1997年，聯合國氣候變遷協會（Framework Convention on Climate Change）通過京都議定書，具體規範世界主要工業國的溫室氣體（Green House Gas）的排放減量，總共有141個國家簽署了這項協定，然而，溫室氣體排放量居全球第一位的美國卻拒絕簽署。2005年二月十六日，京都議定書正式生效，美國中央聯邦政府雖然置身事外，但許多城市卻在同一天聯合起來，誓言以地方城市的力量來達成京都議定書所規範的目標。
發起這項地方城市連線行動的，是西雅圖市的市長Greg Nickel。做為一個美國公民，Nickel市長深為美國聯邦政府拒絕簽署京都議定書、拒絕正視日益惡化的全球氣候環境的行為感到羞恥，既然聯邦政府不採取任何行動，Nickel決定聯合全國各地大大小小城市的市長，以城市為單位，訂定策略來達成溫室氣體的減量，如果全美許多城市都能有效減低溫室氣體的排放，那麼美國整體的排放量必能降低。到目前為止，Nickel已經找到了219個城市簽署了一個同意書，共同參與這項行動。

        溫室氣體排放的減量牽涉許多環節，不是說減就減，必須要有行為的改變以及有效的政策和配套措施，既然西雅圖發起了這項城市行動，就必須首先提出一套策略以顯示其決心並供其他城市參考，因此Nickel市長召集了專家學者組成了一個「氣候保護綠鍛帶委員會」（Green Ribbon Commission on Climate Protection），負責為西雅圖研擬出一套針對氣候保護、溫室氣體減量的城市策略。委員會的成員檢視了西雅圖主要的溫室氣體排放源，參考了許多其他城市、企業、和國家的有效解決方案，以研擬相關可行計畫。

         經過了將近一年的團隊研究，三月二十四日上午，綠鍛帶委員會與Nickel市 長正式向市民發表了西雅圖氣候保護及溫室減量的計畫，還邀請了美國前副總統高爾共同參與這個有意義的時刻。我對西雅圖的都市政策一向有興趣，因此也特別跑 去市政廳參加這個盛會，到會場的時已經沒有座位，只好跟許多人一起席地而坐，當市長和委員會成員以及其他來賓出現時，全場觀眾報以熱烈掌聲，然而當高爾隨 後入場時，所有人包括周遭坐在地上的人全部都站起來給高爾更加熱烈持久的掌聲和歡呼，雖然我對高爾的作為不太認識，但在群眾之中也不得不跟著盲目起立鼓 掌，見識到了西雅圖人對民主黨的高爾的熱烈擁戴。

         當天，從Nickel市長、其他國會議員來賓、和高爾本人的演講，顯示出高爾很早就開始關心氣候變遷等的環境相關議題（不像現任布希總統甚至不承認有全球暖化這回事），被大部分人視為美國政壇中在這方面議題的領導人物，或許這就是為什麼Nickel市長會在這一天請來高爾，為西雅圖對氣候保護的承諾作見證。隔天，當地報紙報導了高爾對西雅圖對抗氣候暖化的作為的嘉許。（相關報導詳見 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002888182_kyoto25m.html）

         西雅圖的計畫是什麼呢？要採用什麼樣的城市策略來面對棘手的全球暖化議題呢？雖然美國聯邦政府並沒有簽訂京都議定書，但原本聯合國氣候變遷協會是希望美國在2010年能將溫室氣體排放量減低到低於1990年 排放量的百分之七，因此西雅圖原則上也希望達到超越這個標準。要達到京都議定書的標準，對西雅圖而言，意味著要減少六十八萬噸重的溫室氣體排放量。（一般 成年的大象約八噸重，相當於八萬五千隻大象的重量！）城市中的溫室氣體大部分來自於汽車所排放的廢氣，因此西雅圖的目標是移除掉十四萬八千台的車輛。

         於是，西雅圖最首要最直接的工作，莫過於就是減低市民對私家汽車的依賴。要減低私人汽車使用，綠鍛帶委員會建議的策略是：第一，改善大眾運輸系統，提供更頻繁、更方便、更值得信賴的大眾交通工具；第二，進行腳踏車道以及行人環境的整體規劃，大量增加腳踏車道以及舒適的步行環境；第三，發展出一套道路收費系統，依使用者付費原則，在不同的道路上依不同費率對開車族收道路使用費；第四，研擬一套更適宜的商業停車稅制，以停車費來抑制開車；第五，投入更多力量來創造出更永續、高人口密度的城市生活，以縮減工作與住家之間的通勤需要。

         與減低汽車使用同樣重要的，是增加車輛的燃料效能（Fuel Efficiency），讓西雅圖的汽車和卡車更為省油，並且增加植物性能源（Biofuel）的使用，同時也必須減少柴油車、火車、和船艦的廢氣排放。

         除了針對車輛和燃料下手，也必須讓建築物如居家和辦公室的電力使用更有效率。目前，提供西雅圖電力的西雅圖電力公司（Seattle City Light），目前已經達到了完全不排放溫室氣體的程度，是美國第一個達到溫室氣體零排放的電力公司，委員會建議西雅圖電力公司應該設法維持目前的優異表現；也必須同時顯著節約天然氣的使用，因為雖然天然氣相對於石油對氣候的威脅小一些，但仍會產生污染；此外，西雅圖市必須採用一套更嚴格的建築物能源規範，讓建築物從設計上就能的設計達到節能的效果。

         要執行上述的種種計畫，必須有其他相關措施來配合，委員會建議，市政府本身就應該以身作則，將自己本身的溫室氣體排放減到最低，並且宣導及教育民眾來改變日常生活；同時市政府也必須邀請和說服企業主，改變企業運習慣來減低環境負擔；市政府更必需與周遭其他城市和上級州政府合作，畢竟氣候和環境議題是跨界線的；同時政府也必須挪出更多的資源來支持以上這些計畫，並長期觀察監督計畫的進展。

         西 雅圖在氣候及環境保護上的積極，可以做為台灣城市的借鏡。我們可以跟西雅圖學習的，不完全是其策略的本身，畢竟台灣的環境和西雅圖相當不同，要減低溫室氣 體排放的策略絕對會不同，我在西雅圖所看到的，是地方政治人物的遠見和魄力，即使在全國性的議題上，地方政治人物都可以不仰賴不等待中央，積極的用地方的 力量來主動尋求改變。去年，全美各地的市長共同推舉西雅圖為全美最適合人居的大城市（Most Livable City greater than 100,000請參考報導http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-13-05.asp )，主要原因就在於Nickel市長連結各城市共同為保護氣候環境而努力，他們認為Nickel市長的遠見和已經執行中的各項相關政策，將會使西雅圖成為適合人居的永續都市。（相關報導請見：

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002331393_livable12m.txt.html）

 
        期待看到台灣也出現一個有魄力地方首長，為台灣的環境做出令人鼓掌叫好的政績出來。

 

 相關資訊：

 

關於西雅圖市長所發起的城市連線，以及市長共同簽署的同意書內容請見：http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/

 

關於西雅圖溫室氣體減量計畫的相關報導：

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002885692_kyoto24m.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/264194_warm24.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/263794_city22.html

 

Seattle City Light 網站：  http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/light/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

以下轉載一篇Nickel市長的專訪
（文章來源：http://grist.org/news/maindish/2005/06/15/little-nickels/index.html）

City City Bang Bang

An interview with Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels on his pro-Kyoto cities initiative

By Amanda Griscom Little
15 Jun 2005

Meet the pied piper of one of the most exciting green grassroots uprisings to hit the in years: Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels (D).

He's managed to get roughly 300 mayors nationwide -- from the Northwest to the deep South and everywhere in between -- to agree that it's a good idea for cities to meet or beat Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, despite the Bush administration's rejection of the treaty. Municipal leaders attending a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Chicago on Monday unanimously endorsed Nickels' initiative calling on cities to do their part to stave off climate change. Before the conference vote, 165 mayors from 37 states had individually signed on to the initiative; now Nickels hopes many more will follow suit.

Granted, the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement is non-binding, so cities could climb aboard the bandwagon but not follow through on meeting the targets. But the fact that there's a bandwagon at all is noteworthy, and the timing is fortuitous. As the Senate deliberates a number of bipartisan climate amendments that have been proposed for the energy bill, mayors from New York City to Salt Lake City are sending a powerful message to D.C. lawmakers that wants action on global warming.

Nickels spoke with Grist's Amanda Griscom Little yesterday from Chicago, where he was still attending conference meetings, about his surprisingly successful climate crusade.

Tell us about how you came up with the idea of rallying mayors nationwide to adopt Kyoto targets.

The idea began forming over the winter as I got briefings from my superintendent of City Light -- our city-run electric utility -- and from the fellow who runs my water department. Week after week they told me that we had no snow pack or minimal snowpack. Skiing season was cancelled, which was a disappointment for a lot of people, but for the city itself that snowpack is essential for water and power throughout the summer. As it melts we capture the water and reuse it.

So climate change was having direct impacts on the way our city operates, and in my State of the City address early this year I talked about the fact that the Kyoto agreements were going to become law in 141 countries -- but not the -- and the issue of global warming was one we needed to address directly. On Feb. 16, when Kyoto went into effect, I issued a challenge to mayors across to join with me in taking local action to try and meet the spirit and letter of the Kyoto accords while our federal government was failing to act.

Your idea seems to have snowballed into something bigger than you or anyone else expected. Can you describe its path?

I knew that this idea would resonate in Seattle, a very environmentally conscious city, but I didn't know how it would be received in a lot of other cities. So my first outreach was to similar-minded cities like Portland [Ore.] and San Francisco, and then to cities like Minneapolis and Burlington [Vt.]. That group of mayors -- there were eight or nine of us -- then issued the challenge further to all the mayors. We sent a letter on March 30 to about 400 mayors. Almost immediately we started getting positive responses -- some very memorable -- back from cities. At this point, 170 mayors from 39 states have signed on.

What were some of the most memorable responses?

I think the most poignant one that I got was from Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans, who said that another foot of water in the ocean, and New Orleans is gone. That really brought home the fact that the issue of global warming is not one of comfort or convenience -- it really is an issue, in many cases, of survival.

Is it also a partisan issue? Did you meet resistance from conservative mayors when you brought it to the Conference of Mayors this week?

Well, we've had support from a number of Republican mayors from the beginning, but we brought it to the U.S. Conference of Mayors to see if there was a major national organization that would be willing to endorse this grassroots effort across party lines and regional borders. We expected there to be opposition, and I think initially there was. But we worked and played with the language a little bit to make people more comfortable that it wasn't a frontal assault on one party or the other. Eventually it wasn't just the Democratic mayors voting for it and Republican mayors voting against it, it wasn't just the West Coast and the East Coast -- it was unanimous, mayors across the country.

Can you describe the opposition in more detail?

We had heard from various sources that the Bush administration was not anxious to have the conference endorse this -- there were some mayors close to the administration who would object. So we worked with Pat McCrory of Charlotte [N.C.], who is head of the Republican mayors' association and chair of the [U.S. Conference of Mayors'] Environment Committee, and Bob Young, mayor of Augusta [Ga.], who chairs the Energy Committee. We tussled a little bit over the language and ultimately came to a compromise that both of them could support. It led to a unanimous endorsement in both the environment and energy committees, and ultimately by the full conference of mayors.

What kind of modifications did you make?

There were a few phrases in there -- like when we referenced the Kyoto agreement, we said "yet to be adopted by the " -- that caused some concerns. It was just modest modifications of the language to make [some mayors] more comfortable. Getting that unanimous vote was critical: the mayors' conference is the first major organization to endorse the initiative, and I think it will be a signal to other cities that it's OK to sign on, that it's not something that they need to be concerned about or afraid of.

Wasn't there also a clause in your original supporting the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act that you cut?

There was. They were not comfortable mentioning that legislation, and frankly it has changed [with the addition of new incentives for nuclear development] and we weren't all that comfortable with it anymore.

What are the requirements of the initiative? When a mayor signs on, are there penalties for cities that don't meet the requirements?

No, no. This is purely advisory.

What kind of follow-up will you be doing with the cities to be sure they follow through with their pledge?

We will work with an organization called ICLEI [International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives] on the follow-up. We are going to find every opportunity to make sure that success stories are trumpeted, which will hopefully motivate others to want to innovate. We're going to ask other cities what they are going to do at a local level and what their experience is, so that ultimately we are going to have a clearinghouse of ideas, a menu of things that have worked and a similar menu of what didn't work, and be able to share that across the country.

What are some innovative emissions-reduction programs you've seen implemented in cities?

Let me just share with you what we've been doing [in Seattle]. We've already set a policy at Seattle's utility, which is a billion-dollar-a-year operation, of no net greenhouse-gas emissions. And by the end of 2005 this year we will have achieved that, largely with investments in wind power and low-impact hydro power.

We have cruise ships that come into our port with huge diesel engines that are equivalent to about 30,000 automobiles' worth of emissions. When they dock, they plug into our electric grid and turn those engines off. We also worked with the Washington State Ferries, which is the largest ferry system in , and they are working on converting to biodiesel. We have the second-largest portfolio of LEED-certified buildings of any city in the country, and we're offering very strong incentives to private developers. I don't think there will be any more buildings built in downtown Seattle that are not LEED-certified.

And presumably you'll be able to demonstrate that there are long-term economic benefits to these kinds of efforts.

Absolutely. That's what we want to show: Instead of it being a lose-lose situation because we have to change from a carbon-based economy, we think there are great opportunities. But you've got to be in the game, you have to embrace the fact that this change is going to occur, and then put entrepreneurs to work figuring out how to create green jobs. When people see change, they are scared; when they see opportunity, they embrace it.

Is your goal ultimately to put pressure on Washington to adopt ambitious climate-change legislation?

We would like to pave the way for the federal government to endorse these efforts. Local government is in many ways much more nimble than other levels of government, so historically one of its roles is to experiment and show that things can work and then have it embraced at state, regional, and ultimately national levels.

The best-case scenario would be to set the stage for our country to not only join the community of nations in this effort, but lead the community of nations. Because Kyoto is only a beginning. It is really an order of magnitude short of what will be necessary this century to stem global warming and ultimately climate disruption.

Tell us about your personal commitment to the environment -- what kind of decisions have you made in your own life to reduce your carbon emissions?

That's an interesting question, because in my private life [my wife] Sharon and I are environmentally aware, but we are not, you know, rabid environmentalists. We are people who are concerned about human health and the health of our community. Much of the motivation for me has been practical concerns as mayor about providing water and electricity after an unprecedented drought winter. So for instance, this last winter we switched over from a conventional clothes washer to an ultra low-use -- both electric and water use -- model. But generally speaking we have become aware probably along with the rest of our community as to the fact that global warming is happening. It was even on the front page of USA Today [this week] that the science really is not in dispute. And we are going to have to take action in our individual lives to change that.

 

Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on environmental politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the magazine. Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.