Uncategorized

Portland, emissions cuts, and the economy

I've had words with Nicholas Kristof before, but I suppose it's to his credit that he's finally discovered -- and publicized, in a way a lil' rag like Grist never could -- the fact that reducing greenhouse emissions is a profitable enterprise (via Gil Friend). It does not hurt the economy. It helps. Cities that do it save money and make themselves more desirable places to live and work. See: Portland.

"Portland's efforts refute the thesis that you can't make progress without huge economic harm," says Erik Sten, a city commissioner. "It actually goes all the other way - to the extent Portland has been successful, the things that we were doing that happened to reduce emissions were the things that made our city livable and hence desirable."

Putting caps on CO2 emissions would help the overall economy and the public, but it would hurt a few select industries. That's what Bush means when he says Kyoto would "destroy the economy" -- he means, "hurt my campaign contributors." Serving favored business interests is the driving principle of this administration, and Bush is willing to do anything -- even publicly snub Tony Blair, his closest and staunchest ally -- to serve that principle.

See also Matt Yglesias on the same subject.

Still more Kelo

My opinion on SCOTUS' Kelo decision has softened somewhat since my initial outrage, but it still strikes me as, on balance, a Bad Thing.

Once recent strain of argument I find pretty convincing is that Kelo will not, in fact, enable good urban planning (one of the purported reasons many liberals defend it). Andy alluded to this argument here. See also this Planetizen piece from Samuel Staley:

To illustrate Kelo's potential damage, recall that its precedent, Berman v. Parker, substantially relaxed constraints on takings of private property in 1954, unleashing a wave of urban renewal that cleared large swaths of America's cities in the late 20th century. The results, even many planners now believe, were devastating for communities. Many areas cleared for urban renewal were never redeveloped, but affordable housing and many potentially vibrant neighborhoods were bulldozed. Not surprisingly, critics now refer to urban renewal as "slum removal" and cynics refer to this period as "negro removal". The Court's reasoning in Kelo grants cities and public officials even broader powers to clear neighborhoods and force families from homes and businesses than those current existing from Berman.

On his blog, City Comforts, David Sucher argues at some length that eminent design is not required for good urban planning -- he prefers many small development projects to a few large, bloated ones -- and that Dems are missing the a great political opportunity (I'd offer specific links, but there are too many).

Kelo's a fascinating issue -- it cuts across our established political divisions and produces very strange bedfellows (for instance, Sucher finds himself agreeing with conservative John Tierney). Much to ponder.

Density Star

From the New Urban News comes this nugget:

Researchers presented findings at the Congress for the New Urbanism annual conference that show substantial energy savings from higher-density urbanism -- greater savings than can be achieved from the US government Energy Star program.

As the chart on the left shows (if you can read it -- sorry it's so small), even small increases in density can yield substantial energy savings; increasing residential density from 3 housing units per acre to 6 units per acre actually saves more energy than the average efficiency boost provided by Energy Star appliances.

Now, this shouldn't be much of a surprise, since it's been well established for decades that people who live in compact neighborhoods drive much less than people who live in more sparsely populated suburbs. Still, it's an important reminder: Neighborhood design is a powerful determinant of how much energy we use.

But for some reason, when people talk about making our transportation system more fuel efficient, they typically talk about improving the efficiency of vehicles, rather than of neighborhoods. Efficient vehicles have a high-tech cachet, I guess. But if anything, efficient neighborhoods are even more important than efficient vehicles. Hybrids and biodiesel vehicles do save fossil fuels and reduce pollution, obviously; but by reducing how much people need to drive, efficent neighborhoods not only save fuel, but also reduce other costly externalities, ranging from highway spending to car crashes.

Five developing nations a presence at the G8 summit

Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa -- some of the world's most dynamically growing developing nations and up-and-coming greenhouse gas emitters -- have been invited to attend this week's G8 summit as informal participants. I've been digging through the international press this morning, looking for perspectives on Gleneagles absent in much of the Western news media.

India's New Kerala reports (via the Indo-Asian News Service) that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrived in London today. Singh will ask the G8 nations to transfer green energy technologies to the developing nations, removing "non-tariff barriers," i.e. international protections for intellectual property rights to these technologies, as The Indian Express explains with a tad more clarity. Singh wants relaxed international IPR protections on clean energy technologies, to make them more affordable for the developing nations to use in place of dirty energy.

Below the fold, more G8 perspectives from the presses of China, Mexico, and South Africa.

The Barton letter

One of the controversies I missed while I was gone was a threatening letter (PDF) sent by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tx.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to the heads of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Science Foundation, along with three respected climate scientists who produced the fabled "hockey stick" study. (For background on the hockey stick controversy, see here.)

Chris Mooney led the brigade, as he tends to on these matters. He reported the letter on his blog. Everyone and their cousin then linked to his blog. Tim Lambert rounds up blogospheric reaction here and here. Over at Prometheus, Kevin Vranes had some insightful thoughts on what he found reasonable and unreasonable about the letter. Mooney also has a couple of follow-ups (the latter on a challenge to Barton from Rep. Henry Waxman), and Michael Dumiak has more good stuff at ScienceG8 (a new science blog tracking developments at the Gleneagle G8 meeting -- check it out).

I don't have much to add to what's been said. This is just yet another case of a modern-day movement Republican taking a perfectly legitimate process -- in this case, Congressional inquiry into the use of public research funds -- and using it as a political bludgeon. It hardly registers any more.

Update [2005-7-6 8:27:41 by Dave Roberts]: Oh, good grief. I forgot the most important link: Mooney's American Prospect column, which summarizes the whole brouhaha.

Update [2005-7-6 10:7:31 by Dave Roberts]: See also this ES&T summary.

There are worse things than hypocrisy

A reader sent along a link to this George Monbiot piece with the somewhat accusatory question:

In a recent column, George Monbiot excoriates environmental superstars for not walking the talk. So what about the Grist luminaries? How do you live in reality?

One often sees this sort of thing, and ... well, I wish one wouldn't.

At least once a week we get a letter from some fruitcake saying: "You [or some celebrity or writer] can't support [some environmental change or policy] until you give up your car, grow your own food, and live by candlelight." Otherwise -- gasp -- hypocrisy!

This is, in fact, a favorite right-wing talking point on the environment -- it's all part of the modern-day conservative attempt to reduce everything to "personal responsibility," thereby freeing the centers of financial and political power from any structural restraints. When well-meaning greens echo the line, they do themselves a disservice.

Let me be clear: Of course there's nothing wrong with living an environmentally exemplary life. It would be better to live that way than to not. It would be better to devote oneself to charity, too, or go to Africa and work on poverty relief. For any given individual, he or she could be living a more virtuous life.

But that's more or less a distraction.

Gaylord Nelson, R.I.P.

Gaylord Nelson, co-founder of Earth Day, former state senator, governor, and U.S. senator from Wisconsin, and recipient of a 1995 Presidential Medal of Freedom for his environmental work, died on Sunday at the age of 89. His own words are a fitting epitaph:

The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.

Nelson passed the test with flying colors. Let's all hope we can do the same.

Just a Little bit

Though she wrote a substantially similar story for us a few weeks ago (cause she hearts us the most), I would be remiss if I did not point out that our very own Amanda Griscom Little has a feature story in The New York Times Magazine on Destiny U.S.A., the "green mall" that's going to save America, etc. etc.

(Gristmillers expressed their mixed feelings about Destiny here.)

BLM’s Erick Campbell on creative editing

You may recall a story from last week about a BLM environmental impact statement on public-lands grazing that was, uh, "edited" in a way that made it much more sympathetic to the practice.

Well, one of the guys who wrote the original report -- recently retired BLM scientist Erick Campbell -- shared his thoughts on the matter in a guest post over on the Al Franken Show blog. It's a pretty close analysis of the original report and how it was changed, but the conclusion is not complicated:

In my 30 years with the federal government, this is without question the most heavy handed and disingenuous administration I have witnessed.

Endangered Species Act: Still endangered

Let's unbury this story from its grave in the holiday weekend press.

Yesterday, The New York Times reported on a leaked draft of legislation that would effectively gut the Endangered Species Act. The proposed law was prepared by the Republican staff of the House Resources Committee, led by Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.), who's long opposed the ESA.

The Times' Felicity Barringer writes:

The draft legislation was given to The New York Times by a lawmaker opposed to its provisions, who requested anonymity because the legislation had not yet been introduced. It has been circulating among interest groups focused on the issue, which tends to pit environmental groups against a loose coalition of Western ranchers, farmers and business interests. Most lobbyists believe that the committee's legislation will provide the framework for rewriting and reauthorizing the act.

Coincidentally, The Christian Science Monitor ran an in-depth look at the ESA on June 28. Although the article doesn't include the jounalistic drama of "leaked draft legislation," it's a good overview of the politics swirling around the ESA, which are even more complicated than Western governors vs. Beltway green groups now that religious groups are take a stake in species conservation:

"You can expect to hear from many people of faith as they witness with passion and resolve about the importance of protecting endangered species," Dorothy Boorse told a recent congressional committee. Dr. Boorse teaches biology at Gordon College in Wenham, Mass., and is an evangelical Christian active with the Noah Alliance, a coalition of religious groups that support species protections.