Uncategorized

Let's not pretend the government isn't encouraging suburbs

There are a great many ways in which the government shapes our land-use patterns. Sprawl apologists often argue that low-density, suburban-style development has dominated the American landscape over the past half century because it is clearly superior to alternatives. Now, there's no doubt that many Americans prefer suburban life.

At the same time, it's impossible to ignore the overwhelming way in which government policy has encouraged such development, intentionally, and unintentionally. The government didn't necessarily intend for a massive network of (largely) free-to-user highways to spur suburban growth and gut urban centers, but that's what happened. Similarly, the government's long-term commitment to increased rates of home-ownership wasn't necessarily about changing land-use patterns. But as economist Ed Glaeser notes at the New Republic, the relationship between the policy and the outcome is clear:

Roughly 87 percent of all single-family detached homes are owner-occupied. Roughly 87 percent of all homes in buildings with five or more units are rented. Multi-family dwellings have common spaces, such as lobbies, and common infrastructure; sharing joint control over these things can often be quite difficult. Landlord control over large buildings irons out the difficulties of dealing with the cacophony of collective control.

The connection between homeownership and structure type implies that when the federal government gets into the business of supporting homeownership, it also gets into the business of supporting single-family detached homes -- and this means supporting lower-density living. New Yorkers have converted plenty of rental units into co-ops, but still 77 percent of the households in Manhattan rent. The government's big post-war push into homeownership was inevitably also a push to suburbanize. You do not need to be an enemy of the suburbs to wonder why the government is implicitly urging Americans to drive longer distances and flee denser living.

Of course, this is just one of many reasons why we should be skeptical of policies that subsidize homeownership. Such subsidies are regressive. They encourage heavy, leveraged investments in undiversified assets that perform unexceptionally over time. They reduce mobility, which prevents households from responding to changing economic conditions. And should there be a massive housing bubble and collapse, they put millions of households at risk of foreclosure and bankruptcy and contribute to global economic meltdown.

But for all this, the odds of a reversal of these policies, like the mortgage interest reduction, are basically zero. Which is yet another reason that we ought to focus on undoing other suburban subsidies wherever it's politically feasible. Congestion pricing, which could address crowded freeways while funding better urban transport, is a good place to start.

The economy needs to be green to be 'fixed'

As is often the case, The New York Times serves as a good example of the mistaken assumptions underlying conventional wisdom. In his Sunday Magazine cover story, "The Big Fix," Times economic columnist David Leonhardt combines many of the misconceptions surrounding the idea of "green jobs." As I fretted in a previous post, some writers, including Leonhardt, seem to be setting up some sort of cosmic battle between green jobs, cap-and-trade, and economic growth:

Of the $700 billion we spend each year on energy, more than half stays inside this country. It goes to coal companies or utilities here, not to Iran or Russia. If we begin to use less electricity, those utilities will cut jobs. Just as important, the current, relatively low price of energy allows other companies -- manufacturers, retailers, even white-collar enterprises -- to sell all sorts of things at a profit. Raising that cost would raise the cost of almost everything that businesses do. Some projects that would have been profitable to Boeing, Kroger or Microsoft in the current economy no longer will be. Jobs that would otherwise have been created won't be. As Rob Stavins, a leading environmental economist, says, "Green jobs will, to some degree, displace other jobs."

Later in the article, he kinda sorta argues that this might all be necessary in the long-term .. but first, let's deconstruct his arguments.

SNL serves up a solution to the great diaper debate

Can't decide between cloth and disposable? Now there's a better way:

Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in

Australia has been suffering its worst heat wave on record, the first time temperatures exceeded 110 degrees Fahrenheit for three days running. It's been so hot that on Thursday, the low at Melbourne airport was 87 °F.

Australia is the canary in the coal mine for climate-driven desertification. The astonishing decade-long drought in southern Australia was declared 'worst on record' last year. The U.K.'s Independent notes:

Australia, the driest inhabited continent on earth, is regarded as highly vulnerable. A study by the country's blue-chip Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation identified its ecosystems as "potentially the most fragile" on earth in the face of the threat.

Australia is but the first and most seriously impacted of the arid sub-tropical (and near-sub-tropical) climates that are facing horrific desertification from climate change. For instance, Lester Snow, director of California's Department of Water Resources said Friday:

We may be at the start of the worst California drought in modern history.

Two years ago, Science ($ub. req'd) published research that "predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest" -- levels of aridity comparable to the 1930s Dust Bowl would stretch from Kansas to California. The U.K.'s Hadley Center warned in November 2006 that their research predicted multiple permanent Dust Bowls around the planet on our current emissions path:

Things I don't like to see on my soap label

Warning: Trivial content ahead. Do not read if you are seeking the latest developments regarding carbon taxes, coal, or cap and trade.

My quest for a suitable hand soap has become somewhat epic in scope. Said soap must meet several criteria: a) an ingredient list that doesn't make me squirm; b) a reasonable price point; c) a scent that doesn't make my fella wince.

More often than not, my quest is shelved by the logistical hiccup known as "we ran out of soap" -- in which case I end up at the local grocery store, scouring labels and sniffing scents and getting frustrated and generally looking like a crazy old soap lady.

Magic exists: It's called 'cap-and-trade'

One of the problems with carbon taxes is that they're static. Let's say you set a tax at $20 per ton of CO2. It's going to stay at $20 when the economy is hot, even if the tax rate doesn't do much to reduce emissions. Conversely, when the economy goes south, the carbon tax will persist at $20, even though emissions may be dropping fast on their own -- and companies may need some breathing room.

The first scenario is bad for the climate. The second scenario is bad for the economy.

If only there were a way for carbon pricing to respond to changing economic conditions in real time without any intervention from policymakers. If only. That would be like magic.

But I have good news for you: magic exists! There is such a thing as a magical self-adjusting carbon tax. It tracks economic conditions precisely and it always ensures the right amount of reductions. It's called "cap-and-trade."

'Irreversible' climate change does not mean 'unstoppable' climate change

Note to media: The Ghost of Climate Yet to Come says, "It's not too late!"

RealClimate makes a good point with the title of its post, "Irreversible Does Not Mean Unstoppable" about the recent NOAA led paper (see here):

We at Realclimate have been getting a lot of calls from journalists about this paper, and some of them seem to have gone all doomsday on us.

Indeed, this is the perfect paper for someone, like say, Lou Dobbs, who can go from hard-core doubt/denial to credulous hopelessness in one breath, as he did Friday (h/t ClimateScienceWatch):

Let's assume, for right now, that there is such a thing as climate change, let's assume it's manmade. What indication-what evidence do we have, what reason do we have to believe that mankind can do anything significantly to reverse it because a number of people, as you know in the last two weeks, are reported that, that, this is a 1,000-year trend irrespective of what we do.

Yeah, let's assume, for right now, there is climate change and let's further assume it's man-made since there's like no factual basis for actually knowing those things. Then let's tell the public the latest research means if there is man-made climate change, the situation is now hopeless -- when in fact the latest research makes it all the more urgent to keep total emissions and concentrations as low as posisble

Seriously. This guy has his own hour TV show on a major cable network -- albeit one that fired its staff covering science and environment and hired a psychic to cover climate change (OK, let's assume, for right now, that I made up that last part).

The whole world has become Dickensian, which just happens to remind me of another Dickens story relevant to the theme that irreversible does not mean unstoppable:

In which industry conquers nature

This is neither here nor there, but it just occurred to me: Last night, the Steelers -- a team named after Pittsburgh's legendary industrial past -- beat the Cardinals, a team closely identified with a bird. Industry beats nature. Prophecy?

Vote today on your fave carbon cap video

Environmental Defense Action Fund is holding a video contest to "explain in 30 seconds how capping global warming pollution could help solve our oil addiction."

They've narrowed down the video submissions to the top five and are encouraging everyone to vote on a favorite by tonight. Check out two of the five videos below and vote on the best one here. The winning video producer will receive the Climate Activist's Choice Award, which comes with a $1,000 prize.

A small example of dynamic ice

Looking up from my keyboard, I saw a perfect illustration of what's happening underneath ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Two recent snowstorms dumped eight inches of heavy snow, followed by an afternoon of very warm air and a sharp rain. The rainwater lubricated the snow packs on my neighbor's roof and they began to slide. The temperature fell quickly with nightfall, leaving us with a perfect example of dynamic ice.

See the photo below the fold: