Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Warming to mandates

Go slowly on climate dictates

Published May 27, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper assembled a group of worthies, named them the Greenprint Denver Advisory Council, and told them to come up with recommendations on how Denver can reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases.

Specifically they were told to recommend "how to accomplish the city's commitment under the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement: to reduce citywide per capita emissions by 10 percent relative to 1990 levels by 2012," a commitment signed by Hickenlooper in June 2005.

Their proposed plan came out the other day, in draft form, and it adopts an even stricter target: by 2020, Denver will cut its emissions of CO2 (or its equivalent) by 25 percent from today's levels. We can do this, the plan concludes, "through a dynamic combination of incentives, mandates, and voluntary outreach."

The voluntary outreach is fine with us. So are some of the incentives. But the mandates? There are way too many potential mandates here, and many should be discarded before this process goes too far.

One proposal would impose a surcharge "for excessive electrical and natural gas use." That may not be a bad idea in principle - it works for water conservation - but getting the details right would be an immensely complex task. High natural gas bills are already pushing people into conservation. How punitive does the council think they should be?

As for electricity use, we can't see that anything short of a draconian boost in price would prompt people to shut down their computers or turn off the living room lights since the incremental cost of an hour or so of either type of use is so relatively small.

Among other suggestions:

• Charging for non-recyclable trash, based on weight or volume. In theory, this is another good idea, but very difficult to implement given that Denverites right now pay no separate fee for trash at all.

• Mandate energy efficiency standards for new construction. A good idea, even if it is extended to some remodels. We'd draw the line, however, at an ordinance requiring that older homes must meet energy efficiency standards at the time of sale. Among its many drawbacks: It could impose a terrific burden on people who are in a hurry because of a change in jobs (or worse, the loss of one), and could deter some people from selling at all.

• Even worse is the idea of requiring that auto insurance premiums reflect the number of miles driven as opposed to the risk associated with a category of drivers based upon objective criteria. Auto insurance should not be transformed into an instrument of environmental or social policy. It's controversial enough as it is without being subject to a new set of considerations.

As you can see, a number of these recommendations deserve thorough public debate before being adopted or rejected. Fortunately, the advisory council is open to public input. The Web site has the full plan and a list of presentations - the next occurs June 2 - and you can send comments on it by e-mail or post on Greenprint's blog. Don't miss the opportunity.