Uncategorized
All Stories
-
-
Fuel tax magic, part two
The following is part two of a guest essay from Charles Komanoff, an economist and environmental activist in New York City. For more on taxing carbon fuels, go to http://www.komanoff.net/fossil/.
For part one of this essay, go here.
-----
Now another question arises: so what? At the end of the day, what's the practical difference between the actual price-elasticity of 20% and the popular conception of zero elasticity if the effect of higher gas prices is only going to be offset by economic growth?
I offer two answers. Combined, they just might hold a solution to our era's twin overriding crises: the oil-dependence crisis and the climate crisis.
The first answer is that as we extend our time horizon, gasoline's price-elasticity, or price sensitivity to break free of the jargon, gets larger -- a lot larger. Going out several years or more, individuals have greater scope to take actions that economize on gasoline. They can junk the gas-guzzler, or at least not replace it with another one when the old one gives out. They might calculate the dollar tradeoffs between density (high rents but less need to drive) and sprawl (the reverse) and pick up stakes for a less car-dependent area. They may gravitate toward job opportunities closer to home. And they can make more durable commitments to behavioral changes that reduce the need to drive, like forming a carpool or buying a roadworthy bicycle or selling the far-away vacation home.
The consensus of economists who have studied gasoline use is that the "long-term" price elasticity -- the effect on demand eight or ten years hence -- is between 50% and 70%, or roughly triple the 20% "short-term" elasticity I'm seeing in my spreadsheet. That is, over the long haul, rises in the price of gas are likely to dampen demand several times as much as the modest changes we've seen in the past year or two.
-
Too graphic for TV
From peta2.com, PETA's youth-oriented site, we learn of a new music video by Rise Against intended to "[show] everyone what goes on in the world and what people are doing to this planet and to animals."According to band member Tim McIlrath:
-
Speak it
"A sustainable energy future is possible, but only if we act urgently and decisively to promote, develop and deploy a full mix of energy technologies... We have the means, now we need the will," said Claude Mandil, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
(via EB)
-
Today’s NYT
Michael Pollan says some smart things in this piece about ethics and animals.
I wonder whose arm got twisted to get this mash note to Robert Kennedy Jr.
Gosh it's hard bein' green -- so many options!
We can expect to see many more stories about strange biotic migrations and infestations.
I'm telling you, read Goodell's book. Too bad the reviewer saw fit to scoff at the notion that we change our thinking about energy -- instead, fusion gets a shout out. WTF?
This "prototype hybrid system using hydraulic fluid and a high-pressure pump instead of electrical current and a generator" sounds extremely cool, but the piece sounds like somebody's press release (barely) filtered through a reporter.
Still, not bad for one day, Gray Lady!
(And from yesterday: Coal is ravaging China too:
-
Spinning NAS
ThinkProgress has a little more on rightwing attempts to spin yesterday's NAS report, as well as Gore's reaction to said efforts:
Gore explained that science, by nature, thrives on uncertainty and tries to eliminate it; politics, on the other hand, is vulnerable to being paralyzed by uncertainty. When science and politics converge, Gore argued, the chance for "cowardice is high."
You could say that.
-
The possibility of failure
A fascinating essay by Bryan Appleyard in The Sunday Times Magazine argues two things:
- Human civilization is facing unprecedented crises;
- the pace of innovation has long been slowing, and we may not be able to think our way out of this one.
But that woefully oversimplifies the piece. I encourage you to read the whole thing.
It reminded me of something that's been on my mind lately. To wit:
-
Something Fishy: Fossil fish catches could be bad news
Yo-ho-ho, me hearties. 'Tis ye favorite pirate here with a quick news bit to satisfy yer cravin'. Me plundering sked is keepin' me busy these days, and I gotta tell ye, wifi ain't so great out here on the high seas.
That said, I've got a tale for ye about the African Coelacanth, an archaic (we're talking tens of millions of years old) species long thought to be extinct until one was caught in South African waters in 1938. I'm pretty sure it was the "Lord God" of fish at the time.
-
Bill and peak oil
Bill Clinton is officially on the peak oil bandwagon, and wants the nation's newspaper editors to hop on with him.
(via Oil Drum)
-
This book was made for walking
It makes intuitive sense that living in a community that encourages walking -- with sidewalks, good street connections, and homes that are close to shops and services -- would make you active and healthier.
As Sightline Institute's new book -- Cascadia Scorecard 2006: Focus on Sprawl and Health -- points out, such communities are also safer. (Full disclosure: I work at Sightline.) Residents who live in a compact community have significantly less chance of dying in a car crash -- not because they're better drivers, but because they drive less. (And car crashes, of course, are the leading killer of young people.) And they also tend to weigh less and have less risk of chronic diseases associated with obesity.
Check out the press page for pdfs and fact sheets about the new research. And check out media coverage: front page of the Vancouver Sun and in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as well.
But for a quick take, here are my top ten facts from the new Scorecard:
