While I applaud the initiative shown by mayors and city halls in both the US and Europe, global warming is an issue that ultimately requires concerted action by nations and supranational entities such as the EU and the UN.

Some of the things mayors can do is address congestion and local air quality - typically, by charging fees or taxes that fill local coffers in the name of improving the environment. This is the ulterior motive for all this enthusiasm for greenery. Nevertheless, keeping the issue in the minds of voters in major cities is a good way to apply pressure on national politicians - at least the ones that aren't completely tone deaf.

Indeed, the biggest risk is that politicians and bureaucrats at different levels will start to compete against one another for perceived leadership with incompatible initiatives, something that will almost certainly bog down the entire endeavor. A good example is the current court case between EPA - part of the US federal government - and the state of California regarding the right to control CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. IFF the next US President commits to a sufficiently aggressive policy, it would be wise for California to give it a chance to succeed by withdrawing its waiver petition. It would be even wiser if the State announced its intention to do so before the election.

The same logic applies to potential conflicts at lower levels of government. Usually subsidiarity is the best course of action - global warming policy should be an exception to this rule, much like foreign and trade policy are.

I don't see this as a case of medieval mayors in funny(red) hats plotting to raise taxes by ..
Although I expect such cynicism to blow a few pages off my worktop.

Mayoral conferences are a great opportunity for managers, engineers and planners on councils to compare notes find out what works and what doesn't co-ordinate strategies, maximise the benefits from the previous year etc.
I'm not sure how it works in the States but many local councils in Australia have 'greenhouse' committees and regional mayors conferences are a fact.
This is still underutilised when we consider that it is local council who implement local strategy.

Emissions standards are an international concern and need tackling on that level to be sure.
If however it is not seen to be in the national interest rightly or wrongly then the chief regulators will not reflect international interests.

The US govt has large economic influence and is vulnerable to industry lobbyists as the funding of political parties overrides scientific and qualified advice.
In these instance when a State or coalition of states see an imperative they should be able to prosecute the interests of their constituents in court.

To my mind there are three goals in the entire green transport movement from the standpoint of policy
1. Lower harmful emissions. I include both greenhouse gases and toxic byproducts.
2. Increased efficiency to reduce use of dwindling fossil fuels, and better the total cost of ownership as well.
3. Increase use of local/national resources in transport so as to reduce payments to foreign entities, increase local self sufficiency, improve overall economy.

If one is talking about individual vehicles I suspect local level officials can do little except levy taxes and fees to increase negative pressure on bad designs and vehicles and thus indirectly influence purchasing decisions. Decisions on vehicle design are for the most part made by a national or international vehicle manufacturer and have to be based on broad national pollution standards. When a cities primary proposed method of influencing a public issue, such as congestion, fuel inefficiency, or pollution is tax and fine imposition I am always a bit leery of local officials decisions on these matters. Careful study of the council debates on decisions related to red light and speed cameras (different subjects then pollution I admit, but both couched in the language of achieving a public good by the imposition of fines and monetary penalty, just as the pollution and congestion issues are) in the Baltimore and Washington D.C decisions (the two cities I am most familiar with) cause me to think that the additional revenue flow had far more to do with decisions they have made then stated safety or law enforcement issues. I am not saying that all decisions would be negative, but often the best choice from an environmental, safety, or public improvement perspective is scrapped for the decision that will generate more revenue and is less effective from a policy standpoint.

The other area that local mayors can be effective in is the city planning issue. Design of cities for more green space, denser residential areas (especially multi use high rise complexes which encourage less auto travel and more foot traffic), elevated walkways between buildings to separate pedestrian and automotive traffic, better mass transit planning (hybrid or LNG buses for lower pollution and better fuel efficiency), etc, etc, etc. are far more effective on a local level and probably encourage a safer and more pedestrian friendly environment. In cities the key shouldn't be for greener cars, it should be for encouraging alternative transit methods and discouraging car use all together. If these mayors get together and discuss programs that they have imposed in this area and the relative successes and failures of initiatives in these regards then this will be positive. If all they do is copy one another's taxing schemes and evaluate everything from a "how can we milk more money from our citizens" viewpoint, then I see no real positive aspect in the long run. Businesses and citizens will simply go someplace cheaper. People will vote with their feet and the opportunity for real positive change will be missed.

I wish these Covenant meetings good luck, but I'm going to be taking their ideas with a grain of salt.

Hi Rafael...Of all posters, I respect you most. But you must be applauding so softly, I can't hear you.

To accuse Mayors of using GW as a money making scheme shows your desire to silence a portion of our elected officials. Let voters decide whether mayors should delve into issues the mayors can't directly control but whose citizenry will bear the brunt of future decisions by countries & regions of the world.

Concern for international affairs may begin with one person...one city...one state...one province...one country. Concern for international affairs ends with a single planet.

There was a leadership quote that went, "leadership is getting people to do what they wanted to do anyway". This may be an example of that. They thought a few cities would sign up and many more did. This takes a commitment on their part, they did not have to do this, they chose to do this.

Last week Microsoft posted useful documentations on technet. Title Description Logical Architecture Sample Design: Corporate Deployment ( Illustrates a generic corporate deployment of Office SharePoint Server 2007. The model applies nearly all of the logical architecture components and illustrates how these are incorporated into the overall design. Use this model with the following article: Logical architecture model: Corporate deployment. Architecture Design Example: Twynham School (U. K.) ( Illustrates the...