Uncategorized

L.A. aims for Urban Environmental Accord Action #4

Although ideally any city trying to meet Action #4 of the Urban Environmental Accords wouldn't be sending any waste to landfills or to incinerators, a councilman in Los Angeles figures that one out of two ain't bad for now. Councilman Greig Smith would like to view "trash as a resource, not as a problem" and use it to create electricity.

One incinerator already in use is the City of Commerce incinerator. The plant charges $35 per ton of trash, burning 400 tons of it per day with a capacity of 10 megawatts.

A concern, of course, is the pollution from these stacks (exhaust gases and water vapor). However, the exhaust has to meet air quality standards, and 60 percent of the plant is devoted (whatever that means) to air quality while only 40 percent is built for electricity.

Ana Unruh Cohen

As conservative spinmeister Frank Luntz has written in his infamous memo, "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly."

With all the climate action in the Senate last week, it seems that the skeptics are getting restless. Time for Plan B.

Last week, noted skeptic Patrick J. Michaels laid out the game plan:

The Bush administration realizes that simply knowing that human activities are impacting the climate is not grounds for "urgent action" to do something about it.

So even if they can't argue about human influence anymore, they'll now argue about the appropriate time to take action.

It's time for advocates of taking action sooner-rather-than-later to update their talking points. You can be sure the other side already has.

What a difference an ice sheet makes

Or, three. Not to mention a picture of what Britain will look like in 200 years if climate change melts the globe's three largest ice sheets. According to today's Scotsman, a new study suggests sea levels would rise some 275 feet. The U.K. mainland would turn into a North Sea Polynesia, with coastal towns and many cities disappearing completely. The center of London would be underwater. Hm -- those zombies in 28 Days Later are starting to look like a more manageable end-of-the-world scenario by the minute.

Of course, the big queston here is: how likely is this? And that's where respectable scientists disagree.

Emily Gertz

Greetings, Gristmill fans. I've been invited to guestblog here for the next couple weeks, while Grist's intrepid staff take their much-deserved publishing break.

I'm a freelance writer -- maybe you caught the dispatch I filed for Grist last month from the "Institutional Investor Summit on Climate Change" in NYC (good times, folks, good times!) -- and a contributor to the blog Worldchanging. Which I hope you are reading right after you read Gristmill every day. Or before. Or maybe you just have them side-by-side on your screen and somehow take them both in at once.

Speaking of vacations, you got yours planned yet?

Unintended consequences

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a 2002 EPA change to the Clean Air Act.

One of the matters of contention was the New Source Review, which requires plants to upgrade their pollution control technologies whenever they are modified.

The Commons has had some great coverage, including this post which links to an article that finds that New Source Review actually leads to increased pollution, since it serves as a disincentive for plants to upgrade, so they wind up staying in operation and in high polluting mode longer than they would have if the rule were not in place.

Hot off the wire

Fusion in France?

While it's not economically viable yet (governments are paying for the $12 billion project), it's interesting to think about.

Another suggestion to limit congestion

So maybe the chances of this idea getting into the current highway bill are slim to none. And maybe the guy proposing it (Stephen Moore) is on that infamous editorial board.

But the idea isn't half bad. And it makes sense. Here it is: avoid congestion (and $70 billion in lost time annually) by charging people for driving at peak times. Just like matinee movie tickets or off-peak phone hours -- only the opposite. Moore cites Robert Nelson at the University of Maryland who wrote this essay detailing the idea.

Roughly the same idea has been proposed in the U.K., although they are taking a slightly more high-tech approach. Moore cites technology that can "read" a car going 60 mph without being in outer space, although Nelson does mention the satellite idea.

Smart growth to revitalize urban centers

Building on the urban revitalization theme (and unable to resist playing off the title of biodiversivist's post earlier), Smart Growth Online is a great resource for issues relating to the development of green, livable, and desirable communities (without, of course, being too overbearing and centrally planned). Sharing many principles with New Urbanism itself (walkability, mixed use, transportation-centered development, etc.), it's definitely a good idea. I'm planning to get more familiar with some of their publications very soon, but for now I'll just post the link.

Norquist says it’s the small property owner

John Norquist, the president of the Congress for New Urbanism, has an interview on the PBS Online NewsHour regarding the Kelo decision. While the site notes that Congress took no position in the case, Norquists' comments do echo many New Urbanist themes.

But his comments also go against the idea of any kind of central planning by major entities, whether they be government or private developers. These large groups just don't have the foresight or the omniscience to know exactly what will be best for the city or even what will be the best way to promote economic development. A couple of my favorite quotes from Norquist, who's also the former mayor of Milwaukee:

The key to revitalization of American cities is the complexity of cities, the form of cities...[snip]...The small developer, the small business person, the small property owner, they're the ones that are the key to urban revitalization -- not having some big firms that's routinely hiring lobbyists and lawyers and goes down to city hall.

Well put.

DoD conference on making bombing ranges ‘sustainable’

Apparently, even the U.S. Department of Defense has decided to jump on the sustainability-as-a-buzzword bandwagon. In late August, at a "Sustainable Ranges Initiative Conference and Exhibition" in San Antonio, Texas, experts in range management and sustainability will come together to discuss ways to promote sustainability on the military's "operational ranges and training areas" (read: practice bombing zones). Potential topics include endangered species, soil and water quality, and the development of "green munitions."

Whatever that means. Making any part of war "sustainable" sounds like an oxymoron to me. I'm envisioning an F-16 dropping a payload in the desert somewhere, which, upon impact, causes butterflies, daffodils, and spotted owls to spring forth and disperse merrily across the range.

(thanks Krestia)