A missive for the last Wednesday of the month.
A friend sent me a cartoon today. In it, a little boy tells his dad he’s considering a career in organized crime, to which his father promptly replies, “Government or private sector?”
While jokes may abound, there is no doubt that Americans are unhappy with the state of their union. In fact, according to a recent Rasmussen Report, only 29 percent of U.S. voters think the country is headed in the right direction while 65 percent think we’re going down the wrong path.
Fifty-nine percent of U.S. voters believe that cutting taxes would be better than increasing government spending in order to create jobs; however, 72 percent believe the government will go ahead and increase spending anyway...a kind of disconnect between the will of the people and the actions of their representatives that has spawned grassroots protests across the country.
Although everyone has their own opinion about why they think the U.S. is going to the dogs, most people seem to instinctively understand one thing: Our leaders in Washington D.C. are simply not behaving in a sustainable manner.
The word sustainable has many meanings. Traditionally, a sustainable business has been one which could maintain healthy profits over time. More recently, the “green” definition of sustainable has included environmental stewardship and social responsibility as well as economic profitability—a “triple bottom line.”
Executive Order 13423, signed 3 years ago, gives a more legalese definition: “Sustainable” means to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans…
By any definition, it would be difficult to argue that our government has done anything to maintain a healthy economy for present or future generations of Americans. As we face an incomprehensible $1.35T deficit for this year, the idea proposing a 3 year freeze on domestic agency budgets seems analogous to closing the barn door after all the horses have run free.
In fact, the news seems so bleak, that it’s difficult to see any hope at all. Forget about political parties for a moment, is there someone…anyone...out there who can lead our country???
Last year, I heard about the mayor of the 6th largest city in Canada, Hazel McCallion, who may have potential. Though not without her faults or detractors, “Hurricane Hazel” is most definitely a force to be reckoned with. The 88-year-old has been the mayor of Mississauga for over 30 years and won the City Prosperity Award in 2009.
Under Hazel’s leadership, the city of 700,000 (6.5 million in the metro area) has created a “fiscally sound government” with no debt and a $600M reserve. Not surprising, she has won 11 elections, the most recent with 92 percent of the vote.
In addition to creating the capacity to generate wealth, the city of Mississauga has also embraced environmental sustainability and has initiated a Healthy City Stewardship Centre to “better the health of the people of Mississauga.”
And while it is doubtful that Mayor McCallion would be willing to relocate to the states, perhaps we might take a moment and consider what she has done right. As she put it, “Our goal in Mississauga is to ensure that residents and businesses prosper as the City becomes a global centre where creativity and innovation thrive and people of all walks of life are welcome." Now that’s sustainable.
Showing posts with label sustainable government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainable government. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
What's all this about cap-and-trade?
This past week the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill. At the core of this legislation is a cap-and-trade program, designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2050.
Proponents claim that the legislation will create millions of clean-energy jobs, at the same time reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions which cause global warming. However, opponents say that it will drastically increase the cost of energy and actually cause the loss of millions of jobs in this country. As one opponent reportedly summed it up, “This bill is the biggest energy tax in the history of the United States.”
If you don’t understand the intricacies of this 900+ page bill, count yourself in good company. According to Rasmussen Reports, only 24 percent of Americans understand that the cap-and-trade proposal currently winding its way through Congress has to do with environmental issues. Others incorrectly guessed that it had to do either with regulating Wall Street or reforming our health care system.
So, what is cap-and-trade?
The Environmental Defense Fund explains that a “well-designed” cap-and-trade program consists of the following elements:
(1) The government must place a mandatory emissions cap—in this case a limit on carbon dioxide emissions—on the total tons of emissions that may be emitted by all polluting entities in a given compliance period.
(2) The government must allocate—either by giving away or at auction—a fixed number of allowances for each polluting entity. Each allowance gives the holder the right to emit one ton of pollution.
(3) Companies that emit less than they are allowed may either bank their unused allowances for future use or trade them to those companies which are emitting more than they are allowed.
(4) At the end of the compliance period, each company must meet clear performance criteria and prove that their tons of emissions have not exceeded their allowances.
(5) Throughout this process, companies have the flexibility to choose when and how they will reduce their emissions. They do not have to reduce emissions right away; they can do it on their own timeline. If it is more cost-effective for them to buy allowances from another company than to install the technologies necessary to reduce their own emissions, they may do so. As long as their emissions do not exceed their allowances, whether those allowances were allocated by the government or bought from another polluting source, they will not be penalized.
Proponents say the cap-and-trade system was a huge success in this country during the 1990’s when it was used to reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions which caused acid rain. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, “the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions.”
However, opponents such as the American Legislative Exchange Council say carbon dioxide is far more ubiquitous than sulfur dioxide. In addition, while the technologies necessary to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions were widely available in the 1990’s, the technologies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions are currently still in the research and development stage, with no clear timeline for when they will become commercially viable.
There are, of course, a number of other details that have become sticking points for both sides in this legislation and a number of larger issues being considered; and doubtless there will be hours of heated debate about those in the coming months. But even if a cap-and-trade bill does finally pass through Congress, it will do little to eliminate the link between our productivity and our carbon emissions. And, ultimately, if we are to succeed, we must innovate clean technologies that will do just that.
Proponents claim that the legislation will create millions of clean-energy jobs, at the same time reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions which cause global warming. However, opponents say that it will drastically increase the cost of energy and actually cause the loss of millions of jobs in this country. As one opponent reportedly summed it up, “This bill is the biggest energy tax in the history of the United States.”
If you don’t understand the intricacies of this 900+ page bill, count yourself in good company. According to Rasmussen Reports, only 24 percent of Americans understand that the cap-and-trade proposal currently winding its way through Congress has to do with environmental issues. Others incorrectly guessed that it had to do either with regulating Wall Street or reforming our health care system.
So, what is cap-and-trade?
The Environmental Defense Fund explains that a “well-designed” cap-and-trade program consists of the following elements:
(1) The government must place a mandatory emissions cap—in this case a limit on carbon dioxide emissions—on the total tons of emissions that may be emitted by all polluting entities in a given compliance period.
(2) The government must allocate—either by giving away or at auction—a fixed number of allowances for each polluting entity. Each allowance gives the holder the right to emit one ton of pollution.
(3) Companies that emit less than they are allowed may either bank their unused allowances for future use or trade them to those companies which are emitting more than they are allowed.
(4) At the end of the compliance period, each company must meet clear performance criteria and prove that their tons of emissions have not exceeded their allowances.
(5) Throughout this process, companies have the flexibility to choose when and how they will reduce their emissions. They do not have to reduce emissions right away; they can do it on their own timeline. If it is more cost-effective for them to buy allowances from another company than to install the technologies necessary to reduce their own emissions, they may do so. As long as their emissions do not exceed their allowances, whether those allowances were allocated by the government or bought from another polluting source, they will not be penalized.
Proponents say the cap-and-trade system was a huge success in this country during the 1990’s when it was used to reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions which caused acid rain. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, “the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions.”
However, opponents such as the American Legislative Exchange Council say carbon dioxide is far more ubiquitous than sulfur dioxide. In addition, while the technologies necessary to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions were widely available in the 1990’s, the technologies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions are currently still in the research and development stage, with no clear timeline for when they will become commercially viable.
There are, of course, a number of other details that have become sticking points for both sides in this legislation and a number of larger issues being considered; and doubtless there will be hours of heated debate about those in the coming months. But even if a cap-and-trade bill does finally pass through Congress, it will do little to eliminate the link between our productivity and our carbon emissions. And, ultimately, if we are to succeed, we must innovate clean technologies that will do just that.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Green Jobs for Tough Times
The Obama Administration is currently seeking suggestions for its Middle Class Task Force, and the topic of the first official meeting on February 27th will be "Green Jobs: A Pathway to a Strong Middle Class."
While I agree that we need a strong middle class in this country and applaud any effort to create new jobs in our current economy—especially sustainable jobs which will benefit both the environmental and the free market ecosystems—I am dubious about the government’s ability to create jobs, green or otherwise.
The creation of jobs takes capital as in wealth as in money. The government is not in the business of making money; it is in the business of providing services which are necessary for the public good but are not necessarily profitable. It provides these services by imposing taxes on people like you and me.
While government can and should provide incentives to the green sector to create jobs, ultimately, it is the end-consumer who will create new jobs by demanding new products and services. If we, as consumers, are willing to pay for green products and services, then businesses will find a way to deliver them…and create jobs in the process.
The best thing our government can do is to reduce spending, reduce debt (which will in turn strengthen the dollar), and reduce taxes. That way, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and, yes, even corporations will have more capital to invest in and develop clean technologies that will take us into a new age where environmental waste is not built into our business models but rather is seen for what it truly is: unprofitable.
While I agree that we need a strong middle class in this country and applaud any effort to create new jobs in our current economy—especially sustainable jobs which will benefit both the environmental and the free market ecosystems—I am dubious about the government’s ability to create jobs, green or otherwise.
The creation of jobs takes capital as in wealth as in money. The government is not in the business of making money; it is in the business of providing services which are necessary for the public good but are not necessarily profitable. It provides these services by imposing taxes on people like you and me.
While government can and should provide incentives to the green sector to create jobs, ultimately, it is the end-consumer who will create new jobs by demanding new products and services. If we, as consumers, are willing to pay for green products and services, then businesses will find a way to deliver them…and create jobs in the process.
The best thing our government can do is to reduce spending, reduce debt (which will in turn strengthen the dollar), and reduce taxes. That way, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and, yes, even corporations will have more capital to invest in and develop clean technologies that will take us into a new age where environmental waste is not built into our business models but rather is seen for what it truly is: unprofitable.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Legislating Innovation
There are two environmental propositions on the California ballot this year, both of which promote the use of alternative energy. Unfortunately, both of them are expensive and neither of them will necessarily get the job done. As we say, here in So Cal: “What a bummer.”
California already has a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in place that will require utilities to get 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2010. Prop 7 will go even further in requiring utilities to get 50% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2025.
However, one of the problems in changing from conventional to renewable energy is that the steady transmission of that renewable energy from its source to the end user is not always possible. Or, if it is possible, it will cost more than any of us can afford to pay. Either the energy source itself is intermittent or the ability to transmit it from point A to point B is not there. Looking at it that way, mandating an RPS of 50% is like trying to get blood out of a turnip. Without a reliable energy source or an adequate transmission infrastructure in place, it’s just not going to happen.
A similar argument could be made against Prop 10, which wants the state of California to pick up the tab for alternative fuel vehicles by offering rebates to those who purchase those vehicles. That may sound okay at first glance, but what it really translates to is a lot of natural gas vehicles on the road…and not a natural gas station in sight.
Politicians just don’t seem to realize that their job is not to mandate change or to make a market for a particular product but to facilitate change and allow the market to do what it does best – address people’s needs during times of change.
People will change if the change makes sense. If my electric bills jump from, say, $100 to $200 per month, I’ll start looking for ways to conserve energy and also start looking at alternative energy sources…if they are available at a price I can afford.
By the same token, if I’m driving a gas guzzler and gas goes up to $4 or $5 per gallon, chances are I’ll consider making a change to a more fuel efficient vehicle. If gas goes up to $10 per gallon, I’ll definitely make that change. Why? Because it makes sense.
Mandating utilities to purchase a fixed percentage of energy from renewable sources or paying companies to purchase a fleet of alternative fuel vehicles, however desirable those actions might be, is like building a dam. It solves one problem but doesn’t take into consideration the downstream effects on the natural ecosystem…or, in this case, the free market ecosystem.
If we really want to switch to renewable energy, then our focus should be on ways to incentivize the production and use of renewables and to implement a “full cost” accounting of fossil fuel production. That way, consumers can make the best choices given the technologies at hand.
California already has a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in place that will require utilities to get 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2010. Prop 7 will go even further in requiring utilities to get 50% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2025.
However, one of the problems in changing from conventional to renewable energy is that the steady transmission of that renewable energy from its source to the end user is not always possible. Or, if it is possible, it will cost more than any of us can afford to pay. Either the energy source itself is intermittent or the ability to transmit it from point A to point B is not there. Looking at it that way, mandating an RPS of 50% is like trying to get blood out of a turnip. Without a reliable energy source or an adequate transmission infrastructure in place, it’s just not going to happen.
A similar argument could be made against Prop 10, which wants the state of California to pick up the tab for alternative fuel vehicles by offering rebates to those who purchase those vehicles. That may sound okay at first glance, but what it really translates to is a lot of natural gas vehicles on the road…and not a natural gas station in sight.
Politicians just don’t seem to realize that their job is not to mandate change or to make a market for a particular product but to facilitate change and allow the market to do what it does best – address people’s needs during times of change.
People will change if the change makes sense. If my electric bills jump from, say, $100 to $200 per month, I’ll start looking for ways to conserve energy and also start looking at alternative energy sources…if they are available at a price I can afford.
By the same token, if I’m driving a gas guzzler and gas goes up to $4 or $5 per gallon, chances are I’ll consider making a change to a more fuel efficient vehicle. If gas goes up to $10 per gallon, I’ll definitely make that change. Why? Because it makes sense.
Mandating utilities to purchase a fixed percentage of energy from renewable sources or paying companies to purchase a fleet of alternative fuel vehicles, however desirable those actions might be, is like building a dam. It solves one problem but doesn’t take into consideration the downstream effects on the natural ecosystem…or, in this case, the free market ecosystem.
If we really want to switch to renewable energy, then our focus should be on ways to incentivize the production and use of renewables and to implement a “full cost” accounting of fossil fuel production. That way, consumers can make the best choices given the technologies at hand.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Same Planet, Different Worlds
In spite of reports that Sarah Palin is not convinced that global warming is man-made, Republicans still appear to embrace the basic concept of energy efficiency. Why? Because it makes sense. It reduces expenses. It saves money. It’s cost effective. And, as people are starting to realize in today’s economic climate: It’s not only how much you make that’s important, it’s how much you spend.
A number of conservatives, including Palin, take energy efficiency very seriously. Their desire to be energy efficient – to reduce energy waste and to increase our productivity in relation to our energy consumption – could be a common link between Democrats and Republicans.
The Republican National Convention earlier this month provided a Green Fact Sheet for how they are running an Eco-Friendly Convention by using flexible-fuel and hybrid vehicles, developing a paperless system for recruiting and registering volunteers, and using the internet and other modes of communication that do not involve physical travel.
The Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul-Minneapolis, which was the hosting venue for the RNC, also boasts of an extensive recycling program for plastic, glass and paper as well as for used cooking oil. Hot water is produced by District Energy , which uses wood chips (biomass) as well as natural gas, oil, and “clean burning coal” to fuel its heating and cooling systems. And low-flow faucets are installed in all the restrooms.
Given a choice between something that is cost effective and something that is not, both Democrats and Republicans will apparently chose the former. And that may be our common ground.
In his August 29, 2008 post on EcoGeek.org , Hank Green (cool last name) wrote: "It's not about asking people to choose, it's giving them a better choice. If you build a light bulb that's cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, has better light quality, and works exactly the same, people won't be choosing a better technology, they'll be choosing the only technology left."
Regardless of their political ideology, most people admit that the way to an American’s heart is through his or her wallet. Provide people with an alternative that makes financial sense – especially in hard times – and they will take it every time.
A number of conservatives, including Palin, take energy efficiency very seriously. Their desire to be energy efficient – to reduce energy waste and to increase our productivity in relation to our energy consumption – could be a common link between Democrats and Republicans.
The Republican National Convention earlier this month provided a Green Fact Sheet for how they are running an Eco-Friendly Convention by using flexible-fuel and hybrid vehicles, developing a paperless system for recruiting and registering volunteers, and using the internet and other modes of communication that do not involve physical travel.
The Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul-Minneapolis, which was the hosting venue for the RNC, also boasts of an extensive recycling program for plastic, glass and paper as well as for used cooking oil. Hot water is produced by District Energy , which uses wood chips (biomass) as well as natural gas, oil, and “clean burning coal” to fuel its heating and cooling systems. And low-flow faucets are installed in all the restrooms.
Given a choice between something that is cost effective and something that is not, both Democrats and Republicans will apparently chose the former. And that may be our common ground.
In his August 29, 2008 post on EcoGeek.org , Hank Green (cool last name) wrote: "It's not about asking people to choose, it's giving them a better choice. If you build a light bulb that's cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, has better light quality, and works exactly the same, people won't be choosing a better technology, they'll be choosing the only technology left."
Regardless of their political ideology, most people admit that the way to an American’s heart is through his or her wallet. Provide people with an alternative that makes financial sense – especially in hard times – and they will take it every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
