Foreign policy and fuel alternatives

One of the important points of Sherry Boschert's "Plug-in Hybrids," is the significant overlap between national security interests and environmental concerns. Something Glenn Beck said this morning reminded me of this. Beck laments the fact that America is beholden unto countries who share neither our ideals nor our interests and who in some cases, use the money we pay them for oil to attack us. He goes on to harp on how we should have started tearing up Alaska years ago so that we could get at the oil there (ANWR), but then he says something surprising:

But ANWR is not the answer, it's a Band-Aid, and I worry that our shortsighted politicians would use it as an excuse not to look for viable replacements for oil, which is what we really need.

He's right. But here's where we diverge. He believes in synthetic fuels (essentially burning coal in our cars) whereas I think combustion is a mistake altogether. Mr. Beck seems concerned about the high cost of oil and the foreign policy implications of our dependence on oil, but thinks the solution can be found by burning other things.

This 'if you run out of fire wood, burn the furniture' approach is fine if it's the dead of winter and you need to keep warm, but if you burn the furniture just for ambiance you're being a little short sighted. I think that a hefty percentage of fuel consumption in this country is unnecessary. We're using up our fire wood because we can and it's nice to have a fire. But if we want to make sure we can make it through the winter, maybe we should use less wood now.

It is through conservation and thoughtful use of alternatives that we will reduce our dependence on oil. I suggest that at a time when alternatives are still a bit hard to come by, and the economy is in the toilet, conservation might make the most significant difference in the near term.

Eco-McMansions

Yesterday was a big day for green things. CNN had two items that I found to be of interest, both were about green building and one of them ties in with my question regarding our culture of consumption.

The first was a little "explainer" about green building ideas and practices. It mentions the National Home Buyers Association's Model Green Home Building Guidelines, as well as the US Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system.

Some of the comments on this piece are interesting, with most people solidly in favor of green things, while a scattered few decry it as a big scam. "Mike" had an important point regarding "todd's" comment of "...It's not about the price morons, it's about doing the right thing." He says:

"Take it easy todd. How much do new Toyota Prius's start at $22,000? I am just starting out in the world and I for one could not afford that price when I was in the market for a new car in 2006. I care about the environment and I wanted to do my part, but at that price it was not possible for me. I bought a 2006 Honda Civic because it gets great mileage and I could afford it. Why does the price of "being green" have to be so much more than everything else??"

I think that both of them are right. For those who have the luxury of flexibility in terms of pricing, why not focus on doing the right thing? That said, I think that given Mike's limited resources, he made a great decision. He did the best he could with what he had. The problem we face as a nation and a culture is that people tend to buy far more than they actually need. this is a good segue into the next piece.

CNN's Sr. Environment and Technology Correspondent Miles O’Brien wrote a piece on Green McMansions, 8000 Square foot homes that are alleged to be ecofriendly. This, from the article:

'The home we toured has geothermal heating and cooling, incredibly tight and efficient insulation… sustainably- harvested lumber…lots of LED and natural light and the home sites are built in clusters- to preserve the woods.

“I think we’ve pushed the envelope of green pretty far,” Robbins [president of the Windermere development] told me.'

Here I think the point is not so much "How green is it compared to another house of its size?" but "Is its size antithetical to green ideals?" So far my thinking is this: If you need a place for 10 to 15 people to live comfortably, this might be a great way to do it. However, American's lust for all things big does not seem to extend to families. The Average number of children under 18 for American families (with children) is 1.86 according to the 2000 Census (pdf). This means that odds are pretty good you don't have a giant family. Why then, the urge to buy so much more than you need?

Two years ago my wife and I came into a bit of money. We were going to add a floor to our relatively modest San Francisco home. After careful thought, we realized that we really didn't need another floor, we just wanted another floor because it would be nice. We recognized however that if we added another floor we would have to heat another floor and light another floor. Since we didn't really need it it seemed wrong to consume all that extra. Instead we saved our money and invested about a third of what we would have spent on that extra floor on solar instead. Now we don't pay for electricity.

Everybody has to make the choices that are right for them. I believe in this. However, I urge people to consider why they are choosing something. If you truly need it, go for it. If you don't, then think about your motivation, and think about what else you could do with your money.

O'brien wraps up his piece with this:

'Our homes are our castles - and they are the cornerstone of the American Dream. Now is not the time to stop dreaming big - but maybe it is time to stop building that way simply for the sake of telling the world we have arrived.'

Proposition G

I received a flier in the mail last week regarding San Francisco Proposition G. Fliers for ballot propositions are always so one-sided and uninformative that I usually just toss them straight into the recycling, but this one at least appeared to have interesting subject matter. I immediately went to their website to find out more.

Proposition G (2008) proposes to clean up the Hunter's Point shipyard (using Federal funds), rebuild the Double Rock public housing projects without displacing current residents, and add 8000 new jobs, a green tech research facility, permanent work space for SF artists, thousands of new homes, and 300 acres of park land. All of this at no "new" cost to the taxpayer. The proposition also repeals 100 million in bonds approved back in 1997.

What's more, Lennar Corp plans to use green building technology for all construction at the site. Unfortunately the site does not go into further details about the green building practices aside from mentioning that it's "the latest" and it will be energy efficient and transit friendly.

I'm excited to see how this project progresses. It has potential to help people out of the trap mentioned in previous posts. If the housing is energy efficient (and hopefully makes extensive use of solar or wind power) it could help people save money, allowing them to make decisions that require a bit of investment.

I have been unable to find the actual text of the ballot measure anywhere, but I'll post an update when I find it. I would love to find out what the actual cost to taxpayers is. It looks like a bit less than 200 million is coming from Scala Real Estate Partners. But it's a 1.4 billion dollar project, so there's a bit of a gap there.

Gas Tax "Holiday"

Well it looks like McCain's been reading Glenn Beck (yes, the same article cited in my first post). While Beck seems to be a true believer in trickle-down economics, McCain I think, is just pandering.

There were two quotes in this article that I found particularly relevant:

1.

"It's a quick fix for people who believe cheap gas is their birthright," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, a research firm. "It's not a prudent thing to do."

2.

If money from the general fund is used, it could in some ways be a fairer tax. The gas tax is a flat tax that impacts poor people more than rich ones, while money from the general fund is raised in a system where people who earn more are supposed to pay more.

These two quotes get at the heart of my "primary questions." The acknowledgment that there are people who believe that cheap gas is their birthright is an important one. I think the very concept of "birthright" is partially responsible for the mess we're in. Could it be that we're so wrapped up in the things that we have a right to do, that we forget to ask ourselves if we should do them? I have the right to disperse my social security number, my mother's maiden name and all of my bank account information right here in this post. It's guaranteed in the constitution. That doesn't make it a good idea. Knowing when not to exercise one's rights can be even more important than knowing when to exercise those rights.

The second quote addresses the disparity between rich and poor in this country. It's indicative of the kind of trap faced by the poor, the trap I'm interested in exploring:

It's difficult to invest in something that will save you money in the future if you don't have any money now. A new Prius, solar panels, a tankless water heater, all these things are expensive in terms of capital outlay but they depreciate slowly and significantly reduce long term expenses. What this amounts to is that a family that pays a higher percentage of its income for gasoline, electricity, and natural gas is trapped into paying that higher percentage because that can't afford to make the investments that would decrease those expenses. Poor people often drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles, thus paying more in federal gas tax (by way of higher consumption) and in paying more are further limiting their ability to get out of the trap.

I'm looking for a way out.

Plug-in Hybrids

I've been saving up links for ages, reading books, watching trends, etc. I'll probably be trotting out quite a few of these old links for a while, just as background information. who knows, some of them might turn out to be important. If not, at least they are things that I find interesting and maybe you will too.

I'm going to start with a book that I read over the summer. It's called Plug-in Hybrids (The Cars that Will Recharge America). This book answered a lot of questions I had about plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. It also addresses the viability of alternative fuels like bio-diesel and hydrogen, and how the use of these compares to the feasibility and benefit of plug-ins. Based on the title, you can guess where it goes, but it's worth the journey to get to the end. It is well a reasoned and thoroughly convincing argument in favor of electricity as our primary means of personal locomotion.

Author Sherry Boschert also dedicates some time to the auto industry's plot to murder electric vehicles. Reading her account of this made me absolutely furious. Like Medea murdering her own children for the pettiest of reasons, the waste was appalling.

Testing. tap. tap. tap.

I've been meaning to do this for a long time. For ages I've been collecting articles from various news sources, reading sites like treehugger and terrapass, and aggregating information. Knowledge is power right? I've been trying to answer a few basic questions by observing a particular sector and pondering what I see.

The sector is (big surprise) green technology. The data points are many, and the observations are tentative.

My two primary questions are:

1. How did we get to where we are now? This question explores the link between childhood obesity and the war in Iraq. I will attempt to examine how western culture has dug the bottom out of its own hole of consumption, leaving us to free fall.

2. What can poor people do make a positive impact on the environment? Less ethereal, and more practical, this problem explores the essential dilemma that going green costs money. It's easy for some people to junk their'87 blazer and get a prius, but for a hefty percentage of Americans, that kind of change just isn't feasible. Some people can afford to put solar panels on their rooftops, or change every lightbulb to a compact flourescent, but many cannot. While it may be true that the more money you have, the more energy you tend to consume (=bigger carbon footprint), I think it's wrong to assume that poor people don't care or wouldn't change if they had the option.

I expect that there will be a lot of people who will find fault with what I have to say, and that's fine. I'm interested in hearing other input. It would be nice if it could remain civil. I will point out here that I am not a "crazy lefty liberal." I am politically fairly moderate, a tad on the liberal side. I love my country. I'm willing to observe its faults and still love it. I believe very firmly in the principles on which it was founded.

I will also state in no uncertain terms that I believe that global warming is being caused by human activity. I read something the other day that says that only 21% of Americans believe this. You know what though? Science is not a democracy. You don't get to vote on facts. Scientists who know a damn site more than I do about climatology overwhelmingly concur that global warming is our fault.

So, over the course of however long this lasts I'll be posting links to articles, maybe occasionally with some analysis. We'll see what happens.