Full Disclosure

On April 13, in the New York Times, Abby Schultz points out that all three of the current presidential candidates say they are in favor of some type of cap on carbon emissions and astutely concludes that any such legislation could have significant impact on power companies.  More specifically, such caps will likely increase the cost of electricity generated through the burning of fossil fuels.

 

In the article, a senior analyst at Innovest Strategic Value Advisors suggests that not all of these costs will be able to be passed on to consumers.  Some of the costs will have to be absorbed by shareholders in the power corporations.  Obviously, some companies will be better prepared for carbon caps than others…and consequently a more attractive investment.  See our previous post “Carbon’s Gonna Get Expensive” which highlights the Big 3 financial institutions’ decision to more closely scrutinize loans for the construction of new carbon emitting power plants.

 

The Carbon Disclosure Project attempts to analyze the investment risk in corporations based on their environmental practices.  The organization has published a report for the last six years.  The report was published on behalf of 315 investors who manage assets worth $41 trillion.  This is enough to get anyone’s attention. 

 

One potential way of reducing the cost of the production of electricity, as well as a improving company’s rating in the Carbon Disclosure Project report is through investment in cleaner power generation technologies.

 

We understand that the looming carbon crises did not materialize over night.  It took decades for us to arrive at this point and will likely take decades for us to correct the problem.  But if we don’t start soon, where will be 50 years from now?

Drought and Climate Change

Over the last year, drought caught up with traffic as THE topic of conversation around the region. When we began the year, better than half the state was experiencing ‘exceptional drought,’ most severe rating the U.S. Drought Monitor has.

 

The question arises: How will climate change affect water supplies and water quality?

 

There growing consensus that, while we probably won’t have more frequent droughts, the ones we have are likely to be more severe and perhaps last longer.

 

Warmer temperatures are likely to lead to increased water use, at a time when stream flows are lower.

 

We are likely to experience more weather extremes, including more powerful thunderstorms, hurricanes and tropical storms. That could mean more flooding, more run-off and more erosion.

 

Increased water temperatures will lead to lower levels of dissolved oxygen affecting aquatic life in rivers, streams and lakes. Pollution may be more concentrated.

 

What’s the answer in a future that may be marked by wild swings in rainfall and accompanying variations available water supplies?  

 

More conservation? More reservoirs? Desalination?

Choosing to be green?

Two researchers at the Kennedy School of Government have analyzed data relating to the purchase of hybrid cars between 2000 and 2006 to find out what motivates car buyers to spend upwards of $4,000 on hybrid technology. In “Giving Green to Get Green: Incentives and Consumer Adoption of Hybrid Vehicle Technology,” Kelly Sims Gallagher and Erich Muehlegger report that government incentives such as tax breaks account for very few sales of hybrid cars.

 

Inducements to driving green that have been tried around the country include allowing hybrid drivers to use HOV lanes (California, New Jersey) and waivers of public parking fees for hybrids (New Haven, CT and San Jose, CA). These have had little effect. More than tax credits, sales tax waivers seem to be the most effective in getting drivers to switch to hybrid technology, but even they accounted for only 6 percent of the 250,000+ hybrids sold in 2006.

 

While soaring gas prices resulted in 27 percent of hybrid purchases, the study found that idealism accounted for 36 percent of hybrid sales.

 

Whether they wish to leave a smaller carbon footprint, support greater energy security or simply to upstage their neighbors by being observably ‘green,’ more than a third of hybrid buyers are motivated by something other than money.

 

So what happens to the market for hybrid cars when the market for Priuses among environmentalists reaches a saturation point and gas prices drop, even a bit?

 

The Gallagher-Muehlegger study suggests that government policies that increase the price of gasoline may do more to motivate consumers to adopt hybrid technology than tax incentives.

 

What do you think?

 

Don’t just sit there, do something

At the end of “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore urges us to change out our light bulbs. Such a small act in face of a big problem. Some might ask, “Why bother?”

 

There are a lot of reasons to bother, not the least of which is that small changes in behavior can make a big difference when millions of people adopt them. But as Michael Specter said, in a recent New Yorker piece on carbon footprints, “Personal choices, no matter how virtuous, cannot do enough. It will also take laws and money.”

 

Mr. Gore now has a new slide show about climate change. His message is not about changing light bulbs or buying hybrid cars. It’s about political action.

 

We won’t solve our climate crisis, he says, until we solve our democracy crisis. As citizens we have to demand action on the part of our government by contacting our elected officials, by showing up at public meetings, by paying attention to the debate and by shining light on the process.

 

When was the last time you sent an e-mail or a fax to an elected official weighing in on an issue, making the case for or against a piece of proposed legislation? More important, when was the last time you actually showed up in person to make your voice heard? When was the last time you actively campaigned for a candidate you admire, not simply sent them a check?

 

If we’re too busy to act, if we leave action to others, if we don’t demand change, maybe we really get the government we deserve.

Shall we put it to a vote?

This article, Don’t Railroad Taxpayers into Transit Subsidies, asserts that “…no rail line should be designed or constructed unless approved by majority vote at the ballot box.”

Good idea. After all, this is a democracy, right?

So the next logical step here is to make sure that a majority of the public is on board with any significant investment in new infrastructure. That would mean putting any new roads up to a vote, too. After all, it’s only fair.

Luckily, we do live in a democracy and we all do get to vote. But some people aren’t too keen on letting us vote on the issues that matter most to us.  In the last legislative session of the Georiga General Assembly, approval of a referendum on a consitutional amendment for a new transportation funding source failed.

A new survey by the Transit Planning Board indicates that there may be more interest in public transportation in the Atlanta region than many choose to believe.

Given the staggering growth projections for this region, given the aging of the population and their future transportation needs and given that we are, today, gridlocked, the least state leaders could do is allow citizens to choose whether or not they want to pay for transit services.

That’s just the bare minimum. That’s just a start.

Eventually, the folks who blocked the vote on the transportation sales tax may want to start thinking about how we’ll get around 50 years from now.

How do you envision the Atlanta region’s transport system 50 years from now?

If we don’t think big, who will? Answer: the UAE

On Monday National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” carried a report from the United Arab Emirates about Abu Dhabi’s plans over the next 10 years to build a city for about 50,000 people that has virtually no carbon footprint.

 

Called Masdar City, the project will use site design to minimize the need for air conditioning. Solar panels will generate electricity to meet most of the city’s needs. Individual cars will not be allowed. Instead, people will move about in six-passenger electric vehicles, running through a subterranean network connecting some 1,500 stations. Passengers will program their destination into the vehicle and be whisked away. Water will be recycled and reused, as will most, if not all waste.

 

When asked why oil-rich Abu Dhabi would invest some $18 billion in a zero-carbon development, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan said because they see the project as a natural extension of their energy businesses. In other words, when the oil runs out, he wants Abu Dhabi to be the go-to place for alternative energy technologies and processes.

 

While the U.S. is not awash in petrodollars like the UAE, why are we leaving it to others to think big and lead the way in alternative energy?

It’s such a pretty day, let’s walk.

You can get anywhere in Atlanta now, without having to drive.

Short walks and bicycle trips lead to local transit stations that are surrounded by restaurants, coffee shops, townhomes, offices and grocery stores.

After a short wait, we hop onto a light-rail car and are whisked away into a network that links Lawrenceville to the downtown Marietta square, Lovejoy to Kennesaw, Palmetto to Chattanooga, UGA to GSU.

The epicenter of this network is a bustling live-work-play station that serves buses, pedestrians, commuter rail, MARTA, light rail, bicycles and every other mode of transportation that keeps Atlanta seamlessly moving.

Every day, Atlanta’s workforce travels side-by-side with conventioneers and tourists through this portal. The theater and galleries are packed and the restaurants are great. The nightlife doesn’t stop.

Above the shops, a new hotel – a twisting skyscraper of steel and glass –connects to the Georgia World Congress Center and CNN Center. There’s a pedestrian walkway that leads to Marietta Street and the thriving Fairlie-Poplar and Luckie Street districts.

 

From here, we can go anywhere.

That’s one vision of the future.

What’s yours?

 

Development and Climate Change

Georgia has grown and benefited from automobiles and associated development for over 40 years.While this growth has led to prosperity, it has also led to development patterns that induce automobile dependency and greenhouse gas emissions that will have a negative impact on our future.In fact, a new study has labeled Georgia and other southern states among the worst in the US for creating these emission inducing development patterns.

ULI, Smart Growth America, and other organizations recently summarized existing research in a report entitled Growing Cooler. In it, they determine that development and traffic patterns are major contributors to climate change. 

The good news is that state and local governments in Georgia can impact greenhouse gas emissions by making decisions regarding land use policies and policies that lead to cleaner fuels and vehicles.

We can no longer ignore that our development patterns are a major problem for our state’s future. Some cities in the state are already taking action by signing the US Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement. Mayors for the cities of Alpharetta, Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Decatur, East Point, Macon, and Tybee Island have signed on to the agreement. These mayors represent 910,726 people, or roughly 9.6% of the sate’s population.

Though these eight cities are taking action to ensure that our state has a sustainable long term future, Georgia may already be a decade behind other states with regard to responding to climate change. And as a coastal state, this should worry us.

Under the Georgia constitution, local governments have substantial authority to guide land use and future development. It is time for local governments to start making land use decisions with our 50-year future in mind.

Where will our energy come from?

Good news Georgia, we’re not the only ones increasing our carbon emissions!

The New York Times published a story yesterday saying that Italy’s major power producer, Enel, is converting one of its larger power plants to run on coal, “generally the dirtiest fuel on earth,” according to the Times.

 Another article from the L.A. Times states that:

 

“For the last five years, from 2003 through 2007, the global climate averaged 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than its 20th century average.”

 

Our neighboring state governments, Florida and South Carolina, have begun to rethink their reliance on coal and are working on plans to reduce their carbon footprint.

 

But forget about what’s going on today. The important question is, where are we going to be getting our energy from in 50 years? Nuclear? Solar? Wind?

What source, what renewable source, has the ability to replace the juggernaut mega-watt producing coal-fired power plants that dot our state today?

Food for thought

 

On average, everything we eat travels 1,500 miles before it gets to our table. We find grapes from Chile, shrimp from China and lamb chops from New Zealand at our supermarkets.

 

But in an era when oil prices are skyrocketing, how long will we be able to afford food that has traveled half way around the world to reach our plate? As food costs continue to escalate, we may have little choice but to shift our food purchases away from well-traveled meat and vegetables to ones that are produced locally.

 

Fortunately, the number of farmers’ markets in the United States has grown from some 340 in 1970 to more than 3,700 in 2004. The first community-supported agriculture farm was established in 1985. Now, there are more than 1,500, including more than 15 in metro Atlanta.

 

During World War II, a campaign — “Plant more in ’44!” – encouraged Americans to plant Victory Gardens. Nearly 20 million of us did so and these gardens produced some 40 percent of the fruits and vegetables we ate in our homes.

 

In our fight against climate change, are we looking at a time in the coming decades when most of us will have victory gardens in our yards or on our balconies or when we must look to farmers’ markets for our food? Eating locally may be one way to reduce greenhouse gases (and combat ever higher food prices).