The Funny Paper reports today that Metro's auditor, Suzanne Flynn, took a look at Metro's efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, and found it lacking.
It seems they are spending the vast majority of their "sustainability efforts" (read: money) on projects that have little impact on CO2 reduction, while leaving all sorts of low hanging fruit on the vine.
The Auditor said that their poor performance, Metro "risks losing credibility in the region." Was that a laugh line?
I've already heard some commentary that Metro is being hypocritical - scolding us all for our carbon footprint while not reducing its own. But I don't think this is quite right. Metro is trying to reduce its carbon emissions, but they are just going about it wrong. Spending the bulk of their resources on efforts that yield little, and ignoring efforts that could yield much.
So they aren't hypocrites. They are INCOMPETENT.
But give them a break. This is the way they have operated for years on end. Consider: for years on end Metro has spent up to half its transportation funds on systems that 3% of travellers use. So why should we be surprised that they also misallocate funds for greenhouse gas reduction?
In other news...
Funny Paper ironic juxtaposition of the day: In the story about Randy Leonard's building code hit squad Commissioner Dan Saltzman gives the effort high praise. The article reads:
"This is the model of bureaus working together," Saltzman said. "There are other areas of the city that would benefit from that approach."
Then, in the very next sentence of the story:
"Nevertheless, Saltzman said he has no idea how the team works."
Huh? You really can't make this stuff up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
(Laughs out loud.)
.
"Nevertheless, Saltzman said he has no idea how the team works."
I think that sentence should end with the word "idea" to more accurately convey Saltzman's state of mind.
Rob, I think you were only partly right when you said they are not hypocrites, they are incompetent. I think they're both.
I generally come here to try and balance things out, and I'll just say that while I would prefer we err on the side of CO2 being an issue, I just don't see any of the proponents doing a very good job in the areas they have the most control over. They prefer to tackle things that impose restrictions on others. That not sends the wrong message, but is just not very considerate.
Good post. Bad Metro.
Rickyragg - I responded to you below regarding the economic theory (probably a little roughly, sorry), but would love your feedback.
Congratulations, Rob, on correctly spelling "lose".
There seems to be an odd affliction among bloggers that the spell "lose" as "loose".
It seems to have hit right-wing bloggers more severely than lefties, but they're not immune from the problem.
Post a Comment