Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Closing the Sustainability Gap

As we noted yesterday, a renegade crew of Seattle’s green rock stars have organized the “Climate Neutral Seattle Unconference,” which will take place tomorrow from 9am to 3pm at the offices of Mithun. Unfortunately, the event is full, so sorry if what I say below is just a tease.

First thing—it’s totally awesome that this group is has volunteered their time to keep the momentum going on Seattle’s fledgling commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. The goal is a lofty one, and it’s going to need all the help it can get.

And in fact, the massive amount of restructuring that will be required to create a carbon-neutral Seattle in just 20 years is such a daunting task that it risks alienating even the most diehard enviros. For example, check out this back and forth between Sightline’s Eric de Place and Alex Steffen, the guy who catalyzed the whole Seattle carbon-neutral debate.

Overall, my take is that aiming high is a smart approach when revolutionary change is necessary. When people are faced with what seems impossible, they often end up searching for  solutions beyond their usual limits. And that’s when brilliance happens.

Regarding the Unconference, the one session in the program that most captured my imagination is “The Sustainability Gap: Driving Outcomes,” on which Sightline’s Roger Valdez has written here and here. It’s about the disconnect between what many of us know we can and should be doing, and what we actually are doing. And I think that this starts to get at the heart of the most significant barrier to progress on climate change: It’s no longer a technical problem. It’s a political and cultural problem.

We already know how to design buildings that are incredibly efficient. We already know what urban areas that make car-free living an attractive option look like. We already know that building communities around high-capacity transit stations is our best strategy for sustainable growth.  Etc, etc.

The problem we desperately need to solve yesterday is: Why has been such a struggle to make these things happen? For example, how can it be that in a state that has committed to a goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled by 50 percent by 2050, leaders are strong-arming no fewer than three multi-billion dollar car infrastructure mega-projects, when at the same time transit is funding perenially on the chopping block, and ped/bike plans can’t be implemented due to lack of funds?

The political and cultural roadblocks are much bigger than the technical roadblocks. In fact, dare I say that sometimes it feels like we’re talking well known technical solutions to death?

Our best chance for climate stabilization lies in rapid deployment of the multitudes of great solutions we already have. Time for the Sustainability Gap Unconference.




  • seven

    I'll be there!

    Oh wait. fuck. locked out again…

  • hobgoblin

    “Why has been such a struggle to make these things happen?” Uh, the propensity of the sustainability community to only know how to preach to the choir would be at the top of my list. This conference being another example of said propensity, of course.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    I disagree. There are quite a few architects and engineers that have not only been advocating for sustainable changes for quite a while, but have been convincing owners to build projects that fit into these goals. The problem is at the political level, to push beyond changing single buildings and into the large project or even policy change arena. Of course, American politics is currently such that cutting taxes is far more popular than actual achievement.

  • Uncle Mike

    The purpose is to lock people out. This is a lite-Green meeting aimed at justifying further excessive speculative development. All the major people supporting new development, against preservation or restoration, are part of this meeting. Don't feel left out… if you are not at this meeting, you are probably doing the right thing!

  • kurisu

    Wait, who's the speculative one?

  • jns

    You making a point, or do you really want to come and participate? Let us know…

  • come on

    “shallow ecology” – i.e. CO2 only – leads to the conclusion of this group that we can build our way out of this mess.

    Remember, “density = sustainability”.

    Light rail and up zoning will save the planet. They'll show us the way…

  • elaineinballard

    preaching to the choir indeed

  • seattle_steve

    One thing conference attendees might think about is how to move the climate change topic into the hearts and minds of the people who won't be in the room.

    It doesn't appear to me that there really is much of a climate change debate taking place in the everyday reality of most people who live in Seattle. Yet a lot of the changes people are proposing would change people's lives in ways most people would view as pretty radical.

    The blog debates among the people Dan calls “rock stars” are interesting, but a long way away from being meaningful to most people. (There also appears to be a lot of self promotional congratulating hype going on that feels like an “i'm greener than you debate” – which is not helpful in the credibility building department.)

    Necessary changes will require a broad base of support. It would be great to hear a practical vision that can be broadly embraced. That will require credibility in mainstream ways, which seems to be missing if this is the true Seattle movement.

    There needs to be a convening of broad interests, in addition to today's small dialogue among a few special interests.

    It is great to be for something. But that's not good enough. Something needs to be accomplished. That will take a whole lot of people who are missing from today's agenda.

  • hobgoblin

    You confirmed, rather than countered, my assertion.