- Krugman today — hair on fire, like any sane person's ought to be. Tired boiled frog metaphor, which if anything undersells where we are right now:
Put it this way: if the consensus of the economic experts is grim, the consensus of the climate experts is utterly terrifying. At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models — not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome — is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time.
But it isn’t, because climate change is a creeping threat rather than an attention-grabbing crisis. The full dimensions of the catastrophe won’t be apparent for decades, perhaps generations. In fact, it will probably be many years before the upward trend in temperatures is so obvious to casual observers that it silences the skeptics. Unfortunately, if we wait to act until the climate crisis is that obvious, catastrophe will already have become inevitable.
… and the big national progressive blogs — Talking Points Memo, DailyKos — are paying way, way more attention to Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford, or the latest big-media soccerball than to this. If that continues, we are screwed, forever. Celebrity politics forever, and at any expense.
- Related thought: Is there any more powerless feeling than living the district of a legislator who's actually right?
- MassLib catches the important context: Remember when the zoos threatened to euthanize animals … back in 1994?
I love the zoos. Everyone does. But it's ironic how much attention these visible attractions — animals — get, as a hot-button issue, as opposed to foster kids, or inner-city kids in genuine danger of violence.
How about this headline: “BOSTON KIDS MAY HAVE TO BE EUTHANIZED” Yawn, right?
- Globe asking the right questions:
Under the new reform law, numerous transportation agencies – including the T, the Highway Department, and the Turnpike Authority – will be crunched into one. How will a fare hike at the T affect other modes of transportation? How might the new structure be used to relieve the pressure of Big Dig-era debt on the T and the Turnpike Authority? As for the projected maintenance backlog, if Patrick’s gas-tax plan isn’t the answer, what is?
- Jimmy Carter was right, 30 years ago. Prophetic. We should have kept looking for energy independence. But some people don't want us to be independent! Too bad the White House seems to be no place for a prophet. Increasingly QED.
- Blower doors and whatnot:
GOTTFRIED: They put an air blower on a door so they can track the air loss. And then they run around with caulk and weather stripping and foam, and tighten it up. And in that day we tightened it up by 50%. And it was $600. It tightened it up more than brand new windows, which could be $30,000. So if we just ran around the U.S. doing that.
Speaking of the Carter era … my dad had a business doing the blower door stuff, yup, about 30 years ago. We played with the heat camera — put your hand on the wall, take it away and it's still there! And then oil prices went down again, and he got out of the business. Point is, there were people running around the US doing that.
- PS — get your weatherization on. Press release:
WASHINGTON – U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced that the Department of Energy is providing $48.8 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to expand weatherization assistance programs in Massachusetts . These funds, along with additional funds to be disbursed after the state meets certain Recovery Act milestones, will help these states achieve their goal of weatherizing more than 16,900 homes, lowering energy costs for low-income families that need it, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and creating green jobs across the state.
and I’m not sure I understand it completely myself. But, I think it goes like this:
* air sealing doesn’t “show” anything. You can’t see it. It might work, it might not. But, even if (when!) it does work, your daily life isn’t any better. Oil bills come and go but personal consumption ain’t rational, and people don’t notice the savings in a big enough, short-term enough way.
* new windows are pretty. They’re shiny and white and perfectly aligned. They’re easy to open and close, unlike the old wooden framed ones. They’re easy to lock, unlike the old wooden framed ones. Many of them are designed to be easier to clean, unlike the wooden framed ones.
<
p>Never mind that the lifespan of vinyl / plastic window frames is on the order of 10-20 years, not 50+. Never mind the yuck created in the manufacturing process. Never mind that they don’t have a substantial improvement on your heat/cooling bill unless they’re part of a comprehensive project.
<
p>I believe new windows are more like granite countertops. They’re not purchased for energy efficiency — they’re purchased because they’re pretty, and maybe even easier to clean.
<
p>
<
p>So, this is the gap. Americans don’t like to save or invest. We like shiny, we like new, we like bigger, we like instant gratification. We get that with new windows; we don’t get that with air sealing. My question is: can our culture change, or should our “marketing” of energy conservation change, or both?
I think, in general, that we prefer to discuss animal cruelty because it’s eaier. It’s awful, but we know it’s out there and can discuss it much more easily than we can discuss cruelty to children. That prompts far more uncomfortable questions.
<
p>Kudos to the governor for his response in today’s paper, and kudos to MassLib for making that point.
The Pike has declared open warfare on Massachusetts citizens.
<
p>http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
<
p>Despite the fact that the State provided the $100 million they asked for, by raising our taxes, the Pike is going to keep the new, doubled toll rates anyway.
<
p>Let’s not forget that the MBTA did the same, exact thing: they asked for $160 million, we gave it to them, and they’re raising their fees by 20% anyway.
<
p>Needless to say, my blood is boiling. I say it’s time for civil disobedience. Park your cars in the tunnel. Block the doorways at the MBTA. What else will get these inhuman assholes to listen? Even when the State House steps up and does the right thing, these shitheads at these free-from-accountability authorities decide to give a big FU to every person in this state, except the tiny few in the status quo they try to protect. It’s time for an organized shut down of these corrupt, unaccountable, inhuman and simply deranged lunatic organizations that seem to exist on some other planar sphere. We cannot stop until every single, last toll is ripped from the Earth in the Commonwealth, and until public transportation is fast, convenient, reliable and affordable for each and every last human being that travels to and fro in Massachusetts.
but the MBTA’s $160M only covered the current fiscal year. The gap still exists for the next fiscal year, and raising fares is a many-month process due to public hearings.
<
p>I have no idea exactly when the increased fares will be needed to preserve cash flow, or if they’ll be implemented right when the fiscal year turns over… but I do know that the $160M was a one year fix, not a solution to the structural revenue-cost gap problem.
it covered the current fiscal year.
<
p>Raise rates after, then, should the state not step up yet again.
<
p>These abuses cannot be allowed to happen, Stomv. We were told by these unaccountable organizations that if we gave them this money, they wouldn’t raise fees. It was a lie. It’s time to shut them down now, one way or the other, through legislative actions… or parked cars in the tunnel. We will not sit back and take it anymore.
the raised rates won’t kick in for at least six months, maybe more (I don’t know the proposed date, but I do know they’ve got 15 hearings scheduled).
<
p>I don’t like the raised rates. I also don’t know what happens if the sales tax becomes official — I had thought that the T would get a boost as a result, taking pressure off of the fare hike. I don’t know if the T is playing games, going through the motions of a fare hike expecting (hoping?) to take it off the table if/when the sales tax increase is approved.
<
p>They may also be “laying up”, hoping to (a) get a revenue boost from the sales tax hike, and then (b) increasing the fare too, though not as much as being floated now. What to do once “in the black” (if only a little bit)? Two choices: either pay down some debt, or move some of the costs off of capital into operating where they should be*.
<
p>
<
p> * to keep a “balanced” budget, the T has some costs which belong in operating (wages, bennies, that sort of thing) hidden away in their CIP. This is bad form, but they’ve been doing it to stay afloat, even though it only exacerbates long term problems.
…why the legislature can’t just pass a law rolling back the toll rates. After all, they’re elected; the Pike Authority isn’t. Does not the legislature have plenary oversight authority over all aspects of the government?
I updated my post over at Ryan’s Take after doing some research today with a few interviews/emails/etc.
<
p>The previous rates are, indeed, being kept. However — and this wasn’t very clear to me in the Herald article — they’re not honoring the clause passed in the law to ensure that Toll Road money goes toward the toll road, not the Big Dig. That means that toll payers who don’t ever drive on the Big Dig are still going to be paying gigantic portions of the Big Dig off while the rest of Massachusetts pays little to nothing. I guess it’s going to take the Schlictmann lawsuit to fix that. In fairness, the state should have sucked up more money when it passed that clause — and this speaks nothing to the utter lies spewed forth at the MBTA, who did exactly what I described, with no misunderstandings to save them. Organized opposition should be created to these new T prices… including demonstrations and civil disobedience, if necessary.
“[T]hey’re not honoring the clause passed in the law to ensure that Toll Road money goes toward the toll road, not the Big Dig.”
<
p>Since when is it a choice to not honor part of the law? Can you or I do that next time we encounter a law we don’t like? – didn’t think so. I absolutely agree that tolls collected on a given road should be restricted for use on that road. Where’s the enforcement mechanism?
Ryan,
<
p>Not sure if raising T fares equals warfare against Massachusetts citizens. To me it just sounds like they’re broke and desperate.
<
p>You get what you pay for, and our state govt is not paying for much right now.
<
p>That said, about half of the train platforms on the Orange Line have huge holes where sections of bricks are missing or broken. That will sure feel like war to the next commuter in high heels who trips and breaks a few bones.
but is he willing to go to the mat to get a bill that really does address the issue of climate change? So far that’s not clear. I’m tired of the excuse that this is the best we can get in the current Congress. I think even Markey needs to be reminded to run through the tape.
I have yet to hear from those who find ACES too weak a realistic strategy for getting a stronger bill passed. I’m all for a better bill, but I don’t think the barriers to achieving a better bill are illusory. Plenty of people, plenty of $, and plenty of the members of Congress don’t support strong climate legislation.
<
p>I’m all ears.
<
p>Find races where you can support a true blue Dem. Nothing against the Blue Dogs who occupy seats in conservative districts; I’ll take 60% good votes instead of 5% any day. But there are certainly districts which would support a liberal Democrat and currently have a moderate or more-right Republican. A long drawn out blog post on D and R in PVI unfriendly congressional districts spells it out, but the bottom line:
<
p>D+1 — Frank LoBiando (NJ-02), Pat Tiberi (OH-12)
D+2 — Charlie Dent (PA-15)
D+3 — Dave Reichert (WA-08)
D+4 — Jim Gerlach (PA-06)
D+5 — none
D+6 — Mark Kirk (IL-10)
D+7 — Mike Castle (DE-AL)
D+25 — Joseph Cao (LA-02)
<
p>Joseph Cao is going away due to redistricting, the other seven could easily be replaced by progressive Democrats, since those districts could support them.
<
p>So, frustrated because your Rep already supports climate change legislation? Move the median rep from Blue Dog to progressive by replacing Republicans in moderate/light blue regions with progressive Democrats. Donate to those candidates. Make phone calls. Send notes to your friends and family who live in that district. Help make it happen… all 435 members of the House represent you.
<
p>
<
p>As for the Senate… that’s a tougher read. Personalities are more complex, seats come up less frequently, and incumbency is mighty strong. But, MO, KY, NH, OH, NC, TX, and FL are all pickup opportunities (in that order according to fivethirtyeight.com). I don’t know which races have Democratic candidates who want to aggressively combat climate change, but I suspect that each state has populations and industries which would benefit from the legislation (and indeed, groups who would be harmed in the near term too). For MO and NC, agriculture could net wins. For KY and OH, switching away from coal to green jobs (and cleaner air). For NH and TX, lots of wind opportunity and, for TX, natural gas demand. For FL, it’s simply staying out of the Atlantic and/or Gulf of Mexico as long as possible.
<
p>In any case, any new progressive or moderate Dem in the Senate allows a climate change bill to not be held up by a single Landreau, Byrd, Nelson, or Pryor.
<
p>
<
p>Yes, this analysis assumes that (progressive) Dems support climate change legislation and Republicans don’t. That’s not entirely true, but it’s damn close. If there’s a particular Republican who swears up and down he’s legit on climate change issues, I wouldn’t personally put effort into targeting him or her.
Markey is one of the most powerful House members. If, along with Henry Waxman, another one in the top 10, he can’t draw a line in the sand and tell the public and the rest of his caucus that the only “acceptable” bill is in fact not the solution to the impending crisis, then we are in big trouble. In fact, Markey did just the opposite and touted this weak bill as historic legislation. I don’t think you have to be a PR expert to know that this sort of rhetoric undermines the effort to craft truly meaningful legislation. I think most people believe ACES is good because that’s what the trusted congressional environmental leaders, including Markey, have told them. Why would the average citizen believe otherwise? It’s not because this is the furthest the public is willing to go to ensure their kids’ and grand kids’ future. I don’t think the polls say that either.
If Markey and Waxman are rolling over so easily on ACES, as you imply, my question is: why? Introducing this sort of legislation was a pretty ambitious thing to do. Why do they seem OK with it in its current, weakened version? Are they wimps? Blackmailed? Or political realists?
<
p>Again, I have yet to see a fact-based strategy for passing stronger legislation. stomv suggests rolling a few Blue Dogs, which would help, but that puts us out a couple years.
<
p>I’m not trying to be difficult. I just hear a lot of complaints about ACES, but few ideas of a better way (that doesn’t require pixie dust).
<
p>I tend to think that “Big-Bang” legislation hasn’t been successful historically (at least, there’s an article making that claim over at Salon today). The Clean Air Act was the product of incremental legislation; I tend to view ACES in the same light.
So why the big sweat? Why are you getting your panties all knotted up? The earth has had several mass extinctions, several famines, plagues, and apolyptic climate swings and the poles have swapped polarity at least once and—-wonder of wonders–here we are.
<
p>What the hell is your problem?
In the last two years, conservatives have become an endangered species, though like oockroaches, no one’s figured out how to completely eradicate them.
<
p>Still, three cheers for political climate change!
Mass extinctions, plagues — what’s the big sweat??
<
p>Thanks for proving my point, MCRD. Awesome.
Weatherization is a huge help both for the environment and for the pocketbook.
<
p>There are lots of rebates available for those who can afford to put some money up but there are also an increasing number of organizations that are doing the work free with volunteers for low-income/needy people.
<
p>One such organization is HEET Home Energy Efficiency Team. Cambridge HEET is having an event weatherizing two homes on the 18th and volunteers are welcome. They’re also helping guide people (like me) trying to start up local groups in communities across the state.
<
p>If you haven’t done this before its a great way to help a family, help the environment, get dusty and take what you learned back to your own neighborhood.
Thanks for the reference to HEET. I have been to 2 of their weatherization “barnraisings” and learned a lot both times. If you are near Cambridge, check one out.
Not to knock Carter, who was trying to rally the country 30 years ago, but energy independence is a bad metric. (This is a good one.)
<
p>Increasing our energy efficiency will save the planet, create jobs, and boost the economy. Its effects on our “independence” will be mixed, depending on what gets displaced by efficiency. Yoking the two goals together just makes the important of the two harder and more expensive.
Energy independence encourages our dramatic reduction of oil for transportation. Climate win.
<
p>Energy independence encourages our dramatic expansion of coal for electricity (and transportation). Climate loss.
You said one, I said the other.
<
p>Independence is the wrong metric. I prefer energy from foreign oil to energy from domestic coal; I vastly prefer energy efficiency to either.
<
p>Consider that the effect of early energy-efficiency efforts was to shut down old coal-fired power plants. This was the best outcome, environmentally (and in other ways too!), but it meant that the fraction of energy that came from foreign sources grew as a result.
<
p>Thank goodness that we only paid lip service to “energy independence” in those days–and that’s all it deserves today.
As for renewable v. domestic, I think there’s room for both arguments.
<
p>Since we simply can’t replace foreign oil with domestic oil, if the “domestic” argument results in consuming less foreign oil, it by definition means we’re consuming less oil. That’s using “domestic” for a reduction. Good for the environment.
<
p>Nearly all of our electricity fuel is already domestic. The “domestic” argument has no weight for electricity. However, renewables, once installed, are always cheaper sources for electricity than the cost of coal, natural gas, or even uranium. We know we won’t backslide on those sources. Large hydro and biomass are certainly less clear.
<
p>So, let’s talk about energy independence to help people use less petroleum. Let’s talk about sustainability, air pollution, mountaintop destruction, fly ash dam bursts, and carbon emissions to reduce our usage of coal. There’s no reason we can’t do both at the same time. Given that the USA imports more oil than we burn coal, if we only became energy independent but didn’t change our coal habits, we’d still cut carbon emissions by approximately 1/4 to 1/3. That would be a massive accomplishment.
<
p>
<
p>Of course, all of this ignores the reality that reducing our oil consumption by 38% likely means both conservation (high mpg, mass trans, telecommuting, etc) and fuel substitution. If we substitute coal for petroleum, we’re at slightly worse than a “push”. If we substitute more renewable energy for petroleum via transit, we keep those foreign-oil-gains.
<
p>It’s not that I like coal fired power plants. I don’t. I hate ’em. But, I don’t think we should abandon the very appealing story of energy independence, since getting there would almost certainly result in a net decrease of fossil fuel emissions, and it gains us partners in the journey who’d otherwise be opponents.
I am not surprised at all – they intentionally instill us with fear so we are obedient – OH NO GLOBAL ECONOMY IS SCREWED – OH NO GLOBAL WARMING.
<
p>As far as I am concerned, it is all just a way to tax us more and take control of our lives…and it works considering that half of america believes in this garbage.
How having CO2 levels that are much higher than anything seen in the last 500k years are not a cause for concern.
<
p>CO2 levels are rising- no one disputes that.
The rise is due to human activity- that’s a slam dunk too.
CO2 traps infrared heat- easily demonstrated in the lab.
<
p>The sources of uncertainty are the relative strengths of all the feedbacks in the climate system. But until someone demonstrates a strong negative feedback (that counters most of the heating due to CO2), which Lindzen has tried and has so far failed to do, the null hypothesis is that we have a problem.
<
p>