Sacramento, land of the Governator

From a total sample of two, my impression is that US capital cities just don’t feel like cities. DC had a small town feeling despite the government machine which occupies its centre, and Sacramento appears to be a smaller version of the same thing. Astonishing though it may seem, in the state capital of California it’s almost impossible to buy a bag of groceries. There are plenty of upmarket restaurants, and a handful of down at heel corner shops and liquor stores, emphasising the unequal impact of the recession which has so clearly hit the state hard. There’s also a twee ‘old west’ street or two making a valiant attempt to attract the little tourism which comes to this city. But the centrepiece is the Senate building, seen above from the offices of the Sierra Club.

Schwarzenegger’s tenure as Governor is ending in abysmal poll ratings, but a positive climate change agenda seems to his one significant legacy. It’s now suffering from the same partisan politics which is playing out at federal level, but in a state which seems likely to remain Democratic at the mid-term elections the Republican party’s stubbornness may do less damage here than elsewhere. Alongside the elections, there’s a referendum on a proposal to ditch the state’s climate change legislation, with big bucks being spent by a couple of Texas oil companies. Most of the campaigners I met here seem confident that they can win the vote though, and that the greater threat is the race to succeed Arnie as Governor – the replacement will need the political will to press ahead with the various initiatives currently under way, or the progress which has been made on paper will fail to lead to real world emission cuts.

Meanwhile there are small companies out here trying to develop the solutions to California’s low carbon future. The solar thermal collector below is part of an air conditioning system – using heat energy to drive a cooling system in the building below. Not an approach which will work for every building, but out here where every bank, supermarket and motel is currently drawing huge amounts of electricity from the grid to cool the air, it surely has a role to play.

Recharging…

OK, so the blogging hasn’t been going quite so well. I’ve been having continual problems getting a power converter to work, and for most of the time I spent in Chicago my phone and laptop were both out of batteries. I’m now on my third converter, so fingers crossed for the rest of the trip.

Chicago itself was spectacular, from the mix of old and new architecture to the busy bustling vibrancy of the place. After the small town feel of DC, Chicago’s post industrial urban feel was great, and made me feel unexpectedly at home.

I particularly fell in love with the trains – the city has the quintessentially American elevated train system and it doesn’t look as though it has changed in decades. The battered carriages look like old tin cans, and they rattle past stations built of weathered, warped wooden planks suspended on rusting girders which any child who played with Meccano couldn’t help but love.

The city has a political will to implement a climate change plan – and one which explicitly sets targets for emission cuts. But the transport culture is a big problem. Though a lot of freight still travels by rail, not many people do (more as a result of urban spread beyond the range of the ‘L’ than because people don’t like the old fashioned system) and transport emissions are still very high. But there’s an ambitious focus on retrofitting the housing stock, including some area-based programmes like the one we’ve been pushing the Scottish Government to adopt.

The city is also home to some impressive climate research, both at the University and at the nearby Argonne National Laboratory. While the political logjam has prevented legislation in the US, the academic community has pressed ahead with the research agenda, and the Obama administration has been able to fund their efforts without being blocked by the Republicans.

The downside is that the research findings have had no impact on the polarised politics, so while the scientific community understands more than ever about the scale and urgency of the problem, many of them feel more powerless than ever do actually do anything about it.

One last post about DC

(written in DC, posted from Chicago, why can’t wifi be everywhere?)

Election fever is getting under way throughout the US as Senators, Representatives, mayors and councils approach November’s mid-term ballot. DC is a little different, having no voting representation at Congress. But the local government elections are still taking place, and midweek I bumped into Mayor Fenty out on the campaign trail as he seeks re-nomination as the Democratic candidate in the Primary process. Lots of placards, lots of enthusiasm, and good natured rivalry between the teams of volunteers, each praising their candidate to the skies. All so familiar.

Later that day I met some locals who were less impressed with their political masters:

On a long hot walk back from the launderette (hotel fees for laundry are extortionate!) I was making my way along Rhode Island Avenue and saw a small huddle of tents on an otherwise disused patch of land, surrounded by railings festooned with slogans, flyers and peace flags.

The locals here claim that the site, known as Parcel 42, had been promised for affordable housing, for which there is a serious shortage especially for returning soldiers. Mayor Fenty, they said, had then changed his mind and promised the site to a commercial property developer. Some things, it seems, are not so different in the US after all.

In response, the locals decided to occupy the site. This weekend they will be holding a demonstration outside the Mayor’s office and, while I’m sorry I can’t join them, I wish them well.

No we can’t

My week in Washington has coincided with an important time for climate policy. A year after the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill) everyone working on climate change in US politics has been waiting for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to announce the next step – a bill in the Senate. Even if passed this would then need to be amalgamated with the ACES Act, but it would have been a big step toward a legal framework for greenhouse gas emissions. Many environmentalists complained that the Cap and Trade proposals were nowhere near ambitious enough – and while this is certainly true in policy terms the fact is that any legislation would have been the first real achievement in terms of the politics.

But this morning the newspapers are reporting that the attempt has been dropped. A simple calculation was made – Reid judged that there was no hope of reaching the 60 votes necessary to bring the bill forward, and decided not to try. Some will blame the Obama administration for not throwing its weight behind the proposal. Others will blame the right wing media’s campaign of disinformation. Others still point to the immediate self interest of the Republicans ahead of the mid-term elections in November. But in reality a huge range of factors have brought the climate change debate to this impasse, including the very structure of US democracy. Time to set out some of my first week’s observations…

In the UK we’re all too familiar with the anti-science agenda of a handful of right wing bloggers who comprise the denialist movement. But their political traction is very slight indeed – only the far right parties and a handful of figures on the right of the Conservative Party give them any credence at all. There is overwhelming political agreement on the fundamental questions – the status of climate science, the role of human activity in causing the problem, and the long term actions which are required of us in response. We disagree about many of the policy options of course (from roadbuilding and airport expansions to wind turbines and nuclear power… from the values of consumerism to the nature of economic growth) but no serious political party doubts the importance of the issue.

Why have we reached this view, while the US has not? The science is no less clear on this side of the Atlantic. The consequences will be no less profound. The desire to ensure that children can grow up to have a decent life is no less strong.

There are geographic factors of course – the ‘farm states’ and the ‘coal states’ have been outright opponents of climate action. But these areas should also see climate change itself as a threat to their own agricultural livelihoods, or see renewable energy as a huge job-creating opportunity. The threats and opportunities are little different in the US than elsewhere. Besides, even the traditionally more progressive regions on the east and west coasts seem to expect fuel to burn and low bills for everything, so the philosophical gulf between the regions can’t be seen as the only issue.

The broadcast media here is far more partial and sensationalist, which doesn’t lend itself to thoughtful analysis of scientific questions. Many ‘news’ channels with very high ratings are little more than 24 hour diatribes, and this is fertile ground for the disinformation and junk science which the ideological opponents of climate action are using.

There’s the political lean to the right of course – America saw communism as its great enemy for much of the late 20th century, and it remains true that left wing politics are demonised here. The term ‘far right’ is just seen as a normal part of the political landscape, unlike the UK. The almost unchallengeable emphasis on free market economics seems to reinforce a “what’s in it for me?” voting pattern. While a clear majority of the US population do seem to share some degree of concern about climate change, they are voting on the basis of their taxes, their bills and their local jobs rather than taking account of the shared wellbeing of the world, or even of US society as a whole.

But perhaps the biggest stumbling block facing those trying to make the US as a whole sign up to the action needed on climate change is the structure of the country’s government. Since the founding of the nation, there has been an ongoing tension over the authority of state and federal government. In the eyes of some, this is more than just tension – it’s the continuation of the civil war itself. ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ isn’t just a resolution against tyranny. For many here it’s a resolution against a significant role for any government, even a democratically elected one. It tends toward unregulated capitalism. It tends toward an entrepreneurial spirit. It tends toward reliance on philanthropy instead of taxation. It certainly tends against co-operative internationalism, and it tends very strongly against ‘imposed’ solutions to any problem from healthcare reform to anti-discrimination law to environmental protection.

Whether or not we admire this aspect of US politics (I personally see its strengths as well as its many weaknesses) it can’t be wished away. The constitutional locks against an increase in federal power without the consent of the states are strong, and if any climate change policy can be achieved which commits the US as a whole to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions it will need to be supported at state level, not just by a President or even by Congress.

I’ve met with a huge range of people to discuss these issues in DC, from the White House Office of Science and Technology to the campaigning NGOs, and from the National Academy of Science to Congressman Markey’s office. At one level it’s frustrating to see so many people accepting defeat for the time being, or striving so hard for a measure which they know is inadequate. Those who understand the science seem afraid to express the genuine alarm they feel, for fear of alienating the unworried mainstream. But there is also the chance of progress, even in this disappointing week. Without legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency still has the power, as confirmed in court in 2007, to take forward a regulatory approach. That would be even less palatable to some of those who have been working against the Cap and Trade approach, and if the regulatory power can be defended against further attacks it might just be enough to persuade them that they need to come up with something positive instead of saying no to everything.

Tomorrow I leave Washington for Chicago, the first opportunity to explore these issues from the state-level perspective. Watch this space!

A view from the District

I’m afraid I’ve left it a few days since my New York post. The delay was partly due to my first ’silly bugger’ moment, dropping my phone on the first night here, leaving it on the deck (translation: posh patio) at the home of my guide, Paul. Not noticing till later that night, while a thunderstorm crashed over DC, I spent the next day in dread that while it might be found it must be drowned.

I was lucky. I am once more within range of the network and not relying on the laptop for wifi access. But the three days since my arrival have been so packed that it has been hard to collect my thoughts, let alone commit them to text.

Now it’s Wednesday evening, halfway through my DC stay, and I have lots to say. I’ve met with NGOs, campaigners, government officials, politicians, lobbyists, and community activists way beyond the issues which brought me here. This might take several posts.

First, some general impressions of the city. I thought at first that the contrast with New York was fooling me, as the difference is hard to come to terms with. Above all, Manhattan’s eye-popping scale was what struck me. As I passed each intersection another urban landscape of breathtaking vastness came into view. Not only the landmarks like Central Park, the Empire State Building and the Williamsburg Bridge create this impression – the whole city’s landscape could have been inspired by the Culture novels. At street level, I felt an almost dreamlike sense that this was a vast stage set, and the millions of people around me were simply hired for the weekend to play the role of New Yorkers for my benefit. After this, anything else would look like a sleepy suburb.

But after these three days I’m convinced – Washington (or DC as I’m learning to call it; the former refers to the political machine rather than to the District) isn’t really a city at all. It has instead the look and feel of a small town (the picture above was taken just minutes’ walk from the city centre), but one which just happens to have the capital of the United States of America squeezed into the middle of it, where the modest high street ought to be.

As a planned settlement it also shares the sterility of many ‘new town’ communities in the UK and elsewhere. There are few bars, few small businesses or independent shops in the centre (aside from the oddly plastic Chinatown). Walk just a few minutes from the commercial and political heart of the city and you’ll find low-rise leafy suburbs, rich and poor but both with a certain charm… I could even call it twee. But it doesn’t feel urban. I haven’t seen small town America yet, but I suspect those who live there would find much that’s familiar in these residential areas.

Of course the central part of the city, the part which seems to have landed from another world and settled into space which shouldn’t exist in this little town, includes the theatrical set piece of the National Mall. (By coincidence as I walked toward it, Mr Cameron’s parade of limousines thundered by on the way to his meeting with the President)

It’s impressive (even if the lawn could perhaps be better cared for) and in particular I appreciated the very steep steps leading up to the Lincoln Memorial, which ensure that as the face of this modern Zeus comes finally into view the visitor’s heartbeat is already high and thumping in the throat.

These are the great monuments of this very Nationalistic nation; the flag is everywhere, from subway trains to clothing, as well as the verbal reminders of Americanness in adverts, on signage and in everyday language.

It’s a puzzle, this nation where flag and fervour hold such power but where government is almost a dirty word. Such expectations of the nation to achieve global pre-eminence and to project global power, but such hostility to any increase of their own government’s authority to act.

The inspiring words of Lincoln inscribed inside his memorial can be read as endorsement of either half of this ideologically polarised society, but the words of George C Marshall a short walk away I found more definitely chilling:
“We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle, our flag will be recognised throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand, and of overwhelming force on the other”

The American passion for something called freedom is compelling. We all have our idea of freedom, though it may be freedom from something quite different for each of us. While the contradiction of small-state Nationalism is merely puzzling to me, the idea that freedom must be achieved – that it can only be achieved – at the point of a gun is deeply disturbing.

In my next post, I’ll try to set out my perception of the way these aspects of the American character impact on the issues I’m here to study, climate change and equality.

New York in 48 hours

Is there anything I can write about New York that hasn’t been said before?

My two days here have been barely enough to scratch the surface, and I really only planned them to make sure I wouldn’t be jetlagged when I start the study programme on Monday morning. As it panned out I’ve not suffered at all so far from the time difference and I’ve had the chance to walk lots and gawp at things.

My hotel in the lower East Side just off Bowery is really very nice for a cheapish place. Sandwiched between Chinatown and Little Italy I’ve been spoiled for choice of food, and the area’s fascinating to walk around.

Outside of those two distinctive zones it’s a real mix. I began to feel that I was in familiar surroundings, only with the intensity that a huge city brings. It was Govanhill and Garnethill, Ashton Lane and Saltmarket, Buchanan St and the Barras, all squeezed into a single block and repeated a thousand times over. With traffic to match.

In these two days I’ve managed to walk round East Village, Central Park and a little of the Upper West Side, ride lots of subway trains without getting lost, go shopping in the ‘Garment District’, run to the Williamsburg Bridge and up the East River Park, and spend all together too long trying to sort out voltage converters and sim cards and the like. (A mobile phone shop is much the same dispiriting place to be in, regardless of the city)

Shortly I’ll be heading to Washington for the first working part of the trip. I have a ticket in my pocket for the Chinatown bus, and I’m not afraid to use it. Well not much…

American adventure

Last year I was invited to take part in a study programme in the US, focusing on my pet topics, including climate change and LGBT issues. It’s been a far-off abstract idea since then. This morning, after worse-than-usual last minute nightmares with packing, passports and visa forms, I’m leaving.

The invitation was a really exciting opportunity, but it did face me with the usual quandry about flying – it’s one which everyone who’s concerned about climate change needs to work out for themselves. I’ve never thought we need to scrap aviation and never fly again, but I do think we need to fly less (at least until these wonderful creations come into service). For several years now I’ve been willing to fly for some work-related purposes like international development, but not for holidays. This trip is somewhere in between – it is work, but it’s more about pursuing my own interests than helping someone else’s.

So here’s the compromise I reached with myself. I’ll go, but I’ll try to do it as low carbon as possible, and be willing to commit the time and the money that requires. There will be some flying involved, but by replacing internal flights with buses and trains when possible, and by replacing the flight home with passage on a cargo freighter, I reckon I’ve made substantial cuts into the carbon impact of the journey.

I’ll be blogging, tweeting and hopefully doing a few video clips along the way, so check back here over the next six weeks or so for what might turn out to be the trip of a lifetime, or a nightmare of late trains and seasickness!

An “Economic Justification”?

Development and Regeneration Services at the Council inform me that “detailed negotiations” continue with Buchanan Partnership Ltd. Together, they’re working on an “economic justification” for the way that they want to fund the expansion plan that would cause huge disruption to traffic in the town centre and demolish one of our most beloved public spaces, the Royal Concert Hall steps.

The economic justification is expected to be ready in late summer this year. When it is, they’ll put it to a meeting of the full Council to decide what to do next.

I’ll be ready to scrutinise in detail the business case for risking £80 million of tax payer’s money on this misguided development. As a Glasgow MSP, I will do all I can to let city-dwellers know about the plans for their town centre and to hold ruling Councillors and council officials to account.

Normal service will be resumed

Forgive me reader, for I have sinned. It has been almost two months since my last update.

Apparently I am now paying my hosting company enough money to upgrade their software, which will allow me to keep doing exactly what I’ve been doing for the last year or two. This, I think, is called progress.

Hey ho. Time for a quick run-down of events since then.

My last update was about the climate targets, and after their rejection a second time the government agreed to sit down with the opposition parties and discuss what we would be willing to accept. I posted my response at the new greenmsps.com site. The working group which was formed is still discussing the options, and Ministers will have another attempt to propose meaningful and ambitious targets after the summer recess.

It all serves to reinforce what I’ve been saying for months – the self congratulatory mood of consensus has become a barrier to progress. Scotland’s good intentions on climate change will not be met unless some hard decisions are taken, and a the moment each government is likely to set targets which defer those decisions till after it has left office. The task is too urgent for that, and I can’t accept a slowdown in our emission cuts simply because we have some decent legislation in place.

In other news, I’ve been out and about on the Glasgow subway, and visiting the new Glasgow Bike Shed. Now I’ve got just a few days left before I head off on my big summer trip… of which more news later.