Archive for March, 2010
Transportation is more than cars
Transportation secretary Ray LaHood took a wide departure from his predecessors in formalizing a policy that guides transportation projects to include bicycling and walking as well as motorized vehicles.
“Today I want to announce a sea change,” he wrote on his blog last week. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”
As a bicyclist and walker fond of urban geographies, I’m thrilled that the DOT has [finally] acknowledged the benefits–dare I say, criticality–of a multi-modal transportation scheme. To demonstrate why, consider the following chart:
Each mode of transportation has an efficiency curve. Walking is extremely efficient for short distances. Bicycling is ideal for anything within a few miles. As distances increase, automobiles make more sense, leaving trains or airplanes for long-distance travel.
Sadly, this is a common-sense approach that many (most?) communities in the U.S. ignore in favor of an all-cars-all-the-time mentality. As an example, compare the two cities below for transportation efficiency. Each image is a quarter square mile (1/2 mile on each side) which would be an easy walk for an adult. Based on transportation infrastructure choices, only one of the two cities is actually walkable. Can you guess which one?
It wasn’t so long ago that gasoline was nearing $4/gallon and we were lamenting the cost of filling our cars. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the option to ride a bicycle or walk to get a coffee with friends?
Filed under culture, politics, suburbs : Comments (3) : Mar 30th, 2010
Teabaggers at the Capitol
Today is a big day for American politics : the day we [finally] vote on the health care reform bill. I wanted to check in on the teabaggers and take a pulse of their mood. I headed down to the Capitol armed with a camera and wearing my shirt with Woody Guthrie’s famous “This Machine Kills Fascists” guitar. (Just to avoid any confusion of which side I’m on.)
The teabag rally was much more tame than I expected. There were about 200 people standing in front of the Capitol with signs, flags, and the like. There was a speaker with a bullhorn, but no stage so I couldn’t see who it was. The crowd was 99.9% white and mostly middle aged or older.
The message was what you’d expect : “kill the bill”, “this is socialism”, “no more taxes”, etc.
Here are a few of my personal favorites:
I felt pretty uncomfortable so I didn’t stay long. Now we wait and see if the House can whip up these deadbeat freshmen Democrats to vote for the bill they were elected to vote for. Ugh.
Filed under Healthcare, Washington DC, culture, politics : Comments (2) : Mar 21st, 2010
A plea for reason
In the U.S., the raging debate over climate change continues to devolve. Throughout the winter, skeptics repeatedly reminded us that it was cold out, disproving “global warming”. When severe snow storms battered the east coast, a Senator Inhofe (R-OK) built an igloo and labeled it “Al Gore’s new home”. The discovery that a 3000 page report contained a transposed digit (that created an order-of-magnitude error for the year in which the Himalayan glaciers would melt) drew accusations of scientific malfeasance.
Never mind that zero climate change models predict the disappearance of winter in the northern hemisphere any time soon.
Never mind that climate change models explicitly predict increased precipitation like we’ve seen all year.
Never mind that the handful of errors discovered within the thousands of published studies represent immaterial corrections to the underlying models.
We’ve completely lost the distinction between science and politics; reason and faith; logic and emotion. Given the catastrophic economic and environmental consequences predicted by climate change models, it’s terrifying that so many Americans are willing to dismiss it outright as a scam or conspiracy. We need a national plea for reason.
There are two explanations for how we got to this unfortunate position:
A) A world-wide group of nefarious characters (lead by Al Gore) have created the largest and most convincing conspiracy in world history to convince thousands of scientists and most political leaders throughout the world that climate change is real and a major problem.
B) The very powerful industry lobby for carbon-intensive companies and their representatives in congress are waging a successful disinformation campaign to create doubt and obfuscation among the American public about the validity of climate change science.
Which of these two seems more plausible?
One of these groups is backed by billions of dollars in resources, an army of lawyers, PR firms, lobbyists, and sympathetic politicians.
The other group is infamously inept at PR, has no unifying organization to speak of, and defers to the norms of scientific inquiry that errs on the side of caution when publishing results or predictions.
One of these groups has spent the better part of a century investing in technologies, infrastructure, and business models that will do not fit in the carbon-constrained world required to slow the effects of climate change.
The other group predicts a future in which we must radically change our technology, infrastructure, and human habitation models to fit a carbon-constrained world.
One of these groups appeals to the large swath of Americans who are falling behind due to a shifting global economy and see their standard of living stagnating or even decreasing.
The other group finds broad appeal internationally and strong support within the American upper-class who are educated and affluent enough to allow a graceful transition to a carbon-constrained world.
Only one explanation can survive a serious test of logic and reason; unfortunately the opponents of climate change don’t care much for either.
Filed under climate change, culture, economics, energy, politics : Comments (2) : Mar 20th, 2010
In Defense of Jim Bunning
Senator Jim Bunning (R – KY) has caught a lot of heat this week for single-handedly blocking a measure to extend unemployment benefits to the 400,000 or so Americans out of work.
In an election year, this is kind of legislative measure is usually a no-brainer: every politician wants to be seen as compassionate and understanding fo the plight of the little guy. Bunning is retiring after this year, so he’s free from any pressure to back down. And you know what? I think he’s got a point.
His objection stems from a [very] common practice in Washington: passing spending bills with nary a mention of how they will be funded. In this case, it’s a $10 billion package of unemployment benefits and highway spending (and probably a few ear marks). Before consenting to unanimous passage, Bunning wants the Senate to decide how to pay for it.
Ironically, his position is precisely that which has been taken up by the Democratic leadership as of late. Lamenting over the reckless spending binge of the Bush era, the Democrats have recently passed rules in the Senate to restore the pay-as-you-go system that was so effective under President Clinton. Their rationale for excluding this specific package fro those rules is that it’s an emergency measure. (A rather liberal use of the term, to be sure)
So where could we find $10 billion?
We could shave the Military budget by 1%
We could raise taxes by 1%
Or, we could do nothing and just pass the buck along to the next generation like we do every year.
Sen. Bunning may not be the most popular member of the Senate, but he’s not a crack-pot. Even if the spending is going to really needy people who really deserve it, someone’s got to pay.
Filed under politics : Comments (0) : Mar 2nd, 2010
