It certainly has become polarizing, but NOT by those who are trying to make change, but those who are trying to prevent it. It’s no longer a debate about when or how;
Sustainability. Climate change. Climate Crisis. The Green New Deal. However you phrase it, protecting and conserving our environment has unfortunately become a polarizing and political topic, no matter which side of the conversation you’re on. There’s a broad set of opinions and variables that need to be considered and as with most government decisions, “the devil is in the details.”
I am not in denial that our climate is changing.
I heard Bill Clinton once make a similar proclamation.
If there is one thing the voters of this community can expect based on my five-year mayoral track record, it’s that I am a consensus-building leader that brings pragmatic solutions to challenges, not giving undue attention to loud special interest groups.
In order to build consensus you must first meet with the affected groups IN PUBLIC and have a discussion. Consensus building doesn’t mean just meeting with your ‘team’ and making your managers deliver the bad news of your decision (this is what he did with the 6th street bridge project, bunker ramp mural rejection and sustainability study). When it comes to climate change there is only one special interest group; MANKIND!
While some special interest groups have mischaracterized listening to dissenting opinions as discounting their voices, it’s quite the opposite.
Instead of penning a letter and emailing it to a couple of local papers, maybe you should hold a Climate Change Town Hall so the community can come and talk about it. Tell us your side, and let them tell there side. By trashing their report and effectively ignoring them on the public stage sends a clear message of discounting their voices.
It’s obvious there’s climate change. Polarized argumentative reason serves no purpose. It’s to late to reverse or even stabilize. A practical approach is planning for the impact. Some sort of political statement is mandatory if you’re looking at running for national office. Realistically, climate change is good for where we live. Dangerous weather and drought stays south. Although, winters are more snow. Favorably, there’s now derechos that blow aspiring mayors into the jet stream getting them nonstop to DC where they can make general statements that become Trump-Like gospel.
When I attended Augie in the 1970s, our ecology class was presented with the question of whether climate was warming or cooling. At the time climate had been cooling
for a few years in a context of gradual warming for a century. In the context of increasing annual loading of carbon dioxide, we were asked to theorize about future climate. We did the best we could. Well, it didn’t take but a few years of ever improving climate models, followed by more sophisticated and complete data to demonstrate that warming was occurring. It stopped being a serious scientific question, but with the fossil fuel industry feeding money to “the doubt industry,” it became a political one.
The majority of people in Sioux Falls do NOT support 0% Emissions, let alone Electric Cars. The Resolution did NOT represent the majority.
Mike, can you share your polling data?
A Mayor who makes unilateral decisions to subvert the result of citizen input is most certainly NOT a consensus-builder.
“big tent conversations”
LOL! What a fraud.
Mike cannot share his polling data, since he completely made it up, much like most of his posts.
We all know Mike’s polling data will be something like: 41 million acres in SD is owned by farmers, that is 83% of the land in South Dakota. If we consider that farmers are 66% registered republican, and 80% voting republican and support oil, as long as it doesn’t go on their land, it is clear, the majority of Sioux Falls is invalidated and taken over by the land of the farmers and their weighted support. Therefore, this does NOT represent the majority, who actually like agricultural waste.
I talk to many peoppe a day, I often ask them hot topics about the city. And when sustainability comes up nearly 6 of 10 peoppe tell me they do not support the plan. Believe what you want. We do NOT need to adopt this plan, nor do we need federal dollars
“Me me me” “I, I, I.” we get it Paul, everything is about you. Go take a selfie.
13wis, to be fair, maybe you should also provide the data that shows how man people are concerned as much as you seem to be.
Mike speaks for the High Table.
I’m feeling where we live is the best region in the country. Big storms go around here. Temperatures are mild except for subzero 10 days in winter. Yesterday was tornados in VA and FL. CA has mudslides and avalanches that close transportation. WA is one big car wash. There’s flooding in states along the MS River. Climate change works well for here. Crime is up but not out of control. Our schools are safe from shooters. There’s a homeless issue but it’s being addressed. Gas is $6 in AZ but hovering somewhat over 3 here. There’s no state income tax and (soon) little or no tax on food. Two distinct problems are affordable housing and labor shortage. The feudal billionaires and corrupt politicians problem is handling itself with Kiddy Porn Addiction and the FBI showing up once in awhile. Not to worry about billionaires. They’re old and will pass. Their heirs will ruin their businesses and piss away estates to cults. Let’s get city leaders promoted, not as congressmen but as ambassadors to Sudan and Afghanistan. They’ll learn Earth Day respect from digging trenches and building bunkers.
I believe Mike’s research is valuable. The sum of comments here deserves facts. He and I should cut back to a paragraph instead of a short story.
Big T,
Thank You for the excellent explanation, however, I draw my basis from just talking to people. I see, and talk to quite a few people throughout the week, and for the most part, I do hear from 6 out of every 10 people who do not support the “climate control” or sustainability concept plan.
As for your dynamics, it is NOT about the land bro, it is about the “TOTAL” number of people within the State, as placed in any district, county, or precinct.
You cannot just look at the popular vote to gauge what the people want or do not want – you have to look at where the votes come from, derive from, and where you see 500 of 689 precincts collectively voting Yes or No on a specific topic, provides you a more clear “assessed opinion” of what the Over-all Population of the State wants or does not want.
As for the Legislative Districts, which there are 35 of them – where 20 of the 35 districts collectively vote YES or NO on a particular topic, provides you a greater awareness of what the whole people want or do not want, it also instructs the legislature on how to vote in the halls of the State Capitol as well, where each of the “Senators” act as an At-Large Rep of each of the 35 Districts.
The Rural Counties are going to vote much differently than the more populous counties, and the rural, agriculture counties are most likely are going to vote along the lines of: Landownership Rights, Property Rights, Soveriegnty, and Conservatism.
In 2020 – the Amendment A vote where 54% of the voters said yes, but where you ‘assess’ the over all make up of the vote, you could see the vast majority of the “State” did NOT support Amendment A, as 38 Counties said NO, 13 Counties said YES, whereas 15 Counties were merely 50-50 splits showing that the “greater population” of the State was very conflicted on the subject, and then there was the 2022 vote, where 60% + of the voters said NO to Recreational Marijuana.
Apparently Mike isn’t familiar with sarcasm.
Who wants a consensus? This is not Quaker County.
You think Sioux Falls should waste money hosting a climate round table!
Far greater issue here, homelessness, rising crime, wasteful community tax spending, fighting opaqueness in govt.
Sioux falls should bit waste its time in this. I want here and now lives thought of, protected.
Would have been happier if someone just said: “Screw that. Cute ONE climate issue in Sioux fall, then tell me uts consequences that the city can have impact on.”.
Answer none
Mike, how many peoppe is many peoppe, for future reference?
“Nearly 6 out of 10”. So, 5?
Mask mandates are polarizing issues, too, but true leaders make the right tough decisions.
Mike Lee, how can you contradict yourself in your own post? So it “isn’t about the land” but the “”total” number of people”. Then you say “You cannot just look at the popular vote to gauge what the people want or do not want”.
Are you saying you have some sort of magic equation to assume the people that vote will surely be matched by those that do not, or you want to weigh your vote with land ownership? Just because something correlates, that does not prove causation. I rarely agree with my neighbor, especially with the one that doesn’t vote. Therefore, you are wrong.