Dear Council,

If we are going to invest in being green, I think we can do a lot better than purchasing greenhouse gas offset credits.

The proposition, at face value, is to pay someone else to plant trees outside our city, at the rate of $20,000 per year, so that the city can absolve itself of pollution created by our public facilities. But, if we feel that this is a reasonable proposition, shouldn't we just have the city plant the trees in our own jurisdiction? Certainly there are many street in the city that would benefit from such spending.

Moreover, if the city is serious about being green and has $20,000 per year at its disposal, why wouldn't we do something to actually reduce the carbon footprint of our facilities rather than merely absolve our pollution? For example, $20,000 per year could be used to fund a steady stream of plant upgrades, such as investing in more efficient equipment or better building insulation.

If you want to be more aggressive, the same $20,000 can service approximately $300,000 in municipal bonds, and the $300K so raised could be used to reduce our pollution even more through larger but even more efficient plant upgrade projects. If planned well, the upgrades would lead to energy savings that could even pay for themselves. That would not only save all or most of the $20,000/year, but allow Menlo Park to reuse the same $20,000 per year and set an example for other cities to follow. That sounds a lot better than simply buying absolution.

I urge you to think about our real opportunities to use $20,000/year to actually be green.

Lou Deziel
MP resident Received on Tue Mar 25 12:58:29 2008