I’m sort of surprised no one has commented on this on our allegedly thriving local blogosphere. I actually came across this gem in the Wicomico Weekly newspaper, which can be described as the fishwrap the grocery ads come to my house in. (In reality, the paper consists of a few key local news articles which ran in the Daily Times over the prior week – along with the weekly store ads – and is distributed to each house.) While I don’t often talk a lot about local politics, in this case we’re the canary in the coal mine.
The headline of the article, which was originally published way back on November 21 and penned by Daily Times staff writer Laura D’Alessandro is “Tilghman may sign climate agreement” – for those of you not local, the Tilghman in question is Salisbury Mayor Barrie Parsons Tilghman. She’s been coy about whether she’ll seek re-election when her term expires early next year.
In true politician fashion, she kicked the idea to a committee called the Environmental Policy Task Force. In turn, that committee was nearly unanimous in recommending she sign the document. Tilghman stated she would sign it if there was no actual action required by the city of Salisbury; otherwise the City Council would also need to approve it. (Come on Barrie, that’s likely a 5-0 or 4-1 vote in favor.)
Unfortunately, the Daily Times article mostly glossed over what would be expected of the city of Salisbury should she decide to join hundreds of other mayors in signing the agreement, which was originated by Seattle Mayor Greg Nichols in 2005. Eleven of the signees are in Maryland, with the usual suspects like Annapolis, Baltimore, Chevy Chase, Edmonston, Gaithersburg, Kensington, Laurel, Rockville, and Takoma Park on the list but also joined by Chestertown and Sykesville – cities farther from the O’Malley/I-95 corridor. The sole Delaware signatory is Wilmington.
Forget the first two parts, which basically ask Congress to continue on its merry path of late of subsidizing every sort of alternative energy scheme under the sun (including the solar energy lobby) while providing as many roadblocks to securing and using energy sources that are inexpensive and relatively plentiful. What needs to be asked of the mayoral candidates and city council hopefuls is whether they support this idea, and if so where would they find the money for some of these key items:
- Conducting an inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, setting reduction targets and creating an action plan.
Maybe a better question is which consultant would we hand over thousands of dollars to in order to create this nice report which will eventually find space on the shelf next to all the other reports?
- Adopting and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities.
Whether you agree or not that growth should pay for growth, right now we have nothing paying for nothing and these land-use policies don’t promise any help in that regard.
- Promoting transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit.
Sounds like a subsidy to me, although more likely that funding will come as a grant from the state or federal government. Regardless, it’s tax money spent.
- Increasing the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in “green tags”, advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology.
This one I can agree with to some extent, although one needs to study the potential payback period for these investments. Worcester County has a landfill methane plant as I recall, so there’s a close-by case study.
- Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money.
Note to city employees: invest in sweaters for the winter and strong deodorant in the summer. And let’s hope the energy-efficient lighting isn’t dropped, broken, and creating a hazmat scene.
- Purchasing only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use.
Again, what’s the payback period for the premium?
- Practicing and promoting sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program or a similar system.
If you want to drive building out into the county, go ahead and pass this one. It’s guaranteed to work.
- Increasing the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reducing the number of vehicles; launching an employee education program including anti-idling messages; converting diesel vehicles to bio-diesel.
This one is a mixed bag, since the first two aren’t bad ideas. But I’m not sure the third one is practical given the usage some city vehicles receive, and the fourth one needs study as to the effects using E85 would have on the amount of maintenance required for vehicles so converted compared to vehicles using regular diesel.
- Evaluating opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recovering wastewater treatment methane for energy production.
Hasn’t the city of Salisbury already put itself enough in hock upgrading its wastewater treatment plant?
- Increasing recycling rates in City operations and in the community.
Now there’s a subsidy waiting to happen. I’d be curious to know how the county recycling operations do as collection points, nonetheless it’s my admittedly foggy memory that curbside recycling tends to be a money pit yet the city of Salisbury has that program. I also know our company puts a lot of paper into the city’s recycling system, along with a slew of used 24 ounce diet Pepsi bottles (those would be mine.)
- Maintaining healthy urban forests; promoting tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2.
All fine and dandy, but if the choice is between planting trees or fixing potholes, the roads should win.
- Helping to educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution.
Despite Al Gore’s best efforts, you can tell this was written some time ago because it still refers to global warming. And considering this has been a very chilly fall about these parts, I say we could use a little dose of global warming. (The latter half of November featured a string of 12 straight days where temperatures fell short of normal.)
All these ideas sound great in practice, but committing to be advocates by signing a piece of paper is only good for a nice-sounding election eve press release. When the rubber hits the road and taxes continually go up in every jurisdiction because people like Greg Nichols in Seattle come up with brilliant ideas like this, it will do more harm than good to the noble idea that energy usage should be prudent – but not artificially limited.
