Seattle.BloggersPub

We’ve argued before that one of the surprising reasons why Puget Sound’s roads-and-transit package failed was that voters were concerned about climate emissions. Today, there’s new polling data that buttresses our claim.

The poll finds that 20 percent of “no”-voters cited global warming as a reason for opposing the measure. This is an astonishing figure — one I believe that’s totally unprecedented, anywhere. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong!) 

Below, I’ve cherry-picked a few interesting newspaper tidbits for your reading pleasure:

70 percent of Snohomish County voters who were polled said they would pay up to $10 billion to extend light rail as far north as Lynnwood and as far south as Tacoma. That was even higher than the region, where 65 percent of voters polled in support of spending money on light rail. (Everett Herald)

72 percent of those surveyed said they preferred separate measures. (Seattle Times)

[Region-wide] if transit were offered alone, there would be 53 percent support; if roads were on the ballot alone, there would be 50 percent support, the new Sound Transit poll found. (Seattle Times) [Ed note: Proposition 1 failed by 56 to 44.]

Only 23 percent thought sales taxes — the agency’s largest source of money — are a good way to pay for transportation. Car-tab fees, tolls and gas taxes were more acceptable. (Seattle Times)

In fairness, it’s hard to know to what extent people’s apparent preference for transit reflects environmental concern or other factors. Probably, voters had mixed motives and a variety of concerns. But at the very least, it seems reasonable to conclude that voters are less interested in roads-expansion than they are in a transportation system that is potentially more climate-benign. Coupled with the fact that fully 20 percent of the electorate that voted “no” cited global warming, I’d say we’re witnessing a pretty fundamental attitude shift.

Apparently, there’s some talk in high places about a transit-only measure on the ballot in 2008.

The poll was conducted by Moore Information of Portland and EMC Research of Seattle.

Update 11:20: I rewrote some of this post to broaden it beyond the Snohomish County focus it orginally had.

The Canterbury Tales is a great example of the kind of work that is best enjoyed by listening to it instead of reading it. First, it’s poetry, and for most of its existence poetry was meant to be read aloud. Second, it’s riddled with archaic spelling…

Some would say Christmas is the most wonderful time of the year. Andy Williams certainly would. I, on the other hand, think it’s College Basketball Season. And, to quote Dick Vitale, “It’s here babeeeee.” Since the NIT/Maui Invitational Week, I’ve…

Something about those red italian wines get me every time.  Maybe its the purple tooth look that reminds me so much of my time over there, or maybe its the lingering dryness they so often produce on the palette.  This is one of my favorites, and at a more than fair price of $8-$10 you […]

I’m anguished. For almost six weeks I’ve been meaning to post on Cold Facts About Our Warm Planet, a four-part TV series from Seattle’s KIRO that you can view online. But I couldn’t decide what I wanted to say.

On the one hand, it’s terrific. The series is some of the best local TV coverage I’ve ever seen on climate. Focusing on disruptions to the Northwest’s natural heritage, it includes great photography, good reporting on a range of issues, and unusually clear explanations of how climate change disrupts snowpack, forests, wildlife, and so on. So there’s that.

On the other hand, some elements stink. I almost stopped watching after minute or two when the narrator intones, “Is it real or is it a hoax?”

A hoax? Seriously?

Are we still doing that? Or is that just what happens when a writer phones in a hackneyed script ?

Look, I hate to sound pugnacious – no, really – but in late 2007, framing a climate change series under the banner of “possible hoax” is just stupid. It’s a bit different, I might add, than simply questioning the scientific veracity of global warming. That would a stupid exercise too – for reasons too obvious to point out – but it wouldn’t be nearly as obnoxious as calling it a ”hoax.” Is climate change really in the same category as the Loch Ness Monster?

On balance, the series is still worth recommending. (Andrew Engelson also gives it props, over at Washington Trails Association’s blog.) The series includes interviews with many of the best local minds on climate impacts — people like Phil Mote, Nathan Mantua, and Dave Peterson. For network TV, it devotes a remarkable length of time to its subject. And it covers the topic in a way everyone can understand. It’s a heroic effort.

But it also has some glaring flaws, including a jaw-dropping amount of air time devoted to some climate skeptic dude who’s a retired geology professor from Western Washington University. And no, he’s not an atmospheric scientist.

KIRO lets Phil Mote fillet the guy, but it’s just plain bizarre that the script never bothers to mention that the vast, huge, overwhelming, tidal wave of scientific consensus is with Mote. A typical viewer — the very audience this series is aimed at — could well think that, hey, it’s just one scientist’s word against another’s. Who can say what the truth is?

The answer, of course, is that KIRO can say. And they don’t. The result is not balanced journalism, it’s just misinformation. And it’s especially depressing because the series — and the effort behind it – is otherwise brilliant.

Hooray — today’s papers bring two pieces of good news!

First, Washington State rejected plans for a new coal-fired power plant, because the proposed plant would boost climate-warming emissions:

In a critical first test of a new state law meant to block construction
of power plants that spew climate-changing gases, a state panel soundly
rejected plans for a 793-megawatt plant in Kalama, Cowlitz County, that
would be fueled by coal or oil-refinery waste.

That’s great news: not only because of this particular plant, but also because it demonstrates that legal measures to curb climate change are actually beginning to have an effect.

And second, the US Energy Information Administration is reporting that GHG emissions in the US fell in 2006 (pdf link)– the first decline since 2001.  My guess is that, even in the absence of  a comprehensive climate policy, higher energy prices are beginning to take the edge off energy appetite.  Of course, the decline was modest — only about 1.5 percent — and much of it could be attributed to mild weather. Still, when it comes to the climate, I’ll take my good news where I can get it.

Bring web standards to email.

Bringing web standards to email.

…go ahead and say goodbye to the next half hour of your life.

That’s if you’re lucky.

On the heels of the year’s biggest travel week, some interesting news:

Consumers purchased an average 9.32 million barrels of
gasoline a day in the week ended Nov. 23, down 1.7 percent from
the same week last year…. It was
the fifth consecutive week that demand at the pump dropped
compared with a year earlier.

The price [of gas] was 38
percent higher than a year earlier.

That’s right, population rose, but gas consumption fell, year-over-year.  Measured per person, gasoline may have fallen by 3 percent or so.

So does this mean that higher prices are starting to take a bite out of fuel consumption?  That we’re starting to see the effects of a slowing economy?  Either way — and as long as this isn’t a temporary blip in the data — it’s a trend worth paying attention to.