Comments mleonard has made

  • This assumes GM actually wants to sell this car!

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

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

    Don't forget their old electric vehicle program - they made a few EV-1's, had waiting lists from consumers to buy more - then killed the program citing "lack of consumer demand" - but they got some good credentials (for a while) from the whole process.On Credit crunch could take shine off efficiency improvements posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

  • EDF is holding back the rest of the movement.

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

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

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

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

    You know it as well as anyone else - going halfway on the climate is the same as not going any of the way. EDF clearly isn't going to lead - so at least get out of the way for others to present real solutions.On EDF prez says we can't afford to wait for the ideal first step posted 1 year, 4 months ago 17 Responses

  • I sort of agree with the guy....

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

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

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

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

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

    Why are we no longer capable of creating regulation/governance that isn't based on profit - but is based on health, ecology, and safety?On Forget a carbon cap; try guilt instead! posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

  • Great job! But not actually a coal plant

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

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

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

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

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

    -Matt
    On Twenty-seven yoots arrested protesting construction of coal gas plant posted 1 year, 9 months ago 3 Responses

  • Auction is NOT the same as a tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • For more on the action:

    You can find a bigger summary of the action, as well as updated media coverage at It's Getting Hot In Here On Bold announcement by climate partnership outed as a hoax posted 1 year, 12 months ago 1 Response

  • Mostly non-US companies. Surprised?

    Just glancing over the list of signatories - and overwhelmingly, they are NOT US-based companies. Without doing research into where companies are actually headquartered - I casually counted about 10 (of 150) that I recognized as US-based.

    -MattOn Over 150 companies worldwide sign climate petition in advance of Bali posted 2 years ago 7 Responses

  • Not just a 1-time thing - GET INVOLVED!

    This action wasn't isolated - there have been dozens of similar actions recently demanding that Wall Street be accountable for their investments that are destroying our climate.

    Check out this giant banner hang on a construction crane across from Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte 2 weeks ago.

    http://understory.ran.org/2007/10/23/charlotte-banner-tel ...

    And on Nov 16th and 17th (next week!), Rainforest Action Network, Coal River Mountain Watch, Student Environmental Action Coalition and more will be holding a National Day of Action Against Coal Finance. Across the country, hundreds of people will mobilize on their local banks to demand an end to investments in dirty fossil fuels. From flyering and  customer education to street theater and non-violent direct action - you can get involved in your community or campus!

    Check out www.dirtymoney.org   for more info.
    On Climate change direct action posted 2 years ago 2 Responses

  • For more information:

    Visit www.ran.org

    We just launched this new campaign - so to learn more and get involved check out our homepage.
    -MattOn Raising a ruckus about agrofuels at the Chicago Board of Trade posted 2 years, 1 month ago 7 Responses

  • NRDC, "clean coal", and China

    Unfortunately - NRDC DOES support so-called "Clean Coal". http://www.joycefdn.org/GrantList/GrantDetails.aspx?grant ...

    And in response to China's use of coal - I think to imagine China "limiting" it's coal use is the exact opposite of what Teryn states. NOT Limiting coal use globally (including China) is truly what is unjust - from cradle-to-grave coal use has devastated communities and our climate. 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to air quality in China, and "official" reports acknowledge an average of over 6,000 deaths of coal miners annually (unofficial estimates are much higher). Is this worth it? This use of coal is what is socially unjust - and encouraging the continued use of it perpetuates that injustice.

    While we can cross our fingers and wait for carbon-capture and sequestration to become technologically and economically viable - but coal  use is expanding globally in the meantime. That massive source of carbon is pushing us further and further towards climactic tipping points. Far more poverty, destruction, and death will be wrought by climate change than by moving away from coal. In fact - I would argue strongly that by embracing a clean energy economy China can bring far more of it's population out of poverty, and do so in a FAR more equitable way.

    A coal moratorium may start here in the US - but it should be global in scope. We can continue arguing over how best to do that - but CCS is a fantasy that even the coal industry recognizes is a marketing concept more than anything else. THIS is the "false solution".

    -MattOn Ted Nordhaus responds to NRDC's Dave Hawkins posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

  • Casual Carpools

    I haven't seen it outside of the San Francisco area - but here we have a popular program called "casual carpool". It's largely unofficially run, though gets at least verbal support from some transit agencies.

    Basically, traffic is horrible, and to cross the Bay Bridge and go into San Francisco costs $4. If you carpool, you cross faster and skip the toll. There are dozens of "casual carpool" locations where people just wait on the sidewalk, and drivers pull up, the first people in line hop in, and everyone wins. Riders get a free ride across the bay (and don't have to pay the train/bus fees), and drivers save $4 in tolls and skip traffic.

    It's a great system and experiment in socialization. There are some weird "norms" where talking is discouraged unless the driver initiates, and a "neutral" radio is expected such as NPR. But overall, it's a simple method that requires ZERO infrastructure or institutional resources to work, and it's pretty functional.

    My TOTAL casual observation is that more women than men use this system, but I admittedly don't use it much.

    -MattOn A gender fender mind-bender posted 2 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

  • Goldman not actually so green...

    While Goldman Sachs has made a few positive steps by developing this policy - any objective analysis of their banking practices shows they have not made major accomplishments.

    Their voluntary 7% emmissions reduction target only affects their operations (buildings, offices etc) - and does nothing to address the emissions from their investments. This is where Wall Street needs to be accountable - and has far bigger impact on the environment. Bank of America has at least made a commitment to reduce their indirect emissions both from internal operations AND their investment portfolio. It is unclear what methodology they will use to measure and meet this commitment - but it is a far bigger step than Goldman Sachs.

    And despite Goldman funding some clean energy options - they still have their hands firmly entrenched in dirty energy invesments. In the past 2 years alone, Goldman has had numerous major financial deals with environmentally destructive companies, and are helping finance the "Coal Rush" here in the United States.

    Despite this policy - Goldman continues to invest and support the dirtiest utility and power companies - including:

    -American Electric Power (the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the country, and building 5 new coal-fired power plants)

    -Cleco Corp (building a new coal plant in Louisiana)

    -Dynegy (building 9 new coal plants, estimated to emit 65 million tons of C02 annually)

    -International Coal Group (one of the largest mining companies in the world)

    -Massey Energy (coal mining company responsible for Mountain Top Removal in Appalachia - recently facing $2.4 billion in fines for thousands of environmental violations

    -Southern Company (2nd largest polluter in the US, and building several new fossil fuel power plants)

    -TXU (I hope every Grist reader followed this debacle in Texas)

    This list grows - but Goldman cannot simply issue a statement and policy and wash their hands of the problem. They are still funding many of of the dirtiest, heavily-polluting projects - and are even lagging behind their peers on Wall Street.

    It's time for Wall Street to step up to the plate and commit substantial support for clean energy, meet strong emissions targets in their investments, and stop funding carbon-intensive industries like coal. Lip-service won't cut it.

    http://www.dirtymoney.orgOn The financial giant is ready to take on climate change posted 2 years, 5 months ago 1 Response