Noam Neusner, one of President Bush's former economic speechwriters with whom I worked while at the CEA, has a nice piece in the Forward this week taking passionate but casual environmentalists to task for not living up to their own policy prescriptions.
His editorial reminded me of an observation I made about conservation (this time while on the ground) during my trip to San Francisco last month. There is no carpool lane on U.S. 101 south of the city until you get to San Mateo county and, in particular, south of the airport. Ever the economist, I made sure to check that this was not because Bay Area commuters seemed to carpool extensively without need of those pesky incentives. Plenty of driver-only vehicles, maybe a bit fewer driver-only SUVs than other places I've been. I've decided that I'll defer to the Google folks on conservation and alternative energy. The rest of you Hippie-Crites in SF can call me when you get a carpool lane on the major North/South artery. Reach me on my cell phone as I'm walking to work.
Here's what Noam had to say in "Let Them Change Lightbulbs:"
Whether we are motivated by fears of global warming, or Arab oil money funding terrorist attacks on Israel, or $75 per tank fill-up prices, our actions in response are minuscule and laughable.
A great percentage of the American public, roughly 70%, believes global warming is real, that it causes unusual weather patterns, and that its cause is the burning and release of carbons into the atmosphere. At least a third is very concerned about it.
That kind of consensus should produce meaningful action, no?
Instead, what we typically get is the soft pabulum of “every little bit helps” — the conservationist culture best represented by the 2007 congressional law that will phase out incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012. The mullahs and princes who rule OPEC charge $120 a barrel, so we change the light bulbs.
If that’s all we ever do in response to the very real threats to our economy, security and environment, then we might as well acknowledge our fecklessness.
And for a nice picture of what our environmental and energy policies are doing elsewhere in the world, take a look at this gem from Glenn McCoy of The Washington Post.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Peninsula Green
I live in Mountain View, CA. Your comment about 101 is fair enough, as is the observation that few people carpool on the Peninsula or in Silicon Valley.
The diamond lane on 101 is off and on. I don't know why that is, whether it's a local funding problem or something else. But here's some stuff I'll bet you didn't know.
Most people who don't drive themselves to work on the Peninsula take the Caltrain. There are large and plentiful Park and Ride lots, and they are always full. Likewise with Bart in the East Bay.
The South Bay has a light rail, centered in San Jose, which is also successful, but not as successful as the other two. I would use it to go to events in San Jose, but it takes about 70 minutes, versus a 20 minute drive. But I think it works for commuters who have worksites along the line, such as Lockheed Missles and Space.
There is significant debate over whether a commute lane encourages actual carpooling, verus giving an advantage to parents driving children around.
Like all suburbs that grew up since the invention of the automobile, the communities were laid out and developed with the automobile in mind. Changing them to suit the walkers/bikers/transit riders will take a long time, and a big investment. This is a big difference, I think, between East coast and West coast cities. In the East, many urban areas were first built before the automobile, which makes getting around without one much easier.
Finally, better regional transit solutions take tax money, which is extemely difficult to raise because of Prop 13.
All of this underscores, for me, the importance of formulating some policy that puts a dollar value on reducing carbon emissions. Cap and trade or carbon tax, those are the details. I care about them, but not as much as putting the money there and letting individuals sort out how to best save money.
Sometimes the greenest decision is to carpool, but sometimes the greenest decision is to move closer to work, or change jobs. The people driving the SUVs may well not be the people who support green initiatives.
Finally, changing the kind of lightbulb used may be small potatoes, but it's also a no-brainer. It doesn't just reduce emissions; it also saves money. I'm astonished the government hasn't done this already.
Changing lightbulbs will save a lot
In my area the switch to more efficient bulbs will save us from building several new power plants in the coming years -- it is well worth the effort.
Hanover New Hampshire was developed between 1750 and 1850, a pedestrian era. There are only 11,000 residents (5,000 living on the college campus) and over 3,000 are employed by the college, which has been there since the late 1700's . . . so the residences were built to be walkable distance from the employment in what is essentially a "company" town.
Two members of my family taught and studied at Dartmouth; they also walked to their employment each day.
Modern cities in the west and midwest were built on an auto friendly model, and often the car companies themselves promoted this (trolley lines were bought and shut down by GM, and in Minneapolis and St. Paul this eliminated mass transit for thousands) to enhance their own monopoly on transportation mode. See the Great American Streetcar Scandal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal
We'd take mass transit if it were available; instead of throwing money at nation building in Iraq we should be building this infrastructure here.
HOV Lanes
Every reliable study I've seen on HOV lanes comes to the same conclusion: they do not work. Both air pollution and traffic jams would be reduced by converting all HOV lanes to normal traffic lanes. Therefore, the lack of HOV lanes near San Francisco may mean that the highway planners actually read the studies and made the correct decision about HOV lanes.
Studies of Carpool Lanes
Dr. T,
Can you provide some links to those studies so that I can read and discuss them? They seem to be a staple of public policy toward congestion and pollution.
Thanks,
Andrew
CFC Lightbulbs & Motorcycles
I am a Global Warming skeptic who is for higher gas taxes. I think it is crazy to call CO2 pollution, but I haven't gotten a new car yet partly because I want higher mileage.
I don't think of myself as green, but I do like to be efficient. I like gas mileage and performance, so I commute on a motorcycle.
I looked into Compact Flourescent Lights (CFLs) on the internet and bought two. One is successfully saving $$ as our porch light. The second burned out too quickly, despite claims that they last longer. I believe it is because I installed it in the garage where the light often comes on & off for just a quick trip to grab something. My thinking is that CFCs are good for lights that are left on for a long time (high duty cycle), but that they can endure less on/off cycles.
I did not plan to use the CFC in the garage, but the weird color did not seem right for a living room reading lamp. Even my porch now gives one that highly desired public-camp-site feel.
My wife often gets mad at me for my green skepticism and other corrolaries (recently for my comments regarding organic foods). About 8 yrs ago I drove her crazy by driving 4 hrs to my grandparents place for Thanksgiving at the posted 65mph speed limit. My SAAB averaged 38 mpg on the trip there; my green, liberal wife was whiteknuckled the whole way.
Post new comment