Clearing up confusion over the Climate Protection Agreement
As many already are aware, at its September 11 meeting the Oshkosh Common Council approved the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (5-2, Esslinger and McHugh dissenting). In doing so, the City of Oshkosh became the 668th city nationwide and the 15th in the state of Wisconsin to sign it. An environmental committee is expected to be named soon and one of that committee’s roles will be to look at ways in which Oshkosh can become more “green,” especially as they relate to the newly-signed agreement.
At the council meeting, there was discussion by councilors McHugh and Esslinger about this being nothing but “feel good” legislation and the city being required to do certain things contained in the agreement. Some of that mindset has also seeped into the community in a few blogs and private conversations. McHugh is right when he says the city is already doing certain things to protect the environment, but what’s wrong with trying to do more? Note, I said “try.” It’s important that people understand this agreement does not “require” the city to do anything and for a councilor to have or, worse yet, give the impression it requires the city to do something, tells me he did not read it as carefully as he should have. If you read the agreement for yourself, you can clearly see that it uses words or phrases like “urge,” “strive to meet or beat” and “by taking actions in our own operation and communities such as.” I found nothing in the document that requires any community to do anything.
Finally, as for any costs the city may incur as a result of a decision to take certain “green” action, yes it may cost a little more up front, but energy efficiencies and the like end up saving money in the long-run, not to mention help the environment for generations to come. I applaud the five council members who saw the benefit of this agreement by looking ahead to the future instead of being caught in a present day time warp.
Meanwhile, Oshkosh is receiving praise from state leaders for its insight and positive action taken on the agreement. Kudos again, council members Bain, King, Palmeri and Tower and Mayor Tower.
At the council meeting, there was discussion by councilors McHugh and Esslinger about this being nothing but “feel good” legislation and the city being required to do certain things contained in the agreement. Some of that mindset has also seeped into the community in a few blogs and private conversations. McHugh is right when he says the city is already doing certain things to protect the environment, but what’s wrong with trying to do more? Note, I said “try.” It’s important that people understand this agreement does not “require” the city to do anything and for a councilor to have or, worse yet, give the impression it requires the city to do something, tells me he did not read it as carefully as he should have. If you read the agreement for yourself, you can clearly see that it uses words or phrases like “urge,” “strive to meet or beat” and “by taking actions in our own operation and communities such as.” I found nothing in the document that requires any community to do anything.
Finally, as for any costs the city may incur as a result of a decision to take certain “green” action, yes it may cost a little more up front, but energy efficiencies and the like end up saving money in the long-run, not to mention help the environment for generations to come. I applaud the five council members who saw the benefit of this agreement by looking ahead to the future instead of being caught in a present day time warp.
Meanwhile, Oshkosh is receiving praise from state leaders for its insight and positive action taken on the agreement. Kudos again, council members Bain, King, Palmeri and Tower and Mayor Tower.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 10:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home