Tomorrow's news today?

Does it take a prophet to foresee what will probably happen tonight when the Council votes on a proposed resolution that would endorse the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Program? Probably not.

Environmental activists across the country have pushed their local governments to sign on to the agreement, angered by the fact that the federal government has for the past nine years declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which would obligate the nation to curb greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet international standards, as stipulated in the document. While both the Clinton and the Bush administrations refused to take the final step to bring the U.S. into the agreement, citing various objections to its fairness and the potential negative impact on the U.S. economy, the Bush administration has been especially reviled by activists for its stance on climate change issues, and it is not surprising that they have therefore sought to circumvent the federal government, to the extent that is possible, and build support for initiatives such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors' program.

Assuming everything goes according to form, the Council should reject the resolution by a 4-3 vote, with Parker, Kates, and Honis casting the dissenting votes. The debate will probably go something like this: every Council member will express his or her support for environmental protection and pledge to review the Township's energy conservation efforts and encourage Township employees and contractors to be responsible. Then, Council member Kates will likely push for the Council to endorse the resolution as it stands, noting that Teaneck has a long tradition of engagement in environmental causes and concern for protecting the environment. At that point, Council member Gussen will point out that adherence to the agreement could come at considerable expense to the Township, which can ill afford the costs of altering the building code to require greater energy efficiency, upgrading the municipal vehicle fleet's gas mileage, and fulfilling other such provisions. Additionally, he will object to the agreement's explicit lobbying of national officials to pass specific legislation, arguing that this oversteps the bounds of what the Council is empowered to do on behalf of Teaneck residents.

While this may be somewhat predictable (we'll see about that soon enough), this does not negate the fact that all seven Council members are voting sincerely and with the intent to do what is best for Teaneck as well as what is most just. While I scoffed at those who argue otherwise last week, I understand their frustration at what they feel is an unassailable majority that will simply railroad through whatever policies it pleases for the next two years or longer. However, I do not share the sense of outrage or powerlessness, even though I sometimes diasgree with the majority's decisions. I am pleased that the sitting Council members do not just vote willy nilly. It is good that our elected officials are guided by principles and generally vote in accordance with those principles unless persuaded otherwise. All hype aside, the most difficult thing for most Teaneck voters last Council election campaign was figuring out what, if anything, the candidates stood for. It is reassuring to see that the voters have elected responsible, thoughtful representatives rather than self-aggrandizing politicians.

And who knows? The outcome of tonight's Council meeting just might surprise.