Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts

Monday, August 31, 2009

Let's Build That Wind Farm Now

After a short period time from the passing of Ted Kennedy we should begin the process to approve and construct the wind farm of the Massachusetts shore. The Boston Globe writes:
"As the country’s first proposed commercial offshore wind farm, and the only project of its kind this far along in the approval process, Cape Wind could open the door for developers to harness the vast wind energy resource along the nation’s eastern seaboard. The approval could make Massachusetts the trailblazer of a power source that is an essential part of the country’s strategy to address global warming and to achieve energy security."
Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Is Water Scarcity The Most Pressing Environmental Problem We Face

Robert Glennon writes in the Wash Post:
"The idea of charging for water offends many people who think that would be like charging for air. Is it immoral to extract fees for an essential resource? Precisely because water is a public -- and exhaustible -- resource, the government has an obligation to manage it wisely.

Think of our water supply as a giant milkshake, and think of each demand for water as a straw in the glass. Most states permit a limitless number of straws -- and that has to change."

One proposed solution sounds like something out of fiction, possible the Simpson's:

"Some dreamers gaze upon distant sources of water and imagine that the problem is solved. Plans to divert water from rivers in British Columbia or tow icebergs from Alaska periodically arise."

Towing icebergs, really?


Photo is from hibernia.ca

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, August 14, 2009

Is Cash For Clunkers Sound Environmental Policy Update

The efficiency of the Cash for Clunkers program as environmental policy has been questioned in many corners. He is the NY Times Green Blog:
"'The program is really not cost effective as a climate policy,' said Mr. Wara, who is an assistant professor at Stanford Law School and a faculty fellow at the university’s program on energy and sustainable development. 'It might be a great economic stimulus — we’re selling a lot of cars — but this is not the way to deal with mobile sources of climate change.'

Mr. Wara found that the program cost between $200 to $400 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions avoided, and Mr. Knittel’s estimates went up to $500 per ton. By contrast, the climate bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would result in a $28 per ton carbon price in 2020, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office."


Here a link to previous Cash For Clunkers posts. Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Cash For Clunkers Environmental Victory?

NY Times reports today:
"'What we ended up with,' said one senior Obama administration official, who would not speak on the record because he was being critical of his own administration’s environmental bona fides, 'is a program in which you trade in old clunkers for new clunkers.' Less discussed is the second critique of the program: It rewards drivers who chose to buy gas guzzlers a few years back, but not those who spent more to buy fuel-sippers (although in recent years those who purchased efficient new hybrids got generous tax credits)."
We should not be fooled, Cash For Clunkers was a program to help the auto industry clear inventory. There will be a environmental benefit but it could have been greater. It has been reported that the under the program trade ins have had 50% benefit in term of MPG. Cash for Clunkers has proved that with an incentive people will buy a more fuel efficient cars. That is great, but why not make threshold hold greater than only five MPG. Why not require consumers to purchase cars with at least a ten MPG improvement? Why not encourage people to purchase used fuel efficient hybrid?

Previous Cash for Clunkers posts here. Sphere: Related Content
Add to Technorati Favorites