Makers of Things

Woody Guthrie would surely have been pleased with this line from President Obama’s inaugural speech yesterday:

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given.  It must be earned.  Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less.  It has not been the path for the faint-hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.  Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

 

How true, though that common sense history has been largely ignored in the economic policies that have existed throughout most of my adult life, a reality articulated well by the union boss in season two of The Wire:

 

You know what the trouble is…? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy’s pocket.

 

Indeed. Remind me again how that’s worked out.

 

So let’s invest in making things in America, green things, and restore a measure of prosperity to the many, rather than the pick-pocketing few.

 

Climate Change 101

Um, Governor, how can you fix the problem, if you don’t accurately assess the causes?

 

I don’t want to argue about the causes,” she said in St. Louis. “What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?”

 

To Biden, a Democratic senator from Delaware running with Sen. Barack Obama in the November 4 election, knowing the cause is critical to finding a cure.

 

“If you don’t understand what the cause is, it’s virtually impossible to come up with a solution,” Biden said. “We know what the cause is. The cause is man-made. That’s the cause. That’s why the polar icecap is melting.”

 

Are we really still having this argument? My god…

 

A Constructive Example?

China seems an awfully problematic place to turn when looking for inspiration to jumpstart the still shameful rebuilding efforts in New Orleans.

 

However one feels about its other policies, the Chinese government is clearly not afraid to invest in the future of its cities…

 

Meanwhile, three full years after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, much of the city remains a wasteland…

 

…

 

Yet the kind of visionary urban plan that could address these issues in a bold and thoughtful way has yet to materialize. Instead, some of the country’s greatest architectural minds are inventing the future in cities like Beijing, Shenzhen and Dubai, where their talents are more appreciated

 

You’d think forced evictions, inadequate compensation, repression of dissent and official corruption would be enough to disqualify China as an model example of anything, much less the monumental physical, economic and social task of rebuilding a predominantly poor and black American city.

 

One might even infer the ability of the Chinese to “invest” in their cities in such an impressive way may be inextricable from their “other policies”. Policies so problematic that even some of those “greatest architectural minds” often stop to consider what it means to sell their talents to an “appreciative” client like China.

 

Small Town Values

It’s long been conventional wisdom that one political party (rhymes with ublican) truly understands the “small town values” of Americans, while the elites in the other party, drunk on their chardonnay and lattes, are simply incapable of relating to the average, hard working family. This cynical and transparent (though rather useful) political maneuver has served the GOP very well, even as they have used the governing powers gained by this nonsense to systematically undermine the livelihoods of those very small town voters.

 

You’d think this long discredited trope would have faded from our discourse by now, but of course, you’d be wrong. The GOP has now dressed the meme of “small town values” up in bear skin and whale blubber and trotted it back out in front of the cameras, as if no one would notice. Thomas Frank, in today’s Wall Street Journal, calls bullshit on the charade:

 

Small town people, Mrs. Palin went on, are “the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food and run our factories and fight our wars.” They are authentic; they are noble, and they are her own: “I grew up with those people.”…

 

Leave the fantasy land of convention rhetoric, and you will find that small-town America, this legendary place of honesty and sincerity and dignity, is not doing very well…

 

…For decades now we have been electing people like Sarah Palin who claimed to love and respect the folksy conservatism of small towns, and yet who have unfailingly enacted laws to aid the small town’s mortal enemies.

 

…they have permitted fantastic concentration in the various industries that buy the farmer’s crops. They have undone the New Deal system of agricultural price supports in favor of schemes called “Freedom to Farm” and loan deficiency payments — each reform apparently designed to secure just one thing out of small town America: cheap commodities for the big food processors. Richard Nixon’s Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz put the conservative attitude toward small farmers most bluntly back in the 1970s when he warned, “Get big or get out.”

 

In his excellent book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan goes into some depth about the legislative undermining of the New Deal agriculture supports and the consequent devastation that continues to burden farmers and farming communities across America.

 

So it shouldn’t be surprising that the National Farmer’s Union gives Barack Obama a 100% legislative rating on issues relating to small farm agriculture, while John McCain receives 0%.

 

That’s zero. Zip. No legislative help whatsoever, from Mr. “I chose a moose shooter as my soul mate”, regarding the values and interests of farming communities; otherwise known as small towns.

 

What is it going to take for people to vote for leaders and policies that exhibit and foster the very values that everyone seems to breathlessly champion, rather than simply voting for the most entertaining teevee personality?

 

Don’t answer that.

 

Funding Transit through Energy

It’s a bit of a pittance in the grand scheme of transportation funding, but the political tide really does seem to be shifting:

 

On Monday, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said a measure that would provide as much as $2 billion in grants and other funding for public transportation appears likely to be included in energy legislation that could be voted on next week…

 

The legislative push comes as high gas prices are spurring Americans to drive less and use public transportation more…

 

The increased demand is straining many transit agencies, which are already coping with higher prices for fuel, steel and other commodities.

 

An encouraging sign, to be sure, that public transportation is finally gaining a greater appreciation from both commuters and lawmakers. Another decade or so of sustained interest (i.e. panic over high gas prices) and we might just be on our way to some first class travel options in this country.

 

More and Faster Trains

From the (shamefully) centrist Progressive Policy Institute comes a very sensible proposal: develop a number of regional high-speed rail corridors in the U.S. to relieve pressure on both roadways and runways:

 

In the short term, passengers have two choices: fly less, or pay more for an inferior service. But if the United States is serious about fixing the air-travel mess — not to mention congestion on our roadways — there is a real, long-term solution: high-speed rail (HSR).

…

With the airline industry cutting routes and raising fares, the cost of a gallon of gas racing past $4, and the unemployment rate rising, the time for a major investment in high-speed rail may finally be here.

 

The realization of any such long term high-speed rail plan is a long way off, but there’s no time like the present for crafting ambitious policy towards that goal. However, translating that into legislation is another matter altogether, and negotiating HSR development with the intractable auto and airline industries will require clear-headed and far-sighted political leadership.

 

(PPI link via Yglesias)

 

The Problem with Reality TeeVee

This insightful post from Atrios illuminates a vague, low-grade dread I’ve been feeling since the presidential campaign turned from cynical to farcical:

 

…While chatting a man came up and discussed registering to vote, but seemed more interested in proudly trumpeting his Hamletesque indecision as a mark of principled independence or something. Apparently had Obama chosen Clinton, but, well, now he likes Palin…

Anyway, he was clearly a member of that segment of the population for whom politics is just another reality TV show, and his vote is simply about which of the candidates is his “favorite” and who will spend the next 4 years entertaining him as the star of The Presidency…

It’s probably completely rational for many people to approach politics this way. They’re in a class and at a point in life such that actual policies are unlikely to impact them directly very much. Add in a touch of narcissism and a lack of empathy, and the choice really does come down to who you want to see on the teevee.

 

More hope, less teevee.

 

Wind is the New Solar

There’s a piece in yesterday’s Times on the growing interest in small wind turbines; these are wind powered devices that can be used by individual homes or businesses to generate a portion of their own energy.

 

That’s an exciting idea in principal, though in practice it seems roofs may not be the best place for this type of device:

 

But many experts caution that rooftops, while abundant, are usually poor places to harness the breeze. Not only are cities less windy than the countryside, but the air is choppier because of trees and the variation in heights in buildings. Turbulence can wear down a turbine and make it operate less efficiently…

 

“In an urban environment, more times than not you’re better off with a solar panel,” said Mr. Stimmel, of the wind industry association.

 

Another problem is that microturbines are not really cost-effective:

 

These tiny turbines generate so little electricity that some energy experts are not sure the economics will ever make sense.

…

“Rooftop wind economics are abysmal, since the resource just isn’t there,”…

 

OK, they kinda-sorta work and they’re unlikely to pay for themselves…so, what explains their popularity?

 

The spread of the big turbines and a general fascination with all things green are helping to spur interest in rooftop microturbines, creating a movement somewhere on the border between a hobby and an environmental fashion statement.

 

Ahhh, they’re cool and fashionable.

 

Sticking a designer wind turbine on your roof (if you an afford it) certainly makes a statement with your friends and neighbors (and it may actually generate a small amount of electricity), but it risks framing the very real need for personal environmental action in the language of fashion, which is a slippery slope to fad. The climate problem is way too huge and serious to be solved by a revolving door of “green” accessories.

 

Grassroots campaigns empowering people to make better personal choices are extremely important, but empowering government and industry to make those choices on a gargantuan scale is the only real hope for managing the climate crisis in the long term. This starts with people and communities certainly, and it’s fine if it starts on your roof…so long as you climb up there next to your sexy microturbine and demand better policies.

 

VP Environmental Cage Match

 

As I become more familiar with Joe Biden’s policy positions, he seems increasingly to be an eminently reasonable and credible fellow. Evidence his environmental stance:

 

I’m… in the best position to make it clear to the United States Congress that this is not merely an environmental issue, it is a security issue. I held hearings this year pointing out that if we do not do something of consequence about global warming, drastically and soon, we literally are going to find ourselves reconfiguring our entire military to deal with occasions for new wars, which are going to be about territory and arable land.

…

To deal with global warming, you have to change the attitude of the world, particularly China and India, the two largest developing nations. But in order to do that, to have any credibility, you have to begin here in the United States by capping emissions, increasing renewable fuels, establishing a national renewable portfolio standard, requiring better fuel economy for automobiles.

…

These measures would put us in a position to be able to actually attempt to lead the world. But we have no credibility right now.

 

OK, that’s fairly solid, pragmatic reasoning – certainly headed in the right direction given the gravity of the problem. As Daily Kos frontpager Plutonium Page puts it:

 

His ideas are not perfect, but they are more than a good start, and will be a sound way to kick off the next four years.

 

Enter moose hunting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

 

“I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won’t ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices.”

…

“Alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop.”

…

“When I look every day, the big oil company’s building is right out there next to me, and it’s quite a reminder that we should have mutually beneficial relationships with the oil industry.”

…

“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location,”… But, she added, “I’m not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”

 

Ok then.

 

Game, set, match.

 

Ionic, or Ironic?

OK, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this Slate piece is meant as sarcasm, (though I’m not so sure Mr. Rybczynski is predisposed to irony)…

 

The real surprise is that a campaign based on change eschewed Gehry-esque billowing-cloud shapes, Libeskindian jagged shards, and even stainless-and-maple Starbucks moderne. Is Obama a closet Classicist, or is this merely another measure of this contradictory politician?

 

…because of all the vapid over-analysis of the Mile High columns, this one might actually win an award for stupid.

 

Democratic Design Discipline

You know, I was wondering about the slightly odd “O8” graphic at the DNC… Now it all makes sense:

 

If you’ve been watching the Democratic National Convention this past week, you probably noticed the bold blue-and-white graphics, and especially the speaker’s podium, with its modern-looking wood trim and “O8″ logo: that’s the letter “O” and the number 8, as in “Obama in 2008.”

 

It hit my eye funny at first, but I kinda stopped noticing after a while. The campaign’s branding overall though has been outstanding. The link above also links to the team responsible for the Obama 08 website and logo.

 

Transportation We Can Believe In

 

Brookings has a side by side comparison of the presidential candidates’ transportation policies [pdf]. The differences are quite stark actually, and one candidate seems far more serious than the other on the issue. Guess which.

 

From the section entitled Increased Federal Financing for Transportation:

 

Barack Obama: “Obama will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation.”

 

John McCain: The August 2008 edition of Governing (Governing.com) explicitly states that McCain supports cutting ‘pork from transportation spending’ and does not support a larger federal role in the transportation sector.

 

A casual analysis of the major issues facing America – the climate crisis, alternative energy, crumbling infrastructure, economic recession, Iraq war – would seem to suggest that all are at least indirectly related to transportation. This does not seem like an issue best passed off to state and local governments.

 

Another section, this one with direct implications to the economy: Transportation Investments as a Job Creator

 

Barack Obama: “… a robust federal infrastructure investment program today will help strengthen the U.S. economy and provide at least one million more U.S. jobs at a time when the housing and construction industries are slowing … [the Infrastructure Bank] will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs per year and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity.”

 

John McCain: McCain has not made any public comments on this issue during the campaign.

 

Crickets?

 

Better Country

What an extraordinary speech.

 

All this hope is confusing my knee-jerk cynicism.

 

Big Sky Energy

 

 

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is quite the entertaining speaker, and his speech last night at the Democratic National Convention was pretty great. He made some potent points regarding the state of America’s energy system and did it with a good bit of humor.

 

Some gems:

 

“We need a new energy system that is clean, green, and American made.”

…

“Barack Obama understands that the most important barrel of oil is the one that you don’t use.”

…

“We simply can’t drill our way to energy independence, even if you drilled in all of John McCain’s backyards, including the ones he can’t even remember.”

 

Update: Nice ad-lib apparently. And here’s a bonus quote:  

“The petro-dictators will never own American wind and sunshine.”

It’s the Infrastructure, Stupid

 

 

Wind and solar power sure sound great – too bad we can’t use any of it, because our transmission lines suck:

 

The dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not.

 

The grid today, according to experts, is a system conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop each other up, reducing blackouts and sharing power in small regions. It resembles a network of streets, avenues and country roads. [Emphasis mine]

Are we at all serious about this stuff? I mean jeesh.

 

Politicians in Washington have long known about the grid’s limitations but have made scant headway in solving them. They are reluctant to trample the prerogatives of state governments, which have traditionally exercised authority over the grid and have little incentive to push improvements that would benefit neighboring states.

 

…

 

Energy Department leaders say that, however understandable the local concerns, they are getting in the way. “Modernizing the electric infrastructure is an urgent national problem, and one we all share,” said Kevin M. Kolevar, assistant secretary for electricity delivery and energy reliability, in a speech last year.

 

…

 

Without a clear way of recovering the costs and earning a profit, and with little leadership on the issue from the federal government, no company or organization has offered to fight the political battles necessary to get such a transmission backbone built. [Emphasis mine]

 

OK, c’mon folks, how about some of that leadership at the federal level? You know, some guidelines, some incentives, some serious investment? Anyone out there even trying?:

 

A handful of states like California that have set aggressive goals for renewable energy are being forced to deal with the issue, since the goals cannot be met without additional power lines.

 

But Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a former energy secretary under President Bill Clinton, contends that these piecemeal efforts are not enough to tap the nation’s potential for renewable energy.

…

 

“We still have a third-world grid,” Mr. Richardson said, repeating a comment he has made several times. “With the federal government not investing, not setting good regulatory mechanisms, and basically taking a back seat on everything except drilling and fossil fuels, the grid has not been modernized, especially for wind energy.” [Emphasis mine]

 

Oh mon dieu.

 

People Power

Literally:

 

Boesel recently showed off the Human Dynamo prototype, an exercise machine consisting of four spin bikes attached to a small generator. As he pedaled one of the human-powered bikes, a digital readout showed the amount of watts, a measure of power, that he was producing by pedaling and turning an arm crank that strengthens the upper body, he said. As many as four riders can propel the prototype system, which can produce 200 watts to 600 watts of energy an hour.

 

…

 

Most gyms are energy hogs, with sweeping floor space, high heating costs and hot showers always steaming in the locker rooms. Boesel doesn’t know how much energy the solar arrays and human-powered equipment will produce, but he expects his fitness center to use about half the energy of most gyms its size by providing as much as 40% of its energy needs. His goal is to have the gym run solely on the energy it generates.

 

There’s something undeniably poetic about using the pedestrian bits of our lives to keep the lights on. But these kinds of things remain on the fringe, more in the realm of novel, high-end gadgetry than viable technology. And they have yet to be transferred to a larger scale where they could actually have some impact and influence. This is where government comes in, or should. As Matt Yglesias says:

 

… But the trouble is that at the moment the incentives exist primarily as a means of doing marketing to a niche market of upscale consumers. That’s nice, and it’s produced some clever notions, but what’s really needed is smart policies that drive incentives in a bigger and broader manner. [Emphasis mine]

 

Second that.