|
|
Musings Report 2019-22 6-1-19 A Localized New Green Deal
You are receiving this email because you are one of the 500+ subscribers/major contributors to www.oftwominds.com.
For those who are new to the Musings reports: they are basically a glimpse into my notebook, the unfiltered swamp where I organize future themes, sort through the dozens of stories and links submitted by readers, refine my own research and start connecting dots which appear later in the blog or in my books. As always, I hope the Musings spark new appraisals and insights. Thank you for supporting the site and for inviting me into your circle of correspondents.
Thank You, Contributors!
Thank you, Lisa P. for renewing your generous support of my work.
Welcome to the Second "Your Topics and Questions"
I've introduced a new feature for patrons and subscribers: every month, I'll try to respond to your questions and suggested topics. Please submit questions and topics through patreon.com or by emailing me at chsm1th@comcast.net.
A Localized New Green Deal
This month's topic was submitted by Glenn T., one that attracted tremendous media coverage.
"Right now I'm interested in the Green New Deal. I know it won't pass in congress, but what about the ideas for localized versions?"
The Green New Deal is a timely topic and one I've been pondering, along with many other people.
The basic idea is to model a massive public works campaign (inspired by FDR's "New Deal" work programs) around the goal of building a "green" economy, i.e. one fueled by alternative energy sources and re-energized by new efficiencies.
The New Green Deal (as proposed) is a federal infrastructure program much like the 1950s federal Interstate Highway Program, funded by new taxes on the wealthy, Wall Street, etc.
While critics tend to focus on the impracticalities of funding such a costly program, the need for some sort of comprehensive infrastructure renewal in the U.S. is well-documented and visible to most people.
For a variety of reasons, funding for replacement or expansion of basic infrastructure has declined in favor of Band-Aids--repairs and limited upgrades. This article explains the situation in New York City's subway system, and many of the conditions listed here can be found in other major cities:
Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (via Mark G.)
Another concern is the possibility that federal control will result in boondoggles in which bureaucrats pick solutions that ignore market forces, which seek efficiencies to maximize profits.
I think Glenn is correct: the most effective approach is localized projects that are largely funded by federal grants--which is pretty much the current system for building new commuter lines and other transportation links.
Local authorities know what the public wants and they are in positions of accountability, so local control (with federal guidelines to nix "bridges to nowhere") is likely the most responsive and efficient way to distribute funds.
What's the shortest pathway to a "green economy"? Some argue for large-scale alternative energy projects, but it seems to me the shortest and most efficient pathway starts with public transport and rail, which (along with shipping) are the most cost-effective means of moving people and goods.
In reviewing the many emails I receive from readers about a great many topics, one thing is very clear: the population in many if not most US urban centers has far exceeded the capacity of the transport systems: subways, commuter trains, rail, highways, freeways and airports.
In effect, the nation's infrastructure was designed and built decades ago for a population of around 280 million people. Today's population is 330 million, 50 million more people than the infrastructure was designed to handle.
No wonder every system in urban centers with rising populations is overloaded, congested and breaking down.
Horrendous commutes and traffic jams that were once limited to a few large cities are now standard features of daily life in most U.S. cities. Subways are overcrowded and breaking down, airports are stretched to capacity, freeways are parking lots, and so on.
In terms of environmental load, energy and cost efficiency, public transport is far and away the "greenest" form of transport, especially if we consider the entire lifecycle cost of private autos vs. public transport: the full lifecycle cost in energy of a supposedly "green" electric or hybrid vehicle is not much different from an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. manufacturing lithium, steel, rubber, and electronics remains hideously high-energy.
So rather than try to replace the millions of ICE vehicles idling for hours in traffic congestion with essentially equally energy-intensive "green" vehicles, the "greenest" investment is in improving and expanding public transport, which reduces total energy consumption and relieves traffic congestion.
The most pressing problem in my view isn't funding--it's the gross inefficiency of the process of getting anything built in the U.S. One example in my neck of the woods is the new span of the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge, which was damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The new span was finally completed in 2013, 24 years after the decision to replace it was made.
This is not an isolated example. The proliferation of agencies and "stakeholders" (i.e. anyone who wants to shut down the project for some reason) with veto power and bureaucracies that see delaying the project as a means of guaranteeing funding all conspire to make building anything significant a decades-long undertaking in many urban regions.
For this reason, I think the most important requirement of any New Green Deal project should be an ironclad requirement that the project has one year to reach the completion of the planning and permit process: from the day of submittal, the entire project plans must be drawn up, hashed over, finalized and approved by all agencies with veto power.
If the project isn't ready to start construction on day 365, federal funding is withdrawn and cannot be re-applied for.
This strict deadline is the only way to get "green" projects started in a "green" timeline, that is, in a way that doesn't waste precious resources, labor and money on endless political churn and petty agency rivalries.
The political heat on those who obstruct projects that will release hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy will be too intense to ignore.
Points to consider:
1. "Green" is not just a matter of energy consumption or generation, we have to measure the full lifecycle cost of any project from mining and refining the ore into metals, etc. through maintenance, replacement and recycling costs.
2. "Green" doesn't mean replacing 100 million vehicles stuck in traffic congestion with 100 million new vehicles consuming "green" energy; it means reducing the total energy squandered in needless production/consumption. In summary, it means DeGrowth not Growth.
3. The most effective way to make real progress toward this goal is to rebuild and expand public transport. Over time, large sums invested in massively reducing full lifecycle costs and energy consumption will pay for themselves in reduced consumption of energy and resources, maintenance etc. over the coming decades.
Highlights of the Blog This Past Week
Why Being a Politician Is No Longer Fun 5/30/19
Lesson of the S-Curve: Doing More of What's Failed Will Fail Spectacularly 5/29/19
Forget "Money": What Will Matter Are Water, Energy, Soil and Food--and a Shared National Purpose 5/27/19
Superbugs and the Ultimate Economic Weapon: Food 5/24/19
China's Insurmountable Global Weakness: Its Currency 5/23/19
From Left Field
Productivity, investment and profitability
Global trade growth loses momentum as trade tensions persist (WTO)
Major Depression Rates Surge
Tech Workers Say Poor Leadership Is Number One Cause for Burnout
They Were Promised Coding Jobs in Appalachia. Now They Say It Was a Fraud. (via Mark G.)
Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (via Mark G.)
A Breakdown of Wealth, from Middle Class to the Top 1%
Looking for happiness? Try purpose instead
Millennials Are the Therapy Generation: People in their 20s and 30s seek mental-health help more often, and they are changing the nature of treatment
The Coming Software Apocalypse: A small group of programmers wants to change how we code-- before catastrophe strikes.
Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet -- well worth a careful read...
Stanley Kubrick's 'Napoleon': A Lot of Work, Very Little Actual Movie (via GFB)
"Bad companies are destroyed by crisis, Good companies survive them, Great companies are improved by them." Andy Grove
Thanks for reading--
charles |
|
|
|
|
|
