Latest Articles

Let's not pretend the government isn't encouraging suburbs

There are a great many ways in which the government shapes our land-use patterns. Sprawl apologists often argue that low-density, suburban-style development has dominated the American landscape over the past half century because it is clearly superior to alternatives. Now, there's no doubt that many Americans prefer suburban life.

At the same time, it's impossible to ignore the overwhelming way in which government policy has encouraged such development, intentionally, and unintentionally. The government didn't necessarily intend for a massive network of (largely) free-to-user highways to spur suburban growth and gut urban centers, but that's what happened. Similarly, the government's long-term commitment to increased rates of home-ownership wasn't necessarily about changing land-use patterns. But as economist Ed Glaeser notes at the New Republic, the relationship between the policy and the outcome is clear:

Roughly 87 percent of all single-family detached homes are owner-occupied. Roughly 87 percent of all homes in buildings with five or more units are rented. Multi-family dwellings have common spaces, such as lobbies, and common infrastructure; sharing joint control over these things can often be quite difficult. Landlord control over large buildings irons out the difficulties of dealing with the cacophony of collective control.

The connection between homeownership and structure type implies that when the federal government gets into the business of supporting homeownership, it also gets into the business of supporting single-family detached homes -- and this means supporting lower-density living. New Yorkers have converted plenty of rental units into co-ops, but still 77 percent of the households in Manhattan rent. The government's big post-war push into homeownership was inevitably also a push to suburbanize. You do not need to be an enemy of the suburbs to wonder why the government is implicitly urging Americans to drive longer distances and flee denser living.

Of course, this is just one of many reasons why we should be skeptical of policies that subsidize homeownership. Such subsidies are regressive. They encourage heavy, leveraged investments in undiversified assets that perform unexceptionally over time. They reduce mobility, which prevents households from responding to changing economic conditions. And should there be a massive housing bubble and collapse, they put millions of households at risk of foreclosure and bankruptcy and contribute to global economic meltdown.

But for all this, the odds of a reversal of these policies, like the mortgage interest reduction, are basically zero. Which is yet another reason that we ought to focus on undoing other suburban subsidies wherever it's politically feasible. Congestion pricing, which could address crowded freeways while funding better urban transport, is a good place to start.

The economy needs to be green to be 'fixed'

As is often the case, The New York Times serves as a good example of the mistaken assumptions underlying conventional wisdom. In his Sunday Magazine cover story, "The Big Fix," Times economic columnist David Leonhardt combines many of the misconceptions surrounding the idea of "green jobs." As I fretted in a previous post, some writers, including Leonhardt, seem to be setting up some sort of cosmic battle between green jobs, cap-and-trade, and economic growth:

Of the $700 billion we spend each year on energy, more than half stays inside this country. It goes to coal companies or utilities here, not to Iran or Russia. If we begin to use less electricity, those utilities will cut jobs. Just as important, the current, relatively low price of energy allows other companies -- manufacturers, retailers, even white-collar enterprises -- to sell all sorts of things at a profit. Raising that cost would raise the cost of almost everything that businesses do. Some projects that would have been profitable to Boeing, Kroger or Microsoft in the current economy no longer will be. Jobs that would otherwise have been created won't be. As Rob Stavins, a leading environmental economist, says, "Green jobs will, to some degree, displace other jobs."

Later in the article, he kinda sorta argues that this might all be necessary in the long-term .. but first, let's deconstruct his arguments.

Lisa Jackson on why the recession is not a reason to scale back environmental plans

“On Monday [Jan. 26], in the middle of all that was going on with the economy … the president was forceful that EPA should do an event on climate change on my first day in office … We have an answer for people who want to scare us from backing off of strong environmental protections.” […]

SNL serves up a solution to the great diaper debate

Can't decide between cloth and disposable? Now there's a better way:

Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in

Australia has been suffering its worst heat wave on record, the first time temperatures exceeded 110 degrees Fahrenheit for three days running. It's been so hot that on Thursday, the low at Melbourne airport was 87 °F.

Australia is the canary in the coal mine for climate-driven desertification. The astonishing decade-long drought in southern Australia was declared 'worst on record' last year. The U.K.'s Independent notes:

Australia, the driest inhabited continent on earth, is regarded as highly vulnerable. A study by the country's blue-chip Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation identified its ecosystems as "potentially the most fragile" on earth in the face of the threat.

Australia is but the first and most seriously impacted of the arid sub-tropical (and near-sub-tropical) climates that are facing horrific desertification from climate change. For instance, Lester Snow, director of California's Department of Water Resources said Friday:

We may be at the start of the worst California drought in modern history.

Two years ago, Science ($ub. req'd) published research that "predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest" -- levels of aridity comparable to the 1930s Dust Bowl would stretch from Kansas to California. The U.K.'s Hadley Center warned in November 2006 that their research predicted multiple permanent Dust Bowls around the planet on our current emissions path:

Air Force drops plans to build liquid coal plant

Perhaps somebody heard my plea to kill the Air Force liquid coal plant. McClatchy reports:

The Air Force rejected the plans for the coal-to-liquids plant because of possible conflicts with the 341 Missile Wing's nuclear mission. The release said the concerns included decreased security near the base's weapons storage area, interference with missile transportation and "explosive safety arcs and operational flight safety issues."

Not to mention that liquid coal is an environmental abomination with impossible economics used primarily by the desperate and isolated:

The main users and producers of fuel from coal have been South Africa and Nazi Germany.

Still you'll be delighted to know that the Air Force is already using the fuel of the Third Reich and apartheid:

Things I don't like to see on my soap label

Warning: Trivial content ahead. Do not read if you are seeking the latest developments regarding carbon taxes, coal, or cap and trade.

My quest for a suitable hand soap has become somewhat epic in scope. Said soap must meet several criteria: a) an ingredient list that doesn't make me squirm; b) a reasonable price point; c) a scent that doesn't make my fella wince.

More often than not, my quest is shelved by the logistical hiccup known as "we ran out of soap" -- in which case I end up at the local grocery store, scouring labels and sniffing scents and getting frustrated and generally looking like a crazy old soap lady.

Stimulus dollars could go to reviving ‘clean coal’ pilot project

Coal supporters have gotten $4.6 billion for their industry into the Senate economic stimulus bill — nearly double the money in the House version. As we noted last week, that coal pot includes $2 billion for the development of “near-zero emissions” power plants, $1 billion for the Department of Energy’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, and […]

Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1)

A radioactive dirty bomb has been dropped on the Senate stimulus package. As WonkRoom reported:

On Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to increase nuclear loan guarantees by $50 billion in the economic recovery package (S. 336). This staggering sum "would more than double the current loan guarantee cap of $38 billion" for "clean energy" technology.

Yet this provision would not create a single job for many, many years, but would saddle the public with tens of millions of dollars more in toxic loans. As I noted in my 2008 report, "The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power":

In August 2007, Tulsa World reported that American Electric Power Co. CEO Michael Morris was not planning to build any new nuclear power plants. He was quoted as saying, "I'm not convinced we'll see a new nuclear station before probably the 2020 timeline,"

Morris further noted, "Builders would also have to queue for certain parts."

Indeed, the nuclear industry is riddled with bottlenecks. For instance, Japan Steel Works is "the only plant in the world ... capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak." And they have a backlog of a few years already.

The additional loans would probably not even result in a single new signed contract for a plant over the next two years, let alone produce a single job in Obama's first term -- other than maybe a few high-priced lawyers and lobbyists to twist the arms of state Public Utility Commissioners to shove the inevitable rate increase down the throats of consumers (see "Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power"). Turkey seems smarter than that (see "Turkey's only bidder for first nuclear plant offers a price of 21 cents per kilowatt-hour"). Are we?

Why are we still propping up an industry that can't survive without the taxpayer swallowing both the economic risk of an actual meltdown and the risk of the new nukes melting down financially -- all for a mature technology that has already received more than $100 billion in direct and indirect subsidies (see "Nuclear Pork -- Enough is Enough")?

Here is the proposed language for this nuclear bomb:

Energy Future Coalition calls for more efficiency funds in stimulus bill

A coalition of environment, labor, and business groups is petitioning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to increase funding for energy efficiency in the Senate economic stimulus package, at least to the level in the already-passed House version of the bill. The Energy Future Coalition is promoting a “Rebuilding America” plan that would retrofit 50 […]