Comments accel2 has made

Coffee

I am no expert, either, but there are a ton of non-Starbucks, non-deli swill coffee options in NYC.  In my own corner of Brooklyn, not far from Downtown (though rather distant from Williamsburg), coffee shops can be found every few blocks.  For example, Gorilla Coffee on 5th Avenue in Park Slope is all organic coffee.  Flying Saucer on Atlantic Ave (not far from the wonderful Sahadi's you mentioned) is very popular and funky (can't vouch for the quality of the coffee but the yuppy brownstoners around here I'm sure can be snobby about their coffee).  Ozzie's Coffee is a Park Slope institution.  etc.
On Lessons on how to live from the NYT food section posted 3 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Back and forth

Patrick,
We'll have to agree to disagree.

It should be clear that once a sufficient quantity of something is provided, prices go down.  If the market has not provisioned enough affordable housing yet, it is mostly because insufficient housing has been built.  Does it cost money to build housing?  Yes.  But there is only so much demand to go around - so if you build more luxury housing, the cost of less-than-luxury housing goes down.  I agree that current zoning, taxation, and regulatory regimes make it far from a free real estate market, for better and worse.  However, I firmly believe that building more housing, no matter whether it's "affordable" or not (and "affordable" housing drives up the cost of all "non-affordable" housing to all those not lucky enough to get the affordable housing), will bring housing costs down.  When people were vacating New York City in the 70's, brownstone fixer-uppers uptown and in Brooklyn became quite cheap.  Now they are selling for $millions.

I come from a progressive background and am the furthest thing from a libertarian (I am also the furthest thing from a greedy real estate developer - I work as a sustainable transportation planner).  But if you claim to want one end (affordable housing) and the means you are promoting (increased government intervention and regulation) have never proven themselves to result in that end, whereas providing increased supply HAS, then who is the REAL progressive, you or me?
On The built environment posted 3 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Taxes are key

Totally agree that the discussion of taxes in this country is about as crude as could be.  Taxes work just like other costs and benefits in the market, which is to say they provide incentives and disincentives depending on what is being taxed, how much it's being taxed, how the amount of the tax is calculated (e.g. progressive versus flat tax), etc.  The correct use of taxes would have a profound effect on the way our economy works and could quickly incentivize sustainability if the proper tax reforms were undertaken.

Here's a good book on taxes I like to recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1886093075/102-7231998-5452911?v=glance&n=283155

And here's an article by one of the authors, specifically geared to Grist's home state: http://www.naturalchoice.net/articles/taxshift.htmOn Sex and taxes posted 3 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Politics

While interviewing New York City council members for my thesis on road (congestion) pricing, I had this little gem of an exchange with one councilman:
Me: What do you think about congestion pricing?
Councilman: I don't know anything about congestion pricing.  What I know about is offering people more transportation options.  And if you need a source of funding for those new transportation options, then pricing certain roads at peak hours is one way to do that.  But congestion pricing is a non-starter.  The goal is to provide more transportation options, not to price roads.

Can't argue with that logic.  But it really struck me how politicians are able to frame issues, by almost turning them on their head, into a more politically palatable form, even if the issue hasn't really changed.On Insuring pork posted 3 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

Another former Wired subscriber

In college, during the tech boom, when I was teaching myself web design (and was also at my most environmental and political activist), I really felt that technology would save the world and it was simple as that.  Of course, I was in college, so I also felt that if I led a protest of McDonalds in Burlington, VT it would make a real difference, and that Marxism would eventually prevail. sigh What a naif I was.

At any rate, at this time I also subscribed to Wired Magazine, and I loved their optimism.  However, as time went by, and the dot-com boom hit its climax, their optimism turned to arrogance, and their slightly geeky alterna-cyber-punk-outsider subversiveness turned into "I used to be a geek but now I'm a rich geek so I dress slick and gel my hair in that perfectly kempt-unkempt way and now I'm no longer an outsider but just as corruptible as the old white male corporate head I replaced."  Yeah, at about that point I angrily canceled my subscription.  They came out with an article that perfectly epitomized the foolish sentiment - "The Long Boom" which I totally bought at the time.  Ironically 2 years later the recession hit. (I just found this humorous link in the process: "Wired's Worst Stories" [http://www.aether.com/archives/000009.html)On New Wired green issue goes a little overboard posted 3 years, 7 months ago 7 Responses

Joe, you're wrong

Joe, the fundamental fallacy that undermines your argument is the assumption that ending immigration somehow lowers population.  Forbidding Mexicans (for example) from entering the United States would not mean any less people on the planet -- only less people in the United States.  And what difference does that make?  May be it will have an impact (positive or negative) on our economy or society or environment in the United States, but not the overall planet's.  So, again, what's the difference?  Ending immigration to the United States will not result in reducing global population.  So why bother?On How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. posted 3 years, 7 months ago 25 Responses

Motor fuels tax IS different

The fundamental difference between a motor fuels tax and pay-as-you-drive is that a motor fuels tax doesn't charge you at the point of use.  You pay the gas tax when you fill your tank, not as you're driving.  So it doesn't offer as much incentive to drive less, because you don't "feel the pain" as directly.  Think of it like paying with a credit card -- in the end, it's the same money as if you paid with cash, but it doesn't feel like it.  It feels a bit detached.

The other major differences are, like I said, that a gas tax doesn't account for how big or efficient your car is, whether you are driving in congestion (in which case you're creating a whole set of new costs to society thru time delay and increased pollution), and those other "externalities".

However, a gas tax is much simpler to implement, and, as Ken Duble alluded to, there are serious practical issues.  One major one is that, the technology currently exists for pay-as-you-drive by equipping all new cars with a GPS (Global Positioning System) unit.  However, this raises serious privacy hackles among most people in this country.On Oregon tests out an alternative to the gas tax -- pay-by-the-mile taxes posted 3 years, 7 months ago 5 Responses

Problem: Property taxes

I think reforming (or eliminating) the property tax system in most municipalities in our country would go a long way to combating economic and racial segregation.  It creates perverse zoning incentives for towns to raise money for schools and further advantages the already wealthy and well-educated towns over those that need the most help - thus perpetuating historic divisions along racial lines.

This goes to the heart of the point made by Cashin about the eternal quest for 'better schools' fueling outward sprawl, which is made necessary by using property taxes to fund education.On An interview with integration advocate Sheryll Cashin posted 3 years, 8 months ago 2 Responses

Useful links

GRACE Factory Farm Project
Sustainable Table
The Meatrix (the original)
The Meatrix 2

-MikeOn New Union of Concerned Scientists report finds grass-raised beef healthier posted 3 years, 8 months ago 11 Responses

I agree with Umbra

Having gone a long way towards chilling out since my self-righteous, know-it-all days in college, some might say that I have sold out a bit.  On the other hand, I have worked into a career that may not be too exciting (transportation planning) but where I know I can make a real difference.  Similarly, I have become much more realistic about dating.  I used to have a very strict ideal of how my mate would be.  Now in a very happy relationship with someone who could have cared less about environmental things before we met, we are gradually finding a common ground, and making compromises for each other.  She may be an artist and I a hyper-rationalist, but she finds my interest in urban planning sexy -- could I ever really expect to be that lucky with a know-it-all environmentalist? :)

I like a lyric by Tool that to me implies the futility (and ultimate self-harm) of this extreme, narcissistic way of thinking: "Controlling, confining, defining - and sinking deeper"On Umbra on love posted 3 years, 9 months ago 7 Responses

Always look on the bright side of life

(Apologies to Monty Python)

Jeff,
It bums me out that for someone who is obviously such an optimist in the long view, you seem to get yourself so upset and disappointed about things in the short run.  While there is much to be disappointed about, it might also be worth bearing in mind that sometimes the means to a virtuous end are not virtuous themselves.  In other words, sometimes bad things need to happen in order to work towards the ultimate good.  How else could it work - we humans are animals, not deities, and so we have to learn from our mistakes and civilize on the fly.  I'd like to see a charismatic (or grouchy, for that matter) megafauna save the entire planet from total extinction if an asteroid were indeed heading for us.  We humans may be annoying little brats right now, but may be it's all part of a larger process.  I think even in the shittiest circumstances there has got to be something positive to get from it - so long as we're paying attention.On The evolutionary reason for humans? posted 3 years, 9 months ago 27 Responses

A few thoughts

I don't really want to wade into what I perceive as the logically unprovable waters that have been started in some of the comments (related to intention and life force) except to say that from my limited familiarity with the Hindu vedas (which I've been interested in lately, if only as a philosophical tool :>), the basic idea of vedantic hinduism falls along the lines of amazingdrx's "eastern/tribal" viewpoint: that cause and effect are an illusion of our tangible, four-dimensional, physical universe, and that really we are all of the same "stuff" or "life force".

However, I don't see how that will help us with the more "pragmatic/technique" (as David put it) needs that we find ourselves in now, which is to say, maintaining the earth as an inhabitable and pleasurable place to live.

One other point specifically for Dave: may be you didn't mean it that way, but the context you used eschatology in seemed to imply that the only type of eschatology out there is a negative one, a doomsday with a negative connotation.  There are definitely positive (earth-positive, science-positive) eschatological ideas out there, like those professed by Terence McKenna.  Here are some links, some of which sites are unfortunately out of date:
http://www.levity.com/eschaton/eschaton.html
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/psychedelics/mckenna/re-evolution
http://www.cuttlefish.net/nemeton/axis-mutatis/eschaton.html
On Philosophical musings. posted 3 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

Odograph seems to have it here

Odograph - I couldn't agree more with everything you've said.  This alone sums up the major lesson history teaches us about "human nature": "Either, they will be attracted by pleasing alternatives, or they will be forced by economic circumstance.  Polemics will not play."

Jdhlax: Your argument seems riddled with logical inconsistencies.  And, as odograph already pointed out humorously, using Earth First! as an example of environmental campaigns that have successfully made any significant impact whatsoever on American environmental issues must be a joke.  For me, Earth First serves no purpose other than very rarely providing exciting stick-it-to-the-man news blurbs I can cheer on.On 'When you drive, society becomes an obstacle.' posted 3 years, 10 months ago 20 Responses

compartmentalizing compassion

Wow, that was a rather callous remark.On Organic farms don't treat workers any better than other farms posted 4 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

Agreed

I agree with everything you've said.  I guess people may see transportation as a specific enough sector (as opposed to "sales" or "income") that they feel it's appropriate those revenues go to something transportation-related.  A good start, though, would be putting more of that towards alternative modes of transportation (like transit) which have positive benefits (many of which Tierney mentioned) besides just mobility.On Tierney calls for a gas tax -- for something other than transportation posted 4 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

So, spiritual = selfish?

Pandu, by your logic you yourself will be eternally joyful but how about those who suffer and yet have absolutely no exposure to the religious beliefs that you think would save everybody from suffering?On Our materialism disguises a deeper problem posted 4 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

Tough call

Smoking is interesting because it's such a diffuse thing, kinda like non-point source water pollution.  To put a blanket ban on it strikes our intuition as a million separate "injustices", rather than just one big "injustice" (like the pollution from a power plant), which I think makes it harder for people to accept.

The effects of second-hand smoke are real.  But the effects themselves are somewhat diffuse -- second-hand smoke inhalation's damage is long-term, not immediate.  And the quality-of-life aspect (I hate being in smoky bars, myself) is also a little weak to merit banning an entire social activity.

But I think I'm in the solid majority of this country, which is to say non-smokers who not only find second-hand smoke unhealthy but also really really obnoxious.  And to not be hypocritical, if I want to smoke any other kinds of plants, I'll still be aware to not be forcing others to deal with it.  And this is a democracy, and what's really the alternative than banning it as much as constitutionally (and ethically) possible in public?

Definitely a cloudy issue.

(Sorry about that.)On Are smoking bans fair? posted 4 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

It's true

I used to be one of those "but look at the Europeans!  But look at the Europeans!!" (hopping up and down pointing emphatically) people.  But the truth is that majority of the U.S. is quite different from the majority of Europe.  Europe is indeed denser, and it's also older.  That means that the infrastructure and development patterns have developed quite differently there.  It means that we Americans shouldn't feel quite so bad that our transit infrastructure is so crappy, and Europeans shouldn't be quite so smug about their own "progressive" development patterns.

But making connections will definitely become more and more critical as the U.S. continues to sprawl, as traffic worsens, and as gas increases in price.  In the end, probably the only thing that's gonna make us get a "progressive" transit/transportation infrastructure is necessity -- i.e. cashola.

In specific response to your post, it's important to think about the majority of airports in this country.  Even if rail linked to them, where exactly would the rail be coming from, and how would people be getting to it?  What would their incentive be to take rail?  In most (not all) cities in the U.S., as the GAO report you mentioned alludes to, there is not the right development pattern to support a rail-to-airport link.  If people live in the suburb and have no train nearby anyway, and it's much easier to hop in the car and go directly to the airport, what is their incentive to take a train, even if it has a convenient connection to the airport?  Chances are they'll have to drive to the train first, anyway.

One day, one day, in the not-too-distant future......... when oil prices finally go thru the roof.  Let's keep holding our breath =)On Intermodal transportation and airports posted 4 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Meanwhile, back in reality...

...99% of the economy (including the majority of the products you own, including that computer and, yes, that internet connection) was occurring in developed suburban or urban areas, and the rural parts of America continued to be energy inefficient, ecologically unsustainable, and devoid of any meaningful employment.

Sure, go ahead and live in "paradise" -- it's nice, if you can afford it!On Coaxing residents to urban cores posted 4 years, 4 months ago 13 Responses

A debate of ideas or emotion?

Amazingdrex, notice that your post didn't actually address any of the points Andy made.  In fact, the only reference you made to the original point was that you find the idea distasteful.  The rest of your post was mostly undirected sarcasm and name-calling.  Thanks for elevating the conversation.

What if privatization of some roads (like, highways) actually led to better service, fair pricing, and denser states not subsidizing rural states (heaven forbid people who choose to live in exurbs have to pay for the benefit of having more space by having to pay for their proportionally more expensive infrastructure).  In fact, it's not unreasonable to think that it could lead to less driving by internalizing all costs associated with creating road infrastructure (most of which are currently subsidized by the government).  As long as roads as a free (or discounted) good that don't reflect their true cost, the environment will suffer.

And folks who are resistant to new ideas based purely on historical intertia (is it a lack of imagination or a fear of confronting one's own beliefs?) are not helping situation, that's for sure.On Could it work? posted 4 years, 4 months ago 10 Responses

Sketchy assumptions

I think that both sides of this debate are making a pretty big assumption by thinking that who you are will be much of a predictor of who your children will be.

A) Just because you're an environmentalist doesn't mean your children will be

B) People who are not environmentalists may have children that become environmentalists

A couple of the commentaries above made really creepy claims: for example, that if the environmentally-minded don't have babies, that will somehow decrease the population of environmentalists in the world?  I hope you don't mean genetically.  I really doubt that genetics determine much of one's eco-consciousness.  Or the claim that if enviros have children that will increase the number of enviros in the world.  I'm not an expert, may be parents really can influence who their children become.  But, I have seen many overly cloying, preachy parents of all persuasions who have sent their kids life-paths in the completely opposite direction by being too overbearing.

One other question for the pro-baby set: How can you justify having biological children when there are millions of orphans worldwide who need parents and families, any more than you can justify buying a pure-breed dog when there are millions of dogs needing adoption who will be euthanized?

As a disclaimer, I plan on having one or two children one day (as well as adopting).  I guess my perspective is that #1 in the case of something as personal and weighty as having children, I just don't give the environmental issues as high priority as my personal preferences, and #2 I will do everything else within my power to make my having children a positive, not negative thing for the planet.
On How many kids do I have to have to get your attention? posted 4 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Import/export "costs"

I agree with jdhlax that importing food obviously has detrimental environmental costs.

But I disagree that subsidies or tariffs are the way to discourage such imports.  If you think about it, food delivered from 1,500 miles away should naturally be more expensive than food delivered from 100 miles away.  The reasons this isn't the case now are primarily:

1. Cheaper labor, looser environmental regulations in other countries can make it profitable to import food in spite of transportation costs
   
2. Cheap fuel makes such transportation reasonably priced

I think that jdhlax's analysis is bassackwards -- tariffs and subsidies might discourage agriculture imports quicker than the strategies I said above in the short-term, but in the long-term will probably hurt developing economies more than it will help them, while making little difference in overall environmental benefits in the long run.

-MikeOn Reform at the World Bank. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

"Urban" Legends (hee hee)

Sorry for the pun.

I've heard that whole "wouldn't want to raise my kids in the city" line so many times, and in fact I just heard it again yesterday.  On the other hand, where I live (Park Slope, Brooklyn, a yuppy-ish urban "suburb" where most commute to Manhattan), I can't walk a block without giving clearance to a stroller (usually with a toddler in tow).  This is most definitely a family neighborhood.  And besides the usual adolescent hijinks (I grew up in suburban NJ and we caused plenty of trouble anyway), even the kids "hanging out on the corner" seem pretty well-adjusted, and those in my age range (26) I've met seem happy with growing up in NYC.

I think what we need is some real body of facts about what advantages and disadvantages there really are to raising kids in the city.  Why does everyone assume it's so much worse to do so?  Couldn't it be worse to raise them in some boring suburb without any diversity, culture, and diversity of opinions?  Or to raise them in the middle of a rural area where they may get sub-par education and little intellectual or creative stimulation, and have lower life-chances?  There's pros and cons no matter where you raise your kids.

How about some studies on large samples of adults who grew up in various urban situations (different income levels and neighborhood types), comparing their education level, income, crime rates, marriage/divorce/etc rates, and that kind of stuff?  May be then we can finally dispel the myth that cities aren't good for raising kids!On Urban musings. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Things we can't really explain

I think "CowsEatGrass" nailed it:
"We're all fighting for (or at least hoping for)things we can't really explain when it comes down to it."

Why "protect" the earth at all?  Why "save" the earth?  What's the difference?  It's one thing to actively harm others, and I suppose that's the strongest argument supporting environmentalism (that anti-environmental actions harm people and things, i.e. cause pain).  But on a more general level, why does the earth need to continue to exist indefinitely?  Why must it exist beyond this very moment?  The BIG assumption that it's somehow intrinsically "good" to 'save' the earth is quite a leap of faith in and of itself.  Who ever told us that it's necessarily better to sustain the earth rather than just enjoy it while it lasts and ride it down to the bitter end?  If one day we all disappear, who will be around to count the time it took?  Was it a million years or a billion years?  Will it have made a difference?

I know that's a pessimistic way to look at it, but my point is to play the devil's advocate.  The post above mine which mentioned hypocrisy also captures this point -- that environmentalists should force upon themselves just as much humility as they demand from the religious, even if they believe that they themselves are RIGHT and the religious are WRONG.

Me?  I'm an agnostic atheistic pantheistic secular humanist zen buddhist progressive satanist roman catholic. ;)On Is there tension between them? posted 4 years, 6 months ago 41 Responses

Brooklyn Brewery

For what it's worth, Brooklyn Brewery (in, you guessed it, Brooklyn NYC) operates on 100% wind power.

http://www.brooklynbrewery.com/Community/Philanthropy.asp

http://www.newwindenergy.com/customers/nwe_cstmr_brooklyn_brewery.htmlOn High energy costs don't get in this brewery's way posted 4 years, 6 months ago 1 Response

Take-out lunches

Working full-time and attending school full-time (and being lazy full-time, as usual), I just don't cook for myself as much as I used to.  I order lunch out nearly every day, and even take out dinner a couple days a week, too.  That creates a LOT of packaging.  What we need is biodegradable containers & 'plastic' bags!  And, umm, more time and motivation to cook..On So tell us ... what's your dirty little environmental secret? posted 4 years, 7 months ago 84 Responses