free and open markets all around...

in commenting about cap and trade on my facebook the other day, i posed a simple question wondering what exactly the end result of such a program would be- carbon reduction or capital market bubble creation?

my friend mike replied:

"Cap and Trade is a good concept, but can it work in the real world? who decides the total carbon amount? Who is grandfathered in? It is an incentive to reduce your carbon usage through technology by increasing the monetary compensation. Carbon commodity trading!! Will the government or free market control it?"

monetary compensation as an incentive to modify behavior? like giving my kid an allowance to clean her room?

so i thought i'd have a little fun with this one... my commentary:

i hear what you're saying mike; i suppose there are two ways to accomplish compliance- incentive or penalty.

for instance, speeding and other laws are enforced through penalty. but if we were to follow the logic of modifying behavior through monetary compensation... how about simply paying drivers not to speed?

of course, this would never happen in our world because speed limits are designed for public safety, right?

actually, i'd argue we've allowed speeding to be turned into a municipal revenue generating monster!

so following the logic any good "small-government/free open market/damn the public good/get mine now" proponent would employ... we should be wondering why cities and states get all the money from speeding!?

ok, just for fun, lets dive into this speeding thing...

why not open it up, and create a "street and driving market"? just like cap and trade will issue the original "permits" to polluters for free, simply issue all drivers permits to go fast! maybe all drivers should be allowed "x" number of speeding credits (the mechanics of this are unimportant for the current discussion; lets just say every driver gets "some").

this way the people who don't want/need to speed- even though they now have the right to speed because of the way the system is set up- can sell/trade their permits to others who want/need to go fast. the market pays them not to speed!

in turn, the "speeders" are in essence "pre-paying" the ability to go faster than posted limits.

and the seller of the permit, having been paid not to speed, won't speed because they no longer have the permit to do so... right?

come on... who's to say they won't speed at sometime in the future? do they go back to the market and buy a permit when they need to speed? and if they speed without a permit, who's to say they will actually get caught and be made to pay a penalty! do we need more speed traps and gestapo-like policing? or do we just trust people to do the right thing?

lets go one step further, and put the middle-man in place here; the broker of speeding permits. this guy matches speeders and non-speeders... for a fee. ah... economic growth!

how about this one... permits to kill people! we already permit for fishing and hunting wild animals to control population and generate revenue, why not permit human murder?

now you're speeding (because you have a permit), get in a wreck and kill someone... ok, simply use your speeding and murder credits to get out of it!

or maybe you truly hate someone, or are just really pissed off... buy a permit to knock-em off!

maybe you don't have the stomach for killing, so you SELL your permit to a professional assassin and have them do the dirty work. and lets say professional assassins buy up a bunch of killing credits. now they can legally operate their business! ah... more economic growth!

simply make it legal and generate revenue from it, rather than having it be illegal, and a financial burden on tax payers paying for prisons?

i can see all kinds of ways to make money on this thing; now the market supports brokers who specialize in bundling groups of assassins for, i don't know... hire by governments? special, military contractors? oh wait, we already have this!

of course, this is all absurd (or is it?)

if you really stop to think about it, aren't some things just too important for the common welfare? isn't our human health/well being too precious to allow it to be compromised by "permiting" something harmful, especially through profit seeking activity?

just like speed limits, carbon and other pollution regulations are designed for public safety (health and environment).

we don't get paid to drive the speed limit... why should there be a monetary incentive to do the right thing with pollution?

because it cuts into profits?

you see where i'm going with this. free markets and unregulated capitalism have limits on their ability to benefit the common welfare.

at some point, they become counter productive, reckless, bubble making implosion machines. and this typically happens at the detriment of society as a whole while benefiting a very select few. in other words, something/someone suffers great inequality or destruction.

examples of this go on and on: extinction of species, depletion of resources, loss of human life/quality of life, and greater spreads between socioeconomic status.

the bottom line... just because something can become a market, doesn't necessarily mean it should become a market.

therefore we use penalties- financial and physical (fines, fees, tariffs, surcharges, taxes, incarceration... and even death) for keeping things in check.

now lets look at cap and trade again...

just because a polluter no longer has enough credits to pollute, how do we know they won't continue to pollute?

just look at how enron was able to cook the books with off-balance sheet accounting! someone, somewhere is going to figure out a way to skirt the system, keep the "real" measure of emissions off the books, and be able to pollute/profit.

maybe they get caught, maybe not.

IN THE MEAN TIME... "WE" (THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD) SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE INCLUDING HEALTH ISSUES... LEADING TO MEDICAL PROBLEMS... LEADING TO INCREASED MEDICAL COSTS... LEADING TO DENIAL OF CLAIMS... LEADING TO LOWER QUALITY OF LIFE... LEADING TO MEDICAL INSURANCE PROFITS... LEADING TO GREATER DIFFERENCES IN SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS... LEADING TO UNIMAGINABLE HUMAN SUFFERING, IMBALANCE AND INEQUALITY.

is this the world you want to live in?

lastly...

THE BIGGEST EMITTERS OF CARBON EMISSIONS ARE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE MILITARY.

are these guys EXEMPT? or do they need carbon permits too? and if they have extra (print up a few more because they can!), should they be able to "sell" them on the open market?

if so, do these revenues REPLACE OR REDUCE some taxes, or become an additional "tax" on the people? or maybe the revenues are used to reduce the national debt or deficit?

or does this government activity in open markets actually aggravate the ability of markets to work freely, thus creating more of a bubble (just like fannie mae and freddie mac aggravated the housing bubble!)?

these are the tough questions and considerations we MUST address going forward in our global economy, global governance and global stewardship.

without dealing with these things, we are destined to repeat the failings every society from the beginning of time has eventually suffered... only worse, i fear.

all i know is cap and trade is a bad idea. anytime you put a for-profit motive above the common welfare, the welfare will suffer. period. peace.

but i digress even further...

and the thing is... "it's" really not about any one thing: warming, or cooling, or climate shift, or flooding, or ozone, or being green, or carbon credits, or pollution, making money or economic development or what have you... those are just the byproducts of human arrogance.

rather, it's about learning to live/coexist within our environment. it's about taking care of what we have. it's about not consuming/using things until they are completely gone. it's about optimizing our existence- not maximizing take, or minimizing give. it's about all things.

it's about sustainability, and sustainability begins with stewardship. asking ourselves how long we want to be here, and in what condition do we want to live?

you see, the planet survived long before we arrived, and will be here long after we depart. but don't you just hate it when someone pisses in the swimming pool and ruins it for everyone?

defining the moment

In the midst of one of the coldest weather patterns in recent memory, and more snow in Kansas City than I've seen since I was a kid, it's so easy to pull out the old standby, "Gee, I thought we had to worry about global warming?" and the proverbial, "Where are all those greenhouse gasses when we need them?"



We say these things in jest, of course, just to comment on and cope with the extreme weather events. After all, we've got to have something clever to say at the cocktail party, right?



And while the slide toward chit-chat, banter and small talk is an easy ride, made easier by a vodka-tonic, we inevitably fail to grasp the moment to talk "big", smart, intelligently and god-forbid, proactively.



So next time you are tempted to dumb-down to the lowest common denominator in the room, here are a few REAL talking points which may (or may not) make a difference in someone's point of view. However, you will have at least PROACTIVELY made the attempt at disseminating usable information:

• Global warming is typically referenced in the contemporary as the overall increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.
• As one might expect, global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 1999 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode.
• Climate change, on the other hand, is a change in the statistical distribution of weather and regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It can be a change in the average weather or a change in the distribution of weather events around an average (for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events).
• It is predicted that future climate changes will include further global warming (i.e., an upward trend in global mean temperature), sea level rise, and a probable increase in the frequency of some extreme weather events.


Remember, those who are flexible bend; those who are rigid break. Those who are smart know the difference.

cap-and-trade

i've been a huge fan of annie leonard. she is positive. she is profound. she is engaged in her pursuit. she is open. and she won't drink the kool-aid.

her storyofstuff is an amazing project, and is "smart" enough to be provoking, but "simple" enough to be accessible.

enjoy the teaser video clip below and forget scare tactics such as rumors of $10-$15 per gallon fuel... the go directly to www.storyofstuff.com now and learn about the real reasons cap-and-trade is a bad idea.

biofuels are bad?

biofuels are bad?
Today's news report (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114055974) stating the likelihood of biofuel laws actually causing higher levels of global warming or climate change is just one more example of how we humans still haven't managed to get a grip on managing our occupancy of this planet.

Specifically, we continue to consume disproportionately compared to our ability to renew and replenish. Haven't we learned anything from over-hunting, over-fishing, over-building... and oh yea, over polluting?

My blog post on Jan 27th speaks to much of this, as it relates to biofuels production/usage in Bolivia. Notably, I make mention of deforestation concerns as well as opportunity costs.

So lets continue this conversation in light of today's revelation that current methods of "accounting" for carbon emissions do not paint a complete picture. Gee, there's a f-ing surprise!

In general, we as humans lack balance. Not that we don't have the ability to find balance, but by nature, we take actions based on self-gratification and personal gain rather than global, or even regional, balance. And this inevitably takes the form of monetary pursuits.

Does today's report on "carbon accounting" mean we shouldn't be using biofuels? OF COURSE NOT! But no doubt, the argument will be made that "biofuels are bad", and we should simply continue down our path of petroleum infrastructure.

As I am well know for saying... ENOUGH!

EXTREMES, WHETHER REFERRING TO THE STATUS QUO OR THE LATEST AND GREATEST, ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO SUSTAINABILITY. ACTIONS OR POLICIES DON'T HAVE TO BE EITHER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THEY NEED TO BE BALANCED TO REPRESENT CURRENT CONDITIONS AND LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY.

Referring back to my very first blog post Nov 22, '08, this is called OPTIMIZATION.

Further, while economic growth is a component of well-being, it is not synonymous with well-being. We don't NEED to maximize economic growth/development to be better off. In fact, massive economic growth often comes at great cost.

Here's an eye-opener.... environmental stewardship is a component of economic development. It's not the only component, but it is a significant piece of the puzzle because... it represents the space in which we all live! Without taking care of our space, we cannot live. Duh!

Petroleum isn't bad. Fossil fuels aren't bad. Biofuels aren't bad. Producing and/or consuming any of these isn't bad.

But over-production of any, driven by over-consumption of all, IS bad.

You see, attempting to satisfy ALL of our needs, whatever they may be, from ONE source IS a bad idea. And wrecking any particular ecosystem in attempting to do so IS REALLY BAD. This is especially evident when considering the destructive nature of typical economic development.

When human motivation is driven solely by monetary gain, we tend to overlook the ancillary or downstream effects of our actions. We then try to “fix” things with “affirmative action” initiatives (whether it's to rectify racial, social or economic inequalities) in hopes our reactive policies counterbalance our lack of foresight.

Truth: They rarely, if ever, do.

This is of course the paradox of humanity: our growth, our desire for advancement and development, may ultimately bring our demise.

first cost vs. lifecycle cost analysis

so i get an email today from an old friend who passes along some thoughts composed by someone i can only imagine is a kool-aid drinking, right wing nut job. after reading it a couple times, i felt compelled to draft a rebuttal. see the below exchange:


Original email
>
> I guess I must be on the wrong page on this "clunker" stuff ...
> A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
> A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
> The average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
>
> They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons per year.
> That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
> 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
> 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75 per bbl.
> So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion...to save $350 million.
> Hmmm! How good a deal was that?
>
> I'm thinking that they will probably do a great job with health care though!
>

And now it's my turn

Great analysis. But like most conservative and short term (instant gratification) mentality, the author is missing the point.

Lets talk about "first costs" vs "lifecycle costs", and do the same analysis. The basic premise for this analysis says your investment in the first 20% of your "project" (whatever it happens to be) determines the overall costs of the lifetime (remaining 80%) of the project.

For instance, by planning and spending wisely when constructing a house, building or other structure (efficient windows, roofing material, earth contact, insulation, appliances, hvac, smart grid circuits, geothermal/ground source, solar/battery/inverter, proper geographic positioning, good use of landscaping and shade, rainwater recovery, etc., etc., etc.), the overall costs of ownership in terms of utility, maintenance and other "operational" expenses are greatly reduced. Additionally, the resale value isn't dependent on market bubbles for increased valuation, but is inherently built into the property. And note, we haven't even talked about the GLOBAL implications such as reduced energy consumption necessitating less energy production and thus lower carbon emissions.

This mindset looks at overall sustainability of an effort and it's impact far beyond today's bank account balance and any short-term gain.

OK, now lets look at the clunker program in the same light.

The average age of the car being traded in was +/-14 years (http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/07/cash-for-clunker-trades-show-59-percent-fuel-economy-boost-hyundai-says.html)

So lets say the new, more efficient vehicle is going to be on the road for 14 years (not necessarily with the same owner, but at least for that many years.)

Note that one 42gal gallon barrel of crude oil yields 19.5 gallons of gasoline (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Oil-Gas-3147/Gallon-gas.htm)

So 19.5/42 = 46% yield.

Next, 14 years of better mileage * 224 million gallons = 3,136,000,000 gallons saved.

3,136,000,000 is 46% of what number? 6,817,391,304 (barrels)

At $75 per barrel = $511,304,347,800

So we spent 3 billion to save 511 billion over 14 years? Seems pretty good to me!!!

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENTAL (LIFECYCLE) SAVINGS OF BURNING 3.136 BILLION LESS GALLONS IN TERMS OF CARBON EMISSIONS...

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENTAL (LIFECYCLE) SAVINGS OF NOT HAVING TO FIND, EXTRACT AND REFINE 6.817 BILLION BARRELS...

NOT TO MENTION THE BENEFITS OF REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCY ON SAUDI ARABIA/FOREIGN OIL WHICH "CONSERVATIVES" SAY THEY ARE ALL ABOUT DOING!!!!

Now lets say that the buyers of the 700,000 new vehicles only keep them 5 years, then sell to someone who is still driving a clunker. But first, lets concede that 30% of these are taken out of commission due to wrecks and/or other salvage. This still takes ANOTHER 490,000 CLUNKERS OFF THE ROAD in 5 years! And since those 700,000 buyers will most likely need a replacement vehicle, you know they are buying one that gets at least as good or better MPG. Do the math, and that saves a bunch more gallons, barrels, emissions, and dependency on foreign oil!!!

HERE'S THE POINT...

TYPICAL SHORT TERM, NARROW MINDED AND INSTANT GRATIFICATION AMERICAN THINKING WILL KEEP US IN THE STONE AGES.

STOP A MOMENT AND CONSIDER SOMETHING BEYOND YOUR OWN DOORSTEP, AND YOU MIGHT SEE THAT THERE'S A WHOLE WORLD OUT THERE THAT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PASS ON (IN GOOD SHAPE!) TO THE NEXT GENERATION.

And as for the comment about healthcare... before anyone points fingers, you better take a look within as to WHY we are in the shape (physically) we're in. The concept of "healthcare" in the US is the biggest BS of the century! We need "well care" in terms of promoting nutrition, eating locally and in season, physical fitness, clean environment, lower consumption and pollution, and REAL education standards/values that enable sustainable, common sense living in terms of these considerations.

Get it?

climate bill follow-up thoughts: please continue to research for yourself, stay informed and advocate for what you believe

Every coin has two sides. While climate legislation is an imperative of the environmental sustainability and stewardship revolution, there is no perfect fix for our global warming woes. Read up at e360 for insightful and intelligent analysis/commentary, and don't be afraid to voice your own opinion. I would urge everyone, however, in considering their position, to think in terms of "first costs" vs. "life cycle costs"- making a stronger investment up front always provides for an improved down-stream result.

This holds true with anything:

If you put $1000 in the bank and add $1,00 at regular intervals, and receive 10% compounded annually, your down-stream return is stronger than if you put $100 in the bank and only add $10 every now and again.

Similarly, if you build a house and spend a little extra on the best windows, rain-water capture/irrigation, insulation, radiant heat floors, instant hot-water and green roof, your down-stream return is greater in terms of reduced costs of ownership.

Enjoy...

http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2163

The Waxman-Markey Bill: A Good Start Or A Non-Starter?

As carbon cap-and-trade legislation works it way through Congress, the environmental community is intensely debating whether the Waxman-Markey bill is the best possible compromise or a fatally flawed initiative. Yale Environment 360 asked 11 prominent people in the environmental and energy fields for their views on this controversial legislation.

The bill is officially entitled “The American Clean Energy and Security Act,” but most people who follow this issue simply call it Waxman-Markey. Named for its sponsors — Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) — the legislation has been roundly criticized for doing too little or too much, but one thing is clear: No matter what form it finally takes, the bill is historic. For the first time, the U.S. government would cap and regulate emissions of carbon dioxide.

Given that CO2 is a byproduct of the process that drives the American economy — combusting fossil fuels — it is no wonder that the bill is controversial. Many opponents, particularly Republicans, say it is a grave error to place a ceiling and a price on carbon emissions, particularly at a time of economic crisis.

But even erstwhile allies in the environmental movement are split over the bill. Their disagreement is centered on the many compromises — including a weakening of emissions and renewable energy targets — that the bill’s sponsors were forced to make in order to win approval in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Yale Environment 360 asked environmentalists and energy experts to share their thoughts on the Waxman-Markey bill. A majority of the environmentalists said they supported the bill — despite its many flaws — because it represents the beginning of an effort to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. These supporters noted that many important pieces of U.S. environmental legislation began with modest steps that were later toughened by amendments. Supporters also said that passage of Waxman-Markey was vital if the U.S. hopes to lead the effort to ratify a global climate change treaty later this year in Copenhagen.

Opponents maintained, however, that Waxman-Markey has been irrevocably compromised. They contended the bill makes so many concessions to powerful industrial lobbies that it will do little to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The opponents also criticized a provision that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its recently acquired ability to administratively regulate CO2 emissions from coal plants. In the end, these critics conclude, it is better to start over and fight for a stronger bill than pass the current, watered-down version.

Here are their responses:


Angela Ledford, Program Director for U.S. Climate Action Network.
The Waxman-Markey bill offers the most important opportunity in generations to create a prosperous 21st century economy that protects us from a climate crisis. Only by improving and passing a bill will we get a framework for transitioning to a clean-energy future. The bill, as it stands, may not reduce global warming pollution as fast as science is telling us is prudent. When we add emission reductions in this proposed law to the promises of other countries, we fall far short of what we need to do globally. So let’s be clear about what this bill provides: It gives us a framework to build on, and puts us on the path to what science says we need. But it is only the beginning.

Congress will need to stand strong against the special interests that seek to weaken the bill and have the courage to entertain essential measures to strengthen it. It needs stronger requirements for renewable energy and energy efficiency; the EPA needs the authority to hold polluters accountable; and domestic and international investments are critical to transforming the global economy.

The U.S. tradition on environmental protection seems to dictate that the most difficult step is the first one. Whether it is clean water, clean air, or ozone depletion, we have never been able to pass a bill and walk away. We set the policy in place, fight for swift and stringent implementation, sue when we need to, and go back to Congress if we haven’t gotten it right. Global warming is no different. For over a decade, we’ve worked to get to this point in the legislative process. We cannot blow this moment. But we shouldn’t think for a second our job is done once the bill is passed. In some ways, we’re only just beginning.


Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA.
Representatives Waxman and Markey have played a crucial role in bringing global warming to the forefront of the Congressional agenda. And we believe in President Obama’s vision of clean energy jobs and not letting special interests dominate politics. But this bill falls short of that vision.

The science is clear: the United States and the developed world must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. This legislation at best provides a 4 to 7 percent cut below 1990 levels in that time frame, and it is likely to get worse in the Senate. While 4 percent is something, it’s like building a 4-foot levee in New Orleans as the waters rush in at 40 feet. Here’s a sampling of what the bill gives away:

1. The bill would not force polluters to cut their own pollution until more than a decade from now. Instead, they could buy “offsets,” paying a farmer who temporarily traps CO2 in the soil by not tilling it as much, rather than preventing pollution at the smokestack.

2. The Renewable Energy Standard requires less new clean energy than we will have without this bill passing.

3. The bill strips away some of the Clean Air Act authority to reduce coal plant pollution in new plants, as well as the EPA’s authority to regulate global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act.


The net result is that coal companies won’t need to cut their pollution, and the president will lose the power to regulate coal under the Clean Air Act, which could very likely cut global warming pollution as much as, or more, than this bill.

We are urging President Obama to confront the undue influence of corporate polluters by using his considerable executive authorities to ensure America’s plan to tackle global warming is based on science, and puts people above politics as usual.


Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he runs the blog, climate progress.org. He is a former acting assistant secretary of energy.
Only two questions really matter regarding the Waxman-Markey bill.

First, is it compatible with — indeed integral to — a national and international effort to keep global warming as close as possible to 2 degrees C?

Second, what would be the outcome if the bill failed?

The answer to the first question is absolutely “Yes.” While the bill is weaker than it should be, particularly its 2020 target, it mandates a 42 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. Building on the massive investment in clean energy in the economic stimulus, the bill completes the transition to a clean energy economy. It devotes some $15 billion a year to clean technology development and deployment. It would be the single greatest push toward an energy-efficient economy in U.S. history.

The bill directs substantial funds toward a global effort to stop tropical deforestation. While it theoretically authorizes up to 2 billion tons in offsets to be used in place of domestic emissions reductions, nowhere near that amount of offsets exists today, nor is there any reason to believe they ever will. If the nations of the world agree to adopt emissions targets, timetables, and strategies compatible with stabilization near 2 degrees C, then the international offsets market will remain relatively small and expensive — especially compared to the large pool of low-cost, domestic, clean-energy emissions reduction strategies.

As for the second question, failure to pass the bill would end any hope of stabilizing climate at anywhere near a 2-degree C increase. Serious U.S. action would be off the table for years, the effort to jumpstart the clean-energy economy in this country would stall, the international negotiating process would fall apart, and any chance of a deal with China would be dead. Warming of 5 degrees C or more by century’s end would be all but inevitable.

Waxman-Markey is the only game in town. Let’s work hard to improve it, but killing it would be an act of environmental suicide.


Denis Hayes, President of the Bullitt Foundation, board chairman of the American Solar Energy Society, and National Coordinator of the first Earth Day.
The bottom line in politics is always how you vote. If I were in Congress, I would hold my nose and vote for the Waxman-Markey bill.

What do I dislike about Waxman-Markey?

* It allows 2 billion tons of offsets a year. Trading “permits” is fine; trading “offsets” eventually will shred the law’s effectiveness. Offsets are hard to regulate and the international offset bubble is already growing rapidly.

* The bill’s goal for 2020 — the easiest reductions — is a wimpy 17 percent cut in carbon emissions below 2005 levels, which essentially guarantees that the world will pass some tragic climate tipping points. It gets tougher later, but I don’t care about easily abandoned promises to make really hard cuts by 2050. What matters is what we are willing to do today.

* The bill auctions only 15 percent of the carbon permits for now. It should auction 100 percent. A 100 percent auction would function as an efficient carbon tax, with the tax rate set each year by the market and revenues distributed through open public processes. The bill’s approach represents back-room politics that mostly favor the powerful polluters who have spent a fortune fighting against climate legislation.

* The bill awards 10 times as much money to speculative carbon capture and sequestration projects as to all green jobs training and aid to displaced workers, combined.


So why would I support it?

Henry Waxman and Ed Markey are green legislative heroes. They privately acknowledge the flaws in this bill, and they would make it much stronger if that were possible. They can also count votes.

Waxman-Markey’s flaws are huge but discrete, and they can be addressed in the years ahead. Meanwhile, we have to pass something to give the Obama Administration the necessary credibility to create global momentum before Copenhagen. Toward that end, Waxman-Markey is the only credible game in town.


Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth.
During last year’s campaign, then-Senator Obama articulated a bold vision for a clean energy future. He argued that green investments and cuts in pollution can strengthen our economy and create millions of jobs, bolster national security, and help avoid catastrophic climate-change impacts. Voters were persuaded and Obama won in a landslide.

Unfortunately, the bill now moving through Congress fails to live up to Obama’s vision. Special interests — including Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and Wall Street — continue to hold too much sway in the Energy and Commerce Committee from which this bill emerged. In exchange for voting for this bill, conservative Democrats demanded hundreds of billions of dollars worth of giveaways to their favorite campaign contributors.

The result is a bill that doesn’t bring about anywhere near the pollution reductions necessary to avoid cataclysmic warming. The bill’s targets fall far short of scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and even further below what’s needed to return atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to the safe level of 350 parts per million. The bill also makes it hard to achieve a global climate agreement by underfunding international adaptation and clean-energy deployment.

The bill creates giant, under-regulated carbon markets that will benefit Wall Street but not reliably reduce pollution. It eliminates Clean Air Act protections, undercutting the Obama administration’s ability to act. It contaminates carbon markets with “offsets” that will delay U.S. pollution reductions and are unlikely to result in intended reductions overseas.

What may be more relevant to people concerned about how to put bread on the table is that some analyses have the bill producing no more clean energy than business as usual for the next few decades. This means the millions of jobs we can create by transitioning to a clean energy economy won’t come from this bill.

David Jenkins
David Jenkins, Vice President for Government and Political Affairs, Republicans for Environmental Protection.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act is currently the only viable legislative vehicle for passing comprehensive climate legislation this year. As such, it needs to continue its journey through the legislative process. It is not a great bill, but it is better than doing nothing.

The integrity of this climate bill has already suffered a serious blow as a result of the parochial deal-making needed to just secure the support of Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Waxman and Markey made dramatic early concessions — giving away 85 percent of the emissions allowances in the near term, reducing reduction targets, and allowing offsets.

Those are serious concessions to secure a handful of committee votes on the Democrat side, and those concessions will embolden other lawmakers to demand their pound of flesh as the bill moves toward a floor vote. Also, by not involving climate-friendly Republicans in the drafting and initial horse-trading, the bill has not yet gained the level of bipartisan support needed to get it through the Senate — or to help sustain it over time should the bill become law.

A better, and more politically sustainable, cap-and-trade approach would be to auction off most of the emission allowances and return a large portion of the proceeds to the public to offset energy cost increases, thus generating nationwide public support for emission reductions. A revenue-neutral carbon-tax, as proposed by U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), would accomplish the same thing.

The Waxman-Markey bill is an imperfect product of the legislative sausage factory and contains plenty of unsavory political byproducts, but lawmakers — Republican and Democrat alike — should work constructively to improve and pass it. Every year that we fail to enact legislation to reduce carbon emissions, climate change becomes more difficult and costly to address. The responsible, and conservative, course is to act now.


Charles T. Drevna, President of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.
Climate change is a complex public policy challenge that must be addressed with realistic, long-term strategies recognizing the vital role that all forms of energy — traditional, alternative and renewable — will play in maintaining our country’s economic strength and quality of life. The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association supports the advancement and deployment of new technologies that bring reliable, affordable, and clean supplies of domestic energy to consumers.

If federal climate change legislation is eventually adopted, we believe such legislation must set a realistic carbon reduction target without political preconceptions or punitive provisions, and allow the innovative nature of American businesses to achieve those goals through the most efficient means. It must protect impacted businesses and the existing jobs of their employees from competition with foreign companies whose countries do not limit carbon dioxide emissions. It must prevent mandating contradictory or redundant policies, and establish a single federal carbon constraint program that supersedes all other federal, state, and local statutes and programs. Lastly, it must not advantage or disadvantage one form of energy over another with respect to carbon constraints.

The Waxman-Markey legislation fails those tests in a number of ways. U.S. refiners already face stiff foreign competition and would be severely disadvantaged with higher compliance costs under the Waxman-Markey scheme. Indian businesses, for example, are building refineries specifically geared toward U.S. markets. Such foreign refiners, whose facility emissions are not addressed in the bill and whose operating costs are much lower, will gain a distinct advantage over American businesses in the marketplace. By ceding our stake in the markets to foreign businesses in locations where environmental standards are not nearly as stringent as those that already exist in the United States, global greenhouse gas emissions would likely increase.


Liz Martin Perera, Legislative Representative on Climate for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
This year presents a narrow window for putting a framework in place that can institute a hard cap on emissions, kick-start the clean-energy economy, and begin the international negotiation process. While the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill is not as strong as many environmentalists would have liked, it’s exactly what we need and represents a clear step forward for environmental policy.

Henry Waxman and Ed Markey did a masterful job getting this bill through a very tough Energy and Commerce Committee that includes climate science contrarians and members of Congress who are sympathetic to coal and oil interests. Now that the bill moves through other committees and to the House floor, we hope to defend, improve, and pass the legislation.

Obama and his climate team know they need to walk into the international climate negotiations in Denmark with domestic legislation in hand. Otherwise, the United States will have a much harder time convincing delegates that it’s ready to act.

The progress we’ve seen in Congress is due, in part, to leadership from the White House. Obama’s push to have the Environmental Protection Agency use its power to regulate heat-trapping emissions also is pressuring members of Congress to act.

The consensus among most advocacy groups is that we need to work to strengthen the bill and ultimately pass it, while defending against moves to weaken it from across the political spectrum. We also have to remember that it took many years to pass the Clean Air Act, which was later significantly strengthened through various amendments. This is probably the single best shot we’ll ever get at putting a cap on global warming pollution, and we need to take it.


Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Rainforest Action Network.
I wanted so much to support the Waxman-Markey climate bill. I cheered when Congressman Waxman became chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And I believe it’s imperative we pass strong climate legislation this year.

But despite admirable incentives for hybrid and electric vehicles, improvements in efficiency, and some other initiatives, the current incarnation of the Waxman-Markey bill doesn’t do the job. For starters, it sets the wrong target: Scientists state that an atmospheric concentration of 350 parts per million of CO2 is the upper limit for a stable climate; this bill aims for 450. Moreover, although the international community is calling for cuts of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, this bill aims for 4 percent.

The bill’s largest flaw, however, is the inclusion of 2 billion tons of carbon offsets annually. These offsets represent a massive loophole that will allow polluters to meet their carbon reduction obligations by paying someone else not to pollute, rather than reducing their own emissions. Experience shows that as much as two-thirds of the time offsets don’t work, particularly under current regulations in the agribusiness and forestry industries. A coal company could “offset” its pollution by paying a logging company to raze a rainforest for a palm plantation in Indonesia — destroying some of the most biodiverse ecosystems on earth, and releasing massive amounts of carbon. To succeed in the fight against climate change, we must reduce emissions from fossil fuels AND stop destroying rainforests.

On Nov. 10, 2008, soon after getting elected, President Obama gave his first speech on climate change. “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” he said. “Delay is no longer an option.” Full use of the offsets in the current climate bill would allow polluters to avoid any reductions in their emissions until 2026 — 17 years from today. Instead of settling for this bill, let’s keep fighting for change we can believe in.


Paul Hawken, Environmentalist, entrepreneur, journalist, and best-selling author.
Waxman-Markey is a landmark bill. To be clear it represents a direction, not a plan. But given American realpolitik, it is as good as anyone could have expected. For sure there are some fairly meaty bones thrown to Duke Energy and the coal industry for emissions and carbon sequestration, and there are other lobbyist accommodations. Who knows what will happen as it makes it way through Congress? But the bill brings us closer to European Union standards and in alignment with most of the rest of the developed world.

Critics who see it as lacking are right. Reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 is insufficient. But legislation is not actually written in Congress; it is assembled there. One detects the fine hand of environmental and climate experts in the bill, not just big utilities. The provisions and language are accreted from people who have done the heavy lifting in unsung institutions and NGOs, and I for one am thrilled to see some of this work see the light of legislative day under the auspices of a president who will sign and support it vigorously.

My hope is that the bill will begin to form the basis of a more comprehensive energy strategy that will use physical instead of electoral metrics as the measure of validity, so that we can do away with coal, ethanol, and other money sinks. If I have a criticism, it is not with the overall bill but with the idea that this is a spending bill. It is an investment bill, and I wish we had a governmental accounting system that could distinguish between the two.


Michael Noble, Executive Director of Fresh Energy, a nonprofit promoting clean energy.
For two decades, my overarching commitment has been an American economy that doubles or triples in size by 2040 to 2050, while CO2 is reduced to 10 to 20 percent of emissions today. The Waxman-Markey bill strives to retain this central integrity, and for all the bill’s flaws, Fresh Energy joins the vast majority of clean energy groups determined to pass it in the House of Representatives this month.

Indeed, several provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill fall far short of what Obama wants: a cap on global warming emissions, with 100 percent permit auctions on day one, and the huge majority of revenues dedicated to protecting middle-class buying power.

However, as the Senate begins its work, one of its highest priorities must be to retain the hard-won authority of the EPA to regulate CO2 from coal-fired power plants under existing law. The current version of Waxman-Markey eliminates EPA’s regulatory authority over existing and proposed coal plants under the Clean Air Act. Over the past few years, the threat of regulation has prevented coal construction because risky schemes face finance barriers. Some 27 coal plants in America are currently seeking permits that would belch CO2 for 50 years.

If that coal surge takes place, we will have to de-carbonize electricity at a much steeper rate from 2020 to 2050, and the hole we will have to dig out of will be much deeper. As James Hansen has often said, to begin to fix the climate then will no longer be possible, since it’s barely still possible today.

With the deals and commitments already made, there may be no opportunity to fix Waxman-Markey in the House before passage. But this bill must be fixed in the Senate before it gets to the president’s desk.


Be smart. Be informed. Be engaged. But whatever you do, don't just let it be. And don't count on anyone else to do it for you. Peace. -sg

to bail or not to bail?

Should Detroit, or any of the new, small "alternative" car makers get ANY congressional handout from the tax payer?

A billion here, a billion there... all the sudden, we're talking real money! "Getting" some of the money isn't necessarily what is needed by either Detroit or the small start-up car companies. What's needed is a restructuring of our ability to use the economic resources we already have (specifically tax law!) and allowing free-markets to operate. Of course, we've learned that "free-markets" still tend to need some kind of oversight and regulation (worker and environmental safety, etc.), to help keep the rampant, self-serving nature of human greed in check).

In reality, the "money' would be better directed if it were allocated for things like:

(1) Clean energy transportation and renewable energy infrastructure redesign/rebuild- remember, if the original power grid and road/highway system was never built to begin with (which put A LOT of people to work!), there wouldn't have been such a need/desire/demand for automobiles OR the overall growth/increase in standard of living we've experienced in the first place.

(2) Human capital- affordable education with REAL standards, greentech job training programs, etc.

(3) RAISE FUEL/CARBON TAXES!- no one likes higher taxes, but face it, higher cigarette taxes have helped more and more people see that the adverse financial effects of smoking are as hard to swallow as the adverse health effects. The general public needs to be shown that the adverse financial effects of driving petrol vehicles will be as painful as the adverse environmental effects of burning the fuel. This will eventually lead to a decrease in fuel usage, thus a decrease in fuel tax revenues, and the need to replace the funds some other way... like...

(4) Implement a national ROAD USE or TOLL system- Fuel taxes are a type of use tax, because you only pay them as you buy/consume more fuel. The problem with this is that tax revenues are directly dependent on the use of carbon emission spewing vehicles. The more we wreck the environment, the more money there is to better the road systems so we can continue to wreck the environment! VERY BAD IDEA!

But again, as people consume less fuel, even if the tax rate is higher, tax revenues (money used to pay for roads, etc.) will eventually fall. Thus, people that USE the ROADS need to pay for them, regardless of fuel usage. Just like betterplace wants us to adopt a subscription based driving experience, those who drive could subscribe to local, regional or national Road Use Program- paying only for what we use, when we use it.

(5) Consumer incentives- Remember when the government "created" demand for the biggest, heaviest, least fuel efficient, yet most profitable SUVs by allowing up to $100K tax incentives for buyers! Funny how the proposed incentive for the lowly EV is a mere $7500. I PROMISE YOU THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD ALLOW UP TO $100K TAX INCENTIVE FOR EV'S (NEW OR USED!):
(A) PEOPLE WILL DEMAND CHARGING STATIONS (BUSINESS/JOB OPPORTUNITIES!)
(B) MORE FLEETS WOULD GO ELECTRIC (LESS CARBON EMISSIONS)
(C) MORE TESLA'S (AND OTHER EV'S) WOULD BE BUILT EVENTUALLY DRIVING DOWN THE COST, AND ALLOWING COMPANIES TO SPEND ON R&D, BRING BETTER AND BETTER PRODUCTS TO MARKET
(D) EVENTUALLY THE "PRE-OWNED" EV MARKETPLACE WILL BE CREATED, BRINGING DOWN THE INITIAL PURCHASE PRICE FOR MANY PEOPLE AND NECESSITATING MORE SPECIALIZED, HIGH-TECH/GREEN COLLAR JOBS TO SUPPORT THE PARTS, SALES AND SERVICE NEEDS OF THE EV SECTOR.
(E) DID I MENTION THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF LOWER EMISSIONS?

YADA, YADA, YADA.

Further, given that the US lost 533K jobs LAST MONTH ALONE, and part of GM's "grand plan" is to eliminate up to 30K more jobs, I don't see that the bankruptcy or reorganization of ANY of the big three would be any more degrading/destructive to society than throwing away billions on an attempted bailout- which many believe isn't even nearly enough money to make any real difference anyway!

So, who gets what? In the end, I'm afraid it's really up to YOU AND ME, AS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE, to break away from our blinders-on, apathetic, non-in-my-backyard, Joe Six-Pack, Joe-Plumber CRAP, and demand accountability from business leaders, elected officials and each other.

Cheers! sg

Detroit going Green

I recently read a short paper by Ken Green in the American regarding the "green movement" forcing it's way into Detroit. Below is my letter to Ken, including complete text of his paper, and my own comments in green:

Kenneth, you're a smart guy. Your resume and credentials are impressive. By all accounts, you are are an accomplished individual and it should stand to reason that you would be an insightful and reasonable person.

No doubt, I would be crazy to challenge you.

But after reading your commentary regarding the "green movement" shoving their agenda on Detroit... all I can say is that YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! It's points of view like yours that will perpetuate ignorance and bad decisions.

Please see my comments in green below following each section of your article from the American:

Always eager to shove their agenda into a seemingly unrelated policy discussion, the green movement has joined the debate over bailing out the Big Three automakers.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to tie federal assistance to a requirement that Detroit make more fuel-efficient, eco-friendly cars. “Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol,” demands New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Writing in The Washington Post, Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs calls for a “major industry restructuring to position the United States to lead the world in producing cars that get 100 miles or more per gallon.” (Sachs is pinning his hopes on plug-in hybrid vehicles, “fuel-cell cars,” and the much-ballyhooed—but not yet seen or priced—Chevy Volt.)

In other words, at a time when the top Detroit automakers are desperate for financial aid, the federal government should force them to sell more expensive cars that are less profitable. Make sense to you? Me neither.

The auto industry has proven that left on it's own, it will make decisions ONLY in the best interest of the bottom line, with no regard for long term sustainable, good or even smart strategies. This has been, and will continue to be, at the expense of the auto worker, the environment, the consumer and the new global economy.

Now, you can argue that a corporation's only purpose is to post a profit for it's shareholders, and you would be right... in the old economy. In today's world, more than ever, business, government and society are increasingly interwoven and all are more demanding of accountability.

Specifically, the green movement- which I would argue is more of a revolution (as in, revolving, coming around again), is a new force in truly measuring the economy on a global scale. No longer is the simple (or complex depending on what type of bookkeeping and accounting loopholes are employed!) profitability of a corporation of primary concern.

Example: How can producing a $55,000 SUV that financially profits 30% in terms of cash, but macro economically (environmental, social and other such "costs") drives a stake into the heart of our being, be a good practice? Pollution, toxins, waste, landfill, fuel consumption and emissions- not just in the manufacturing level, but in terms of the entire useful life of the vehicle- are all costs that affect the economy. The true cost of that vehicle is nearly immeasurable. In looking at the big picture, it's easy to see that long-term sustainability is not present in this example.

It’s hard to see how greening Detroit will help car companies, car drivers, or American taxpayers. Greener vehicles are more expensive to make and bring in less profit than other cars. They cost more to finance, more to repair, and more to insure. Their sales depend heavily on tax incentives—which means that selling more of them will require more taxpayer dollars. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that plug-in hybrid vehicles cost $3,000 to $7,000 more than regular hybrids, even though the performance differences between the two models are slight, and the really fuel-efficient hybrids cost $12,000 to $18,000 more than the conventional brand.

As my grandfather, a life-long railroad engineer, father of 8, and die-hard republican- yet master of common sense, would say, "The horse shit is knee deep in there." Come on. Development of ANYTHING new (vehicle or otherwise) is ALWAYS more expensive until economies of scale can come into play. Common sense dictates that as technologies improve, costs drop and profitability increases. THAT'S WHAT DRIVES COMPANIES TO INNOVATE AND DO BETTER!

Additionally, I must remind you that the petroleum industry is- always has been- heavily subsidized with TAX breaks! Who pays for that??? The American tax payer!

So, just off the bat, greening Detroit will help the American tax payer by reducing our dependency on petroleum, and eventually driving the oil companies the way of the dinosaurs. Ironic, isn't it!

And if it takes tax incentives to cause a huge shift in our consumer behavior, then so be it. I seem to remember there was a HUGE tax incentive for buying SUVs over 6000lbs, which led to Detroit making BIGGER and BIGGER vehicles, and buyers buying MORE and MORE of them. The government made it easy for the consumer to buy gas guzzling, emission spewing, expensive to insure, monsters of the road. Why not for greener vehicles as well!

BTW, history has proven (not estimated) that big-ass SUV's cost $10K to $30K MORE than regular station wagons or trucks. So don't tell me price is an issue! American's will always pony up for whatever the want.

What about general maintenance? Service on a hybrid is understandably different than traditional combustion engine vehicles, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison for sure. But lets take tires for instance- a set of rubber for an SUV can cost as much as $1600 or more. A Prius can be put back on the road for more than $1000 less! That's $1000 of disposable consumer income that is able to be REDIRECTED to another focus such savings, or other costs of living.

Consider the Chevy Volt. When it was first announced, the price estimate from General Motors (GM) was $30,000. That soon jumped to $35,000. Now GM’s president says that the actual price could be closer to $40,000, and that GM will still lose money on the sale. As for fuel cells, GM’s prototype fuel-cell car runs on hydrogen and emits nothing but water vapor. It’s hard to get greener than that—but it’s also hard to find a more expensive car: the prototypes cost $1.5 million to produce.

Consider the source... GM is the creator AND killer of the EV-1 electric vehicle. It is also the suppressor of battery technology development. GM once owned the patent rights to NiMH batteries, which showed great success and promise in terms of rechargeable technology, and then sold that to Texaco. Hummmm?

Additionally, I think your financial/monetary arguments are lame, especially in terms of R&D. R&D dollars are there for a reason- for innovation. PROTOTYPES ALWAYS COST MORE. And, you obviously haven't considered the R&D tax credits so heavily relied upon by corporations- especially the auto industry, yes?

But for the sake of arguments, have you bothered to compare green R&D spending with pharma, aerospace or IT R&D? I'm guessing it's all about the same, proportionally, in terms of the cost of prototype development and bringing safe, reliable products to market. (Oh, and I'm taking serious liberty in assuming that corporations are intent upon bringing safe, reliable products to market! Truly, history has shown that profit driven corporations will find ways to cut costs/corners- usually in terms of consumer safety- all the while paying lawyers obscene amounts of money to defend their decisions, and lobbyists even more to get congress to ease consumer protection laws.)

Hybrids are also more expensive to insure. Online insurance broker Insure.com shows that it costs $1,374 to insure a Honda Civic but $1,427 to insure a Honda Civic Hybrid. Similarly, it costs $1,304 to insure a Toyota Camry but $1,628 to insure a Toyota Camry Hybrid.

Oh, LAME again! Lets see, a $53 annual difference for the Civic? Are you serious? Less than one cup of coffee per week! And $324 per year additional for the Camry? Less than a dollar per day! The savings in fuel alone will make up the difference. I know people who spend more on dry cleaning and nail salon visits!

What explains the higher rates? According to State Farm, hybrids cost more to insure because their parts are more expensive and repairing them requires specialized labor, thus boosting the after-accident payout.

OK, let's forget for a minute that economies of scale will eventually come into play, and parts will become less expensive over time. You want us to assume that having smart, well trained, specialized labor is a bad thing? Green-tech jobs are the future! These will be the in-demand jobs that propel our labor force into a higher paid, higher standard of living.

Even conventional small cars are more expensive to insure than larger vehicles, because the former are involved in more accidents that produce extensive injuries. According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, the same driver would pay $412 more to insure a Honda Civic compact that gets 36 mpg on the highway than he would to insure a Honda CR-V (Honda’s mini-SUV) that gets 27 mpg.

You're right, after-accident payouts don't just include the costs of parts, materials and labor... they are really about bodily damage to the human being. But more people are smashed up by, and in, SUVs because of the perceived sense of invulnerability leading to higher risk taking and unsafe driving practices. Talk about high risk!

FYI, both Travelers and Allstate offer discounts for Hybrids. Shop around! According to Allstate's website, http://www.allstate.com/insurance-made-simple/hybrid-cars-cheaper-to-insure.aspx, "Hybrid cars aren't just cheaper to drive. Research shows that hybrid car owners tend to fall into the lower-risk category, which gives insurance companies the chance to offer them a lower insurance premium. This depends on the insurer, though, so be sure to ask when you get your quote."

I guess it all really depends on your point of view, and your spin. But at some point, we all need to make a decision of what we want, and what we are willing to live with. What are you willing to "sacrifice" to ensure a more balanced planet?

President-elect Barack Obama wants to give a $7,000 tax credit to Americans who buy a plug-in hybrid vehicle. He says that such a tax credit will help carmakers sell a million plug-in hybrids over the next seven years. If Obama is right, that means the government will spend around $7 billion in taxpayer money to promote the sale of plug-in hybrids. Replacing all American cars with plug-in hybrids would require tax incentives worth roughly $1.8 trillion dollars (assuming each car would cost the government $7,000).

I defer to my argument on the SUV tax break. THAT "INCENTIVE" WAS UP TO $75,000! How much did that cost the American tax payer!

If the green movement succeeds in carjacking the Detroit bailout, automakers will be forced to sell costlier and less profitable vehicles. Before allowing that to happen, policymakers should consider the consequences of higher car prices, namely, reduced sales, slower fleet turnover, and longer operation of aging vehicles that emit more pollution and break down more frequently than newer automobiles.

You really want people to believe that we should continue to produce status-quo, gas guzzling vehicles because the alternative will lead to reduced sales, slower fleet turnover, and longer operation of aging vehicles, etc? GET REAL! People still drive old cars today, and always will- both out of desire and necessity.

Other's buy new cars every year or two. Shouldn't they have reasonably priced, readily available alternative fuel vehicles to choose from? Then after a few years, they trade in, and thus starts a NEW supply of USED cars, AFV's this time, now available for buyers in the pre-owned market. WHAT A CONCEPT. It all has to start somewhere.

In fact, I'd argue that selling less and having slower fleet turn over (reduction in consumption?) is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it means we have a chance to replenish resources, restore damage to the environment and renew/replace the infrastructure necessary to foster a more sustainable planet AND global economy.

Additionally, it will also FORCE Detroit to "get real" in terms of reorganizing into organizations that will survive and thrive in the coming decades.

They should also consider how higher car prices will affect Americans in the midst of a nasty—and possible long—recession. Finally, they should ask themselves: Is this really the way to make U.S. automakers more financially secure and globally competitive?

Arguing that we shouldn't enable a green agenda in Detroit because of your perceived short-term "pain", is absurd. The recession pain we are all feeling now, due to fast-and-loose financial business practices/greed, is just one example of why big corporations will never act in the best interest of society without a little encouragement.

If you are so worried about how higher car prices might affect Americans during this nasty, possibly lengthy recession, I say NOW is the best time ever to feel the pain- in the midst of ALL THE OTHER PAIN!

Ask yourself this... if you had to have a broken arm, leg, concussion, cuts and a coma, would you prefer being inflicted with multiple events (get beat up, fall down stairs, trip, wreck your car, etc) or just get it all over with in one big, bad trauma? The pain will be there no matter when each thing happens. But if it all happens at once, then the sting of one will help the sting of another not feel as intense. It will also give the WHOLE SYSTEM a chance to reset, regroup, make a full recovery and become stronger/better than before.

Don't you know, love shared is doubled, while pain shared is halved?

Now, I'm not arguing that the "green way" is the only way, or that radical tree-huggers have all the answers. But I will argue until I'm blue in the face that the status-quo cannot be the answer either.

And though I'm an idealist, I also realize that until we, as peoples of the earth, are evolved to the point where we ALWAYS act in the best interest of existence rather than self-interest, we will have to cope with greed vs. good. As a bridge to that more evolved, enlightened level of humanity, a more reasonable approach is to find ways to "optimize" our efforts in order to balance efficiency vs profit.

Attached is my "optimization curve" theory that shows the relationship of maximum benefit to the population in relation to extreme efficiency and extreme profitability. Basically, somewhere between each extreme is an optimized level of "enough" of each.

So, before ANYONE makes ANY decisions, we need to consider ALL of the consequences of continuing down the path we've been traveling. In my opinion, the "negatives" you present are nothing more than circumstances of transition.

I know you probably mean well, but I think you are truly misguided in your analysis. So, please, rethink your archaic, backwards, and generally "bad" ideas such that your readers might actually get through tomorrow with a better understanding of the things we really need to be doing in order to build a stronger future.

Sincerely yours,

sg

Steve Greene is a renewable energy activist, and biodiesel industry refugee

Kenneth P. Green is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.