Thanks to some thoughtful and astute gift-givers . . .

. . . for a topically relevant Christmas present - Bicycle Diaries!  I'm only a few pages in, but I can already tell that Byrne has a unique perspective on urban sociology and city planning, all generated through his bike commuting in cities across the globe.

See previous posts "Cities for Cycling" and its follow-up.

Dealing with THAT holiday issue . . .

As our first Christmas as parents approached this holiday season, my wife and I have been thinking about how we want to deal the Santa Claus issue.  The decision is a delicate one, thanks in no small part to the diversity of the popular options.  There are, of course, the two extremes.  On one hand is the full-on, red-clad, bearded Santa with a weight problem and a team of magic ruminants.  Despite his husky waistline, magic Santa finds his way down chimneys of all shapes and sizes but manages to never burn himself on the odd glowing ember that doubtless remains in some homes from a hearty Christmas Eve fire.  He also carries a bag big enough (and rides in a sleigh big enough) to hold gifts for each and every child in the world.  Well, for each "nice" child, anyway.  Despite some blatant logic gaps, this Santa Claus option has worked well enough for many people over the years.

The other extreme is, obviously, No Santa.  While this option lacks the logic problems and seeming implausibilities that plague Santa, it is far from clean and simple, for one primary reason.  No one wants his kid to be the one that pontificates to his first-grade class:

"Well, my Daddy says that Santa Claus is not real.  Moreover, my Daddy says that the concept of Santa Claus as portrayed particularly in the United States is both illogical and implausible.  Flying reindeer?  Come on, people!  Yes, we're only six, but are we idiots?  Squeezing that fat butt down a chimney?  Have you looked at how wide your chimney is?  Two words, three syllables - lo-gic gap."

I do not (and should not) have to say anymore for you to get the idea that while No Santa might technically be closer to absolute truth, its complication arises from contradiction of socially validated knowledge.

So neither Santa nor No Santa are the ideal option.  There is certainly a spectrum of compromise between the two as well as a host of new alternatives such as The Elf on the Shelf, which some friends have used with success.  I think, though, that ultimately I will formulate a response that takes the high road on the personal application of Santa principles to our child(ren).  The response would also give my kid the chance to show that he is not only aware of relevant political and social issues but also prematurely burdened by the problems plaguing global society.  The response begins with a simple yet powerful foundational assumption.

Santa finally lost the battle against exponential population growth.  I imagine this discussion going something like this:

"Look, son, the reason Santa can't visit our house has nothing to do with you.  I promise.  The explanation is simple.  Do you know what the global population is?  As of December 22, 2009, it was estimated to be 6,791,500,000.  And in 2006, almost 30% of that population was under the age of 15.  So, that's over 2 billion children that Santa has to visit . . .  

The Naughty List?  Does Santa even use that thing anymore?  I don't think so.  

No . . . no . . . look, that's 2 billion children to visit in one night.  And those are old statistics.  No magic reindeer, not even with extra rocket propulsion (see Elf), can cover that much air space in one night.  Christmas's long night due to its proximity to the winter solstice doesn't even help Santa that much anymore.  

What's that?  You ask if Santa doesn't use the Naughty List, how does he choose who to visit?  Hmmm, well, it's, you know, a variety of factors.  

Are they equally weighted or a balancing test?  It depends.  Why don't you ask your Mom.  All I know is that the overpopulation of the earth is causing dire problems beyond nutritive food shortages, water crises, over-exploitation of resources, and climate change.  

Yes, you can still write a letter to Santa and wish him luck with the population problem.  

And, yes, we can CC the President as well."

That foundation sets the stage for use of any number deciding factors that have absolutely nothing to do with a child's personal responsibility, such as:

(Aside: Are you starting to see what kind of grave you dig for yourself with this whole Santa business?)

Santa only visits children in countries that are taking affirmative action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  I thought about going with a "Santa only visits children who are actively reducing their carbon footprints" explanation, but that only creates another incarnation of the Naughty-Nice List, and that's not what I am looking for.  But putting the burden on national governments relieves the pressure of assigning a Naughty or Nice designation to your own child.

Its not unlike this Saturday Night Live Blue State Santa cartoon.  In this scenario, children suffer from the ignorance and poor judgment of their jurisdiction's voters.  Their own naughty behavior, if we would even call it that, has nothing to do with Santa's absenteeism.  There are a host of people for children to blame for Kris Kringle's truancy, aside from themselves, of course.  Government officials, voters, even parents are fair game.

Other versions of this Santa explanation could revolve around progressive health care schemes, transportation policy, etc.  The choices are endless, you can pick your favorite pet issue, and you can foster some socially conscious discussion around the Christmas dinner table.  Win-win-win.

Fortunately for me (and my son), he's not old enough this Christmas to require a Santa explanation.  That gives me another 11 months or so to iron out the wrinkles.  Or to come up with something better entirely.  One or the other.

"Climate change e-mail scandal underscores myth of pure science"

From December 16th's L.A. Times.

Very good read and worth your time.

The authors remind us that using science to make political decisions is just as dangerous as using politics to make decisions in which science is needed.  Some selections:

"The real scandal illustrated by the e-mails is not that scientists tried to undermine peer review, fudge and conceal data, and torpedo competitors, but that scientists and advocates on both sides of the climate debate continue to claim political authority derived from a false ideal of pure science. This charade is a disservice to both science and democracy. To science, because the reality cannot live up to the myth; to democracy, because the difficult political choices created by the genuine but also uncertain threat of climate change are concealed by the scientific debate."

"That myth has allowed politicians to shirk their responsibility to be clear about the values, interests and beliefs that underpin their preferences and choices about science and policy. Better to recognize that decision-makers, depending on their political beliefs, will weigh the evidence and risks of climate change differently when evaluating policy options. Their choices will influence the distribution of benefits and costs, and will have varying and uncertain prospects for success. Voters should evaluate the decisions on that basis, rather than on the false notion that science is dictating the choices."

"The choices are extraordinarily difficult; the costs of action, and inaction, are potentially momentous. No one can know what the "right" decisions will be, but the e-mail controversy reminds us that imperfect people, not pure science, must decide that question. This is a job for democratic politics, informed by, but not shackled to, a pluralistic, insightful and imperfect scientific enterprise."

A Bicycling Follow-Up

I would be remiss if I did not follow up today's earlier post with this report preliminarily indicating a decline in Portland's bike use.  This article from Willamette Week hints that Portland's focus support of bike commuting may not produce all roses and sunshine and that the investment in bicycle infrastructure is at the expense of basic maintenance of other transportation infrastructure.  Once again, these are preliminary results, but it could signal a step back for bike commuting if the country's top bike city is sliding.

Cities for Cycling

"Why, indeed, would people endure stifling traffic just to hop on another form of transportation that goes nowhere? How is this not similar to walking around outside without a coat while complaining of the chill? What are people thinking? Children can’t get to school on their own, while childhood obesity skyrockets. Yet the evident solution to bicyclists, as simple as putting on the sweater, is simply to ride to school. Yet few do."

"Why can’t people cycle in the numbers common in many European cities? Blumenauer and Byrne know why: bicycle infrastructure. We don’t have enough of it, at least outside Blumenauer’s hometown of Portland, Oregon. Its residents drive 30% less than in Houston, the Congressman said. They spend $2,500 less per year on transportation than the national average, and keep that money in the local economy instead of sending it overseas in oil payments. According to Blumenauer, Portland’s bicycle share has increased 400% for less than the cost of one mile of freeway."

These selections are from a piece by David Alpert, "Cities and Cycling: Ignoring a Simple Alternative," that appeared on Next American City's website.  Updating the United State's transportation profile has been a focus of the Obama administration.  Or at least it had been before . . . well, you know.  But for all the focus on rail, bus rapid transit, and other forms of mass movement, I think two alternatives do not get their fair share of recognition - walking and bicycling.  As Alpert points out and I certainly recognize, walking and biking do require some investment in infrastructure to make them viable, comfortable, and convenient transportation options.  But as his Portland statistics make clear, they are certainly less expensive than mass transit options (including roads), and in these economic times, that factor should certainly not be ignored.

Alpert's thoughts also address a larger problem that is not easy to address.  Many of the large cities in the United States that developed later in time - i.e., large cities beyond the east coast - are designed to accomodate auto-driven life.  This is not a characteristic of many of the European cities held up as bicycling models simply because, due to their age, these cities are planned and laid out for pedestrians and other non-motorized movement.  So while investment in bicycle infrastructure or pedestrian-friendly design could provide options to some cities, the reality is that some American cities just are not suited to bike and foot commuting.  Even in those cities, though, I do believe we will continue to see more compact, self-sufficient neighborhoods and developments that give residents the choice to be car-free at times.

A few noteworthy links to round out the discussion:

- Congressional Bike Caucus: see if your local House and Senate representatives are members.

- "Cities for Cycling is a project of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to catalog, promote and implement the world's best bicycle transportation practices in  American municipalities."

- Bonus link: If you like adventure stories, this one is for you.  Hear the trials, tribulations, successes and failures of one determined bus-bike commuter in the U.S.  (The bike story picks up about half way through the podcast.)

 

More on Denver's Living Streets Initiative

A few weeks ago, I blogged critically about the perspective of a Denver Post opinion writer regarding Denver's Living Streets initiative.  Now the co-chair of Living Streets has responded as well.  His brief letter to the editor raises some of the same objections to Carroll's column that I did. 

A Thought About Climategate

As the "ClimateGate" situation continues to unfold, there is one reason in particular why this whole hot mess troubles and disappoints me.  As I described to a friend earlier this week, not only has ClimateGate brought into question some knowledge or theory that some of us believed to be truth, it has also cast doubt on the very reasons why we believe what we believe.  As Ilya Somin writes on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, I think we often forget how much "truth" relies on social validation.  The fact that ClimateGate involves scientific knowledge makes the social validation proposition that much more troubling.  I - and I think there are others who agreed with me on this point - believe science to be one of the few terrestrial sources of truth, or something close to it.  I believe this because, while science certainly relies on theory, it strives to validate theory through data.  And, unlike words, numbers are not subject to interpretation.  Five is five - upside down or inside out.  The fickle and fleeting nature of words' meaning is famously illustrated by statements like "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."  Thus, when circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of numbers, I start to notice little beads of sweat on my brow.

 

Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel, New Bat Name

Change is good. 

In that vein, I have decided to re-title my effort here.  I think the new title reflects my feelings about where (I think) I sit ideologically at this time and what (I think) I am trying to express here.  I believe the revolution of our time will come (and must come) not from the right or the left but from the center.  It will be a revolution fueled by ideal and conviction but driven by pragmatism and practicality.  It values progress and realizes that, while ideology is necessary, it must yield to the common good.

Maybe that in itself is idealistic, but we have to start somewhere.

STOP PROMOTING ANIMAL CRUELTY

Oh. My. God.

To my dogs: Look, I know our house gets chilly sometimes.  But you have fur and supposedly some animal instincts that facilitate self-preservation.  Supposedly. 

Let's Talk About E.D.

Have you talked to you city councilperson or state legislator about E.D.?

No, not that E.D., although we will bring up Viagra maker Pfizer.

Rather, I am referring to eminent domain, the state's power to seize private property for public use.  The concept looks, sounds, and feels very Big Brotherish.  It seems to fit better in a medieval monarchy or a World War era dictatorship.  But eminent domain is very much a part of sovereign power in the United States.  Its foundation is in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be "deprived of . . . property, without due process of law" and that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."  So while this language seems to generally prohibit government taking of private property (a "taking"), it actually works to permit takings, so long as the property owner receives due process and just compensation in the action.

Why the out-of-the-blue eminent domain discussion?  E.D. has been on my mind because of three scenarios.

1.) Post-Kelo Irony: The 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London set the stage for the firestorm of E.D. debate in the last five years.  While some legal scholars believe that Kelo is a logical extension of the Court's prior eminent domain precedent, this particular case sparked public outcry in the name of private property rights.  And maybe the circumstances warranted that.  Briefly, the case arose out of New London's plans to redevelop its sliding Fort Turnbull neighborhood.  Plans for the revitalization of the neighborhood - including a waterfront hotel, restaurants, shopping, and marinas- were anchored to some degree by a new research and development facility for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.  When some existing property owners balked at selling to the development authority (a public entity), the city exercised its eminent domain powers to acquire the properties.

What distinguished the New London acquisitions from more typical E.D. cases is the purpose - economic redevelopment rather than more traditional public buildings, roads, etc.  The real rub of the case is that the eminent domain powers were used to essentially transfer property from one private owner to another.  That fact, no doubt, further fueled the ire of the landowners who stood to lose their homes to the government plan.  The property owners challenged the city's authority to take their property for economic development.  The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, in a close 5-4 decision, the Court held that economic redevelopment was a valid "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

But that ruling should not be considered as wide-sweeping as my statement makes it appear.  The justices, particularly swing-voter Justice Kennedy, relied on the fact that New London had formulated a "carefully considered" plan for its redevelopment of Fort Turnbull and that the prospective economic benefits would not be minimal.  Thus, while there would certainly be some incidental private benefit to the new developers, such as Pfizer, the public benefit of Fort Turnbull's revitalization justified the economic development takings.

Nearly five years later, the story lives on thanks to Pfizer's September announcement that it will close its New London facility in the wake of its merger with Wyeth.  What happened to New London's "carefully considered" plan that apparently won the day in 2005?  Very few of the other pieces of the plan have fallen into place in the last half decade, so Pfizer's announcement is, in effect, a grand slap in the face.  The news, no doubt, validates, at least in the minds of the Kelo plaintiffs, their resistance of New London's acquisition for the project.  It will almost certainly further galvanize property rights advocates who fight the use of eminent domain in the name of property owners.  

What interests me is whether Pfizer's departure and the seeming failure of New London's plan will change judicial scrutiny in eminent domain cases.  Only time will tell.  I should note that, in the wake of Kelo, 43 states enacted legislation designed to restrict eminent domain powers.  Regardless, leading scholars and practitioners believed that, generally speaking, a comprehensive plan backed by data and studies would allow a government entity to justify use of eminent domain powers, so long as it fit within permissible statutory schemes.  My question is whether the failure of New London's redevelopment plan will heighten the scrutiny with which such plans are reviewed.  Will governments seeking to effect an economic development taking be required, at least to some degree, to guarantee or predict success? Further consider the tough economic market, particularly for real estate, and governments could find a tough row to hoe for redevelopment and urban renewal projects.

(A corollary issue is whether we even want judges making such decisions.  Their role is to decide legal issues, not to make judgments about data, research, and projections that government officials spend months, years, and careers ruminating and scrutinizing.  I am going to sidestep my soapbox here, but this is certainly worth some thought.)


A final note before I leave Kelo.  A sequel recently went to the Supreme Court for appeal.  The Goldstein case arose from similar circumstances, this time in Brooklyn.  The Atlantic Yards project will house a new arena for the New Jersey Nets, office buildings, high-rise apartments, and a hotel.  Homeowners challenged the city's authority to acquire their property via eminent domain and transfer ownership to the project's developer, Bruce Ratner, also owner of the Nets.  The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.  Technically, that decision has no precedential value, but it does indicate that the Court is not ready to reopen the economic development takings issue.  Given that three new justices have come to the Court since Kelo (C.J. Roberts, along with Justices Alito and Sotomayor), it will be interesting to see the result if another eminent domain case does find its way to the Court in the near future. 


2.) RTD's use of eminent domain for FasTracks light rail expansion: The Regional Transportation District, the governmental entity that operates the Denver-metro area transit system, has been in the news as well.  RTD is empowered to use eminent domain to acquire property necessary for the operation of the local buses and light rail.  The district has garnered negative headlines in the last two years because of its exercise of that power as part of the FasTracks project, which aims to expand light rail service to more of the metro area.  Some homes and several local businesses have been impacted as RTD has sought to acquire property necessary for the new rail lines and related infrastructure.


Opponents cried foul on the moves, claiming that they were economic development takings, rather than actually necessary for transit infrastructure.  And those claims were not entirely inaccurate.  Transit-oriented development (TOD) is an element that RTD and other transit proponents hope to incorporate into the rail expansion.  TOD aims to incorporate commercial and residential elements into the communities surrounding transit.  Ideally, instead of a gigantic park-and-ride lot, a transit stop features some nearby living options and necessary commercial services.  At the least, perhaps there is a coffee shop or small grocer on the ground level of a parking deck.  Regardless of the form, obviously RTD will not be operating the Starbucks that goes in next to fair booth.


Capitalizing on the anti-E.D. sentiment that has been growing since Kelo, state lawmakers attempted to pass a bill that restricted RTD's eminent domain authority to stations, parking, and maintenance facilities.  The bill ultimately died in committee, but it - and the rest of the property rights resistance RTD is facing - illustrates that governments will endure strict public scrutiny, even if they ultimately face no legal scrutiny.  Use of the eminent domain power must be judicious, strategic, carefully executed and cleverly publicized in order to avoid a property rights maelstrom.

3.) Eminent domain of wind rights: Finally, the following case from Minnesota came to my attention.  There, a government-owned public utility is seeking to use eminent domain to acquire the "wind rights" necessary to establish a wind farm.  The utility owns the property on which the farm will sit.   But state law requires any wind farm owner to obtain the wind rights of adjacent property in order to ensure free flow of wind into the farm turbines.  As the second linked article indicates, some private wind farm owners have succeeded despite this regulatory twist.  The current case is intriguing because the use of eminent domain to acquire such rights is unusual.  It is also interesting because the state, through its utility, is seeking to promote renewable energy sources.  As one commentator suggests, maybe there are better ways to advocate for alternative energy.  Regardless of its shrewdness, he also notes that, even under a narrow interpretation, the acquisition of these wind rights is probably a constitutionally permissible taking.  I will be interested to see how this scenario is ultimately resolved.


I suppose my fascination with eminent domain is that it directly pits sovereign authority against private property rights, a concept whose role cannot be underestimated in this country's founding, settlement, and expansion.  While affirming private property rights and a person's right to due process and just compensation, the doctrine also recognizes that private property rights are far from absolute.  And rightly so, I think.  What good is government authority if it must yield to private interests?  As I said before, I do believe sovereign powers like eminent domain require careful consideration and judicious exercise.  I am certainly not advocating for abuse of power.  But I am advocating for a government's right to make assessments of and decisions about what best promotes the health of its community - socially, economically, philosophically, environmentally.  While controversial and often tough to swallow, tools like eminent domain are necessary to make those decisions reality.

Nevada Water Contamination

I have written about water issues before on this site.  This article from the L.A. Times grabbed my attention.  This contamination could not have happened in a worse place at a worse time. 

L.A. Times: Nuclear scars: Tainted water runs beneath Nevada desert.

For People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

U.S. News and World Report: 15 Cities for People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

I like this report because it balances two often opposed concerns: (1) wanting to drive less and (2) maintaining a reasonable commute time.  As the article notes, some cities with heavy public transit ridership did not make the list because of the time it takes to commute on public transit.  That statement may be a little misleading.  There are certainly other factors to consider in those long-transit-commute cities - auto traffic, parking availability and cost, convenience - that make public transit the preferred option for folks despite the time commitment.  Cities in this category should not be surprising: New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, among others.

The cities that did make this list have a common element - compactness.  That characteristic makes non-motorized commuting a viable option.  There should also be little surprise that several college towns make the list - Chapel Hill, Boulder, Eugene, Madison, and others.

The desirability of commuting options - including walking, cycling, and the like - has led some cities to try and incorporate elements of the named towns into neighborhood design.  Denver's Living Streets Initiative is one example.  Some of the aims of the initiative are multi-model transportation access (including non-motorized transportation) and increased mobility for the population in general; efficiency (increasing convenient stops per outing); sustainability; community; and encouraging a healthy lifestyle.  The initiative is integrated with the zoning code revision that I have written about several times recently, particularly the new code's Main Street districts.  In some neighborhood commercial areas, for example, the initiative would narrow lanes to slow car speeds and allow for wider sidewalks.  I live near the University of Denver in Denver.  The restaurants and shops along both Evans Avenue and University Boulevard are perfect for such a design.  For one thing, parking is not sufficient.  It is incredibly frustrating to try to drive to and park at many of the restaurants, especially during peak times.  Secondly, because of the rate at which traffic moves along both Evans and University, I sometimes do not absolutely safe walking, particularly at night or when I have either my dogs or infant son with me.  In short, the skeleton of great, compact, walkable neighborhood are there, so why not implement the necessary policies and physical changes to encourage that profile?

Such planning is not without its critics.  A recent opinion column in the Denver Post criticized and ridiculed the Living Streets Initiative.  But I think the author is ignoring an important aspect of the initiative - it will not work for every street in Denver.  Two of the roads he mentions, Colorado Boulevard and Hampden Avenue are major arterial streets (three lanes in most places) and serve very busy commercial districts.  While it might be nice to make those commercial areas more accessible, the reality is that it would require significant alteration of the infrastructure already in place.  Any of you who live in Denver and know the areas to which I am referring know there is a vast difference between Evans near DU and Colorado Boulevard.  I could also counter the author's arguments about traffic and induced congestion, but I will not belabor that point.  I will say, generally speaking, that advocating the status quo,  as the author does, certainly will not alleviate and is more likely to perpetuate the complaints he describes.  At least a fresh perspective represents a chance at progress, even if it ultimately fails. 

For those of us who feel tied to our cars, the cities in the U.S. News and World Report article are encouraging and inspiring, even if a bit aspirational.  Personally, I appreciate the efforts of my city to provide myself and fellow Denverites with options.  

"An unexpected teachable moment about the complex issue of fair use in the Internet age"

In the interest of full disclosure, this blog post involves a celebrity sex tape.

Now that I have your rapt attention, let's undress this mess and get to the naked issue here - fair use of material protected by the Copyright Act.  Why is that important in a sex-tape scandal?  First of all, it is important because these are the cases people go to law school to read.  No one ever minds an occasional juicy fact pattern to break up the monotony.  Secondly, the "filmmakers" are seeking retribution from Gawker based on violation of copyright.  (Typically, such suits are based on invasion of privacy or defamation.)

A brief summary of the facts.  Grey's Anatomy star Eric Dane made a "home move" of himself, his wife Rebecca Gayheart, and Kari Ann Peniche.  The tape fell into media hands, and soon thereafter an edited snippet of the film appeared on the website gawker.com.  That brings us to Dane's claim of copyright violation and Gawker's fair use defense.

Trying to gauge how this claim will fair, the author of this PBS article analyzed the four typical factors relevant to a fair use defense against a claim of copyright violation in relation to the facts of the case at hand.  A brief summary of his points:

Note: In some cases, it will be necessary to put practical considerations aside to make these points plausible.  

1. Though Gawker, a for-profit business, clearly could reap some commercial benefit from its use of the tape, a court could readily find that the Gawker published the video for its newsworthiness, one justification for a fair use of copyrighted material.  And, no, newsworthiness is not limited to "real" news or important issues; it certainly can include celebrity tabloid fodder.

2. The fact that Gawker "scooped" the tape's copyright holders - Dane, Gayheart, and Peniche - by publishing the tape first makes a fair use defense less likely.  Generally the law believes that a copyright holder has the "right to control the first public appearance" of copyrighted material.

3. Amount and substantiality: Basically this factor looks at how much of the copyrighted material the alleged violator used.  In this case, Gawker published four minutes of the twelve-minute video - one-third of the tape.  Could they have gotten the same effect from a few screen shots or few seconds of film?  Probably.  This one leans against fair use.

4. Finally, did Gawker's publication "supplant the need for an individual to purchase a legitimate copy?"  The substance of Gawker's clip is relevant here.  I have not seen the clip for myself, but according to Arcamona, Gawker left the juicy bits of the film on the editing floor.  Thus, if a person really wants to see the goods, they will have to seek a full copy of the film.  Evidence of fair use.

If you are keeping score, this case seems to be a toss up.  Two factors weigh in favor of each argument.  If only there were a fifth factor!  Though I have only a cursory knowledge of intellectual property law in general and copyright cases specifically, I think this might be a new scenario for the Copyright Act.  For one reason or another, I know lots of folks will be peeping in on this case from time to time.

NY Times Op-Ed: In This Together

Roger Cohen published a very thoughtful and timely op-ed in the NY Times on Monday entitled "In This Together."  His piece touched on several themes that I have written about on this site, including the moral considerations that are inseparable from the debate over health care reform. 

He also broaches the subject of disconnectedness within our culture.  This is a topic that I have personally been mulling lately through the writing of Wendell Berry.  Cohen says:

But the more I thought about it — and thought of the repeated Earth-to-Mars experience of trying to get through to my kids when they’re on their laptops, and thought of how often people thumb-typing on their Blackberries bump blindly into me on New York sidewalks, and thought about how technology now trumps community in the United States (even when that community is 39,000 feet up) — the more I felt those Northwest pilots were symbolic enough.

"Technology trumps community."  That is a telling statement, and a convicting one for a person who spends as much if not more time busily pecking away on a keyboard than I do actually interacting with other people.  I believe that is why the words of Wendell Berry have spoken to me lately.  In his writings, Berry emphasizes the importance and necessity of community.  Through community, individuals can find (and offer) healing, wisdom, learning, support, and commonality that fosters a fulfilling way of living.  From Berry's essay "Health is Membership," published in The Art of the Common-Place: The Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry:

I am not ‘against technology’ so much as I am for community. When the choice is between the health of a community and technological innovation, I choose the health of the community. I would unhesitatingly destroy a machine before I would allow the machine to destroy my community.
 

I believe that the community – in the fullest sense: a place and all its creatures – is the smallest unit of health and that to speak of the health of an isolated individual is a contradiction in terms. 

Without going too far afield, Cohen's message, at least the message that I draw, is that the disconnectedness that has seeped into almost every aspect of our culture is obliterating the community of this nation.  Rather than seeing common ground and common good, we are instantly drawn to the philosophical divergences and the distinctions evident among one another.  So Cohen reminds us today that we are indeed "in this together."  The solutions we seek to the array of problems facing this nation  will not and cannot be universally pleasing.  But they still can be universally beneficial if given the chance. 

   

Health Care Debate Terminology

A nice summary from Time.

http://www.time.com/time/healthcaredebate

More Denver Zoning Code

If anyone is interested, the 3rd draft of the new Denver Zoning Code is available for review and comment.  You can find Draft # 3 here.  As I mentioned in my previous post about the revision, you can look up the current code at this link for comparison's sake.  The Zoning Code is Chapter 59.

Let's be honest . . .

Yesterday, Denver voters defeated Initiative 300.  The measure would have given Denver police broader authority to impound vehicles on the spot if the driver did not have a driver's license or certain other identification on them at the time they were stopped by the officer.  Aside from questions about the highest and best use of police time and resources, this measure and its predecessor embodied a principle that is very troubling to me. 

For those readers that do not live in Colorado or Denver, let me give a bit a background to bring you up to speed.  Both the State of Colorado and the City and County of Denver allow citizens to take the legislative process into their own hands.  In short, anyone can submit a piece of proposed legislation; yes, there is some red tape to cut and proponents must obtain signatures of a certain percentage of voters.  Overall, though, it is fairly easy for anyone who wants to put in the time and effort to get a proposed constitutional or statutory amendment on the state ballot or a proposed initiative to force city council action on a local ballot.  Then the respective voters get to decide issues directly rather than through their elected officials.

This process has been used cleverly in the past to achieve worthy aims ignored by or stymied in the state legislature.  Even members of the legislature have used this process in lieu of the General Assembly floor to make law.  I will ignore the obvious tangent that is building here and forge ahead. 

Needless to say, the direct democracy mechanisms have been used here in both good and bad ways.  Initiative 300 is, in my opinion, an example of an abuse of that process.  The initiative targeted illegal immigrants.  Some proponents will admit this; others will deny it.  But the probable consequences and most likely cases of enforcement would point to this initiative being an anti-immigrant measure, or, at best, a license to profile. 

My issue with Initiative 300 and others like it - notably, the attempts to define "personhood" in the Colorado Constitution - is this: they are underhanded, back-door attempts to make laws that the voting public would not approve if stated in plain language.  Rather than be honest with the voters about what they are asking, proponents of such measures instead seek to exploit voters who do not read the verbose initiative  language closely, take time to think through all the possible ramifications, or read others' reports and opinions about the measures.  In short, proponents of measures like Initiative 300 know that voters would overwhelmingly disapprove of their proposed laws if the purposes were stated clearly and succinctly.  Instead, they disguise true motives and try to fleece voters into approving their language.

My challenge to the authors of Initiative 300 and the others like them is to be honest with the public.  Be truthful about your motives and goals.  Stop abusing the democratic system you have at your disposal.  If your aims are truly worthwhile and beneficial to the state or the city, voters will recognize that.  If not, smoke and mirrors are not honorable ways to achieve those aims. 

The Today Show video highlights dangers of texting while driving

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/33617082#33617082

Sharing an Inspiring Podcast

I am regular listener of The Dirtbag Diaries podcast. Generally, the episodes are geared toward outdoor sports and various adventures found by those who participate in those sports. But the author, Fitz Cahall, also does a nice job of recognizing how these sports and athletes (of all levels) are intertwined with many of the conservation and environmental issues that make headlines. Maybe its directly in the areas where they recreate, or maybe its in lifestyle choices they make because of what they see, but there's no doubt that most outdoor enthusiasts exhibit a strong conservation ethic.

The most recent episode of the Diaries highlighted three stories about folks who took that attitude and ran with it, to varying degrees of success. I found the piece tremendously inspiring, so I thought I would share it.

You can listen to the podcast here. You can also find and subscribe to The Dirtbag Diaries at the iTunes store.

Thank You!

I just wanted to say a quick thank you to everyone who has been reading. Your patronage has really encouraged me in this venture, which has been a much-appreciated outlet and exercise for me. I hope you all have found it worthwhile as well, at least some of the time.

As always, if you have feelings or opinions about the topics I present, please leave a comment on the blog. I think we all benefit more from truly discussing issues, rather than just listening to a one-sided digression.

If you enjoy what you are reading or find it meaningful, please pass this site onto others who might feel the same way.

Thanks for reading!

Two Thoughts on the Progress of Health Care Reform

As action cranks up again in Washington, I have been thinking in the last few days about the progress of health care reform and all that I have read and heard about the issue. All aspects - from philosophy, to goals, mechanics, and international comparisons - has been hashed, rehashed, twisted, and distorted so many times that, if you are like me, it makes your head spin, stomach turn, and brain hurt. Pushing all that aside, there are two primary aspects of this debate that I try to keep in the forefront of my mind.

1. The most important goal of reform should be lower costs for those paying for health care coverage. Easier said that done, right? Right. There a whole host of avenues for potentially accomplishing cost reduction. I have discussed some of these in the past (here and here). The reemergence of a public option in the Senate proposals is encouraging. While health insurance providers are not by any means solely to blame for the recent and continued increase in the cost of health care, they are certainly one culprit. A public insurance option might be the best way to keep insurance companies honest. And let's clear the air - a public option is not, and should not be called, a government takeover of health care. This would be particularly true if Sen. Reid's proposal finds its way into law; his bill includes a opt-out clause for states who do not want to participate (or, ahem, do not want their citizens to be able to participate) in the public option. (As the linked article explores, that opt-out of a federal program could have much more far-reaching consequences for other areas where federal law applies universally.) Opponents of the public option cry that it might run private health insurers out of business. My answer to that is . . . PRECISELY! In its best form, the public option would be a low-cost player in the market that forces other players to examine business practices and make adjustments to remain competitive. Is that not what our economic system is built on?

But back to my first point. For me, the mechanism is less important than achievement of the overall goal of lowering costs. In another post, I highlighted a statistic from Newsweek claiming that in the next few years, twenty percent (20%) of the U.S. GDP will be spent on health care related services. Twenty. Percent. Health. Care. The administration's economic recovery strategy has targeted automobile purchases, home loans, and debt relief. While those are no doubt problematic aspects of many consumer's economic portfolios, the government would be remiss, if not negligent, if it blows this opportunity to impact what is doubtless a huge expense for many consumers.

2. At the core, health care is a moral issue. Despite attempts to relegate health care reform to the pens of political issues or economic matters, the provision of basic, affordable health care should be a addressed as a moral issue. Our nation is founded on the principle that every person should have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. I have never seen any qualifiers applied to that right. To clarify, I certainly do not believe that anyone has the right to have life, liberty, or happiness handed to them. But in the United States, we guarantee people that right to pursue them. To me, that means removing roadblocks, particularly those to obstruct only certain members or classes of our society.

Let me describe a scenario that I play over and over in my mind. While I will concede that it is an extreme, worst-case scenario, it is nonetheless one that is unnervingly close to reality for an increasing sector of the population:

Bill has a job. Its a good job, not great, but it pays the bills, and his employer provides group health coverage. Bill works hard and has managed to put away some money over the years, but he'd be far from comfortable if he lost his job. Due to the economic climate, Bill's employer is forced to make some hard decisions and has to lay off Bill and several other employees. Bill doesn't qualify for Medicaid and cannot find an private insurance plan that he can afford, so opts to play the odds and go without health coverage until he can find a new job.

Bill gets a job interview. It goes well, and he leaves the interview hopeful. The interview was downtown. Bill is cheerful as he walks from the office building toward his car, parked two blocks away. Bill stops at a crosswalk and proceeds after the traffic signals indicates he may do so. About halfway through the intersection, Bill hears car horns and looks up to see Fred's car speeding through a red light into the intersection. Fred plows into Bill, severely injuring him. Fred was wasted and hardly had any idea what was going on when the police pulled him out of his car. He vomited when he saw Bill, bleeding and motionless, lifted onto a gurney and hoisted into an ambulance.

Bill's injuries are terrible, but he recovers well enough after spending two weeks in the hospital, including a couple days in the ICU. A few weeks after discharge, he receives a bill from the hospital. Obviously, Bill can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars he now owes the hospital, ambulance service, and other care providers. He hires a lawyer on a contingent basis and files a civil suit against Fred. The case is a classic "open and shut." In frustration, the judge throws the book at Fred, literally, and the jury finds that Fred was reckless in his actions that day. They order him to pay all of Bill's medical fees and then some.

But Fred has the last laugh. He has no auto insurance. He also has nothing to his name. No assets. No bank account. No job from which to garnish wages. All he had was his beater car, which he totaled when he smashed into Bill. Bill has a judgment in his favor, but that's it. Bill's savings are far from sufficient to cover his debts, and he files for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy - over the medical bills he accrued through no fault of his own. Bill comes through bankruptcy with nothing except a black mark on his personal credit.

Extreme? Yes, I'll give you that. Silly? Maybe. Unlikely? Maybe. Impossible? Hardly. Heck, the story doesn't even have to include an insured pedestrian. It could be about one whose insurance company denies the claim after getting the price tag - also not unheard of. It could be someone with a high deductible plan provided by his employer. A run of hard luck, and he doesn't have the funds to meet the deductible. The point is that we live in a country where you or I could find ourselves bankrupt because of another's poor judgment. The Newsweek articles I cited in another post explain that the U.S. is the only Western nation where that is allowed to happen. We're a wealthy nation. We're a nation that places itself on a moral high ground. I cannot find any reason for that possibility to exist.

OK, deep breath . . . and . . . I'm done. Almost. I tell that story simply to illustrate some of the principles our current health care system implicitly endorses. They certainly are not principles which seem to comport with the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I will say this once again: I do not believe that those "inalienable rights" require the government to give handouts, freebies, or whatever. But I do believe it requires the government at least alleviate obvious obstructions put in place by other parties that hinder some individuals from pursuing those dreams.

As I said in opening, the details and rhetoric of the health care reform debate can be overwhelming and nauseating. But keeping a few guiding principles in mind can hopefully keep us and our lawmakers focused on the ultimate prize.

"Suddenly, America digs farming"

L.A. Times: "Suddenly, America digs farming"

This is quite an enjoyable piece from the LA Times musing about the growing infatuation and romanticizing of farming in America. As the piece points out, this new perspective on farming is completely removed from the large, corporately dictated farms that account for much of the farming the U.S. Not to say that there are not independent farmers who are not wrapped up in questionable practices (and ethics) of corporate farming, but that's far from the primary form of farm. The reasons? Who knows? Certainly the popular emphasis on local produce, responsible farming, and the associated benefits - health, economic, and social - have a great deal of influence. Maybe it has something to do with western and work wear being fashionable?

Regardless, I suppose my hope for this new found affection is this. I hope that instead of fostering an unrealistic notion and ideal of farming that this attention will throw some light on where our food comes from, how it is produced, and the costs and benefits of producing food by those methods. I also hope this trend will illuminate some of the things we as consumers can do to encourage and nurture those folks who are trying to farm in a way that is responsible vis-a-vis their land, resources, and environment; their neighboring landowners and community; and their consumers.

Let a Little Sunshine In . . .

Disclaimer: This post will be primarily of interest to you Denver readers out there.

If you are not already aware, Denver is undertaking a massive rewrite of its zoning code. The rewrite aims to overhaul how the city handles planning, zoning, and land use matters. The new code is also taking particular care to incorporate sustainable practices and the variety of mobility options available in Denver. Despite being basically a from-scratch rewrite of the zoning code, the new version is based significantly on the neighborhood characteristics and building types that already exist in the city.

I suppose one downfall of such an ambitious project is the possibility for little issues to become lost in the shuffle. The link below to a Denver Post commentary illustrates one such issue that seems minor in the abstract but would be quite noticeable in practice.

"Retain Solar Access in Code"

For those readers in Denver, I would encourage you to check out the site www.newcodedenver.org. There you can find all sorts of information, summaries, blogs, and profiles of the folks who are actively working on this project. I would also encourage you to take a look at the proposed zoning maps and see how your property or neighborhood might be impacted by the code revision. On the site, you can also find information about public comment, meetings, and hearings if you do have concerns about how the new code will affect you. I am working my way through the second draft of the proposed code, so if you have questions, feel free to get in touch with me and I will see if I can be of any help.

(If you are really really interested (read: nerdy interested) in Denver zoning, you can compare the old zoning code with the new proposed code. The old code can be found here. Scroll down the table of contents on the left to Chapter 59 - Zoning.)

The Elephant in the Room

"Let's Try Cap-and-Trade on Babies"

"The single most concrete, substantive thing a young American could do [to help curb climate change] is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius. It's having fewer kids."

That statement by Andrew Revkin, author of the New York Times Dot Earth blog, highlights the problematic relationship that exists between the environmental concerns facing the global community and the increasing population crammed within its confines. Talk of family planning and population control rarely elicits a benign response. But remove emotion and philosophical ethics from the conversation and a relatively simple concept remains. In ecological terminology, the concept is called carrying capacity, and it refers to the population of a particular species that its habitat can sustain. When graphed, carrying capacity appears as a curve in which the Y value (population size) increases exponentially until it abruptly plateaus at a particular value. Once the population reaches carrying capacity, it may fluctuate just above or just below that line, but the size will not ever indefinitely increase above the carrying capacity.

I highlight this article and present these thoughts not as an advocate for population control, family planning, or whatever other moniker you would like to give the concept of limiting the global human population. What I do find interesting about this scenario is the way social influences dictate the way we address problems and solutions. The number of people on this globe is a fundamental contributor to many of the global crises of the past few decades - food shortages, water shortages, climate change, pollution. Even if population size is not a cause of the problem, so to speak, population size magnifies and exacerbates those issues. On top of an increasing global population, many more people are living an increasingly consumptive lifestyles as developing countries continue to grow economically.

But the solutions for dealing with the size of the global population seem to be taboo when it comes to discussing action to deal with the aforementioned issues. Instead of dealing with foundational problems, solutions attack symptoms that are, in relative terms, uncontroversial. When I was younger, a bit more brash, and much more naive, I would get myself moderately intoxicated and pontificate about the merits of population control measures, reproductive limits, and licenses to breed. Like I said, the point of this piece is not to advocate for those measures. For me to do so would, at the least, a little hypocritical, if not a return to the brashness and naivety of my youth. Rather I want to point out, as I often strive to do, the difficult underlying issues that few people want to talk about. Certainly I believe that we can all do small things in our lives to help alleviate the symptoms of the global issues that touch us in big and small ways each day. But I wonder if, at a certain point, that will be enough . . . .

Then again, maybe I worry too much about things that won't change -

"The universe is expanding . . . . Well, the universe is everything, and if it's expanding, some day it will break apart and that will be the end of everything." - a young Alvy Singer, Annie Hall

Encouraging Walking and Biking Among Kids

I recently read about an organization called Freiker, a contraction of the term "frequent biker." The organization has created incentive programs that encourage kids to walk and bike to school, when (and where) possible. The organization issues ID tags to students at elementary schools and places scanners outside the schools so that participating students can check-in electronically. The electronic scanners allow Freiker staff as well as the students to keep up with accrued points and track progress toward Freiker-sponsored prizes.

Walking and biking to school has declined in recent decades, with a variety of causes. Sunset Magazine indicates that in 1969, 88% of students living within a mile of their grade schools walked or biked to school. Currently, less than 16% do so. Numerous safety concerns are obviously one reason for the drop. But the increased prevalence of cars and driving-dependent lifestyles play a role as well. It should come as no surprise that taking away this source of everyday physical activity has contributed to the increase of weight-related health concerns among young children.

Obviously, this is a situation in which a balance must be struck among all concerns. Fears of crime or traffic accidents should not be taken lightly, particularly among young children who have not had the opportunity to gain knowledge that comes with life experience. However, I also believe that parents should not pass upon the opportunity to teach some basic lessons and instill some foundational values at an early age. A simple activity like walking or biking to school, when and where appropriate, can provide parents a chance to converse with their children about a myriad of issues - exercise and health, traffic safety, safety around strangers, etiquette, the environment, and community. I applaud organizations like Freiker who are helping to make those chances a reality.

Some thoughts from Bob Dylan about living in fear.

While traveling last week, I started reading Bob Dylan's Chronicles: Volume One. In the early chapters, he weaves accounts of his early days in NYC and recollections from his childhood. His words were particularly poignant in one excerpt, where he recalls Cold War era grade school air-raid drills:

"It seemed peculiar. Living under a cloud of fear like this robs a child of his spirit. It's one thing to be afraid when someone's holding a shotgun on you, but it's another thing to be afraid of something that's just not quite real. There were lots of folks around who took this threat seriously, though, and it rubbed off on you. It was easy to become a victim of their strange fantasy. I had the same teachers in school that my mother did. They were young in her time and elderly in mine. In American history class, we were taught that commies couldn't destroy America with guns or bombs alone, that they would have to destroy the Constitution - the document that this country was founded upon. It didn't make any difference, though. When the drill sirens went off, you had to lay under your desk face down, not a muscle quivering and not make any noise."

Newsweek's "The Case for Killing Granny"

Last week's issue of Newsweek magazine had several very interesting and informative articles about health care issues. As I was traveling for the last ten days, and not writing, I had a chance to do some reading. I thought the articles in that issue provided some insight and statistics that seem to have been overlooked in the popular rhetoric.

The front page feature, "The Case for Killing Granny," discussed aspects of end-of-life care. Get past the controversial title - the article itself is not particularly radical. The gist of the piece is that, as a culture, we fear death instead of embracing it as a natural part of the life cycle. That perspective has a dramatic effect on the steps some people choose to take to fight it. Compounding the issue is the fact that death is not something people want to discuss, particularly their own; thus, those close to death are generally ignorant of what the process will be like. As the Newsweek piece points out, this leads to one-third of annual Medicare expenditures going to chronically ill persons.

Go ahead and call me a cold-hearted bastard, but I do believe that with a change in perspective and some real discussion about what we can expect near the end of our days here on earth, we can not only solve some of the financial issues plaguing the U.S. health care system, but we can also bring some comfort and understanding to the issue of dying. As a person who, over the past year, has been face-to-face with mortality, I can tell you that there will never be a cure for death. No matter how far or fast we run, it will catch us all in time. Why not spend those sunset days of our lives enjoying what we can because we have knowledge and we have planned for what is to come?

See other readers' reactions to the article as well.

Newsweek also ran a piece last week comparing health care systems in other western nations - "No Country for Sick Men." I do not have quite the passionate reaction to this article, but I did find it very interesting. I will point out a theme to look for: challenging the idea that the quantity of health care available in the U.S. means that Americans receive the best quality health care. Particularly for the price. Newsweek claims that in a few years, twenty percent of the U.S. GDP will be spent on health care. One-fifth of the money paid for goods and services in the U.S. will be for health care expenses. Think about what that does to discretionary spending, particularly in the middle class. How will we ever make an economic recovery?

Read the articles.

Keep an Eye On...

"Bennett and Romanoff: Two of a Kind"

Whichever party line you vote along, keep an eye on the potential for a Democratic primary for the senate seat vacated by now Interior Sec. Ken Salazar. The primary will not resolve the question of who should have received Gov. Ritter's original appointment to the seat. It could, however, have a significant impact on the ultimate outcome of the 2010 election. Aside from the potential division among Colorado Democrats, a primary could give the GOP challenger plenty of fodder for his/her attack ads during the election season. The primary could also force the candidates to move either left or right of their traditional left-center stances and, as Haley points out, force Sen. Bennett to clarify his positions on controversial legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill he has yet to take a firm stance on.

The Water Footprint

I. The Water Footprint

At a recent conference in Stockholm, Dutch engineer Arjen Hoekstra presented his idea of a water footprint. Similar to the carbon footprint concept, the water footprint attempts to quantify impact in terms of water use and pollution. Hoekstra's footprint accounts both for direct use of water as well as "virtual use" - water used to produce goods consumed. While the carbon footprint remains a bit ethereal, water quantities seem more tangible. Thus, the water footprints Hoekstra generated for some common products are astounding and troublesome - a cup of coffee requires 140 liters (almost 40 gallons) of water; 2,400 liters (~634 gallons) for a hamburger; and 10,000 liters (over 2,600 gallons) of water for a pair bluejeans.

As I have noted previously, assessing the real environmental impact of our activities, lives, or the goods we consume requires a comprehensive analysis, one that is not simply limited to carbon or water. However, I qualified that statement by saying that effective measures must be quantifiable and accessible and that concepts like the carbon footprint are one step in making that comprehensive analysis relatively quantifiable. The water footprint is another building block. Some weighty corporations and organizations - The UN, Nestle, Pepsi, the World Wildlife Federation - have bought into the concept. As its use becomes more widespread, the water footprint will permit a more in-depth environmental analysis of activities, products, and services.

The advent of the water footprint is also quite timely. Even if its unidimensional analysis in inherently limited, as I argued in regard to the carbon footprint, the water footprint will help to spotlight the current worldwide water use paradigm, for which "unsustainable" does no justice. Hoekstra contends that his virtual water quantification could help remedy this situation. Thinking in terms of virtual water - the amount of water consumed or polluted in producing particular goods - nations can quantify the water impact of their imports and exports.

Hoekstra's aim seems to be to eliminate agriculture in all arid (or otherwise unsuitable) regions of the world; he would rather see import and export trade offs, measured in terms of virtual water. However, his water footprint, by nature, does not account for other consequences of such a change - the effects on local, regional, and national economics; the environmental impact of then necessarily transporting crops and goods across the globe, just to name a few. Even with those shortcomings, the fact that such conversations are now on the table is encouraging. I do believe that, one day soon, Mother Earth will cast off the bounds of technical innovation that man believes have subdued her. The global community should anticipate and prepare for that series of events, rather than react as they occur.

II. Water in the U.S.

Thinking about water use and pollution, I also want to turn briefly to water in the U.S., a situation some have described as a crisis. On this site, I have specifically mentioned the battle over water supply to Atlanta, and while that particular scenario has made headlines in the past year, it is not unique. In a guest column to the Washington Post, Robert Glennon, a law professor at the University of Arizona, says simply that the "U.S. water supply is running out." He cites several possible solutions - desalinization, reuse of municipal waste water, stringent conservation; he also recognizes that none of these on their own would solve our problems.

Glennon makes two general observations that I want to highlight. First, he characterizes the U.S. water "shortage" in terms of the water:population ratio. In addition to depleting ancient and slow-to-replenish aquifers, U.S. water demand grows as the populations continues to increase. Like many other environmental problems, water issues emanate from the simple concept of carrying capacity - an expression of the population that a particular habitat can sustain. As Glennon points out, there are several means by which to mitigate the U.S. water supply concerns - finding new sources (desalinization); reuse (i.e., reuse of wastewater); reducing use. But none of these represents a singular fix, and they each come with their own drawbacks. Without me saying anything else on this topic, you can all infer that the conversation becomes much more difficult and controversial from this point . . . .

The second of Glennon's points that I want to emphasize is the commoditization of water in the U.S., or, more appropriately, the lack thereof. Certainly, water rights are bought, sold, bartered for, and exchanged by municipalities, corporations, and private parties. But end users pay fees that essentially cover utility providers' operation costs. In other words, the water itself is free. Glennon likens increased water fees to surges in gasoline prices. During the last peak in gasoline prices, sales of fuel efficient cars spiked, public transportation ridership increased, and many people chose to drive less when possible. Glennon posits that increased fees for water usage would spur similar conservation efforts as individual users sought to save money. (This is a concept I have also advocated; see "The Future of Atlanta's Water Supply.")

The take-home point of this post is that water's place an environmental concern should not be overshadowed by other hot-button issues. This is true both in the U.S. and across the globe. As I usually do, I will remind all readers that each of us can do our part to chip away at these crisis situations by being conscious and thoughtful in our daily activities.

States Seeking Federal Funds for Rail

In contrast to the Alabama highway project I highlighted recently (See "Federal Highway Funding Going to 'Wrong Places'"), many other states are seeking to capitalizing on federal funding opportunities to maintain, upgrade, and expand their rail networks. I hope to see more reports of this type of state and local government recognition that "balance" in transportation options is a worthy investment and a characteristic that residents find both useful and desirable.

"States Seek Slice of Rail Funding", Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2009

"Maryland Seeks $360 Million for Rail Upgrades", Baltimore Sun, August 25, 2009

Federal Highway Funding Going to "Wrong Places"

In my post about obstacles to public transportation in the U.S., I talked about incentivizing alternative transit options for commuters. A corollary to that concept is promoting transportation policy through funding. But federal highway funding policy threatens to keep the country locked in the status quo for some time to come.

The PBS segment highlighted in this report from Next American City magazine discusses a particular project included in the Appalachain Highway Development System, a federal program that matches federal to state dollars $4:$1 for included highway projects. As highlighted in the video clip, authorization for the Northern Beltway around Birmingham was included in federal legislation and largely bypassed local planning and projection processes. From the comments of Birmingham's Mayor Larry Langford, its clear the project faces some pushback from local government: "Yes, we can get from point A to point B but now what we are doing is cycling traffic around because of the grandiose idea that ‘we need more interstates.’ No, we don’t need more interstates—we need high-speed public transportation. But we’re always spending our money in the wrong places."

Aside from these specific issues, including the demolition of homes along the beltway's proposed route, projects such as this raise questions about the effectiveness of federal funding priorities. It seems clear from Mayor Langford's comments, as well as those of a local real estate developer, that Birmingham could use federal assistance in a number areas within the city itself. Rather than helping to fund urban renewal projects or stimulate economic growth within Birmingham, federal funds - 80% of 3.3 billion dollars, according to PBS - will instead go to highway project cutting through undeveloped portions of the surrounding countryside.

All of this is occurring at a time when the Obama administration, at least in words, is attempting to dramatically alter the general transportation policy of the United States. Certainly an appropriate starting place would be examine who federal transportation are allotted and awarded and how those programs affect the decisions of state and local lawmakers.

Health Care Reform, Government Intervention, and Zombies

Paul Krugman's column in today's N.Y. Times directly confronts government intervention critics. Countering the variety of claims, many of which are unsubstantiated and vague, that a government-sponsored insurance plan would spell dire consequences for the health care system, Krugman asserts that a lack of government regulation is to blame for many of the issues making current headlines. Because of these failures, Krugman asserts that the government-is-bad, Reagonomic philosophy should have already died. Instead, it lives on a "zombie doctrine" and remains a powerful, even if just rhetorical, argument in the debate over health care reform.

Krugman's column also reminds me of the need to cut through the emotionally-charged language and political lingo to examine the real nature of possible solutions along with their probable benefits and consequences. Perception without insight can be deceptive, and many of our public figures capitalize on that idea. (See "A Soapbox Moment.") Therefore, we as the public must be conscious of what we hear, resist the urge to take it at face value, and examine the ins and outs of these important issues on our own.

Public Transportation Funding

This article highlights an issue I raised in a recent post regarding public transportation in the United States. In the midst of a push from the federal government to expand public transportation in many areas, transit agencies are having difficulty funding daily operation of existing services. As I noted in my previous post, funding issues can and will strike at crucial aspects of public transportation - cost effectiveness to the rider, convenience to the rider, and reliability - three issues that are absolutely necessary for building public support and use of any transit system.

Expansion projects certainly fit within the "economic stimulus" package, and beginning to change the transportation profile of the U.S. is an admirable goal, the federal administration must be sure existing transit agencies are able to maintain services, quality, and value. Otherwise, the foundation necessary for expanding transit options in this country will be sorely lacking.

LA's Water Use Restrictions

I wanted to share an L.A. Times article that I came across recently. In discussing Atlanta's water issues ("The Future of Atlanta's Water Supply"), I talked about the need for municipalities to implement and enforce certain water conservation measures. L.A. is demonstrating its commitment to water conservation. The article particularly highlights the city's brigade of officers who patrol and enforce residential water use restrictions. According to the article, the city's water conservation scheme has allowed it maintain basically the same total water usage over the past 25 years while adding over a million people to the population. With those results, L.A. is certainly setting an example other metropolitan areas should mimic, particularly those in water-scare regions.

Considering the Usefulness of the Carbon Footprint Concept

Chuck Plunkett published an editorial in the Denver Post this past Sunday entitled, "Prius effect: energy efficient cars undercut the appeal of light rail." Today, Post contributor Ed Quillen responded with an opinion piece, "Fallacy of the carbon footprint." I want to take a look at both of these articles for two fairly distinct reasons. First, as Quillen clearly hints, I want to discuss the admitted narrowness of Plunkett's analysis and how that limitation, at least in my mind, does much to discredit an attempt at a well-reasoned argument. Secondly, I want to think about how effective the concept of the carbon footprint actually is, as it is being used in studies like that relied on by Plunkett.

Plunkett's premise is that as the fuel efficiency of automobiles improves, transit options such as light rail become less appealing. Plunkett admits that his analysis focuses on one perceived benefit of light rail - environmental effects - though I believe he attempts to bury this admission. Furthermore, as Quillen points out, that singular focus is not even fully analyzed. The study Plunkett utilizes seems limited to energy consumption of the transportation modes themselves without accounting for all the incidental environmental effects. In Plunkett's defense, these are almost too numerous to name, let alone account for in a statistical study; however, the failure to even acknowledge them is unacceptable. What about comparing the environmental effects of highway versus rail infrastructure? What about the effects on watersheds of all the impervious surfacing needed to accommodate a metropolitan area moved by cars (or buses)? Plunkett also does not broach the subject of how his automobile carbon analysis would change in citywide standstill traffic. How would all of those cars essentially idling for minutes at time effect the per passenger per mile analysis? Given all these glaring absences, I cannot understand how Plunkett can make the statement that light rail is "a transit option our environment can no longer afford," unless, of course, he's powered by the same agenda as Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute, who contributed the data utilized by Plunkett.

Aside from Plunkett's limited environmental analysis, he ignores other benefits of light rail and public transportation. When all car commuting expenses in a city like Denver are accounted for - gas, car maintenance, parking, etc. - light rail can be an enticing option economically for many commuters. This is particularly true if employers are providing or subsidizing the cost of transit passes. And what about safety? Look, we all know that transit proponents will throw out some exaggerated traffic fatality statistics. However, I think it is safe to assume that more people die every year in the United States in personal automobile accidents than in light rail, commuter train, or bus accidents. There are a host of other benefits I could mention - productivity during commuting, potential time savings, etc. The take home point here is that, as regular readers know, I value inclusive and well-rounded analysis of any issue. For me, Plunkett's argument falls fatally short of that mark.

Quillen raises the same questions in his response to Plunkett's article. He does so in a way that challenges the concept of the carbon footprint, a fixture in the escalating discussion about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Plunkett's article is evidence that, when one can pick and choose factors for statistical analysis, that person can customize the statistics results to justify almost any conclusion. This is certainly the trap to which calculations like a carbon footprint can fall prey. Like interpreting a work of art, there are a variety of angles and perspectives that are simultaneously legitimate and contradictory. Depending on which set of these are chosen as criteria for a particular analysis, results can widely vary.

I am not advocating discarding the concept for that sake. Rather, I do believe the world needs some sort of index that attempts to quantify the impact of products, projects, and activities on the environment. Such an index must be as inclusive as possible to be truly useful, but this is also where complexity enters the picture. Practicality necessitates a paring down of factors included in the index to those whose impacts are readily ascertainable and quantifiable. Striking this balance between accuracy and practicality leaves a tool that is imperfect but a tool which may still be useful as an indicator for ballparking environmental impact. For some examples of corporate attempts at indexing their environmental impact, see Patagonia's Footprint Chronicles as well as Walmart's proposed sustainability index (and a New York Times article about the index).

I think this is essentially what we have in the carbon footprint concept. The key is remembering that, as a tool only addressing one aspect of environmental impact, the concept is inherently limited and must be utilized with that in mind. Thus, for Plunkett to base his conclusion solely on the per passenger per mile carbon footprint of light rail versus automobile commuting ignores other necessary aspects of the analysis, even if that analysis is limited solely to environmental considerations. And as I stated before, even if his environmental arguments are given credence, the fact that he completely ignores economic or social aspects still, in my mind, dooms his conclusion.

Again, all of this babbling is to remind all of us that we cannot solve our local, national, or global problems with piecemeal analysis or solutions. Realizing that a completely inclusive analysis of all environmental impacts of any one item is nearly impossible, we must also realize the limitations of the practical tools at our disposal and strive to think as inclusively as that practicality allows.