<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Public works and investment <em>must</em> be part of the solution to global warming]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/ Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:44:26 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/1 2 good op-eds from Bob Herbert...

...urging much greater investment in infrastructure, "Investing in America" and  "Good jobs are were the money is", which ends like this: The country that gave us the Marshall Plan to rebuild postwar Europe ought to be able, 60 years later, to reconstitute its own sagging infrastructure.

There are also untold numbers of jobs and myriad societal benefits to be reaped from a sustained, good-faith effort to achieve energy self-sufficiency. Think Manhattan Project.

The possibilities are limitless. We could create an entire generation of new jobs and build a bigger and fairer economy for the 21st century. If only we were serious.

So, a "green collar" jobs economy should be part of a new "infrastructure-industrial" complex.

]]> 2 good op-eds from Bob Herbert...

...urging much greater investment in infrastructure, "Investing in America" and  "Good jobs are were the money is", which ends like this: The country that gave us the Marshall Plan to rebuild postwar Europe ought to be able, 60 years later, to reconstitute its own sagging infrastructure.

There are also untold numbers of jobs and myriad societal benefits to be reaped from a sustained, good-faith effort to achieve energy self-sufficiency. Think Manhattan Project.

The possibilities are limitless. We could create an entire generation of new jobs and build a bigger and fairer economy for the 21st century. If only we were serious.

So, a "green collar" jobs economy should be part of a new "infrastructure-industrial" complex.

]]> Comment #2 by sindark http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/ Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:29:06 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/2 Infrastructure

When a person plugs their computer or television into the wall, they don't care whether the power it is drawing came from a dam, from a wind turbine, or from a pulverized coal power plant. Changing the infrastructure changes the emissions without the need to change behaviour. Given how dismal people are at actually carrying out behavioural change (a scant few individuals aside), this is a good thing.

The change in infrastructure needs to go way beyond electrical generation. It must take into account the transportation sector and agriculture; it must alter our land and forest management practices. People can then broadly continue to do what they have been: eat meat, drive SUVs, etc, while producing far fewer emissions in the process. We shouldn't underestimate the scale of the changes required. Moving from a high-carbon society to a low-carbon one is a Herculean task - especially if you are trying to do it in a way that does not produce major social disruption or highly intrusive changes in lifestyles.

a sibilant intake of breath

]]> Infrastructure

When a person plugs their computer or television into the wall, they don't care whether the power it is drawing came from a dam, from a wind turbine, or from a pulverized coal power plant. Changing the infrastructure changes the emissions without the need to change behaviour. Given how dismal people are at actually carrying out behavioural change (a scant few individuals aside), this is a good thing.

The change in infrastructure needs to go way beyond electrical generation. It must take into account the transportation sector and agriculture; it must alter our land and forest management practices. People can then broadly continue to do what they have been: eat meat, drive SUVs, etc, while producing far fewer emissions in the process. We shouldn't underestimate the scale of the changes required. Moving from a high-carbon society to a low-carbon one is a Herculean task - especially if you are trying to do it in a way that does not produce major social disruption or highly intrusive changes in lifestyles.

a sibilant intake of breath

]]> Comment #3 by racc http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/ Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:37:34 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/3 Change Happens, People Do Change

So smoking is almost banned everywhere and a woman or black man will likely be the next president. This would have been barely imaginable 40 years ago. People like you said it was impossible.

Dramatic changes in lifestyle will happen anyway. Might as well consume less and live more. Alternative energy sources will just create their own set of problems, maybe worse than what we have today. Just look how the "environmentally sound" alternative to the horse, the automobile worked out.

So cheer up and have hope. Studies have shown that people that are overly optimist have a greater chance of succeeding in tasks.

]]> Change Happens, People Do Change

So smoking is almost banned everywhere and a woman or black man will likely be the next president. This would have been barely imaginable 40 years ago. People like you said it was impossible.

Dramatic changes in lifestyle will happen anyway. Might as well consume less and live more. Alternative energy sources will just create their own set of problems, maybe worse than what we have today. Just look how the "environmentally sound" alternative to the horse, the automobile worked out.

So cheer up and have hope. Studies have shown that people that are overly optimist have a greater chance of succeeding in tasks.

]]> Comment #4 by stopgreenpath http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/ Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:57:26 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/4 but the market helps!

i am delighted to report that State Assemblyman Jared Huffman (CA) is writing legislation to FINALLY insist that utilities BUY 100% of power generated from rooftops by businesses and residences.  Those who are so inclined will be in a position to make a PROFIT from their own energy conservation/production efforts, rather than giving anything over "net" to the utilities for free.

Utilities need it because building their awful plants and lines takes too long, and they've got RPS deadlines.  Even though they get massive corporate welfare, i think they will appreciate not needing to make the capital outlays required (and face the wrath of REAL environmentalists) for their utility-scale projects.

We do, indeed need massive "infrastructure," but it must be DECENTRALIZED (prevents blackouts and terr'ist attacks), LOCAL (why transmit across huge distances?), RENEWABLE (duh) only on PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND (no killing wilderness allowed!).  "A panel on every roof" is the new "a chicken in every pot."

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

]]> but the market helps!

i am delighted to report that State Assemblyman Jared Huffman (CA) is writing legislation to FINALLY insist that utilities BUY 100% of power generated from rooftops by businesses and residences.  Those who are so inclined will be in a position to make a PROFIT from their own energy conservation/production efforts, rather than giving anything over "net" to the utilities for free.

Utilities need it because building their awful plants and lines takes too long, and they've got RPS deadlines.  Even though they get massive corporate welfare, i think they will appreciate not needing to make the capital outlays required (and face the wrath of REAL environmentalists) for their utility-scale projects.

We do, indeed need massive "infrastructure," but it must be DECENTRALIZED (prevents blackouts and terr'ist attacks), LOCAL (why transmit across huge distances?), RENEWABLE (duh) only on PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND (no killing wilderness allowed!).  "A panel on every roof" is the new "a chicken in every pot."

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

]]> Comment #5 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/ Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:13:59 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/5 Privatizing Infrastructure

So far the only Republican proposals I've seen were to privatize even more infrastructure, such as highways with tolls and electric power distribution lines. Many towns and cities are actually looking forward to new subdivisions having their own water and wastewater treatment systems, since it doesn't cost the taxpayers at large. This is a tremendous shift in outsourcing that perhaps you have overlooked.

As out city and town facilities crumble, it will only get worse because in a recession like this, it is hard to raise bond money ... we even have entire towns threatened with insolvency because they invested "rainy day" funds in sub-prime accounts.  

Then take a look at fairly good infrastructure, like New York and its subway system:  if it rains more than an inch, the entire lower levels become flooded and unusable. No telling if climate change will bring more or less rain to NYC but they're in deep trouble just as it is.

I'm not going to diss the private sector but they serve corporate investors and not the public at large. If they default they dissolve the company, pull out, abandon the all local projects, and mysteriously appear to some other state or country.

The municipal bond market acts just like the stock and private sector except that traditionally such bonds were deemed to be very safe, a wise investment over the long haul. This is no longer true in all cases. Think about that ... shouldn't we be able to float bonds in a safe manner for investments in public infrastructure, perhaps including clean energy initiatives?  /sammie

Onward through the fog

]]> Privatizing Infrastructure

So far the only Republican proposals I've seen were to privatize even more infrastructure, such as highways with tolls and electric power distribution lines. Many towns and cities are actually looking forward to new subdivisions having their own water and wastewater treatment systems, since it doesn't cost the taxpayers at large. This is a tremendous shift in outsourcing that perhaps you have overlooked.

As out city and town facilities crumble, it will only get worse because in a recession like this, it is hard to raise bond money ... we even have entire towns threatened with insolvency because they invested "rainy day" funds in sub-prime accounts.  

Then take a look at fairly good infrastructure, like New York and its subway system:  if it rains more than an inch, the entire lower levels become flooded and unusable. No telling if climate change will bring more or less rain to NYC but they're in deep trouble just as it is.

I'm not going to diss the private sector but they serve corporate investors and not the public at large. If they default they dissolve the company, pull out, abandon the all local projects, and mysteriously appear to some other state or country.

The municipal bond market acts just like the stock and private sector except that traditionally such bonds were deemed to be very safe, a wise investment over the long haul. This is no longer true in all cases. Think about that ... shouldn't we be able to float bonds in a safe manner for investments in public infrastructure, perhaps including clean energy initiatives?  /sammie

Onward through the fog

]]> Comment #6 by mateosf http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/ Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:07:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/an-infrastructure-problem/6 Muni bonds for Community Choice Aggregation

Glad to see the conversation moving toward the reality of our dillemma - that sustainability and climate change are not about consumer choice and thge "green" trend, but rather are both about fundamental democratic priorities: do we build more highways for cars, or mass transit? Do we continue to allow our utilities to spend our money - yours and mine - on coal, gas and nuclear power plant boondoggles, or do we re-direct OUR money to clean energy, demand response and holistic systems?

California's embarked on what could be the solution: Community Choice Aggregation. By leveraging public finance/municipal bonds to pay for clean energy projects - projects built by the private sector, and operated for a profit - CCA reduces the cost of capital and makes the sustainabilty issue what it really is: an infrastructure project. Communities, counties and cities throughout California are looking at CCA's with renewable portfolios upwards of 50%, financed with tax-free municipal bonds. Can you say 2-cent a kWh wind power? Peaking solar at 10 cents a kWH? I thought so.

Great post, hope to see more like it in the future.

]]> Muni bonds for Community Choice Aggregation

Glad to see the conversation moving toward the reality of our dillemma - that sustainability and climate change are not about consumer choice and thge "green" trend, but rather are both about fundamental democratic priorities: do we build more highways for cars, or mass transit? Do we continue to allow our utilities to spend our money - yours and mine - on coal, gas and nuclear power plant boondoggles, or do we re-direct OUR money to clean energy, demand response and holistic systems?

California's embarked on what could be the solution: Community Choice Aggregation. By leveraging public finance/municipal bonds to pay for clean energy projects - projects built by the private sector, and operated for a profit - CCA reduces the cost of capital and makes the sustainabilty issue what it really is: an infrastructure project. Communities, counties and cities throughout California are looking at CCA's with renewable portfolios upwards of 50%, financed with tax-free municipal bonds. Can you say 2-cent a kWh wind power? Peaking solar at 10 cents a kWH? I thought so.

Great post, hope to see more like it in the future.

]]>