Skip to main content

Short-Sighted Buffoonery: Send me in coach!

I'm getting ready to re-enter the fray. I recently agreed to take on a job in the City of Philadelphia that I can't provide details on, but it's not soon enough apparently. Leaders in Washington and state governments all over the country are doing their best to turn solving the climate change problem into another example of oafish, mercenary, short-sighted, buffoonery. Check out the rather direct posting at the Center for American Progress today, "Facing Reality."

I'm fighting mad. You should be too. Personally, I've been on the sidelines way too long and I'm itching to get back in the game. Yesterday, I listened to the news that President Obama is authorizing $54 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear power
industry. Now, I'm not going to argue against nuclear power per se, but what I'm still waiting for is a strategic plan, a truly intelligent approach, to tackling global warming once and for all. And we're not seeing it. The approach that's being taken all throughout the country is scatter shot and smorgasbord and shows a remarkable lack of wisdom on both sides of the aisle.

The logic for this rather unorganized set of solutions is that we have to let The Market decide what technologies are going to work. However, the reason we have a planet with rising average temperatures and changing climatic conditions is that we've let The Market decide. It's failed us here. Everyone knows that. The idea of cap and trade (definitely pay attention to this link and what happens with cap and trade this week; things are getting very weird) is a compromise. Everyone knows this too. The only way the market can solve this problem (technology choices that move away from fossil fuels), is with a so-called carbon tax -- or set of fees that force the market to quantify the environmental cost of burning fossil fuels and emitting other greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. There's no way around this. If we don't get a carbon tax, we won't see climate change go away...that is, unless we develop a plan that strategically addresses all the big issues.

I'm not going to do that here. And it's so frustrating trying to argue for a carbon tax, since there are no testicles to be found in state and federal government buildings anymore.

What I am going to say is that we need to start off with two very simple investment strategies as a nation. One would be directed at energy efficiency and conservation. The other at re-tooling our industrial system to use recycled material and to capture all urban organic waste (yard debris, food scraps, wood, etc.) for conversion to soil and compost. Both of these strategies can take us a long way towards slowing greenhouse gas emissions. Both can save businesses and homeowners money in the long-term (although trash companies and utilities will suffer). And both are profound economic development opportunities that create real, lasting jobs.

Instead we get massive investments in high capital, low labor technologies like nuclear plants, biomass energy systems, and landfill gas recovery. These investments may be necessary, but they aren't going to have a real impact for years -- probably decades. We need solutions that work now. Recycling and energy efficiency measures are proven and can start working immediately -- regardless of the lunacy in the District of Columbia and out in state capitals.
Labels:

Comments

JC Jones said…
Right on David! For more - see http://thefuelfilm.com/, Crude http://www.crudethemovie.com/ & read Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers http://www.theweathermakers.org/. And I am coming out against nuclear energy. Going back to the Green Party...Dem's are way too limp to get this party started.
3/02/2010 2:42 PM
Anonymous said…
Many great and already visited ideas! However, until you can convince the populations of China and India that they really don't want what we (U.S.A) have (multiple car families, 3+ bedroom mega- mansions, Target, Walmart, big screen TV's etc.), the efforts of the United States would add up to nought. Copenhagen has shown us that trying to get the world on board is almost hopeless, even trying to get greedy, materialistic Americans convinced is a challeng - sure there are anectodal sparks of hope, however, it will be a long, long journey. While I eat, breathe, sleep "green" and spend my 40 hours a week educating others to shift their paradigms, it honestly feels hopeless. Thank you for your commentary though... and your work, of course!
5/15/2010 8:48 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Path to Green

A January 23rd article by Usha Lee McFarling in the LA Times, "Studies Support Emissions Plans" gives the lie to the notion that mitigation of greenhouse gases will be bad for the economy. This is an extremely important issue. One study produced by the Center for Clean Air Policy says, "Based on our independent analysis of greenhouse gas mitigation (GHG) options for the State of California, we conclude that Governor Schwarzenegger's goal of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 can be met at no net cost to California consumers." Another study performed by the California Climate Center at Berkeley found that climate protection measures proposed for the state would boost economic activities, creating 20,000 new jobs and increasing gross state product by $60 billion by the end of the state's mitigation date of 2020. The executive summary for their 10-chapter report says, "Preliminary modeling indicates that just eight policies that were analyze...
1 comment
Read more

Bashing Recycling for Confusion and Profit

The following essay is a work in progress. I invite all readers to give me criticism and direction. --------------------------------------------------------------- Recently, the ABC show, Good Morning America , ran a segment interviewing columnist and author Stephen Dubner (co-author of the book Freakonomics ) on whether recycling works. You can watch it by clicking here . While Dubner's basic argument about recycling turns on the idea of market economics (which is sensible), he also says some really weird things that drew me back into the good old early 1990s when bashing recycling was the sport of kings. In particular, Dubner says that plastic water bottle recycling doesn't make sense because it costs more to recycle water bottles (they aren't as valuable as aluminum cans) than it does to make new ones. He also says that old newspapers have such a low value that cities often simply landfill them after they go to the recycling center. He doesn't really provide us with...
3 comments
Read more