Op-ed pick: Are cities the key to containing climate change?

Today on the show, Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, mentioned that cities are at the forefront of governmental and societal change. An article in Scientific American ponders whether they should also be considered the front line of the climate-change battle.

Suburban sprawl has helped U.S. emissions balloon in the last few decades. “Urban expansion on the scale the world is going to experience is going to require more land,” argued economist Paul Romer of New York University’s Stern School of Business. “Any strategy based on containment is just doomed to failure.”

But providing incentives for people to remain close to the metropolitan core, such as better public transportation, can help minimize the impact of city size on surrounding rural land. China is currently building 40 different metro lines in 40 different cities, each one covering roughly 1,000 kilometers, said Jonathan Woetzel, a director at consultancy McKinsey & Company’s Cities Special Initiative. “One single act of infrastructure creates opportunities for new lives, new choices for 50 [million] to 100 million people” as well as cutting down on the demand for cars, roadways and their attendant pollution in the world’s most populous country.

A 2008 photo of Sydney shows the urban sprawl along the eastern seaboard as Australia’s population continues to climb above 21 million inhabitants. Experts warn that the Australian government has little chance of meeting its  greenhouse emission-reduction targets if growth continues at its current rate. (TORSTEN BLACKWOOD/AFP/Getty Images)

Read the whole article here.

  • Steve the Cynic

    It depends on the job. But if we’re worried about private sector jobs creating conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such, we should consider halving the size of the legislature, making it full time, and doubling their pay.

  • Rich in Duluth

    No. To lower the possibility of conflicts of interest, I’d prefer to see publicly financed campaigns.

  • GregX

    No. I think Steve has good idea. but how about this … 100 legislators. 87 counties = 87 legislators. the remaining 13 are divided up 5=metro at large. 2 each for NW, NE, SW, SE. Pay them 87,000/year but no per diem incidentals. Provide a dormitory for example lease rooms at the Kelly Inn near capitol.
    During non-session, structure their time into required public meeting hours in their county or region and participation on regional boards and citizens meetings.

    • Steve the Cynic

      Nice idea, but not workable, due to vast population size disparities between counties. (When it’s more relevant to the topic, I may explain why it would work to eliminate legislative districts altogether. You’d vote for one, and the top 100 vote getters statewide would be elected.)

  • John

    We should eliminate the legislators, we don’t need more laws.

  • david

    No mater what, there are always going to be conflicts of interest. Just look at president shrub and vice president halliburton. Does anyone really believe it was a coincidence that we invaded an oil producing country under false pretenses, the price of gas shot through the roof, and the oil companies all made obscene profits while being subsidized by our taxes? We should probably do something along the lines of how they choose the Dalai Lama. We could find the reincarnations of the founding fathers and raise them in monistaries until they are old enough to take office. That should go a long way to solving some of our present conflicts. If not i guess we’re stuck with the system that we got and should not only improve transparency, but harshly punish anyone guilty of malfeasance.

    • jockamo

      If we were to “harshly punish anyone guilty of malfeasance”. the current president would be languishing under a life sentence, and BillyBoy would have met his maker long ago.

      It is always amusing to see the haters of W. Bush rant on and on and on about his wrongdoings, then, when you ask what W. did that was so bad they will go on about the wars, homeland security, FISA, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. But, when you inform them that Obama has carried on ALL of those things that Bush did, re-upped every one, signed each into law again, this time with HIS name at the bottom, so that they are Obama’s now, every one. And yet, not a harsh word for Obama doing exactly what Bush did. No one protesting down at the White House, no DemSlaves even with the guts to vote against their W. Bush clone.

      Talk about intellectual dishonesty. But, then, we are talking about Dems. Their creed is “It’s a crime when a Republican does it, but a blessing for the Country when a Democrat does the same damn thing.”

      About 12 years old…….

    • http://mprnews.org/ Eric Ringham, MPR News

      It’s amazing that a question aiming at the benefits of a citizen Legislature can make the leap to the Dalai Lama. Could we focus a little closer to home, please?

      • david

        My point was that the Dalai Lama is probably the only person with any sort of political power that is possibly immuned to any potential conflicts of interest. Disclosure by it’s self is not the answer. There will always be loop holes, or if enough people have the potential to gain they will turn a blind eye. But even making politicking a full time and well paying job isn’t going to stop those that want more.

  • Jim G

    Yes, Legislators can hold any job. In fact, the broader their employment history the more personal knowledge they can bring to the debate. We need a broad spectrum of careers in our legislature to guarantee representation of the many different sectors in our economy. Transparency is the key. I just want to know what life experiences a legislator has had and especially who they are working for now. If they’ve worked as a pirate at some time in the past, it would be helpful if that were listed on the disclosure documents too.

  • sb

    No it doesn’t, I’d rather see a legislature where you don’t have to be personally wealthy or employed in a very flexible occupation. We want the best and the brightest to enter public service. We need to be willing to pay accordingly if you’re going to attract the people with the skills, brains and commitment needed to solve our toughest problems.

  • Laura

    “Citizen legislators” not professionals, was the model. $31k is a nice salary for the work done (or undone); and if they have outside income, all the better for them to understand the consequences of their legislation.

  • David P.

    Not that I am in favor of larger government, but I would like to see a “Citizen’s Review/Oversight Board” made up of citizens from all walks of life, drawn from the population in the same manner as a jury, that reviews and votes on any legislation. This would be a 3rd legislative branch, one not accountable or beholden to special interests, their party or financial contributors, and not voting according to their prospects in the next election.

  • Jeff

    Can someone explain what the difference is between the MN Senate and the MN House since they all are up for re-election every 2 years anyway? I’m not sure what the point is of having both a state Senate and House when a single legislative branch would accomplish the same purpose.

    • Jim G

      The MN Senator term is 4 years. The MN House of Representatives term is for 2 years, but with redistricting this past election everyone was up for re-election.

      • Jeff

        So in reality the MN Senators only serve 4 year terms 2 out of 3 elections and on the 3rd they will always have redistricting (which occurs every 10 years)?

        • Jim G

          Sounds like you’ve got it. Redistricting is the wild card.

  • Mark

    No, I would prefer what steve suggested and I would add there should be legislation on term limits.I think that many legislators get too comfortable in their positions in government. Historically, serving was meant to be a short term proposal to help the people of our state and then move on, not a lifetime career of dictating legislation to the people of our state with their powerful special interests.

    • Steve the Cynic

      Term limits sound like a nice idea on the surface, but experience shows some major downsides in states that have them. Two of the biggest are (1) after a while the people with the most knowledge of how the system works are not the elected officials but the lobbyists, so they wind up with too much power; and (2) when their eligibility for reelection expires, they start paying more attention to what might get them elected to something else than to doing a good job where they are.

  • Kim

    Legislators are responsible for deciding on policy and making laws. Their other roles ( employee, caregiver, student) definitely adds to their knowledge of Minnesotans and these life experiences do make them better- rounded decisionmakers. Does a legislator’s outside work pose a conflict of interest ? I think the answer depends largely on the legislator’s employer and her/his job responsibilities. And let’s not forget the legislator’s character.
    Why is this question limited to the private sector ? Conflicts of interest can occur among legislators employed in the public and non-profit sectors, too.
    Legislators’ refusal to disclose their outside work as contractors is outrageous. Why should contractors be permitted to duck the questions ? Legislators employed as private contractors have a challenge here, but they must be held to a high standard, too. Thanks to the Campaign Finance Board for pursuing this.

  • Mark

    Shouldn’t this transparency apply to our President? We don’t see the media mentioning the numbers and names of campaign bundlers for Obama, and the number that got free loans and grants to invest in near bankrupt green energy co’s. Solyndra come to mind? Billions lost by this lack of transparency and accountability_ billions of YOUR taxes wasted for this.How about Nancy Pelosi’s huge jump in wealth over the past 4 years, all made while a full time Representative..coincidence?

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.m.brock Eric M. Brock

    Yes, we don’t close highways or bars because of drunk drivers, and more people die from DWI than from mass shooters.

    • georges

      More people die from just about any other cause than mass shootings.

      Choking…..25 times as many as mass shootings.

      Fires….27 times as many

      Drowning……20 times as many

      Falls (bathtubs, icy steps, etc.) ……..250 times as many

      Poisoning…….390 times as many

      Auto accidents……..420 times as many

      Bad doctoring………1,200 times as many
      Yes, dying from a mass shooting is very low on the list. Statistically irrelevant.
      I guess worry warts can’t get really worked up over slippery bathtub bottoms………

  • Ann M

    According to some people, it is important that we not forget what happened. The community probably doesn’t want Sandy Hook School used as a school. The building could be used in many ways for people who need help. It could be a drug treatment center for people having problems with legal and illegal drugs. I would like to have more places where people can go to use the Internet. Some of us can only afford dial up Internet or no Internet at all. It makes it more difficult to be a part of the community.

  • Roy Wehking

    Those decisions are up to that community and those affected. It
    Is not a question for the people not affected by the tragedy.

  • Pearly

    No thanks, you can have the metropolitan. I like where I live and think I will stay here thank you.

  • David P.

    georges – Why do “they” hate us? That is another question for another day… I do think that part of the incentive for “them” is to leave a legacy, and a memorial serves as another recruiting tool.

  • GregX

    I think you are on very thin ice.
    No once “memoralizes” the killers. Just the victims.

    Any notoriety killers might gain is from the media .. and I’ll assume you would never support denying a constitutional right – lie free press, the right to bear arms … or both to confront each other..

  • david

    Interesting observation GregX. I actually know more then a few people who obtained the CnC permit, but none of them actually every carry a gun in public. It was more for the novelty of obtaining it. If i had more disposable income i might do the same. Anyway the ones that scared me were the ones who didn’t bother with the conceal part. They were proud to be packing, and it was an obvious boost to their self image. These were the people i would avoid at all costs.

  • GregX

    Two of my friends train/certify people for CnC. 80% hate the idea of lugging a weapon around day in day out. but those that do … seem to fall into two categories…. justifiably concerned and just a fry billy with nerves.

  • georges

    “No once “memoralizes” the killers. Just the victims.”

    You are making the mistake of assuming the killers think like normal folks think. That is absurd. If they had a conscience, like normal folks, and values, like normal folks…….they wouldn’t go around killing little children.

    In their twisted minds, any brass plaques, etc., are perceived as glory to their greatness.

    If you want to stop them, the first thing you have to do is understand them. You will never be able to do that if you think that they think like normal people. They don’t. And they prove it by their actions.

  • Steve the Cynic

    These are helpful comments, georges. You seem to have some insight into the psyches of those killers.

  • Keith

    I totally agree – we are a memorializing culture. Nothing against remembering bad (and good) things that happened on a particular day or at a particular place, but attaching a plaque to everything and insisting that we can’t forget anything is a bit much. Just like all those roadside crosses you always see. Life goes on.