Seattle

Is convenience the drug that salves commuting guilt?

I sometimes catch the bus at the busy Fremont intersection of 34th and Fremont here in Seattle. I'd estimate that at least 90 percent of the vehicles heading west over the Fremont Bridge have one occupant. This, of course, frustrates me to no end.

Here are all these people heading in the same general direction, at the same time. I've often wanted to stand on the side of the road with a sign that reads, "Your car seats four, why are you driving alone?"

So, why are they driving alone? Richard Seven attempts to answer this question in the most recent edition of The Seattle Times' Pacific Northwest Magazine.

Green mayors and red queens

Apropos of the recent climate shindig in Montreal, the Seattle P-I reports on the Seattle mayor's decision to roll his own Kyoto by setting CO2 reduction goals for the city.

To me, the thing that's most noteworthy here is the admission that, if greenhouse-gas emissions are really going to fall in a city like Seattle, a lot of the reduction will have to come from the transportation sector. Seattle's electric utility is already climate neutral, at least nominally. So while there's plenty of potential improvements in heating efficiency for buildings and in the city-owned vehicle fleet, the real action is going to be in reducing emissions from private cars and trucks.

All of which makes it a pretty risky commitment by the mayor, given the relatively limited range of policy tools available to city governments. And some of the steps to help Seattle residents use less fuel happen to involve attracting a lot of new residents to Seattle. Which puts the city in a bit of a bind -- like the Red Queen in Alice and Wonderland, the city could wind up working harder and harder just to stay in one place.

Which parts of the U.S. have put themselves in nature’s way?

It's easy to see in hindsight. Yes, Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster, but it was aided by some very unnatural factors -- developed wetlands and neglected levees, to name two. Figuring there must be other parts of the U.S. in human-made peril, we talked with experts to learn where we've made ourselves most vulnerable, and what -- in lieu of scrapping the whole country and starting over -- is being done to help.

Seattle’s waste dump is an example of how not to do things

Because I live so close to it, I take an interest in how well Seattle's north-end waste transfer/recycling station is run (as if that is not obvious by now, this being my third and, thankfully, last post on the subject). The Wallingford neighborhood in which it is located is known for its tolerant, liberal-minded denizens, which explains why, in addition to the waste transfer station, the city has also placed numerous mental halfway houses and drug rehab centers there.

Biodiversivist

Word has it that the city of Seattle is planning to expand its north-end transfer station (garbage relay pit) to include a recycling center. They intend to invoke imminent domain on the old bakery just to the east of the existing facility. I surely hope their plans include a better way to collect hazardous waste.

Brazil/Seattle

One easy way to get rid of a tire is to toss it over a bridge. In Costa Rica, crocodiles can be seen sunning themselves amid thousands of discarded tires. Not an option here in Seattle where stopping on a bridge long enough to hurl a tire will cause a traffic jam.

I took a load of junk to Seattle's north end transfer station the other day. An employee was standing at the entrance to brief clientele on Seattle's new recycling ordinance. Apparently, it is no longer adequate to voluntarily point-sort our trash and laboriously drag multiple containers to the curb every week to protect our environment and lower the cost of waste disposal. Our wise leaders have decided it's time to take it to another level and make it illegal not to recycle. Why? According to the official site, this ordinance "aims" to save residents and businesses as much as $2 million a year, enforcement "with consequences" beginning January 1, 2006. Contractors will not pick up garbage cans that have "significant" amounts of recyclables.

Are smoking bans fair?

Well, I'd subject you to more TV updates, but I actually went out last night and had a life. Which involved being in a smoke-filled bar for several hours. Which got me to thinking ... yuck.

Seattle's one of the country's healthiest cities, yet it's only just now getting around to considering a smoking-ban referendum. If the effort passes, Seattle will join the growing list of cities (Boston, Minneapolis), states (California, Delaware), and even countries (Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden) that have put butts under wraps.

This public-health progress has come despite agitated protests on business, political, and personal grounds. I have to admit, I didn't have strong feelings about such bans until I lived (pre-Seattle) in a city that instituted one. And then I realized: breathing? It's a good thing.

Ad features naked men and phallic-shaped sustainable lumber

Imagine my delight at seeing this on the side of my bus: "Choose your wood responsibly," beckons the ad for Seattle's Environmental Home Center, a mecca for green home improvement. (See the full ad in PDF form here.)

Attempts to introduce new species to city ecosystems are often doomed to failure.

An article in Pacific Northwest Magazine discussing Seattle's recurrent Canada goose problems got me thinking. Cities are primarily for people, and they have their own microenvironments. Some animals and plants thrive inside these ecosystems, and some do not. Creatures that can live among us already do. Attempts to introduce other species to please our sensibilities will more often than not turn into expensive failures or chronic damage-control exercises.