Lots of talk about change these days. Here is a five point program for letting people keep more of their money, breathe clean air, get good local jobs, and have time for their families and community.
1- Congress can pass HR 676 - One plan; one nation. Its the least we can get for our taxes- not wars in Iraq and protective policy give aways for overseas jobs. Welfare for the public is in the constitution. War for oil and corporations is not. Without the security of health care people are wage slaves tied to jobs they don't like taking time away from their families and community. We can join Healthcare-NOW
2- Carbon tax on poisons replaces all or part of the income tax- Gore proposed replacing FICA as a means of reliving companies and the tax on work. But FICA pays for our social security, our retirement, and should be the consequence of our labor. The income tax on the other hand seems to go to many things like wars and poisons that are and is and should be unpopular. We can walk and ride a bike until that happens.
3- Cap and dividend- Congress and the governor want to cap carbon as well we should and at 350 ppm of CO2. But they want to leave the pollution out there for us to filter through our lungs without compensation and make fatter cats of Goldman Sachs. Instead return the money to Americans in a flat payment. Hansen and conservatives have also embraced this idea. More than a revenue neutral tax on poisons, cap and dividend allows us to right the wrong to the planet from vaporizing fossil fuels into the breath-o-sphere and what should be the life giving waters. We should know 350, the most important number on the planet, and pursue a low carbon lifestyle- grow a garden, reuse, stay away from toxins and plastic, take the bus, beware of the consequences of packaging.
4- Carbon fee on imports- take away the incentives to move jobs to polluting distant lands and disenfranchised peoples. Change will come if we dump Economics 101 on its head. We shouldn't have dead cats for Chinese pet food or medicines and ecolie on Mexican peppers to know we have a problem and they are suffering more than we are. There is a reason why McCain praises the nasty excess of the Ahmed Chalabi, Pervez Musharaf and Mikheil Saakashvili-s. We know the dangers that can cause and the world it leads us into and need to heed the call to stop now. We can buy and eat local. Use sustainable lumber and water.
5- Enable existing technologies now with carbon credits for cities. Instead of pursuing the siren call of new highly polluting technologies and poisons like hydrogen cars and lithium batteries lets make our cities smaller, slower, and walkable. For moving goods and services lets use golf carts and electric trucks and freight to rail. Most important lets give local government the incentive to make it happen. We can go to city hall and ask for 15 and 20 mph streets.
Showing posts with label james hansen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label james hansen. Show all posts
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
325? What global new deal?
McKibben says 350 Hansen says 325. Where do we stand?
We stand on the edge driven by the winds of climate change, resource depletion/peak everything, and the particular- at present beneficial- forces of one peaking resource- oil. Climate Change really doesn’t capture the problem- acidification of the oceans destroying marine life, rising sea levels, the instability of climate systems that disrupt the food supply and our ability to feed our cars while starving our people and soil.
Tom Athanasiou said a crash program was necessary and that today's defining silence about this overarching challenge is inconsistent with any true crash program.
He followed up by pointing to the groundswell from people like McKibben and Gore and saying that: The situation is in rapid flux. Peering forward into the fog, the question is how to prepare for the political and institutional transition that's so clearly necessary, and to do so while at the same time winning the ground war. So please, the fight in Bali -- a fight to lay down a negotiating timeline that will lead to a meaningful successor agreement to Kyoto -- is not a "surreal waste of time," as I heard it called just this morning. Keep your eye, instead, on the ball -- the successor agreement.
Politically the stalemate remains one of virtue versus action. Non profits and individual home owners are motivated to purchasing panels or bike, driven by sense of responsibility for the environment. Government, business, and the more general public however are used to consuming cheap dirty power, free of pollution cost, and will have questions related the costs of producing from PV or the time lost on a bike commute or with bike infrastructure gumming up the driving systems. Belmont may wish for a 20 mph town but getting there with irate drivers toasting the planet is a depressing goal. Or is it? We may not have been having this conversation two years ago. Until a price is established for pollution local governments have the option of solving exiting needs around pollution and safety in their communities.
At the state level there is considerable prodding. CARB announced a carbon credit trading system in June and CA proposed joining a large market with other western states and British Columbia, which is weak on transportation and home energy use. This is an area where most of the new business' are being established such as Terra Pass in Menlo Park. Twenty years ago these guys would have been non profits. PG&E has its own system which has been criticized for having very little oversight. The USP in this area will be on transparency. Kyoto and Europe are in the process of revamping their market and I can't see India and China being left out again. At a minimum a price on carbon in imports would change things overnight there. In a related area note how California adapted to the court order on diesel engines with Low Sulphur Fuel For Ships. The Sierra Club teams up with Cool It to offer offsets that go into wind power installations.
Last year the Governor vetoed an attempt by PG&E to take over the carbon credits from home PV installations. He said they were essential to growing the market. In response Carbon Retirement was formed to try and preserve the atmosphere by retiring the credits in effect creating a higher price for carbon.
The way to offset transportation costs is to enable a walkable city with low speeds and then selectively allow electric cars filled up by solar PV. The market for cars that can go 300 miles on a fillup at 100 mph is not there and may never get there in our lifetime. Tesla is pushing the technology but not the cost and there are pollution issues with their batteries. What does exist are what are called NEVs- Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (fancy name for a golf cart) that go 30 miles on a fillup at a max speed of 25 mph. Cities should be talking about setting a speed cap in the urban area of 20 mph (faster speed would only be permitted on large connecting arterials,) and there is not much change here from existing policy except for the big changes needed in parking policies similar to the '70s to advantage smaller vehicles, and developing denser more walkable transit oriented neighborhoods. The Urban Land Institute, has weighed in with an influential document called Growing Cooler which articulates policy changes to make the proposals a reality.
As Tom said the situation is fluid, and for now, either goal post works.
We stand on the edge driven by the winds of climate change, resource depletion/peak everything, and the particular- at present beneficial- forces of one peaking resource- oil. Climate Change really doesn’t capture the problem- acidification of the oceans destroying marine life, rising sea levels, the instability of climate systems that disrupt the food supply and our ability to feed our cars while starving our people and soil.
Tom Athanasiou said a crash program was necessary and that today's defining silence about this overarching challenge is inconsistent with any true crash program.
He followed up by pointing to the groundswell from people like McKibben and Gore and saying that: The situation is in rapid flux. Peering forward into the fog, the question is how to prepare for the political and institutional transition that's so clearly necessary, and to do so while at the same time winning the ground war. So please, the fight in Bali -- a fight to lay down a negotiating timeline that will lead to a meaningful successor agreement to Kyoto -- is not a "surreal waste of time," as I heard it called just this morning. Keep your eye, instead, on the ball -- the successor agreement.
Politically the stalemate remains one of virtue versus action. Non profits and individual home owners are motivated to purchasing panels or bike, driven by sense of responsibility for the environment. Government, business, and the more general public however are used to consuming cheap dirty power, free of pollution cost, and will have questions related the costs of producing from PV or the time lost on a bike commute or with bike infrastructure gumming up the driving systems. Belmont may wish for a 20 mph town but getting there with irate drivers toasting the planet is a depressing goal. Or is it? We may not have been having this conversation two years ago. Until a price is established for pollution local governments have the option of solving exiting needs around pollution and safety in their communities.
At the state level there is considerable prodding. CARB announced a carbon credit trading system in June and CA proposed joining a large market with other western states and British Columbia, which is weak on transportation and home energy use. This is an area where most of the new business' are being established such as Terra Pass in Menlo Park. Twenty years ago these guys would have been non profits. PG&E has its own system which has been criticized for having very little oversight. The USP in this area will be on transparency. Kyoto and Europe are in the process of revamping their market and I can't see India and China being left out again. At a minimum a price on carbon in imports would change things overnight there. In a related area note how California adapted to the court order on diesel engines with Low Sulphur Fuel For Ships. The Sierra Club teams up with Cool It to offer offsets that go into wind power installations.
Last year the Governor vetoed an attempt by PG&E to take over the carbon credits from home PV installations. He said they were essential to growing the market. In response Carbon Retirement was formed to try and preserve the atmosphere by retiring the credits in effect creating a higher price for carbon.
The way to offset transportation costs is to enable a walkable city with low speeds and then selectively allow electric cars filled up by solar PV. The market for cars that can go 300 miles on a fillup at 100 mph is not there and may never get there in our lifetime. Tesla is pushing the technology but not the cost and there are pollution issues with their batteries. What does exist are what are called NEVs- Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (fancy name for a golf cart) that go 30 miles on a fillup at a max speed of 25 mph. Cities should be talking about setting a speed cap in the urban area of 20 mph (faster speed would only be permitted on large connecting arterials,) and there is not much change here from existing policy except for the big changes needed in parking policies similar to the '70s to advantage smaller vehicles, and developing denser more walkable transit oriented neighborhoods. The Urban Land Institute, has weighed in with an influential document called Growing Cooler which articulates policy changes to make the proposals a reality.
As Tom said the situation is fluid, and for now, either goal post works.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
An opportunity to reinvent community
We need to say NOW where our infrastructure dollars will go. The problem is that business as usual will continue to drag us off to Iran and Kazakhstan from Iraq to control the next scarce resource. Like Al Capone we will go in search of other peoples property to satiate our out of control appetite.
On the one hand, the painful lesson of resource shortages, salmon, or gasoline, take your pick, should be obvious today. Shouldn’t these lessons apply to other areas of shortages like water and fire, an unlikely yin yang twin hovering like death angels over Belmont today, sewer and roads maintenance, parks and open space, trails, etc.?
On the other hand, we know that Cheney and Bush are morally crippled by their petrol interests and transferring $2T to their pocketbooks in oil profits is completely normal. But we are unable to intervene and change the infrastructure that allows these tax subsidies to flow uphill. And while McKibben and Hansen tear off their cloth and cry on the mountain the California Climate Action contingency plan has quietly proceeded and will be found lacking because of the lack of citizen participation.
There is considerable reluctance to see a new future, like the new mobility paradigm, beyond the entrenched interests of business as usual.
The good news is that in three year we could convert parking to housing, put pocket parks in intersections and convert streets for playgrounds and housing; removing the infrastructure that accounts for more than 50% of Green House Gases in Belmont today, in the form of free curb side parking and easy pedestrian killing access across El Camino, Caltrans, and over Hallmark at 50mph. Walkable transit friendly cities will benefit all other sustainable indicators by helping people reduce their cost of housing, healthcare transportation and DALY- disease adjusted life years. While the paragons of business as usual, like McCain/Clinton/Obama are worrying how to keep auto companies in business who brought us the Cheney pocketbook war in Iraq, and the New War Times is worrying about how to keep housing unaffordable, we continue to face an opportunity to reinvent our community.
On the one hand, the painful lesson of resource shortages, salmon, or gasoline, take your pick, should be obvious today. Shouldn’t these lessons apply to other areas of shortages like water and fire, an unlikely yin yang twin hovering like death angels over Belmont today, sewer and roads maintenance, parks and open space, trails, etc.?
On the other hand, we know that Cheney and Bush are morally crippled by their petrol interests and transferring $2T to their pocketbooks in oil profits is completely normal. But we are unable to intervene and change the infrastructure that allows these tax subsidies to flow uphill. And while McKibben and Hansen tear off their cloth and cry on the mountain the California Climate Action contingency plan has quietly proceeded and will be found lacking because of the lack of citizen participation.
There is considerable reluctance to see a new future, like the new mobility paradigm, beyond the entrenched interests of business as usual.
The good news is that in three year we could convert parking to housing, put pocket parks in intersections and convert streets for playgrounds and housing; removing the infrastructure that accounts for more than 50% of Green House Gases in Belmont today, in the form of free curb side parking and easy pedestrian killing access across El Camino, Caltrans, and over Hallmark at 50mph. Walkable transit friendly cities will benefit all other sustainable indicators by helping people reduce their cost of housing, healthcare transportation and DALY- disease adjusted life years. While the paragons of business as usual, like McCain/Clinton/Obama are worrying how to keep auto companies in business who brought us the Cheney pocketbook war in Iraq, and the New War Times is worrying about how to keep housing unaffordable, we continue to face an opportunity to reinvent our community.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
We are going backward
Global Warming is a consequence of lifestyle choices; of resources used because they are there and no negative consequences to us thinking we need to use them. We are evaporating eons of fossil fuels into the air we breathe and changing the earth's albedo.
Government provides rules for the allocation of resources, like how much air can be polluted. As a consequence of resource use governments manage growth and crisis- not very well. Business is exploitation of resources for growth and the deferral of risk in crisis.
James Hansen said Business As Usual was what will prevent solving the crisis of Global Warming; not a absence of available solutions.
Take Belmont's desire for a flat sewer rate or three cars per unit downtown.
According to City Manager Crist low intensity water users are not paying for the cost of infrastructure. High intensity users require larger infrastructure. LIU use it but don't pay for it is the argument. The Public Hearing will then be held on May 13, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. at One TwinPines Lane , Belmont , CA 94002
But that infrastructure is built up for the high intensity water users. And the city's unrequited commitment to sprawl has resulted in miles of non permeable roads, which have steadily increased over the last 30 years, causing runoff into the sewer, exacerbated by the higher rainfalls of global warming, now overtaxing the sewer system from 50 years ago. The total cost is estimated at $40M.
Someone said its unfair that she has to pay more to water her yard which benefits all of Belmont because it meets residential design standards for landscaping. Native plants, recycled water, and low water landscapes may be on the GAC charter but they are not presently policy. Why should a high flow user bear the costs she asked?
Because at the same time, in the Green Newsletter that Belmont sent out, we are asked to conserve water for our supplier Mid Peninsula Water Company. Given that we live in a 25" per year, semi arid low temperature climate, conservation makes sense. What is the harm with conservation anyway? That there will be more for our children? We could be even greener if local water capture, community gardens and home gardens got similar incentives like the solar waive fees and streamline guidelines to encourage installations.
In the past local government felt that growth was in the community interest and needed to be subsidized. Sewer, garbage, water, postal, electricity and gas rates and utility charges were averaged over the community to pay for consumption of open space. Downtowns were taxed to pay for sprawl; and deteriorated as people saw more value in exploiting open space than losing services downtown. Local government with the various departments at city hall make it possible to consume our way through the planet.
That infrastructure for Global Warming consumption patterns remains in place in all the jobs at city hall. Today the same low growth, now pro open space arguments, are saying that in the community interest, increased consumption (of water in this case) needs to be subsidized. Averaging the sewer rates means government still ends up subsidizing consumption rather than efficiency; while at the same time feeling a need to remind us to conserve for Mid Penn!
Government provides rules for the allocation of resources, like how much air can be polluted. As a consequence of resource use governments manage growth and crisis- not very well. Business is exploitation of resources for growth and the deferral of risk in crisis.
James Hansen said Business As Usual was what will prevent solving the crisis of Global Warming; not a absence of available solutions.
Take Belmont's desire for a flat sewer rate or three cars per unit downtown.
According to City Manager Crist low intensity water users are not paying for the cost of infrastructure. High intensity users require larger infrastructure. LIU use it but don't pay for it is the argument. The Public Hearing will then be held on May 13, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. at One Twin
But that infrastructure is built up for the high intensity water users. And the city's unrequited commitment to sprawl has resulted in miles of non permeable roads, which have steadily increased over the last 30 years, causing runoff into the sewer, exacerbated by the higher rainfalls of global warming, now overtaxing the sewer system from 50 years ago. The total cost is estimated at $40M.
Someone said its unfair that she has to pay more to water her yard which benefits all of Belmont because it meets residential design standards for landscaping. Native plants, recycled water, and low water landscapes may be on the GAC charter but they are not presently policy. Why should a high flow user bear the costs she asked?
Because at the same time, in the Green Newsletter that Belmont sent out, we are asked to conserve water for our supplier Mid Peninsula Water Company. Given that we live in a 25" per year, semi arid low temperature climate, conservation makes sense. What is the harm with conservation anyway? That there will be more for our children? We could be even greener if local water capture, community gardens and home gardens got similar incentives like the solar waive fees and streamline guidelines to encourage installations.
In the past local government felt that growth was in the community interest and needed to be subsidized. Sewer, garbage, water, postal, electricity and gas rates and utility charges were averaged over the community to pay for consumption of open space. Downtowns were taxed to pay for sprawl; and deteriorated as people saw more value in exploiting open space than losing services downtown. Local government with the various departments at city hall make it possible to consume our way through the planet.
That infrastructure for Global Warming consumption patterns remains in place in all the jobs at city hall. Today the same low growth, now pro open space arguments, are saying that in the community interest, increased consumption (of water in this case) needs to be subsidized. Averaging the sewer rates means government still ends up subsidizing consumption rather than efficiency; while at the same time feeling a need to remind us to conserve for Mid Penn!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
