I've had my issues with NYT columnist Nic Kristof in the past, but he's knocking them out of the park on climate change. His latest hits exactly the right notes. Check it out:
Concern about greenhouse gases and reliance on imported oil usually leads to a focus on the supply side of the energy equation, particularly exotic sources such as wind, solar, waves and hydrogen. ... but the low-hanging fruit on the energy front is curbing demand -- meaning more energy conservation. And it's appalling that our government isn't leading us on that.
This is, as far as I'm concerned, the baseline understanding that separates those with a clue about climate change from those without one: efficiency is the gimme, the biggest, fastest, cheapest step forward. As James Woolsey says, "People have radically overestimated the sacrifice and dramatically underestimated the opportunity."
Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power?
Comments
View as Threaded
PDXistence Posted 6:28 pm
19 Aug 2007
A big reason for this is the loss of the walkable neighborhood. Most places in America you simply need a car to survive.
I count myself lucky to live in a very walkable neighborhood, where I have a grocery store, pharmacy, hardware store, library, bank, and plenty of restaurants, all within a half-mile radius. And I'm not talking urban density here, not exactly. Rather my neighborhood (in the Mt. Tabor/Hawthorne area of Portland, OR) is the 1910 version of the 'burbs: quiet streets packed with comfortable single-family homes, and interspersed by commercial boulevards. It's a great place to raise kids, yet I can meet my needs (and wants) while hardly every needing to - much less wanting to - get into a car.
(A big part of this, I should mention, is that I work from home - another great way to cut down on carbon emissions!)
The only problem is the commercial streets that make a 'hood like this so walkable tend to get popular, which makes the rents go up, which drives out the little mom & pop stores that supply the necessities, and replaces them with pricey, impractical boutiques. A seemingly inevitable process that is another pet peeve of mine :).
A really useful innovation would be to re-engineer car-dependent cul-de-sac 'burbs to be like small, walkable villages. This would mean rezoning them to allow for commercial development, and allowing - perhaps even encouraging, through tax breaks - people to start little mom and pop stores in what were originally intended to be suburban homes.
Permalink
kayser Posted 11:22 pm
19 Aug 2007
Advocates (like me!) of market-based solutions like carbon tax or cap-and-trade tend to argue we should give consumers a "pricing signal" so that it is cost-effective to do the right thing. But for CFL's, it already is cheaper. This suggests that the problem is perhaps one of education, or greater consciousness of the effect of small decisions.
Public education is clearly going to have to be a part of the campaign here. (And as a positive, educated citizens will vote for more sensible policies... well, let's hope so.)
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:39 pm
19 Aug 2007
Permalink
justlou Posted 12:41 am
20 Aug 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:05 am
20 Aug 2007
The problem with "small walkable villages" is that they do not have perfect information.
That is, the car allows for total consumer choice which is why it's popular. Don't like your mall? Go to the one in the next town.
Small towns died out because they were too constraining for many people...who want choice and diversity.
The automobile lets us choose our work, friends, entertainment anywhere in the metropolitan area.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
justlou Posted 1:07 am
20 Aug 2007
Part of this is choice. For the most part, there just are not good alternatives for what people say they need in vehicles. And people who want a new vehicle want it now. They will not wait for better fuel economy. Part of this is also a huge coolness factor and there are plenty of seductive vehicles on the showroom floor and in glizty ads that almost beg them to be fondled.
I think I am finally coming around to the need for high taxes on gas. At a time when a recession may be just around the corner, this ain't going to fly. But sometimes people just need to be slapped in the face with reality.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:03 am
20 Aug 2007
Justlou, good points
Instead of promoting telecommuting, online shopping, and on and on as a reaction to 9/11, the imbecile spends a trillion dollars and pisses away billions of gallons of liquid fuel to essentially increase the number of people who hate us by an order of magnitude. The man should go down in infamy. Stupid people should not be allowed to run for president.
"Part of this is also a huge coolness factor and there are plenty of seductive vehicles on the showroom floor and in glizty ads that almost beg them to be fondled."
It's all about sex and status. The most effective thing we could do is hire the best ad agencies to make fun of low mileage cars. If done well, this would lower the status of these cars and trucks, sending consumers to higher mileage cars to scratch their status itch. How you would pay for this is another problem.
A gas tax would really hurt the poor, hardly phases the rich. We can't just slap a gas tax on. It should be revenue neutral. People should get a bonus check every year based on income along with their tax return to pay them back for the gas price increases. Poor people can't run out and buy a Prius or move to where there is a bus line.
kayser,
I agree. I am real happy with my CFLs but I keep some regular bulbs around in the bathrooms because the women folk don't like the way they make their skin look. It takes time for information to disseminate. In addition, the first generation CFLs were not worth buying. My local government sent me a bunch for free. I tried them and they sucked. They were dim and took forever to brighten up. So, the government inadvertantly turned me off on CFLs for a long time. Then one day I saw one on display in a store with a switch. It was bright and started immediately. I bought a pile of them and have been happy ever after.
PDX,
"The only problem is the commercial streets that make a 'hood like this so walkable tend to get popular, which makes the rents go up, which drives out the little mom & pop stores that supply the necessities, and replaces them with pricey, impractical boutiques. A seemingly inevitable process that is another pet peeve of mine :)."
Same thing is happening here. We have been waiting for years for a new grocery store. They just announced that it will be too expensive to build and have left a giant hole in the ground where our old grocery store used to be.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:35 am
20 Aug 2007
As for DR's volcanic reaction to what NK had written back in 2005: That was before my time. Though I have no strong opinion about the sociology of the Gristmill community, and our relationship with DR, I generally agree with what BioD wrote then. DR was justified in asking NK to give a more positive endorsement of contemporary environmentalists; but calling NK's column "a lazy piece of shit" was a bit much.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:45 am
20 Aug 2007
And yet, unsolicited, you return to the subject with numbing regularity.
grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:47 am
20 Aug 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:18 am
20 Aug 2007
In fact, the sociology of the Gristmill community, and our relationship(s) with you and all the other writers, are most certainly part of the story of environmentalism today, and I am afraid I cannot apologize for being fascinated by the subject. I thought you had a sweet tooth for such meta-ish considerations, so I am surprised that you have used the characterization "numbing." I suspect you are really referring to some other aspect of what I write -- and that is fine, life is short, you are under no obligation to read any of it.
(Ooh!, you know, I could be wrong about that. Is that part of your job description? Does Chip make you wade through absolutely everything that we-all write? Poor baby!)
On "risible piece of shit": Thanks, BioD, for correcting my quote. But I think "lazy" was in there somewhere.
Not that it matters at this point, but "risible" means "capable of provoking laughter." I do not think I have ever laughed at a piece of shit, save my own, now and again. In the case of the text of that ancient document from 2005, it might be interesting to observe that DR, who wrote the word "risible," seems not to have been moved to laughter at all.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Marckert Posted 2:56 am
21 Aug 2007
I write about that here:
http://renewabletech.blogspot.com/2007/05/prediction-of-c ...
http://renewabletech.blogspot.com/2007/07/prediction-of-c ...
Permalink