Infinite Muppets

Camangi WebStation 7-inch Android MID

2012-01-01T13:51:00.000-08:00

Can hardly wait for Apple to make its Apple Tablet official? A company called Camangi has already gone ahead and announced a 7-inch touchscreen tablet computer namely the WebStation. Powered by Android 1.5, the tablet features Wi-Fi, GPS, a microSD reader, Gmail, and web browsing. Its battery provides up to 5-hours of operation time in a single charge. The Camangi WebStation will be released in early December 2009 for $399 each.

The Planet Can't Wait (w/toast)

2008-01-25T06:50:00.000-08:00

As we enjoy the guilty pleasure of another New England midwinter heatwave this weekend, and Phoenix just today ends its record-shattering cactus-wilting drought count chronicled here in The New York Times, it's good timing for David Ignatius' column in The Washington Post . He covers everything from the tiniest frog to planetary systems in chaos, all while pointing the fickle finger of political fate at the Bush Administration for inaction and obstructionism. Might as well scream it from the top of the icebergs now before you find youself at sea level:

The warnings are coming from frogs and beetles, from melting ice and changing ocean currents, and from scientists and responsible politicians around the world. And yet what is the U.S. government doing about global warming? Nothing. That should shock the conscience of Americans.

Shocked, I am.

And he continues:

Actually, the Bush administration's policy is worse than doing nothing. It has resisted efforts by other nations to discuss new actions that could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide before the global climate reaches a disastrous tipping point. And it muzzles administration scientists to keep them from warning about the seriousness of the issue. The administration's position is that more research is needed - and then, as evidence grows that humans are adding to global warming, it calls for still more research.

Every week brings new evidence that global climate change is real and that it's advancing more rapidly than scientists had expected. This past week brought a report in Science that the Antarctic is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year. Last month researchers reported that glaciers in Greenland are melting twice as fast as previously estimated. One normally cautious scientist, Richard Alley, told The Post's Juliet Eilperin he was concerned about the Antarctic findings, since just five years ago scientists had been expecting more ice. "That's a wake-up call," he said. "We better figure out what's going on."

Now if you're a curious sort, you might click on that picture to enlarge it. It's not one frog, but a pair of Harlequin frogs in amplexus. I just love scouring the net and the animal kingdom to find these things for you! Read on:

Animals don't have the luxury of ordering up more studies of global warming. Andrew Revkin of the New York Times reported in January that colorful harlequin frogs found in Latin America are dying at alarming rates because of a fungus that seems to be linked to global warming. Doug Struck explained last week in The Post that climate change is helping the ravenous mountain pine beetle devour forests in British Columbia, killing more trees than wildfires or logging. Similar findings are stacked in a depressing pile in my study that keeps getting taller.

And now we come to the Bush administration - the folks who once warned that it would be folly to wait so long for evidence that the "smoking gun" might be a mushroom cloud. Their spirit of vigilance was applied to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist - but not to climate change, which does. In a meeting in Montreal last December, the chief American delegate, Harlan L. Watson, got so peeved about a proposal for new global "mechanisms" to carry out the 1992 Kyoto Protocol that he walked out. The American side relented after the wording was softened to "opportunities," and there's now at least a hope for future talks about talks about global warming.

Unforgivable is a great sentiment:

As evidence grows that human activity is accelerating dangerous changes in the world's climate, the Bush administration's excuses for inaction are running out. History will not forgive political leaders who failed to act on this issue, and neither should voters.

Certainly something to be taken seriously especially as we watch this horror show of a drought unfolding in Kenya leaving more than a billion people without clean drinking water and livestock. That's billion, with a "b". Pretty sobering, and heart-wrenching if you saw CNN's report featuring a dying camel. Sobering, I suppose, unless you're busy celebrating the high alcohol content in wine as a result of global warming, discussed in the Phili Inquirer. The entirely agriculturally dependent wine industry is smart to consider how to adapt, but I can't help finding it disappointing to see what about global warming 'speaks' to people. That shouldn't stop us from raising a glass of globally-warmed, world-class, Pennsylvania cabernet sauvignon or Canadian pinot for a toast. Cheers!! clink. clink.

Clients Prevail v. Their Unscrupulous Lawyers

2008-01-02T06:54:00.000-08:00

A jury in Maine this week found that Schlichtmann's former friend and colleague, Thomas Sobol of Danvers, abandoned his clients in order to pursue a more lucrative case against the Poland Spring bottled water company.

At issue was a scuttled settlement against Nestle Waters of North America, owner of Poland Spring. Two members of the client's legal team, Tom Sobol and Garve Ivey, violated their representation agreements and published all of the confidential case materials on a website, and then replaced their clients in a rush to sue Poland Spring. Their actions were dispicable, wasteful and harmful to their clients and Poland Spring. Stories are popping up from Seattle to Maine and I've included some excerpts from the Portland Press Herald, which broke the story, below.

Lawyers who were accused of dumping one set of clients to get involved in a more lucrative case were ordered to pay $10.8 million Wednesday by a jury in U.S. District Court in Portland.

The unanimous 12-member jury found that lawyers from Seattle-based Hagens Berman violated their duty of loyalty to three small water bottlers that were on the verge of settling a claim with Nestle Waters North America, the owner of Poland Spring Water Co., in June 2003.

A little history:

Led by Jan Schlichtmann, a personal injury lawyer who was portrayed by John Travolta in the 1999 film "A Civil Action," the legal team, the bottlers and an environmental activist representing the consumers met with Nestle during a series of mediation sessions in the spring of 2003.

In negotiations, Schlichtmann reached a proposed deal to settle all potential cases; the agreement would have been worth $39 million. But Hagens Berman's lawyer Thomas Sobol complained that the consumer portion of the deal was weak and, along with another member of the legal team, filed class-action lawsuits on behalf of consumers in five states.

A few good comments:

Even though he was no longer part of the case, Schlichtmann said he feels vindicated by the verdict.

"They trashed me and they trashed the clients, but the jury saw it right," he said by phone from Boston. "It was all a bunch of lies. They had no right to sabotage us."

[John F. Kennedy, Jr.] Kennedy, whose company will use much of the proceeds from the case to benefit public water users, said Sobol was not out to protect consumers.

"This was not a case of the attorneys taking care of consumers," Kennedy said in a telephone interview from New York. "This was a case of the attorneys grabbing everything they could for themselves."

Kennedy and Schlichtmann said they were willing to settle with Nestle before filing a lawsuit because they knew there were legal weaknesses in their case that would have made them unlikely to win in court.

The proposed agreement called for $2.5 million for consumers, $2.5 million in charitable contributions and a promise to monitor water quality at Poland Spring sources. It also called for Nestle to buy spring water for the next 10 years from Carrabassett and Glenwood Farms that would be sold as Poland Spring.

Lori Ehrlich, who would have been the consumer representative, testified that she supported the settlement but Sobol filed consumer lawsuits anyway with new clients.

This development below should give you some indication of the seriously egregious behavior of these lawyers:

The case raised questions about whether a lawyer can owe a duty to a class of people before a lawsuit is filed on its behalf. The large verdict will get national attention and will likely change the way lawyers operate in these cases, said Chuck Harvey, a Portland lawyer and former chairman of the Board of Bar Overseer's Grievance Commission, which hears public complaints about lawyers.

Harvey said the fact that the case will go back to a jury for punitive damages is "very rare," because most legal malpractice cases involve claims of simple negligence and ordinary damages.

"This will send the message to the plaintiff's bar that they have to be very careful," he said.

It's a good cautionary tale for lawyers who put their own interests in front of the interests of their clients.

Green twist to the Nobel Prizes?

2007-10-06T07:26:00.000-07:00

This year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to German scientist Gerhard Ertl for his work on surface chemistry. The BBC and Globe and Mail both highlighted the environmental applications of his work: catalytic converters, hydrogen fuel cells, and the understanding of why the ozone layer is diminishing.

There was already an environmental link for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, with both climate change campaigners Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier being nominated (separately, I assume). The relevance of the environment to peace and security is obvious, so I see there being a good case for both of them.

Do I think Al Gore should get the peace prize? I have not seen An Inconvenient Truth, so I can't comment on the movie itself. But he certainly has had a large role in bringing global warming (and global warming science) to the forefront of our minds and political discourse - 2007 has definitely been the year for climate change.

The movie has its fans and opponents: the RealClimate crew say he got the science right, others say he didn't. This week, a judge in England ruled that the movie could be shown in schools, although it must be prefaced by guidance highlighting some factual errors, and the alternative arguments. The factual errors identified, however, are largely related to the current and future impacts of climate change - not the assertion that humans are largely responsible to recent warming.

Given Al Gore's links to the US Democratic Party, I am concerned that his winning the Nobel Prize for Peace would only serve to further politicize the climate change debate - in the US particularly. He often presents a stark and alarmist view of the future under global warming, his popularity is driven by his obvious charisma and personality, and finally, he isn't a scientist. Climate change is a topic worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize (and one in Chemistry or Physics), but right now my vote would be on Watt-Cloutier. We find out tomorrow!

A not-so-small problem

2007-05-05T07:18:00.000-07:00

In a side event about deforestatrion this morning, researchers from the Woods Hole Research Institute talked about the science of emissions from tropical deforestation. I was disappointed that they did not go into specifics of monitoring procedures and how they got their numbers, but the message was clear: deforestation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (mostly carbon dioxide, but also methane and black soot) and that it needs to be addressed in the Kyoto Protocol. The scientists highlighted Brazil’s proposal to include prevention of deforestation in the market for CERs (Certified Emissions Reduction credits). How to measure how much carbon is actually not realeased through preventing deforestation? That’s the problem.

The panelists stressed the positive feedbacks that deforestation causes in emissions: Deforestation releases CO2, which causes climate change, which causes moist tropical forests to dry out and burn more easily, which causes deforestation. According to the presentation, 70% of Brazil’s total emissions are a result of deforestation. Emissions could double in dry years, said Dan Nepstad, senior scientist at Woods Hole. “We’ve got to harness globalization,”he said, pointing out that as space runs out for agricultural expansion to meet a growing food demand (especially soy and meat, he said), South American, followed by Africa. will be the next continents to be used for agricultural production. Globalization, and the global market, have major effects on land use- for example, because the EU has banned GMO soy, they get their soy from Brazil rather than the US. Incresed demand for agricultural products means clearing more land. Nepstad highlighted the positive progress the Brazilian government has made in increasing protected forest areas, improving enforcement of environmental law, and working with communities to sustainably manage forests (he gave the example of a program in which small communities make furniture from sustainably harvested wood and then sell it to Europe). Nepstad also credited this to the growth of Brazil’s economy.

However, in this presentation, many questions were left unanswered (perhaps it is impossible to answer them). For example. the furniture that gets shipped to Europe still seems to feed the capitalist system which seems to have society stuck in a place that, it is generally agreed upon, is not really great for our well-being and survival (not the least of which because it contributes to the kind of climate change that might make us go extinct). Also, I am not sure what it means to “harness globalization;” it seems to imply a market-based approach to things. And what about some more science of deforestation- monitoring, feedbacks, causes? I guess it all comes back to the fact that the study of climate is a relatively new thing, and will be ongoing.

On two interesting asides, John P. Holdren, director of Woods Hole and one of the presenters, pulled up the statistic that in 2004, the emissions in the US from coal-electric power were more than the emissions from motor vehicles (an important point to consider when Bush touts coal as a renewable energy, falsely labelling it “green”simply because it is abundant). Secondly, the US released a compilation of articles refuting the gloabl warming theory, in which was included an article by Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus and a much-disliked Dane among environmentalists. The article may have been over-the-top (but, as I’ve learned, everything is spin and a matter of interpretation), but it made an interesting point to consider: perhaps one of the reasons we see environmental factors, such as extreme weather events, as causing more destruction than ever is because we have so much more to destroy- more people, more goods.

An Inconvenient Analogy

2007-04-05T02:51:00.000-07:00

On April 26-27, the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace organized a seminar on global warming, to better undertsnad the different points of view involved in the debate over climate policies. For nearly the first time in my life, I could attend a truly balanced discussion, where all positions were given a voice. I am not surprised, thus, that many proponents of the Kyoto Protocol expressed disappointment for such a decision - in fact, many of them got simply crazy because they didn't expect they would face a real debate.

Among the speeches I found particularly challenging the one by the Rt Rev James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, who set forth a compelling case to adopt binding targets of emissions reductions. However good it was, I think he missed a few basic points. The failure to take into account all of the factors is evident from the parable by which he concluded the speech. The parable was the following:

Imagine that somebody invites you for an-all-expenses paid cruise of a lifetime. You come to the Pier Head in Liverpool and your host says to you "Just a couple of conditions; this is all on me but you are never to ask where we are going or when we are going to get there". "Sounds fine by me" you say. You board this ship and it's luxurious; you are shown to your suite on A deck and you cannot believe it.

Within a few hours you are sailing the sun and you think "If there's a heaven, it must be like this!". After six weeks of sailing around on the ship you think to yourself "I wonder where we're going" but, after all, you've made a promise and being a British - stiff upper lip! - you keep the question to yourself and you carry on enjoying yourself. After six months you cannoy hold the question any longer.

You grab your host one day and say "Listen, I don't want to appear ungrateful but please, could you just tell me where are we going and when are we going to get there?". He says "Is there a problem? Is the suite not comfortable? Is the food not your liking?". "No, no" you say "It's all wonderful. I'm having the time of my life but I just wondered where and when". He says dismissively "Eat, drink, be merry". So you do your best. After ten years around on this wretched ocean liner the dream has become a nightmare. You scream at him "Please, please tell me where and when". Ridiculous? No. We are on this planet like a ship cruising through space and every now and again the question pops into the mind of every single traveller at some stage - where and when? - These are questions of purpose and meaning.

Imagine you recover your composure and you say to your host "Well tell me, how many on this ship?". He says to you "Guess", Well, you're not in the mood for guessing games and you say "Two hundred?". "Wrong - a thousand!". You say "A thousand people? You're kidding me; it feels like only two hundred". "Yes" he says "That is what it feels like to you because here on A deck there are only 200 people. But for the last ten years in the hold of this ship there have been 800 people and they are all on bread and water".

I think this is a powerful picture and well-taken one, but it is just a picture. The human condition, instead, can be better understood if you look at it like a movie. If you do so, the analogy is the following: While there are 200 people on the A deck and 800 in the hold, more and more people have moved from the hold to the A deck. At a certain point, somebody on the A deck begins a litanty: "Too many people are coming here on A deck. There is evidence that the more will come, and the more we will be loosing equilibrium, and our ship will eventually sink".

So they started to campaign against people moving upwards, even though they had no proof that the loss of equilibrium was due to the people coming up; indeed there was little evidence even of a loss of equilibrium being in the process, in the first place. Yet they succeeded to convince many of those on A deck that things were going that way, and started to set barriers to prevent people from leaving the hold; and they also started to argue that the loss of equilibrium is not a future problem, but it is here and now, and so stopping the movement is not enough, people who have come on A deck should be sent back into the hold if we want to save the ship.

And the most extremistic fring went even further and claimed that "You see, it's not just that we are too many on the A deck - it's that we are too many, so we should throw some people in the sea if we want to save the ship and our community". Now, once you have looked at things in such a more realistic and dynamic way, you know enough to answer the question: What should be done? While science and economics can provide useful insights, the answer eventually is about your most fundamental values. So, which is your answer? Will you take the responsibility of preventing people to come from the hold to A deck?

Ten Billion Served (and Hundreds of Millions Fleeced)

2007-03-05T02:44:00.000-08:00

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) just announced that the U.S. transit industry carried more than 10 billion transit trips in 2006, the first time the industry has exceeded 10 billion trips since 1957. Naturally, APTA -- the transit industry's leading lobby group -- sees this as "10 billion reasons to increase local and federal investment in public transportation."

The 10-billion milestone looks a lot less impressive when compared with the growing population of urban residents. It works out to just 42.7 trips per urban resident in 2006. (A trip, incidentally, is a transit boarding: if you get on a subway, then transfer to a bus, that is counted as two trips.)

While 42.7 trips per urbanite is more than were carried in 2005, it is not more than 2001, and it is less than in any year between 1907 (the first year for which transit data are available) and 1993.

In the meantime, transit subsidies already average 64 cents per passenger mile, compared with less than 0.4 cents for subsidies to auto driving. Over the past decade, APTA's transit factbook says that the U.S. has "invested" more than $100 billion in public transit capital improvements, mostly for expensive rail transit projects. Many of the cities that have built rail transit lines have actually seen transit ridership drop because the high cost of rail has forced them to cut bus services.

As I explain in more detail in my Antiplanner blog, the real problem with the transit industry is too much money. Because transit agencies get the vast majority of their funds from taxpayers rather than transit riders, their incentives are to build expensive, glitsy urban monuments rather than provide economical transit services to those who need them. The solution is to stop subsidizing transit agencies and instead give vouchers to transit users, who can use them for buses, taxis, or any other public conveyance.

COP12: The last two days, a plea for action

2007-02-12T07:14:00.000-08:00

Decisions of different working groups are being forwarded to the supreme body of the convention, the Conference of the Parties (COP) for final approval. Most of the decisions are fancy words plastered on paper, and the ytouth delegation refuses to let minister leave Nairobi without hearing our concerns. These mediocre decisions will affect us, it is our future they are negotiating. For the next two days the youth at COP12 will approach every country member of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change, and express our disappointment and suggestion on each of the issues neglected at COP12. 48hrs, more than 150 countries, our last chance…

In addition to approaching them, we will be handing them out a letter with our views on this meeting and our demands for action for next year. Please find a copy of the letter below, and wish us luck!

Read the letter

Dear Ministers at the COP12/COPMOP2:

As the negotiations of the high level segment of COP12/COPMOP2 come to a close, we, the youth, are concerned that little has been accomplished. The decisions agreed to by this body concern all of us; it is our future you are negotiating. Over the past two weeks, we have been presented with varied excuses for inaction. You made a step forward in Montreal, but that does not justify the stagnation of the past two weeks. The outcomes of this COP must, in the very least, result in a compromise that leads to a tangible, time-bound, and effective decision for a post-2012 mandate at COPMOP3.

Over the next year, action is required on the part of all parties. The principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ must guide the efforts of the UNFCCC while ensuring a long-term vision encompassing short-term goals. Several issues need to be addressed and put into operation.

This conference in Nairobi, in sub-Saharan Africa, has the severity of impacts on vulnerable regions. We know that some impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are unavoidable, that human populations will suffer immediately and that natural disasters will be compounded and have lasting effects. We applaud the efforts of delegates to define the principles and modalities of the Adaptation fund that will eventually deliver some of the resources needed to adapt to these effects, but this is just the baseline and greater work lies ahead.

We need an operable fund by COP/MOP3. This requires undertaking a great deal of work in a very restricted amount of time. We ask that you give your negotiators good direction and spur on their efforts. Delegates require the autonomy to move beyond heavily politicized rhetoric to create a strong fund with clear priorities, managed by a fair and transparent institution.

Parties are committed to protecting forests under Article 4.1(d) of the Convention, however this commitment is not enough. Domestic and unilateral initiatives in the conservation and sustainable management of forests have shown progress and provide insight into best practices; yet much more action is needed. Trees are falling, biodiversity is disappearing, ecosystems are failing, access to water is decreasing, the climate is changing: people are suffering.

Tropical forests have repeatedly failed to receive the protection they require. Correspondingly, we now must resort to assigning economic value to the carbon-storing capacity of trees. Compensation for the environmental services of forests must be provided through carbon credits within the Protocol as well as through financial incentives outside of the Protocol. Developing countries already conserving their forests must be rewarded. The integrity of current efforts through the CDM must not be compromised; they must be protected against incentives that would perversely increase deforestation. It is imperative that we take into account socio-economic factors and local variability; we must support communities that rely on forest services and we must compliment other IEAs. In order to create the demand and generate the funds necessary to protect forests, we require immediate, deep and far-sighted emissions reductions.

The decisions of the ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Parties are of utmost importance to us. The post-2012 period not only represents a major challenge for the international community, but also an enormous opportunity – a chance to improve and build upon the Kyoto protocol in order to meet the real and pressing need for climate stabilization. For us, these challenges and opportunities are not abstract. They are very real.

This is our future. As such, we insist that our voices be heard. For the security of our livelihoods, environments and cultures – and those of our brothers and sisters around the world – we demand the following from the immediate post-2012 process:

1. That a firm goal be agreed upon by all parties to remain below a 2˚C rise above pre-industrial temperatures. This level is not without its dangers, but surpassing this point will bring with it significant and irreversible damage. In keeping with this target, we believe that atmospheric concentrations of GHGs must be stabilized at 450ppm CO2e.
2. In order achieve this goal the AWG must complete its plan of work by no later than 2008 to assure that a mandate for the second commitment period can be adopted at COP/MOP5. This will require substantial and sustained efforts commensurate with the task at hand.
3. It is crucial that the review under Article 9 be conducted in a comprehensive and timely manner. The review of Article 9 must allow for the AWG to draw on its conclusions and have a post-2012 mandate by 2008 in order to ensure the absence of a gap between the first and second commitment periods. Therefore, we insist that a broad Article 9 review be concluded by COP/MOP3. To this end, the COP must leave Nairobi with a strong and effective work plan capable of delivering on this rigorous timeline.

The effects of climate change are severe and demand immediate international cooperation to avoid humanitarian and economic crises. We worry that the lack of direction and leadership at COP12 negotiations will delay a timely response to the climate crisis. We urge you, Minister, and your delegations to adopt a spirit of goodwill and cooperation in order to establish a post-2012 mandate. The ongoing process of the Kyoto mechanisms, such as the CDM and the emissions trading system, demand market certainty, made possible by a strong mandate to develop effective tools to mitigate GHG emissions and fund adaptation projects.

The world wants and needs a strong plan to stabilize our climate. We ask that you consider this request now, at the negotiation table next year and in the interim, with of the goal of creating a mandate for a post-2012 regime. We uphold the international youth declaration signed in Montréal 2005.

The world has learned a lot since COP3, and those lessons should help us expedite the process for further action for a regime post-2012. We must avoid getting caught up in politics and rhetoric. The science is clear; we have learned from our mistakes and triumphs, and we know what needs to happen.

The costs of inaction will fall upon your children, it will fall upon us.

This is our future – the time to act is now.

Do not turn your back on us.

-The International Youth Delegation at COP12/COPMOP2

Carbon Offsets with Native Energy

2007-01-12T07:06:00.000-08:00

In 19 days I will be in Boston's Logan International Airport ready for 14 hours and 40 minutes of sitting in a Boeing 747. I will fly 7,513 miles going 895km/h over the Atlantic Ocean towards a part of the world I have never been to, to attend a very important international conference on climate change and hopefully work towards ultimately halting the threat of global warming. It might seem ironic for somebody from the United States to fly 7,513 miles (14,815 miles round trip) to Nairobi, Kenya, burning a kerosene/paraffin oil-based fuel and emitting 5.78 tons of the green house gas Carbon Dioxide directly into the troposphere, all for the purpose of mitigating climate change. Thankfully my environmentalist spirit can rest somewhat assured that my carbon footprint will not be quite so large. I recently purchased carbon offsets from a company called NativeEnergy.

Under federal law when "clean" energy produced through wind farms is introduced into the electricity grid it has priority over energy created through unsustainable means, thus displacing the "dirty" energy created by fossil fuel burning energy suppliers. The electricity grid can only have a certain amount of energy flowing into it. When energy created through sustainable means, such as wind power, is introduced into the grid, the people who operate the grid turn down the less sustainable energy generators to compensate. By purchasing carbon offsets through NativeEnergy I am assured that an amount of sustainable wind farm energy equal to the energy it took to create my 5.78 tons of Carbon Dioxide will be introduced into the grid over a 25-year period. This is the process of offsetting green house gas emissions. The $12 it took to buy these carbon offsets will help fund new construction of sustainable wind generators.

14,815 miles is a long way to travel, and 5.78 tons is a lot of Carbon Dioxide to emit. Carbon offsets aren't the answer to stopping global warming in its tracks, but it sure helps.

Portland as a Model of Transportation Planning

2006-12-05T02:48:00.000-08:00

Recently, the BBC featured my home town of Portland as an example of how good transportation planning can create a city "where the car is not king." The reporter (a vice chair of Britain's Conservative Party) was conned by Portland's planners.

In fact, Portlanders recently learned that their much-praised transportation plans were really nothing more than a scheme by what local reporters call the "light-rail mafia" to separate taxpayers from their money and enrich themselves. Far from relieving congestion or getting people to stop driving, Portlanders are so angry at the congestion and other problems resulting from the plans that they have repeatedly voted against light rail and other projects.

Worst of all, the high cost of these plans has led to a decline in urban services throughout the Portland area. This was illustrated with Dickensian irony in September when a leading member of the light-rail mafia calmly ate dinner at an outdoor restaurant a few feet away from police who were kicking a schizophrenic man to death. The budgets for police and mental health services that could have saved this man's life had been cut by the city council that continued to subsidize rail transit and high-density developments that enriched the light-rail mafia.

Now, cities such as Albuquerque and Madison are rushing to follow Portland's example of rebuilding downtown streetcar lines. Yet, despite claims of Portland's advocates, the streetcar did not get anyone out of their cars or stimulate economic development.

The time inconsistency of the UK Climate Bill

2006-11-17T03:46:00.000-08:00

The recent Queen's speech notably had a climate bill which will set forth legislation for the next round of Parliament. The legislation will be centred on "four pillars":

1. placing the target to cut CO2 emissions by 60% from 1990 levels by 2050 on to the statute books

2. establishing an independent "Carbon Committee" to work with ministers to deliver reductions "over time and across the economy"

3. creating new powers to ensure the 2050 target is achieved

4. improving the way CO2 reductions are monitored and reported, including to Parliament

Within this bill, no yearly targets were given for CO2. There is talk of five-yearly running targets but nothing shorter. As we are well aware of time inconsistency of monetary policy (e.g. Kydland and Prescott), we should also be aware of the time inconsistency of climate policy. The appropriate institutions have to be in place so as to monitor (pillar 2) carbon emissions so as to make sure governments do not renege on previous promises to cut emissions.

Whether this could be done in one or five years is important to establish – especially with business cycles etc. The 2050 target is so long-term that this government can never be punished for increasing emissions too much. As with all climate policies, it involves risk and uncertainty that cannot be mitigated against. For a discussion on these issues, see Helm, Hepburn and Mash. To see what type of Queens’ speech environmentalists would like, see here:

My government will herald this new age by bringing forward legislation to introduce carbon rationing in the UK within five years, based around the principle of contraction and convergence. Every individual and organisation will be issued with an annual carbon budget, the punishment for exceeding which shall be a custodial sentence.

Hmm, not too sure about that - try selling that one to the public.

More green incentives for Londoners

2006-11-10T03:45:00.000-08:00

To follow on from the previous post regarding extra charges for so called ‘gas guzzlers’, it seems that Ken Livinsgstone has got the bug of providing a little extra incentive to get these large gas guzzlers out of the city. The infamous congestion charge is not only going to be increased westwards to cover the area of Chelsea and Kensington, but its cost will rise from £8 to £25 in 2009 for those cars which emit carbon dioxide in the range of case G, according to the BBC.

A substantial proportion of the gas-guzzlers (also named Chelsea tractors) originate from within the city and will not be entitled to 90% discount of the congestion charge. So maybe this will change behaviour slightly and maybe we could be seeing more hybrids or electric cars around the city (I always see at least two electric cars every day around Imperial - you have to start somewhere I suppose).

On a different note, ferry transportation in the San Francisco Bay has taken the revolutionary step of becoming solar! According to msnbc:

The design isn’t nailed down, but one Solar Sailor concept includes a large, rigid wing covered in solar panels that captures solar and wind power while also allowing sail navigation when conditions are right. In bad weather, the sail folds down flat above the deck like a roof.

This might even increase visitors to Alcatraz.

Will climate change save lives?

2006-11-05T03:43:00.000-08:00

In a recent article in Ecological Economics, Bosello et al (Ecological Economics 58(3), June 25, 2006, pp.579-591) make the surprising prediction that the first stages of global warming will, on balance, save a large number of lives.

However, Ackerman and Stanton believe that this work is based on 3 flawed assumptions, namely:

First, human populations are assumed to be unable to adapt to new climatic conditions, continuing to respond as they do today even as average temperatures gradually climb. Second, the focus on slow changes in average temperatures ignores the important issue of mortality and other impacts of extreme weather events related to climate change. Third, the incidence of increased heat-related cardio-vascular and respiratory mortality is restricted to urban areas while decreases in cold-related cardio-vascular mortality are assumed to occur in both urban and rural areas.

Ackerman and Stanton could not reproduce the huge estimates made by Bosello et al, even using these flawed assumptions. Therefore:

a model that more accurately predicts the likely effects of climate change on mortality is essential to the formulation of climate and energy policies in countries around the world and to the future of international agreements regarding limits to the production of greenhouse gases. False optimism may have dangerous and long-lasting consequences.

This is not surprising…

2006-10-18T03:28:00.000-07:00

The UK government, according to the BBC, has pledged money to help an African township cut energy costs are actually paying for bureaucrats and accountants. From the BBC:

Ministers announced that last year’s G8 meeting would be the first ever carbon neutral summit and pledged that £50,000 would be given to a scheme in a township in Cape Town which provided energy saving light bulbs and fuel efficient stoves to local residents.

The money is being routed through the United Nations-run Clean Development Mechanism, which gives the stamp of approval to energy saving schemes.

However, the BBC has learned that the whole scheme has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare for the local council who face being left in debt.

Foreign aid will not help both poverty and the environment. You cannot expect money to be transferred to a town/city and that the council will automatically set up a carbon trading scheme. Will people/organisations who advocate foreign aid actually read some of the stuff from William Easterly to see how planners do not always do best. This is one of the problems that might stifle the recommendations of the Stern report; it is difficult to for foreign aid to actually help many countries get out of poverty, nevermind reduce carbon emissions.

Stern review on climate change

2006-10-16T03:25:00.000-07:00

The Stern report will be presented this morning at the Royal Society. To access all the documentation on this report, click here. For a critique of this report, see here.

I have not yet read the report but it is the recommendations that I will be most interested in. If we are spend this 1% of GDP on mitigating to climate change, what is the best way to spend this? I would start with more investment in renewable energy and transport, but equally important is the role of the UK in trying to facilitate ‘greener’ technologies in the developing world. However, one of the interesting points of this report will be to determine what international agreement we should have post 2012 (when Kyoto runs out); will Stern go as far as recommending either taxes or permits?

A little incentive…

2006-10-15T03:17:00.000-07:00

Given that I live in Richmond-upon-Thames, I am glad to see that the council might be introducing higher permit parking fees for the so called large gas-guzzlers. So instead of paying £200/year for a parking space, the larger cars now have to pay £750 (but hey I don’t have a car, so of course I’m pleased!).

However, will these higher fees provide an incentive for people to downgrade their cars? Given that the Richmond area is one of the most affluent areas of London, and of the UK, it might not change consumer behaviour that much. The demand for cars at the high end is quite inelastic to any additional costs, so this might just be a money-spinner for the Lib Dem council. Will the money go into projects that have a benign affect on the environment, or even improve it? Who knows?

Since it is reported that car companies are not innovative enough to meet CO2 deadlines, maybe the government is justified to provide this little incentive to change behaviour.

Differences between environmental and ecological economics – which is a science?

2006-10-05T03:06:00.000-07:00

The debate between these two schools of thought has increased over the last few weeks, e.g. here, here and here at Env Econ blog, on this blog, and at the Salon. Academics and students alike should be interested in these differences in order to increase their understanding of each subject.

However, what I would like to determine is whether either of these conforms to the umbrella of a "science". A common sense view of science is where a subject is objective, amoral, universal, and progressive. We can clearly see that from this perspective, that neither environmental and resource economics (ERE) or ecological economics (EE) fits in as a science.

Alternatively, one could take a diffused concept of science, where one should think of subjects (or even theories) as organised structures, which coincides with Imre Lakatos’ argument. He suggests that there is a ‘hard core’ of a subject which includes the basic assumptions underlying the program (e.g. neo-classical economics and the primacy of the market), which is then surrounded by a ‘protective belt’, which attributes refutation to other matters (e.g. market failure happens when we do not observe the "rules" of economics). Essentially, this 'protective belt' deflects criticism, which aligns itself more with ERE than EE. Therefore, ERE comprises of the negative heuristic (i.e. we cannot reject the idea of the market as a solution to economic problems), and the positive heuristic (i.e. where developments should be made, e.g. transaction costs, asymmetric info). Under this framework, EE might not be classed as a science since it does not have a set of definable core values or assumptions, whereas ERE fits nicely as a 'protective belt' around neoclassical economics.

However, Lakatos' approach is problematic since it is difficult to decide which program/subject is better, and is usually done ex ante.

On the other hand, one can examine science from the perspective of Thomas Kuhn. He suggested that a mature science is governed by a paradigm. In his eyes, the existence of a single paradigm distinguishes science from non-science, and where the paradigm is tacit rather than explicit. He believes that a normal science involves detailed attempts to improve the relationship between a paradigm and our experiences of the world. A definition of a paradigm includes two aspects: 1) constellation of group commitment system; and 2) one exemplary piece of research that we aspire to and is a benchmark that other researchers judge by. I would argue that ERE has both of these, but EE might fail on the second aspect. Does EE really have a defining paper/book that sets the ground for their research?

To summarise, it seems that the small differences between ERE and EE might prove to be fatal for categorising one as a science, and the other as a non-science from both a Lakatos and Kuhn perspective. Nevertheless, both subjects should be striving for falsification in order to overcome problems and to maintain the idea of scientific rationalism.

Business Week: Here Comes Lunar (Tidal) Power

2006-06-15T06:33:00.000-07:00

Imagination + Inspiration + Desperation = This little gem of an article from Business Week. We should have developed this a century ago. It's wonderful to see small businesses leading the way.

The appeal of next-generation hydropower is hard to miss. "It's local, reliable, renewable, and clean. Plus, it's out of sight," says Trey Taylor, president of Verdant Power LLC, the Arlington (Va.) startup developing the East River site. Adds Roger Bedard, ocean energy leader at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the industry's research-and- development arm: "Offshore wave and tidal power are where wind was 20 years ago, but they'll come of age faster." By 2010, Bedard predicts, the U.S. will tap about 120 megawatts of offshore wave energy — enough to power a small city — up from virtually zero today.

Even Slower than Usual…

2006-05-05T03:56:00.000-07:00

Toronto transit workers are on an illegal strike this morning. There are no buses, subways, or streetcars. To make matters worse, this strike was sudden - there were only a few inklings in the news about it yesterday, so many people were caught off guard, standing confused at bus stops with no time to make alternative travel plans.

"Who is it that suffers? It’s the people who can’t afford cars," she said. "The message being sent is that driving is the way to go - and that’s ridiculous.

An underlying theme, once again, will be that cars are the only reliable method of transportation, and that public transit is inferior, to be used only as a last resort by the poor. Unfortunately, the TTC has a long history of strikes, lockouts, and threatened disruptions, which makes it very difficult for the average rider to sympthatize.

I’d like to think that employers will be understanding to their employees who arrive late today, but I know that will not always be the case. I am reminded of the blue-collar job ads in the local newspaper for my hometown where, more often than not, minimum wage jobs are advertised with the caveat "must have own car." Strikes like this provide more ammunition for that attitude, which I personally feel is as discriminatory as "whites only" or "no Irish need apply."

A transit strike deemed illegal in New York City last year resulted in some of the leaders being jailed. I am not against unions or strikes per se - historically they brought a lot of good to all of us - but strikes are something that should be a last resort, after good faith negotiations have failed and the gap is immense. Too often it seems that riders are caught between worker and management politics, and used as pawns. Workers might want to remember that the riders are the ones who pay to keep the system going, and that more riders means more fares and more government funding for the system. Sending riders fleeing back to their cars helps nobody.

And finally, of course, this all comes down to money (although this is actually about driver safety and shiftwork, these are issues that derive from lack of funds). On that note, it’s worth noting that even though the recent Ontario budget began investing some much overdue money into transit, historically and in general our governments spend far more money expanding and maintaining our automobile infrastructure.

Responses :
Raine Camden Scott

Adam Giambronie (Vice Chair of TTC) commented on many viewers comments about making the TTC an essential service and options to privatize sections of the TTC. He is dead wrongwith his comments that it can't be done.

Torontonians have just had the most unpleasant Monday morning surprise when the union representing the Toronto Transit Commission's (TTC) 8000 workers decided to do a'Wild-Cat' Illegal Strike.

While many residents were taken aback Monday morning when the buses, subways and streetcars were not running. It nevertheless an outrage that Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union can hold the city hostage when it bargains with the city. The two-day strike of April 1999 inconvenienced 3.3 million riders, while the eight-day strike of 1991 created so much chaos that even the union-friendly NDP government of the day was ready to enact back-to-work legislation.

A union-management battle that has been brewing for months over several issues including driver security, health premiums, job evaluations and shifting for employees who do track maintenance and cleaning for the TTC.

In spite of the self-congratulatory TTC propaganda one finds plastered throughout the subway, public transit in Toronto is a mess. Thanks to a withdrawal of steady provincial funding, the system has 10% fewer buses – and 20% fewer streetcars – today than 15 years ago, and requires $300 million a year to keep its aging fleet in a state of good repair.

The city subsidizes the TTC with over $240 million in tax revenues every year. Numerous fare hikes and decreased service have taken a toll on ridership, which fell from a high of 465 million a year at the end of the 1980s to 372 million in 1996, although levels have risen since, especially with the introduction of weekly passes, and high gas prices.

Toronto's buses and subway cars are frequently overcrowded even outside of rush hour periods . The city came up with a Transit Growth Strategy that it seems to have forgotten about. As well, many grumble that their friendly bus driver often isn't very friendly. Of the 16,773 complaints lodged against the TTC in 2004, 6206 dealt with driver behaviour. Interestingly, the TTC acknowledged it was at fault for over 65% of complaints.

Supporters of public transportation argue with some justification the TTC is underfunded and merely needs more financial resources. It sounds nice until you realize that neither the province nor the city has any extra cash lying around, and that throwing money at government monopolies is a questionable strategy.

As is getting the province to declare the TTC an essential service, subject to binding arbitration. While such a move would prevent future strikes, it would also be a recipe for ever-expanding costs, and it would leave public transit in the hands of a monopoly. If some drivers can get away with being surly to passengers, it is because they are protected by a union, and the TTC is the only mass transit system in town.

Instead, Toronto could follow the examples of London England, Las Vegas, San Diego, Stockholm, Copenhagen, and other cities in privatizing – or just partially privatizing – its transit system. In the years since private bus service arrived in London, ridership increased, waiting times fell, and fares were reduced relative to inflation. Ridership rose by 300% in Las Vegas after its entire system was privatized, while cost per vehicle hour dropped by 33%.

If a total privatization seems too radical, imagine if the TTC leased out its busy arterial bus routes to a private operator, and concentrated instead upon the subway system and out-of-the-way bus routes. The city could beef up service, earn millions in leasing fees, and ensure that business wouldn't grind to a halt in the event of a strike like Monday.

Such an option is of course unthinkable under Toronto's current Mayor and left-wing Council. Still, breaking the TTC's monopoly over public transit – as well as the union's ability to shut down the city – would indeed be a "better way" for Toronto commuters.

Oceanaclair :

Sick, Sick, Sick of being used and abused by the TTC and today is a good exemple of that abuse. They are like a bunch of spoiled brats! TTC should be a mandatory service. Never happy, always something to complaint about, but most time, they deserve the treatment they receive from the public. They are rude and they yell. I take the 108-108A bus from Downsview Station.

Last winter, that female driver was always ahead of her schedule. Driving like a maniac, to stop sometimes 10-15 and I have seen 17 minutes in front of the Driftwood Community Centre. She ate, had a smoke, used her cell phone, read the news paper have a chat with the next bus driver coming to take over this spot. As results, she got screamed at more than once. But why did she do that in the first place? People want to go home at night, not wait and to sit for 15 minutes in a bus waiting for the good grace of the drivers to take them home.

CO2 Rock Stars

2006-02-08T06:29:00.000-08:00

SALEM, MASS No storms here last night, but you may have heard the rumblings of Democracy right here in the Witch City of Salem, MA. The occasion was the fourth and final public hearing before the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for the "Filthy Five" regulations for oldest dirtiest power plants in Massachusetts. Yeah, I've got one of those plants in my back yard. You probably do too. Once it was pointed out to me that the format of these hearings is very much like an episode of "American Idol" I was unable to see it any other way. Each of the good folks who volunteered their time and evening to testify are ROCK STARS!

[Credit and thanks to Gary Braasch for allowing me to post this great photo of a Supercell thunderstorm cloud in Arizona. Truly incredible global warming pics, but see for yourself.]

Too hot, too cold–or perhaps just right…
For me and an intrepid group of (wonky-sweet-reasonable) Massachusetts residents, this has been a nine year grassroots odyssey of euphoric highs and deep dark lows. We have persevered through three grudgingly cooperative Republican administrations here in deep blue Massachusetts. Hearings for citizen input for the rule-making of the state regulation began about five years ago after more hearings to establish citizen desire for such regulations. With constant credible testimony, letter writing and just plain showing up, the public responded with a resounding "YES–cough, cough–YES." If you've never attended a public hearing on an important matter but cherish electronic participatory democracy, get off your couch and inject yourself into the carbon-based (human, not CO2) type. It's a freakin' blast! I bet you even run into a Kossack or two.

Each of the first three hearings were for the three pollutants Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, and Mercury, taken one at a time. Air was not our only focus, as we also went about cleaning up a fly ash pit that had migrated into a drinking water supply for 80,000 people and doing an "Erin Brockovich" mimic lawsuit–both successfully completed. In addition to these hearings, thousands of volunteer hours have also been spent in a gazillion of meetings, a bazillion negotiations followed by the inevitable renegotiations. Who knows what's ahead?

Well, a nice story appeared in today's The Boston Globe and I'm going to savor the luxury of selecting my favorite highlights with this excerpt:

The six power plants, two of which are in Somerset, account for more than 70 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by all 32 plants in the state, according to the Department of Environmental Protection. Carbon dioxide is produced by cars and power plants that burn oil, coal, or natural gas. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere and radiates it back to earth, like a greenhouse, contributing to global warming.

Some Salem residents say that emissions from the local power plant, which has operated since 1951, have led to respiratory ailments.

‘'It would be wise for our elected political leaders to be as concerned about the health and medical costs of the constituents, as they carefully listen to the corporate world with their lobbyists in the State House crying to maintain the status quo," said Dolores Jordan, 77, a Salem resident.

Towards the end of the article is a reference to a Mass Climate Action Network (MCAN) study which clearly demonstrates the miniscule cost associated with this policy if Governor Romney had not engaged in 11th hour tampering for his new national wingnut constituents. MCAN's economist, Marc Breslow, gave compelling testimony with charts and graphs debunking the economic scare tactics of the plant owners. Unfortunately, there were the usual supporters of Romney's recent insertion of "squishy" language, or loopholes, into the draft regs which have stood in their unsquishy form quite nicely since 2001. If successful, this watering down will have the perverse effect of killing a much needed innovation-driven economic stimulus for the state and discourage greater investment in the plant, putting the plant's future into question. I was impressed with Mayor Kim Driscoll's testimony where she suggested that instead of sending the money generated by the policy overseas to plant trees in Belize, also a recent change, we should pump it back into the host communities; something certainly worth exploring. It was a terrific turnout with too many highlights to share here.

So what is the iceberg in the room that we've not yet spoken about? This just in from the journal Science and The Wall Street Journal, Greenland glaciers Dump More Ice into Atlantic, Adding to Rising Sea Level Although their editorial page remains in denial, reporting at the WSJ is waking up to the potential economic catastrophe ahead.

Greenland's southern glaciers have accelerated their march to the Atlantic Ocean over the past decade and now contribute more to the global rise in sea levels than previously estimated, researchers say.

Those faster-moving glaciers, along with increased melting, could account for nearly 17% of the estimated one-tenth of an inch annual rise in global sea levels, or twice what was previously believed, said Eric Rignot of the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

Another great article in The Christian Science Monitor is "Hotter Issue in Red States" which states:

From the Rocky Mountain West to the Southeast, influential red-state voices are beginning to call for more concerted efforts at local, state, and federal levels to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

And they are prodding Washington to address the challenge of adapting to the effects of global warming, which many scientists say are at work.

In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that I served on Governor Romney's Environmental Transition Team. It's Massachusetts–they run out of Republicans! I still hold out some irrational hope that he will reverse his recent reversal which was paired with some carefully phrased public statements of global warming denial. If Mitt doesn't come around on this, and sticks with his loopholes, all I can say is that the rest of the country ought to beware. Who knows what he really stands for?

I've come to know public health as one of those great everybody issues even though sometimes it seems to me that only the good die young. Global Warming is the ultimate everybody issue. This only translates into good policy if the process is infused with democracy and the citizens have the benefit of that great ole feedback loop of citizen action and empowerment. Simple and elegant. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

In the years ahead, when our children and grandchildren ask why we trashed their planet (two week old scary as all get out Washington Post article on the "Tipping Point"), at least many good folks in Massachusetts and elsewhere, can say with all sincerity, "Oh, Honey. We tried."

Within the Lifetime of a Child Born Today

2006-01-05T06:25:00.000-08:00

In addition to the near TWO TRILLION dollars of our children's money we've spent on our faulty foray into Iraq, here's another doozy in their dowry and this one will be a whole lot more challenging, and maybe even impossible to pay back. The longer we sit idle, shunning conservation and obstructing policies to mitigate our CO2 output, the more impossible payback becomes. As we lollygag on seeking safe alternatives to our grossly subsidized fossil fuel consumption, we are leaving our kids a legacy that threatens their safety and security. It's also worth pointing out that we're not exactly the only creatures on this spaceship. We're just the ones with the keys.

So much news–so little time. Even less time than you might think and this isn't wild-eyed libralism as you'll see. It is my sincere hope that the abundance of global warming articles is indicative of growing international awareness. Many experts feel that we have a twenty year opportunity to do something about our changing climate — or more accurately stated — to slow and-or undo the damage we've done. If it is to be, it will require combined forces of the grassroots, industry and government with vim and vigor that would rival the enthusiasm and national commitment behind The Apollo Project.

Through the miracle of the internet, none of us can be content simply looking out our window and saying, "Yep. Everything's okay." It's not.

Stories about insurance companies in full-fledged freakout mode over mounting costs of post-storm cleanups represent important financial harbingers. But beyond the financial toll, it's stories like this one and excerpted here:

WASHINGTON - Alarmed by an accelerating loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean, scientists are striving to understand why the speedup is happening and what it means for humankind.

If present trends continue, as seems likely, the sea surrounding the North Pole will be completely free of ice in the summertime within the lifetime of a child born today. The loss could point the way to radical changes in the Earth's climate and weather systems.

Some researchers, such as Ron Lindsay, an Arctic scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, fear that the polar region already may have passed a "tipping point" from which it can't recover in the foreseeable future.

and this one from MSNBC:

Global warming over the next half-century could put more than a million species of plants and animals on the road to extinction, according to an international study released Wednesday.

"A quarter of all species of plants and land animals, or more than a million in all, could be driven to extinction," said Chris Thomas, professor of Conservation Biology at England's University of Leeds.

Thomas, lead author of the study published in the science journal Nature, said emissions from cars and factories could push temperatures up to levels not seen for 1 million to 30 million years by the end of the century, threatening many habitats.

that stand to transform the most apathetic and uninvolved into agents of poltical change. Whether it's the weather or the double-Texas sized loss of Arctic Ice Shelf animated in this link from NASA, or the frogs disappearing because of global warming as reported in the NYTimes today, at some point, something will grab everyone. Baltimore Orioles? nope. Not for long. Monterey starfish? gone. Grasping what we appear to have done is so much tougher than denial, especially as we enjoy a pleasant bout of near sixty degree weather in Boston, in mid-January. This, in a state where awareness is high and our (R.) Governor, Mitt Romney, presidential hopeful, has just pulled Massachusetts out of a (formerly) nine-state regional greenhouse gas pact. The window of opportunity is closing fast and denial is a luxury we can no longer afford.

And oh, back to those polar bears. It's a lovely day in the Arctic too, I'm sure, as long as you're not a polar bear! According to this article from The Wall Street Journal, due to ice melt, polar bears are drowning–literally swimming to death–as they search for a surface on which to land.

In closing, I want to bring you back to the theme of my opening paragraph by suggesting that you consider the discusson in this excellent paper, "The Costs of the Iraq War; An Appraisal three years after the Beginning of the Conflict" by Linda Bilmes from the Kennedy School of Government and Joseph Stiglitz, from Columbia University. If you're pressed for time, scroll down to the conclusions beyond footnote #81 for a very reasoned summary of the opportunities lost when we charged into Iraq with our kids' future. In my mind, the most counterproductive waste of resources related to Iraq is that TWO TRILLION DOLLARS could have gone even all of the way towards SOLVING our energy price and supply woes–not to mention our many pollution and health(care) problems from burning fossil fuels. Meaningful incubation and promotion of alternative technologies and new industries would bring us a long way from our current policy of scraping, drilling and burning everything we can get our hands on and would also help free us from the many security tradeoffs related to our reliance on foreign oil. Instead we continue to subsidize Big Energy with billions to maintain the status quo against our nation's best interest. By the time everyone realizes the senselessness and magnitude of these policy blunders it may be too late to have any real affect on our climate and we will instead be relegated to merely reacting to natural forces that will be wildly out of our control.

This is madness. All this warming's clearly boiled our brains.

Pinch me. Wenham Lake is Almost Cleaned Up

2005-09-05T06:22:00.000-07:00

Of course, I realize I'm spoiling the end of the story before I've even told it, but when there's good news to share, it's tough to keep in–especially since there's so few environmental happy endings these days. Here's a brief story from the Salem News' Marc Fortier about the culmination of the Wenham Lake Cleanup. Extreme kudos to the thoughtful citizens of Wenham Lake Watershed Association for their diligence and action. Because of your perseverence, not only the 80,000 citizens of Salem and Beverly will be drinking from their tap with greater confidence, but the health of the community for generations to come will be better for it.

BEVERLY — The cleanup of the Vitale site and the stream known as Airport Brook is almost complete, and the removal of fly ash from Wenham Lake is expected to begin next month.
"We have moved to the east of Route 97," said Mike Lotti, the project manager for New England Power. "Right now, we are marching down toward the lake."

Here's a bit of the backstory, to which I hope to return on these pages.

The 18-acre Vitale site was once used as a dumping ground for fly ash, an arsenic-laced powder produced in the 1950s and 1960s as a byproduct of the Salem power plant. Over the last five decades, the ash washed into Wenham Lake, which supplies drinking water to Salem and Beverly. Environmentalists fought for years to get New England Power, which once ran the power plant, to clean up the lake.

New England Power will collect the fly ash from the lake and the surrounding area and haul it back to the Vitale site, where it will be capped. Long-term plans call for the construction of playing fields atop the site.

Barring any real bad weather, Lotti said the goal is to finish construction by mid-December. Even then, the company would have to return in the spring to do some wetlands restoration work.

"It's going very well," Lotti said. "If I had to guess a year ago if it would go this well I would have said no, it wouldn't."

Most of the complaints about the project, he said, have centered around a culvert that was installed under Route 97. The road in that area is rather bumpy, he said, but it will be repaired when the project is finished.

New England Power held an open house on Sept. 17 to give the community a chance to see what has been accomplished so far. Lotti said around 20 to 30 people attended.

"It looks really good right now," he said. "People were very impressed, I think, with what they saw. People didn't realize how big this project was going to be when it started."

Lotti said the company plans to hold one last open house in late November or early December, before the project is finished.

Driving with Gas

2004-09-05T02:49:00.000-07:00

One of the largest market obstacles for natural gas vehicles has been the lack of an extensive retail fuel infrastructure. Gasoline stations are ubiquitous, but it's hard to find somewhere to refuel a natual gas car.

Even electric vehicles are more practical -- as you can plug those in at home. As a result, this has meant that the natural gas has only been a cost-effective fuel choice for centralized fleets with their owen refuelilng stations, such as buses, delivery trucks, and utility vehicles.

That may begin to change, however. Honda is announcing that it will begin selling home refueling units for natural gas vehicles, and expects to market the device in California and a few other states. It will be interesting to see whether this development increases consumer acceptance of natural gas vehicles.