Say what you will about Mayor Greg Nickels and his claims to green leadership, but these results—released today by the mayor’s office—are pretty compelling.
Mayor Greg Nickels today announced that Seattle’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 were 7 percent below 1990 levels, meeting the targets of the Kyoto Protocol. The reduction in climate pollution is even more remarkable considering Seattle’s population grew 16 percent since 1990.
“We should all be proud of achieving the Kyoto goal. We have shown the world that reducing climate pollution is an economic opportunity and it inspires us to do even more,” said Nickels. “Now is the time to take action on the international, national and local levels, recognizing that every household can and must make a difference.”
Among the achievements detailed in the city’s new Climate Protection Initiative Progress Report:
* Emissions from Seattle’s residential and commercial buildings decreased by 11 percent since 1990, thanks to more energy-efficient homes and businesses and Seattle City Light’s greenhouse gas-neutral electricity.
* Climate pollution generated by the industrial sector declined by 30 percent from 1990 levels. Cement production, comprising more than 60 percent of all industrial emissions, was down 26 percent since 1990 due to a combination of more energy-efficient production and the economic downturn.
* Because of population increases in Seattle, transportation—Seattle’s road, marine, rail and air travel—is the only sector where greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, roughly 7 percent above 1990 levels. Per person transportation emissions, however, have declined 7 percent since 1990.
Full release in the jump.
For Immediate Release: Dec. 8, 2009
Climate Progress Report: meeting Kyoto and beyond
SEATTLE — Mayor Greg Nickels today announced that Seattle’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 were 7 percent below 1990 levels, meeting the targets of the Kyoto Protocol. The reduction in climate pollution is even more remarkable considering Seattle’s population grew 16 percent since 1990.
“We should all be proud of achieving the Kyoto goal. We have shown the world that reducing climate pollution is an economic opportunity and it inspires us to do even more,” said Nickels. “Now is the time to take action on the international, national and local levels, recognizing that every household can and must make a difference.”
The 2009 Climate Protection Initiative Progress Report, released today, includes an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions produced by transportation, buildings and industry.
* Emissions from Seattle’s residential and commercial buildings decreased by 11 percent since 1990, thanks to more energy-efficient homes and businesses and Seattle City Light’s greenhouse gas-neutral electricity.
* Climate pollution generated by the industrial sector declined by 30 percent from 1990 levels. Cement production, comprising more than 60 percent of all industrial emissions, was down 26 percent since 1990 due to a combination of more energy-efficient production and the economic downturn.
* Because of population increases in Seattle, transportation — Seattle’s road, marine, rail and air travel — is the only sector where greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, roughly 7 percent above 1990 levels. Per person transportation emissions, however, have declined 7 percent since 1990.
The report details the city’s myriad environmental and smart growth programs, such as bicycle and pedestrian improvements; new transit options; electric car infrastructure; conservation efforts and green building programs. For details, go to: http://www.seattle.gov/climate/
In 2005, Nickels launched the Climate Protection Initiative and declared that Seattle would meet the Kyoto Protocol benchmark of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent of 1990 levels.
The city reduced its climate pollution through broad-ranging strategies, including investing in transportation choices, encouraging compact communities, promoting clean energy and conservation, leading by example, and inspiring others to take action.The goal of the Seattle Climate Protection Initiative is to reduce greenhouse gases in Seattle by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2024 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Get the Nickels Newsletter and the mayor’s inside view on transportation, public safety, economic opportunity and healthy communities. Sign up at mayor.seattle.gov
Oh, for chrissake. Nickels is celebrating the economic downturn here. That, and the transference of climate gas production from the city (smokestacks) to the countryside (electricity). How many flat-screen TVs are there in the city compared to 1990?
SRSLY, how do you actually measure this? Its like trying to count all the fish in the sound!
but what if its all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing? waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, i’m james inhofe!
Yeah, how could you possibly measure greenhouse gas emissions? It’s like you’d have to use “science,” or something.
Well isn’t that special. Too bad all the Kyoto limits are about to get thrown out in Copenhagen.
Great, and everyday China puts enough cars on the road the eliminate 10 years worth of Seattle’s cuts.
What a bunch of maroons.
@4 science measured me driving around Seattle without a catalytic converter for over a year? damn, science is good!
For whatever it’s worth, congratulations Seattle.
@7 A classic example of using sarcasm and anecdotes to counter actual science. It’s not legitimate for climate change deniers, and it’s not legitimate here.
@1 – actually, our city probably already had lots of plasma theater screens, so if you factor in the tendency of Seattleites to buy LCD HDTV sets and the impact of all that butter from movie theaters, it’s probably carbon neutral.
Never forget almost all of our electricity is hydro. Which is why it’s so green.
We measure emissions for vehicles based on inspections on license renewal and rejection rates for that, natch.
Plus the little chips they insert in your arm when you get the H1N1 flu shot, but you’re not supposed to know about those.
@7
I’m no scientist, but my off-the-cuff guess is that what they do is go around and take samples of the air from around town and look at what’s in the air. Then they use more science to figure out where the stuff in the air came from by looking at statistics of who lives and works and the city and the kind of things they do and how polluting those things tend to be.
They probably even did this way back in 1990, allowing us to figure out how things may have changed.
And since science is pretty smart, they would probably have a pretty good estimate about how many people are driving around in especially filthy cars.
“how many people are driving around in especially filthy cars.”
Fuck you, I run my 4-wheel baby through the car wash and vacuum EVERY week.
That per capita transportation improvement happens to correspond with the introduction of LEV and ULEV standards by the major car makers, most of whom have never heard of Seattle. It’s all those Honda Civics replacing grandpas’s black-smoke Cutlass Supremes. Hardly Nickels’s or even Seattle’s doing.
It also corresponds to a continuation of Seattle’s lessening importance in the region.Any accounting of just Seattle without taking into account the rest of of the counties of King, Snohomish, and Pierce is meaningless. Where did the industry go? If it went to Auburn, WA — or Auburn, GA — then the net gain for carbon emissions is nil.
How much has per capita electricity use gone up in the same time period? Those emissions don’t count against the city, where they are used. How many computers and flat-screen TVs and microwave ovens and air conditioners are there compared to 1990? And don’t give me any of that “our electricity comes from dams, and thus has no environmental costs” sanctimonious bullshit. We’re on a grid, you know. And 15% of Washington’s power comes from burning fossil fuels.
This is Seattle.
Not the rest of Washington.
We’re green.
Nobody said they were.
(now, let’s just look at my household – in 1990 my ex-wife and I lived in two apartments and drove to work – and now we live in two apartments and walk/bus and bus to work – and we had multiple computers with CRT monitors and now have laptops which run on battery … net change is probably greener, actually, since my new place has way lower energy consumption due to CFL bulbs and better insulation)
Yup, pencils out.
@10: “lots” of plasma screens in theaters in 1990? Those are powerful buffalo chips you’re smoking, Will. Seeing as how Fujitsu invented the 21-inch full color display in 1992, I’m guessing your probably WRONG.
And as usual, you’re not satisfied with being merely wrong; you have to go all the way out to “completely and utterly wrong to a degree scarcely believable”. Carbon-neutral TVs. Right. Idiot.
It’s unclear whether you’re talking about movie theaters or home theaters, but it doesn’t really matter, because none of the former used plasma screens in 1990, and the number of the latter was negligible. Virtually everyone had a tube TV; even projection units were relatively scarce (and crazy expensive). Now, almost everyone has replaced their CRT with a flat screen, either a plasma using 4X the electricity or an LCD using 1.5X. Then add all the computer screens (and pause for a moment to mourn all the billions of old screens that have been sent to landfills (or Asian disassembly plants)). Plasma screens also use nitrogen triflouride, a very potent greenhouse gas, in manufacturing.
The same holds true for all those little tiny screens in your iPhones and iPods and Blackberries and what have you.
Note that for every tiny improvement in energy efficiency, the size of the screens in the average home goes up by a lot. In 1990, few people had sets bigger than 21″; now, almost everyone seems to have 42″ sets or even 54″ ones. Millions will be sold this Christmas.
Carbon neutral, my fucking ass.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/economy/story…
“an estimated 35 million digital sets shipped to dealers this year, up from 25 million in 2007” — “3 sets per home now, compared with 2.1 in 1990” — “those sets are switched on 8.5 hours a day”.
Since 2000, energy consumption from TVs has jumped from 3 percent to 8 percent of residential use, and growth is absolutely EXPLODING.
None of that counts against Seattle’s Kyoto stats, though, so there’s nothing to be concerned about.
Dear shithead @14: what percentage of Seattle’s electrical use is generated inside the city limits?
You are obviously heavily invested in some sort of competition with the rest of the world to prove who’s coolest, and those non-Seattleites sure are losing that battle. But people who live in the real world understand that shifting the ecological costs of living out of the city and into the countryside is not a net gain for anyone.
I’m also fascinated by your notion that batteries recharge themselves for free.
@17 – you mean like GE or Ford or Nintendo or …
yeah, so?
You’re invested in tobacco.
Sad.
Can’t anyone besides biscuit-dough-for-brains here defend Seattle’s press release?