Category Archives: Ecology

Ecology, Economy, Government, Social Justice

New ways to measure progress

Leave a comment

Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, at the request of the French Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, put out a report on alternative methods for measuring economic performance. Such methods include Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistics, but the report calls for including social and environmental factors.

Herman Daly and many others in the Ecological Economics community have been calling for better measures of our economic, social and environmental progress for over twenty years.  Indeed, Redefining Progress already releases its Genuine Progress Indicator each year, though at a three year delay.

Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns rightly points out (via Naked Capitalism) that GDP is an inadequate measure of our economic state.  Rather he wants to be sure that our economic statistics include not just income (GDP), but debt.  I completely agree with him and hope that such revised metrics, note the plural,  include measure such assets as our environment, the health & education of our people and other non-market debts and assets.

Hopefully this report will put a pressure on the world's governments to devise and track metrics that better reflect our economic, social and ecological progress.  Until then, we should create and track our own community indicators.

Ecology, Economy, Energy, Government

A Cash for Clunkers Review

Leave a comment

According to Toyota Tops List of Cash-for-Clunkers Winners (NY Times), 690,000 new vehicles were purchased with money from the Cash for Clunkers program.  On average, new cars got 25 miles per gallon (mpg) while "clunkers" got 16 mpg.  If the average person in the US drives 15,000 miles/year, then new cars will save 337.5 gallons of gas a year (937.5 gallons for "clunkers" and 600 gallons for the newer cars).

So did the Cash for Clunkers program pay off?  Lets try a back of the envelope calculation.

If we estimate that the "clunkers", without the program, would have been replaced within five years on average, then the total gas saved would be:

690,000 cars x 337.5 gallons saved per year x 5 years = 1,164,375,000 gallons saved

or about 1.16 billion gallons of gas saved.

Since about $2.9 billion was spent, that means that for every gallon saved, it cost the federal government about $2.49.  Increasing the average replacement time decreases the cost per gallon, while decreasing the replacement time raises the cost per gallon.

With gas costing $2.62 a gallon on 8/24 (see doe.gov), this is a slight savings.  The savings would grow should the price of gas go back to its high point of $4.00 in July 2008 or even higher when peak oil really kicks in.

Some (1 , 2) have estimated the true cost of a gallon of gas to be significantly higher due to such factors as the subsidies the government gives to gas, protecting the oil supply in the Persian Gulf, lost time in traffic and the environmental cost.  Estimates of the true cost of a gallon of gas vary between $5 and $15.  At those prices, Cash for Clunkers program was quite a good investment. 

However, whether the Cash for Clunkers program was as efficient at cutting our oil usage and pollution as other approaches such as home energy efficiency improvements, or increased ride sharing, public transit or bike paths remains to be seen.

Ecology, Politics

The Opposition – Registering Green in 2008

2 Comments
Posted with permission from Jeremy Cannon.  He sums things up pretty well.

On November 4th, 2008, I will be eligible to vote in my first federal election.

On the ballot will be what seems like the scripted tale of American
governance: The "maverick" war hero Republican and the smooth talking
young Democrat.

Who really wins in this ballet of moderation?

I know who will lose:

People seeking effective universal healthcare.

McCain plans on tearing down any real way to assist people in getting
healthcare with what is the most conservative healthcare plan I have
ever heard be promoted nationally.
Obama has a plan with a lot of specifics that don't add up and when
they do add up, it doesn't equal universal healthcare and sounds far
more expensive than it is helpful.

People seeking marriage equality.

McCain and Obama agree – gay people should not get married.

People seeking an end to war.

McCain and Obama have both voted, whenever possible, to continue the
War in Iraq. Obama was not in the Senate when it started, but he has
voted to fund it every time.

McCain and Obama agree, we need more troops in Afghanistan. Not a
different strategy on combating global terrorism, but more troops in
Afghanistan.

People seeking education reform.

McCain and Obama agree with Bush – charter schools are a good solution.

People seeking privacy.

McCain and Obama voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and for FISA.

People seeking clean energy.

Both McCain and Obama have expressed support for the oxymoron of an idea of "clean coal".
Both McCain and Obama have expressed support for nuclear power.
Both McCain and Obama have expressed support for offshore drilling,
even though Obama had clearly been against it until he made his recent
switch.
Senator Obama voted FOR the Energy Policy Act of 2005 – which amounts
to a $12,300,000,000 subsidy for big oil and nuclear power.

People seeking budget reform.

Both McCain and Obama have voted consistently for Bush's budgets.

People seeking electoral reform.

Both McCain and Obama have supported excluding people from the debates that do not agree with their corporate agenda.

People seeking corporate accountability

Both McCain and Obama supported the bail out. The same one that
continues to allow people to do the same things that led to the current
economic mess.

You get the idea: John McCain and Barack Obama win – the majority
continues to lose. I will not vote for this. I cannot consciously
support either major party candidate.

So what will I do? I will vote for the candidate that represents me best.
This radical idea was not mine first, admittedly, as George Washington
himself opposed the party system. I do not oppose the party system, I
oppose the TWO party system.

So, I registered Green.

The Green Party, like many other third parties, is funded by the people (not corporations) and provides answers:

YES to Single-Payer Healthcare – accessible to all citizens.
YES to a living wage.
YES to marriage equality – no more discrimination.
YES to ending wars.
YES to education reform.
YES to privacy.
YES to clean energy – no oil or nuclear money.
YES to budget reform.
YES to electoral reform – more than two candidates!
YES to corporate accountability.

I, no longer, have to wonder what will happen to the poor family that
can't afford healthcare, the working mom that just can't make enough
money, the gay couple ready to tie the knot, the brother in Iraq, the
children who need to learn, the conversations I have in private, the
planet I love to live on, the money I spend, the people I vote for, and
the unchecked corporate fat cats that have squandered our future for
their own gain.

The Green Party has the answers to the questions I asked.

Maybe the Green Party doesn't answer questions in the way you support,
but a different third party probably does. I URGE you to look up a
party that supports what you want NOW, not tomorrow.

Yours,
Jeremy Cannon

Ecology

The other debt problem

Leave a comment

Just wanted to remind folks about the other debt problem we are dealing with: GHG/CO2 emissions and global warming. 

Apparently emissions are increasing at a rate faster than anticipated, more from the US, China and India,  while the various carbon sinks that have taken some of the CO2 we have pumped out (forests, oceans, etc.) are not taking in as much as they did.  See: Greenhouse gas emissions shock scientists.  Plus, we have started freeing methane (30 times more powerful than CO2 as a global warming gas) that has been locked away.

This debt problem is going to be a whole lot harder to deal with if we don't do anything about it soon. 

Thankfully, all our electricity usage is from wind power now.

Ecology

State of North Pole Sea Ice

Leave a comment

Mom and I got to talking about climate change and I pointed out that the area of the North Pole sea ice is receeding.  She was skeptical of the rate of decrease, so I decided to go looking.  NOAA’s Arctic Change site has some good facts and pictures.  2002-2005 has seen near record minimums for the amount of North Pole sea ice.

While the melting of the the sea ice would certainly open up shipping lanes between Canada and Russia, it could result in the extinction of polar bears as the Sunday Times and Wall Street Journal reported in December 2005 and the Washington Post reported in 2004, among problems.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report has some useful information.

Ecology

Greenland and Glacier Melting

Leave a comment

The Oil Drum has an interesting article on Greenland and the physics of ice melting.  It notes:

A "flat to gradually sloping icecap covers all but a narrow,
mountainous, barren, rocky coast". The ice sheet covers about 80% of
the land, and contains about 2.5 million cubic kilometers of ice. If
all that ice were to melt, it would increase global sea level by about 7m, or 23 feet.

There is a great deal of information here about the ice at the poles and it is well worth the read.

One of the maps it provides is an EPA map of the Eastern Sea board/Gulf coast that shows the portions of the US east coast that would be inundated by 1.5m and 3.5m of sea level rise.  As it notes:

3.5m would be reached halfway through a Greenland icesheet collapse. As
you can see, the total area isn’t that large, but it includes a pretty
large fraction of many of the east coast’s coastal cities. That would
be expensive.

It got me to thinking about where would Massachusetts and New England fare in a sea level rise.  To get an idea I found a set of EPA maps.  According to Google Earth, my house is at about 45 feet above sea level.  However, by the maps, some high value areas of Boston would be flooded or at least would be more vulnerable to hurricanes.  Food for thought.

Ecology

And now for something closer to home

Leave a comment

New Standard News reports that Environmentalists Attack Massachusetts Wetlands Bank.  Specifically:

At issue are state-run wetlands mitigation banks, a concept that gives
"mitigation credits" that permit the destruction of otherwise protected
lands in exchange for present or future promises to restore, enhance,
preserve or otherwise improve wetlands elsewhere. Critics argue that
mitigation credits provide financial and regulatory cover for
development projects that harm vital ecosystems and. [sic]

From an economic stand point allowing flexibility in allocation of resources is a good thing.  However, it is difficult for humans to create, nevermind restore, etc. a wetland.  The webs of life are too complex for our modern mind attuned to putting things in little orderly compartments. 

As such, the wetlands we destroy won’t be as good as those  we create.  All in all, "migration credits" sounds like a horrible idea.