most sustainable group in Cleveland...  E4S!

Ms Hansen neglected to mention one of the most contentious environmental issues to ripple through Cleveland this year. This was the decision of the City of Cleveland to buy into a coal fired power plant in Southeast Ohio, to provide power for the local public power company. This decision was fiercely criticized by the environmental community of Cleveland, as a gross contradiction to how Cleveland is trying to portray itself as a "green city on a blue lake." Well, there was nothing green about this decision, and the impact of this plant which we are now saddled with for 50 years, will dwarf all the pretty words, bold statements, and other initiatives launched by the city's leaders. In fact it made them look like greenwashing hypocrits.

Furthemore, it appeared to some activists in Meigs County, Ohio to be a case of energy colonialism. Cleveland blesses another dirty power plant to pollute the air, blight the health, and poison the water of Meigs County, while signing the Kyoto Protocol, and announcing beautiful green initiatives. The residents of Meigs County would be justified in laughing at such hypocrisy, if they weren't so busy coughing and wheezing.

This controversy also revealed to all, the best kept secret of the environmental movement in Cleveland. Namely its political irrelevancy. The fact that it is a dog that is all bark and no bite. The fact that politicians can pander to the environmental movement when dealing with a symbolic issue, but when it comes to the really tough issues, they can ignore local environmentalists because it costs them nothing. That is what Ms Hansen missed.

Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, Ohio

to demolish existing buildings and replace them with new ones?  This quote jumped out at me: "we're taking down about a thousand homes per year."  All the embodied energy of those houses is thrown away when the buildings are demolished, not to mention all the irreplaceable materials that are sent to landfills.  I'm all for green new construction, when new buildings are needed, but I'm not sure why new buildings are needed if the city has so many that are not being used.  Recycling those buildings, by reusing them (at least the ones that are not too far gone to save) would be a lot greener than tearing them down and building new ones - after all, no matter how green the new houses are in terms of operational energy, the new materials don't come from nowhere and they don't ship and assemble themselves.

to demolish existing buildings and replace them with new ones, in a city with a shrinking population?  This quote jumped out at me: "we're taking down about a thousand homes per year."  All the embodied energy of those houses is thrown away when the buildings are demolished, not to mention all the irreplaceable materials that are sent to landfills.  

I'm all for green new construction, when new buildings are needed, but I'm not sure why new buildings are needed if the city has so many that are not being used.  Recycling those buildings, by reusing them (at least the ones that are not too far gone to save) would be a lot greener than tearing them down and building new ones - after all, no matter how green the new houses are in terms of operational energy, the new materials don't come from nowhere and they don't ship and assemble themselves.

It's not that the city is tearing down perfectly good houses.  They'd definitely prefer to sell the properties to new owners who would rehab the houses, since demolishing a house costs the city thousands of dollars.  However, (1) most of these houses are beyond repair, have infestations, and are highly unsafe, (2) there is no one to buy these properties.  These houses aren't being demolished so that new houses can be built in the same places.  They're being demolished and cleaned up so that they (1) don't make the neighborhoods even more unattractive, (2) aren't a place for harboring drug dealers, indigents, and the like, (3) don't pose a health hazard to neighbors, etc.