Think Locally, Not Doctrinally

THINKING GLOBALLY
The case that global temperature is increasing due to carbon dioxide emissions is proven. The case that sulphur emissions cause global cooling also seems to be demonstrated as the result of volcanoes and the result of the pollution of the US and China. Nate Silver discusses the climate models in his book, The Signal and the Noise. Levitt and Dubner in their book, SuperFreakonomics, also discuss these models and provide evidence of reasonable scientific approaches to counter global temperature rise at essentially zero economic cost. The one-planet-with-scarce-resources morality of the year-2000 may no longer apply in year-2013. If global temperature continues to rise, there are reasonable ways to stop this, such as by creating more or brighter cloud cover over the middle of oceans.  Better land management strategies (the rest of the world behaving like Iowa farmers) would solve global climate change per one TED talk.

Conservation principles suggest reining in man-made effects. The genetic diversity of the planet is important to reasonable people. Depopulation of oceans and of rain forests seems particularly negative from a long-term perspective. These are real and significant environmental issues which should not be downplayed. But, should it not be possible to address these issues independent of the global carbon issue? Certainly, those that have fought long and hard for laws to contain carbon emissions and global warming will continue to fight for these laws. Momentum is a strong force of nature. But, the larger issue is economic. How can we improve the standard of living for all?
The recent boom in shale oil and the economics of wind energy are severing dependence on foreign oil. Though there is environmental concern about shale oil, the people of the states that are booming are considerably less worried. "Fracking" does not involve half-lives of millions of years or irreparable damage to ecosystems or to scenic views, and shale oil production without fracking may soon be achievable. The value of carbon fuels is huge and dollars equal lives as people live longer in a richer economy. The rooms of people in a richer economy are literally warmer. Burning this U.S. oil has considerably lower costs to the globe than the costs of a U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. The supply of shale oil should last more than a century, by which time fusion energy, asteroid mining or any number of science fiction scenarios may feel like old technology. (Conservatively, 5million million barrels reserves per Wikipedia/ 40thousand million barrels U.S. government, year 2035, global forecast oil usage = 125 years)
Ten years ago, nuclear energy, with zero carbon emissions, seemed like it might make a comeback. Off-shore arctic oil drilling also seemed critical per the perspective of at least one political party. But, the current situation may not require comebacks in these areas, given the track records of both, and a history where technological and logistical effort have never been equal to technical challenges. Even assuming technical challenges are all solved with today's know-how, the fallibility of humans becomes a weak link in exploiting the technologies-- how does one prevent the worst case consequences of drunken sea captains or bribable nuclear fuel handlers?
A tax credit for U.S. wind energy, which is proving to be a real energy solution, may be expiring, even as ineffective ethanol subsidies go on. (Ethanol is a fuel that creates carbon emissions.) The self-interest of each state is the only political concern.
The United Nations and the State of California try to regulate carbon emissions. Fuel economy standards for cars have recently been raised. So, there is continued effort to control and lower carbon dioxide emissions, as there should be. But, is our political debate about energy sources based on reasonable assessment of where we are today?
It is time to pull the plug on year 2000-era energy politics based on perceived scarcity and to move on to the next generation of concerns. It is time to deal with global issues through rational taxation of the emissions and real costs-- policies to be brought forward by national leaders would be appropriate-- and to deal with our local issues in a self-interested way, divorced from national and global politics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THINKING LOCALLY
Much of local politics is focused on trivial ways that the planet might be saved. Should we recycle pizza boxes? Should we limit the number of garbage pickups per alley? It feels like an episode of Hoarders and reflects the mindset of the Great Depression and World War II, experiences the oldest amongst us still remember. The assumption is that there are scarce resources which must be conserved in each of our neighborhoods if we are to survive, and if the planet is to survive. Those who would impose a year-2000 era scarcity doctrine on others are not paying attention to the facts of today.
When we limit transportation choices, ostensibly to save the planet or to renew our urban centers, there are two predictable results: 1) The poor are the only ones at risk to be priced out of cars and to have their job choices and income potential limited based on being priced out of cars. 2) Small, local businesses are most at risk to fail.
Urbanist ideals may not match urban realities: link. With transit oriented development when not fully thought out, the poor get poorer, while the rich wrongly, or perhaps cynically, say that they are doing good: related link. 
The facts of the last ten years have proven assumptions wrong. Global warming is no longer an intractable problem. With shale oil, fuel for the garbage truck is not and will not be limited in our lifetimes. The construction of a light rail or of a country full of light rails has no meaningful impact on whether global warming continues or whether fuel will remain available. Landfills typically are transformed into golf courses. So, what should local politics focus on?
One thought: Ask people-- real people, not just the activists-- what would make their lives better. If people want safer roads, hire engineers to redesign them. If people think high-rise buildings would be cool to have in our neighborhoods toward higher density, find out if people actually want to live in them. If people want thriving neighborhood businesses to walk to, encourage this rather than only fund what is downtown. If people want to drive to the train when it is rainy, set up parking lots so that they can. Define a future based on what people want. Look forward, not back. Decide based on the ideas of people who don't thrive on political discussion and who don't necessarily have time for the meetings. Recognize that money, even the grant money of non-profits, tends to be doctrinal and tends to represent out-of-town wealth, so give preference to local people.
The future is ours collectively to make, based on the problems and issues that we, people who live here, actually face. Here, we can be visionary in measurable terms, such as safety, prosperity and quality of life. Our job as citizens of Saint Paul has nothing to do with planetary environmental problems where our impact can only be miniscule.