Comments claxton6 has made

wow

I really like this idea. Which three cities?On Grist pulls a Huck Finn posted 2 years, 1 month ago 1 Response

I am not an economist

but ...

Tyler Cowen says that carbon taxes may have counterintuitive results, but the paper to which he refers, and his description of it, are so thick with economist jargon that I have only the faintest clue what the point is. Maybe an economist in our audience can translate?

Just from reading Cowen's summary, I think the paper is looking at some of the odder effects of the US (or any country, I guess) taxing carbon outside of an international system. First, such a tax would lower the price that fossil fuel producers sell at, which would allow other, non-taxing countries to buy more.

Second, is the "intertemporal Hotelling resource extraction problem"--Hotelling is how economists look at use of a limited resource over time. It looks like one result of a carbon tax would be that there's potentially more pressure to get fossil fuels out of the ground now than there would otherwise be, particularly if everyone knows that the tax is going to increase over time.

His note at the end suggests that the paper doesn't get into the scale of these effects in relation to the tax's overall effect on consumption, which means that they could be major problems or minor problems. Cowen leans toward minor.

To me, at the (low) level of sophistication that I understand this stuff at, the take-home is to reinforce the importance of pursuing multiple strategies. There's no magic policy.On Brain food for your day of rest posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

voters and not-yet-voters

The Prius; a product spawned by the market to meet the demands of consumers, saving more gas than all the government bungling combined. Corn ethanol, spawned by government, killing CAFÉ standards and increasing fuel use by a billion gallons annually.

Heh. I don't think you can harp on the gov't for killing CAFE, without acknowledging that the gov't, you know, created CAFE. So, the fuel saved by that initial gov't bungling probably is more than that saved by Priuses. Also, before I chalk the Prius up to market, I'd want to know more about its genesis in Japan, with respect to the Japanese market, regulation, and gas taxes.  

That said, I agree that in, at least in matters of urban form, the first step is to get the gov't (here, local gov't) out the way. Sadly, the local gov't is almost never going to do that*, so you need some higher level of government to encourage or force them to. (An example would be, I think, the Portland metro transit area, where to receive a transit stop, the local gov't has to agree to zone to allow density.)

* Partly because: say you're a local official, in a ward system. The people with an interest in the status quo are your constituents. The people who an interest in change are not, because generally they're not living in your ward yet--the whole point is they want to get in.On Walkable town centers are hip posted 2 years, 4 months ago 45 Responses

I WILL

We haven't been able to do any sort of follow-up, but a group I'm involved in has had reasonable feedback to an "I WILL" campaign (see an example at the bottom of this post). The linked example is for "I will take the bus." Off the top of my head, we also have I WILL: eat local food, switch to CFLs, bike to work, buy Energy Star, line dry my clothes, get an energy audit, attend a low cost/no cost weatherization workshop, attend a community energy meeting ... maybe a couple of others. We're trying to provide a range of activities, and we've had problems at both ends--people can't find something they feel they can do (we're adding an "I will turn off the lights" card for them), as well as people who are already doing everything that are applicable.On Start with CFLs, and let the lightbulb go on posted 2 years, 6 months ago 25 Responses

Illinois

I know Blagojevich is looking at caps for Illinois, and I think I heard that he's looking at joining of the two compacts.

Also, my bet is Mark Sanford of SC being the one to push the South into the game. Okay, probably not, but hailing from SC originally, it's a fun little game I play with myself.On More exciting than it sounds posted 2 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

price protection

But overall, it's not a common practice among utilities to provide their green power customers with protection from fuel-price fluctuations.

Huh. That surprises me, as that seems like one of the key benefits of a green power program, particularly for business customers. I did some research, guided by the mammoth number of NREL reports on green pricing, among business customers of a small midwestern utility (14,000 customers total, res and non-res), and that was easily the thing that was most attractive to them.  Do you think most utilities don't offer a fixed rate because they're not looking at businesses as a primary source of participation?On Who are the green power leaders? NREL tells us posted 2 years, 7 months ago 3 Responses

ambition

I don't have any grand experience here, but reading the Lovins profile suggested one problem: generally, when people and businesses look at efficiency opportunities (I think), they look at them in isolation (unless they're specifically committed to green building or an overall greening agenda). But some of the biggest savings comes from doing things all at once. We traditionally think that doing a lot of things at once requires a bigger upfront investment. So, while a lot of people agree that efficencies are out there, not everyone realizes that going after a lot of them at one time can make the upfront costs lower, not higher. On It's all about inequality posted 2 years, 10 months ago 18 Responses

which part of the river are we crossing?

It's much more of a step-function than a continuum.

I didn't get the impression she was talking about those three being stepping stones among themselves, but among the consuming public, in terms of changing over all of the infrastructure that's built around just petroleum (3-grades plus diesel, plus two basic engine types, gas and diesel). That seems to me to be a different problem from the technology conversions needed to make the fuel, since those are relatively concentrated compared with the consumer side, which is relatively diverse and distributed.On Bait and switchgrass, again posted 2 years, 10 months ago 11 Responses

also

On the subject of coal, the UCS ad that's running right now--"Is she so naughty she deserves coal for the rest of her life?"--is great.On It's all about electricity posted 2 years, 11 months ago 72 Responses

choosing winners

I like your structure for the goals, but I'm not satisfied with them, but I'm not 100% sure why.

First, I think we need to get behind a method for picking winners. That is, I think it's a losing strategy to go in with the idea of saying this technology or that technology is the solution, or even this mix of technologies. Instead, I think we need to agree on the umbrella: something like, we want a marketplace-oriented strategy that reduces carbon emissions to such-and-such level. Anyone who can compete on an equal footing while fitting into the environmental component ought to be able to get in/ought not be excluded outright.

Second, content-wise, I think the idea of shifting to electricity is a faulty one for a lot of things. Better urban form can replace much liquid fuel use. Better use of passive (by which I mean non-PV) solar for space and water heating can reduce electricity and natural gas use. Neither of those two things show up in your hierarchy.On It's all about electricity posted 2 years, 11 months ago 72 Responses

what kind of market

and right now the price of oil is dropping-

Surely, the oil cannot even charitably be described as free, though. Doesn't that render price signals a little suspect?On No, really posted 3 years ago 19 Responses

off fossil fuels

What you need to understand is that buying RECs can be a way to support alternative energy, but it is not getting off of fossil energy.

In the same way, buying "100% renewable energy" from a green pricing program offered by your utility doesn't get you away from fossil fuels. And yet, no one is clamoring that those programs are being deceitful. Are they?On The producer of the controversial wind-credit cards speaks out posted 3 years ago 21 Responses

one problem

To be sure, I think that these wind cards are a temporary solution. If they're still around in ten years, I think it'll be a bad sign. Further, I think things like green power programs are just a first step. Because, essentially, they're accounting programs, in the way wind cards are accounting solutions. The electricity coming into your home will almost certainly continue to be produced from dirty sources--it'll be no cleaner than the grid overall. So, while these are (to me) great, and absolutely a must for a first step that we need to push, what I think we need to begin doing is figuring out: what's next? If these are small reform-type measures, what's the fundamental change that we need to see? What's the combination of new technology, repurposed old technology, economic and legal structures, and culture that's going to make it so that only a sliver of our power comes from on-demand fossil fuel generation.On Are the wind credit cards deceptive? posted 3 years ago 20 Responses

another try

Let me give this another try, making it all a little more explicit. I'm going through this in part because I don't think you do understand what I'm saying, and in part because I might be wrong, and if so, really want to find out (as I'll explain below, I don't think this just matters for these wind power cards).

The first thing to say is that I was speaking loosely above; I don't think there's any one "grid" out there; we have lots of grids, and each state has done deregulation differently, so all of this is going to differ a little between states. I think.

I'm numbering here to make it easier for people to tell me where I'm wrong.

1. How the grid works: every major power supplier runs their generators, which feed into the grid. All consumers get their power from the grid. No one (except for people off the grid, or industrial users with their own generators) gets their power directly from any particular generating facility.

1a. The point of the grid is to match, as precisely as possible, supply to demand.

1b. There are (roughly) three types of generators: base load, peaking, and intermittent, determined by how expensive the electricity they produce is and how easy they are to bring on- and off-line. Base load is cheap, but responds slower to changes in demand. Peaking is expensive, but easy to turn on and off. Intermittent (usually expensive) can't really be controlled when it will produce.

1c. Combining 1a and 1b, when intermittent is running, it displaces other power sources (peaking or base load).

2. Consumers (either end-users or power marketers, I think) pay the established rate. To get into the market, suppliers have to be able to supply at that rate. If it costs them more than that rate to create the electricity, they can't enter the market (it's a losing proposition).

3. Because wind power can't perform at the current established rate, it can't operate in the market without charging more in some way (a green pricing program, for example).

4. There is a market for "green benefits" of renewable energy -- people who want those benefits but can't purchase RE directly (their power marketers don't provide it).

5. Thus, combining 3 and 4, wind power cards (or green tags, as they used to be called) are created. These unbundle the green benefits from the electricity they were produced alongside. The electricity goes to the grid, at the regular market rate. The green benefits accrues to the wind card buyers.

Compare this to the situation in my city, Springfield, IL. We're working on getting the public utility to purchase 10% of its power from wind, in a farm to be built just for us. The farm won't be near us, it'll probably be a couple of counties away.

Opponents of the plan say: "Why should we be doing this when we won't be getting the electricity from the wind farm." The reason is that while the electricity won't come to us, the benefits do. We're the ones who get to say we're offsetting 10% of our electricity consumption.

What's really tricky is that people see the coal plant on the southeast side of town and think that the connection between it and their homes is greater than the connection between the wind farm and their homes. But technically, that's not the case: the electricity from that coal plant goes onto the grid, just like the electricity from the wind farm. And there's no absolute connection between the electrons put out by "our" coal plant and those that arrive in our homes.

So, if you reject the idea that wind power cards "offset" emissions for their purchasers, then I don't see how you can accept that a general RE commitment (like my town is making) offsets our emissions. They're based on the exact same understanding of the grid and the exact same kind of accounting.

The one major difference that I can see is that, in the case of my town, we're sucking it up and paying the extra cost up from, whereas with the wind power cards, the builders are anticipating that they can successful de-bundle the green benefits from the electricity and sell the two separately. So, in one case, the commitment comes up front (and has no risk) whereas in the other the commitment comes after the wind farm has been built (and is thus risky).   But the wind farm was built with the expectation that they'd be able to sell the green benefits. Without that expectation, it wouldn't be built, and by wiping out that expectation, you're lessening the chance that future wind farms will be built.On Are the wind credit cards deceptive? posted 3 years ago 20 Responses

land value taxation in practice

JMG, is there anywhere in the US that currently uses land value taxation? On Why only takings? posted 3 years ago 6 Responses

Just worked for me

Your annual carbon emissions are 73,164.52 lbs.

Egad! I even bike everywhere.On Slate and TH challenge readers to lose 2.5 tons apiece posted 3 years, 1 month ago 7 Responses

eco-terrorism: not just property damage anymore

The eco-terror label is spreading, sadly. We've had a joyous controversy over an attempt to get a clean energy plan tied to construction of a new coal plant, and, if you take a look at the comments in the most recent article in the local paper, you'll see a few scattered terror-cries among the many simply settling for calling the Sierra Club extortionists.

If anyone follows the link, I do ask that you not comment. There's a very strong insider-outsider element to the discussion, and coming in calling Springfielders backwards won't help us. Thanks.

http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/96910.aspOn A heaping helping of paranoia posted 3 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Not helping

I know you're venting your frustration, but surely there's a better response. And I don't mean in some handwavey moral-high-ground sense, but in the practical sense of: getting entrenched into us and them wastes time and energy. So what can you do? You have a huge platform here! Surely there are gristmill readers from Long Island -- help motivate them to support the Long Island Power Authority's plan, give them the info they need to take action. Help them figure out not just how to win, but how to persuade.

NIMBYs aren't going to go away. We need a better way to work with them.On STFU posted 3 years, 4 months ago 28 Responses

hard to say

But anytime I see sprawl addressed, I'm curious to know what the person thinks about the role of zoning in contributing to sprawl, and the extent to which liberalizing land use regulations may allow for more density and less sprawl. Also, cultural factors, like neighborhood opposition to new, in-town development, as well as the way that things like crime and education funding contribute to sprawl, as people avoid cities and maintain their tax bases.On What should I ask Anthony Flint? posted 3 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses

comprehensive urban reform

Maybe this is a problem that will solve itself -- heh, heh -- but I think that one of the things that has to be done is change the perceptions of our cities. That change is already underway to some extent, but it seems to me that the two biggest things you need to do, alongside changing land-use regulations themselves, is fixing the crime problem (which is part crime control and part PR) and fixing urban education systems (preferably, I think, by eliminating the funding advantage that suburban schools have). I think that as long as most people see cities as dangerous and bad for their kids, urban living and anything that looks like it is going to be marginal.On The built environment posted 3 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

"environmentalism"

I've been toying with this idea lately, but I haven't had to really put it concisely. Consider this a first draft:

I think that nature works through cycles, based on competition and cooperation, that exist at multiple scales within time and space. I think that modern human society lives in a way that, in any scale relevant to us, is fundamentally not cyclical--we have raw materials and we have wastes, and, except in rare instances, they don't support the complexity of life that nature's cycles (at comparable scale) do. Environmentalism, then, is trying to bring modern human society back into working in the same kind of cyclical way as the rest of nature.

FWIW, I'm happy to have this criticized, as I'm still figuring it out for myself.On How do you define "environmentalism"? posted 3 years, 8 months ago 18 Responses