mleonard’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  This assumes GM actually wants to sell this car!

  In all honesty - I don't see GM positioning the Volt to be a mass-produced vehicle. As c(Lutz) has so well illustrated - this car is predominantly a marketing ploy to give some Green credentials to GM - trying to steal some spotlight back from Toyota and Honda.

  Are there some meaningful benefits to the Volt? Sure - R&D on battery technology, and further public exposure to electrification of vehicles. But we'll see how many of these GM produces a year, and how they position the car in terms of marketing and availability.

  Don't forget their old electric vehicle program - they made a few EV-1's, had waiting lists from consumers to buy more - then killed the program citing "lack of consumer demand" - but they got some good credentials (for a while) from the whole process.On Credit crunch could take shine off efficiency improvements posted 1 year, 1 month ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  EDF is holding back the rest of the movement.

  But Fred - business doesn't need a "Seat at the table" when they effectively own the entire table.

  You cite your work in the business community as successful - by mentioning the scaling back of TXU's proposed coal plants in Texas. What you don't mention is that a ground-breaking coalition of local and national groups were calling for a moratorium on coal-fired power plants - with the support of Texas mayors, politicians across the country, and top scientists.

  But EDF brokered a back-room deal with TXU executives that gave them the green light for them to still build 3 coal plants (out of a proposed 11). Your "success" promptly diffused the movement that was calling for them to build 0 out of 11 - which is what the reality of the climate crisis demands. The rest of the movement prioritized science, ecology, and health. EDF prioritized big business.

  You might call that success - but most everyone else (including communities on the ground in Texas) called it 3 coal plants too many. You blatantly went against many of your constituents - selling the climate, communities, health, and the movement up the river.

  You know it as well as anyone else - going halfway on the climate is the same as not going any of the way. EDF clearly isn't going to lead - so at least get out of the way for others to present real solutions.On EDF prez says we can't afford to wait for the ideal first step posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I sort of agree with the guy....

  First off, I'm not a fan of right-wingers, but on cap-and-trade issues, I find some strange bedfellows sometimes. I think you are wrong to frame this as a "guilt" issue.

  It's telling to look at the voluntary consumer carbon offset markets that have exploded in recent years. It's not exactly guilt that is driving people to them - it's a desire to "do the right thing" (even if offsets are dubious at best, disingenuous and dangerous at worst).

  By openly sanctioning emissions/polluting by giving it a framework with which to operate in a market, I do believe people will no longer see emissions as a problem they need to be concerned with. Overwhelmingly - the mainstream attitude  and understanding from consumers, industry, and politician's to cap-and-trade has been to view it as a "silver bullet" - that once in place will solve the problems of climate change.

  While those of us paying attention realize that it obviously won't (and several great studies concur), this is a major problem of cap-and-trade. I've got all sorts of principled, philosophical objections as well - but I think we need a social stigma around pollution and ecologically destructive practices if we are to end them - and a cap-and-trade system sanctions them (nay, it allows industry to grossly profit from them)

  I'm all for caps - because that is what is effective. But introducing trade opens that door for ineffectiveness, gaming the system and exploiting loopholes. (which is what history has, and is showing from other emissions trading programs.

  Why are we no longer capable of creating regulation/governance that isn't based on profit - but is based on health, ecology, and safety?On Forget a carbon cap; try guilt instead! posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Great job! But not actually a coal plant

  Thanks for reporting on this David - folks in Florida have been on the fronlines fighting dirty energy development for a while now.

  But technically - they were blocking the construction site of a proposed gas plant.
  Yes, gas may be cleaner than coal you say. But this plant is a MASSIVE development - 3300 megawatts, an estimated 12 million tons of annual C02 emissions, and right next to a threatened ecosystem. While I firmly believe we should be fighting for energy efficiency and renewables and oppose ALL fossil fuel expansion - even those that support natural gas in principal can recognize the looming disaster of this project.

  Many of these folks are also fighting coal development as well - Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition, Earth First, and Rising Tide have been active in opposing coal expansion in Florida specifically, but also across the nation.

  The fact is - people are using countless methods and approaches to bring about a clean energy future. But vested interests of dirty energy keep pushing back and bending the rules (or just buying out presidential debates, candidates, or straight-up bribing Kansas politicians), and people are taking direct action to ensure a livable planet. Big props to folks in Florida willing to put their bodies on the line!

  For more info on the Florida project they were protesting - visit http://www.riverofgas.info/

  -Matt
  On Twenty-seven yoots arrested protesting construction of coal gas plant posted 1 year, 8 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Auction is NOT the same as a tax

  Actually, a cap-and-auction is very different than a tax, with very different ramifications.

  With an auction, the year-to-year prices for "Credits" are uncertain - they are based on the supply (known, or at least predictable), and demand - which is NOT known, and not really that predictable. (Placing caps upstream helps this problem, but does not alleviate it). The volatility shown in the European carbon markets has been dramatic - and that volatility is very problematic.

  I'm assuming we all agree that a massive overhaul of our energy infrastructure is what is needed,meaning that companies must do more than simply tweak/retool existing operations. As a society we must invest in entirely new pathways - merely adding scrubbers to coal smokestacks or increasing fuel economy by 2 mpg is not going to cut it.

  The whole premise of carbon trading (auction or not) is on allowing economic flexibility - that companies can decide whether it makes more "financial sense" to actually reduce their emissions, or to buy excess credits from the market. But when a company looks at cost projections of buying excess credits on the market vs. actually reducing emissions - with an auction approach they can't do that long-range cost analysis as the price is too volatile. This is a major barrier to long-range investment and the true infrastructure shifts we need.

  However, with a carbon-tax, the cost of emissions is known each year. And then companies the economic tools and incentive to develop the long-term infrastructure changes that we need. They can say "well, we might make less money this year, but in 10 years with carbon costing $xxx - we'll be much better off".

  And to be fair - I'm making these arguments solely from an economic standpoint - there are plenty of equity concerns with carbon trading as well - who participates? Who regulates?

  -MattOn A carbon tax isn't the only solution posted 1 year, 11 months ago 6 Responses