Can this work outside of Berkeley?

This interesting idea to promote solar energy can be found in the May/June Mother Jones

Cisco DeVries of Berkeley, California, who until recently served as the mayor's chief of staff...hit upon a brilliantly simple idea. What if, he asked, the city financed residents' solar rooftops, then levied a 20-year tax assessment on their properties to pay for it? The debt would follow the home, not the owner, and in one fell swoop, the two greatest impediments to home solar would be history.

His bosses ate it up, and Berkeley plans to roll out its new program this summer. City officials will float low-interest municipal bonds to cover the initial costs, and DeVries figures a solar setup factoring in rebates and tax deductions (which can be looked up at dsireusa.org) will cost a single-family household at least $65 a month. Once the system is paid for, the homeowner enjoys free electricity.

The 2 major impediments mentioned in the story are homeowner debt and American mobility. People tend to move every 7 years and the solar technology does not pay for itself in that time span.

Reportedly, dozens of cities are looking into this idea, including San Francisco, sunny Sante Fe and Milwaukee (!). I'm going to bring this up at my next local committee meeting.

Some experts say that photovoltaic cell modules will cost 25-50% less by 2010.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Obama in Vegas

When Barack Obama goes to Vegas, he apparently isn't completing satisfied with the potential payoffs from safe bets. He wants to win big. Earlier this year, his campaign managed to earn more delegates from Nevada despite finishing second to Hillary Clinton in the state caucuses.

This week, Obama went to Vegas to talk about an issue that has long been near-and-dear to Republicans -- energy, and especially oil. Remember how the 2001 Bush cabinet was loaded with people with ties to the oil industry?

Indeed, Obama gave a terrific speech on energy on Tuesday, June 24. Here are two key paragraphs that speak directly to Senator John McCain's energy plans:

Senator McCain wants a gas tax holiday that will save you – at most – thirty cents a day for three months. And that's only if the oil companies don't just jack up the price and pocket the savings themselves, which is exactly what they did when we tried to do the same thing in Illinois. He's willing to spend nearly $4 billion on more tax breaks for big oil companies – including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone. He wants to open our coastlines to drilling – a proposal that his own top economic advisor admitted won't provide any short-term relief at the pump. It's a proposal that George Bush's Administration says will not provide a drop of oil – not a single drop – for at least ten years. And by the time the drilling is fully underway in twenty years, our own Department of Energy says that the effect on gas prices will be "insignificant." Insignificant.

Just yesterday, Senator McCain actually admitted this. In a town hall he said, and I quote, "I don't see an immediate relief" but "the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial." Psychological impact. In case you were wondering, that's Washington-speak for, "It polls well." It's an example of how Washington politicians try to convince you that they did something to make your life better when they really didn't. Well the American people don't need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks to get politicians through the next election, they need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on their table. They need a long-term energy strategy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the renewable sources of energy that represent the future. That's what they need.

Much of the remainder of the speech outlines the contours of a long-term energy strategy -- strong federal government backing for renewable sources, including geothermal, solar, and wind power.

Indeed, Obama directly compares his energy initiative to JFK's commitment in May 1961 to land a man on the moon -- and return him safely to earth -- within a decade. Obama:

When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win – he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do.

Here's the meat of Obama's energy plan:

I have a plan to raise the fuel standards in our cars and trucks with technology we have on the shelf today – technology that will make sure we get more miles to the gallon. And we will provide financial help to our automakers and autoworkers to help them make this transition. I will invest $150 billion over the next ten years in alternative sources of energy like wind power, and solar power, and advanced biofuels – investments that will create up to five million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced; that will create billions of dollars in new business like you're already doing here in Nevada. And before we hand over more of our land and our coastline to oil companies, I will charge those companies a fee for every acre that they currently lease but don't drill on. If that compels them to drill, we'll get more oil. If it doesn't, the fees will go toward more investment in renewable sources of energy.

When all is said and done, my plan to increase our fuel standards will save American consumers from purchasing half a trillion gallons of gas over the next eighteen years.

The environmentalist in me is ready to cheer these policies.


Hat tip: David Roberts of Gristmill.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Red America's Gasoline Spending

The front page of today's New York Times had an interesting graphic, featuring a map highlighting the percent of income people spend on gasoline. Clearly, as the accompanying story makes clear, people who live in rural areas spend a much greater percent of their income on gasoline.

A survey by Mr. Rozell’s firm late last month found that the gasoline crisis is taking the highest toll, as a percentage of income, on people in rural areas of the South, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota.

Across the country, Americans spend about 4% of their income on gasoline. The recent peak was 4.5% in 1981 -- meaning that gas prices are still NOT at all-time highs in relative terms.

Eyeballing the gas price map, I was struck by how much it resembled the electoral maps we've all come to know in the past decade.

As a percent of income, Red America pays more for gasoline.

Perhaps that helps explain why Republicans are the party of oil interests.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Clinton hypocrisy on tax relief

I just watched a Hillary Clinton surrogate on MSNBC praising the $70 that average people might save this summer if her gas tax holiday is achieved. The surrogate said that Senator Obama might find that amount to be trivial, but that it was important to ordinary Americans.

So, I went to google investigating the Clinton campaign's response to the "Bush" stimulus. This is from April 28 on a CNN blog:

The federal government started depositing the stimulus checks Monday into bank accounts of 800,000 Americans hoping the extra money will encourage people to spend.

Between now and July, the treasury will distribute more than $110 billion to at least 117 million low and middle income homes.

[Bill] Clinton said the fundamental issue is most people need the checks to pay off credit debt and bills. “Even if it’s all spent the way the president and Congress hoped it would be,” the current housing crisis would dwarf any possible gains.

I think this demonstrates Senator Obama's point -- the gas tax holiday is a "phony" idea "calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems."



Visit this blog's homepage.

Up with parking

Today's CSM has good news, though the journalist describes it as "negative":

For the first time since 1980, when long lines sprouted at gasoline stations, Americans are beginning to cut down on their driving.

The slight decline in total miles driven – apparent first in December – may indicate that the twin forces of high gasoline prices and a struggling economy are starting to affect the US lifestyle...

The last time that Americans did cut down on their driving in response to high prices, around 1980, they reduced their driving for 14 months. "We're starting to see a similar pattern emerge," Mr. Swanson [an economist with Wells Fargo Economics in Minneapolis] says. "This could be a huge washout this summer and for a couple of years."

Obviously, I'm concerned about the "financial hardship" reported in the story -- but the bottom line is that Americans drive their large and energy inefficient cars too much.

Anyone who has traveled to Europe knows that high gasoline prices discourage unnecessary driving. In most European countries, gasoline prices have been several dollars per gallon higher than in the US for many, many years. These higher prices reflect taxes implemented to promote conservation and "green" policies. In some countries, the tax revenues are used to fund alternative energy.

Americans need to start thinking about gasoline the way that they think about cigarettes -- tax the costly behavior to discourage it and to pay for solutions.


Visit this blog's homepage.