I would support the resolution and like Jim's comments, but I would suggest that it be residents of the City of Morgantown who make the arguments to city council and be clear that they are city residents, as they are the voters who will decide if council members who vote against this should remain on council.
Barb
Duane 01/23/12 7:42 PM >>>
From: "James Kotcon" James.Kotcon@mail.wvu.edu Date: January 23, 2012 7:33:47 PM EST To: "Chris Haddox" Chris.Haddox@mail.wvu.edu, morgantowngreenteam@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: {GT} Fwd: Clean Air Cities
On the one hand, the "ask" for this resolution is pretty simple and includes no direct cost to the City. It simply states that the City Council urges EPA to use the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases. As such, the resolution can be fulfilled with a 44-cent stamp, a phone call, or even with a single e-mail message.
On the other hand, advocating for a 350-ppm CO2 level will be controversial, even with weasel-wording like "do our part" to achieve that level. The emphasis on endangered species might be important to the Center for Biological Diversity (and to me), but that is not the argument I would use to sway City Council. I suggest that we need to describe ancillary benefits such as the direct health benefits from controlling other air pollutants that would come as part of efforts to achieve this goal. With reductions in greenhouse gases will also come reductions in fine particulates, ozone, mercury and other pollutants, and that will generate immediate health benefits for Morgantown residents, as opposed to some long-term global reduction in climate change.
I support the resolution, but I suspect it will not pass without active support from the environmental community.
What next?
Jim Kotcon
I think Barb makes an excellent point. Non-city residents will not sway council. I support the resolution.
Linda
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Barbara Howe bhowe@wvu.edu wrote:
I would support the resolution and like Jim's comments, but I would suggest that it be residents of the City of Morgantown who make the arguments to city council and be clear that they are city residents, as they are the voters who will decide if council members who vote against this should remain on council.
Barb
Duane ** 01/23/12 7:42 PM >>>
*From:* "James Kotcon" James.Kotcon@mail.wvu.edu *Date:* January 23, 2012 7:33:47 PM EST *To:* "Chris Haddox" Chris.Haddox@mail.wvu.edu, morgantowngreenteam@googlegroups.com *Subject:* *Re: {GT} Fwd: Clean Air Cities*
On the one hand, the "ask" for this resolution is pretty simple and includes no direct cost to the City. It simply states that the City Council urges EPA to use the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases. As such, the resolution can be fulfilled with a 44-cent stamp, a phone call, or even with a single e-mail message.
On the other hand, advocating for a 350-ppm CO2 level will be controversial, even with weasel-wording like "do our part" to achieve that level. The emphasis on endangered species might be important to the Center for Biological Diversity (and to me), but that is not the argument I would use to sway City Council. I suggest that we need to describe ancillary benefits such as the direct health benefits from controlling other air pollutants that would come as part of efforts to achieve this goal. With reductions in greenhouse gases will also come reductions in fine particulates, ozone, mercury and other pollutants, and that will generate immediate health benefits for Morgantown residents, as opposed to some long-term global reduction in climate change.
I support the resolution, but I suspect it will not pass without active support from the environmental community.
What next?
Jim Kotcon
**
MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
I wish there was a way to streamline the preamble to the resolution. It almost seems like the preamble (and it's detailed points) is the message, rather than the resolution itself. Although I agree with the points that are raised, it seems unnecessarily cumbersome, and the persuasiveness is lost in the details (especially if you aren't already on board). It would be helpful to know the final wording of the resolutions passed in Pittsburgh and Boone.
Bill
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Linda Shuster shuster.linda@gmail.com wrote:
I think Barb makes an excellent point. Non-city residents will not sway council. I support the resolution.
Linda
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Barbara Howe bhowe@wvu.edu wrote: I would support the resolution and like Jim's comments, but I would suggest that it be residents of the City of Morgantown who make the arguments to city council and be clear that they are city residents, as they are the voters who will decide if council members who vote against this should remain on council.
Barb
Duane 01/23/12 7:42 PM >>>
From: "James Kotcon" James.Kotcon@mail.wvu.edu Date: January 23, 2012 7:33:47 PM EST To: "Chris Haddox" Chris.Haddox@mail.wvu.edu, morgantowngreenteam@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: {GT} Fwd: Clean Air Cities
On the one hand, the "ask" for this resolution is pretty simple and includes no direct cost to the City. It simply states that the City Council urges EPA to use the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases. As such, the resolution can be fulfilled with a 44-cent stamp, a phone call, or even with a single e-mail message.
On the other hand, advocating for a 350-ppm CO2 level will be controversial, even with weasel-wording like "do our part" to achieve that level. The emphasis on endangered species might be important to the Center for Biological Diversity (and to me), but that is not the argument I would use to sway City Council. I suggest that we need to describe ancillary benefits such as the direct health benefits from controlling other air pollutants that would come as part of efforts to achieve this goal. With reductions in greenhouse gases will also come reductions in fine particulates, ozone, mercury and other pollutants, and that will generate immediate health benefits for Morgantown residents, as opposed to some long-term global reduction in climate change.
I support the resolution, but I suspect it will not pass without active support from the environmental community.
What next?
Jim Kotcon
MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
-
Barbara Howe -
Bill Wonderlin -
Linda Shuster