Matt Leonard’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  That graphic is not about oil

  That graphic is very handy - but it is NOT about how much oil (or energy) we use, it's about c02 equivelent emissions from various end-uses. Very, very different things. Different sources of energy emit different levels of greenhouse gasses (source and intensity) - and do not make for simple correlation to energy use.

  I agree - the amount we drive is more important (but related) to the per-unit emissions of that driving. CAFE certainly isn't everything, but it could be quite substantial. More than a few studies have been done projecting the required cost increase at the pump (either via the market or taxes) before driving habits would be substantially scaled back. Lots of people complain about rising gas costs, but so far aren't dramatically cutting back on their driving.

  Unless gas costs get high enough to actually curb usage - making that usage more efficient is imperative. But it's not an either-or situation, we need incentives to encourage less driving and to make driving more efficient.

  -MattOn He's pro-carbon tax, anti-CAFE -- which matters more? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CAFE is still an important fight

  I think you bring a lot of good points - though I don't think CAFE standards are entirely a sideshow.

  While the Senate's proposal is admirable in that it will at least stop the current stagnation of CAFE standards - it is still weak. Sadly, the existing CAFE standards (that haven't moved in a decade-plus) are still leading fuel efficiency - at least as far as fleet-wide averages go. It's no secret that the US fleet doesn't really meet CAFE standards - they exploit loopholes left and right (flex-fuel, truck exemptions etc) to at least come close. Overall real-world fuel economy has decreased in past years - so CAFE still sets the bar higher than the market is providing.

  Yes, cars that can vastly surpass CAFE are on the road and in the engineering rooms -  but they largely remain niche cars. Hybrids have been on the road for what? 6 years? And last year they hit only 2-3% of overall sales. Plug-ins won't be commercially available (widespread) for at least 4 more years (at best), then we wait another 6 years for them to catpure 3% of the market. That puts us right up to 2020 - without a substantial change in overall fleet average. Without CAFE (or dramatic increases in market pressures for fuel economy) - cars with good fuel economy will remain a niche.

  CAFE sadly IS pushing fuel economy - its the current loopholes and stagnation that have rendered it inneffective. The Senate proposal is a step in the right direction, but we need regular increases beyond 2020 as well, that's the big ball that got dropped.

  I think we need to hit this from all angles. I support a carbon tax (or "Fee" or whatever Dingleberry wants to call it) and carbon caps (but have little faith that the caps won't be determined by corporate interests), but we also need other regulatory incentives for efficiency and clean energy.

  Strong CAFE standards can be a huge step towards developing efficienct vehicles- and it doesn't have to come with an economic hit to consumers. Just as with seatbelt proposals decades ago - automakers cry fears of bankruptcy in the face of CAFE increases - but it is will, not economics or technology, that is holding them back.

  -MattOn He's pro-carbon tax, anti-CAFE -- which matters more? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  It's both...

  Really, it's both. I think in terms of stopping NEW development of carbon-intensive power plants - efficiency is key. California has shown that increases in energy consumption are not a given - and there is plenty of low-hanging fruit to be gained through prioritizing energy efficiency and demand-side management. Simple measures can be taken to make the arguments for new power plant construction irrelevant.

  However, we don't just need to stop building new dirty plants - we should also be closing down existing dirty plants. Efficiency measures may allow us to do some of that - but clean renewable energy sources (like solar) are the other half of the equation.

  Efficiency measures can dramatically reduce our energy demands - but if we are going to live in a technological society, we're still going to have some level of demand. Renewables must be developed hand-in-hand with efficiency.

  -MattOn Getting carbon cap and trade right for renewables posted 2 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Disapointed in Grist...

  Come on Grist - you don't do these silly things! Sure, we expect these misleading, mis-characterized stories from Fox News and the like. But I expect Grist to clear the air and debunk this sensationalism - not perpetuate bad journalism!

  It's quite clear - from the PROSECUTOR even, that the dietary choice was not the issue here - it was the fact that they simply didn't feed the baby. I even bet these vegans might have considered themselves progressives, or environmentalists - why doesn't the story read "Environmentalists starve baby"?On Educate yourself before going vegan posted 2 years, 6 months ago 39 Responses