Chevron Realizes Transit is Good For the Earth

I’ve talked before about the energy and auto industry pretending to be green, but in the end all they encourage consumers to do is nice (and undeniably important) things like recycling and stream cleanups, while they keep pushing their environmentally harmful products like cars. In some instances they even bash using cleaner alternatives like buses.

Well there’s one company that seems to finally understand being clean is more than just buying a low energy light bulb. The company I wish to salute is Chevron, for their ad which simply says “I will leave the car at home more.”

Since I often bash said companies for being anti-transit and anti-urban I thought it would be good to point out one that seems to support alternatives.

Repeal CAFE, Save the Auto Industry

[cross-posted at Michigan Youth Political Alliance]

I stumbled upon an interesting Wall Street Journal article, “How to Save Detroit and Save $50 Billion,” and not to indulge in nostalgia over the auto industry’s golden days as I would never do that without feeling repusive, but this article (along with others I found in my research), convinced me that CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy is bunk for the most part and that scrapping it could salvage whatever dignity automakers still have left.

CAFE was a policy first established in 1975 to force auto makers to meet fuel-efficiency standards (e.g. so many miles per gallon) in light of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. It’s purpose was to ween ourselves off from foreign oil dependency, to create more fuel-efficient cars, and to satisfy the American consumers. Fast forward 33 years and auto makers are begging for $50 billion from Congress to help them cover the $100 billion in costs they need to pay to meet CAFE standards.

I never considered mileage standards to be at the root of the problem, but it is awfully close. In other nations, auto makers are not forced to meet mileage standards. Instead, they make fuel-efficient cars because it is profitable. In the market, consumers have a high demand for light, compact, fuel-efficient cars. However, making fuel-efficient cars in the United States have only recently become profitable with the high gas prices. Previously, the hottest cars on the market were the SUVS, pickup trucks and minivans. I’m not saying that their gas guzzling qualities are good, but if that’s what Americans want, then let them have it. By forcing auto makers to meet mileage standards, they had to divert billions of dollars worth of capital from designing, manufacturing, services, and the likes towards researching and developing fuel efficiency, an ultimately unprofitable area for the long term.

CAFE was instituted with auto safety and reducing consumption in mind. However, it has failed on both fronts. Mileage standards have forced auto makers to develop smaller, more lightweight cars that are more suspectible to crashes. The Heritage Foundation delivers some reliable and powerful data on this issue:

More than 25 years ago, research established that drivers of larger, heavier cars have lower risks in crashes than do drivers of smaller, lighter cars. 7 A 2000 study by Leonard Evans, now the president of the Science Serving Society in Michigan, found that adding a passenger to one of two identical cars involved in a two-car frontal crash reduces the driver fatality risk by 7.5 percent. 8 If the cars differ in mass by more than a passenger’s weight, adding a passenger to the lighter car will reduce total risk. 9

The Evans findings reinforce a 1989 study by economists Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution and John Graham of the Harvard School of Public Health, who found that the weight of the average American automobile has been reduced 23 percent since 1974, much of this reduction a result of CAFE regulations. 10 Crandall and Graham stated that “the negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature.” 11

On the issue of consumption, consumers have obviously not reduced their gas consumption in the last 33 years since CAFE was passed in Congress. By purchasing fuel-efficient cars, the consumer mindset is thinking that it is perfectly justifiable to drive those cars more than normal. Thus, extended driving leads to a ton more gas being burned. This is the case in most instances because of something called the “rebound effect,” something that makes sense with all technology. As things get easier to do, people want to do it more. The same Heritage article highlights this as well:

Advocates of higher CAFE standards argue that increasing miles per gallon will reduce gas consumption. What they fail to mention is the well-known “rebound effect”–greater energy efficiency leads to greater energy consumption. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal noted that in the 19th century, British economist Stanley Jevons found that coal consumption initially decreased by one-third after James Watt’s new, efficient steam engine began replacing older, more energy-hungry engines. 13 But in the ensuing years (1830 to 1863), consumption increased tenfold–the engines were cheaper to run and thus were used more often than the older, less efficient models. In short, greater efficiency produced more energy use, not less.

The same principle applies to CAFE standards. A more fuel-efficient vehicle costs less to drive per mile, so vehicle mileage increases. As the author of The Wall Street Journal article notes, “[s]ince 1970, the United States has made cars almost 50% more efficient; in that period of time, the average number of miles a person drives has doubled.” 14 This increase certainly offsets a portion of the gains made in fuel efficiency from government mandated standards.

In result, our dependency on foreign oil has grown, our own auto industry has declined to the point of near failure and our consumers are, well, not doing too badly. Well, except for the fact that their tax payers are going to be paying for the auto makers struggle to meet mileage mandates. We should seriously rethink how we can pull auto makers out of their pit of despair, and abolishing CAFE standards can be a start.

[cross-posted at Michigan Youth Political Alliance]

The Energy Plan America Really Needs

First it was FISA, now Barack Obama appears to have caved and wants offshore oil drilling, but thankfully this time he appears ready to do some negotiation:

Senator Barack Obama said on Saturday that he would reluctantly consider accepting some new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in exchange for stripping oil companies of tax breaks and extending several tax credits to spur the search for alternative fuels.

This is not enough to reduce oil prices, and the only thing it increases is risk to the environment (oil spills and global warming). I’d be willing to support this plan if it had more strings attached:

1. Invest heavily in bus rapid transit along highways and other commuter thoroughfares. Bus rapid transit is like a subway system without the trains, and instead of a stop every block, routes have only select stop areas. The fare is also payed at the station, speeding bus boarding.
2. Invest in mass transit systems like subways and light rail which often times spurs walkable transit oriented development that encourages a car free lifestyle.
3. Continue to expand congestion pricing, which uses free market ideas to charge road users increasing amounts of money to use a road, which encourages people to drive less, use mass transit, or drive at less congested times (when prices are lower, due to lower demand).
4. The money for this would come from the National Highway Trust Fund. While it’s tempting to spend all the money saved from leaving Iraq on domestic programs, that money is money America doesn’t have to spend.
5. If oil from the strategic oil reserve is released it must be tied to reducing the speed limit on national roads. This reserve should only be used for emergencies, like when America invades Iran and the Middle East gets together and says no more oil for the Americans.

But McCain’s energy plan is even worst, with his advocating for drilling in ANWR and his gas tax holiday scam. But my point is to challenge the Democrats to create true energy reform, not just band aids and funding for futuristic concepts, but use technologies that are already available.

There’s More to Environmentalism Than Global Warming

Reuters has an article about how Hillary and Obama are playing up the benefits of “clean coal” in West Virginia and Kentucky, a state sitting on top of huge coal reserves:

In a bid to draw voters ahead of Democratic primaries in West Virginia on Tuesday and Kentucky on May 20, both candidates are playing up the ascendant role of commercially untested and so far economically nonviable ways of converting America’s plentiful coal supplies into electricity without spewing massive quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

“We need some big investments right now in figuring out how to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal,” Clinton told a rally in the rural town of Clear Fork on Monday.

[...]

Not to be outdone, Obama’s campaign has distributed flyers in Kentucky stating that “Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal.” The flyers show a picture of giant barges carrying coal down the Ohio River.

Coal-fired power plants generate about half of U.S. electricity supplies, and account for about 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — the biggest single industrial source.

It’s great the candidates are looking at using American energy and at the same time focusing on reducing carbon emissions. What’s wrong is that global warming has become the dominating topic in popular environmentalism. Coal mining, particularly surface mining, which is popular with Big Coal, is an environmental disaster. From destroying pristine mountain tops, to severe water pollution, coal mining can be particularly disastrous to the environment.

But surface mining does more than destroy trees, water, and mountains. Noises, vibrations and dust from the machines and explosions, can create lung cancer and other diseases in local communities. The coal dust also contains sulfur compounds, which corrodes structures. Water contains increased minerals from excess runoff, which lowers aquatic life. A survey by the EPA estimates over 700 miles of Appalachian streams where filled in between 1985 and 2001.

But all is fine, the law requires these sites be “restored.” Unfortunately between waivers and blatant disregard for the law, these sites rarely are. Propents of the half done restoration jobs argue the flatter land has more uses such as farming and game hunting. But opponents note fast growing, non native grass is often planted, which compete with trees for soil nutrients, and thus leave deforested mountain tops more prone to erosion.

Then there’s the issue of sludge ponds, used to store the waste from coal processing. Hundreds of millions of gallons of this waste is stored in dams. The most dangerous dam is located 400 yards above an elementary school. The reservoir’s slowly leaking contents also threaten to flood the school. But there’s also a flash food risk, In 1972 a similar dam broke in what was know as the Buffalo Creek Flood, which killed 125 people.

I’m all for boosting employment in economically depressed rural areas like West Virginia and Kentucky, and having made in America energy is another bonus. But if these candidates are going to use coal they need to strengthen the laws regulating the coal industry. So far Hillary and Obama have shown they aren’t opposed to strengthening these laws. But John McCain is out with an ad indicating he doesn’t believe in “crippling regulation,” political doublespeak for the continued laxness of Bush’s non-environmental policy.

Above image is in the public domain.

Hillary’s Energy Plan will Raise Gas Prices Too

Last week ThinkYouth had a post about how McCains energy plan will raise gas and other energy rates. This week we hear news that Clinton is endorsing McCain’s idea too, albeit with a few changes reports CNN:

Clinton, who rejected a similar idea in 2000, said her plan is different from McCain’s. She said the Republican’s proposal would cost the government up to $10 billion — money that is used to improve roads.

The senator from New York said she’d make up for the lost revenue with a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies, meaning their profits over a certain amount would be subject to a 50 percent tax.

The idea is to give consumers a gas tax Holiday during the summer months, when fuel prices typically rise. Their idea is that taking 29 cents off your gas consumption tax would lower prices, but it is more likely to increase consumption, and the increased demand will probably outweigh the 29 cent savings.
Several economists also agree with this as the Washington Post reported last week:

“You don’t want to stimulate consumption,” said Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation. “The signal you want to send is the opposite one. Politicians should say that conservation is where people’s mindset ought to be.”

Mr. Goldstein said that instead of freezing the federal tax, the government should help lower-income populations pay for gasoline. It would be cheaper and benefit those households that need it most.

There is one place where Clinton and McCain part ways on this energy plan, Hillary plans to replace the lost tax revenue from gas, with a windfall profits tax on oil corporations. McCains plan was most likely engineered by the Shell and other energy lobbyists working on his campaign, and as such, just encourages more gas consumption.

Besides higher prices at the pump, more gas consumption will mean more air pollution, including the release of carbon gases linked to global warming. I commend the candidates for trying to find a way to fix rising gas rates, but the real alternative is to encourage mass transit use, by among other things investing in rail and buss mass transit and Amtrak.

Cheap gas, free parking, and more highways only compounds the issues of increasing energy bills, pollution, and traffic congestion. It’s time America moves out of 20th century thinking and embraces alternatives. If anything the candidates should be talking of a higher gas tax, which would fund mass transit and cleaner, renewable alternative fuels, and slowly wean America off foreign energy dependence.

Image by Flickr user Michael Domingo

Energy and True Environmentalism

True environmentalism is about preserving life, human, animal, and plant. But it has been toted as more of a feel good ideal, than true action or care. It’s focus has become perverted by corporate interests promoting the ideas of enviromentalism as merely being about making this earth a better place.

Chevy’s current “From gas friendly to gas free” ad campaign is a prime example of the true goals of environmentalism being subverted. General Motor’s idea of gas friendly and gas free, means filling fuel tanks with food. While this campaign was running, the UN was warning 100 million people are at risk at starvation because of rising food prices created by cars and trucks consuming our food.

True environmentalism doesn’t have to mean everyone moves to a compound and lives off the land. But it does require a radical change from 20th century consumption, to a new 21st century economy that is also compatible with preserving the lives of humans, animals and plants. Here are a few ideas I proposed in an essay about how we should use energy in the 21st century:

“Peak oil has been reached already,” says Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulla¹. Yet few viable energy alternatives currently exist. Wind power, solar energy, and coal all hold great potential. But how will governments, engineers, and corporations implement these new technologies in a way that benefits all parties?

Currently, the United States government favors two forms of alternate energy that are still based on carbon. The first is coal, which also has the backing of corporations. Coal presents several problems including air pollution, scarred mountain tops, and polluted runoff.

The US government also favors biofuels like ethanol. Plants are renewable, so unlike coal they are a sustainable energy source. But biofuels reduce the amount of arable land available for human food consumption. According to UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, the price of corn, wheat and sugar doubled in many countries last year². Biofuels also produce nearly the same amount of pollution as fossil fuels³, and actually cause a net loss in fuel⁴.

That leaves solar, nuclear, and wind energy as the only viable clean and renewable fuels. But wind and solar energy are dependent on weather. No wind, no energy, or cloudy skies and no energy. They also produce far less electricity per dollar.

The future of energy is not within new energy sources, but rather within a change of how civilization operates. This includes changes in business operations, urban planning and how ordinary citizens live.

The key to the future of society is actually in the past. For fifty years American cities have been built to ignore all modes of transportation except the car. Imagine how much fuel could be saved if we used rail based car transporters. For instance, instead of commuting 20 miles by highway, you drove onto a train, the train goes to downtown, and you exit, and then drive half a mile to your office.

Such trains would draw power from an electric third rail. The electricity would power the train, but it could also recharge electric cars. As further incentive a fourth data rail could be added, allowing those on the train to communicate with their office, while they traveled to an important meeting across town.

Developing and building high speed rail lines in dense regions like New England would also cut down on airline trips which consume huge amounts of fuel and generate pollution. Despite that trains are slower than aircraft, when factoring in security, delays, and airports distance from it’s city, high speed rail becomes viable in several parts of the United States.

Another large consumer of energy is agribusiness. Imagine living downtown, but being able to visit the farm we’re your food came from. Towering green houses could provide the solution. On the ground level of a multistory urban farm would be a grocery store where the food is truly farm fresh. Others levels would be a different type of farm, one a cattle ranch, another a slaughter house, and yet another for corn and wheat.

The transportation of food consumes much energy. Take the beef industry for example. Wheat is transported for cattle to feed on. The fattened cows are then driven to a slaughterhouse. Once they’ve been prepared the meat is transported to grocery store warehouses and even food processing centers. Then it is finally transported to the neighborhood grocery store. All this transit takes a tremendous amount of energy which could easily be saved by consolidating the food industry’s supply chain.

The Western of idea of unlimited supply confines our thinking of energy solutions. While clean energy like wind, and solar will definitely become more prominent the true solution is changing our ideas on consumption. The only solution to climate change and peak oil is if corporations and consumers will work together. If they can see more good in change, than change itself, they will embrace new energy saving technology.

References are below the fold.
Read more

McCain’s Energy Plan Will Raise Rates

I know this a few days old, but it sure hasn’t gotten enough coverage. John McCain has proposed to create a gas tax “holiday” during the summer months. He thinks that 29 cents off your gas consumption tax would lower the prices, but it is more likely to increase consumption, and the increased demand will probably outweigh saving money from the gas the tax.

And how does Mr. I’ll Stay In Iraq for 100 years, pay for the war with all these tax cuts? Oh, I forgot destabilizing the Middle East creates lower prices at the pump.

The Washington Post talked to some economists who pretty much share the same view:

“You don’t want to stimulate consumption,” said Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation. “The signal you want to send is the opposite one. Politicians should say that conservation is where people’s mindset ought to be.”

Mr. Goldstein said that instead of freezing the federal tax, the government should help lower-income populations pay for gasoline. It would be cheaper and benefit those households that need it most.

If anything, the gas tax should be increased. This would make heating bills decrease, because less gas would be consumed. Europe has some of the highest gas tax rates, which may acount for up to 70% of costs at the pump. Coincdently Europe also has the lowest gas consumption.

Having less consumption would also lower carbon outputs, and general pollution. Besides helping the disadvantaged pay for energy, a higher gas tax could be used to fund alternatives to excess oil consumption like mass transit, and green and renewable fuels.

McCain has several lobbyists from energy companies working on his campaign, and no doubt his lobbyists would love to see increased fuel consumption, leading to higher gas prices.

Cross posted at my personal site.

Republicans Hate Anything That’s Not a Car

It started with Patrick McHenry (R-NC) mocking those who use bikes for their daily commute. It was in an interview after HR 2776 was passed, which among other transit improvements and incentives included a $20 tax credit for riding your bike to work. And here’s what he said:

“A major component of the Democrats’ energy legislation and the Democrats’ answer to our energy crisis is, hold on, wait one minute, wait one minute, it is promoting the use of the bicycle.

Oh, I cannot make this stuff up. Yes, the American people have heard this. Their answer to our fuel crisis, the crisis at the pumps, is: Ride a bike.

Democrats believe that using taxpayer funds in this bill to the tune of $1 million a year should be devoted to the principle of: “Save energy, ride a bike.” Some might argue that depending on bicycles to solve our energy crisis is naive, perhaps ridiculous. Some might even say Congress should use this energy legislation to create new energy, bring new nuclear power plants on line, use clean coal technology, energy exploration, but no, no. They want to tell the American people, stop driving, ride a bike. This is absolutely amazing.

Apparently, the Democrats believe that the miracle on two wheels that we know as a bicycle will end our dependence on foreign oil. I cannot make this stuff up. It is absolutely amazing.

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the Democrats, promoting 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. If you don’t like it, ride a bike. If you don’t like the price at the pumps, ride a bike.

Stay tuned for the next big idea for the Democrats: Improving energy efficiency by the horse and buggy.”

Text from Sreetsblog

But now the secretary of the Department of Transportation, the very people who are supposed to invest in multiple forms of transit, is calling bikes a non valid transportation form. Of course she was further supporting Bush’s view that the gas tax should not be raised, because congress wastes the money that is gathered from it. Apparently one of the ways it’s wasted is by getting cars off the road, by investing in proper safety for bicyclists.

“You know, I think Americans would be shocked to learn that only about 60 percent of the gas tax money that they pay today actually goes into highway and bridge construction. Much of it goes in many, many other areas.

And as we don’t — we’re not disciplined today to say, are we spending that money where it is the highest and best use of that money? Are we giving the American public the best return on investment for that money? And we owe it to ourselves to answer those questions before we ask Americans to dig down in their pockets and pay even more gas tax.”

Text from PBS

One of the things highway users complain of, is traffic congestion. But imagine that 40 percent of the money goes to alternatives - those alternatives are keeping people of roads, reducing congestion, and overall helping the interstate system to run more efficiently. But of course when you’re payed by the car lobby, the only transit that makes sense is motor vehicle based.

FBI: Car Vandals are Terrorists

In DC a Hummer was vandalized in a neighborhood that considers itself environmentally progressive. Most of his neighbors drive a Toyota Prius. Two men in black bashed in the cab, slashed the tires, and inscribed “FOR THE ENVIRON” into the vehicle.

The two men have still not been found. But now the FBI is getting involved and calling it eco-terrorism. I’d expect something crazy like this to come from the Bush administration. But this isn’t surprising, because any movement away from gas guzzlers would be bad for his car industry friends, and his oil interests.
Read more

Will Democrats Vote For Climate Change?

There’s a plan in New York City to bring in congestion pricing. Basically if you enter the most congested part of a city (for New York that would be Midtown and Downtown), you have to pay a toll. In London traffic saw a 20% decrease, and carbon emissions saw a similar drop. And did I mention business profits have increased?
Read more

Why Food Isn’t A Good Source For Renewable Energy

Congress is currently debating a bill that would transform America’s energy laws. But it seems some of these lawmakers just don’t get it.

First some believe liquid coal is a good replacement for petroleum. Sure it gets us off foreign oil, but it is not renewable. Nor will it do anything to end pollution, as coal is a far worse polluter, even worse than diesel.

Then comes using food as energy. I’m sure corn and soybean farmers are happy, but when when the grocery bills start increasing average Americans will again be dissatisfied. If crops become our main form of energy, food prices will increase significantly, and that would no doubt increase global hunger, again because of increased food prices.

So what should America be researching? Nuclear Fusion. Much safer then traditional nuclear plants, and has the potentiality to produce far more energy. And then we could look at reducing our energy usage, which in turn reduce the amount of foreign energy used. Building a national passenger rail network those of Japan and Europe would do a lot to end pollution and fuel consumption from aircraft. Divesting funds from highways, the government could invest more in light rail, subways, and bus rapid transit lines. But it looks like all this will do is transfer money from the current enemy, Big Oil, to future, unsustainable enemies.