Comments View as Flat

1. 

   stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:38 am
   20 Apr 2008

   Another clarion call for climate action...........

   .......is being ignored by too many experts in the biophysical sciences.

   A particularly pernicious disturbance exists in the human community.  ELECTIVE MUTISM is one of the great, clear and present dangers to human and environmental health. It is a worldwide "plague" in our time from which many too many in the vast community of science suffer egregiously. That elective mutism has afflicted so many in the social sciences is one thing.  The family of humanity can understand, I suppose, how social scientists do not possess the most adequate expertise to speak out loudly and clearly regarding the emerging and converging global challenges derived from the human overpopulation of Earth.  

   On the other hand, what I find reprehensible and unbelievable is the way scientists with appropriate expertise in the physical and biological sciences, whatever their excuses, are choosing not to fullfil their professional responsibilities and not to discharge duties only they can perform.  Their willful refusal to comment on good scientific evidence of the human species' overpopulation of the planetary home God blesses us to inhabit is as unacceptable as it is perverse.

   Sincerely,

   Steve

   Steven Earl Salmony
   AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
   established 2001
   http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

   Permalink

2. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 5:50 am
   20 Apr 2008

   RFK jr wants 1 trillion for -- ?

   I wish he would be a little clearer about what he means by this:

   Construction of efficient and open-transmission marketplaces and green-power-plant infrastructure would require about a trillion dollars over the next 15 years.

   I like the idea of about $65 billion a year being devoted to global warming mitigation (it's more than has been bandied about), but it's not clear from the article what "green-power-plant infrastructure" means. Does he mean subsidizing utilities to put up csp, wind, etc?  Loans like Berkeley so people have the upfront capital to buy the equipment?  

   He also says that the oil and coal industries get about 1 trillion dollars a year in subsidies, I don't know where that came from, although if anybody has a solid figure, it would be much appreciated.

   Permalink

3. 

   Erik Hoffner Posted 7:59 am
   20 Apr 2008

   Fourth point

   I've got a fourth point for RFK's plan: build Cape Wind.

   Erik

   The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

   Permalink

4. 

   walhima Posted 8:03 am
   20 Apr 2008

   Re: Jon Rynn

   I too wish that Kennedy had been more clear in where he got his figure ($1 trillion/year) for oil and coal subsidies.  It seems larger than what I've heard in the past, but I really wouldn't be surprised.  I have to disagree with you about him being unclear on the segment you highlighted.

   Construction of efficient and open-transmission marketplaces and green-power-plant infrastructure would require about a trillion dollars over the next 15 years.

   He was quite clear about what he meant by "open-transmission marketplaces and green-power-plant infrastructure".  He's talking about our aging and overstressed transmission grid:

   There's a second thing the next president should do, and it would be a strategic masterstroke: push to revamp the nation's antiquated high-voltage power-transmission system so that it can deliver solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy across the country. Right now, a Texas wind-farm manager who wants to get his electrons to market faces two huge impediments. First, our regional power grids are overstressed and misaligned. The biggest renewable-energy opportunities--for instance, Southwest solar and Midwest wind--are outside the grids' reach. Furthermore, traveling via alternating-current (A.C.) lines, too much of that wind farmer's energy would dissipate before it crossed the country. The nation urgently needs more investment in its backbone transmission grid, including new direct-current (D.C.) power lines for efficient long-haul transmission. Even more important, we need to build in "smart" features, including storage points and computerized management overlays, allowing the new grid to intelligently deploy the energy along the way. Construction of this new grid will create a marketplace where utilities, established businesses, and entrepreneurs can sell energy and efficiency.
   

   And on a positive note:
   

   ...the good news is that the government doesn't actually have to pay for all of this. If the president works with governors to lift constraints and encourage investment, utilities and private entrepreneurs will quickly step in to revitalize the grid...
   

   Permalink

5. 

   walhima Posted 8:04 am
   20 Apr 2008

   Erik

   I second that fourth point.

   Permalink

6. 

   Colin Wright Posted 9:07 am
   20 Apr 2008

   What is the appropriate role for markets here?

   RFK Jr seems to think all we need is a price on carbon and the market will take care of everything. But we need to understand what markets can do best and what democratic governments can do best.

   Markets are good at raising capital were they can provide a high rate of return for investors year after year. Thus private companies need to be able to grow. A typical 10% rate of return means the business must grow commensurably (doubling profits every 70/10 = 7 years in this case).

   So markets would be good in "growing" the equipment necessary for a green infrastructure. Wind, solar, geothermal, and csp companies could compete to bring the best equipment to utilities.

   But the delivery of power is best left to local municipalities. Here we have only a constant use of energy per customer -- there are no profits to grow (except by ripping people off). In fact, the municipalities (with help from the feds) should be actively trying to shrink their "business", by providing the means for homeowners and small businesses to convert to "home power" (solar, geothermal) where possible. So the municipalities ought to public-owned (like the water supply). (This is why private utilities will not support energy conservation -- it runs against their business profits.)

   Likewise the federal governmet could incentivize energy companies to build huge wind and CSP plants in the SW and Mid West. Once those plants are built the government could run them to supply cheap energy to the states (like BPA and the TVA).

   RFK Jr seems to have swallowed the market mantra magic pill. The Telecommunications Act he lauds which deregulated media led to an immense consolidation of private media with companies such as Clear Channel owning over 100 radio stations. And whatever happened to the promises of cheap cable and phone bills? (I can only afford to use a phone card for my long distance) Deregulating the energy industry in the hopes of unleashing a "green revolution" in a reckless way could easily lead to the resurgence of huge Enron-type companies that squash competion.

   Renewable energy is diffuse enough that it works best in a decentralized way. That ought to mean that we need to design and plan the green energy transformation with great care with governments actively corraling the power of markets in very specific directions.
   

   Permalink

7. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 9:20 am
   20 Apr 2008

   Walhima --

   The idea that the trillion dollars is to upgrade the grid sounds like the best interpretation of what he was saying.  I still would like to have the source for the estimate, though.

   Colin -- Municipal power should definitely be a part of a green electrical system, it seems to me, with Federal ownership of the aforementioned HVDC grid and any national wind or solar farms, with the TVA as a model (and fixing any problems with that).  The utility sector of the economy, at this point, is one of the big power brokers; I suppose many people (perhaps including RFK jr) assume that they will be with us (forever?), and so it's best to try and deal with them.  Which means other people will have to keep bringing up the idea of municipal power -- maybe mayors and other local leaders would be a natural constituency?

   Permalink

8. 

   amazingdrx Posted 12:11 am
   21 Apr 2008

   Smart grid

   Good for him.  Maybe some of our criticism of his opposition to Cape Wind and NRDC's backing of fuel farming and clean coal got to him?

   That's it though, how to use the subsidies withdrawn from the old energy economy.

   When government gives consumers 50 billion per year for solar, wind, and biogas, how much private investment will that raise?  500 billon per year?  

   As the boom builds year after year, maybe even more.  As I keep saying, around 10 cents per kwh (of GHG free energy generated and kwh saved through conservation) in direct subsidy to homeowners, small business, and farmers would be a good start.

   But please drop the cap and trade, it's a diversion, a huge corporate boondoggle.  Waiting for hedge fund scamming.

   Hedge funds don't invest, they scam.  They don't trade, they monopolize and exploit markets.  Exporting capital offshore where regulators can't reclaim it when the investment banks go under.

   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

9. 

   socialscientist Posted 4:20 am
   21 Apr 2008

   Kennedy respects public transit blackout

   The carbon-auto lobby will not allow any high-profile eco-pundit no matter how "maverick" to advocate public transportation. Kennedy evidently is no exception. All of his energy savings will be gobbled up by autosprawl.
   We need a complete system change away from sprawl and the private auto.

   http://frepubtra.blogspot.com

   .

   Permalink

10. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 5:03 am
    21 Apr 2008

    SocialScientist --

    Following some links from your blog, there's a scary story to be told -- apparently McCain hates trains worse than Bush.  So much for being an environmentalist.

    Permalink

11. 

    Colin Wright Posted 6:06 am
    21 Apr 2008

    A movement is a-brewing...

    Socialscienist -- great blog! You probably already know about this upcoming conference at Portland State University (Oregon):
    

    Towards Carfree Cities VIII: June 16-20, 2008
    Rethinking Mobility, Rediscovering Proximity

    The Towards Carfree Cities conference series brings together people from around the world who work to promote practical alternatives to car dependence. The conference attracts professionals, advocates, and community leaders who focus on the creation of sustainable transportation systems and on the transformation of cities, towns, and villages into human-scaled environments rich in public space and community life. The fundamental role of the conference is to share knowledge and assist the practical work of conference participants, whether it be organizing community events, promoting urban cycling, or building the carfree cities of the future.

    Permalink