Posted on

Energy Subsidies and the “Free Market”

Time and time again, I hear people say that renewables should be subject to the “free market” and should not receive government subsidies. After all, if renewables such as solar, wind and geothermal are viable, the consumer should decide, not the government. And while I understand (and even to a point agree) with those comments, the problem is we simply don’t have a level playing field. Nor do we have (or will we ever have) a truly free market economy. As Wikipedia says, “purely free markets… are theoretical constructs.” So after a recent spate of posts on a couple of threads on my Facebook page, I thought I would address some of the issues that came up.

PURPOSE OF SUBSIDIES
I think the purpose of subsidies is to get fledgling industries off the ground so they can be viable. Call it investment capital, call it what you want, that’s how our culture works. Entrepreneurs have an idea and get investors and/or tax breaks for a period of time so they can build a good foundation and become productive. There is often a huge amount of research and development costs associated with a start-up company. And I’ll be the first to say I’m not an economist. But I will go on to say this isn’t rocket science, either.

The chart I’ve included with this post is based on a 2009 report by the Environmental Law Institute report titled “Estimating U. S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008.” The source of the information in the report comes from the Internal Revenue Service, the US Department of Energy, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and the US Department of Agriculture. The report covers the 6-year cumulative period of 2002-2008.

It’s a telling chart because it shows just how disproportionate the playing field really is. 72% of Federal subsidies for energy go to fossil fuels, not renewables. And if you group biofuel in with the fossil fuels (I do; biofuel is stupid), it’s more like 88%. The report goes into a great amount of detail regarding how the subsidies are parsed out.

Historically, a large amount of the subsidies for fossil fuel goes to coal. You know, the same people who brought you mountaintop removal. And black lung disease (and those suffering from it also are subsidized). Oil companies also receive a huge amount of subsidies for off-shore drilling costs, foreign exploration credits and the like.

But I guess my point here is that oil and coal have received subsidies for decades and at least the oil companies, who realistically hold a monopoly over us, are still seeing record profits. It seems subsidies should help companies get established, then phase out, not add on to profits. And the argument that we need to look at how much tax the oil companies pay would be valid if they weren’t paying tax on money we give them. Would you be willing to pay $300 tax on my gift of $1,000 to you? I sure would.

ON AGAIN/OFF AGAIN
In the 1980s, there were some pretty substantial tax credits (yes, subsidies) for solar. During that time, my parents installed a solar hot water system on their house. It’s still plugging along, churning out hot water. Then the Federal credits expired in 2000, 2002, 2004 and almost in 2008. They’ve currently been renewed through 2016.

But in my home state of Oregon, with one of the most aggressive tax credit programs around, the Legislature may look at eliminating them.

It’s this on again/off again situation that never allows any renewable energy company to ever really get off the ground. Why can’t we commit to a consistent subsidy for renewables over 20 or 25 years? It’s that see-saw effect, much like Roland Martin said in his blog about gasoline prices posted here a while back. And it essentially is strangling any hope of renewable energy ever coming close to competing with Big Oil.

LOOK PAST OUR NOSE
It’s the short-sighted view we have, where we don’t look past our nose to the future. We have these spurts of knee-jerk reactions when things get “bad” then fall into complacency when it evens out temporarily.

We can’t keep living like that. If we evened out the subsidies and shifted $30 billion of the oil subsidies to renewables, it would help. I believe even with fossil fuels’ head start, that shift alone, if continued consistently for 20 years, would make renewables viable and an integral part of our culture. And it would go a long way toward leveling that playing field.

Is anyone willing to give it a try?

Posted on

Business Commute Challenge 2011

In a previous post last October, I talked about transportation options. It was my first year trying the Business Commute Challenge and I drove, rode my bike and rode the bus. It was that year I “discovered” the bus.

Well, this year, I “discovered” my bike. Not that I didn’t bike a fair amount over the last couple of years, after all, I have just passed 2,000 miles on my bike, but I made a commitment to ride all week during the Challenge. Regardless of the weather.

You need to understand, I’ve traditionally called myself a “fair weather cyclist.” I’d ride if it was nice and ride the bus if it wasn’t and drive if it was more convenient. And driving is still an option. But the week before the Challenge, it was nice weather and I rode. Partly to get in shape for the BCC and partly because it was, well… nice weather.

I work a four day week, so on May 11, I rode my bike. May 12 I had a bunch of meetings where the bus was a better option. The week of the 16th, which was the week of the BCC, I rode my bike.

Every day.

Rain or shine.

And then, I got inspired enough since my car’s gas tank was on empty for a week and a half and it was OK, to ride the week of the 23rd.

Rain or shine.

And I did. And it was mostly shine. But there was some rain. One day, I called it the Master and Commander Day.

It REALLY rained.

But you know what I found? I can ride in the rain. After all, I spent money on rain gear, was I actually going to use it?

I did.

And now, I’m thinking the personal “challenge” for me now is to see if I can go a month until June 10 (at least) riding my bike.

That’s my next goal.

I’ll let you know.

Posted on

NewWood – A Revolutionary Idea

As a stark contrast to the Numi toilet I recently panned, I’m totally excited about the concept behind NewWood. Starting with a nuclear power plant in Washington that was never completed or brought online, some very resourceful entrepreneurs have come up with what just could be one of the most revolutionary ideas to come along in a very long time.

Taking a mix of 50% recycled wood and 50% recycled plastic, they have started production (just within the last few days) on a 4×8 sheet that could replace much of the way we currently make plywood and sheet goods for underlayment, etc.

We spoke with Steve Pottle, from NewWood and are getting some samples. Our primary thought is to use them in our kit homes endeavor for developing countries, World3Homes. We had been looking for a sheet good that was durable, insect and moisture resistant, flexible for earthquake resistance, lightweight and economical. So far as we can tell, NewWood fits the bill on all counts.

What excites me about NewWood is the wood comes from wood waste that would have gone into the landfills, like some construction demolition waste, so it’s appropriate to be taking that material and reusing it in buildings. The plastic comes from plastic bottles and bags that may or may not get recycled (there seems to be plenty of it to go around). And the factory is recycled, too — a nuclear power plant never finished that was going to be a manufacturing facility that never started in an area of Washington with chronic unemployment.

The other thing about NewWood that I appreciate is NewWood itself is 100% recyclable. When it has served its useful life, or someone remodels, NewWood can be broken down and recycled again and again.

That’s truly forward-thinking. Once I get my sample and we have a chance to try it in our first World3Homes prototype, I’ll revisit this and let you know how it performs. Oh, and thanks to Preston Koerner from JetsonGreen; that’s where I first heard about NewWood.

Posted on

Envision Eugene

I recently wrote an op-ed piece for our local newspaper, The Register-Guard. here it is in its entirety:

The Envision Eugene draft document, which is poised to create “A Legacy of Livability,” is open for public comment; a public hearing is scheduled for Monday before the City Council. I know some have expressed frustration that we aren’t jumping in and drawing lines and getting to the details faster. As one who has lived in Eugene almost all of my 54 years, I’ve observed our community’s ups and downs and would like to offer my perspective on this process.

While the original mandate from the state Legislature was for cities to identify and establish a 20-year supply of buildable residential land, our city’s officials decided this was an opportunity to carry the process further and with more depth and completeness than just meeting the legal minimums. We had not performed such a comprehensive analysis since the 1980s, and it was long overdue.

These two goals — accommodating the next 20 years of growth and creating a livable, sustainable future for our community — are outlined in the draft Envision Eugene document.

What this meant was taking a few steps back to see the big picture and establishing some goals that went beyond just the mandate. And it means taking a little longer for the process. We must come to grips with the concept that everything is connected. Land use, transportation corridors and many other elements are inextricably dependent on each other.

Past planning decisions have not always recognized this. Plus, we also have a community that is known for its very diverse views on how to approach solutions, sometimes leading to no decision.

A Community Resource Group was formed by John Ruiz, our city manager. This group represented people with a broad range of interests, backgrounds and opinions.

What I observed with the CRG and other listening sessions was a bringing together of diverse members of our community in a way that started with our common thread. Then, the sessions took the common threads our community agrees on and used those as the foundation to build our collective vision for what we’d like Eugene to look like over the next few decades.

And that intentionally must start with general concepts before we delve into the details; we have to decide and agree on our destination before we choose the method of how to get there. That is what the whole Envision Eugene process, the seven pillars and the strategies and tactics attempt to do: provide the framework for actually “drawing the lines.”

Those seven pillars are objectives set out to: 1) provide ample economic opportunities for all community members, 2) provide affordable housing for all income levels, 3) plan for climate change and energy uncertainty, 4) promote compact urban development and efficient transportation options, 5) protect, repair and enhance neighborhood livability, 6) protect, restore and enhance natural resources, and 7) provide for adaptable flexible and collaborative implementation.

In short, these pillars address at least one aspect of the “triple bottom line” regarding the economy, the environment and social equity within a framework that allows flexibility and adaptation in the coming years.

As an architect, whenever we design a project for a client, we first require them to go through what we call a programming phase. This is where they lay out and establish what their goals are with their project: what their needs are, what they want it to feel like, look like and cost. Until those things are established, we won’t start designing or drawing lines. And when our clients have done a good job of thinking through their needs, goals and resources, our design and the end result for them is always successful.

I believe it will be the same with Envision Eugene. If we are patient enough to really establish and articulate our goals as a community and resist the urge to prematurely dive into drawing lines, we will have a much better result, a much more livable Eugene and a framework we can use for decisions in the future that will achieve the goals of our community.

Posted on

Kohler Numi Toilet

Unbelievable. Technology is going to save us once and for all. For a price.

As seen in USA Today, a new customizable “smart toilet” is being brought to the US market the end of this month. Called the “Numi”, Kohler’s new toilet is billed as “a perfect blend of technology, performance, and design.” It comes complete with “adjustable heated seat and foot warmer too, plus an integrated stainless steel, self-cleaning bidet wand with a dryer. A motion-controlled seat and lid can automatically open when you approach and close when you split. Tripping a bar of light on the floor to the side of the toilet automatically raises the seat, while the toilet automatically flushes when walking away.”

It comes in white or biscuit and has a remote control that can be programmed for up to six individual users. And it can be yours for only $6,300. So while it may be a perfect blend of technology, performance, and design, cost obviously isn’t part of the “blend.” It is dual flush with 0.6 or 1.28 gallons per flush, so there is one redeeming factor with this toilet.

But that’s the only one.

Posted on

Earth Hour 2011

It’s simple, really. Just turn off your lights for 60 minutes tonight from 8:30 to 9:30 in whatever time zone you’re in.

We are going to. Right now it’s about 7:45 where we are in Eugene, Oregon so we have just less than an hour to go. It’s all very symbolic to show our support for the grass roots movement to show our commitment to respecting and stewarding our planet. It is, after all, the one thing we ALL have in common.

For more info, check out the WWF website.

Posted on

Zero Waste and the Johnsons

I came across this video at JetsonGreen and just had to share it.

I first heard of the Johnsons via a friend sharing the link to her zero waste home blog and was intrigued by Bea’s take on the three Rs. Before you ever get to reduce, reuse or recycle, you should refuse, refuse, refuse. This is a concept I can completely support. I’ve often shared how we are such a consumer-driven society that we buy, buy, buy and really need to be stepping back and evaluating our lifestyles. That’s part of what I’ve tried to share here at thesimpleHOUSE.

I’m encouraged and humbled by the Bea and Scott. This gives me even more to strive for.

Posted on

Project Homeless Connect and Perspective

Saint Patrick’s Day, 2011. The day of the fifth annual Project Homeless Connect (PHC) in Lane County, Oregon. Simply “ordinary people finding extraordinary solutions to end homelessness.”

If you’re wondering here what aspect of living a simple, sustainable lifestyle this addresses, it falls squarely into the triple bottom line leg of social equity. This was the third year my wife and I helped. She helped with greeting and I was a restroom monitor (more on that later).

So what, exactly, is PHC?

“In any given night in Lane County, over 3,467 people are homeless or living in temporary shelters. 11,513 individuals in 9,134 households were homeless and received services from our local continuum of care last year. Hundreds more families are “hidden away” moving between family and friends, living in cars or facing imminent threat of eviction. It is difficult for people to feel safe, access health care or mental health treatment, find and maintain a job, resolve legal problems or keep their children in school while trying to manage their housing crisis or keep their families sheltered. People who are homeless struggle daily with the repercussions of unmet basic human needs for safety, stability and shelter.

Project Homeless Connect is a nationwide movement to increase access to services for homeless people and to engage local communities in finding a solution for homelessness. By convening a one-day, “one-stop shop” event, Project Homeless Connect offers assistance with housing, health care, legal issues, benefits enrollment, treatment and other basic needs to people who are homeless.”

This year, over 850 volunteers from our community served right at 1,600 guests. Homeless, near homeless people at risk. I love the restroom monitor slot. The first year I signed us up, we procrastinated and the only available slots were restroom monitors. My wife’s first reaction was something like, “you signed us up for what?” But we served and in doing that, we discovered that the people coming to the event were so respectful of the facility and the volunteers, that restroom monitor really meant hang out in the lobby and chat with people (and occasionally check on the restrooms).

And that’s where our perspective shifted. We met some fascinating people. Today, I met a man in a wheelchair with a service dog named Mr. Ed. I remember the Mr. Ed TV show. And so did he. Perspective.

Then there was Robert, who just needed help carrying his large trash bag of stuff and backpack to the bag check area. Robert walked slowly and haltingly with a cane. The bag check was at the other end of the lobby. I apologized for having to make him walk all the way across the lobby. His response? “It’s good exercise.” Perspective.

Or Matthew, who needed help for his diabetes because he needed insulin and his feet were going numb. Or James who simply wanted a sleeping bag.

It’s opportunities like this that encourage me to live with less stuff. I mean, how many shirts do I need? Simple, sustainable lifestyle. I met Doug, who helps with the Egan Warming Centers in our town. And I was reminded of Mary S. who I wrote about a while back. And I thought I need to volunteer there, too. Perspective.

Then I went through a fast food drive thru for my lunch, they messed up my order and I had to wait while they redid it, apologizing all over themselves. And I was able to say, “No problem. Really.” Perspective. After all, I had money to buy a burger and fries and a car to go through the drive thru and I could eat and not be hungry.

I can’t wait for Project Homeless Connect 2012.

Posted on

Roland S. Martin – CNN Guest Blog

I have never posted verbatim another blog post until today. With the recent events in Libya, gas prices soaring (again) and the nuclear meltdown in Japan, I was going to write something, because I just couldn’t keep quiet. Then, I came across Roland Martin’s post on CNN today (March 12, 2011) and decided he said it better than I ever could. So, I contacted him and obtained permission to repost it here. It’s well worth the read but it would be even important if we actually paid attention to what he says.

CNN Editor’s note: Roland Martin is a syndicated columnist and author of “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House.” He is a commentator for TV One Cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, “Washington Watch with Roland Martin.”

(CNN) — Gas prices are skyrocketing nationwide and Americans are angry that they have to spend more of their hard earned money at the pump each week.

The crisis in northern Africa, specifically in Libya, has led the dramatic rise in the cost of oil, which now tops $101 a barrel, over the past month. And with summer approaching, Americans are fretting over whether to hit the highway for vacation because the price of gas, averaging $3.52 a gallon nationwide, is expected to go even higher.

Our political leaders? Some Democrats and Republicans are leaning on President Barack Obama to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and use some of the millions of barrels of oil we have on tap to provide some relief as a result of the price increase.

In a news conference Friday, President Obama said he’ll release the oil if needed.

“All options are on the table when it comes to any supply disruption,” he said.

Is this Groundhog Day or what?

Three years ago this nation went through convulsions when gas prices skyrocketed. Folks were sharing rides and pushing elected officials to broaden public transportation plans. Hybrids and electric cars started getting a second look from gas conscious drivers, and all the talk was about alternative energy and not being dependent on Arab leaders in the Middle East.

And when those gas prices went back down? We yelled, screamed and cheered, and then pulled the SUVs out of the garage, filled them up with gasoline and forgot all about the pain we endured.

This is the American story: Alleviate our pain so we can go back to business as usual. And when the crisis comes back, we’ll fret, scream and go bonkers.
Please, stop the madness!

When are we simply going to reach the conclusion that as long as this nation has a Charlie Sheen-like addiction to gas, our chains can be yanked at any time, which will send our economy into a tailspin?

The U.S. Energy Department predicts that with the dramatic rise in gas prices, the average American family will spend an additional $700 annually on gas. And with money already tight, that is a huge hit.

Unfortunately, our crack-like dependence on oil continues to lead us down the road of agony and despair, and our political leaders have no courage to own up to the special interests and gas lovin’ Americans and say, “Dammit, enough! We can’t move forward like this!”

Democrats and Republicans are now saying President Obama needs to allow for more drilling off the shores of the United States. Really? So that’s the only answer? Everyone knows there isn’t enough oil to satisfy America’s thirst. But oh no, we keep this charade up.

America will never be able to transition our system from an oil-dependent economy to an alternative plan unless we show the courage to make the tough choices today and get the payoff later.

I don’t care what Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says about energy efficient lightbulbs; the old ones were cheaper, used more energy and we had to buy a lot more. The government’s move to force a new lightbulb standard caused some pain on the front end with my wallet, but over the long term, fewer bulbs are being bought and I’m seeing a decrease in my light bill.

Until the nation accepts this reality, we will continue to be at the mercy of oil-possessing countries.

Embracing non-oil energy alternatives — wind, natural gas, electric and solar — can absolutely create jobs in this country, and we should require Americans to make their homes more energy efficient with products built by Americans. What’s wrong with that? How can the United States create solar technology and then allow the Chinese to become the leading manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels?

No one alternative energy source can replace oil. It has to be a comprehensive plan that addresses our long-term needs. And it is going to mean we will have to spend money. Yes, we will be affected in the short-term, but if someone told me we could spend $500 billion today, and that would create millions of jobs over the next several years and lead to a transition to an alternative-energy economy, I would ask where I should sign up.

But if we have no courage, we will lose every time.

So, if the only thing you know is “drill, baby, drill,” and that gasoline is our only option, great. Have a wonderful time. And every time gas skyrockets, just smack yourself upside the head with that gas pump, because you’re the reason we remain stuck on stupid when it comes to energy in this country.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.

But we here at thesimpleHOUSE share these opinions, too.

Posted on

Compromise or Consensus: The Heart or the Mind?

I’ve had some conversations recently related to compromise and consensus. Just like many people think compostable and biodegradable are one-in-the-same, many also think compromise and consensus are synonyms; but they aren’t.

COMPROMISE
Compromise is defined by Webster as “settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.” In plain English, this means when reaching a decision, each party gives up something. They concede.

CONSENSUS
Consensus is defined by Webster first as “general agreement” and second as “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” Also known as buy-in. Its root is in the Latin word “consentio” meaning to “feel together.”

I’m big on consensus; I’m not so enamored with compromise. Compromise has such a negative connotation. We went to dinner with some friends and he made a comment that resonated with me. It applies here. He said “we need to agree at the heart level, not the intellectual level.”

What I took from this was that compromise is the intellectual level. Our mind rationalizes and comes to conclusions and we may get to a point of tolerating our neighbor. But we don’t really love our neighbor. That comes from consensus.

Consensus is the heart level. It’s the buy-in. The “feel together” aspect of a decision. We reach a conclusion with another and we own it. Too often, we give in or we argue to win and it’s really boiling down to how it affects me. Not my friend, not my neighbor. Me. Selfish, self-centered me. And when we “lose” or don’t win completely, we compromise. A decision is made not in line with our desire and we say something like “He’s not MY President,” or “She’s not MY Mayor.” (I’ve seen and heard those exact quotes — and I think you have too).

What I appreciate about consensus is the feel together, solidarity aspect it brings. The heart. We can disagree on compostable versus biodegradable versus recyclable versus reusable, but the real issue is do we care about the Creation around us? And really, when it gets to that heart level, I think we are all “feeling together” or in solidarity that we do. While I have friends with a vast range of opinions on global warming, climate change, drilling for oil and solar photovoltaics, I think one opinion we all share is we like this Earth we live on and want it to be a pleasant place to live.

And I guess that’s where I struggle with where we are at as a culture right now. In politics, in religion, we dig in our heels, we demand our way, we argue and refuse to even compromise, much less reach any kind of consensus. A public speaker I admire once said “This is really about That.”

We argue in the political arena about styrofoam cups or compostable cups. We debate the content of a book without ever having read it. And, I believe the bottom line in the argument has really nothing to do with the environment or the book, but rather a power trip to prove who is the Alpha Male. In the first situation, I’d like to believe both sides would really like to see less waste, less garbage, spoons that don’t break, etc. But we resort to positioning and strutting instead of addressing the issues of waste and breaking spoons. Because we don’t ever want to appear to compromise. And the second situation is positioning myself as the expert (back to that Alpha Male scenario).

I wonder what would happen if, in every decision we had to make as a group, in every political arena, every religious arena, we started with outlining what we agree on. Before we ever got into the issue, we listed the things we agree on. Then list our goals. What do we want to accomplish in this venue? And then (and only then), we worked toward consensus and general agreement and solidarity.

I think then, we would really be loving our neighbor instead of merely tolerating them.