Comments RossBleakney has made

  • The cash for clunkers program was not designed to be great for the environment. It was designed to help out the auto industry a bit, so that it didn't drag down the rest of the economy. It wasn't designed to save it, but it was designed to slow the bleeding. In an ideal world, this would mean no layoffs, but no replacement of the jobs lost to attrition either. It didn't work quite that well, but things would probably be a lot worse without it (like 15% unemployment instead of 10%). As ToSeek said, though, 15.8 MPG to 24.9 MPG is a huge bonus. It might not seem like much, but it is really big (when you do the math). Now, whether we would be better off just buying more buses (GM makes Hybrid buses which I occasionally ride) is a different story. That might help GM, but not Chrysler (I have no idea if Chrysler makes buses).On Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers! posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago 29 Responses
  • Gary: Write "Car Talk". Seriously. Those guys are very smart and know a lot about cars and would be able to address your question in a serious and informed manner (OK, maybe not serious, but certainly informed). This article is about legislation, not particular techniques for making a car more efficient (and the legal or other obstacles to doing so).On Kerry-Graham op-ed dramatically enhances prospects for Senate climate bill this year posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

  • Great article. It also shows how short-sighted this CEO is. If we had an aggressive climate policy, then major improvements to the rail system (including elecrification as described here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301) would be great for his company. In general, moving freight (and passenger traffic) from the roads to the rails makes great sense for the climate as well his company. Of course, such changes would not necessarily make money the next couple of quarters -- which is where he seems to be focused.

    On Is Chamber of Commerce prez biased on climate because of his ties to Union Pacific railroad? posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Response

  • Well said C. L. Weber. This article builds up straw man arguments and then defeats them. It is the cow burping that is the problem and this article doesn't even address that (it is insightful to see just how ignorant or misleading this article is when it does not mention the biggest problem with raising cattle).

    Brian S is also correct in his summary. It is possible that a much smaller number of grass eating cattle (along with the elimination of grain fed cattle) might end up benefiting the environment more than it hurts it (the increased storage might offset the emissions). Unfortunately, as C L Weber points out, the science to this point suggests otherwise.

    In general, I'm afraid this is another article by someone who probably believes he is doing right for the environment, but is wrong. There are lots and lots of folks like that. I sympathise with them. Unfortunately, this article will convince many of the naive environmentalists (who don't read the scientific literature) to conclude that eating meat is OK, because it is local, organically raised beef. I'm sorry, but just because factory beef is worse, doesn't mean that eating locally raised organic beef is benign. Smoking American Spirit cigarettes is probably better than smoking Camel straights, but it doesn't mean that is OK.

     

     

    On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 92 Responses

  • This is nice, but I'm not sure how popular this will be. Nor am I sure that we should encourage the purchase of such cars (through subsidies, etc.). The problem with a plugin is that it takes too long to charge. If you are travelling for several days, then having to wait for hours to charge just doesn't make sense. Thus, the car only makes sense for commuters and folks who want a car for the occasional errand. For commuters, I wonder if it would be cheaper to improve public transit. As an errand car, this makes a lot of sense, but I wonder if there aren't cheaper cars out there for that. The beauty of the hybrid is that it dramatically increases fuel efficiency, while losing nothing (but the extra cost of the car). A plugin hybrid further reduces gas consumption.

    We get diminishing returns, however. The difference between a car that gets 20 miles to the gallon and a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon is the same as the difference between a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon and an electric car. I know that sentence seems crazy, but do the math. If you travel, say 80 miles, the clunker will use 4 gallons, the hybrid 2 and the electric 0. You saved two gallons when you switched to the hybrid, and another 2 miles when you switched to the electric car. Of course, that assumes that an all electric car consumes no fuel at all (which is possible, especially in certain areas of the country).

    Again, I don't want to rain on Nissan's parade. If they do indeed make a car that is reasonably cheap, popular and all electric, then this is a great accomplishment. However, the world would be better off if we just stopped buying and driving cars that such poor mileage.

    On Nissan unveils 'Leaf' electric car posted 3 months, 4 weeks ago 21 Responses

  • [Quote] The fundamental problem with hydrogen as a transport fuel is one that no amount of federal R&D can solve:  The absurdly expensive infrastructure will never be built. [/Quote]

    There are lots of problems with hydrogen as a means to transport vehicles, but infrastucture is not one of them. This is one of the biggest problems with your argument and the way that you make it. By focusing on infrastructure, you imply that this is the only thing holding us back. It isn't (as you describe in other parts of your essay). You seem to know quite a bit about science, especially as it pertains to fuel cells, but you seem to know very little about government and politics.

    To put it simply, if you tell politicians that the only thing standing in the way of a better future is infrastructure, they will build it. This country has a long, biparitison history of building such infrastucture. It is what we do well. Most infrastructure projects can be accomplished by a combination of tax subsidies (which Republicans like) and government programs (which Democrats like). Mention to them that it will help rural areas and the politicians get really excited. How do you think we ended up with ethanal subsidies? Someone said it was in infrastucture problem (not enough places to make it because there aren't enough places to buy it, if only we can jump start the thing, etc.). Not enough time was spent discussing whether it actually made sense (should we be growing corn, only to turn it into fuel?).

     

     

    On Congress reverses Chu’s decision, flushes $100 million down the toilet pursuing hydrogen cars posted 4 months, 1 week ago 39 Responses

  • I agree with Olive's comments. I would also add that it matters how that product gets here. If you live along the coast and the product comes by ship, it probably didn't use much energy to get it here. If it came by air, it is a different matter entirely.

    On Can we be 'green' and eat tropical products, too? posted 5 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

  • "if they consume it [beef] at all, they do so sparingly, buying directly from nearby farmers who manage their land well."

    Maybe the farmers manage the land well, but they still contribute enourmously to global warming. Grass fed beef contributes as much, if not more, to global warming, then grain fed beef.

    This is an excellent article, and points out many very important facts -- but to contribute to the myth that locally grown, organic, grass fed beef is good for the environment makes about as much sense as promoting "clean coal". Some cattle contribute to the loss of natural land (in the U.S., Brazil and in other places) but even the most sustainably raised cattle contributes (in a big way) to global warming.

     

     

    On Greenpeace: your boots are made for climate change posted 6 months ago 3 Responses

  • Yeah, the bill isn't perfect and neither is Al Gore. He says he is green, but I don't think he is green enough. We should elect someone who is really green, like Ralph Nader. Oh wait, we tried that 8 years ago and got Bush. Maybe that strategy won't work.

    Another example of the left rejecting the good for the perfect was the response to Nixon's health care plan (which looked a lot like Clinton's plan and Obama's plan). Thirty five years later and we still don't have full health care in this country (nor do we have the single payer plan that the lefties wanted). Does anyone on the left think that was a good approach?

    Likewise, there are also plenty of examples of programs that started small but got bigger. I can't think of any case where a modest proposal was rejected, only to be replace by a bigger one. Al Gore (a professional politician) probably can't either. I see no one on the "reject the bill" camp with anywhere near the political experience of Gore. Just pass it already and then work on a better bill.

     

     

    On Gore vs. Hansen: Enviros take sides in debate over House climate bill posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 57 Responses

  • Thank you Mr. Romm for this article and the many like it. This debate reminds me of the health care debate. Not the one now, or the one during Clinton's Presidency, but the debate surrounding the health care proposal made by President Nixon. Nixon first proposed a major private/public health care plan very similar to Bill Clinton's proposal (and very similar to Senator Hillary Clinton's proposal during the campaign). Ted Kennedy, himself a fan of single payer (but no political neophyte) supported it as a compromise. However, left wingers killed it, knowing that Nixon was in serious political trouble (due to Watergate). They thought they could get more from a new President (a single payer system). Thirty five years later, we still don't have anything close to full coverage or anything close to what Nixon proposed. More here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/22163.html 

    On Memo to Hansen 2: Why is the country’s top anti-science blog reprinting your stuff? posted 6 months, 4 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • Showcase Car

    The Volt will not be the car for the masses. It will be too expensive. The Prius is hardly the car for the masses, even though it is much cheaper. The Prius, at least, has become the car for those who can afford it and still want good value (see the latest Consumer Reports). The Volt won't be that -- it will be a showcase car. It will be the first car you see as you enter the GM showroom (along with lot of big splashy signs). It will signal to the rest of the auto industry that GM can make something that is as good, if not better, than the rest of the auto makers. Politicians will buy it, as will movie stars and others trying to impress people. But people just looking for a car to transport themselves from one place to another will buy something else.

    As a showcase car, it may provide a boost for the company. In the early eighties, the reputation of American cars took a big hit (for good reason). It was obvious that Japanese cars were more reliable. It was also obvious that GM's attempts to deal with the higher mileage requirements produced ugly, underpowered big cars (Cadillacs, Buicks, etc.) while the Japanese were making zippy little hatchbacks. When GM launched the new Corvette, it sent a signal to the rest of the world, that, if nothing else, GM could make a great sports car. This allowed them to secure some part of their reputation and sell a lot of small cars (Chevettes and the like) as well as muscle cars (in a bad era for muscle cars). Look for GM to do the same with this car and produce a scaled down, people's version. Of course, the big question is whether GM can stay alive long enough to do this.

    It will be interesting to see what Ford does during this period of transition (as car makers realize they can't depend on making all of their money from truck/SUV sales and credit). While most American cars from the late 70s to 80s were mediocre (at best) and lacked innovation, Ford created the Taurus, a remarkable car that showed great creativity while being quite practical. On CMU study suggests GM has wildly oversized the batteries in the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 37 Responses

  • Electrified Railroads

    I agree with Gar -- rail electrification is the key. Here is a great article that goes into more detail: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301

    I also think that a high speed rail line from L.A. to Las Vegas makes a lot of sense. This distance is well within the "sweet spot" where high speed rail can be very popular. If the distance is too short, then folks will hesitate before getting out of the car (unless traffic is bad). If the distance it too long, then people will take a plane to save themselves the time. The L.A. to San Francisco run, for example, will have trouble competing with air travel, unless the trains move faster than 110 MPH. If the train moves faster than 110 MPH, then much of the environmental benefit is lost. There are other factors to consider (the increased comfort of a train ride for example) but the distance between L.A. and Las Vegas, as well as the nature of the travel (folks not necessarily needing a car at the other end) might save a lot of energy (from decreased car and air travel).On The stimulus bill provides serious money for high-speed rail posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 13 Responses

  • Right Example, Wrong Lesson

    I had much the same reaction as Mr. Roberts when I heard the piece on NPR. It wasn't until later that I realized how profoundly wrong Sarewitz was. The biggest problem that farmers have faced in the last 100 years (except for, perhaps, over-production) was the dust bowl. It was terrible for farmers and non-farmers alike. It was caused by over-production and bad farming practices. The government didn't solve the problem by simply letting the farmers know about the new techniques. They solved the problem by paying the farmers to apply new techniques and by employing armies of folks to plant trees. This sort of approach cost the tax payer plenty of money, but it solved one of the worst problems this country has ever faced.

    In many ways, we are facing a very similar problem and may deal with it in similar ways (by paying polluters not to pollute). The big difference is that by the time the problem becomes obvious to the average person (as it was in 1935, when a dust storm hit Washington D.C. while Congress was ready to debate dust bowl legislation) it will be too late.On Dueling NPR stories illustrate surreal disconnect around climate discussion posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses

  • World View

    Society's biggest problems are:

    1. The difference in income between rich and poor countries.
    2. If poor countries catch up to rich ones by emulating them, we will have catastrophic environmental problems, including global warming.
    3. Even if poor countries don't catch up, global warming is a huge problem.

    The author makes a good point but the key here is how the rest of the world changes. The U.S. needs to reduce its production of CO2 (and reduce its consumption of other resources). But it won't matter that much, if other countries increase theirs. If China, or the Indian subcontinent (now bigger than China) double or quadruple their emissions in twenty or thirty years (which is quite possible given their rapid increase in wealth) then we will be in terrible shape.

    If the cost of oil (in other countries) drops because we tax it, then we might not see much benefit. Infrastructure improvements might, on the other hand, be transferable. This is a complex issue, as you could make arguments both ways (if we tax gasoline, companies make more electric cars and bikes, as the cost of making those vehicles goes down, other countries buy more of those). The only way out of the problems listed at the top are (as I see it):

    1. Lower CO2 production in the rich countries.
    2. Find ways to sequester CO2.
    3. Work with poor countries to achieve more wealth without significantly increasing CO2 production.

    All of these need to happen at the same time. While the third may seem the most difficult, it seems quite possible. There are examples of leap-frog development in the third world (cell phones before land lines) so it makes sense that it could happen again.
    On Why taxes can't get us where we need to go on transportation posted 1 year ago 17 Responses

  • Prius Power

    A Prius is not wimpy. It has more than enough horse power and acceleration for most people. I don't own one, but I've in one when it passed trucks and passenger cars going uphill. A Mini (made by BMW) has far less power. Both cars could probably leave my Saturn in the dust. If Toyota really thinks that the Prius image as a slow car is slowing down sales, then they should address that image (instead of making another car). The Prius is a great car. It is simply too expensive for many folks. Otherwise, it would be the new Model T.

    In general, most American cars have way to much horsepower than they need (I don't need all the power that a Prius has). Unless you are towing a boat, you don't need any more horsepower than what a Prius provides (again, passing slow vehicles up hill is no problem). Many of the hybrids focus on performance almost exclusively, rather than gas mileage. The result is a green washing, in my opinion.

    The key here is not whether Toyota will make bigger (and smaller) hybrids, but whether they make them with good gas mileage. As good as the Prius is, it is not an SUV. It is not a mini van. There will always be a select group of people who want a vehicle that can go over rough terrain or carry more people. If Toyota, for example, made the RAV4 a little sleeker (to reduce drag) and added a hybrid, they could probably get 30 or 35 mpg out of that car. That would be a huge accomplishment. On Toyota may develop "Prius on steroids" posted 1 year, 1 month ago 22 Responses

  • The Range is Bigger than Needed

    I agree with the central argument, the range is bigger than needed. The idea that you have to power the entire commute on electricity is a bit silly. If you can power half the trip using electricity, then you have essentially doubled your mileage (not exactly, of course, because electricity isn't free). The big benefit from an electric only trip is on the wear and tear of the gasoline engine. If it is only powered for big trips, it will last a lifetime.

    I agree, to a certain extent, with racc. Focusing on eliminating the gasoline consumed during commuting via very expensive new cars seems a bit of a waste. I wonder if you could get better results if you spent the same on electric bikes and public transportation. The most popular use of public transportation is for commuting and big events (ball games, etc.). Folks are willing to spend the time to figure out the system if it makes their commute more pleasant.

    There are two other types of car usage. One is for "around town" errands and visits (grocery store, day care, soccer practice, etc.). A smaller electric only range (say, five miles) would handle most of those quite well. The other big use of a car is for big trips. That is where the gas engine is essential. On Is a 40-mile all-electric range too much? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 20 Responses

  • Well Said

    You should never reduce spending or increase taxes when are entering a recession. If we have an inflationary period, then it makes sense to reduce spending (to avoid runaway inflation) but we are no where near that. Actually, a little inflation would help the economy right now, as it would make the mortgages more valuable and more affordable. Investing in our infrastructure is a very smart thing to do in a globally competitive economy. Doing so while addressing our biggest long term economic (and security) problem, global warming, makes sense. Doing so now makes a lot of sense.

    Even if the bailout was a huge expenditure (it is not) then improving our economy (at the possible cost of inflation) would makes sense. But because the bailout is an investment, it makes even more sense. If we cut back on spending (or increase taxes) and it causes a bigger slowdown, our investment will be wasted. If the economy rallies, it will end up costing the tax payers nothing.

    Sam: I have to disagree with you there. Municipal utilities are quite common. I pay one of the lowest electric rates in the country because I am served by Seattle City Light. We get most of our power from dams created by the federal government. Seattle City Light competes quite well with surrounding private utilities (they were smart enough not to invest in the WPPSS debacle). I might also add that a major infrastructure investment does not necessarily require major public companies to compete along side private ones (although this happens with health care, pensions, etc.). Boeing (another local company) became the biggest jet maker in the world largely because of military investment. There are plenty of similar investments made (many by the military) that help create enormous industries. We are both using one right now (the internet).On Bailout no reason to delay needed public investment posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses

  • Rail Subsidies Where Appropriate

    There are a number of areas in the United States where high speed rail (or passenger rail in general) makes a lot of sense. There are also a lot of areas where it doesn't. One of the problems with the current system is that we don't adequately support the areas where it makes sense while we waste money on areas where it doesn't. L.A. to Las Vegas makes a lot of sense; Seattle to Chicago does not. Unfortunately, our political system favors a lot of areas that don't have a lot of people (Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have three times the Senators but less than a tenth the combined population of California). Working out some sort of compromise between heavily and sparsely populated areas will be where the hard work needs to be done. Perhaps some program that involves improvements in freight rail (a subsidy if needed) combined with improvements in passenger rail might work. On A candidate finally discusses public transit ... at a random lunch posted 1 year, 7 months ago 30 Responses

  • lb311 is Right

    lb311 (Hope vs. Experience) is absolutely correct. LBJ was able to ram through legislation because he won in a landslide. Moderate Republicans went along with LBJ in part because they knew he was right, but also because they were scared. If Hillary wins the presidency, it will be by a small margin. She will reinvigorate the Republicans (in part because of hatred for her) and these Republicans will delight their supporters by putting up road blocks to her legislation. It happened when her husband was President and will happen if she becomes President. Unlike the other candidates, Obama has reached out to Republicans and gathered the support of them (with the endorsement of people like John Anderson). Obama actually has a history of such accomplishments in the Illinois State Senate (http://tinyurl.com/3y7hkj).On Are Obama and Edwards promising ponies? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 24 Responses

  • Richardson's Chances

    I am curious as to why the writer of this piece believes Richardson has little chance of becoming president. Richardson has more experience than any of the other announced Democratic candidates. He is the only one who has served as governor. Governor's usually when the nomination and they almost always win the presidency. JFK was the last President we've had who wasn't a Vice President, President, or Governor. Before that, you have to go back to Hoover (not counting General Eisenhower). These are hardly good odds for the Senators in the race (most of whom have little experience).

    The last nomination was won in Iowa. If Kerry had come in third (beaten, by say, Gephardt and Dean) he would have lost the nomination. Money had nothing to do with his victory in Iowa, nor did it have anything to do with his victory in any other state. The biggest reason he won in Iowa (and other states) was because people thought he had the best chance of getting elected. I was personally involved in his campaign early on (before his victory in Iowa) and I can tell you that most of his volunteers felt that way, too.

    Richardson has a lot going for him, with very few negatives. He has a lot of great experience and comes from the West. Unlike Dean, he is pretty good looking. It is sad to say, but in this era, such cosmetic things matter (ever since JFK beat the more qualified Nixon). If Dean didn't have that funny smirk, he would have easily won the nomination. However, a lot of people (myself included) concluded that he really didn't have a chance (because of that and some of his gaffes). Bob Graham was the only other Governor and unfortunately, he was even less appealing in front of the camera.

    At some point, the folks in Iowa (and the other states) will pick the person they feel will not only represent their political beliefs, but also win the election. When that happens, Richardson (at this point) becomes the obvious choice.On The boldest plan on the table posted 2 years, 6 months ago 25 Responses