Articles by Andy Brett

Google expands its borders

Google Earth has been out for a while now, so I hesitate to post on it, since anyone who thinks it's a cool idea has probably already heard about it. But it hasn't been mentioned here yet, and this little treat today (make sure you zoom all the way in) seemed occasion enough.

People have also been using the software to look at large-scale impacts humans have had and continue to have on the environment, a la the UN atlas, only more interactive.

Wilson weighs in; corn withers

Kelpie Wilson, environmental editor of truthout.org, writes today on the possibility of corn as fuel. Fuhgeddaboutit, is the short answer.

Citing the Patzek/Pimentel paper mentioned in the lively comments section of biodiversivist's "Bad idea" post, Wilson notes that the current energy bill (great resource on that here) is going to have some interesting results if it's passed -- it will both encourage ethanol production and demand that less fossil fuels be used.

But increased ethanol production will actually lead to an increase in the amount of fossil fuels used: "We would use less fossil fuel and produce less greenhouse gas by burning the fossil fuel directly in the motor vehicle." Yet another reason to take a pass on this year's energy bill as the LA Times editorial board suggests.

Wilson actually concludes that we might be better off using corn for cars, because this would mean less high-fructose corn syrup, which she asserts has an even worse effect than the biofuel. However, it's clear that biofuel is not going to be a feasible solution for the global car fleet, even if demand is significantly reduced. There is certainly low-hanging fruit to be grabbed, but biofuel is going to remain a niche market.

Could it work?

Biopolitical anticipated this post with his comment -- in fact, my post on the gas tax started off on the topic of road privatization but then, well, veered off course.

I like the idea of road privatization on the surface. The road system is similar to the mail system in that when it was instituted, there wasn't really a private company that had the necessary capital to take on such a project themselves. Now, however, we have FedEx and other shipping companies that do have that capital for shipping, and which would undoubtedly have branched into mail delivery were it not for the government monopoly. Why not the same for roads?

There are a few considerations here:

The pseudo tax

I've said before that if the government is going to tax or subsidize something, there had better be a really good reason.

However, the one tax that has the best reasons going for it is the gas tax. Five minutes in a room with James Howard Kunstler will convince most people of this, provided they don't walk out. I'm sure most readers of this blog don't need to be told in detail of the myriad benefits that come with less automobile use: more demand for walkable cities and suburbs, decreased carbon emissions, decreased dependence on foreign oil, less need for offshore and arctic drilling, and so on.

But the federal gas tax isn't really a tax at all. It's not a tax in the sense that a tax is usually thought of: a tactic employed by the government to influence behavior. The gas tax is not a "sin" tax, but a user fee. The majority of the federal, (18.4 cents/gallon) gas tax goes to pay for federal highways. More money to federal highways pays for smoother, less congested highways that in the end lead to more driving, offsetting the effects of the increased price of gasoline.

It's easy to say from the sidelines that there needs to be a "sin" style gas tax -- much harder for a politician whose job rides on the performance of the economy to muster the courage to actually enact one. Especially when public opinion polls come back looking like this, as Lisa tells us. I hope that people maybe looked at this as a choice between replacing a $1,600 computer or a $16,000 car; but for the record, I'm with Lisa on this one.