Raise the Hammer

When you say "Steve Leach, suggested that city council shouldn't be directly addressing these issues at all, although he does offer some promising ideas, including district heating and mass transit development." I think it's a bit misleading.

I didn't interpret his response at all like that. Rather, I get the impression that he understands that we can't tackle climate change as it's own single problem. It is too huge. Let the UN focus on the global view, and let us locally do everything we can that benefits us AND the planet. If we make the right choices locally, however small, we will be doing out part to invoke change on a global level.

I think pulling this quote would have been a better representation of his thoughts: "City Council should be trying to reduce energy costs for itself and for its citizens wherever possible, as a matter of course. "

In other words, we can't spend an entire mayoral term having meetings about the "Big picture" of climate change. Screw the big picture and let's find local reasons to (for example) get a light rail line in. Lets focus on how it will help us at a local level right now. The benefits to climate change will follow naturally.

I think it's a much smarter way of going about it than setting up a steering committee to discuss the details of an anti idling law. We need fewer cars NOW, not less idling 2 years from now.

The problem is, knowledge of "climate change" is widespread, but the opinion that it is a real problem is not. People in this country are not being directly affected by climate change yet, so the typical human knee jerk reaction has not kicked in. Looking at our options for this election, we are going to have to accept whatever small changes we can, and ultimately, I think that the only way to look at these problems is at a personal level for now. It is too overwhelming and depressing if you spend all of your time looking at the big picture. Many governments and companies have learned that doing things efficiently saves energy, emissions, and ultimately, money (Interface for example http://www.interfacesustainability.com/)... Like it or not, money drives this society. Money is something that everyone uderstands. And arguing on a fiscal basis is probably the best way to reach everyone, including the ones who don't see (or don't want to see) the bigger picture.

For shame Ryan, I was one of only two ward seven candidates who bothered to respond with workable ideas and a good grasp of the ideal you espouse. Saying you play fair, but not actually doing it only proves your bias. At least you admitted Brian McHattie is who you personally support, but Raise the Hammer doesn't. Can you hear one hand clapping Ryan? I sure don't blame you after you took exception to the Androids "sanctioned hit" on your ‘buddy’ McHattie. He used a dull sword, just to be kind. Now that’s respect considering the Droids past accomplishments for the Captains of Industry who run the joint. Seems Councillor McHattie has become like a pesky horse fly, just swat it off with one swish of the tail. What, not enough room to post the pitiful amount of responses to your second volley of left-leaning questions to the candidates.

Don't waste your time debating MAW, the chip on his shoulder is so big he can't see over it.

The question of the appropriate role of the City of Hamilton in combating climate change is an interesting one.

Raise The Hammer believes reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be an explicit policy goal of the City of Hamilton.

I disagree and believe that this is a matter for superior levels of government and the United Nations.

My reasoning is simple: government responsibility for problems should be assumed by the government body best able to deal with them.

Focused action by the City of Hamilton to blindly pursue a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions per se may well result in a decreased standard of living for its citizens. For example, if the City banned oil furnaces in the City limits (which I assume would be within its jurisdiction) and demanded that higher-cost electricity be used for heating, it could add a cost to local businesses that might not be borne by Burlington businesses with which they compete, leading to Hamilton business closures.

In contrast, if the Federal government were to implement the same law nationwide, Hamilton and Burlington businesses would compete on an equal footing, and the Federal government (ignoring possible impacts on NAFTA and WTO involvement) could ensure that local businesses were not subject to unfair foreign competition, at least domestically, by banning imports of products from environmental “rogue” nations.

Yes, the City of Hamilton could act on its own, damn the consequences, and do its part for the world. However, if climate change is happening (as I believe), it likely still will, irrespective of any action on the part of the City of Hamilton, and if increased poverty to Hamiltonians has resulted, the City’s actions in this event will not only have proven futile but will also have prejudiced the ability of its citizens to adapt to the new challenges associated with climate change.

I am not at all certain that the majority of Hamiltonians wish to risk this outcome. Indeed, many Hamiltonians who care for their families and friends would likely prefer that we increase emissions, damn the world, if it provides more present wealth, so as to enable them to better adapt their families to the problems that will flow from climate change that is beyond their control. I do not agree with this particular kind of thinking, but I am not prepared to hold my morals superior on this particular issue.

A sensible compromise between the “save the world, damn my family” and “save my family, damn the world” camps is for the City of Hamilton to simply do its best to promote and increase energy efficiency when and wherever it can. With better planning, we can facilitate better public transit, more pedestrian and bicycle routes and the potential for district heating, community geothermal projects and lake water cooling, all of which could vastly decrease our greenhouse gas emissions.

By doing this, we can both make the world a better place and better prepare ourselves and our families for what lies ahead, since energy efficiency means savings.

If it turned out that, in the process of turning Hamilton into a pedestrian-friendly, transit-friendly, energy-efficient community, we were so successful that we doubled the population of Hamilton and quadrupled its economic output but increased greenhouse gas emissions by 10%, I for one would be thrilled, not disappointed, notwithstanding that our emissions have increased, because I would know that, but for our actions as a community, that growth would likely have occurred elsewhere, in a much less responsible manner.

In short, I maintain my position that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a goal for Canada and the world, not a goal for Hamilton, and I would encourage Hamiltonians to push for this goal in the appropriate forum: in the next Federal election, let’s elect a government that cares about greenhouse gas emissions, that is prepared to lay out a sensible national plan for reductions and that will lobby for international trade sanctions against rogue greenhouse-gas emitting nations.

my gosh....they ripped up expressways and did all that stuff and yet their economy continues to flourish! I thought the only way to build a successful city was to pave over ever piece of green with cardboard box homes and ugly warehouses trying to pass off as stores. Tsst, Portland. They need to come to Hamilton to see a real prosperous city. Long live the single occupancy vehicle SUV roaring past my front porch and pedestrian-free sidewalk.

I think Portland has the right idea. A balanced approach to climate change. One where light rail systems actually exist and work well. As a side note, I'd love to be able to bike to work, but has anyone discovered why the bike lanes on Barton disappear?