Tackle Risk Early

If the government had stepped in a bailed out foreclosing homeowners, would we be in the credit crisis we are in now? Nicholas Stern, a former British Treasury economist, notes that "inaction on emissions blamed for global warming could cause economic pain equal to the Great Depression."
http://www.enn.com/business/article/38498

We are still in a moment when regulation could curb global warming, but not for long. If we think this credit crisis is bad, global warming could be far more economically, as well as environmentally, devastating. Therefore, regulation of carbon, green building laws, etc. cannot get subsumed in short term "cost saving" measures.

An example of this short sighted behavior is being shown in King County, Washington, where $20/month incentives to county officials who bike or walk to work are being threatened. http://sustainable.bizjournals.com/green/King_County_bike-to-work_subsidy_under_fire.html The total cost for the subsidy--$37,000.

At long last--The Energy Bill Post

I apologize, readers, for the 10 day hiatus in posts, but I have been on vacation, and then thinking about what to say about the Energy Bill passed in the House on August 4, 2007.

Earth2Tech has a nice summary of the features of the bill here http://earth2tech.com/2007/08/05/house-passes-energy-bill/.

I want to disuss what the bill doesn't do. The Bill does not remotely address our dependence on fossil fuel and coal. It basically just nibbles around the edges, establishing programs like the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, for energy research, and requiring the Department of Energy to establish a green building clearinghouse, and providing funds and incentives for alternative fuel research and use. An increase in the fuel efficiency standards for cars, for example, was removed from the bill.

What really needs to happen is large scale, expensive change--a carbon tax, and a cap-and-trade program for emissions. The Federal government needs to create legislation to build the actual cost of environmental damage into each and every energy transaction to effect real change. Now that Democrats have some governmental power, they must push for the large scale change that will really make a difference, as opposed to wasting political capital on band-aid pallitives.

The bill does have some positive aspects--it cuts the $16b subsidy to Big Oil, and it creates milestones for the Federal government to reduce its carbon footprint. But we need to stop playing around, global warming is not a problem that lends itself to partial solutions. It requires large scale political change which will impact large corporate players. The Democrats in Congress do not appear to be ready to think big.

Considering Global Warming In Environmental Review of New Projects

As of September 1, 2007 King County, Washington is "requiring County agencies to consider climate change impacts as part of their project review under Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”)." http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2007/pdf/climateimpacts.pdf

In short, King County is on the leading edge of local governments starting to mandate consideration of global warming as part of development projects. A good, in depth article on the King County legislation is available from the Marten Law Group. http://www.martenlaw.com/news/?20070801-climate-sepa-review

I Want Hillary Clinton's $50 Billion

On Monday, Hillary Clinton reiterated her proposal to "establish a $50 billion 'Strategic Energy Fund' that would create a research agency focused on reducing the threat of global warming." Among other things, Clinton proposed "spending $1 billion a year to improve energy efficiency in schools and other public buildings." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/24/clinton_proposes_1_billion_green_building_fund/

According to the Boston Globe, Senator Clinton proposed paying for the initiative by taxing oil company profits. "Oil companies...would face a choice: invest $20 billion in alternative fuel technology and build cleaner refineries or pay taxes on some of their profits."

As I have said many times before, the government's spending power is a powerful thing, and I support the Senator's plan. And I am also in favor of creating a economic system under which the true cost of petroleum products is included in the price, including taxes and environmental impact.

But I am concerned that I haven't heard anything about changing the investment in infrastructure. The government must not only stop subsidizing the oil companies, but must also decrease investment in highway building and increase investment in alternative transportation mechanisms to reduce our oil dependency. It is absurd that it takes 1.5 hours and $100+ to travel 94 miles from New York to Philadelphia by train.

The presidential candidates need to examine the built environment and build a comprehensive plan, including legal and economic components, to address the global warming/sustainability issue