted.

City committees behave as if they’re small local governments with a full mandate from voters who will easily take action and be part of the process. But that’s not true.

Like big politics, for most folks it can take three generations to talk seriously with the mayor. Cities are massive enterprise, as big as nations. These governments have become too potent and too complex to be responsive democracies. They will not reflect the initiative of residents - which likely hide better visions of the future - until they are re-invented and truly localized again.

Before we’ll truly adjust to create ways to live well in our environment and stop damaging our lifeblood, we ought to test our decision making methods.

But here’s the opposite view from a respected columnist that thinks cities are cheaper, more sustainable, truly environmentally friendly and damn inevitable. Tim Harford writes What have cities ever done for us?