Comments Jon Rynn has made

Right on, Don, you took the words out of my mouth -- Thank God he's out of the administration, which is careening to the right in any case.  He needs to be outside, criticizing, organizing, and pressuring Obama and the "center" Democrats to do the right thing.

I've even read/heard whisperings that someone should run against Obama in 2012...maybe Jones?

Adam, glad that you made this argument, it's a point of view that should be part of the conversation within the environmental community.

In my own work (for instance, see my last three blog posts), I've argued that we currently have the technology to "solve" the climate and other environmental processes, but that it would take a very large change in what people expect the built environment to look like, and it would be politically impossible in this climate -- but technically, doable.  For instance, if the government designed and financed huge, continent spanning rail and wind networks, financed the densification of cities and suburbs, funded the transformation of the agricultural system -- yes, that all looks politically unrealistic, but it is technically realistic.

So is the problem technology, or our failure to imagine a different kind of civilization?  Is it our Jared-Diamond-Collapse type cultural addiction to things like cars and single family homes, with a good dose of elite self-interest in things like coal?  Or is a sustainable civilization completely impossible?  It has not been shown to my satisfaction that we can't do it.  I hope we can continue this conversation.

This isn't a sustainability ratings, it's a "policies-that-are-greenish" index.  NYC is easily the most sustainable city because of it's subway -- a world in which all energy comes from renewable electricity would be a piece of cake for NYC.  Somewhat the same for Chicago -- with some work -- and SF and Portland would be doing OK, although Seattle has a long way to go.  They need to have real indices for sustainability in energy -- which I believe NYC is good in also, as they use a lot of the Niagra Falls electricity -- and sustainability in transportation, then maybe sustainability in ag (although probably noone is good in that one) and  housing.  But at least give transportation its due, and make it an index about the physical assets, as well as  policy initiatives.

Randy, maybe the netsroots, and the rest of the grassroots (nonnetgrassroots?  nonnetroots?) aren't that into cap-and-trade because they're not into cap-and-trade.  Maybe if we were talking about a huge package of interurban rail, national wind networks, hundreds of billions for retrofitting, you know, that sort of thing, people would be in the streets.  But I'm just talking off the top of my head, I don't know if that sort of thing resonates.

Dave, I'm just finishing reading James Galbraith's most recent book, "The Predator State", and I think it's a fantastic book.  He rips apart the myths of monetarism, the free market, balanced budgets, etc., and he gives a good defense of planning -- as maybe his most central example, he talks about the need for government involvement in battling climate change.  So I'm glad that you're reading him, I hope his voice becomes better known.

Wait a minute!  This is what Joe said

There is only one way [to phase out coal plants quickly]. That is a WWII-style and WWII-scale government-led mobilization"

Does anyone know if Joe has written about this government-led mobilization? (shameless plug: I have)  If a government-led mobilization is what is needed, why are we even arguing about cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax?  Why aren't we talking about the details of a government-led  mobilization?

Another interesting line of Joe's:

Let me repeat the key point: It is utterly inconceivable that you could stabilize atmospheric concentrations anywhere near 350 ppm by using a carbon price as your primary mechanism.

Which includes cap-and-trade, I assume.  Notice I'm not arguing against waxman-markey, I would argue quite the opposite, the point is that if government-led intervention is what is needed to do the job, let's go for government-led intervention.

Dave, I don't know if the problem is supporting someone in power, I think it's much deeper, a hesitancy to propose.  It's hard, first of all, to propose something sensible, and then you run the risk that someone  will criticize you.  This is actually a problem on the right as well, for the same reasons.  It's also much easier to be funny and witty when you're attacking, for some reason.  Maybe the emotion of anger is easier to conjure than hope and intellectual agreement with something.

Nobody should get "unconditional support" (I can go into a discouse about FDR and the Jews in Europe, but I won't), and I think Obama is getting pretty decent support from the left at this point.   One other point -- a problem with nonenvironmentalist progressives at this point is that they're not paying attention  to climate dhange at all, they're not even up to the carbon-tax-vs.cap-and-trade debate.  Maybe the blue-green alliance stuff would help with that.

"Divorce your car", the book written by the author of the question, is so much more important for saving energy, in my opinion, thatnworrying about your energy consumption on a computer, that it completely pales in comparison.  Worry about your transit, not your computer.

As for energy consumption of web hosting, the big question is probably more companies like google and yahoo, who have huge server farms.  I remember reading that there was some consideration of putting huge server farms in places like North Dakota, where you could hook them up easily to wind farms.  Pushing for something like that would be the low-hanging fruit with servers.

Sandwichman (where is Max Seiwecky (sp) by the way?), here's a set of idea sto decrease hours:

the government puts geothermal heat pumps under all residential and commercial buildings, with enough solar on top and batteries to run it; now everybody can get enough heating and cooling to keep themselves comfortable, for free (or at least just the maintenance);

the government constructs rail networks and infills many suburbs (probably can't do them all), so that at worst most people need souped -up golf carts, er, I mean currently available electric cars; and you make transit free;

the government sets up farm belts around all major cities, which is in my next post, but anyway, you could guarantee a certain minimum of good, healthy food, if not for free then for very little;

the government sets up those fancy wind/power electric sysrtems I was talking about, thus a certain quota of electricity would be free (any extra would cost above what the governmentprovided electricity would make available)

of course, we have national health care, free, and make piublic education free;

so...you have your heating, cooling (maybe including refrigerators), basic electricity, minimal expense food, free transportation, health care and education...who need long hours? there's still a vibrant market economy yada yada, but the imperative on the part of most people to be in growth mode, while perhaps not being eliminated, subsides, because you can live a pretty comfortable life without working your butt off

and thanks for the links, will check them out

Great story Tom, you definitely beat the mainstream media to this.  I like your line "building out a rail network, building houses within dense city centers, bolstering local and regional food infrastructure"; to which I would just add "wind and solar farms" and "manufacturing" (I try to boil it down to five; my own metaphysical attempt to make a complex situation clear).  Anyway, congratulations, you are now one of our better economists!

Warning to commenters: be sure that you copy your text before hitting "preview", I keep losing my comments if I don't , like the following one (yes, I'lll put in a bug report)

Gar, great post, a few points:

First, Paul Krugman put it well in his post called "Making banking boring".  Basically, banks couldn't do much (like raise interest rates or sell derivatives), and the "best and brightest" didn't go into finance, and the economy was in better shape (although I have to say that in 1982 Seymour Melman wrote a book called "profits without production" in which he warned that this process was already in full swing).

Second, the financial meltdown was, to a certain extent, a result of the trade deficit.  When lots of countries export their goods to the US and receive a shovel-full of dollars in return, one of the places they can put it back is in mortgage-backed securities based on mcmansions in the middle of nowhere.

Third, historically, financial systems have overwhelmed their manufacturing bases because the manufacturing base creates such a huge surplus that allows a financial system -- and a military system -- to grow to gargantuan proportions, which then sucks the manufacturing system dry, leading to decline of the financial and military system (hey -- I finally got to write about my PhD dissertation).

Fourth, it might be a good time to use the term "full employment" to describe a program to recreate a middle class, eliminate poverty, and increase equality.  What with rebuilding the infrastructure, building train and wind farm/solar farm systems, creating local organic farms, densifying suburbs and towns, there should be plenty of work for everybody for a long time.

Finally, maybe an infrastructure  bank would ba a good concept to push as an alternative to free-market-unlimited financial systems (and perhaps the Mondragon Coop Bank, which only lends to member worker coops, and has funds from the coops and workers).

Dave, please make more wild accusations (it's fun to write unqualified, angry posts, isn't it), and then write brilliant, long -- did I say long? -- follow ups giving the context.  Because we need the context.

However, of course, I have to disagree with you about something -- the use of the word "green left". I'm not sure what that is (maybe another apology/context post?).  Now, there is a "left", however broadly that might be defined.  My experience is that people outside of the envrionmental movment who are in progressive, or even "left" wingers, don't like cap-and-trade.  They don't understand why the environmental community is excited about the concept.  maybe I'm talking about what you would call the "far left", or whatever word you want to use, but nobody in "there" would call Friedman a leftist, and I don't know if Friedman would call himself that either, he's radically centrist, if I'm not mistaken.

The obvious alternative to carbon pricing is direct government investment/spending.  The environmental community, in general, does not seem to take this route seriously, possibly as a result of being bludgeoned by conservatives for decades, but the really unfortunate consequence of this is that public transit goes off the radar because the government has to invest something to make trains work.  I know there is plenty of mentions of transit, but it's obviously not a major plankof the platform.

And I repeat  my request -- please point to your/grist links that go into detail about the otheer parts of the bill -- I think even the bill's defenders seem to be obsessed with carbon pricing, and don't discuss the other parts.

Anyway, get mad more often.

Right on, Pangolin.  I'm still not sure what all the sturmunddrang (sp?) about cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax is all about -- neither of them will solve the problem.  The transportation infrastructure has to be rebuilt (trains? remember trains?), and if I remember correctly, Dave even scolded someone for not understanding that building trains requires something beyond cap-and-trade.  Putting up wind farms, in a planned, rational way so that they are distributed around the country in order to provide baseload (pace mark jacobson at stanford), will require direct government intervention, a carbon price won't solve it.  If I understand this debate (and I probably don't), the offsets might actually be doing some good by protecting forests, but apparently offsets are no-no -- but in any case, it would be much easier to simply buy the forests with government money and give indigenous peoples rights to the forests (as rainforest action network advocates).

So, does this mean I'm being mr.pure, I don't like anything that isn't perfect?  I'm not saying cap-and-trade is necessarily bad (although experience shows that Kyoto has plenty of problems), or a carbon tax is necessarily bad, they are completely insufficient.  So pass it, but then I hope the environmental movement gets on with actually trying to prevent global warming.

biod, I tried replying to your very helpful comment below, but theres no reply; not only that, now I can,t do an apostrophe.  anyway, thanks for the info about guest bloggers not getting posted yet, I think I jumped the gun a few days back, but I will be patient (oh, the prima donna in me wants to wail...) ...whoa! an edit! yah mon!  and actually it placed the reply nicely...ok, chaos can be fun

biod, to continue our discussion of those links, it seems that sometimes when you access the old link, the new link comes up.  but sometimes it doesn't.

The other weird thing is that, for instance, all my posts seem to be somewhere in grist space, but most are not listed under my page -- but yours seem to be OK.  maybe this will all be resolved eventually.

Pangolin, percentage of total.  This gives me an opportunity to correct my previous figure for deforestation, which is more like 16%, then waste is about 4% -- again, of total

randy, on the right wing --

I'm reading a great book by Michael Lux called "The Progressive Revolution: How the best in America came to be".  It's excellent because to understand the right you have to understand that they are basically a reaction to progressives -- and Lux goes all the way back to the Revolutionary War on this.  To put it in a nutshell, for conservatives from Edmund Burke on, democracy is bad, and elites should be able to control society -- without interference.  Anything, including environmental concerns, constitutes a constraint, therefore conservatives don't like environmental rules and regulations and arguments.On Gore declines to debate Lomborg posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses

Do we need to pay attention to them?

Someone asked this question about conservatives -- I think it was Robert Kuttner or David Sirota -- why is the media giving them such a huge amount of attention, even though their asses were kicked in the last election?

In the same way, is it really necessary to pay such close attention to economists?  I know that policy makers  listen to them, but maybe we should simply be arguing that they shouldn't be, and for the same reason -- economists, for the most part, come from a conservative direction, because after all that is the main moral of their story: government intervention leads to less than optimal outcomes.

So if conservatives can be ignored, why not neoclassical economists?  And why not just listen to ecological economists?On One last foray into the economics discussion posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 17 Responses

8 billion ain't much

and won't really lead to any high-speed lines, I don't think.  The main reason, it seems to me, to push for high-speed rail, is that the rising price of oil will make most air travel too expensive.  Now, if people don't want to travel between cities anymore within one day, then you won't need high-speed rail.

Having said that, Kunstler has also called for a build up of regular rail as a higher priority than high-speed rail, but there is no reason that you couldn't do both.  Particularly if you're concerned that the eventually high oil prices will also make most trucking impractical, then it's crazy not to build a massive freight rail system.

Certainly, the "market" will never move fast enough or with enough long-term vision to take care of a high-oil-price future, which will be devastating for air, car, and truck transportation.

As for not being able to afford it, a real rail system is much more important than bailing out the banks, in my opinion, and it's certainly more  important than shoveling hundreds of billions every year to the Defense Department.  If we can't afford high-speed, medium-speed, freight and regular rail, we better relocalize and kiss industrial civilization goodbye right now.On Why not medium-speed rail? posted 9 months ago 8 Responses

Micro applies within one industry

Stavins here basically puts forth the model of a "system" as defined by neoclassical economics; that is, there are a large number of units (enough to be useful for statistical analysis), the units are more or less the same (homogenous), and what Stavins does not clarify, the units (firms) exist  within one industry.  

The importance of  this addition to the model of a system is that microeconomics does not translate over into a discussion of the economic system as a whole.  There is some work on how one industry is starved of capital because it's "sunsetting" while another is "sunrising", but there is really nothing in the neoclassical system that shows how that leads to a resilient economy.

Macroeconomics is a patch that is intended to take care of this glaring emission -- that is, you look at macro variables such as trade in the aggregate, or money supply, or government spending.  But there is nothing in the canon that treats the various parts of the economy as being functionally separate, as in an ecosystem.

I go into greater detail in this in my article "The economy is an ecosystem", and certainly the work of Herman Daly, and other ecologiccal economists, as opposed to environmental economists, should be consulted to see a different approach.

Since microeconomics is so constrained, we get all kinds of cute tricks which seem to be the basis for the popularity of the book "Freakonomics", but which do not tell us how to deal with the economy as a whole, much less the global ecosystem.  I hope Robert enlightens us further as to how his field can help us.On The myth of the universal market ... debunked! posted 9 months ago 6 Responses

Adam, microeconomics is better?

Than macroeconomics?  Macroeconomics had to be invented in the 1930s by Keynes and others in order to bail out the economics profession (and because of their influence, the economy), because microeconomics was not up to the task of solving the Depression.  The economists of the day were advising Hoover-like policies -- the situation was ripe, actually, to overthrow the entire neoclassical approach.

In came Keynes with a theoretically consistent model, which saved the economics profession.  Now, economists are in a similarly sketchy area, not just because of the financial meltdown, which is bad enough, but also when climate change proves to be much more of an economic problem than most economists predict.

But the main problem with microeconomics for the purposes of this discussion  is that it is only supposed to be used for a specific domain of reality:  that is, a single industry, in the short-term, in a competitive industry.  That is very little help when discussing national problems, much less global, long-term problems.On Some thoughts on economists and climate and so forth posted 9 months ago 22 Responses

The only "reality-based" thing Will

...did was to diss Sarah Palin and McCain.  That was completely out of character for Will, who to my knowledge never had anything come out of his mouth that was something a progressive would have the least bit  to agree about -- unless  someone else can point to something else?

amazin', Obama is apparently considering not having a car czar but giving the job to Geithner and Summers! ouch!On Conservative columnist lies to millions of people, again, ho hum posted 9 months, 1 week ago 36 Responses

long-distance will always be needed

for intracontinental rail electricity needs -- which should be relatively easy, as you could put wind (maybe solar?) close to the rail lines, particurarly if they were somehow involved with existing interstates or rail...

and as for hydrogen at maybe a neighborhood or city level -- although I would be very skeptical of putting tanks of hydrogen anywhere near anything because of concerns about explosions, perhaps instead of fuel cells you could just use tanks of hydrogen, produced with excess solar/local wind, then use the hydrogen as fuel for microturbines?  Assuming you could get around safety issues (maybe put the things underground), wouldn't that be much more efficient than fuel cells?On Big is beautiful if it breaks our dead-dinosaur addiction posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 34 Responses

Different models --

Tom, you might want to try things like Ellen Brown's  "Web of debt", which talks about replacing the fractional banking system; also, the Mondragon Cooperative system, which basically involves -- I know this sounds shocking -- a bank whose only goal is to create or help expand small to medium sized businesses.

Thom Hartmann of Air America calls for nationalizing the banks, and frankly, I think it is blindingly obvious.  While it might seem politically impossible -- maybe not -- it might be fun to speculate what a nationalized banking system might do -- say, a regional system of infrastructure/energy banks?  Just sayin'.On While Geithner's bailout flounders, it's time to explore other financial models posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

NY Times op-ed about solar heaters

hereOn Big is beautiful if it breaks our dead-dinosaur addiction posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 34 Responses

This should be a benchmark

for "radical decentralism", as Gar calls.  I'd like to see someone do a similar exercise to try to show that such a decentralist paradigm works.

Now, when I to show how to shut down all coal plants, I used the example of ground source heat pumps, and I figured about $20,000 for the heat pumps for a 2500sqft "typical" residence, with 2 kw of solar pv, whoch would work out to about $10,000 for the pv (as Gar shows).  But what I didn't show was the storage for that, which Gar puts at about $10,000.

On the other hand, it might be worth figuring out how a solar heater would change that equation, as BioD points out.  By the way, the Chinese are building millions of these, I believe.

However, just providing the pv to take care of heating and cooling needs, theoretically, is then $30,000 per household for pv + ground source heat pumps + storage (again, back-of-the-envelope).  That takes care of about 27% of electricity if we cover all residential and commercial buildings (the 27% is from my aforementioned article).  That's a good chunk, and heating and cooling are important.  So it seems to me that some combination of solar heating, ground source heat pumps, and pv could conceivably deal with about a quarter of electricity use (there's also industry -- here is where recycling energy comes in, I assume, so that might be another big chunk).  Also, note that much of the efficiency gains that we talk about come from improving a building's ability to retain heat or cold, so this makes reducing "long-distance" electricity needs easier as well.

But we've still got half of our electricity not covered, even if we go a "radical decentralist" heating and cooling route.  Now, one could argue that alot of this is not necessary, but that's a cultural issue, I suppose.  But this 50% or so, if we are going to keep using it, would have to come, it seems to me, from longer distance solar/wind, of the kind Gar shows.  There might be some medium distance capability, such as the brownfields that stopgreenpath mentions, and there may be some medium-sized city-based wind farms that are possible to.

So it looks like, at best, we can have a building/city-scale/continental-scale renewable energy grid.On Big is beautiful if it breaks our dead-dinosaur addiction posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 34 Responses

ejd

bailo is our own fuzzy wuzzy troll, so don't feel bad.  Thanks for the figures -- as I tried to argue during the election, it would have made sense to pursue high-speed rail to show that Obama was pro-manufacturing, considering all the groovy high-speed rail hubs that have been proposed.  Only 2 billion in the current stimulus for high-speed rail,but we can only hope that at some point  people get the  idea.  Also,there is a legitimate argument to be made that we should first go for a decent normal speed rail system, since it would be cheaper, as you point out.On Restructuring the U.S. transport system posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 22 Responses

Nickz, thanks

On Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses

Yes, the MiEV looks interesting

here's one article, it's easy to google, although I don't know what is going on with it in 2009.On Chevy Volt could cut costs by using batteries more efficiently and paying less for them posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

nickz, any references on that?

and if you can do it with plug-ins, couldn't you do it with potentially much more efficient building-based, large battery systems?(like sodium sulfur, for example)On Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses

We're going to have to wince

when we look at the final bill.  There's also a ridiculous tax break for buying homes -- they don't seem to understand (or want to understand) that the housing market is deflating from a bubble, and we have to wait for prices to go down.  And God knows what they'll do to transit funding.  I won't hold my breath.On Senate hones in on crucial need for country: more cars posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses

There are two problems here

The first is, Is there enough electrical generating capacity locally to avoid needed remote wind/solar sites?  That is a separate question from, Is there a way to get around intermittency/storage problems?

I think it may be the case that the second problem is worse than the first.  The advantage of a national wind system may be that it would take care of the intermittency problem.  If remote solar can't take care of the intermittency problem, then that seriously undercuts arguments for remote solar.  In other words, the reason for remote systems should be that they take care of the intermittency problems, not that they allow for enough generating capacity -- assuming sgp is correct and local resources are enough.

Amazin's point about putting wind/solar next to train lines is yet another separate point -- it is for a specific application, and seems very efficient, at least at first glance.

And of course there's the third question, can we cut down on the demand enough, through efficiency or heat pumps, for instance, that local energy generation becomes even more possible.On Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses

stopgreenpath

just send me the links in one convenient email...jonathanrynn@gmail.com, thanksOn Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses

What about North Dakota?

If North Dakota could be covered with wind turbines, are there enough transmission lines to carry that electricity?On Against the so-called 'need' for new long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses

another way to look at it....

manufacturing is the source of the growth, ecosystems are the constraints on that growth.  None of these concepts make it into economics -- manufacturing, source of growth, ecosystems, or resource/ecosystem constraints.

PurpleOzone, economists also tend to be very leary of a "free lunch", that is, they like to operate under the assumption that there is a scarcity -- that you just are stuck with dividing up a never-expanding pie.  So Keynes had to invent the concept of the "multiplier", which is what your example shows.  Technological change is also a "free lunch", but that's another story.On The economy needs to be green to be 'fixed' posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses

Ryan, it might be easier

to encourage urban  or denser based living, like "location efficient" tax breaks (if I have that phrase correctly), that is, if you're near a transit stop your tax deduction goes up.

But this opens up the whole issue of urban reconstruction, that is, somehow the government needs to encourage rebuilt town and city centers.  I know Chris Leinberger at Brookings doesn't like the idea of government-sponsored development, but what do you think?On Let's not pretend the government isn't encouraging suburbs posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

This is why public works

or public investment or direct governmental construction or command and control or whatever you want to call it is the most constructive discussion on addressing global warming, in my humble opinion.  It's much more concrete, although i think environmental organizations shy away from it precisely because they're afraid of getting involved in theh details -- more wind, more solar, or what?  They probably want to avoid those kinds of debates, but those are exactly the kinds of debates we should be having, since it would educate various publics in the process.

Pangolin, I think you're short-changing a massive government program with a rather small green jobs program.  On the other hand, I suppose if you're trying to be realistic about the present political environment, you have a point -- and hopefully some local human capital would develop, demonstration effects would take place, etc.  obviously we're a very long way from a 'world war II type effort' that Romm, Gore, et al allude to.On Yes, carbon taxes are more transparent than trade system posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses

When did cap-and-trade become

the accepted, mainstream solution to global warming?  Is it something that evolved out of the 1990s?  Did someone argue for it and the big enviros fell in line?  Just curious.On How awful does a bill have to get to lose your support? posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 32 Responses

Why are EDF and NWF upset?

it seems like a simple question -- where else do EDF and NWF get discussions like this?  In-house?On How awful does a bill have to get to lose your support? posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 32 Responses

Backcut, what's your take

on the pine beetle disaster?  Caused by global warming?  I've read that it may even be a very long, hundreds of years cycle.  If it's from global warming though, shouldn't we be concentrating on preventing the worst warming?On World heads for 'water bankruptcy', says Davos report posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 31 Responses

we still need the pv study

that will show what we can do with pv, one that builds on the brownfield study that sgp uses.  In addition, the wind technology for buildings is still developing.  And maybe most importantly, we have to figure out how to create storage within buildings.  And while we're on the subject, we might want to include heat pumps for every building to cut down on the need for  electricity.

so it's not "just" a question of getting pv on every building, but also storage and heat pumps, and also perhaps solar water heaters.  I'm not saying it's not possible -- it would be great if it were possible.  But we need some numbers, and Gar is the only one to my knowledge who has tried, andn came up with a 20% figure, if I remember correctly.

And finally, we should understand that in order to produce tthat much pv we'll probably need massive subsidies from the government to build a whole bunch of silicon purification plants, which again, I think would be a great idea, but it has to be part of a well-thought out local renewable energy planOn World heads for 'water bankruptcy', says Davos report posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 31 Responses

How could public spending be slower?

Let's say we go back to 1941 and Pearl Harbor.  These economists evidently are saying that, instead of instituting an emergency plan to increase munitions production, we should have put a tax on all non-military goods, or maybe, we should have subsidized military production, and then, somehow, the right mix of planes, tanks, etc. would have been built faster.

Can someone explain why a government order, say, to build 2,000 wind turbines would be slower than imposing a price on carbon and waiting for business to decide to build 2,000 wind turbines?On The new administration holds the incentives for a strong federal climate bill posted 10 months ago 10 Responses

on the topic of bank nationalization

there's a nice post at Economicpopulist about it.On Government investment in the Midwest will grease the skids for cap-and-trade posted 10 months ago 12 Responses

The land use issues of sprawl

may be more important than even the ghgs from automobiles, in other words, the ghgs released from destroying forests and grasslands and agriculture may be much worse than from the cars that are needed in sprawl-land.  Globally, about 30% of greenhouse gases come from deforestation and issues related to agriculture, so paving over ecosystems is bound to release massive amounts into the atmosphere.  However, to my knowledge noone has quantified that.

I would also note that it would be nice if someone was as passionate about the ecosystem loss resulting from sprawl as commenter stopgreenpath is about ecosystems lost from building transmission lines and wind and solar farms.

It's also important to note the social justice issues involved, that owning and operating an automobile can be a large drain on personal finances.On Creating transit-oriented communities addresses many different issues posted 10 months ago 5 Responses

But won't it still cost them money?

The problem right now (and this is partially in answer to your post) is that nobody wants to make the recession worse, including in the executive branch.  Obama is no less worried about this than Congress, so I don't see him imposing something (but who knows).

So if anything comes along, like a cap-and-trade system, that costs money, upfront, I don't see any political will for that.  I do see political will for public works, for spending money on something that will create jobs -- and helping industries become more efficient should create jobs, no?

By the way, I totally agree that people don't understand the need for manufacturing and how various industries fit into a well-functioning economy.  As I think we've discussed before, there is a basic lack of "industrial literacy" in this country.On Government investment in the Midwest will grease the skids for cap-and-trade posted 10 months ago 12 Responses

Sean, I'm not sure there is a choice

as I tried to explain in my recent post, there needs to be some kind of compensation to industry, at least, that would have to pay higher prices under a cap-and-trade bill, or else the Congresspeople from those areas will kill a cap-and-trade bill.  So the Feds would have to come up with some money to help them deal with that -- which I don't see as a problem, who cares how they cut emissions?  Ideally, the revenues would go into a fund that would help the affected industries cut emissions, in other words.On Can Congress be trusted to get necessary GHG legislation right? posted 10 months ago 8 Responses

Can we include government investment too?

Climate change policy should be a three-legged stool, 1) a price on carbon, however done, 2) regulation, and 3) direct government investment, in other words, just build the stuff.  Number three just happens to coincide with the need for a stimulus right now, and so should actually be an easier sell than the first two, yet apparently the enviro blogosphere is still acting like the Republicans control the White House and Congress and are stuck on "market solutions" -- not that there's anything wrong with that, but if the government actually just built wind farms, solar plants, rail systems, etc., then it would have the same effect as any cap-and-trade system.On Obama's quick regulatory actions ring louder than markets posted 10 months ago 3 Responses

point 1 has to come with point 2

or else it leads to mass hysteria, which can just as easily lead to a right-wing lurch as a left-wing one.  Having said that, I think that it is critical to scare the crap out of everybody, because, well, at this rate we're heading towards either the death of billions or even wiping out the human race.  If that's a very real possibility, and I think it is, then that should be said.

The problem is that the scientific community is by nature very conservative about making very big, "wild" claims.  However, there is a lot of scientific evidence that if the tundra, and especially the ocean clathrates evaporate, then we could be headed for a permian extinction event, in other words, almost everything will die.

But that has to be coupled with a believable strategy to prevent this.  Ideally everybody would enjoy the process of getting from here to there.  Since some of it may involve cultural changes (maybe less cars, for exammple), that won't necessarily be easy, but we should be trying to paint pretty pictures of a carbon-free world, nonetheless.On What will shift the public's attitudes on climate change? posted 10 months ago 21 Responses

hmmmm....

so to sequester 10 gigatons, we need 5 billion acres about (at 1.8 ton per acre). The total area of the US is 2.43 billion acres (3.8 million sq miles X 640 acres per sq mile).  Need to figure out where to get those 5 billion acres -- greening the deserts is certainly a possibilitiy, I suppose you could use solar energy to pump water from the ocean to the desert and then do the desalinization.  Now there's a construction project!

oy vay, so of course I'll try a back of the envelope: according to wikipedia, the land surface of the earth is 148,940,000 km2.  1/3 of that is desert; although apparently there's desert and then there's desert, but say 1/3 of that is 50,000,000 km2.  there are 2.6 square km in a mile, so about 20 million square miles, times 640 acres, about 12 billion acres in the desert?On We need to cut emissions faster than 80 percent by 2050, but how fast? posted 10 months ago 39 Responses

Dear doom-and-gloomers:

I think the only reasonable way to decrease the amount of ghg's in the atmosphere is to get it into the soil, which the Pangster has certainly advanced as a strategy.  For some reason I actually enjoyed doberman's listing of all the horrible realities...splash of cold water in the face kind of thing.On We need to cut emissions faster than 80 percent by 2050, but how fast? posted 10 months ago 39 Responses

amazin, about positive feedback

as I have complained  before in this space, scientists do not take positive feedback seriously, in general.  Virtually all disciplines seek to explain how to achieve that great holy grail, "stability".  It shows up in economics, which can't explain growth because positive feedback is banished from the profession, even into chemistry until prigogine invented "nonlinear dynamics", aka chaos theory.

In fact, I think the best available example nowadays is tthe albedo positive feedback effect of the arctic ice melt leading to more arctic ice melt.  So the positive feedback in climate change is actually the best known example in the public mind.

Not that I'm bitter.On We need to cut emissions faster than 80 percent by 2050, but how fast? posted 10 months ago 39 Responses

er, wait a sec , Karen

as of 2004, we had human GHG CO2-eq released per year of 50 gigatons (50 billion metric tonnes), so is that 2.1 billion carbon or carbon dioxide tons?On We need to cut emissions faster than 80 percent by 2050, but how fast? posted 10 months ago 39 Responses

Question

Is there a good source for understanding how many gigatons, in how many years, leads to what number of parts per million?  I guess to make it more complicated, it might have to be separate for CO2 and methane.  So if all the oil gets used up in 20 years, is Hansen saying that that by itself won't significantly increase ppm levels?  But coal would?

By the way, if we eliminated all energy-related GHGs from fossil fuels we're talking about 56%, so that's not nearly enough to get to 80%.On We need to cut emissions faster than 80 percent by 2050, but how fast? posted 10 months ago 39 Responses

I don't see how to do this without

some form of global planning.  During WWII, in the US, about 1/3 of GDP was spent by the Federal government.  World GDP in 2007 was 78 trillion dollars, according to the  cia (this seems high to me, but anyway).  So 1/3 of 78 is 26 trillion per year, that would have to be planned construction directly spent by the world's governments.  No problem! On We need to cut emissions faster than 80 percent by 2050, but how fast? posted 10 months ago 39 Responses

Now I'm liking "climate crisis"

although I still think "global warming" at this point is pretty well known in the public "mind", it's got a good "brand", which is a certain kind of capital.  Somehow I seem to remember Gore using the term "climate crisis" quite a bit, but I could be wrong.  "Climate disruption" sounds good too -- it can be good to use a few different terms so as to not repeat oneself too often.  I suppose one could have a "global warming crisis", too.

On a slightly different note, I've often thought that the term "Desert Earth" would be a good phrase to describe what will  happen if all soils, forests, etc. continue to be destroyed at their current pace, but you could also use the term to describe the extreme effects of ...global warming.On 'Climate change,' 'global warming,' 'climate chaos' -- what terminology fits best? posted 10 months ago 34 Responses

backcut

assume that "environmentalists", whatever that is, are wrong about forests.  If that was the only problem, then we would be justified in damning all environmentalists.  But there is much more to the biosphere than forests, even if we assume that forests are the single most important feature -- well, call it number two, after the basic design of the climate, so you can see where I'm going with this, we have several disasters that we're trying to do something about at the same time.  

If you look at my most recent posts I go into some detail concerning where greenhouse gas emissions come from, and forests are definitely one of the big ones -- and even if the forests were saved and immaculte accroding to your prescriptions, we'd still be in big doo-doo from climate change, the state of the oceans, the nonforest soils, etc etc, not to mention what will happen when humans freak out when fossil fuels disappear.  so I ask you to consider several different problems when you engage in blanket condemnations (as I ask others to do the same).

As for "environmentalist", I guess I always call myself a "progressive", or even when I'm being indiscrete, a "leftist" or "radical", words which I hope have some positive connotations.  In other words, I think it's important to combine environmental concerns with other concerns, economic, political and social.On Oregon enviro group calls not for shutdown of coal plant, but for infusion of millions of dollars posted 10 months, 1 week ago 19 Responses

Ken, a small point of disagreement

I think it's important to drop this "greening the military" business. It's sort of the ultimate greenwashing (there's actually about 350 million in the stimulus package for military greening, which is a ridiculous waste of resources).  The military doesn't even use that much oil, about 1%.  There are many other places that should be focused on -- buildings, transit, agriculture, forests.  There is a much greater chance that the military will push coal-to-liquids, which they have been doing, then solar energy.  

And even if they did push solar energy, they're building it for an activity which in the main shouldn't exist.  We'll never get the funding without cuts in the military budget (please note, I'm not conjuring the wrath of the military by saying this).  In fact, more profoundly, we may never get to a social consensus about global warming if people don't move away from their knee-jerk support of a huge and politically overpowering military.On An open letter to President Obama on how to make the climate challenge real and urgent to Americans posted 10 months, 1 week ago 17 Responses

stimulus over ten years?

wha?  this is a 30 billion dollar a year stimulus package?  are they crazy?On Bills for highways, no change for transit posted 10 months, 1 week ago 10 Responses

stopgreenpath, i'm in overload mode

I'm leaving with the family for a week, I will look at that stuff, thanks for the links, to be continued from my side.

One thing though I gotta say: don't blame "environmentalists", there's no single thing called an environmentalist.  I don't consider myself an environmentalist, per se, I consider myself a progresssive, or really, a leftist.  I'm very interested in your research and Gar puts a lot of time into answering your arguments.  peace out!On A detailed look at building, industry, transportation, and land-use greenhouse-gas emissions posted 10 months, 1 week ago 38 Responses

triage

stopgreenpath, I'm glad you raise these points because I hadn't considered them before.  I hate to think: what if the only way to prevent runaway global climate change is to chew up yet more ecosystems?  What if its, "which would you rather lose, a finite number of ecosystems or all ecosystems?"

Now, you can actually retort using my handy-dandy tables: even getting the electricity carbon-free would only solve part of the problem.  And ecosystem destruction (if you want to lump agriculture and forests into ecosystem destruction) are actually more destructive than the electrical sector.  The problem is, they all have to be solved.

As I said above, we have to show that local energy will solve the problem.  it looks clear that if you do a national grid, with wind throughout, that you can get baseload and you don't need storage, at least for a large part of the electrical system.  

As for emissions, covering all roofs with PV would also create plenty of emissions.  It's going to be necessary to emit lots of lots of GHGs in order to build a carbonfree economy -- because right now we don't have one (sharon astyk often argues that we don't  have the fossil fuels available to replace the fossil fuel economy with a renewable one).  

In fact, really the only morally justifiable emission of ghgs is to build a nonghg economy (disclaimer, since we're all stuck inthis ghg emitting world, we should not feel guilty ).

so i'm not sure that the emissions argument really works.  the best argument is really that doing it locally would be better.  the problem with that, to be honest, is that I personally don't have the resources to show that.  Maybe it's not that hard.  If you have any ideas, I'd be happy to hear them -- i like to drown in data.On A detailed look at building, industry, transportation, and land-use greenhouse-gas emissions posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 38 Responses

a little more on transit

from watthead, via an email I got from  Ted Glick :

· New Construction: $1 billion for Capital Investment Grants for new commuter rail or other light rail systems to increase public use of mass transit and to speed projects already in construction. The Federal Transit Administration has $2.4 billion in pre-approved projects.

· Upgrades and Repair: $2 billion to modernize existing transit systems, including renovations to stations, security systems, computers, equipment, structures, signals, and communications. Funds will be distributed through the existing formula. The repair backlog is nearly $50 billion.

· Transit Capital Assistance: $6 billion to purchase buses and equipment needed to increase public transportation and improve intermodal and transit facilities. The Department of Transportation estimates a $3.2 billion maintenance backlog and $9.2 billion in needed improvements. The American Public Transportation Association identified 787 ready-to-go transit projects totaling $15.5 billion. Funds will be distributed through the existing formulas.

Amtrak and Intercity Passenger Rail Construction Grants: $1.1 billion to improve the speed and capacity of intercity passenger rail service. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General estimates the North East Corridor alone has a backlog of over $10 billion.

I would say, don't worry about the roads (even though they'll be a waste of money if they sprawl), but push for more transit, which obviously needs and is "shovel ready"On The green aspects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses

Actually, ecosystem are more like 32%

of global emissions, something like 10% come from GHGs expelled for air conditioning, CO2 from concrete production and some other nonCO2 GHGs from industry.On A detailed look at building, industry, transportation, and land-use greenhouse-gas emissions posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 38 Responses

So maybe employee ownership

would help with climate change?  Employee-owned-and-operated firms have less managers, and should encourage telecommuting (although I don't have good examples of that, most of them currently are in manufacturing).  Just a thought.

Globally, cars "only" emit about 6.3% of the total GHGs, but as I said, we have a bunch of "little" monsters, so everything sounds like "only".On Slicing and dicing global greenhouse gas data posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 17 Responses

Thanks for the summation, Ryan

I think that pressure from urbanists would be necessary even if Obama was clearly committed to their (our) agenda, because any politician needs to be able to say that he/she is getting pressure from "over there", "over there" in this case being urbanists, for example.  So a friendly application of political pressure seems in order.On What Obama's picks signal for urban policy posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 5 Responses

Curtis --

I appreciate the insight concerning the short lived chemicals, and certainly the IPCC isn't perfect, in fact, I think a lot of people consider them pretty conservative (I certainly do - for instance, I think they way underestimate sea level rise).

One of the reasons I put this all together was so that people could correct it.  Much of the data is presented without much explanation, and it should be possible to have some sort of wiki system to try to keep track of all of these things.

Unfortunately -- admittedly, from IPCC data -- power plants for electricity (about 22%) plus transportation would "only" be a little over one third of emissions.  So it's going to take an across-the-board effort, across many areas of life, to solve this problem.On Slicing and dicing global greenhouse gas data posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 17 Responses

Sorry for the confusion

Table 3 is what emissions look like if you separate all fossil fuels out of the end sectors.  Transportation "just" has 636 Mt (megatonnes) of CO2 equivalent, from N20, a tiny bit of methane, and gases from air-conditioning, if you don't consider CO2 from fossil fuels.

In other words, if we just focus on fossil fuels, we can see from table 3 that coal is responsible for about 22% of all GHGs, oil 21%, and natural gas 11%, without worrying about who's using what.  

So for transportation, you can see from Table 1 that it is responsible for 6,428.

Now, if you look at the Google spreadsheet, on the "summary and energy" tab, I go into gory detail about where that comes from.  It depends how you want to allocate, for instance, the methane that is released when processing fossil fuels, particularly natural gas; or if you just want to see CO2, which is 5,832 Mt, for transportation (assuming you agree with the way I allocate "losses" that coal, oil and natural gas involve).

So the short answer is, table 3 is showing fossil fuel CO2, and then everything else that is not fossil fuel CO2.  Is that clear?On Slicing and dicing global greenhouse gas data posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 17 Responses

Thanks Kate

Keep up the good work reporting about the infrastructure, it's a critical topic that isn't sufficiently covered in the mainstream press.

I think Obama has half-digested Van Jones, who always talks about how green jobs that would involve retrofitting and installing solar panels could not be outsourced.  Obama has sort of grafted the wind turbines part onto that, and of course those can be outsourced.

According to the WTO, if the government subsidizes wind turbine production, it cannot then turn around and demand domestic content, that is, if it gives money to domestic firms to help them get a leg up, it can't also insist that everybody buy from those firms.  unless the things being built are considered "general infrastructure", which is another reason why transit would be an easier way to stimulate the economy.

A number of foreign manufacturers now have headquarters in the US,and are setting up factories here, so it should not be that difficult to keep turbine manufacturing here.On Push continues for more green infrastructure funding in the economic-stimulus package posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

Indiana is doing wind power

at least, according to a friend of mine who was driving down on interstate there, only to find he was zooming past a large array of wind turbines.  They could easily supply a hefty measure of Megawatts with wind there.On Another rate increase in the name of cheap coal posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 27 Responses

scary thought Pangolin

that saving the planet requires spreading the wealth -- and power, perhaps.  It seems that, unfortunately, humanity and the planet is usually dependent to some extent on the collective sense of responsibility of its elite.  It seems like the European elite are better at this point than the Americans, for instance, they decided to set up a high-speed rail network.  On the other hand, their elites were wiped out or thrown out of power at the end of WWII, and ours weren't.

Let's say we could come up with a global plan to save the planet and not decrease the wealth of the wealthiest.  even then, the problem would be that they would be less powerful relatively because the rest of humanity would be wealthier than now.  So that would probably translate to less power for the "power elite".  In other words, a larger and richer middle class leads to less power for the power elite, and looked at another way, the power elite become more powerful the poorer the middle class becomes, a point that Thom Hartmann regularly makes.

I think it's best to proceed without worrying about the power elite, and instead envision a sustainable society, educate the public, and see what happens.On Robert Stavins can't walk and chew gum at the same time posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 40 Responses

Back to Romm's post...

Joe might want to look at neoclassical economics this way: it's an attempt to use the theoretical model of statistical mechanics to make predictions that social sciences are incapable of making.  Like statistical mechanics, the system that the neoclassicals use are made up of homogenous elements that are never created and destroyed, that have no differentiation in terms of power or function, and that are very numerous.  What this leads to is attempts to basically treat all economic phenomena as if they were substitutable and essentially similar.  In addition, the models are basically set up to consider a particular part of the system, that is, one industry, so that the goal of the models is to find local optima.

So the example Joe gives is set up to attempt to find two local optimal points -- taking a shower and cooking a dinner.  Neoclassical economics is incapable of determining the optima for a complex system.  So they do what any self-respecting profession would do -- they don't consider situations where there paradigm breaks down.  Which means that they can't analyze or rather understand the holistic systems of global society interacting with a global environment.

I hope that Joe soon turns from tearing up neoclassical economics, which is always fun to do, to putting forth an alternative economic paradigm.  The most obvious right now is ecological economics, as for instance put forward by Herman Daly.

I've also argued that the economy is an ecosystem.  In other words, as opposed to the model used by neoclassical economists, each part of the economy has a function; each part has varying power; each can interact in complex positive and negative feedbacks among themselves; and the economy must be seen as a holistic system (I elaborate on this is a series called "Extreme Makeover, Global Edition", as well as part 2 and part 3).On Robert Stavins can't walk and chew gum at the same time posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 40 Responses

Forget about fusion for now

They're building a mongo plant in France, which will be of the dirty kind vakibs talks about -- tritium-based fusion.  What they should be doing is researching deuterium based fusion, which would be clean, but they can get more now out of tritium than deuterium, so they're rushing to tritium.  But as vakibs said, we don't know whether any of it will even workOn Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

Max, what is your maximum nuke percentage

of the country's generation capacity?  Is it 50%?  Because there was an interesting article in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in which the writer implies (maybe claims, I skimmed it) that France actually has too large a percentage of nuclear, that sometimes they have to export cheaply because they have too much power, and sometimes they have to import expensively because they have too little.  In other words, it sounds like nuke is good for baseload -- say, our 20% -- but much above that and it would be too inflexible.  Is that because you can't run nukes down to a low level "spinning-reserve"-like, as you can with coal and natural gas?On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

Thanks for the reminder, Erik

Putting solar panels in military parking lots is not something to be excited about, I don't think.  And the Air Force would like to be on the cutting edge of coal-to-liquids, among other things.

Then there's the horrible toll on the environment -- and of course, on people.  I've sometimes thought that it might make things clearer to call military equipment destruction machinery.  There are so many euphemisms in the military, but destruction is its basic function.

Sometimes it's necessary, unfortunately, but it's also important to point out the destructive effects that the military has on our economy and politics -- and on Israeli economy and politics too, by the way (and on Arab economy and politics).  Not only are the money for military resources taken from civilian projects, but the military serves as the equivalent of the Soviet central planning apparatus, with all of the inefficiencies of that system.

In a way, the political effects are most toxic (and part of the reason for the Gaza situation may be to help the right-wing parties in Israel).  Militarization takes everybody's eyes away from the prize of social justice and environmental sustainability.  The Republicans tried to use this strategy mercilessly for the last...well, many decades, but particularly in the Bush Administration.  And that led the public to put up with the socially destructive policies of elite-building policies, to the detriment of the society and ecosystems.On A mild reminder in the Gaza chaos that war is not green posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

Printing money is OK

if, as Grey suggests, it's actually an investment, as green investment type things would be.  However, today they're saying the deficit might shoot past 1 trillion dollars for years.  The problem is that the other economic shoe that hasn't dropped yet is that the dollar itself is vulnerable to a very steep fall, and if that happens, we're talking a very sharp drop in standards of living. So sloshing all of those dollars around is not sustainable, but the trade deficit isn't sustainable either...fun times.On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 Responses

Yes, a good summary

of a global plan -- might be the best out there at the moment -- unless someone knows about a better global one (Lester Brown's Plan 3.0 is a good blueprint for the global destruction of ecosystems, perhaps not as focused on greenhouse gases).

By the way, there is no way taxes are going to be raised in the next two years.  They're not even going to raise taxes on the very wealthy, that is, the Bush tax cuts, which is a no-brainer.  The reasoning behind not revoking those cuts escapes me, except that maybe Obama is tip-toeing around the Republicans, which would not surprise me, in which case, again, there is no way he will try to push new taxes on the Republicans.On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 Responses

apartments more efficient?

Hal9000, this indicates that governments need to be more involved in this process -- and I know this sounds pie-in-the-sky, but if local governments at least built up much of the infrastructure (piping?), then the legal issues would fade.

If ground source heat pumps are cheaper per person for apartments, then I just want to point out that that's another benefit of apartment buildings, in addition to the lower heating costs because of the lower roof per household area, and because of the density advantages.  But I know, America wants single family homes.On With heat pumps, smart cooperation is as important as technology posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses

And what's ironic...

...is that transit spending would be "stimulative" much faster at this point than subsidizing PHEVs or electric cars...so the only way to attack the problem of foreign oil dependence in this stimulus plan is transit, and he/they may be throwing that opportunity away.On How green will the economic stimulus package be? posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

"public reconstruction"?

I tried arguing for the term a ways back, maybe just "public construction" would be a way to peel off the idea of public investment that was used to actually build something, from the more general "command and control".  

I'm not sure if this is what Gar was referring to, but let's say the nation got that "World War II" spirit that Romm, Gore, etc. keep talking about, and the government just built all the stuff we need: a new national electric grid, wind farms feeding into the electric grid, municipal PV farms on various buildings, a national biochar system, and yes, a national corps of people who, say, went around for free retrofitting buildings, just for the sake of argument.

The companies that carried out the construction activity would not necessarily have to be government owned, they could mostly be private, but the main idea is that the government would provide the financing and the government would make at least general decisions on what to build (there could be a wide mix: municipalities, building owners, etc. could have control over certain details).

Or take your pick.  It could "just" be a national high-speed rail system.  Whatever it is, the main point is that the government decides what is to be constructed (at varying levels of detail), and provides the money to do it.

The real meaning of "command and control", taken to it's fullest extent, is central planning, which is not regulation based but completely based on decisions made by the government.  That's not what Gar is advocating either, so I don't know if "command and control" is the proper phrase.  "Government regulation" covers regulation pretty well, and some phrase, such as "government construction", perhaps "government planning and construction", would cover the more "command" part of government intervention, it seems to me, instead of using "command and control" to cover both regulation and construction.On Regulation and public investment are more efficient means to reduce GHGs than emissions pricing posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 12 Responses

California's got some nerve

especially after they cut $1.3 billion from transit that they weren't supposed to last year, in order to cover for budget gaps.On Stimulus spending going to roads? posted 11 months ago 19 Responses

the working class needs public investment

most of all -- to rebuild city infrastructure, for instance, or transit, which at the moment is mostly a working class/low income mode of transport. VATs are rather regressive.  I'm not sure why the Europeans imposed a large gas tax, but I'll try this: maybe at the end of WWII there weren't many cars, and there wasn't a big demand for them.  There was a bigger worry about losing precious foreign reserves -- read dollars -- for oil -- read from the U.S.  In addition, as we know, Europe was nowhere near as sprawled as even the US post WWII.  Once in place, the large gas tax could stay in place.

Now we turn to the US.  McCain and Hillary jump on the ridiculous idea of pulling a tiny gas tax that would probably just be replaced by a price rise anyway.  McCain, in the general election, almost has a game-changing slogan with "drill now"etc, for which the Democrats had no good answer.  

Now consider that Californians just approved a high-speed rail, and that everyone's talking about infrastructure.  This indicates to me that pushing public investment is a bigger political winner than a gas tax, and it would attack the problem directly.

As for inflation, oil price rises will ripple through to make a horrible inflation.  And, I think it can be argued that if the government builds something useful, like rail systems or wind systems, you can simply print the money -- because you have increased goods and services.  Since money reflects -- should reflect -- the underlying goods and services of an economy (pace Adam Smith), when productive goods are produced, it's OK to increase money accordingly.  The big problem comes when, in a banking system that is fractional (that is, the banks create money), they lend for speculative reasons.  Then you have inflation.  Greenbacks, that is, money that government makes, not banks, are something to consider -- in effect, money printed for infrastructure investment are like greenbacks -- at least, that makes sense to me, maybe I'm wrong.

As for soaking up money for revenues, as opposed to printing money, the richest percentage or two or three, the big corporations, have plenty that they would have been paying had this been the 1950s -- and then there's the defense department (plus subsidies, plus prisons,etc).  So there is no need, as far as I can tell, for the middle and lower classes to finance a green transformation.On Another attempt to dispute the disproportionate attention paid to gas taxes posted 11 months ago 21 Responses

Particularly since indigenous peoples

are often good stewards of their ecosystems, as for instance the Menominee of Wisconsin with their forest.  Rainforest Action Network calls for indigenous peoples to be given property rights of rainforest areas as a solution to the problem of deforestation, and there is certainly plenty of data within Paul Hawken's "Blessed Unrest" to support the idea, where appropriate.On Vandana Shiva's powerful Soil Not Oil posted 11 months ago 3 Responses

Yeah, geothermal under every lawn....

...and you could shut down all the coal plants.On Will carbon cap-and-trade be the next Ponzi scheme? posted 11 months ago 21 Responses

That might not be the worst part...

also in that article:

   Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has circulated a 41-page memo seeking $85 billion worth of projects over the next two years. The largest chunk of that money, more than $30.2 billion, would go toward highway funds, while $12 billion would go to local public transportation funds. An additional $14.3 billion would go toward "environmental infrastructure," with most going to a clean-water fund.

So out of 850 billion dollars (perhaps) over two years, only 85 billion for infrastructure, of which 30 for roads and only 12 for transit?  Hope not.On Stimulus spending going to roads? posted 11 months ago 19 Responses

The rebuild of the SF cable car system

came in under budget and ahead of schedule; it had deadlines too.  It can be done.  and yes, the entire military cost plus contracting has probably infected some of the civilian side, another side effect.On How the U.S. and China can help, not harm, each other posted 11 months ago 19 Responses

check out the electricity storage association

They have a comparison, although I don't know how updated it it.On Old Man Winter declares war on renewable energy posted 11 months ago 33 Responses

How much storage is needed?

Gar, I think you answered that one a while ago in the 1.7 trillion dollar wind system post, but I'm just wondering about the scale.  If you used sodium sulfur batteries, at $600/kwh, and you produced 1 billion kwhs of them, then it would cost $600 billion, which doesn't sound too bad in the long run, the thing is, we currently use 4,000 billion kwhrs per year total.  If they came down to $100 per kwhr, you'd get 10 billion kwhrs, still short of 1%, but maybe that's "all" that's needed for much of the variation...or at least for buildings?  Or if a building had, say, 10kwhrs storage, that might be enough for a PV system to fill during the day (or maybe a wind farm?).  100 million households X 10 kwhrs is 1 billion, so that might work for residences.  On Old Man Winter declares war on renewable energy posted 11 months ago 33 Responses

Interesting idea, bailo

I wonder how hard it would be to set up hydrogen storage with electricity generation stations next to a wind farm?On Old Man Winter declares war on renewable energy posted 11 months ago 33 Responses

Steel and Chinese demand

Sammie, I can't find exact figures, but this should give an idea for the U.S. from a trade journal:

Some 60% of steel poured in the U.S. is made in electric-arc furnaces that require scrap, often in conjunction with other metal units such as direct-reduced iron and pig iron.

Electric arc furnaces, which are used to process scrap steel, use much less energy than making steel from iron.  Much of the capacity to make steel from iron (I can't remember the term) moved from the U.S. to China.  Now, the atmosphere doesn't care where the carbon comes from, so it wouldn't make things worse to make the steel here.   Also, since the U.S. could more easily impose controls, it would probably be cleaner; we've been exporting our pollution.  But basically, the need is to recycle steel as much as possible -- and let me point out that it's much, much easier to recycle steel than plastic.

However, steel and aluminum and concrete production, although they are big CO2 emitters, are not large percentage-wise.  According to data I'm trying to figure out, from the IPCC, worldwide steel produces 3% of CO2 equivalent, and concrete the same.  That's not great, but it's not a reason  to not build wind turbines, particularly if it's  from scrap, because if you replace all of the fossil fuel inputs for electricity, you eliminate 20% of CO2 equivalents.

Hapa, that would be quite a trick, eh, if decreasing trade between China and the US was mutually beneficial?  It's supposed to be the other way around, of course.  But the Chinese are investing in the US very unwisely, and they are sending us their goods for less than they should be, which both destroys our manufacturing sector and warps theirs.  

Their currency is a good 50% above where it should be -- but we don't know, because it's not set by market forces.  Much of this would work itself out if they just let their currency be set by the market.  But they should also work to increase domestic demand -- which both the US and China recognize-- and they should invest more wisely, which is a subject that has yet to be broached.On How the U.S. and China can help, not harm, each other posted 11 months ago 19 Responses

Amtrak certainly needs help

One time on the trip from Chicago to NYC I asked a conductor if they had cars in storage, so maybe they could add a daily train -- most long-distance trains only travel once a day.  He said that the extra cars for that route had been taken by FEMA, and were rusting outside New Orleans as "emergency" vehicles in case of another hurricane.  I don't know if the story was true, but Amtrak's engines definitely need more maintenance than they are getting.  I would bet that most of the breakdowns are from engine troubles.

Kunstler has called for immediate building of more Amtrak trains (he felt it necessary to diss high-speed rail at the same time).  It would seem to be a no-brainer, although I don't know whether the production facilities even exist anymore: I wonder  if they were made in the U.S., and whether those companies exist either.  If not, then here we are again hoping the developed countries, that is, Japan and Europe, help us, and of course there would be long delays as in the case of the Acela because the American rail system is different than theirs.On Making Bulgaria look good posted 11 months ago 14 Responses

So what would John Dewey say?

On Deep Christmas thought posted 11 months ago 13 Responses

employee owned-and-operated firms?

At least the CEO would be answerable to his/her workers, not shareholders.  And the employees/workers would be interested (hopefully) in the economic and ecological well-being of their locality, not be absentee-owners, as we have now.  And jobs woulnd't be outsourced.  But unfortunately this idea does not seem to have to same hold over progressives as abortion/guns/gays has over the far to medium right.On Does economics even look at the real world? posted 11 months ago 25 Responses

thanks, everyone

while I digest all of this with the latkes, hope we can come back to this at some pointOn The VC models are to blame, not the green technologies posted 11 months, 1 week ago 34 Responses

sjg --

I don't think that anyone follows Kunstler like a cult (at least, I hope not).  I personally think that he has the electricity part wrong, and saying that you can't make wind turbines with electricity from wind turbines is a real doozy.  However, there are rumblings that maybe even the amount of coal the world has is nowhere near what we thought it was -- if in 30 years coal starts to peak, and we're still talking about 5% renewable power, etc., then his visions have a much bigger chance of happening.

What he mostly successfully did in "long emergency" was ask the question, "What happens if oil goes away?".  It's an interesting and important question that not many writers have asked.  He's never liked suburbia, to put it mildly, and you should take a look at "geography of nowhere" for a less apocalyptic view, but there is certainly reason to believe that suburbia encourages depression and loneliness.

So he's certainly got some problematic reasoning, but I think if you look at the 10 resolutions in this post, they're pretty reasonable.On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

Here's yglesias' take:

from his his blog:

I wish the guest post from Jennifer Palmieri that I put up Sunday evening had been handled differently in a variety of ways since just sticking it on the blog and then going to bed seems to have given people a lot of misleading notions about the site being somehow "hijacked." But when you get right down to it, all she was doing was reiterating what's always been the case -- I'm posting un-screened posts on an un-edited blog and covering every issue under the sun. Under the circumstances, it's better for me, better for CAP and CAPAF, and better for everyone to understand that I'm writing as an individual not as the voice of the institution. Pointing that fact out isn't contrary to me having an independent voice, it's integral to having one. Nobody has deleted my post criticizing Third Way, or forced me to retract those criticisms, or prevented me from following up with a more substantive critique of something they wrote. And most of all, contrary to some of the crazier stuff I've read in comments, it's not as if the senior management is leaning over my shoulder censoring every posts...

And I do appreciate having editors: Nice!

By the way, I'm glad Yglesias is doing thing like criticizing Third Way -- and I remember him doing it in a not nasty way -- because I think it's OK to have some good intramural criticism going on.On Editing is really a good thing for the blogosphere posted 11 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

OK mate

I skimmed/read the report, it's always good to have writing which shows the worst of a technology.  You could do the same with nuclear, although let's just agree for the sake of argument that nuclear is possible, much as it pains me to say that.  

It's possible, reading that report, that the U.S. is better situated to take advantage of wind, because nobody will care if North Dakota is covered in wind farms (with all apologies to anyone in the Dakotas that wants to disagree).  And there's lots of wind potential there.

So it may be, for instance, that tidal and wave would work better for the UK, although those are "always around the corner", as the author says.

Really, it's going to take some kind of mix, and most of all, it's going to take a lot of different models and work to figure out how to cover the planet with renewable sources of electricity.  One of the problems we have is that it's not like a coal plant -- with a coal plant you just stick it wherever you want, basically.  With renewables, you have to be very much aware of the particulars of the area.

One more thing about wind, though, and probably renewables in general -- in order to solve the intermittency problem, these systems will have to be continent-wide, unless some large stationary battery technologies become available.  There is evidence that a large distributed system could solve at least part of the intermittency problem.

So, to get back to the post, I'm not sure how much he market is going to solve this one, because it seems like it's going to involve an enormous amount of both local and continental planning.On The VC models are to blame, not the green technologies posted 11 months, 1 week ago 34 Responses

Understood

Sean, you bring up an interesting issue, that is, how did the European and Japanese get ahead of the U.S. in manufacturing wind and solar?  I wrote a short article about this, here, and clearly the European and Japanese are doing better at this.  I suppose it has something to do with all kinds of industrial policy, though, but this is being done through private firms.On The VC models are to blame, not the green technologies posted 11 months, 1 week ago 34 Responses

of prophets and paradigms

Sam, I think that there is a danger that the fiscal stimulus will be too short-term, if that is what you're warning about.  Basically, it may be the case that the manufacturing sector of the country is so far gone that only rebuilding it will bring the country back out of a slump.  Simply fixing some roads will not do the trick.  The roads need to be fixed and the trains need to be built in such a way that factories, in the United States, are built as well or there will be no long-lasting recovery.

Hapa,

99% of experts declare the critics heretical and throw them under the bus? and the 1% under the bus should feel guilty for not fighting harder to grab the steering wheel while they were aboard?

Ain't that the truth! On The economy is an ecosystem, and industrial policy will help that ecosystem posted 11 months, 1 week ago 24 Responses

amazin' --

First off, Kunstler was talking about global climate change before he was talking about peak oil -- or, at least, he was talking more about it, in his "Geography of Nowhere" book in the mid 90s.

Second, I know you disagree, but there are certainly plenty of other people besides Kunstler worried about peak oil.

Third, I don't know if he's quite medieval, he constantly calls for more trains.

Finally, the GHG problem.  In 2004, according to the IPCC, the global manmade ghg emissions, in CO2 equivalents -- that means, 1 ton of methane is counted as over 20 tons of carbon dioxide -- was 49 gigatons, that is, 49 billion tons (metric tons).

Of that, according to the EIA, which the IPCC uses, 10.9 gigatons was from coal, used mostly for electricity, and 10.2 from petroleum.  Strangely enough, transportation used a little less than half of petroleum, generating 6.3 gigatons of C02 equivalent, and about half of that is cars and light trucks.  Then 5.3 gigatons from natural gas (the fossil fuel figures are from this way cool diagram in an IPCC report, pdf, page 259).

OK, about 56% of ghgs are from fossil fuels, which unfortunately leaves 44%.  Here's another way cool diagram,pdf, page 105, which shows that 17% is from deforestation and burning and decaying, 13% from agriculture (mostly fertilizers and belching cows), and then some methane and co2 from some industry and landfills.  I'm working on making this clearer.

Anyway, you're right that transport is not a huge emitter, relatively, although petroleum is -- much of its emissions coming from electricity generation and household heating.  But a good 33% of total ghg emissions come from the use of land for agriculture, forests, and garbage -- and by the way, since we're on the topic, Kunstler talks a lot about agriculture, and Astyk in particular is focused on this one.

If petroleum gets scarce, people could start using more coal, which would be worse for emissions, or more biofuel, which would be worse for the ecosystems (and emissions), so if petroleum supply is a problem, as Kunstler proposes, then things get worse for ecosystems.  However, considering the state we're in, all of this stuff has to be eliminated (even the belching cows?).  So it doesn't matter if something is "only" 10%, it all has to go.On Falling out of love with cars posted 11 months, 1 week ago 15 Responses

Thanks, JMG

and what spaceshaper said.  Particularly the part about workable suburbs -- I wonder if the word "towns" is applicable to those?  We live in Evanston, just north of Chicago, one of the original "railroad" suburbs that popped up as rail became cheap enough for a commute into the center of the city.  Downtown Evanston is just as walkable (well, almost) as Manhattan.  Daniel Burnham, the great urban planner and architect of a century ago, moved here.  I'll quote maybe his most famous words:

Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die.

I'm not sure capitalism requires growth...

...the financial sector requires growth because they need to have a return on their money-- that's the only way they can make money.  But the financial sector is not the capitalist system, in fact, it probably has a negative effect on it.

If everybody had a comfortable "lifestyle" -= whatever that means -- then everybody would be gainfully employed producing the goods and services for this massive, global middle class.  There would still be profits, they just wouldn't be going up.

There could still be nonresource-using growth -- mostly in information, educational, entertainment type industries.  There can sometimes be a problem with capital goods industries when growth halts, but if there is a dependable amount of machinery and capital goods needed in the long-term, then there is no reason capital goods would necessarily  bring on recessions.

So it's more a question of, can we bring the whole planet up to a particular standard of living that is sustainable?On Does economics even look at the real world? posted 11 months, 1 week ago 25 Responses

Great interview, Colin

But as Galbraith says, the profession probably won't change, or at least not much, no matter what happens.  It took Keynes to create an entirely new division of economics, macroeconomics, and even then it did not contradict the underlying basis of the religion profession.

So I think people are going to have to come up with something different.  Galbraith, Herman Daly, Jared Bernstein, Alice Amsden, those sorts of folks should try to put something together.On Does economics even look at the real world? posted 11 months, 1 week ago 25 Responses

agreed BioD...

...it's just that if people are thinking about geoengineering, in other words, effectively bringing on a cooling process, then they should be thinking about stuff like forests instead of putting things into the atmosphere.  Obviously, it's all for naught if the greenhouse gases keep going up in the air.On Desperate enough to contemplate geo-engineering posted 11 months, 1 week ago 22 Responses

stopgreenpath --

how did you get $13,000 for a 10kw system?  and that's PV? I thought it was more like $5000 per kw, are you saying bulk brings it down?  And do you have any info on microwind, that's always seemed to be a problemOn Mysteries of on-bill financing revealed! posted 11 months, 1 week ago 4 Responses

So lemme ask a question

OK Bob, so there you were in intensive care, and it didn't occur to you that this wouldn't have happened if we didn't have a car-centered culture?  Which leads me to another point -- I've never liked cars, and there are millions who never did, it certainly did not take Kunstler to breed a dislike for cars.  There are myriad anti-car books -- "divorce your car" is the one I read, there's also "asphalt nation", and then there's j. h. crawford's book, "carless cities".  Every time I cross a street I think about how nice it would be without cars.

However, perhaps you, and definitely the right-wing, vastly overinflates the hatred of cars among environmentalists, in my humble opinion.  In fact, unless someone explicitly argues against cars, you should assume that the environmentalist you're communicating with likes cars.

At any rate, you didn't answer the question: why is it worth a Vietnam-type body count to have an automobile-centered society?  I agree with you that most people don't want to give up their cars, but that's getting into the realm of political realism.  Morally, it seems to me that an automobile-centered society is indefensible.

I'd also like you to know that you join the pantheon of people that I've had long arguments with concerning the viability of suburbs, only to discover that they don't live in one and don't want to.  There was one fellow who actually lived in a suburb arguing with me against transit -- but so far, he's the lone exception.  And good for you, too, you're better off.

Amazin', I would concentrate on reforestation.  As wild as it sounds, reforesting the Sahara is probably a better bet than cloud-seeding.On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

Don't have a cow, Bob!...

...or at least, that's how the people I grew up with in Laguna Beach, California would probably respond, not from any intellectual insight but just because...well...what you're talking about is bumming me out, man!

Previous to Laguna, in answer to your question, I lived with my assimilationist parents in beautiful suburban NJ, and some in other parts of suburban California.  

So until I was 18, Bob, I was one suburban kid.  And I hated it.

But enough about me.  I want to bring up another issue that has been thrown around, that is, that we can't abandon the building stock/infrastructure that has been created lo these past decades.  Actually, the proof that we can completely reorient the society if we want to is exactly all of that infrastructure, because it has been built up over the last 50 years, it hasn't been here forever.  

If we could build suburbia, we can build sustainable cities and towns to replace them.  The big difference would probably be that for the vast  majority -- this is an assumption, by the way, not necessarily true -- people wanted to have their own house and car, i.e., suburbia.  However, if for some reason the vast majority decided that they preferred a denser lifestyle, then there would be many of the same pressures to transform our living patterns.

Amazin, unfortunately the vast majority of people seem to think that 40,000 plus lives per year, plus over 1 million serious injuries per year, are worth the "freedom", as Bob put it, of an automobile-centered culture.

Basically, we have been fighting a 50 year war for freedom.  That seems to be the unconscious "reasoning", if I can apply a term to it, that the society has made.  Every year, we repeat the carnage of the entire Vietnam war, and yet most people would shrug or just think you were crazy if you said we should not have cars in order to save those lives.  So I don't know what to tell you.

Bob, people aren't walking around muttering about the end of the world because of kunstler.  Most, I assume, are like me, we have read numerous authors -- and as LPS pointed out, Richard Heinberg goes into much the same matters as kunstler in a much more cool and reasoned way, I would very much suggest checking out richardheinberg.com and check out his museletterOn Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

Bob, "scorch" wrong use of word

just more like criticize, really.

spaceshaper has made a couple of very critical arguments, it seems to me.

About de-densifying jobs, here's the problem: it makes things worse unless the employees follow the office.  Are these people going to sell their homes if the office moves to the other side of the city, and buy a home in the new location?   This would all be much easier if most people rented, but that's not that dominant Mr. and Mrs. culture we were talking about.  So if people don't move, then moving from the center increases transportation -- it's just simple graph theory, it seems to me.

That's another efficiency of the city.  Since everyone goes into a central point, assuming that when people buy/rent they don't particularly care how close they are to work -- again, apparently every American's God-given right, the house is more important than the location because we can travel as far as we want in a car -- so actually, sprawl means that the city as job center is even more important, efficiency-wise.

I happen to have a 2 minute walk to work.  But I intentionally did that, and we rent.

Now, if we can be profligate with energy, sprawling the jobs is no problem (well, energy-wise).  But that's a big part of the problem, isn't it?On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

yes! agreement!

All I had to do was give away any profound changes...I like that term, "immaculate transformation"...

We'd probably have to pay off shareholders in coal companies to accept the elimination of their industry, and we'd have to give utilities all kinds of assurances that they'd continue to make big profits with wind, etc, because besides not scaring Mr. and Mrs. with lifestyle changes we'd probably have to ensure that there were no major economic/political power changes either, if we're talking about the easiest route to mitigating climate change.  And putting a price on carbon would probably constitute a lifestyle change, so that might be out too.

As for education, certainly, but I think it should be a two-pronged strategy: first, have models -- hopefully, slick animation -- showing what happens if we have business-as-usual, and second, models showing what we would have to do (hopefully involving as little lifestyle and power changes as possible) showing what would avoid the worst.

As for politicians, I believe the all-time example of a politician easing the population into an idea was the effort of FDR to get Americans used to the idea of fighting again in Europe.  But the politician/politicians have to be convinced that there is a problem first, and obviously it would help if a lot of their constituents thought so too.On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

Kunstler and global warming

Kunstler was talking about global warming in the early 1990s, in fact, if memory serves, he was talking more about why we need to redensify because of global warming than because of peak oil in his two books that maybe you Kunstler-dislikers would like, the "Geography of Nowhere" and "Home from Nowhere"On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

What spaceshaper said, and Bob -

I would be all for making the roads safe for current BEVs that don't go over 30mph.  In most states they are only allowed to go on streets with 30mph limits.  Maybe there could eventually be physically separated bike lanes, a lane for BEVs, and then a lane for those other things.

Actually, for neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), according to Wikipedia, "Because of the federal law, car dealers cannot legally sell the vehicles to go faster than 25 mph (40 km/h), but the buyer can easily and inexpensively modify the car to go 35 mph".

Ironically on a number of levels, Chrysler produces one of the major NEVs, the GEM car.

But nobody wants to seriously discuss NEVs, partly because most Americans have to be able to go 60 mph for 300 miles at least, and partly because NEVs would require some densifying.  How about subsidizing NEV purchases, just like SUV purchases?On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

Like I said

Some of his stuff about going back to small towns, and going technologically backward, don't make much sense, to me at least.  But what does make sense is that he is constantly arguing for a major upgrade to the rail system.  As for big box stores, if they can fit within a dense urban or town environment, but not with huge parking lots, fine, but again, I'm assuming we're not going to have a car-centered urban design.  By the way, my understanding is that water is by far the cheapest mode of travel, if you're not worried about time, or else nobody would have ever heard about globalization, which is based on huge cargo ships.

The main point, I think, of what Kunstler is offering is in the way of discussing the proper urban design.  Others do it in a much less snarky manner, but the idea is pretty similar: there are much more efficient - and arguably more pleasant - ways to organize living patterns.  For instance, you laid out an interesting idea, of going from villages to cities.  

As for agriculture, if you look at Sharon Astyk's work (she blogs here infrequently, usually she's at energybulletin.net and has her own blog), she's much more pessimistic than Kunstler, I think, concerning food production.  Maybe that's overblown too, but it's important to question all the assumptions of our current food production system as well.On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

Bob,

Here I go again, but I really don't think that you are that far from what Kunstler is saying.  We know that electric batteries aren't there yet, and we don't know how well they will work.  It's not that radical to say there won't be another liquid fuel like petroleum, is it?  It's also a good idea to understand the production process we call agriculture, and it's unsustainability, simply on the basis of the destruction of the soil, let alone not being able to use fossil fuels for pesticides and particularly for artificial fertilizer.

Kunstler even identifies the problem of the decline of manufacturing.  The one place I disagree with him with is that we will relocalize to a small town type level.  I think we will recentralize to a fairly large town to a large city level, because as we've also discussed, crammed in like sardines is very efficient (although I'm not talking about going back to preWWI tenement NYC, maybe the most crowded human situation in history).  I also think he tends to underestimate how much electricity we can generate.

He might be, well he is, snarky, but for some reason many of our best writers are, it makes for good reading.  The clarity of what he is saying is very sobering, which is definitely a good thing in these times.On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

I believe James Hansen

is firmly in camp number one, that is, he says he's a conservative and that the politicians shouldn't get their hands on the money.

There are a couple of other places to get big bucks, both of which are problematic politically: first, roll back the upper marginal tax rates, not to Clinton-era rates, but to pre-Reagan rates, which I believe were about 50%.  Or better yet, go back to JFK rates of 70% -- which by the way were cut from Eisenhower-era 90% rates, which were, however, full of loopholes.

Second, during that socialist Eisenhower's regime, corporations paid 22% of Federal revenues, which is now down to about 7%; actually I believe during or just after WWII it was up to 35%.  Anyway, 22% - 7% is 15%, of the 2 trillion dollar budget, that would bring in $300 billion.

By the way, just to clean up the infrastructure, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, would take $1.6 trillion over 5 years, or about $300 billion per year.  Trying to construct a national rail system, retrofitting, feed-in tariffs, it seems to me, would be more in the multiples of 100 billion dollars range, not multiple of 10 billion dollars.On Where will the money for public investment come from? posted 11 months, 1 week ago 10 Responses

Questions, amazin

What is a "deep cycle battery"?  And do you dump your bio-waste in the 55 gallon drums?  Does someone have to clean it from time to time?  Note that that would probably work better in a big building, either commercial or apartment.

Colin, I've read about passivhaus before, it's an interesting idea.  I don't know how easy it is to retrofit, in general, I think the building has to be designed from the ground up.On Of ice and biomass posted 11 months, 1 week ago 11 Responses

All that financial garbage

is just that, garbage -- at least there are no physical clean-up costs.  I mean, so somebody bought a derivative that is worth nothing.  That doesn't mean that the real economy has to crash.  And if the currencies were completely polluted, trash them too , reboot, and come back up with greenbacks, money based on the wealth of the country, that can't be manipulated financially.  Check out Krugman today in the opinions section of the N.Y. Times, he takes a well-deserved swipe at the financial sector.On The 'invisible hand' is blind to climate externalities and the value of natural resources posted 11 months, 1 week ago 15 Responses

travesty

That our infrastructure is so screwed up.

What might really help is to have every building with geothermal heat exchange units, but in order to survive off the grid you would need a decent battery supply and/or some PV on the roof -- or maybe a little biomass generator.On Of ice and biomass posted 11 months, 1 week ago 11 Responses

OMG

Someone got appointed who might actually reverse environmental damage?! Yes!! Now all we have to do is get people like her appointed in other fishing countries.

Sammie, I don't think anglers are going to be hurt by this, maybe after a few years there will actually be something to fish, sustainably.On Obama taps marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco to head NOAA posted 11 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

forests and suburbs

Tom and Richard, I can't quite remember the outcome of long discussions about cellulosic that Richard, Amazin, myself, -- who else was on that one, Pangolin and Jonas? -- anyway, lots of us were talking/arguing/yelling about.  

I found out that the Menominee Indians have been sustainably harvesting wood for over 150 years, while all the forests around them have disappeared.  What was it, one ton per acre per year?  I don't know if that's enough for much fuel, although it might be good enough to replace the use of oil for feedstocks.  So if Richard could put those numbers together again, that would be great.

Speaking of the Menominee, it would helpful to distinguish between regimes and technologies that have been in use for a long time, those that are coming on-line in some kind of commercial scale now, things that we should see Real Soon Now, and speculation.  Obviously, Menominee practices are rock solid (their ecosystems are even thriving).  Anything that is currently in research and looks promising is Real Soon Now, the riskiness level is vastly increased (and this includes batteries for cars).  

Wood is also used for electrical generation, as in Burlington Vermont, but I'm not sure whether that is a better use for sustainable wood than for fuel.  And  we have to always be aware, it seems to me, that if people are faced with the choice between having no fuel for their cars and forests, well, I'm not optimistic.

Bob, I think we're basically on the same wavelength -- my preferred argument is why cities are good, not why suburbs are bad, and I'm much more concerned with making cities better, as you suggest, than dissing suburbs.  It's ridiculous that a 500 sq ft apartment in NYC that I used to own is worth more than a 3000 sq ft home in a suburb.  That's more a function of the lack of housing in cities, which people have been yelling about for decades, than an inherent problem with cities-- well, partly inherent, because city property, in a well-designed city, is almost always more expensive because it is more desirable, simply because it is in the middle of a well-designed cities.  But let's hope that batteries come out that make suburbs, or at least ones with town centers, livable.On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Richard --

Again, I think you should concentrate on wood, because of its density.  As far as people being open-minded, I'm not sure who is completely open-minded.  I wish people were open minded about cars and cities, and that I could explain to them why cars are a terrible idea and cities are a wonderful idea without having people think I want to do a reverse-Pol-Pot and make everyone live in a city without a car.  In other words, whenever you advocate something, somebody's going to get upset, and even misinterpret what you say the first few times (at least).  I think Grist tends to be pretty civilized.On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Well, I'm not familiar with the literature

of peer-reviewed work.  There have been many studies, including Jacobson and Archer on wind, showing that there is plenty of energy from wind and solar to power us electrically.  Or are those not valid either?  If they are valid, then the question is intermittency and the engineering question of whether we have the resources to build enough equipment to capture the wind and solar.

Even in the case of intermittency, I suppose it would always be possible to simply build enough batteries  -- sure, you could argue that cost would be an issue, but the technical feasability of such a system doesn't seem impossible.  So to some extent, in both the case intermittency and the feasability of building, we have engineering questions.  Why not at least model what such a society would look like?  It might require a decent amount of resources, and teams of both engineers and scientists, but climate modeling also requires resources.

I don't know whether this is relevant, but the peak oil activists seem to have been way out in front of academia and the press (I have no idea how academia is handling the issue of peak oil).  The main peak oil activists had been,first, engineers, and then journalists.  So it is not inconceivable that a similar process could take place in terms of redesigning the society to be carbon-free and sustainable (and as always, thanks for links to the literature).On No. 1: 'It's not guaranteed we have a solution for coal' posted 11 months, 1 week ago 26 Responses

A Clinton third-term

...or a Jimmy Carter fourth, however you perceive it.  The question, or potential, with Obama was, will he pull an FDR if the country is in bad enough shape?  He has always been centrist, and he won't go progressive unless pushed -- unless circumstances push him, although even FDR had a very powerful Left in the 1930s to contend with.

We shall see what his policies are.On Not-so-deep thought posted 11 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

Looks like Obama really is centrist

and pretty corporate, as he pretty much looked on the campaign trail.  Vlisack, now LaHood, Salazar, not to mention Gates, and really, Hillary; maybe Richardson is a bit progressive at times, and surprisingly, Biden hired Jared Bernstein, head of the progessive Economic Policy Institute, as his head economic advisor, so he might be the main progressive force in Obama's cabinet.On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

Bob --

Yeah, unfortunately a lot of cities are not well laid out, it's almost like they're closer to being suburban, and I even mean large cities like Chicago, which has dense apartment buildings and then no supermarket in many areas.

The key is have a real supermarket within walking distance.  My frame of reference is broadway in manhattan, where every few blocks you have a really good supermarket, and every few blocks a drugstore, and doctors all over, and hardware stores...so even density doesn't do it, it has to be intelligently laid out mixed use (although density makes manhattan a walking possibility -- I don't know how dense a neighborhood has to be to be truly walkable, although here in downtown Evanston, I can walk just about anywhere I need to, and its a fairly small town).On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

Bob --

Just gotta respond to the business about dragging things for miles on bicycle in a city.  The whole point of the city (well, part of the point) is that everything is close together.  You don't have to go far.  In fact you can walk.  And for old people, it's much better because they're not trapped.  And it's hardly living like sardines (I thought you lived in Thailand part of the time, not in a city?).On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

Bob --

The world's middle classes have fallen in love with the American ideal, and in Asia in particular, with the automobile, and it seems to have turned into a prestige thing -- I'm getting this second hand from China and Malaysia, is this also true in Thailand?  The Thais are also building a city which will be depdendent on an airport in its center, which is rather foolish considering where oil is going.

But I digress, really, the culture has simply become totally addicted to automobiles and can't even see outside of it (and the rural situation is a bit different than suburbs, because suburbs could easily be in a dense city whereas rural areas can't).

As far as BEV's becoming as cheap as ICE's, we simply don't know.  So far, they aren't.  If you're going to risk the entire biosphere on batteries being as good as ICE's, we better have a super-Manhattan project for it.On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

How about a Civlian Efficiency Corp?

that would go around and caulk and duct buildings for free, then maybe do more complex things like install new windows (for the cost of the windows)...and one for industry too?...the labor would be free from the government, cost of materials borne by building owners.  

That's a direct efficiency gain, with no worries about whether a for-profit company can be tempted into doing the right thing.  For-profits just aren't good at not doing something -- governments are good when the market fails (and yeah, sure, let's nationalize or municipalize utilities, or at the very least, long-distance transmission).On Why the much-ballyhooed utility decoupling is inadequate posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 16 Responses

Karen, speaking of working group III...

...I've been immersing myself in those reports, first of all because I want to get an accurate as possible view of where GHG gases are coming from.  Do you know anyone who has already done that?  I'm pretty far along, but there are some inconsistencies, and I don't have access to IEA 2004, as you put it (unless you know of an online free copy).  

The lab Chu heads was originally involved in nuclear research, so I would expect a certain amount of bias from him.  I don't mean that he isn't an excellent pick, which he seems to be, I just think that environmentalists should be aware that he has a pro-nuke outlook.On No. 1: 'It's not guaranteed we have a solution for coal' posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

amazin --

you have the same problem with some of those sources as with cellulosic, that is, they are way to "far-flung", it would take too much energy to collect the biogas.  That's the advantage of landfill gas, which by the way constitutes over 1% of total ghg global emissions.  Manure is also around 1%, if memory serves, but unless it's in those awful cafo lots its hard to collect also.On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 31 Responses

He's also very pro-nuke

according to this article.On No. 1: 'It's not guaranteed we have a solution for coal' posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

Let them eat switdhgrass!

Better work on those car batteries...On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 31 Responses

Billhook --

Let me suggest the idea that the productive capacity of the developed world (plus China/India) does not depend on the health of the financial sector -- at least, not in an engineering sense, that is, the factories are all still there and the engineers know what they know.

However, the oil problem is a transportation problem, since the world has been stupid enough to put over 95% of transportation in a completely dependent state.  In fact, I was amazed to find out that Europe is even more dependent on trucks for freight than the US -- although that might be because the US uses almost half of its rail freight for coal...for instance, 350.org is not particularly interested in trains...

However, you're only as strong as your weakest link, and transportation is currently the weak link.  But with automobile capacity way beyond what it needs to be at this point (there's a good story at economicpopulist.org a bit of the way in, about what other countries are doing to preserve their automobile industries), it seems to me a rational plan of action, which is doable, would be to go on a train-building spree.  But I'm afraid most of the planet has their heads in ...er...the sand, and doesn't want to believe that trains are a better bet than cars.On After Poland talks, a new reality starts to set in, says McKibben; 350 ppm must be the goal posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 22 Responses

What would serve all, hapa

is to try to understand what needs to be done when oil becomes too expensive, because the market certainly can't.  I guess the point of the post is that transit and mixed-use/density should have been encouraged before the real estate meltdown -- had much of that building taken place near transit, and aided density and mixed-use, we would not be in the position we are in now.  It's because those houses are out in the middle of nowhere and depend on long-distance automobile traffic that we're in trouble -- plus all of the financial shenanigans.

Again, this would benefit exactly the bottom three quintiles, really, the bottom 80-something percent, who won't be able to afford long-distance travel in the not too distance future (see I didn't ignore you, don't get paranoid!).On The transportation story at the heart of a history-making crisis posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses

Even Mr. Exurbia gets it, a little

Yesterday David Brooks urged

the Obama stimulus plan could help localities create suburban town squares. Many communities are trying to build focal points. The stimulus plan could build charter schools, pre-K centers, national service centers and other such programs around new civic hubs.

This kind of stimulus would be consistent with Obama's campaign, which was all about bringing Americans together in new ways. It would help maintain the social capital that's about to be decimated by the economic downturn.

I've seen this described as "infilling", trying to make a town, or in some case, reconstitute a town, from a suburb.  Maybe that will gather some steam.  The only real estate that is maintaining its value or even rising is near transit, which I would think might take a few years for developers to quite understand, but then maybe they'll turn their full focus to it (of course, Brooks can't bring himself to call for a full-blown town square with markets, post offices, etc., but since he made his reputation writing about exurbia, I'm still amazed).On The transportation story at the heart of a history-making crisis posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses

Question Bob

If this comment gets through before the Grist server freezes again....

Wondering if you've heard of sulfur sodium batteries, or any other kind of storage for, say, your neighborhood storage units...it seems as if large battery systems, which may be more efficient, don't get the press that small ones do, since small ones can be used in cars.On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 50 Responses

oops, lightrailnow.org

On Transit ridership up; everyone agrees it should be funded posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

Batteries in apartment buildings?

Bob, something to consider is that in a really dense city, each large apartment building/commercial building could have batteries because they always have staff anyways (or even outsourced staff could easily get to many buildings in one day).  Also, micro gas turbines are being used in some buildings with more than 60 units, which could either come from some kind of amazingdrx biogas thingee or just be used for backup.  So just to press a button, this is another reason cities are more efficient...On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Yeah, what's it to ya?

Actually, I grew up in southern California, so my main comment is, "What a bummer!" about Blago and "awesome!" about Obama...the coworkers are checking out all the Blago news...check out buzzflash.com for the best stuff on this mess, I think...and it's cold and snowing, but it sounds like he's a terrible governor, so I think people are basically in a good mood because the faster he's gone the better.On NYT columnist makes a late bid for dumbest paragraph of the year posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses

Trees and the NY Times

CC, here's an article for you: the poor ol' timber industry is in bad shape in Montana, because, sniff sniff, people aren't buying wood products like they used to:

"Timber cutting is one-seventh what it was on Forest Service lands 20 or 25 years ago at its height," Mr. Ekey said. "Then, the environmental movement rightly had to be about, `no,' and how to stop it." Now, he added: "We're at the level where we can really have a good rational discussion -- what does success look like? What does successful forest management look like?"

Thanks for posting that paragraph

Not that I'm praising David Brooks in general, but if you read his article today, at least he's trying -- and he even called for town centers to be constructed in suburbs as part of a stimulus.

It was with great trepidation that I read Kristol, and in the rest of the piece he's actually saying that big government is coming back.  But you have to realize that he's a neocon, and to neocons and much of the Republican right, the military is the only truly legitimate use of government (OK, sloshing billions in subsidies to big corporations is important to them too).

And the ironic part of it is that the US military-industrial complex is the single largest central planning operation in the world, now that the Soviet Union has collapsed.  And that's what he's pushing!  The truth is, Kristol and his buddies have always wanted big defense.

By the way, back in the early 1990s when national health care was a possibility, Kristol wrote that Republicans should oppose it partly because if it passed, the working class would move to the Democrats because they would be grateful.On NYT columnist makes a late bid for dumbest paragraph of the year posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses

Infrastructure rebuild would take 5 years

I wanted to add that the American Society of Civil Engineers has put out an infrastructure report card for many years now, the gist of which is that it would take $1.6 trillion, in five years, to get the infrastructure up to an "adequate" level.

so wesrolley, to address your point, there is plenty of unskilled and semi-skilled labor in infrastructure work.  And if you extend the time frame to 5 years, another big advantage is that you can assume 2 years for training, which is enough for quite a few skilled positions, although 4 years is best (and would even be enough time to train some engineers).On Green stimulus: Where can the money go, and how fast? posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses

stopgreenpath --

The information on AB 811 isn't very good, although I think what it says is that municipalities can sell bonds to put infrastructure on private buildings, e.g., photovoltaics.  You have more information on this than I do, evidently, and I appreciate any wisdom you have to impart on these matters.

Now, another thing I learned while learning about CCAs was that all cities have the power to allow or disallow any group or company, such as utilities, from providing electricity to their territory.  In combination with CCAs, AB 811 and everything else -- like municipal utilities -- it seems to me that what you have emerging is a counterpower to Big Utilities.  In other words, if you want to counter Big Energy and Big Solar and all the rest, you go for a separate power center, Big City.

I suppose they could even band together and control electricity generation from beyond their borders.

Why do I keep bringing up going extra-local?  Because it seems that wind power is what is "winning" right now, to judge from things that Lester Brown and others are saying, and research indicates that a national system of wind power could be used to provide baseload.  Since wind is by far the least environmentally-destructive way to go, it seems to me that, using PV and maybe some local wind (SF plans some local wind) for most electrical needs, plus a baseload from national wind, might work.

What you suggest is actually similar to what, believe it or not, Bill Clinton has been putting together, that is, buyers clubs of governments, to get "wholesale".  So LA, and even other jurisdictions, could get togther and get a great deal on PV. In fact, maybe they could even buy their own silicon purification plant, that would put a huge dent in costs.

I wasn't aware that the Berkeley plan still made electricity too expensive for most people -- are you sure about that?  I thought it was basically free to install.  

Anyway, the original post here actually had to do with Federal funding.  It seems to have crept into many minds that the Feds need to fund infrastructure, but I don't know if that means funding solar PV or other local electricity generation -- that might be considered too much in the domain of the "market".  So although it would be best to combine the market and government in the case of solar, the push needs to be made in the area of arguing for governmental involvement, because that's the part that's lackingOn Green stimulus, green jobs posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 13 Responses

stopgreenpath --

Let me suggest to you that the main problem may not be the utilities, it is more likely the mindset that the government shouldn't get involved, that we have to bend over backwards to give "incentives" to that delicate creature, the "investor".

However, SF did put together a proposal to put PV on roofs to generate 103 MWs, which basically comes from the city, as I discussed in this post about CCAs, which may be spreading, particularly throughout the SF Bay area.  I don't know if anything like that is going on in southern cal.On Green stimulus, green jobs posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 13 Responses

And let's look at this from a historic perspective

When Carter and Clinton came in to office after Republicans and majorities in Congress, they blew it, whereas when LBJ came into Congress in 1964 with large majorities he passed Medicare and Civil Rights legislation.

What did they screw up?  Well, they didn't have a good machine when they got in, as I mentioned before, but they also didn't have a good wind at their backs on various issues, so it's not entirely their fault.  So Carter could have done something about energy and health insurance, but there wasn't a consensus; Clinton the same.

Obama, on the other hand, has stiff winds on just those issues (and Hillary would have been pretty much the same had she been elected).  There's also a stiff wind to get out of Iraq.  The one big danger I see is that Obama could pull an "LBJ", who destroyed his chances of further progress by burying himself in Vietnam; I hope Obama doesn't do the same in Afghanistan.On Note to progressives: Your guy won! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses

Doing the right thing

this news story certainly makes me think that Obama and company are going in the right direction.  They're going to start spending on retrofitting and mass transit and renewable energy subsidization, and not wait for cap-and-whatever.

I actually never expected too much from Obama, because he was always clearly a centrist.  I don't know why progressives don't understand this.  If he gets a good green stimulus bill through, which seems to be happening, if he has most troops out of Iraq in a couple of years, if he passes comprehensive health legislation, and patches up international relations, and if he gets some kind of carbon pricing in a couple of years, I will be wildly delirious.

Also, the progressive media has been so used to criticizing Republicans for 30 years, they're going to have to actually start arguing about positive proposals, as Hal said.  Which brings me to the one point of disagreement: we should certainly criticize each other, we're not a monolithic party like the Republicans, and a good debate often leads to better policy.On Note to progressives: Your guy won! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses

By 1943, US Govt was 47% of GDP

and stayed at 42% in 1944 and 1945; that's the Federal government that constituted almost one half of the economy.  Defense spending by itself went from 32% of the economy in 1943 up to 37% of the economy in 1945 (From the section "War Administration, Table 1, in the "American Economy During World War II" article at eh.net, the economic history website (who knew?)).  

One third of our present economy would be about five trillion dollars -- per year.  That's about 5 times the Krugman-esque stimulus plan figures being thrown around.

Anyway, to quote the article:

From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner.

"The stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner"?!  How about this: "The stakes are too high to permit the global warming-prevention economy (OK, figure out a better phrase) to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner".

They continue:

American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods' manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries...

the military services enjoyed almost-unchecked control over their enormous appetites for equipment and personnel. With respect to the economy, the services were largely able to curtail production destined for civilians (e.g., automobiles or many non-essential foods) and even for war-related but non-military purposes (e.g., textiles and clothing).

This happens to other progressive causes...

...we never had the money to lift people out of poverty, to upgrade the cities -- not even to rebuild the infrastructure -- to increase funding to teachers and schools -- to even keep school buildings from crumbling -- to have a national health care system as you mentioned, to have universal child care, to take adequate care of vets...the list goes on.  This is why it's critical that a a progressive coalition form, or else all the "surplus" money will continue go to defense and finance.On Humanity is still bargaining with climate change posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 6 Responses

Here's something called REDD

from the Financial Times:

Many forest nations argue that unless credits can be obtained for not cutting down forests, it would be virtually impossible to contain climate change.

Governments agreed at a UN meeting in Bali last December that an initiative known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (Redd) should be included in the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Since then, private sector involvement has increased dramatically.

Redd provides payments in the form of carbon credits to encourage forests to be saved.

Eric Bettelheim, chairman of Sustainable Forestry Management, a company that conserves and manages forests, says the attractions are simple. "It's at the middle-to-low end of the cost curve, so investors can generate returns and do good from relatively low-hanging fruit," he says.

I don't know, maybe it's not quite what it's cracked up to be, but it's another idea.  I think we should be bouncing around a bunch of ideas.On Obama will never get 67 votes for an international climate treaty in the Senate posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 10 Responses

BioD --

Well, I'll ignore the "hive" comment about NYC, which it definitely does not feel like, but I definitely agree that you don't need a NYC-type urban structure.  You do need some density, particularly of residences, to keep the downtown businesses open.

For instance, here in Evanston, Illinois, population under 100,000, there is a downtown which must total less than a third of the total population, and it supports a supermarket (whole foods), a drugstore, barnes and noble, YMCA, library, health offices, etc. etc. and it has two rail lines.  There are many towns similar to this (it would be nice to have a full inventory), although it helps that it's a college town.

I think most cities in the U.S. have pockets of walkability similar to NYC -- actually, let me make that more rigorous, there are pockets where you can be fairly comfortable being carless -- but for instance, Chicago is set up rather strangely in that it seems to have enough density but the commercial areas are separate from the residential ones in most of the city (and I would probably be happy to have a 20mph electric car, or something similar, maybe depending on where it was legal to drive it)

Anyway, before I run on about urban planning, I like your idea about dedicated 20mph lanes -- would that include bikes and electric cars?  Maybe make them too narrow for ICE cars.  

And after having said all that I've said, if someone came up with a way for suburbanites to do their happy motoring by just shifting to an all-electric engine instead of an ICE, I'd be joyous because it would be a huge step toward solving the climate crisis.

Amazin', I think the serious injuries are near 200,000, I thought I once saw a statistic on serious, disabling injuries, but I can't find it now.On Green stuff from the L.A. auto show posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 21 Responses

Thanks Amazin' and Bob...

...first off, there's a crazy American ex-soldier in Bangkok who sometimes comments here under the nom de blog MadMac...not that I'm suggesting you contact him, just thought I'd throw it out there.

Second, I don't believe in guilt-tripping about cars.  Most people are trying to get by the best they can.  Certainly rural life was transformed by the automobile, as where whole regions like the South, which makes it even more critical to figure out electric-based modes of transportation.  I'm trying to convince people that a transit-oriented lifestyle is better, not force them into it.

There may be an interesting categorization of people vis-a-vis cars: there are those who would prefer society be carless,there are those who might want central cities to be carless, there are those who would like to be in walkable communities and either not have to use a car or only use it occasionally, there are those who might prefer a suburb but would move to a walkable community without too much incentive, and on and on.

Where those dividing lines are, we don't know, because walkable communities are far and few between, and housing in them tend to range from expensive to very expensive.  It doesn't have to be that way -- in fact, it seems to me that if the market was operating in any kind of efficient manner, there wouldn't be much difference between walkable and suburbs, because capital should be flowing to the higher priced areas.

Chris Leinberger at Brookings thinks this will straighten itself out via the private market as developers get more comfortable building near transit, in particular.  Which means that transit needs to be part of the solution.

So let's say 30% of the public actually wanted to live in walkable communities, that 25% of the population who don't currently could drastically reduce their driving miles by moving to one.  That would be a good start, no?  I haven't seen much in the way of proposals to accomplish this, and it's very tricky because it involves changes to areas that are already built up -- one of the reasons developers prefer farmland.  But considering the hundreds of billions devoted to expandingn suburbia, I think it's called for, particularly in light of the climate crisis and peak oil.

I think once people visit places like NYC (or Bangkok), they can see that there are advantages, and you might see a much larger percentage of the population preferring something close to urban life.  At the very least, maybe they would be more open to small EV's that can get them from their home to a possibly "in-filled" suburban town center, and from there by train to a city.  So it's possible a "demonstration effect" might also make a difference.  People now are so used to a car-centered lifestyle, they need to see and experience something different.On Green stuff from the L.A. auto show posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 21 Responses

BioD, you cut me to the core!

BioD, c'mon!  "outlaw" cars? are you serious?

And now, just to attempt -- just an attempt -- to clear up some confusion about New York City, since I lived there for a couple of decades (and you can't take total swipes at it since 9/11, remember?) --

First of all, lots of people who live in Manhattan -- maybe most -- prefer not to have to drive.  Sure, it's convenient to get out of the city since everywhere this side of the Atlantic outside of NYC assumes that you have an automobile, but it's sort of nice -- just think, no worries about parking, someone else drives (remember that old Greyhound commercial?), no worrying about traffic (and if you're in a bus or subway, you can read, which is why there are still newspapers in NYC).

Second, in some ways it's actually better for kids to be in a place like NYC than a suburb.  there, I said it.  Some families prefer the city  You can stroll for miles.  You can go to world class museums.  You can go to lots of things, with a 10-minute easy subway ride.  And in addition, you don't have to worry about getting killed while driving(except by cars hitting pedestrians, of course).  

Third, (and this is from something Bob Wallace said), it's actually easier to shop when you can walk to the store.  Honest.  You don't have to get in the car, drive, park, do it in reverse, you just go out the door and a few minutes later you're walking out of the store and back to your...yes, apartment.  The one big problem, which leads to,

Four, according to Chris Leinberger at the Brookings Institute, about 30% of the public wants to live in walkable communities, but only about 5% at most can.  Could it be the trillions in subsidies provided to highways, parking spots, parking garages, right-of-ways, gas stations, trucks, SUVs....in other words, there are people who want to be in an NYC type environment, and it would be nice if there were more and bigger (not huge, just reasonable, say 500square feet per person) apartments at a reasonable price.

Oh, yeah, then there's that little itty-bitty number five, cars pollute, so since we're on an environmental site, I would remiss if I didn't mention things like climate change.  or that our society is going to have to bend over backwards to keep everyone in their single family homes that depend on cars, by trying to develop a technology that does not exist on a mass scale, electric and plug-in hybrids, rather than go with a technology that is decades old, trains, and we'll have to figure out all kinds of ways of keeping millions of inefficient single family homes going that are spread out far away from shopping and work instead of going with technologies that were invented 10,000 years ago at Catal Huyuk, that is, make living patterns dense and mixed.  

Oh that was fun!  But I swear I will never, ever advocate taking away anybody's car, I promise!On Green stuff from the L.A. auto show posted 12 months ago 21 Responses

on greed, cars, and trains ==

Just read Gus Speth's "Bridge to the end of the world" and Gar Alperovtitz' "America beyond capitalism", both interesting attempts to define a different kind of political economy where greed could be...well, maybe the right word is "superseded" by community (especially for Alperovitz).  They both bring up workplace democracy as well, both as an extension of democracy and a way to relocalize power and participation.

And in an attempt to stay on this thread, Bob Wallace it would be great if all that is required for cars is to change the innards and the stations.  But we've had train technology for decades -- even the high-speed kind.  Yes, it takes a while to build trains -- interestingly, an argument made by Republicans as to why building trains wouldn't help with the recession/Depression, not that I'm trying to tar you with that -- but the answer from economists is that long-term is OK, because the economy has a long (or at least medium) term problem, and certainly climate change and peak oil are also long-term problems.  

I think the California system will be built in pieces, so that the whole thing might not be built until 2035.  But certainly if there was a national committment that could be greatly speeded up.

If speed is an issue, in terms of climate change, then clearly replacing coal plants, or eliminating the need for them, which I think it's fair to say is at the heart of what Gar has presented here, is certainly the "easiest" and fastest way to decrease emissions.  I suppose it's easier to defeat the coal/utility industries -- not necessarily even the utility industry, if they have something to replace coal with -- than to convince the 70% of the American public that wants to live in a suburb that they don't need fast, long-range cars.  But we obviously need to move both on the phev/ev front and the train front, both for climate change and because if oil becomes very expensive for a long period of time, there will be great pressure to turn to coal-to-liquids, oil shale, and other climate-unfriendly sources of nergy.On Public investment and regulation can be main means to green posted 12 months ago 43 Responses

Gar, about long-distance passenger rail

Check out Ryan Avent's most recent post about high-speed rail.  It is not transit, or even density, it's about getting between cities.  What happens if oil hits $200 per barrel and more?  Planes will not be practical -- maybe not even for most transcontinental, only over oceans (at great expense).  Transit is a whole different ball game, with different considerations.

By the way, I was leafing through "suburban nation' and they said that highways now cost about $30 million per mile, so high-speed rail is not much more expensive.

ce1907, the question is to create an infrastructure-industrial complex that has the same support, or similar, to the military-industrial complex.  If everyone thinks that they're going to get their districts big bucks, they won't car if it's defense or infrastructure, as long as they get it.  The question is how to put an infrastructure-industrial complex together.On Public investment and regulation can be main means to green posted 12 months ago 43 Responses

Great post and some ideas/questions

1.  Just to try a back-of-the-envelope calculation on how much an electric high-speed rail system would cost:  We had discussions about some of this before, but it seems that the California High-speed rail system will cost about 40 billion dollars for 800 miles, so figure $50 million per mile.  Now, according to Wikipedia, there are 46,000 miles in the Interstate Highway System.  Let's figure we would have a 40,000 mile high-speed rail system, which I would be thrilled to hear would be complete overkill.  So that's $2 trillion over, say, 20 years, and I'm bad with the interest rate math, but the California system will be profitable, allegedly, so an Interstate High-speed rail system could pay most of that money back.

2.  Could you put some of the figures into "the" spreadsheet?  What I mean are the figures for each of the major areas, for expenditure -- is that what adds up to 1.7 trillion per yeara? -- and then show the payback, and how that brings the figure down into the 200 to 400 billion dollar range.

3.  The massive job of making buildings efficient is the green collar jobs program on steroids.  In other words, I would highlight the job-creating aspect (although I'm not sure how you would have even a back-of-the-envelope figure on that one), but certainly during the life of that program, unemployment would not be a problem, and poverty might even by within reach of being wiped out

4.  Basically, you're saying that solar/wind/geothermal would be a bit more expensive (assuming no tech breakthroughs, which I think is an important assumption), but the efficiency program would more than make up for it.  So the efficiency program and the renewable electricity program shouldn't be considered separately, they're part of a systemic program.

5.  Steel, aluminum and paper are much less energy intensive if recycled, and steel is almost completely recycled, so maybe that could be encouraged -- aluminum might be used quite a bit for solar thermal and wind turbines, although I've been told wind turbines are mostly steel, only the blades are aluminum.

6.  If you're going for "tech-here-now", then electric vehicles means 30-40 mile range, 30-40 mph.  Which leads me to:

7.  It is a measure of the daunting nature of this task that all of this effort doesn't even address what I would call the "land use" problem -- in particular, how agriculture and deforestation add emissions, and how denser towns/suburbs/cities would lead to lower emissions.  I don't even know how to address the agriculture problem, except that I guess you could say that by a certain date all agriculture would have to be soil-building instead of soil-destroying, and that all CAFO livestock raising would have to disappear.  I suppose there could be subsidies to ease the transition. The density problem is even larger, although I've seen suggestions that the cost of transit could be paid for by levying a windfall tax on buildings near new transit stops, since buildings always increase in value near transit.  Plus a massive government-led housing program, I suppose.

8.  it's good to emphasize that the government would do well to insert itself into the financial system of the country by financing most of this activity, considering what a horrible mess the private financial system made of it.

sammie and bob --

sammie, First, most (all?) Amtrak is diesel.  It needs to be electrified, a professor friend priced that out at 100 billion dollars, probably 20 years ago.  When I personally talk about trains, I generally add the adjective "electric", because particularly right now it would be ridiculous to set down a diesel-powered system.

Second, I think that cost comparisons based on anything running on an oil derivative needs to have a huge boulder of salt added to it -- in other words, it needs to assess the comparison between oil-based cars , through time, not just right now.  That is, if one is interested in something long-term.

Third, and I wish I had the statistics readily available but I don't, electric trains, if filled to a decent extent, have much better CO2 comparisons than any other form of transit -- I mean, if they're electric, and they don't use coal-based electricity, they have virtually no emissions, as would electric cars.

So the bottom line is, if the country (world) wants to get serious about climate change, it seems to me, we need a solar/wind electric network supplying electric trains and electric cars.  The idea is very simple, the technical problems are not overwhelming, and the political challenges are ginormous, certainly the worst part of the problem.

Bob -- I admit sometimes Kunstler overdoes it, but caution would indicate, I think, that we need to understand how many suburbs would be able to move anything around in the absence of oil.  The lack of planning for anything approaching horribly expensive gasoline is rather mind-boggling.  I mean, you don't have to assume that the worst would happen, but I think there should be plans in place to deal with reasonably bad scenarios, and I see no indication of that.On For stronger cities, build better connections posted 12 months ago 22 Responses

Hey, Russ

how about an occassional post or two -- an op-ed-ish kind of thing (Dave too, of course)On Some final thoughts on Politico, skeptics, and the next con posted 12 months ago 18 Responses

sammie, great job

I've been skeptical of hybrids for a long time now.  Why is Toyota not ramping up faster?  They've had the Prius for years now -- and I bet if you looked at it, they probably ramped up their SUV Tundra faster.  Then I read where they were having problems with ramping up battery production -- as if anybody with half a brain couldn't figure out that you need more batteries with an electrified car.

Here's my hypothesis: it's impossible to affordably propel a heavy, fast, long-range car with anything other than a magical substance, that is, oil.  It's been a magic pony for 100 years now, and the magic is running out.

Electric cars make sense if they are light, which means they don't go fast, and if they are short-range -- in other words, city driving.  Which should be fine for most driving, no?  So maybe GM/ford/chrysler should be looking into those -- and daimler/chrsyler used to own GEM cars, I don't know if they still do.  OK, end of rant, it's all sammie's faultOn How my intern stood up to Big Auto posted 1 year ago 13 Responses

Karen --

For a small fee it seems I can get into the Northwestern University -- and I never said academic researchers are bad people!  Just friendly criticism, that's all.  Thanks for the links, as alwaysOn James Hansen's recent post on climate change posted 1 year ago 26 Responses

Karen --

As I was trying to explain, I think Hansen is doing great work, and I wish more scientists were doing what he is doing -- getting into the mucky world of policy.  It's exactly the right thing to do, and I offer my own criticisms in the hope that I am helping the situation.  I think you are right -- and maybe we're both "Hansen-watchers -- that he is subtly changing some of his stances as he becomes more familiar with the issues, which is all to the better.

I guess I'm still bothered by your following statement -- I'm sure you're right about the facts --

I have not seen any peer-review analysis that indicates that the added wind + solar power (in the absence of technological breakthrough) by 2030 could equal the amount of new nuclear. And together, they are not enough.

Now, I know that sounds rather ignorant at first blush.  What I'm saying is, of course we could cover every conceivable windy place with wind farms and buildings with PV and desert with solar thermal, and build the appropriate amount of batteries to cover all of our needs, the problem is that most people would think that it was too expensive.  Personally, I think that that sort of construction effort would be the most important thing we could do.  But somebody should be doing studies showing how it would be done, just to have some sort of idea about the limits and possibilities.

Now, I can understand why there would be plenty of peer-reviewed articles about nuclear energy, simply because for decades there have been plenty of departments of nuclear engineering.  But how many departments of solar or wind engineering are there?  Is anyone besides Jacobson and his colleagues at Stanford really putting a lot of time and energy into solar and wind studies?  

What I'm saying is that I don't think academia in general has done what is needed, and part of that is probably because people don't usually write peer-reviewed articles unless it's going to fit into a specific journal or subfield, or going to help advance one's career in a particular subfield.  So new subfields have a hard time getting going, which in normal circumstances is probably fine, but we are not in ordinary circumstances.

So what you have is Greenpeace or the Sierra Club putting together scenarios of solar/wind use that could solve our energy problems, and Jacobson and company doing their best to put some meat on the bones.  So it shouldn't be surprising that currently there is a lack of good articles on the subject.

(and by the way, my family-of-four doesn't have a car, and we usually take the train long distances.  And I totally agree that coal plants should be shut down as fast as possible)On James Hansen's recent post on climate change posted 1 year ago 26 Responses

Karen, I think the government will be necessary

in order to finance the transformation of the energy, transportation, and land-use systems that are necessary to get GHG emissions down.  I don't think that cap-and-trade/carbon pricing will be enough to do it.  I don't think that the market will provide enough finance capital -- and the current financial meltdown will definitely hurt as well.

Sure, RPS and pricing will help.  But the grid won't be rebuilt without government help, systems of high-speed and light rail trains won't happen without government financing, and it's quite possible that there won't be enough building of carbon-free energy generators without direct government financing.

We've discussed before the market viability of nuclear power -- Lester Brown in fact argued entirely from the viewpoint of the market that nuclear won't happen, you argue that he's wrong, and time will tell.  Environmentalists have many rational reasons for arguing against nuclear power, as you well know.  But even if, for the sake of argument, we agree that nuclear power would be part of the solution, we still have a very long way to go.  We still need plenty of wind and solar, and we have to solve the transportation problem.  We have to increase the density and "mixity"  of towns and cities.  We have to make buildings zero-emissions.  These are all huge tasks, and if we want to do this fast, and we want to guarentee that these transformations take place, then we will have to discuss the idea that the government will simply build it.  That's been the pattern for thousands of years when a people want to transform their society in due haste.On The real truth about stabilizing at 350 ppm posted 1 year ago 16 Responses

Hansen says he's conservative

So, for instance,he's for cap and 100% dividend, because then the government bureaucrats won't get their hands on the money.  On the other hand, I think we will be witnessing  a movement in his thinking, because 1) scientists often don't know as much about politics as they do about science, and so they have a learning curve, and 2) Hansen has been one of the few that has thrown some passion into talking abut the political/technical alternatives.  So, he now talks about a "World War II" type effort, which really means central planning, although he probably doesn't think of it quite so starkly.

The other implication to his oil argument, it seems to me, is that getting people out of their big, fast, long-range cars will be much more difficult than replacing thousands of coal plants.  Maybe so.  But I think that it is important to paint an attractive vision of a society with high-speed rail, good light rail, electric cars, and mixed use/dense living patterns, and I hope Hansen moves in that directionOn James Hansen's recent post on climate change posted 1 year ago 26 Responses

Say it's so, Joe...

you're advocating government planning?  I certainly have, but that seems to be an "outlier" among proposals.  I know Hansen claims he's a conservative, but obviously advocating for a "WWII" style effort means....government planning.  Instead of market mechanisms -- because government planning is faster.On The real truth about stabilizing at 350 ppm posted 1 year ago 16 Responses

Maybe his best quote:

A carbon cap that slows emissions of CO2 does not help, because of the long lifetime of
atmospheric CO2. In fact, the cap exacerbates the problem if it allows coal emissions to
continue. The only solution is to target a (large) portion of the fossil fuel reserves to be left
in the ground or used in a way such that the CO2 can be captured and safely sequestered.

He seems to have given up on preventing oil from being used up -- this has been his position for a while now -- and the implication, I suppose, is that it doesn't matter, climate-wise, what kinds of cars are built, the C02 will wind up in the atmosphere anyway.  I sort of think that this is giving away too much.  So he concentrates on getting rid of coal -- although unless we move transportation away from fuels and to electricity (electric cars and electric trains in dense/mixed use communities), then we'll start to use even more C02 emitters -tar sands, shale, coal to liquids,etc, so it really is necessary to focus on both transportation and coal at the same timeOn Carbon is forever posted 1 year ago 35 Responses

yeah, geothermal

would be great, especially since it could provide baseload...I've never understood why there isn't more research...maybe an Obama administration will do betterOn Carbon is forever posted 1 year ago 35 Responses

The continental sized subject of land use

There's a whole book on land use available at the IPCC site, and much (all?) of it seems to be available there.  Here's their summary about agriculture and soils:

On agricultural land, by far most of the carbon is stored below ground (see Table 1-1). Losses of carbon from terrestrial systems during the past 200 years, particularly until the middle of the 20th century, were mostly the result of the establishment of agriculture on grassland and land that was previously covered by forests. Regular plowing, planting, and harvesting led to enhanced oxidation of organic matter in the soils, which has been emitted into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Today, agricultural lands are major sources of CO2 in many countries as a result of past land-use changes (e.g., Cannell et al., 1999). Soil organic carbon in cultivated soils is continuing to decline in many areas of the world. The use of fertilizers, high-yielding plant varieties, residue management, and reduced tillage for erosion control has contributed to the stabilization or increase in soil organic carbon (Cole et al., 1993; Sombroek et al., 1993; Blume et al., 1998).

GRL Cowan, I was talking about technologies that have been deployed extensively here and now.  I'm even being skeptical about PHEVs in that statement.  Wind and solar PV is here; I'm not even sure about solar thermal, because I think that there are water issues; in any case, I'm not sure that it will have a very large role to play.  Transit has also been here for a hundred years.On Carbon is forever posted 1 year ago 35 Responses

not that much from land use

According the the IPCC, at any rate.  You can see this in the Synthesis  Report, which if you use a PDF viewer is page 14, although it's page 36 in the report.  There's a pie chart there, which breaks it down thus:

Energy supply: 25.9%
Industry: 19.4
Forestry: 17.4
Agriculture: 13.5
Transportation:13.1
Residences and Buildings: 7.9
Waste and Wastewater:2.8

Most of forestry seems to be actually the burning of peat bogs and tundra melting.  Anyway, I'm also not sure where industry comes from, if it's not energy.  There's another pie chart there which shows that CO2 from fossil fuel use is 56.9% of CO2 equivalent.

The main report on sources of emissions (and mitigation) is from Working Group III.  (got into this while my kids watched Jurassic Park for the zillionth time).On Carbon is forever posted 1 year ago 35 Responses

forever for humanity

not much time geologically -- 500,000 years, so who's counting?

Essentially, we're taking the carbon locked away hundreds of millions of years ago in the carboniferous period (most coal) and a few global warming pulses almost 200 million years ago (oil).   That sequestration probably profoundly changed the Earth when it took place, and now Earth's "intelligent" species is putting it back out again, which will obviously completely reshape earths' ecosystems.On Carbon is forever posted 1 year ago 35 Responses

off the top of my head....

...I have a feeling that -- I believe it's called the "truck"? -- part of a train, the wheels and accompanying parts, are pretty heavy.  So a bus with rail wheels, etc. would be very heavy, for a bus.  And for a train to put down tires, the tires would have to be huge, I would think.  Sounds like it's better to just have good connections.  

I don't think Lovins has ever written about trains, although I could be wrong.  That means there's an empty niche!On To save themselves, the Big Three should become 'transportmakers' posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

JMG's got it

Streets are the original right-of-ways, and the Interstate system is also (I believe Goodman, in the article I quote, mentioned the Interstate system as a right-of-way).  

The question of the current management doing the right thing is a tougher question.  I suppose if you (we, the people) fired the top levels of management, we might have to import managers from Europe and Japan, or maybe managers from transplants here, although I think that would be less fruitful.

When developing countries need to develop, they import managers, and we are effectively turning into a developing country, especially as regards trains.

A friend of mine once asked big industrial companies, including Ford, if they would consider making subway cars, since no American firm does.  Since he was an industrial engineering professor at Columbia University, he got a real reply back, but it was predictable: thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks.  Unfortunately, we're at the point were the up-and-coming green industries will have to be bootstrapped by foreign firms and foreign engineers and managers.On To save themselves, the Big Three should become 'transportmakers' posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

Add to sources of capital

First, obtaining 22% of the Federal budget from corporate taxes, as in the 1950s, as opposed to 7% now; and second, by rolling back the Reagan tax cuts on upper marginal rates.On It's time for the G20 to focus on a global green deal posted 1 year ago 1 Response

JMG --

Make it very clear what your solution is -- put it up front, then repeat it at the end.  It seems to me that your solution is, "cap and trade coal plant emissions", a la the sulfur emissions regime.  Is that right?  But make it simple, at the beginning and at the end.On If we try cap-and-trade systems, we have to handle coal separately posted 1 year ago 19 Responses

fyi

A nice discussion of the situation, about half-way down, at Economic Populist.  Also Tom Friedman has a column about it today.

To second Christopher, apparently Toyota plans to make all of its cars hybrid by 2015, I believe, so there would be precedent for forcing this on them.On Pearlstein: 'A Detroit bankruptcy beats a bailout' -- but what do you think? posted 1 year ago 29 Responses

Couple of points, Sean

First, R&D is always "winner picking".  In government-funded research, the proposals are "peer-reviewed", that is, literally, a board of scientists picks the winners of the grant money.  I hope it's clear that there's no way to do that through a market mechanism, and it's worked pretty well so far (hope I'm not giving Cato people any ideas).

Second, while in a sense highway funding diverts from transit funding, in budget politics, I think it all depends on how you set up the categories.  Do you say, "infrastructure gets this much, now all of you (highways, transit, etc) fight it out"?  Or is transit (or whatever) competing with every other part of the budget (particularly the military, in my view).  So the whole budget process is obviously picking winners.On The Economist blows it on the Green New Deal posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

Give them to the employees

The Federal Government could easily buy the Big 3, since they're worth at most $10 billion on the stock market.  Then, hand over the companies to the employees, and put all employees and retirees on Medicare, thus getting rid of the $3500 price advantage of the other countries that, you know, have this thing called universal health care.  Fire the entire top management.

There is another, larger problem though: no industry is an island, and neither is the auto industry.  When you lose your machine tool, parts of your steel, and lots of other industries, it's almost impossible to survive.  It's like being a wolf in a desert.  No workee.  

So a bailout of the auto industry should, ideally, be part of a larger effort to rebuild the manufacturing sector by building a green infrastructure.  Which means that the new auto industry could also revive itself by building high-speed trains and subway cars, if the Feds can figure out that trains are part of the infrastructure.On Pearlstein: 'A Detroit bankruptcy beats a bailout' -- but what do you think? posted 1 year ago 29 Responses

picoallen

There's this study from Stanford that Lester Brown referenced.  It shows that baseload can be provided by a national system of wind farms, but that we need a rebuilt grid system in order to do it.On America's energy crunch comes home posted 1 year ago 8 Responses

And electric buses too!

Backcut, wasn't Clinton good on forests, at least at the end with the "no roads policy?"  I mean, I know he got kicked out of the governership of Arkansas the first time around because he dared to protect Arkansas' forests, then bent over from there on, but I don't really know what he did once he was Prez.On Al Gore offers a five-part plan for solving the climate and financial crises posted 1 year ago 9 Responses

er...one note Jonny here

You guys said this:

The top three priorities: a smart, truly integrated national electrical grid; expanded urban and long-distance public transit; and block grants to states to kick-start development projects already in the pipeline.

emphasis most emphatically added.  Sorry, but I just think that trains of various sorts  are necessary in order to electrify the transportation system -- could even be sufficient, but doesn't have to be -- and there's no way to get energy independence without environmental harm without them.  So kudos for you for talking about them, unfortunately not to Gore.On Al Gore offers a five-part plan for solving the climate and financial crises posted 1 year ago 9 Responses

Saved CO2

Tasermons, I should have mentioned that the high-speed authority has a map that shows how much CO2 is saved on various routes.

As for the tracks needed, I believe that there is less room needed for a high-speed rail than for a four-lane road -- and much of that is steel, I don't know how much high-speed lines use concrete.  As for hydrogen in planes, that's way, way, off, and I'm talking about a technology that has been around for decades.

Wolverine, if what you say is true than that is a tragedy -- although I can understand having San Jose being an easy link to get to.  However, as unfortunately we have what I would describe as a global triage situation, it seems to me that high-speed rail is critical, and this is a critical part of getting theh US used to the idea.  I'm still wondering though -- couldn't they even use the road that currently goes through Pacheco Pass?  Build next to it?  Does it necessarily have to destroy an ecosystem?  I think pressure on them is probably a good thing, at least they will hopefully do a better job.On A real path to energy independence posted 1 year ago 31 Responses

Odo -

Good to have you back driving me crazy.  I don't quite get the logic of voting against one environmentally crucial project because...you'd rather see the money spent on a different environmentally crucial project?  I sorta thought maybe (also) we could do all of them at the same time?

Or, we could split up into sectarian groups, a la "life of brian" -- I could be in the "high-speed train liberation front", and you could be in the "solar thermal liberation front"?  Just a thought (and I'm sure you had other reasons that will drive me crazy).On A real path to energy independence posted 1 year ago 31 Responses

In their defense --

(and I've been critical in the past) -- "carbon-free electricity in 10 years" is a nice easy thing to say, which I think is important.  It's one step (I talked about next steps here).  And yes, heating takes up a lot of natural gas.  It seems that coal is "easier" to tackle initially, to be blunt.On Alliance for Climate Protection ramps up calls for renewable-energy plan posted 1 year ago 17 Responses

I fear that "green transportation"

will be overlooked -- it might come in the back door, if the Feds bail out the state and local governments that are facing huge fiscal crises.  An incredible lost opportunity.On Obama, Pelosi, wonks, and enviros call for green economic stimulus posted 1 year ago 7 Responses

On maglev and Pacheco Pass --

Some people are very excited by Maglev, but frankly I've never been that thrilled by it.  The Japanese high-speed rail system has been running for decades, as has the French system, and not a single person has been killed.  BART was originally sold as a driverless system, but public pressure brought back someone in the first car.  Automation has its limits.

I think the main objection to maglev locally was either that the rights-of-way would have gone where people didn't want it to go, and/or that they were afraid of the magnetic aspect, in terms of health.  Mainly, I don't think maglev is worth the price, at this point -- high-speed rail does just fine.

Speaking of right of ways, some have commented previously (for instance, Wolverine), that the California system will go through Pacheco Pass, which many environmental groups in California are concerned about, some to the point of opposing the whole project.

On this web page the High-speed authority tries to defend their decision, and I'm not familiar enough with it to know the details -- although I will note that there is currently a road through that area, and train tracks often take up less than roads do, so I'm not sure why a train through that area would be any more destructive than a road.

But I think the bigger point is that the California system should have a large "demonstration effect", that is, hopefully the rest of the country will see how fast, inexepensive, and comfortable the California system is, and be more willing to push to build more.  This is important because I think a high-speed rail network is a critical part of a solution to our energy problems, that is, carbon emissions and peak oil.  Without this, when oil prices go back up, there will be great pressure to do some environmentally catastrophic things, like double down on tar sands, oil shale, coal-to-liquids, and ethanol.  It's critical that the US move toward an electric rail-centered transportation system.On A real path to energy independence posted 1 year ago 31 Responses

And European/Japanese technology

Also, this will be a separate system from Amtrak, although it will have links to them.On A real path to energy independence posted 1 year ago 31 Responses

If some of it is free...

...sometimes rentals are "heat included", in my experience particularly in an apartment building, say if it's steam heat and everybody gets it, you can't measure it by apartment.  Although that would be best for solar hot water heaters.

For electricity it would be more difficult, because I've never heard of a rental where you get your electricity paid -- and having the landlord handle part of it probably would make it more difficult -- you'd get a refund monthly? Maybe your rent would go down?  Hard to see how it would work, but as DrOct points out, we don't have to solve all problems at once.On Everything you need to know about Berkeley's innovative rooftop solar program posted 1 year ago 8 Responses

I think people underestimate

his ability to work with people.  I think he tries very hard to "do the right thing" for the people he likes, for example, he was very hesitant to criticize Hillary when she went gonzo during the campaign.  I think he'd keep a lid on most stuff, and if he pulled a few "Bidens", most people would take it like they do with Biden.

Also, I disagree with some of his positions (like Cape Wind) but he's generally spot on.  But I think Obama might pick someone safer.On Obama considers RFK Jr. for EPA posted 1 year ago 34 Responses

Thanks

Yeah, maybe even Ag should be in something like an infrastructure or environmental department, might make them a little more sustainable?On How could Obama put climate and energy policy under a single roof? posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

oh sorry

I thought you were calling Sean a liar...well, Lovins has been called lots of names, some from the Left...but I still don't think he should be called a liar...anyway....

I think with the exception of nuclear I have to agree with almost everything you say -- I have one question, why is offshore wind bad for the environment?  At any rate, I think it's fine that we have some areas of disagreement, and that we can agree on a whole slew of solutions.  But the supporters of the priority of wind/solar need to do some more homework (hopefully funded, that would certainly help) to show how solar/wind can be "optimal", from an ecosystem point of view.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

A Department of Infrastructure?

You might want a super-cabinet position, which would put the departments of transportation, energy, EPA, Interior, agencies dealing with water, the FCC (although I think that that's partly Congress' jurisdiction) -- because right now, having everything split apart gives the department of defense a huge place at the table, the department of justice, homeland security, and treasury -- maybe commerce -- and then the power drops off -- including unfortunately, education (maybe put education in a department of infrastructure?).On How could Obama put climate and energy policy under a single roof? posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

Some perspective

First off, note that Lester Brown is not advocating passing laws to make nuclear more difficult; he's pointing out that nuclear is in bad shape, according to normal business criteria.  An implication, I suppose, could be that if governmental dollars were to go in one direction or other, then -- in conjunction with his previous post about wind -- one could argue that wind, at least, is preferable.  So let the arguments and debate continue, it's perfectly healthy.

Karen, I think that any discussion of various alternatives to fossil fuels is a good thing.  It's a short path to sectarian thinking if you start to worry that the deluded thinking of people here will lead to catastrophe -- the people here are not the problem, in my humble opinion.  And frankly, if you look at some of Joe Romm's posts, he gets uncomfortably close to what I would call sectarianism, so it's not necessarily a problem of political viewpoint.

To pull back a bit, the "technical question" that frustrates me about the environmental community is not the choice of carbon-free electricity, it's the hesitancy to advocate rail in all of its forms, and to try to tackle the problem of sprawl (despite rantings of various conservatives, environmental organizations are very paternal about suburbia).  I think that the difference between a car-dominant and rail-dominant world will be much more important than the difference between, say, a nuclear-dominant electrical and wind-dominant electrical society -- and a rail-dominant society will need more electricity.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

Bill --

I was trying to describe why some people can get pretty emotional on the anti- side, or one of the reasons.  I think that -- hopefully -- meltdown isn't as much of an issue as it's been.  Although, I'd like to also point to a new article I found, "Is nuclear power green?", in which the author, I think brings up some deeper issues, which continue to dog these conversations -- that is, what is the most resilient, long-term, sustainable way to generate energy?  The new Greenpeace report, despite it's shortcomings, is another attempt to answer this question.

by the way, just to throw out yet another problem, nuclear was very unpopular in the 1970s partly because it was another centralized solution.  As you can see at Grist here, the centralized nature of some renewable strategies, such as solar thermal or even some wind farms, also are criticized on that count.

So basically, I think it's healthy to air out all of these issues (and also, for the record, if I remember correctly, Lester Brown is not advocating shutting down nuclear plants, he's arguing that no new ones should be built).  But nuclear carries a lot of baggage; it might still be the case that nuclear is some sort of part of a solution -- even if it's only medium term -- but it obviously needs to be debated extensively.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

Yeah, the time frame

is sort of bizarre, but the data is what is importantOn Report shows how world can eliminate fossil fuels by 2090 while sustaining economic growth posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

Vakibs --

Vakibs, just for the record, I asked Lester Brown about breeder reactors on our conference call about this article, and his reaction was basically that he hadn't heard anything significant.  I know you think otherwise, I'm just reporting that he doesn't consider it worth discussing.

And Vakibs, about being against nuclear power, you are right that most opponents are worried about waste, etc., and you also might know that a significant percentage of people who consider themselves "environmentalists", at least those of us who "came of age" in the 1970s, such as yours truly, perhaps had some of our first or most intense passions raised about environmental issues around the issue of nuclear power (Diablo Canyon in California in my case).  It was seen as a real threat to our survival.

In other words, it wasn't even waste, etc., that was the core issue, it was the problem of meltdown.  Brown raises that issue here by discussing the possibility of a $700 billion meltdown (not the financial one), although I guess I'd have to say that the arguments against nuclear power usually don't include meltdown.  But I thought I'd raise that 600-pound gorilla by way of explanation, perhaps, as to some of the more "emotional" arguments against nuclear power.

That said, I'm glad that we can (pretty much) discuss nuclear power in a rational and civil way.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

Thanks anyway, Sean

onto the full report...over the weekendOn Report shows how world can eliminate fossil fuels by 2090 while sustaining economic growth posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

RPS's aren't used in Wyoming

which has a huge wind farm in the works, nor in the Dakotas, although there is one in Texas, according to Wikipedia.

atomicrod, France certainly has a nice lifestyle, although I would hardly credit that to its nuclear electrical system.  Denmark has about 20% from wind, I believe, and Spain does as well.  But if a networked wind system could provide baseload (at 20%), then unfortunately we have to wait for continental-sized systems to be implemented to really see how well these renewable systems work, or at least, some of them.

JimHopf, I believe that one of the main things holding utilities back is simply that they are not familiar with the technologies.  The risk is much greater -- if they want to put up a coal plant, nobody's going to get fired -- sort of like why people used to buy IBM, or now buy Microsoft.  If they even put up a nuclear power plant, they could get fired if it doesn't go as planned, and wind and solar installations are even more risky.

This is why the government should, as they did in the case of nuclear power, help put up many wind and solar firms initiatlly, just to get engineers and managers comfortable with a fairly standard-operating-procedure way of doing it.  Then, I think, they'd be much more receptive.

The other problem is that utilities like centralized solutions -- PV on roofs doesn't fit that model, which is why San Francisco and other cities are experimenting with CCA's that include putting panels on buildings.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

The meaning of freedom

"Gas going down means freedom".  Now you know.On As gas prices go down, bad driving habits go up posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

Karen --

Thanks for the links -- so much to read!  I'd like to see the back and forth on the Stanford study (Jacobsen) in particular.

Charles -- It seems to me that storage is still a big issue, definitely.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

Charles --

Thanks for reading the study, it's on my to-do list, at least you did it!  The point about peak power in the Southwest is an important one, and when asked about this -- it was in reference to a question about nuclear plants in Florida -- Brown responded, quite correctly in my opinion, that solar is perfect for just that sort of peak power need.  In other words, when it gets real hot, and you need a lot of power for air-conditioning, that is exactly when solar (either panels or concentrated) is most effective.

This shows how important it is to think of the national power system as a system, I'm not sure whether, for either nuclear or renewable, or both, it's possible to do this in a market-based, or dominant market-based way.

For another instance, if you had panels on every roof, and geothermal heat exchange under every building, you'd have a pretty robust system, it seems to me.  But that might have to be built up all together.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

Plus, there's that little fact

that China is still nominally "communist", in other words, the government can do basically whatever it wants to do -- including planning the entire energy system, if it so chose.  And it could quite easily choose to construct a wind/solar/geothermal national system, with the necessary grid, leapfrog all the other countries, spearhead the renewable revolution, etc. etc.  Why they are not seriously discussing this is beyond me (they also have the world's largest installed base of solar hot water heaters, by the way).On Two new reports detail the enormous toll coal dependence is taking on China posted 1 year ago 7 Responses

David Bradish --

Thanks for the primary data links, love 'em!

It looks to me that the increase in generation for nuclear, from 2006 to 2007, was almost 20 bkwhrs, while for wind, from 2007 to 2008, about 16 bkwhrs.  So it looks like wind is catching up.  But Brown was talking about capacity, I don't know if there is a difference.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

David Bradish --

As luck would have it, Lester Brown's previous post was all about wind, and I did an extended post about his data as well.

The bottom line is that the private sector is much, much more interested -- like 30 times, if you look at this year's MW figures -- in wind than in nuclear.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year ago 106 Responses

Comrade Sean

When you say this:

But replacing a fraction of the paradigm with a band aid that doesn't address the underlying issues simply on the basis that we're afraid to push for more strikes me as giving up before we've started.

are you referring to radical change?  I remember proposing nationalizing the electrical grid, but you said that was politically impossible.  Are you talking about pushing for things that are now politically impossible, because it's what is necessary in order to avoid the worst of climate change?  Not trying to push buttons here, I'm just confused on what you think is being glossed over.On Good policy and enduring political alliances are built around goals, not paths posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

I guess urban design is a good example then

where one can try to figure out what are the goals, how much can the market be part of the solution -- but eventually, you do need a plan.  So, in your example, if you're "in-filling" a suburban area, say, then you would assume much more automobile use than, say, a neighborhood in Chicago that you're trying to make more walkable.  So it certainly depends on the ecosystem you're presented with -- and the definition of an ecosystem includes the geography and geology, not just the species mix.

At a higher level of abstraction, you also have to consider that when you design for cars, you're giving the market a bigger role, because people can choose which cars they buy, whereas, say, in a light-rail system, they choose, through the medium of their government, which light rail.  I stress "through the medium" because government choices are usually seen as remote and bureaucratic, which they can certainly be, but in fact they are amenable to democratic forces -- whereas what GM, Ford and Chrysler do are not -- except through regulation.On Good policy and enduring political alliances are built around goals, not paths posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

did you see this one?

From Derrick Jackson at The Boston globeOn Voices in favor of green stimulus spending posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

vakibs

Read "Dirt:The erosion of civilizations" for a good primer on the problems of agriculture over the millenia.  This is why Shiva is focusing on soil; unless the soil is replenished, all that will happen with superduper agricultural productivity is that the soil will be depleted faster, and then billions will starve.

Tom, have you seen the new Wired magazine?  full-tilt boogie on "scientific" agriculture.On A food/climate manifesto presents new visions for responding to climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 30 Responses

Best line in first video

(at the end):

"When the demand for oil and coal goes up, the price skyrockets; when the demand for wind and solar goes up, the price comes down"

Great proposals,

such as step one:

Step one is to invest heavily in green infrastructure, where it can immediately put people to work while laying the foundation for sustainable long-term growth. The top three priorities: a smart, truly integrated national electrical grid; expanded urban and long-distance public transit; and block grants to states to kick-start development projects already in the pipeline.

I'm glad you put transit right up front there, it's rare that that happens (Salon just put up an article about transit).  The other steps are good too.

Now we just have to push Obama and the congressional Dems in January.On Solving the financial crisis by averting the climate crisis posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

SGP --

If you look at Lester Brown's post, and my most recent one, it seems to me that there is a good case to be made for a national grid of wind farms, and I stress wind, because I think you can develop a grid that is pretty ecologically friendly, with few of the problems that you have posed in terms of CSP.  The great thing about a national wind grid would be that it would provide baseload, that is, everybody could have enough electricity all the time for basic needs, and then you could retire coal plants, etc.  Then you add the point-of-use solar panels (maybe some government-funded silicon purification plants to get the price down) for much of your daytime needs, and I think you could argue that you don't need the CSP (and you don't have to worry as much about storage with the solar panels).  So it's a question of the least destructive path, and assuming you don't use wind corridors as an excuse to pave over ecosystems, it could be a very clean solution.On Green infrastructure spending is a win x 4 posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Keep us posted, Dave!

On Green infrastructure spending is a win x 4 posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Gar --

You might be interested in some of the work of John Zysman, professor of Political Science at Berkeley, whose book, "Governments, Markets and Growth: Financial Systems and the politics of industrial change is a classic.

The basic theme was this: financial systems that are based on banks, such as in Europe (or at least Germany) and Japan, are much more stable and more long-term oriented than those based on equities for raising money, as in, guess where? yes, the good ol' United States.  The short-term world view that has been perpetrated from this stock-market-heavy financial system has been devastating to the "real" economy.  (Seymour Melman wrote about this in the 1980s in his book, "Profits without Production").

Anyway, the point is that there is no such thing as simply a "financial system", they all have very different characteristics, and while a well-designed financial system can minimize the devastation that is inherent, I believe, in our particular kind, it's important to look at the "financial ecosystem" and look at how the things are structured.

Finally, one more classic, Alexander Gerschenkron's "The Advantages of Backwardness", also went into the uses of the financial system in accelerating and directing economic development -- basically, the faster you need to development, the more you need industrial banks, and then, finally, governments, to direct that development, instead of just allowing the market to do it's thing.On Finance is valuable to the 'real economy,' but the system needs to be replaced posted 1 year, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Wolverine --

You may be right, but the moral imperative, I think, is to figure out what to do considering the conditions (I don't like to use the word "objective" in front of conditions, everyone has their own point of view).

Now, Obama is definitely better than McCain in terms of health care, a very important issue (that we should have resolved 50 years ago).  He's also better on a number of environmental issues -- and the difference between Democratic and Republican administrations is often not necessary policy, but execution.  So, for instance, I would expect a much better EPA from Obama, and less craven rolling over to Big Ag/Coal/Oil, etc.

I also think that by the end of his first term, we will be pretty much out of Iraq, and the stepping up in Afghanistan will be much smaller.

But the real question is, how will great social change take place?   historically, massive grassroots movements have been the main (but not only) way this happens.  Occasionally, the elites actually see more than 2 inches in front of their face: so, for instance, they are building high-speed rail networks in Europe, that didn't take huge marches.

But in the U.S., I think Congresspeople will have to fear that they will lose their seats before they do anything significant.  So I predict that the next wave of grassroots action, if it happens, will occur when people start voting for the right people, probably put forward by coalitions of the most progressive organizations.On Obama cannot politically afford to take the kind of bold green stances enviros are hungry for posted 1 year, 1 month ago 19 Responses

Sounds reasonable to me

I still think he missed an opportunity to talk about public transit, and how beefing that up would reduce gas prices by reducing demand...but maybe that's too much of a stretch, considering that "light rail" seems to have become an insult hurled at liberals along with "arugula" and "latte".  Hopefully that can change after the election.On Obama cannot politically afford to take the kind of bold green stances enviros are hungry for posted 1 year, 1 month ago 19 Responses

Doh!

Thanks for pointing tht out, BioD.  Must have been thrown off by the hamsters.On Wind, solar thermal, and geothermal development outpaces expectations posted 1 year, 1 month ago 14 Responses

steve s --

Please for to looking here for oil use, and here concerning the completely separate electricity sectorOn Candidates talk energy in the final debate, but don't stray from their usual talking points posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

That's harder to answer

One of the great political science studies concerned the notorious Smoot-Hawley trade legislation of around 1930 -- the authors' pictures were famously held up by Al Gore during his debate with Ross Perot about NAFTA (remember those good ol' days?).  Anyway, the problem is that Congress gets captured by various interest groups, as the term was formulated.

So, in the regulatory domain, in the executive branch, these same interest groups can also capture parts of the government (the economist Mancur Olson referred to an excess of this as "sclerosis" of the body politic).

I think "capture" is an inevitable part of a democratic political system, and to some extent it should simply be tolerated as such.  The big problem, I think, is when the regulation becomes completely hobbled by its parasites, as it were.  

This is were an educated, concerned, participatory citizenry comes in, I think, as a counter to capture.  To some extent, groups such as environmental groups can also offer some organized challenge, and also the consumer watchdog stuff that Nader started.

So the question is: would greater equality lead to better public oversight?  I think you can argue that it would -- the progressives, for instance, were very much the product of the middle class.  In fact, you could argue that much of the grassroots work from the 1960s came because of the huge, prosperous, confident middle class, and people such as Thom Hartmann have argued that part of the agenda of destroying the middle class is to prevent this organizing from taking place.

So I guess the logic would be, greater equality leads to a stronger middle class leads to greater organizing and activism leads to greater public oversight over regulatory agencies and legislatures, leads to a better environment (and other things).On Deregulation and inequality are bad for both the economy and the environment posted 1 year, 1 month ago 15 Responses

Equality solutions

GreenEngineer, there are some things we can do to increase equality, although some are more radical than others.

For instance, manufacturing jobs tend to increase equality, because they are well-paying, and when the US had a larger manufacturing sector, the US was more equal.  A healthy labor movement is also very helpful, as we see in Europe, and in Scandanavia, where the labor movement has a permanent seat at the table.

A more radical possibility is to have all firms be employee-owned-and-operated, which would radically decentralize economic power.  It would be somewhat the equivalent of the 19th century situation in the US when (free) farmers were, to some extent, the basis of equality in the US.

Then, of course, there is also the tax system -- Kevin Phillips has been writing for years about the interaction of a superwealthy class and democracy.  The Roman upper class tried to push off all tax burdens on the "plebes", with devastating results, and upper classes have been trying to do that every since.

Finally a policy of "full employment", as it used to be called, would give the working and middle class more power.  That can be achieved with fiscal/indirect policies, or by direct policies of the government simply hiring people to do work -- like, for instance, transforming the US economy to be carbon-free.On Deregulation and inequality are bad for both the economy and the environment posted 1 year, 1 month ago 15 Responses

Progressivism, Populism, New Deal

all had huge grassroots movements behind them that were directly challenging the status quo.  In particular, they were threatening to upend the electoral system -- the Populists by trying to take over the Democratic Party, and the same with the Progressives, and in the 1930s, you had Socialists and Communists, as well as a very active labor movement.

In the 1960s, you had massive civil disobedience in the Civil Rights movement, as well as the anti-war movement and then -- the environmental movement!  which wound up defeating many of the "dirty dozen" in Congress, which scared the hell out of that period's Bouchers.  All of these movements made it much easier for the "doers" like FDR and LBJ to do something.

I'm not sure where this grassroots movement will come from.  It looked like something was happening in Seattle 1999, but it's very amorphous right now.On Lawmakers use financial crisis as pretext to screw with climate legislation posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

Most resource exploitation

should probably be done by nationalized companies, backcut.  That's the model throughout most of the world, which has the advantage that the proceeds from the resource exploitation go back into government coffers.  Exhibit A are oil companies -- the US and UK are about the only countries with private companies profiting from public lands.  Imagine if all of those oil company profits were going into the treasury instead of into Exxon's CEO's salary.

Of course, the problem is that the national companies can be just as ruthless as the private ones.  But at least they would be directly influenced by the public, and they could be directly told to do the right thing.On How modern cities made themselves livable posted 1 year, 1 month ago 9 Responses

But there won't be any growth

if your state is under water.On The economic crisis should prompt more green infrastructure spending, not less posted 1 year, 1 month ago 11 Responses

Fantastic article Dave

If people are interested in some more academic writings on the subject, check out the articles of the late Professor Seymour Melman.  Melman wrote several books explaining how the military depletes and destroys the underlying productive sectors of the economy.

In particular, by inculcating the incentive of creating military systems that cost as much as possible, the ability to design for the civilian sector -- making things reliably, inexpensively, productively, for the long-term -- becomes lost.  Thus, the huge military budgets of the last several decades have actually helped lead to the decline of the manufacturing sector.On What would you do with $700 billion? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 12 Responses

There may be an opening developing

Dave, I'm glad you keep pounding on this question, keep us informed about the intellectual (and other) comments on this.  But I think you should also look at another trend I see: advocacy for public works projects as a necessary stimulant to get us out of the recession/depression that is coming.  Exhibit A is part of an article by Nouriel Roubini, NYU economist, long-time bear, and generally looked to now as one of the best analysts of the present situation.

Part of his set of solutions, from his article -- which I suggest everyone read in any case -- is the following:

a massive direct government fiscal stimulus packages that includes public works, infrastructure spending, unemployment benefits, tax rebates to lower income households and provision of grants to strapped and crunched state and local government

For "infrastructure spending" and "public works" read classic green collar jobs like retrofitting (efficiency!), as well as building train networks, installing PV, fill-in-the-blanks.

This takes the environmental issues from being a "problem", or cost, to being an "opportunity", or solution to the coming downturn.

Otherwise, to answer you're question ("I won't answer that question"), I think the main problem is that people are focused on saving the economy that we have now, warts and all, battening down the hatches, etc. -- in other words, just defending the current standard of living.  We know that that standard of living is totally under threat from global warming, but that's a long-term problem.  So we can hook up the long-term problem with the short-term problem by moving towards green public works.On Economic downturn and falling oil push green off the priority list, yet again posted 1 year, 1 month ago 8 Responses

What if transit is the big solution?

What if it doesn't matter how high the price of gasoline becomes, a new engine or fuel will not magically appear (there seems to be a certain similarity to the pre-modern conception of 'spontaneous generation' here, the idea, for instance, that flies 'spontaneously' come from rotting fruit, and currently, that cellulosic ethanol or electric car technology will 'spontaneously' appear because the price signals are correct).

In other words, what if the only transportation alternative that will really work will be transit plus dense communities?  How would pricing carbon do anything if this is the case?  It might provide the political will to do what would need to be done: in other words, pour trillions into a new transportation/housing infrastructure.  But pricing carbon, as far as transportation is concerned, might be more like putting more and more leaches on someone, as they used to do in the 18th century, on the theory that the patient isn't getting better because we aren't doing what we're doing enough.  In other words, it will just kill everybody who needs to transport via the automobile without attending to the real solution, rail and dense communities.On A price on carbon will not tackle transportation pollution posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Mad Mac --

When the government creates more debt that is very direct -- that is, it invests in something that has a pretty much guaranteed rate of return, as in the Berkeley case, because it's based on something physical, the savings you get from lower electricity bills, because the thing that is doing that, the solar panels, actually produce electricity -- then the debt is called investment, or maybe we should have a new term, real investment, as opposed to investing in indirect investments like financial instruments.

My question is, does Berkeley have to borrow money in order to lend the money to put up the solar panels, or do they pay for it out of tax receipts?  Because if it's from taxes, then there's really not much debt -- Berkeley is buying the solar panels, effectively, and the owner is paying them back, as opposed to the owner having new debt and Berkeley having new debt.On Municipal property assessment financing for solar and energy efficiency posted 1 year, 1 month ago 14 Responses

Adam, are programs like Berkeley's

being affected by the financial meltdown, or are they fairly immune?  In which case, might municipal and other government entities become a lender of last resort for renewable projects?On Municipal property assessment financing for solar and energy efficiency posted 1 year, 1 month ago 14 Responses

Karen --

I appreciate the information and thoughts.  I just want to put out there the idea that the large scale changes that we need to make won't happen unless the government is in control of at least parts of the energy system.  Now that the financial system is melting down (no thread pun intended), it might not seem so outlandish.  But certainly, if emissions could be cut without government control, it would obviously be easier.  

By the way, I think emissions control will also have to cover the problem of carbon escaping from soil; and that would probably take a government-led effort to move toward a soil-building, as opposed to soil-destroying, agriculture.  I'm not sure where IPCC is on soil emissions, I'll try to research that (in my spare time, har har!)On McCain mystified by Obama's concerns over nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 28 Responses

Karen --

One of the reasons I brought up the nationalization issue is that supporters of nuclear power never seem to consider that option.  While I still support resources being directed into wind/solar/geothermal instead of nuclear, I don't see how you get the kind of nuclear sector that nuclear supporters want without some form of nationalization -- I mean, subsidies/insurance/disposal is partial nationalization anyway, and the government might as well get a pretty large stake in the operation if it's going to make those sorts of investments .

It also points to another idea: that if we want to deal with climate change as quickly as possible, the government can probably do it faster, and it could also involve government-directed building projects for wind/solar/geothermal.  I mean, if the government can support building nuclear, why not wind/solar?

I think that eventually the government is going to wind up owning much of the banking sector, at the rate things are going.  So maybe the idea of owning parts of the energy system won't seem so outlandish.On McCain mystified by Obama's concerns over nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 28 Responses

And an interesting web site, fyi

Called "Web of Debt", the author was just talking to Thom Hartmann, and she confirmed that Treasury is considering capital for equity.On Still trying to make environmental sense of the massive bailout now underway posted 1 year, 1 month ago 23 Responses

Some maybe good news sorta kinda

It looks from today's papers that the Treasury department might finally start to do the right thing, that is, give the banks capital directly in return for equity. Yay! sorta kinda.On Still trying to make environmental sense of the massive bailout now underway posted 1 year, 1 month ago 23 Responses

OK, let me ask a question

Would you all agree that the best way to have a nuclear energy system like France is to nationalize the electricity industry, like France has?On McCain mystified by Obama's concerns over nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 28 Responses

Japanese, French, British

"reprocess spent fuel"?  I don't think so -- is he referring to breeder reactors?  Setting aside the practicality of breeders, I don't think any of those countries are reprocessing.On McCain mystified by Obama's concerns over nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 28 Responses

The Octopus' Garden

Here's hoping that if humans screw it all up real bad, that octopii will be the next "sentient beings" who build civilizations, onaccounta they have lots of arms that they could eventually make tools with...and hopefully they're a little more gentle.On What are you seeing out there? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 47 Responses

for you nonZappa fans

just in case someone didn't understand my comment above:

In Zappa's "opera" "Joe's Garage", the narrator (Zappa talking through a toy megaphone) is "the central scrutinizer", who eventually becomes the voice of a totalitarian society in which music is banned.  The albums (3 vinyl records) is about all the terrible things that happen to the protaganist, Joe.  Finally, on the last side, the central scrutinizer talks about Joe giving in to a nonmusic reality -- in one of the most incredible displays of dissing a huge part of a story I have ever seen, he says, "and ultimately, who gives a f**k, anyway", which cracks him up.  He then says something like, "And now he goes back into his dirty little room, and imagines his last imaginary guitar solo", followed by maybe Zappa's best guitar solo, "Watermelon in Easter Hay".

What this has to do with Backcut's ridiculous comment I'm not sure (maybe midnight is not the best time to comment), but I thought it might convey the sense that he doesn't know  what he's talking about, Zappa-wise, because Zappa was very worried about right-wing religious fundamentalists, not environmentalists.On The Biden-Obama position on 'clean coal' is not a mistake posted 1 year, 1 month ago 50 Responses

I wonder what the cost per ton

would be of public transit?  It would depend on how the transit is powered -- diesel or electric -- and if electric, from what source?  On the other side, there are different ways of determining how many miles of car driving would be saved by miles of transit, which can also be difficult depending on the system.  So it might be difficult, but I think it would be important.

One might also be able to ask the cost per ton of creating or expanding a walkable neighborhood.  You'd have to figure out the carbon used to build, and the car use cancelled out by walking (or biking).On How current GHG policy distorts capital allocation posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 Responses

I've read of the first calls for

the government directly stepping in and providing credit.  This might ultimately be the only way to get the credit markets going again -- although I don't know how you deal with the thousands or millions of lines of credit that banks have, but it may be an important first step.On Why more government now means less in the future posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

But wouldn't a bottom-up approach

help out home-based alternatives -- like retrofitting, geothermal heat pumps, solar photovoltaic -- if, say, bankruptcy courts could renegotiate mortgages, thus focusing on bailing out home (and commercial building, I suppose) owners, as the more liberal members of Congress propose, so the building owners might then have more capital to put into improvements?On Credit crunch slows clean energy development posted 1 year, 1 month ago 4 Responses

at one point

theoildrum.com stated that they had never taken off any comments, even thought they've had thousands.  I don't know if that's still true.  On the other hand, they have subthreads, so maybe it's easier to ignore people if they're off on a subthreadOn More Couric and Palin, on drilling and climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 29 Responses

You betcha, Russ!

Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, "The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities", here's a summary:

$1 billion spent on personal consumption, health care, education, mass transit, and construction for home weatherization and infrastructure will all create more jobs within the U.S. economy than would the same $1 billion spent on the military.

mea culpa on "wrecking"

But it's not my fault...y'see, James Howard Kunstler on his website, urges everyone to refer to the Republicans as "the party that wrecked America", and he says he doesn't care whether he gets credited or not...really!...so I didn't rip him off, he said it was OK...don't you believe me?

As to whether problems in suburbia will push people to the right or left -- it might depend on the state of the right and left.  The right, or some form of it, will try to play the blame game, push for drilling, say the liberals are at fault for high gas prices, and generally go demagogic, with possible fascistic leanings, eventually ("blood for oil").  

On the other hand, if a Left emerges that pushes for things like "infill", the wonky word for creating town centers where there is now sprawl, pushing for very good public transit so that most suburbs are linked to the rest of the world, build up cities so that people can move to cities if they want (although this might impact suburban housing values), then we'd probably have denser suburbs, and a progressive-leaning suburbia might emerge.  I see more signs of that within the 'smart growth", "new urbanism" urban planners and architects and even developers, more than in the "mainstream" progressive and environmental movements, however.On Why the party that wrecked America can't fix it posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Apparently

Dems that were in "safe" seats were pressured to vote with the plan, according to Robert Borosage, while those in tough races could vote however they wanted, thus there were 140 (actually 141) Dems that voted for it.  Borosage notes that the Progressive Caucus, a group of the most left Dems, split their vote 50-50.  I thought Borosage's post pointed to a good solution -- it may be that the Dems should try to come up with something that they all like, see if Bush will go for it, and then pass it -- something like taking over failing firms (as opposed to bailing them out), transaction tax, redoing failing mortgages, etc.On Bailout fails in House posted 1 year, 1 month ago 6 Responses

and from Robert Kuttner:

at Huffingtonpost:

A better plan would have two core elements: First, most of the government money goes to refinance mortgages rather than buy up bad paper. Once the mortgage market stabilizes, some value returns to the bonds backed by mortgages. That way, homeowners are the primary beneficiaries, not the incidental ones. Second, government takes a majority stake in the major failing institutions, takes a good look at their books, and only then pumps in equity capital as necessary. When the crisis passes, government closes the ones that are beyond repair, and sells off the good bits.

Some Democrats are still hoping to salvage some variation of the Paulson. But the Republicans have done them a favor. It's time to give that approach the decent burial it deserves, and start over.

I like the idea of just taking over the whole institution, nevermind just getting some "warrants" to profits if they're made.  I'd even keep some of the institutions and turn them into a National Investment Bank, although Republicans would probably go postal over that, including Bush.On An alternative bailout proposal posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses