An interesting post from the Cato Institute wonders whether the transition team is using the economic crisis as an opportunity to impose a liberal Shock Doctrine of the Naomi Klein variety:
Well, one government has now announced its intention to take advantage of an economic crisis to implement “things you could not do before.” And since this government no doubt includes a lot of people who have read Naomi Klein, she may very well be able to take credit for giving them the idea.
I’ve been kicking the idea around as well, but Boaz ignores a broader point. We are in the middle of an economic crisis that just so happened to occur around an election. Regime change brings with it a new policy agenda, and the first year of a new administration is often the most important in terms of accomplishing specific goals outlined by the winner’s platform.
Andrew Simms makes the case for a better global energy system:
Financially and ecologically, we are overextended. We have taken for granted, and abused, our underlying operating systems - the biosphere and our social fabric - by privileging finance and over-consumption. Yet, it is the core economy of society and a biosphere in equilibrium that really holds things together, not the banks. A massive transformation is needed to compress global income inequality, raising the incomes of the poor and lowering the consumption of the rich. We need an economic system that builds strong human and communal relationships and steers us towards living within our environmental means.
Chaos, doom, and “I told you so” are the order of the day. Maybe my brain is just wired differently, but I find most of the doomsday banter a little off-putting. I take climate change very seriously, but I don’t see what good will come from wallowing in end-times rhetoric or imagery. After all, global warming does have its upside. With that said, the swimming pool photo in the first link looks pretty wicked.
As energy prices continue to rise, some non-profits are starting to provide green renovation work, free energy audits, and compact-fluorescent light bulbs for low-income housing:
Low-income people who live in old or flimsy housing are becoming prime targets for cities and groups intent on slashing energy use.
Recent efforts to cut energy consumption in the home have focused on new construction, often in more affluent areas and public buildings. Now, community organizations and cities that have embraced the green effort are homing in on low-income houses and apartments to reduce emissions and help poor people lower their utility bills.
As the UN meets to discuss climate change policy next week in Poland, a report from the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements urges wealthy nations to take an aggressive lead to cut emissions ahead of developing countries:
The Harvard report proposes introducing national carbon taxes, linking emissions trading schemes or pursuing a series of simpler, possibly bilateral agreements that separately address the different gases and their sources as ways to fight warming.
The rub will be drawing the line between “wealthy” and “developing” countries in 2012 when Kyoto expires. The Harvard report focuses on per capita emissions, but that distinction will do little to address the great big red elephant in the room.
Granted, per-capita emissions are certainly higher for the U.S., Canada, and much of Europe, but the rising populations of China and India pose a serious threat to the world’s climate. And just as we can no longer think of our economy without its global prefix, we can’t exactly turn a blind eye to some of these “developing” nations, especially when they happen to be some of the world’s most egregious carbon emitters.
The U.S. can and should lead on carbon reduction. If nothing else, we want to make sure that the bulk of the tools and technologies are Made in the USA, but if we give China and India a free pass, progress on climate will remain limited and feckless.
He thinks current oil prices aren’t fair. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan President (ahem) faces increasingly difficult political pressure as his quest to stay in power forever is looking more and more dismal.
As many of my friends and colleagues will attest, when hard economic times hit, marketing is the first item to be cut from budgets. Now, it looks like renewable energy is not far behind in line to the chopping block.
NYT reports that many global investors are dropping or at least stalling clean tech projects to shore up capital investments during the downturn — even as political support for clean tech and capping carbon has become a priority both here and in Europe:
President-elect Barack Obama and the European Union have vowed to stick to commitments to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and invest in new green technologies, arguing that government action could stimulate the economy and create new jobs in producing sustainable energy.
But as the United Nations prepares to gather the world’s environment ministers in Poznan, Poland, next week to try to agree on a new treaty to reduce emissions, both the political will and the economic underpinnings for a much more assertive strategy appear shakier than they did even a few weeks ago.
But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that political will has in fact weakened. Obama continues to roll out fairly dramatic proposals under a Green New Deal. And coupled with Henry Waxman taking over the Energy & Commerce Committee last week, it’s pretty clear that at least domestically, this issue has some real political teeth.
Times are tough all around, and the last week has brought nothing but bad news for both traditional energy and clean tech (and Detroit, Citigroup, et al.). T. Boone Pickens is delaying his $10 billion windfarm in Texas. Even Brazil’s investor-friendly ethanol boom has come to a halt as many start-ups now face bankruptcy.
Here’s a bit of good news, though. Wal-Mart announced last week that it will purchase 226 million kWh of clean electrons from a Duke Energy wind farm in Notrees, Texas. Last year, Wal-Mart began to power stores in California and Hawaii with solar.
Our Country PAC is thankful this year that they finally have a candidate who articulates and advocates “common-sense conservative values.” So of course, they’re talking about Sarah Palin.
And just in case you missed it, here’s the prequel.
The Big Picture has some amazing spacewalk photographs up today to mark the 10th anniversary of the International Space Station. Unfortunately, it’s too late for me to switch career paths, and become an astronaut. Guess I’ll just have to be content living vicariously through someone else’s photos.
Joseph Romm reminisces about the time Detroit automakers dropped the taxpayer’s ball on hybrid technology:
When I was at the Department of Energy in the 1990s, we partnered with G.M., Ford and Chrysler to speed the technological development of hybrid gasoline-electric cars, given that increased fuel efficiency and advanced hybrids vehicles were (and remain) clearly the best hope for cutting vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and ending our oil addiction. This partnership was an informal deal between the Clinton administration and the car companies. We did not pursue fuel economy standards and the car companies promised to develop a triple-efficiency car (80 miles per gallon) by 2004.
In one of the major blunders in automotive history, G.M. and Ford and Chrysler walked away from hybrids as soon as they could when the Bush administration came in — and after taxpayers had spent over $1 billion on the program. Ironically, the main result of our government-industry partnership (which had excluded foreign automakers) was to motivate the Japanese car companies to develop and introduce their own hybrids.
Sprint: Plug into Now — A lot of informational widgets jammed into one page, presumably as a selling point for Sprint phones. It’s like a website out of Terry Gilliam’s imagination. I was immediately drawn to the world population, energy consumption, and deforestation widgets. But I’m sure anyone will find something in his/her obsession portfoilo there. via yewknee.
Andrew Sullivan on the fairly moderate nature of the incoming Cabinet:
So far, the solid conventionality of his cabinet picks - with the sole exception of torture apologist Jim Brennan - seems exactly what I’d expect from a serious man intent on serious government.
Which must stagger Sean Hannity, Stanley Kurtz, Jonah Goldberg, Hugh Hewitt, et al. I mean: this far left, Islamist, terror-loving America-hater just picked … Timothy Geithner. Noam Chomsky was unavailable?
Indeed. I haven’t made a single crack about Obama the Radical in 2 weeks. Other than the built-in drama of the Clinton contingency, this transition has remained conflict-free, which is saying a lot given the state of the economy. I’m sure that will change once the actual Executive-ing begins, but thus far, we’ve seen no signs of the dangerous, far-left revolution Hannity, Goldberg, and the like promised us.
Kate Sheppard points out that Waxman’s challenge and subsequent victory represents more than just a change in leadership:
But really, this isn’t about Waxman himself, though environmentalists are certainly cheering yesterday’s vote. It’s about the changes in the House that precipitated this shift. Waxman defeated Dingell by a vote of 137-122, which is of course close. But considering the historical inclination to let seniority prevail and the anticipated lack of desire among Democrats to overhaul such an important committee so soon after a successful election, Waxman’s win is truly a sign that there is fervent desire for change on this front.
Assuming that the sole issue of Waxman’s challenge was in fact cap and trade legislation, the conclusion is pretty clear: Cap & Trade will happen in the next 2 years. Democrats probably have the votes for it, and it was never off the agenda as Nordhaus & Shellenberger hoped.
I just realized that from September until today I barely read the Washington Post, which means I pretty much missed Eugene Robinson’s column for 2 months. That’s a shame. On a Detroit bailout:
If there’s anything beneficial in this predictable melodrama, it’s that contemplating a taxpayer-funded rescue of the auto industry might make Americans realize the extent to which their government already puts its big, fat thumb on the scales of free enterprise. The idea that the U.S. economy is based on unfettered free markets is, and has long been, a cruel joke.
Paul Krugman taught me a new word today. Interregnum (literally “between kings”), a period when normal government is suspended, especially between successive reigns or regimes:
The interregnum of 1932-1933, the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action…
How much can go wrong in the two months before Mr. Obama takes the oath of office? The answer, unfortunately, is: a lot. Consider how much darker the economic picture has grown since the failure of Lehman Brothers, which took place just over two months ago. And the pace of deterioration seems to be accelerating.
The only other major interregnum I really remember was in 2000 when we were in the throes of a different kind of crisis, a constitutional one. Here’s hoping that the next major transfer of power will be under more stable circumstances.
On a more positive note, the day ended with some good news.
Henry Waxman’s ascent to chair the House Energy & Commerce Committee has environment and energy camps split down the middle. Environmentalists are ecstatic, but the energy business community is a little apprehensive. The split revolves around Cap & Trade legislation, and the degree of enforcement that will come out of committee:
Waxman’s decision to challenge Dingell for chairmanship of the powerful committee was largely motivated by fundamental differences between the two men on the design of a US cap-and-trade programme. Waxman, a long-time ally of the environmental community, favours stringent short-term emissions reduction targets, auctioning emissions allowances, and very limited cost-containment mechanisms, such as offsets. Dingell, a long-time ally of the automobile industry, favoured more lenient short-term targets and a certain amount of emissions allowances given for free to regulated companies to help them adjust to the increased cost of doing business that will result from climate policy in the near term.
Here, I tend to side with the environmentalists. Cap and trade will be difficult to enforce by nature of its design. The tougher the bill is straight out of committee, the less leeway opposition will have to water it down. I prefer a carbon tax BTW, but that’s neither here nor there. Also, I’m still trying to get my head around the smorgasbord of responsibilities within the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
“While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.”
Volkswagen’s U.S. chief, Stefan Jacoby, said diesels have emerged as an alternative to hybrids such as Toyota Motor Corp’s popular Prius.
“It’s a breakthrough in this country,” Jacoby said. “I don’t want to say it’s better than other technologies, but it’s a real alternative to hybrids. It brings fuel consumption down, it’s environmentally friendly, and — this is a difference with a Prius — this is really fun to drive.”
Volkswagen’s five-passenger Jetta TDI, which boasts a fuel efficiency of 41 miles per gallon, starts at $21,990, compared with $17,340 for a traditional Jetta.
The Jetta TDI beat out finalists including BMW’s 335d diesel sport sedan, Ford Motor Co’s Fusion Hybrid passenger sedan, General Motors Corp’s crossover Saturn Vue 2 Mode Hybrid, and the smart fortwo mini car.
EcoGeek talks about the Diesel Jetta, and has had fantastic coverage of the LA Auto Show all week, including the electric MINI-E.