Latest Articles

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)

Toyota to American public: we make bad cars too!

A wire story just caught my eye. The subject? How Toyota is preparing for the potential backlash caused by its growing popularity in the U.S. (Cue Lee Greenwood here.)

Seems that last month, Toyota's U.S. sales increased 7.8 percent, while GM's fell 5.5 percent and Ford's fell 3. It's just part of the bad Detroit juju of late. But according to this article, Toyota -- maker of some of the most fuel-efficient cars on the planet -- is hastening to remind us that it, too, makes gas guzzlers. And that it, too, could be hurt by tougher fuel economy standards in the U.S.

There are too many amazing angles to poke at here. But what a sad state we're in when the good guys have to pump up their bad reputation.

Environmental economics takes center stage

It seems like everyone has one of these newfangled "weblogs" these days -- which makes it all the more exciting when you find a really good one. Started just last week by two economics professors (but featuring contributions from many more), Environmental Economics has already featured fascinating posts on pollution regulations, carbon credits, and the high price of oil, among other things. And, of course, they are syndicated for all the RSS junkies like me out there.

Biodiversivist

I have a friend in Seattle (Ballard, to be more exact) who just bought a diesel Jetta. After doing much research on the subject (selectively reading articles that support biodiesel), she had concluded that it was the most ecologically sound vehicle available. She even has a bumper sticker to make sure everyone knows it: "Biodiesel: fuel for the revolution." Had she consulted me before her purchase, I might have convinced her to do otherwise (as I did with another friend who was also considering a Jetta). Biofuels are going to be bad news for the planet's biodiversity. As environmentalists, we should be resisting the idea, not promoting it.

Going coast to coast by rail.

As Dave points out, we have quite the task ahead of us when it comes to transitioning from an oil-based economy to one where oil is marginal. If oil is marginal, there's no way we keep up the same amount of air traffic we currently have.

But then, how would someone get from coast to coast? Right now the options in this future economy are not pretty. You could pay a premium for the traditional 6 hour flight. You could drive a car at a similar premium.