Monday What's on the Web: Thanksgiving

Each Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.
----------------------------------------

Due to traveling for Thanksgiving, there is no What's on the Web this week.  Check back next Monday for a new installment.  I hope your Thanksgiving was rewarding and safe.

Steve

Monday What's on the Web: Cleantech Blog

Each Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.

----------------------------------------

Cleantech blog has been around since 2005, making it one of the older environmental blogs around.  There are about 2 dozen contributors to the blog, which covers the cleantech arena.  Key bloggers include Richard Stuebi, who has been with the blog since the beginning and Neal Dikeman, who has a background in banking and finance and likes to focus on the types of technologies that can transform our economy in positive ways.

Recent posts include:

The “Smart Grid”: An Overview

GE Buys 12,000 Chevrolet Volts

Cleantech Meets Heavy Steel

Additionally, if you have ideas and opinions related to the clean tech sector, they may welcome you as a blogger.

 

 

So you think you pay a lot for parking?!

Next time you get ready to complain about how much it costs to park somewhere, remember this.  I spotted this parking price sign in Manhattan recently.
 
With tax, that's $15/day or $200/month.  One would need to have a pretty expensive bike to afford more than $2000 per year to park here.  For what I paid for my commuter bike, I could afford to have it stolen three times a year and still pay less.  Whew!

Given that they can probably fit 10 bikes in the space of a single car, that translates to a space rate of $150/day or $2000/month.

Bjorn Lomborg Both On- and Off-Target on Climate Change

(from Wikipedia)

The Washington Post published an op-ed by Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial climate change author.  In this op-ed, he argues that humans are capable of adapting to climate change, and can easily do so.

"The process is called adaptation, and it's something we humans are very good at. That isn't surprising, since we've been doing it for millennia. As climate economist Richard Tol notes, our ability to adapt to widely varying climates explains how people live happily at both the equator and the poles. In the debate over global warming, in which some have argued that civilization as we know it is at stake, this is an important point. Humankind is not completely at the mercy of nature. To the contrary, when it comes to dealing with the impact of climate change, we've compiled a pretty impressive track record. While this doesn't mean we can afford to ignore climate change, it provides a powerful reason not to panic about it either."

Millennia he says.  Not really.  Although humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, civilization has only been around for about 10,000 years--a time period during which climate has been remarkably stable.  Replacing "humans" with "civilizations" makes his statements false.  Civilizations are not good at adapting to changes in climates.  It's true that we have different civilizations in radically different climates, but they don't move from one to another.  Read Jared Diamond's Collapse for a perspective on how making environmental changes can effect civilizations.  (hint: they don't adapt well.) 

He cites the example of Tokyo, which has subsided up to 15 feet in places, as an example of how we humans can adapt to rising sea levels.  Also the Netherlands.  Both of those countries, of course, are highly developed and wealthy.  A counterexample of Vienna--from another developed country, to boot--might be brought forward as a likely lost cause, a place that will be unable to effectively adapt. 

(photo from Oxfam)

More to the point, how about New Orleans?  How about Pakistan floods?  How about Russian heat waves?  How about the 2003 European heat wave that caused tens of thousands of deaths?  We did not do a very good job of adapting to those, did we?  From my viewpoint, we humans are pretty piss-poor at this adaptation thing, so cavalierly stating that we'll be able to adapt is irresponsible.  And, to emphasize a previous point, who is going to pay for all the adaptation in developing countries if we can't even do it well in the developed world?

"One of the most pernicious impacts of global warming is the extent to which it exacerbates the phenomenon known as the urban "heat island effect."
Hashem Akbari, a senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who specializes in cost-effective methods of combating the effects of climate change in urban areas, has shown that by painting roofs white, covering asphalt roadways with concrete-colored surfaces and planting shade trees, local temperatures could be reduced by as much as 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
Painting streets and rooftops white may sound impractical, if not silly, but it's a realistic strategy - which is to say, it's effective and affordable."

Agreed.  I might point out that this is not news.  The idea of reducing the urban heat island effect has been around for at least a couple of decades.  It's highly effective.  It even helps with mitigation (.e. reducing greenhouse gases).  We haven't done it.  When does he suggest we start?
Also, it's local.  Yes, it might be possible to reduce temperatures in LA or Beirut, but the Arctic is still going to warm just as much.

He ends with this statement:
"Obviously, whether it involves dikes or buckets of white paint, adaptation is not a long-term solution to global warming. Rather, it will enable us to get by while we figure out the best way to address the root causes of man-made climate change. This may not seem like much, but at a time when fears of a supposedly imminent apocalypse threaten to swamp rational debate about climate policy, it's worth noting that coping with climate change is something we know how to do."

We also know how to reduce greenhouse gases.  We already have strategies that can address half or more of the "root causes" of man-made climate change.  In many cases it's even easier and cheaper than adaptation. But every day we delay mitigation means even more adaptation.  I agree that we need to adapt; we'll be forced to, since we're not acting fast enough on climate anyway.  But starting yesterday, we really, really need to reduce.

I think Mr. Lomborg performs a disservice with this op-ed.  By emphasizing the (false) "ease" with which we humans can adapt, he de-emphasizes the need for much more rapid and serious action on reducing greenhouse gases.  In fact, he almost recommends further delay.  Also, his contention that we still need to figure out the "best way to address the root causes" is just silly.  We need to pursue ALL the ways to address the causes--not waste our time trying to find a silver bullet "best way."

Monday What's on the Web: Joe Romm

Each Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.

----------------------------------------

This week's "What's on the Web" is a repeat from last spring.  
Addendum: if you have not read Joe Romm's harsh criticism of the Obama administration's failed climate policies, please read it here.




 This week I highlight the blog Climate Progress and its prolific blogger, Joe Romm. Launched in August of 2006 and supported by the Center for American Progress (where Joe is a Senior Fellow) Climate Progress is an indispensable blog for anyone interested in the "debate," politics, science, media coverage and virtually every other aspect related to the issue of climate change. Climate Progress is very up to date, covering breaking scientific studies, media coverage, news, political actions etc., generally within a day or less.

Joe brings a strong point of view to the issue--a point of view that I share. That is, climate change is the most serious issue mankind is facing, and strong and immediate action must be taken. Joe takes pleasure in debunking and beating up on deniers and delayers. His knowledge of the science is deep and broad. He is the main contributor to the blog, although he also includes guest bloggers. Posts tend to be fairly long and in depth, sometimes including significant detail and always containing significant opinion.

Example titles include:
- Lugar and Voinovich float “half-assed” alternative to comprehensive climate and clean energy jobs bill.
- Must re-read statement from UK’s Royal Society and Met Office on the connection between global warming and extreme weather
- WashPost editorial: “If current trends persist, it’s likely that in coming decades the globe’s climate will change with potentially devastating effects for billions of people.”
- Report: Koch Industries outspends Exxon Mobil on climate and clean energy disinformation

Also, be sure to take in the comments. There are a number of commenters on this blog who add considerable insight and depth to some of the posts.

Counterpoint: High-Speed Rail Can Be a Good Investment - Post 4: Density, Cost

Last Monday, Robert J. Samuelson published an op-ed in the Washington Post suggesting the high-speed rail is nothing but pork.  At one point he says:

"Only in places with greater population densities, such as Europe and Asia, is high-speed rail potentially attractive. Even there, most of the existing high-speed trains don't earn 'enough revenue to cover both their construction and operating costs,' the Congressional Research Service report said. The major exceptions seem to be the Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyon lines."

(from Wikimedia Commons)

As I mentioned in a previous post, I traveled on the AVE trains in Spain this summer.  Spain has a population density of about 210 people per square mile.  There are 12 US states with greater densities than this, as follows:

• New Jersey            1,174
• Rhode Island          1,008
• Massacusetts             841
• Connecticut               726
• UK                 656
• Germany         593
• Maryland                  583
• Delaware                  453
• New York                414
• Florida                      344
• France            310
• Ohio                         282
• Pennsylvania             281
• E. Coast (MA-FL)   276
• California                  237
• Illinois                       232
• Spain              210
• Hawaii                      202

Even more to the point, the whole East Coast, from Massachusetts to Florida, is almost as densely populated as France, which is highly regarded for its excellent high-speed rail system.  So this oft-repeated canard that the US just isn't dense enough to accommodate high-speed rail is patently untrue.

Now the second point: "high-speed trains don't earn 'enough revenue to cover both their construction and operating costs."  Neither do highways.  In fact most highways earn no revenues at all.  Zero.  So what's his point?  Highways don't earn enough revenues to cover EITHER their construction or operating costs.  Virtually all transportation systems are subsidized.  So the decision is not whether a system can pay for itself--none do--but rather which systems make the most sense for long-term growth, environmental impact, competitiveness, value, flexibility, etc.  The very fact that some high-speed rail lines actually DO pay for themselves, as he points out, makes a strong argument for choosing them over highways, which never do.

Counterpoint: High-Speed Rail Can Be a Good Investment - Post 3: Greenhouse Gases

Last Monday, Robert J. Samuelson published an op-ed in the Washington Post suggesting the high-speed rail is nothing but pork.  At one point he says:

"What would we get for this huge investment? Not much. Here's what we wouldn't get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil consumption or imports."

I think he is wrong on all counts.  I addressed commuting and air travel.  Today I address greenhouse gas emissions.

Yesterday I made the point that intelligently designed and built high-speed rail can reduce air traffic.  And it has in countries with good networks, like France, Spain and Japan.  Every plane trip that is eliminated is going to save thousands of gallons of fuel.  Every gallon of fuel contributes about 25 pounds of CO2 to our atmosphere.  In yesterday's post I pointed out that the trains from Madrid to Barcelona had the capacity of as much as sixty flights per day between those two cities (in reality, since not every train is full, they are not currently offsetting that many flights--but they could).  That's theoretically over 2000 tons of CO2 per day that could be saved.  Less, of course, than whatever greenhouse gases are emitted from running the train.

As I pointed out yesterday, however, as our production of electricity gets cleaner, so will the emissions associated with running the train.  So let's say 1/2 of that for now: 1000 tons per day.  365,000 tons per year.  For one corridor.  I would disagree with Mr. Samuelson's contention of no "meaningful reduction in greenhouse gases."  Maybe that's not much to him, but I think it's meaningful.

Monday What's on the Web: Bracken Hendricks

Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.

----------------------------
Bracken Hendricks is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.  Mr. Hendricks has been a long-time promoter of policies and ideas to reduce the risk of climate change and is well versed in strategies that engage the private sector in this pursuit also.  You can read his contributions to the Climate Progress blog here.  And you can read his various contributions at CAP here.

 Just yesterday, the Washington Post ran a very cogent op-ed by Mr. Hendricks laying out the foundation for why addressing climate change is as much a conservative issue as a liberal/progressive issue.  In fact, for those of you who read this blog, you will know that I believe there is a strong confluence between business success and environmental protection, and so I am on the same page with Mr. Hendricks.

Keep an eye on Mr. Hendricks's contributions.  He is intelligent and practical and brings strong and pragmatic views in the ongoing challenges presented by climate change.

Counterpoint: High-Speed Rail Can Be a Good Investment - Post 2: Air Travel

Last Monday, Robert J. Samuelson published an op-ed in the Washington Post suggesting the high-speed rail is nothing but pork.  At one point he says:

"What would we get for this huge investment? Not much. Here's what we wouldn't get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil consumption or imports."

I think he is wrong on all counts.  Yesterday I addressed commuting.  Today I address air travel.

Here's his point:
"In a report on high-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles or fewer with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched to trains, the total number of daily airline passengers, about 2 million, would drop only 2.5 percent."


Hmm.  Amtrak's Northeast corridor by itself carried more than 50% of the passenger load he quotes above.  There's something wrong with that number.  I suspect that they did not include intermediate passengers. Since a train can make a few stops (not too many, or it degrades the service), a single corridor actually serves several markets.  Just like the Washington-New York trains serve Baltimore and Philadelphia as well as DC and New York.  I suspect that would increase that number substantially.

When I was in Spain this summer, I took the AVE train from Madrid to Barcelona--386 miles (2 hours, 38 minutes!) (see my post: High-Speed Rail in Spain).  Almost every single train on Friday afternoon was completely sold out, and they run 24 trains between 5:50 AM and 11:30 PM.  Each of those trains can carry 1.5-2 times the number of passengers on a plane, unless you're talking a widebody aircraft.  That's a lot of flights being replaced.

More importantly, however, is that our air traffic system is overburdened.  It will take billions and billions of dollars to upgrade air traffic control and increase capacity of that system.  Take a look at my blog post from last year describing how strategic use of effective rail might eliminate the need to build a $20 billion third Chicago airport.

This op-ed suffers from one of the most common logical errors.  It compares the costs of high-speed rail with, well, nothing.  It assumes that whatever would happen instead wouldn't cost anything at all.  But not only would the costs of trying to increase air capacity be enormous, but the environmental costs would be higher as well.  What kind of analysis is that?  And that doesn't even take into account that trains can be more flexibly fueled (electricity can come from renewables, nuclear or other sources).  For now, planes are pretty much reliant on petroleum, which is getting more and more precious.

More soon.

Counterpoint: High-Speed Rail Can Be a Good Investment - Post 1: Commuting (??!)

Last Monday, Robert J. Samuelson published an op-ed in the Washington Post suggesting the high-speed rail is nothing but pork.  At one point he says:

"What would we get for this huge investment? Not much. Here's what we wouldn't get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil consumption or imports."

I think he is wrong on all counts, and I'll deal with each one-at-a-time over the next few days.

First: traffic congestion.  Another quote: "Even assuming 250,000 high-speed rail passengers, there would be no visible effect on routine commuting."

 Well, duh!  High-speed rail has nothing whatsoever to do with commuting.  Setting up this irrelevant strawman that he can then knock over is a waste of ink and damages his credibility on the other points.  It's as stupid as saying, "Building a third Chicago airport will have no visible effect on routine commuting."

I'm certain Mr. Samuelson is smarter than this, so why does he spend two paragraphs trying to make a point that high-speed rail is going to have some sort of effect on traffic.  I don't know.  Some of the commenters to the article suggested it was a paid oil-company promotional op-ed.  I'm not quite that cynical.

Monday What's on the Web: Treehugger

Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.

----------------------------

This week's Internet resource is Treehugger.  Treehugger adds more than 30 posts a day on topics related to environment, health, and sustainability.  This is how they describe themselves:

"TreeHugger is the leading media outlet dedicated to driving sustainability mainstream. Partial to a modern aesthetic, we strive to be a one-stop shop for green news, solutions, and product information."

Note that Treehugger is a Discovery company, which gives it substantial resources to keep it going.  Also keep in mind that it is part of the Discovery conglomerate, which is essentially an entertainment company.

With as many posts as they put up, it can be overwhelming.  They offer a dozen subtopics to help screen for those posts that are most interesting to you, including "Cars + Transportation," "Travel + Nature," "Business + Politics," etc.

Beyond its postings, Treehugger also includes forums, polls, games, and a series of guides on how to "green" many aspects of life, such as weddings, cars, gift-giving, renovations, etc.

Much of the content is relatively short, without significant in-depth detail, but they occasionally point you to more complete resources.

It's definitely worth keeping an eye on Treehugger, mainly for its ability to find interesting stories from across the sustainability spectrum.