The environment and consumer benefits from Pay-As-You-Drive insurance. A 30% participation rate reduces carbon dioxide by 55 million tons, equivalent to taking 10M cars off the road. Transit revenue increases because drivers exercise choice. All the benefits of reduced driving recur. But the Examiner article goes on to say that participation and reporting are voluntary, making PAYD ripe for gaming, because of opposition from consumer groups.
Why is Richard Holober, Consumer Federation of America's Executive Director, on the wrong side of the environment? Consumer groups have championed narrow rights against corporations, as both of them are locked in a buyer-seller pact, to toast the planet. The last thirty years has been a wash for injury prevention. Dangerous jobs have shifted to illegal "unrepresented" immigrants. The injuries has come at the expense of a resource expended planet and a deterioration in privacy rights across the board; and deprivation of life, liberty, and happiness without recourse for groups, like pedestrians and cyclist, on the wrong side of the consumption paradigm. Senator Leland Yee too bought into this resource depleting pollution centric position. Worse driver behavior that has a clear social harm like reckless driving, which uses more gasoline and kills more people, will not be tracked.
Not tracking irresponsible driving behavior sells more cars and allows for more dangerous roads since cities have to accommodate wider streets because of the speed creep law. This in turns sells bigger more polluting engines which can't go slow enough to be safe. The general ignorance of traffic and priority by tree hugging environmentalists is a problem which allows them to continue their polluting behavior that's strangling the biosphere.
We can’t buy ourselves out of global warming and protect consumers in the process and be successful on AB32. The planet suffers and exporting pollution to hapless consumers elsewhere doesn't cut it. We need to strengthen our environmental laws with a carbon fee on imports, not allow loopholes as big as the Global Accord on Tariffs and Trade. Poisner's plan tries to mitigate the harm of auto externalizes by offering consumers an alternative that they can measure in pocket book savings while seeking to preserve our common resources like the biosphere.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Why has personal virtue got us in such a bind?
It hasn't worked since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring because
1- the government takes all our money and through the lobbyists that underwrite them turns the subsidies into pollution.
2- The majority of people are looking for the cheapest buy. That means the most heavily subsidized pollution will sell. Unless there are regulation like the Clean Air Act to regulate pollution we will not get Priuses that the few personal virtuers can use to make a difference.
3- The underwriters of government will always benefit from our consumption. Just driving increases the need of oil companies to grab land in Santa Barbara and drive the Gwitchen in Alaska to extinction and lobby against the polar bears.
4- The underwriters of government want to sell us crap we don't need and the government in turns calls it progress and "the economy" and our kids go to school and get brainwashed in becoming consumers.
5- The government will promote consumption rather than ask for sacrifices that can will save our kids blood and treasure instead of war for more pollution.
1- the government takes all our money and through the lobbyists that underwrite them turns the subsidies into pollution.
2- The majority of people are looking for the cheapest buy. That means the most heavily subsidized pollution will sell. Unless there are regulation like the Clean Air Act to regulate pollution we will not get Priuses that the few personal virtuers can use to make a difference.
3- The underwriters of government will always benefit from our consumption. Just driving increases the need of oil companies to grab land in Santa Barbara and drive the Gwitchen in Alaska to extinction and lobby against the polar bears.
4- The underwriters of government want to sell us crap we don't need and the government in turns calls it progress and "the economy" and our kids go to school and get brainwashed in becoming consumers.
5- The government will promote consumption rather than ask for sacrifices that can will save our kids blood and treasure instead of war for more pollution.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Change needs get-real-change
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
All things green buildin
The Sierra Club priority is 30% efficiency in buildings though codes.
Quote: A comprehensive, integrated campaign to boost new home model code energy efficiency by 30% Because homes and other buildings consume almost half of America’s energy, they must play a significant role in any successful effort to improve energy efficiency. The 30% Solution before the International Code Commission is an ambitious, yet achievable and affordable proposal to reduce wasted energy from our homes.
San Mateo Green Building Ordinance was passed in February 2008
Quote: Homeowners and developers who use green building techniques like environmentally-friendly materials in the unincorporated area will speed through the approval process faster under a new program approved by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday to encourage the practice.
The new policy, spearheaded by Supervisor Mark Church, awards points for green options used during new construction and remodels. After a minimum of 50 points is achieved, builders will receive incentives like fast-tracked application processing from 10 to 12 weeks down to four weeks when 75 to 100 points is reached. After 100 points, the county guarantees to reduce building inspection from three to four working days to two working days.
California passed SB811 which Belmont should adopt. As a result California law allows cities to give loans for energy-saving improvements with a financial structure similar to a utility tax.
The new California Green Building Code pdf for new construction is available here and read the associated writeup.
Quote: It goes into effect in 180 days, will be voluntary until 2010, when its provisions are expected to become mandatory, commission leaders said. The voluntary period gives builders, local governments and communities time to adapt to the new rules, the commission said.
The code sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including eco-friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation and acoustical wall and ceiling panels.
"By adopting this first-in-the-nation statewide green building code, California is again leading the way to fight climate change and protect the environment," Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement released Thursday. "This is literally a groundbreaking move to ensure that when we break ground on all new buildings in the Golden State we are promoting green building and energy efficient new technologies."
Marin acknowledged the efforts by saying the process brought together groups with "very disparate interests" to develop the building code. The code "sets a floor, not a ceiling," she said, adding that builders, cities and counties are encouraged to exceed the standards.
The standards cover commercial and residential construction in the public and private sectors as well as schools of all levels, hospitals and other public institutions. The green thresholds include a 50 percent increase in landscape water conservation and a 15 percent reduction in energy use compared to current standards. All the measures if acted upon would at least be comparable to the requirements of a "silver rating" under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), commission representatives said.
Article continues
We should be pushing for LEED ND because the commute can blow a green building's carbon budget. This is currently a pilot project endorsed by Smart Growth America and the National Resource Defense Council.
Quote: A comprehensive, integrated campaign to boost new home model code energy efficiency by 30% Because homes and other buildings consume almost half of America’s energy, they must play a significant role in any successful effort to improve energy efficiency. The 30% Solution before the International Code Commission is an ambitious, yet achievable and affordable proposal to reduce wasted energy from our homes.
San Mateo Green Building Ordinance was passed in February 2008
Quote: Homeowners and developers who use green building techniques like environmentally-friendly materials in the unincorporated area will speed through the approval process faster under a new program approved by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday to encourage the practice.
The new policy, spearheaded by Supervisor Mark Church, awards points for green options used during new construction and remodels. After a minimum of 50 points is achieved, builders will receive incentives like fast-tracked application processing from 10 to 12 weeks down to four weeks when 75 to 100 points is reached. After 100 points, the county guarantees to reduce building inspection from three to four working days to two working days.
California passed SB811 which Belmont should adopt. As a result California law allows cities to give loans for energy-saving improvements with a financial structure similar to a utility tax.
The new California Green Building Code pdf for new construction is available here and read the associated writeup.
Quote: It goes into effect in 180 days, will be voluntary until 2010, when its provisions are expected to become mandatory, commission leaders said. The voluntary period gives builders, local governments and communities time to adapt to the new rules, the commission said.
The code sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including eco-friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation and acoustical wall and ceiling panels.
"By adopting this first-in-the-nation statewide green building code, California is again leading the way to fight climate change and protect the environment," Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement released Thursday. "This is literally a groundbreaking move to ensure that when we break ground on all new buildings in the Golden State we are promoting green building and energy efficient new technologies."
Marin acknowledged the efforts by saying the process brought together groups with "very disparate interests" to develop the building code. The code "sets a floor, not a ceiling," she said, adding that builders, cities and counties are encouraged to exceed the standards.
The standards cover commercial and residential construction in the public and private sectors as well as schools of all levels, hospitals and other public institutions. The green thresholds include a 50 percent increase in landscape water conservation and a 15 percent reduction in energy use compared to current standards. All the measures if acted upon would at least be comparable to the requirements of a "silver rating" under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), commission representatives said.
Article continues
We should be pushing for LEED ND because the commute can blow a green building's carbon budget. This is currently a pilot project endorsed by Smart Growth America and the National Resource Defense Council.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
What does 350 world look like?
Bill Fulton asks: So what’s the Carbon-Free Futurama? Can you really create a compelling alternative vision for the future that’s about walking and bicycling and golf cart type vehicles and so forth.
In Global Cooling from the Urban Land Institute the answer is compact development. More below.
But doesn't Bill McKibben's most important number on the planet gives us a hint? Its us in 1960. Kennedy on the campaign trail. The planets population at 3B. And consumption rates staying at the nutty levels of the 1950s after being amortized over the planet's population. Houses were a 900 sq ft with large families and people were just beginning to build 1200-1600 sq ft monster homes for the nuclear family.
But it this isn't as bad as it sounds at least for 1950. The cold war and resource predation was just round the corner. People lived in sustainable villages in the third world that were the preferred destination of Americans. Then came the resource wars between communist and capitalist proxies that drove these lifestyles out of existence and by the 70's connected them up with the new roads that symbolized development. That's not an eden we can go back to now.
But high gas prices are forcing a new relationship to the road and the role of cities. People are resourceful and adaptive. The Venezuelans and Saudis must see the benefit of forcing the established power structures to adapt to really high gas prices, $20-$50/- per gallon, so that people can use their resources to better ends. Compact development where all services are located within an 1/8 of a mile or a 1/4 mile are a type of city that used to exist on the Peninsula and were connected by the UP train now Caltrain. We need to move beyond resource consumption because the economics are taking us to a new level.
How resource intensive are we now? Californians consumed: 15.67 billion gallons of gasoline last year, about 1 percent less than in 2006. Demand during 2006 dropped to 15.83 billion gallons from 15.94 billion in 2005, the first decline in 14 years. Diesel fuel use fell 7.8 percent in April from a year earlier, the agency said. Consumption was down 4.7 percent from March.
The decrease "reflects both the impacts of higher diesel prices and the slowing economy, which is associated with less freight movement on California roads and highways," the agency said. California drivers used 1.257 billion gallons of gasoline in April, down 2.2 percent from a year earlier and the lowest for the month since 2001, California State Board of Equalization said. Consumption was down 52 million gallons, or 4 percent, from March.
Phillip Lagdon writes: Defenders of sprawl — and they have been legion — failed to see what was coming. Sprawl’s defenders insisted that no matter how many flaws might be ascribed to dispersed, low-density development, a large number of Americans like it, so it will just keep on growing. James Howard Kunstler was much more prescient. He repeatedly said and wrote, in his thundering cadence, that it doesn’t matter if people like it. If you can’t afford it any more, the energy-intensive style of life doesn’t have a future.
In Global Cooling from the Urban Land Institute the answer is compact development. More below.
But doesn't Bill McKibben's most important number on the planet gives us a hint? Its us in 1960. Kennedy on the campaign trail. The planets population at 3B. And consumption rates staying at the nutty levels of the 1950s after being amortized over the planet's population. Houses were a 900 sq ft with large families and people were just beginning to build 1200-1600 sq ft monster homes for the nuclear family.
But it this isn't as bad as it sounds at least for 1950. The cold war and resource predation was just round the corner. People lived in sustainable villages in the third world that were the preferred destination of Americans. Then came the resource wars between communist and capitalist proxies that drove these lifestyles out of existence and by the 70's connected them up with the new roads that symbolized development. That's not an eden we can go back to now.
But high gas prices are forcing a new relationship to the road and the role of cities. People are resourceful and adaptive. The Venezuelans and Saudis must see the benefit of forcing the established power structures to adapt to really high gas prices, $20-$50/- per gallon, so that people can use their resources to better ends. Compact development where all services are located within an 1/8 of a mile or a 1/4 mile are a type of city that used to exist on the Peninsula and were connected by the UP train now Caltrain. We need to move beyond resource consumption because the economics are taking us to a new level.
How resource intensive are we now? Californians consumed: 15.67 billion gallons of gasoline last year, about 1 percent less than in 2006. Demand during 2006 dropped to 15.83 billion gallons from 15.94 billion in 2005, the first decline in 14 years. Diesel fuel use fell 7.8 percent in April from a year earlier, the agency said. Consumption was down 4.7 percent from March.
The decrease "reflects both the impacts of higher diesel prices and the slowing economy, which is associated with less freight movement on California roads and highways," the agency said. California drivers used 1.257 billion gallons of gasoline in April, down 2.2 percent from a year earlier and the lowest for the month since 2001, California State Board of Equalization said. Consumption was down 52 million gallons, or 4 percent, from March.
Phillip Lagdon writes: Defenders of sprawl — and they have been legion — failed to see what was coming. Sprawl’s defenders insisted that no matter how many flaws might be ascribed to dispersed, low-density development, a large number of Americans like it, so it will just keep on growing. James Howard Kunstler was much more prescient. He repeatedly said and wrote, in his thundering cadence, that it doesn’t matter if people like it. If you can’t afford it any more, the energy-intensive style of life doesn’t have a future.
Compact development versus high flow users
We know compact development is sustainable versus the resource intensive development we have today that has resulted in peak everything. When we look at high flow users what models can we demonstrate. Garbage and water and good places to start.
There are four houses on my east west running considerably sloped street-block. On the south side are me and an elderly neighbor. Four in our household one in hers. We both put out twenty gallon garbage cans that are mostly empty. Today was only garbage day. Next week on an alternating schedule is recycling day.
Across the street on the north side there are two houses also. The westerly house has six, four small children and the parents, and use the 32 gallon trash can. The easterly house has two residents both retired and use a 20 gallon trash can.
The trash company sends out a huge biodiesel powered garbage truck. The truck has powered arms shaped like a fork which can pick up and empty a 32 gallon can. The two operators know the street and pick up the trash from the upslope or westerly side. They split the job. One guy has a 64 gallon can on wheels which he walks down the hill. He picks up the two 20 gallons and toss them into his 64 then crosses the street and gets the 20 gallon of the retires. His 64 gallon can is still not full so he continues onto the next block.
The other operator runs the truck and picks up the 32 gallon trash can across the streets. After he unloads the can he gets back in the truck and drives off after his partner. I assume they empty the walking can out after five or six houses.
I suppose in our lower rates for 20 gallon or ten gallon cans its possible to see a benefit from the efficiencies that a walking infrastructure offers the garbage company. However we don't live in a compact development for obvious reasons- one in four residents requires a big massive truck. That truck requires a big massive road which requires resurfacing every ten years and a big massive public works department. And as you add up the associated needs in water and sewer and power and food and its eventual demise in the garbage truck and sewer its possible to see that the infrastructure needs for the few large "wealthy" high flow users determine the public cost amortized over everyone. Charging for garbage by weight and sewer by volume and adjusting the costs for the increased infrastructure can reduce consumption.
Requirements for compact developments and great neighborhoods could put surcharges to ensure compliance with a compact infrastructure designed on sustainable costs.
Next week I'll take a video and show it at the city council.
There are four houses on my east west running considerably sloped street-block. On the south side are me and an elderly neighbor. Four in our household one in hers. We both put out twenty gallon garbage cans that are mostly empty. Today was only garbage day. Next week on an alternating schedule is recycling day.
Across the street on the north side there are two houses also. The westerly house has six, four small children and the parents, and use the 32 gallon trash can. The easterly house has two residents both retired and use a 20 gallon trash can.
The trash company sends out a huge biodiesel powered garbage truck. The truck has powered arms shaped like a fork which can pick up and empty a 32 gallon can. The two operators know the street and pick up the trash from the upslope or westerly side. They split the job. One guy has a 64 gallon can on wheels which he walks down the hill. He picks up the two 20 gallons and toss them into his 64 then crosses the street and gets the 20 gallon of the retires. His 64 gallon can is still not full so he continues onto the next block.
The other operator runs the truck and picks up the 32 gallon trash can across the streets. After he unloads the can he gets back in the truck and drives off after his partner. I assume they empty the walking can out after five or six houses.
I suppose in our lower rates for 20 gallon or ten gallon cans its possible to see a benefit from the efficiencies that a walking infrastructure offers the garbage company. However we don't live in a compact development for obvious reasons- one in four residents requires a big massive truck. That truck requires a big massive road which requires resurfacing every ten years and a big massive public works department. And as you add up the associated needs in water and sewer and power and food and its eventual demise in the garbage truck and sewer its possible to see that the infrastructure needs for the few large "wealthy" high flow users determine the public cost amortized over everyone. Charging for garbage by weight and sewer by volume and adjusting the costs for the increased infrastructure can reduce consumption.
Requirements for compact developments and great neighborhoods could put surcharges to ensure compliance with a compact infrastructure designed on sustainable costs.
Next week I'll take a video and show it at the city council.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Eye on the prize
Eduardo Galeano in Upside Down lays out the case for the rapacious consumption of resources by they corporations and politics which brings to the unsustainable state of peak everything with a planet where life itself is imperiled. But politics won't address peak anything even when the benefits are clear.
Higher gas prices have reduced revenue for road widening, reduced VMT, reduced gas consumption, lowered fatalities, raised public transit usage, reduced pollution, etc. For years public officials were trying to raise public transit usage - now the buses and trains are running full and capacity is an issue. The Peninsula Traffic Relief Alliance reported at the Belmont Green Advisory Committee that all their last mile shuttles are running full. When will policy makers stop moaning and start cheering a ladder for $20/gallon along with some minor TDM strategies?
The GAC has asked for a 20 mph city that would enable NEV- Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, they max out at 25 mph, reduce pollution, enable hybrids to run on their electric motor, make the environment safe for walking and bicycling the two sustainable transport modes, and reduce danger to children, seniors, and pets/wild animals. Most streets today are 25 mph or less so that change the speed environment much. The few arterials like Ralston (25-40 but with schools and neighborhoods needing 20 -25), El Camino (35), and Alameda (25) within the city would show marginal changes. However teh difference for walkers and bicyclists would be immense. And the attitude of drivers on side streets like Monserat and Folger which could use 15mph are posted at 25 and get speeds in excess would be the main benefit.
Building local distributed power for water, sewer, and electricity with solar panels would also significantly the infrastructure load of cities. Wind can then be used to fill reservoirs near citeis which can run hydro at night when the wind is not blowing and recharge the NEVs.
Alternate thinking for significant resource consumption declines face daunting tasks as wind demonstrates. Coal and nuclear lures despite clear liability in pollution, waste, and liability and continue to enjoy subsidies which lower the cost of power delivery because the problems are exported to poorer areas (also documented in Upside Down.) The only bright line is that rising prices cause subsidies to exert a bigger force on the market in reduced subsidy or taxed areas.
Ignorant development of water, timber and land have lead to this unsustainable consumption state. Some universities are working to correct this with programs that involve a new approach to day-to-day living, and the reappraisal of the existing infrastructure to achieve genuine change and keep sight of where we need to go.
Higher gas prices have reduced revenue for road widening, reduced VMT, reduced gas consumption, lowered fatalities, raised public transit usage, reduced pollution, etc. For years public officials were trying to raise public transit usage - now the buses and trains are running full and capacity is an issue. The Peninsula Traffic Relief Alliance reported at the Belmont Green Advisory Committee that all their last mile shuttles are running full. When will policy makers stop moaning and start cheering a ladder for $20/gallon along with some minor TDM strategies?
The GAC has asked for a 20 mph city that would enable NEV- Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, they max out at 25 mph, reduce pollution, enable hybrids to run on their electric motor, make the environment safe for walking and bicycling the two sustainable transport modes, and reduce danger to children, seniors, and pets/wild animals. Most streets today are 25 mph or less so that change the speed environment much. The few arterials like Ralston (25-40 but with schools and neighborhoods needing 20 -25), El Camino (35), and Alameda (25) within the city would show marginal changes. However teh difference for walkers and bicyclists would be immense. And the attitude of drivers on side streets like Monserat and Folger which could use 15mph are posted at 25 and get speeds in excess would be the main benefit.
Building local distributed power for water, sewer, and electricity with solar panels would also significantly the infrastructure load of cities. Wind can then be used to fill reservoirs near citeis which can run hydro at night when the wind is not blowing and recharge the NEVs.
Alternate thinking for significant resource consumption declines face daunting tasks as wind demonstrates. Coal and nuclear lures despite clear liability in pollution, waste, and liability and continue to enjoy subsidies which lower the cost of power delivery because the problems are exported to poorer areas (also documented in Upside Down.) The only bright line is that rising prices cause subsidies to exert a bigger force on the market in reduced subsidy or taxed areas.
Ignorant development of water, timber and land have lead to this unsustainable consumption state. Some universities are working to correct this with programs that involve a new approach to day-to-day living, and the reappraisal of the existing infrastructure to achieve genuine change and keep sight of where we need to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
