Before the council spends another dime on this issue, they need to ask these five one-word questions about Al Gore's and the IPCC's claims of the global warming debate being settled - "when, where, who, how, why": If the global warming debate is truly over, WHEN exactly did the debate occur, WHERE was it, WHO attended, HOW were expert scientists offering conclusions contradictory to IPCC reports addressed and refuted beyond a shadow of a doubt, and is there any reason WHY Dr S Fred Singer's "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" (NIPCC 2008), a collection of peer-reviewed published scientific papers, should not be considered as a second opinion to the IPCC reports?

MP should create a program similar to Berkeley for funding the installation of solar panels on individual buildings with an increase in that buildings property taxes.

How can we fund something without a plan? Why does the city need to subsidize anything that private citizens should do themselves? I fear we are chasing a rat down a black hole, and I fear we will be wasting MORE of our tax paying citizens money. Solar panels on city owned buildings are nice, if they payoff within 5-7 years, but let's stay away from loans to anything private. Also, Mr. Cohen, the last time I checked "symbolic" does not pay my rent!

A simple starting point is getting City departments to save fuel. In another thread relating to the police dept budget, I suggested some fairly simple ways that the PD can save fuel. I'm sure other departments can each make their own contribution (however small) to saving fuel. This will not only save money, but will also contribute to addressing the issue of climate change.