Latest Articles

There’s more to freedom than free parking

I keep seeing the phrase "social engineering" used to describe policies that don't kowtow to the car. See, for example, this inexplicable subhead about a third of the way through this Seattle newspaper story. Not only is this usage annoying, it's exactly backward (as others have noted before me).

First, let's look first at specifics. The paper reports that the city will put parking meters on some formerly-free spots in a rapidly urbanizing district near downtown Seattle. The newspaper calls this "social engineering."

I suppose that's right, at least to the extent that parking meters alter the incentive structure for parking, which ultimately may change some people's behavior. But if anything, the alternative to the city's plan -- continuing to provide public rights-of-way for exclusive, uncompensated use by a handful of private car owners -- is closer to "social engineering" than charging a small fee for the privilege. Really, the question is not whether the city will engage in "social engineering," but what kind of social engineering. And in particular, will government continue to use public resources to subsidize private cars?

Speaking more generally, just about any transportation policy -- or any policy at all, for that matter -- can be described as "social engineering." And using that inflammatory language is a game anyone can play. Consider some (slightly) overheated rhetoric: today's car-centric system is the result of Soviet-style social engineering.

Governments used the awesome power of the state to take money from the populace. Then central planners used the money with an ethic of brutalism, forcing gigantic car thoroughfares across neighborhoods, into the hearts of cities, and then out into far-flung farmlands and wild places.

In town, America's Soviet-style planning wasn't much different.

Oh what a relief it biz

The United States Climate Action Partnership, the group of corporations calling "on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions," just doubled in size (PDF):

With its new members, USCAP companies now have total revenues of $1.7 trillion, a collective workforce of more than 2 million and operations in all 50 states; they also have a combine market capitalization of more than $1.9 trillion.

The big news is that General Motors has joined the list:

Trends on an ever-shrinking planet

I was at Coop Power's excellent annual renewable energy summit in western Massachusetts recently. Richard Heinberg was there as a presenter. He discussed his well-regarded peak oil projections, and he then put that curve next to his peak uranium and peak coal projections. That visual drew gasps from the crowd -- especially the peak coal bit.

Sure we've got lots of coal, but its quality ain't what it used to be, and won't go as far. Check his data. This got me thinking of all the indexes we might put forward to track important trends on this ever-shrinking planet.

The next one I'd promote, given our perilous reliance on the mobile hives that are driven from farm to farm to pollinate our crops, plus this winter's mysterious honeybee population crash, would have to be peak bees. And how about peak freshwater. What would you propose?

Bio Willie, make way for Jeff Parnell

Political songwriter Jeff Parnell has just composed a jaunty little ditty called "Subsidized Ethanol Blues." (Click on link to play.) As Parnell sings it: "Sacrifice the water and land, and what do you gain? Line the pockets of cronies, playing that subsidy game!"

The rest of the lyrics are found below the fold:

A story from Tanzania

Interesting story on a Michigan State University project to help test and improve locally made solar cookers in Tanzania:

Material intensity in water use

(Part of the No Sweat Solutions series.)

Before discussing water savings, we need to define what we mean by "use." The EPA refers to withdrawal and consumption. Withdrawal is the amount taken from surface water and the water table. Consumption refers to the amount chemically combined with something (so that it is no longer fresh water) or evaporated. Water discarded instead of consumed is referred to as "returns," because it is supposedly reusable. This does not even approximate the impact of water use.

One example the EPA gives is power plant cooling. The water is withdrawn and used to cool the plant. A little evaporates, and the rest returned (still more or less clean) to the source. This overlooks a certain amount of impact (fish killed during withdrawals, aquatic plant, fungal, and microbial growth encouraged by the change in water temperature), but is basically correct. However, they apply the same logic to water used for irrigation. With very few exceptions, irrigation water "returns" are loaded with fertilizer salts, growth hormones, microbes, and often pesticides and herbicides as well. Even runoff from organic farms usually contains salts from the manure and composts used.

So the proper way to count water is consumption plus polluted returns -- in most cases, all withdrawals.

People-powered transit makes you happy

Transportation uber-geek Todd Litman looked at studies of people's satisfaction with their commutes (PDF). The results: transit isn't all that popular, compared with a car commute:

The leftmost bar represents a car-only commute; you can see that it gets higher satisfaction ratings (the green part) and lower dissatisfaction (the orange) than both transit and car+transit commutes, which are the next two bars. (Despite the popularity of park-and-rides, there are lots of yucky orange feelings towards a mixed commute.)

But, wait! If you dive into the numbers, it turns out there's another side to this story. As it turns out, people don't have an inherent preference for cars, or an innate dislike of buses or trains. The real story is that people don't particularly like spending time in vehicles, period.

Twice in one week!

Monsanto has barreled its way toward dominance over the global seed market with strong-arm tactics and friends in high places. As evidence of the former, the roguish company once threatened to sue me — then a neophyte blogger with 30 readers — on the most trivial grounds possible. As for the latter, software monopolist Bill […]

Biodiesel rage

From the Seattle PI:

More than 1,300 people -- some shouting "revolution" -- took over Fisher Pavilion at the Seattle Center on Sunday. Look what's happening out in the streets, they said: Biodiesel is coming of age. It's all the rage.

Part trade show, part strategy session, part cheerleading camp, the fifth annual NW Biodiesel Forum brought together biodiesel enthusiasts to learn about peak oil, alternative fuels, mass transit and, in a wrap-up discussion, "Biodiesel in the Northwest -- The Revolution Has Begun!"

Many of these enthusiasts are people who have purchased diesel vehicles so they can burn biodiesel in them and every last one of them has at least one bumper sticker to let you know it:

Control Your Emissions

British population think tank shames large families Got your 10-foot pole handy? You’ll need it for this story: U.K. think tank Optimum Population Trust published a report yesterday declaring that having a large family is akin to such eco-crimes as leaving lights on, driving an SUV, and tossing plastic bags in the trash. Forget carbon […]