Sean Diamond Sustainability

Natural Gas Mixbag

2012-01-29T10:00:00.007-05:00

Hello Readers,

It has been a while since my last post. Here is some food for thought about natural gas:

If you watched the State of the Union this past week, you probably noticed that President Obama talked quite a bit about energy. During that part of the speech he made the claim that there is 100 year supply of natural gas in the United States. This is unlikely to be the case, and an article on Treehugger - Fact-Checking Obama: Is There Really '100 Years' Worth of Natural Gas in the US? - debunks the premise.

Even if it is true that we are sitting on 100 years of natural gas, consumers should not expect that the energy will be especially cheap or provide as many jobs as promised. As described in a New York Times article - Chesapeake to Cut Number of Gas Rigs - this week, natural gas drillers and refiners still face the same market incentives to cut production (and presumably labor hours) when prices get too cheap.

It is difficult to tell what all of this may mean from a sustainability standpoint. Burning natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal. However, if natural gas is used as an energy crutch, it may hinder a transition to a truly renewable and clean (no-emission) energy system.

Extracting natural gas from shale through hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. 'fracking') requires pumping chemicals into the ground, which may - despite the best efforts and claims of the industry - result in negative environmental consequences. Perhaps President Obama's plan to implement "rules to ensure that safe drilling practices are followed and the types of chemicals used in the so-called fracking method are disclosed for operations on public lands" will shed some light on the full extent of the potential consequences. [quote from: Jobs, energy, values top issues in Obama address by the Associated Press]

According to an article in Bloomberg news - U.S. Cuts Estimate for Marcellus Shale Gas Reserves by 66%, the previous estimates of the available natural gas from shale have been revised. Using improved data the US DOE reduced its shale-based natural gas reserve estimates from last year by 42% for the country as a whole (66% for the Marcellus Shale formation). Thus, the natural gas from Marcellus shale is now expected to only cover 6 years of natural gas consumption (as opposed to the initial estimate of 17 years).

I hope this gives you something to chew on while you discuss America's energy future.

~Sean

Durban Result... sort of

2011-12-16T10:00:00.002-05:00

Hello Readers,

I am traveling this week, so I don't have the opportunity to do a proper post. However, I thought it was important to note the minor progress made at the end of the Durban conference.

The New York Times reported:

"Then, in an early-morning huddle on Sunday on the floor of the conference, the American team came up with the language that finally persuaded India to accept the legal character of any future agreement, simply by rearranging a few words."

...

"The delegates agreed only to begin negotiations with a deadline of 2015 to produce a new agreement to take effect in 2020. There is no certainty about what will be in such an agreement, and no confidence that the United States Senate will ratify it. But those are problems for another day."

Check out the information on the articles: Climate Talks in Durban Yield Limited Agreement and U.S. Envoy Relieved by Climate Talks’ Outcome.

I'll try to catch up with more information prior to the end of the year.

~Sean Diamond

Movie Review: A Crude Awakening

2011-12-10T10:00:00.000-05:00

Hello Readers,

Earlier this week, I watched A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash movie directed by Basil Gelpke and Raymond McCormack. This movie, which was released in 2006 (the middle of the Bush administration), is as much a horror movie as it is a documentary.

Through a series of intertwining interviews, which are scored with a background soundtrack that would not be out of place in a slasher movie or an episode of the X-Files (similar to the background track of the trailer below), A Crude Awakening offers a prophecy of the collapse of the modern oil-based society.

A Crude Awakening is a mixed bag for environmentalists. It will both inform and frighten the audience. I did not notice statements (opinions aside) that are overtly factually incorrect; however, the tone of the movie overpowers the information. It may be good as a factual refresher for seasoned environmentalists, but I would not recommend this movie as a way to start a discussion on peak oil.

While the movie describes in detail the implications and likelihood of peak oil, it offers no sense of purpose or motivation to solve the issue. In fact, any solutions that may have been mentioned will be lost in the mosh-pit of despair that is A Crude Awakening.

The tagline of the movie says it all: "We're running out [of oil], and we don't have a plan." If you do show this movie, I would definitely follow up with a debriefing session or by handing out business cards of therapists.

Best of Luck,

Sean Diamond

Pennsylvania Solar Jobs put in perspective

2011-12-08T10:30:00.000-05:00

Hello Readers,

The initial committee hearing about the Pennsylvania Solar Jobs Bill (HB 1580) was canceled today. Theoretically, it will be rescheduled; however, it is very likely that the bill will not be discussed in committee prior to the end of the year. This is extremely unfortunate, because the longer the bill is delayed the more solar jobs will leave the state (whether to the unemployment line or to other states).

Of course, there has been virtually no media attention drawn to the floundering of this bill and the Pennsylvania solar industry. And why should there be? Everyone knows it is a fledgling industry, right? It doesn't even employ that many people, does it?

In fact, it does! Or rather it did before the PA SREC market crash went unaddressed for an entire year. In 2010, the National Solar Jobs Census ranked Pennsylvania as the number two employer of solar industry professionals in the country. The best estimate was that approximately 6,700 people were directly employed in the solar industry in Pennsylvania during 2010 (before the SREC market was allowed to crash). To put this in perspective, The US EIA estimates that there were approximately 8,000 people employed in coal mining in Pennsylvania in 2009.

In 2010, there were nearly as many solar industry employees in Pennsylvania (one of the top three coal states in the country) as there were coal miners!

Yet there has been no legislative action to correct the job losses that are being caused almost entirely due to a legislative issue. As a result, the 2011 National Solar Jobs Census is estimating that there are now only about 4,700 solar industry jobs in Pennsylvania: a year-on-year decrease of 2000 jobs. (Even though, the country as a whole added 7,000 solar industry jobs.)

Pennsylvania is losing out on good jobs, because the legislature is failing to act. If 2000 coal mining jobs could be saved through legislative action that involved no taxpayer revenue, how quickly would such legislation pass (or at least be brought to the floor)?

Frustratedly yours,

Sean Diamond

Movie Review: Forks Over Knives

2011-12-05T10:00:00.004-05:00

Hello Readers,

Yesterday, I watched the documentary Forks Over Knives written and directed by Lee Fulkerson. The trailer for the movie (embedded below) can also be found on the movie's website.

As you can gather from the trailer, the documentary focuses on the connection between dietary choices and medical conditions (including: heart disease, cancer, and diabetes). The backbone of Forks Over Knives is two extended interviews with doctors T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. and Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., which is crosscut with other food and medical experts and the personal stories of people (including the director) who have seen the benefits of a 'plant-based' diet.

Dr. Campbell's research included analyzing a broad sampling medical cases in a variety of counties in mainland China, which is published in a book that he co-authored with his son: The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Throughout the movie, Dr. Campbell describes the correlations that he discovered between a diet of animal-based foods (e.g. meat, dairy, eggs) and medical conditions (especially different types of cancer).

Dr. Esselstyn's research involves much more depth than breadth. His study followed roughly 20 individuals with heart disease and related conditions for 20 years. He required his patients/subjects to follow dietary restrictions such as reducing their intake of animal-based foods, and he closely monitored their diet, overall health, and medical conditions. Dr. Esselstyn works at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, has published a large number of academic articles (many of which can be found through Google Scholar), and maintains a website about his recommendations: http://www.heartattackproof.com/.

In addition to the primary thrust of the documentary, Forks Over Knives sprinkles in some non-health-related benefits of and potential barriers to promoting plant-based diets in America. Among the tangential issues that the documentary mentions (in some cases advocatively) are the connection between climate change and meat production and the stereo-type that veganism is non-masculine.

Overall, this documentary has a very convincing message that a plant-based diet can improve a person's health. However, it does very little to offer potential criticisms of the findings of the interviewees. From a preliminary search, it appears that there has been little-to-no direct criticism of Dr. Esselstyn's findings or suggestions; however, it is evident that the results of Dr. Campbell's research have been met with some criticism.

For a little bit of balance, here are some criticisms that are articulate and well referenced:

While I cannot vouch for the authors of the criticisms or their conclusions myself, the criticisms should give you a good basis to discover the counterpoints to the arguments raised by the film.

I recommend Forks Over Knives for people trying to start a conversation about healthy eating. It also offers some helpful tidbits for vegans and vegetarians attempting to explain their dietary choices to friends and family members. This is not a movie for kids as it focuses a lot on its middle-aged cast; however, it might be good for older teenagers and twenty-somethings that are interested in continuing to feel young and healthy for decades to come.

Apartment Gardening

2011-11-30T10:00:00.002-05:00

Hello Readers (or in this case Watchers),

Please enjoy this TED talk about apartment gardening.

Sustainably yours,

Sean Diamond

Really skeptics? Again?

2011-11-24T10:00:00.001-05:00

Hello Readers,

As you may recall 2 years ago, just before the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen, a professor at UEA had his email account hacked. Hundreds of misleading excerpts from his email account were posted online and 'climategate' was born.

Fast forward to now:

Three independent commissions have cleared the professor of any fraud or wrongdoing.
The climate science is still indicating that climate change is occurring (with a better understanding than before).
Most people have forgotten that climategate occurred (if they even noticed it the first time).
'More' emails from UEA are being released.

Wait, what? No, that last part is not accurate. As it turns out, the hackers have reposted many of the same hacked emails in an attempt to recreate climategate. Fortunately, as a BBC article points out, we aren't buying the skeptical hype.

Skeptics of climate change, please stop trying to smokescreen the issue of climate change with fake scandals. It is pathetic, and as George W. Bush once put it: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again."

Happy Thanksgiving,

Sean Diamond

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562

When, America? When?

2011-10-18T10:00:00.012-04:00

Hello Readers,

The world (and many Americans) are asking 'When, America? When? When are you going to address your greenhouse gas emissions? When are you going to think about what climate change is going to do to your economy over the next two decades?" This past weekend the New York Times published an interesting article about the lack of climate change legislation and programs in the United States: "Where did Global Warming Go?".

The US Falls Behind

The article points out that the United States has now fallen behind every other major economic power in the world (including the E.U., China, India, Brazil, Australia) when it comes to addressing climate change. A decade ago, the U.S. and Australia were the only two nations notably absent from the Kyoto Protocol. Two years ago, I wrote about how there might be a question of forcing China's hand to level the economic playing field for the US to consider climate change legislation.

Well, instead, China has begun to implement its own programs, and Australia is in the process of passing cap-and-trade legislation. We are losing! The United States is falling behind in the drive to address climate change.

This is problematic in that the US is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. However, it may also start to negatively affect the US economy not only through a lack of 'green jobs' but also in the lack of a coherent clean energy plan. This may become especially evident as people and businesses in other countries increase their demand for products that are not only more energy efficient but also have a lower embedded carbon footprint. Products manufactured in the United States will not be able to compete in this regard if they receive energy from the electricity grid (there is too much electricity generated from fossil fuels).

US Presidential Candidates

The article also highlights the lack of climate-conscious choices in Presidential candidates in the 2012 race.

It touches upon how very little President Obama has done to truly address climate change despite his proactive stances on the issue during his campaign. His administration has had a few 'victories' here and there but has put strikingly little effort into addressing the issue. As a result, few truly notable steps have been taken by his administration.

The article also mentions the fact that every candidate in the Republican party race (with the notable exception of Jon Huntsman) either denies that climate change is occurring (or effectively does so by hiding behind the guise of 'unsettled' science).

Jon Huntsman has made multiple comments (including twitter posts) indicating that he believes what the scientists are saying about climate change. However, his campaign website makes it clear that his stance on climate change is ambiguous at best. The website states that "Governor Huntsman’s regulatory reform consists of three objectives: ... (2) reining in the Environmental Protection Agency’s job-killing regulations..." and the Energy Independence section has eight points only one of which mentions renewable energies and does not mention any policy measures to encourage them (in fact most of the points discuss policies that promote the use of Canadian tar sands and natural gas fracking).

Thus, citizens demanding action on climate change are left with almost no options at the Federal level. However, to help you along, an organization called Live Oaks Media has put together a profile of Republican candidates and their stances on climate change.

Good Luck, America ... it looks like we're going to need it!

Sean Diamond

Pennsylvania HB 1580 - Bill Introduced

2011-10-07T10:00:00.002-04:00

Hello Readers,

Pennsylvania House Bill 1580 (to fix the SREC Market) has finally been formally introduced as legislation. It had a majority of the representatives in the General Assembly of the House as co-sponsors (publicly declared they will vote for the bill).

However, the bill needs to get passed from the Consumer Affairs committee before it can be voted upon in the House. Then, it must be passed in the Senate. Unfortunately, the bill is extremely time sensitive, so if it is delayed in committee the negative financial consequences maybe almost as bad as if the bill does not pass.

Here is a set of links to more information about the bill and the issue:

Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act (to be amended by PA HB 1580)
Text and voting history of the bill
Original explanation of the SREC market issue (May 2011)
Response to inaction on bill (September 2011)
Updated explanation of the SREC market issue (October 2011)
PA House Consumer Affairs Committee (in control of sending the bill to the floor of the House of the General Assembly)
Find your legislator to tell them about your support for the bill!
Pennsylvania Solar Advocacy Day on Monday, October 24th in Harrisburg

Please make sure to tell you legislators that you support this bill and encourage them to act as quickly as possible.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

Rolling Stone on Obama's Environmental Policy

2011-09-21T10:00:00.002-04:00

Hello Readers,

I am in the process of researching the issue of US agricultural subsidies and their impact on the economy and the environment as part of my The Times Are A-Changin' series. I plan to start posting my findings in October.

In the meantime, I though I would share this with you... Last week, Rolling Stone magazine published an interesting piece on the things Obama can do without congressional approval to improve the US impact on climate change and the environment.

Check it out:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/environment-ten-things-obama-must-do-20110914

Enjoy,

Sean

Response to Inaction on PA HB 1580

2011-09-15T21:00:00.004-04:00

Hello Readers,

Tuesday, I woke up two hours earlier than normal to attend and speak at a breakfast-time discussion at Bucks County Community College about promoting solar energy jobs in Pennsylvania. The discussion took place in a warehouse-like room that is typically used to train clean energy professionals and students. There were two- to three-dozen people in attendance, and I was among the 8 or 9 speakers who represented a variety of solar jobs stakeholders, including several solar photovoltaic installers, a photovoltaic system owner, and a man from a veteran’s clean energy jobs training organization.

After all of the speakers had their opportunity to talk about the recent legislatively-induced turmoil in the Pennsylvania solar renewable energy credit (commonly SREC or officially SAEC) market, General Assemblywoman Tina M. Davis of Bucks County stood to respond to the speakers’ comments and take questions from the attendees.

The conversation that followed was quite lengthy and at times heated (and hopefully informative to the assemblywoman and the legislative aides of others who were in the room). Two points stuck with me as I drove back to my office in West Chester that morning.

The first point was brought up by one of the attendees, who indicated that Representative Chris Ross’ House Bill 1580 had 80 co-sponsors (out of the 203 members of House General Assembly – roughly 40%). That means that 40% of the House (including Democrats and Republicans and urban and rural representatives) have not only said that they would vote for the bill but are interested in personally putting their names behind the bill!

However, Representative Ross has not introduced the bill to the floor because he believes it is likely to fail. This leads me to the second point, which was brought up by Rep. Davis when she asked whether or not we had hired lobbyists to promote our cause. She also told us (the attendees in general and solar photovoltaic installers and small business owners specifically) directly that we need to put more effort into getting the attention of legislators.

I personally responded to this remark by telling her that many of us (well over 50 installers) had participated in a grassroots ‘lobbying day’ in Harrisburg. She also told us that ‘lobbying days’ in Harrisburg were not enough. To clarify, more than 50 small business owners and solar photovoltaic installers took time from their workday to walk through the capitol building in Harrisburg, going into legislators’ offices talking to the legislators (and their staffers) and handing them a two-page summary of the issue and the bill. This is apparently not enough.

I recognized from the beginning this was not enough, which is why my company has sent information to all of our previous clients and urged them to contact their legislators. It is also why I have spent a week’s worth of time at work in the past three months contacting my representatives, encouraging others to do the same, and showing up at events like the breakfast that morning.

This brings me to my main point. While my company is surviving thanks in large part to our new, second office in Massachusetts and other out-of-state installations… while the typical payback time for a solar installation in Pennsylvania has gone from 4-7 years to 9-12 years even as installation prices continue to fall…while we have had to lay-off workers due in large part to the stalled Pennsylvania solar market… while all of this has happened, Pennsylvania state legislators have dragged their feet on the issue and looked the other way.

Even my own representative, the Honorable Dan Truitt, who has at least two solar installation companies and numerous photovoltaic system owners in his district has offered a lukewarm response to my multiple requests for him to support the bill. He has claimed it is a conflict of interest for him to support HB 1580. He explained that he is in the process of installing a system on his house, which will mean he will see some economic benefit from the bill passing.

I have a solution to that conundrum. Representative Truitt, please pledge to vote for HB 1580 and donate the roughly $1200 of additional annual income to a local charity. Problem solved!

The bill will help add stability to the solar photovoltaic market and save the thousands of solar energy jobs that exist in Pennsylvania. These thousands of jobs are not simply disappearing because of unfixable or intangible causes. The jobs are going to other states with more stable market regulations and more profitable SREC markets. Certainly, this benefit outweighs the benefit any lone homeowner (or state representative) will receive from a residential solar installation.

The investment money is pouring into and will continue to pour into US solar installations at least for the foreseeable future. The question is will Pennsylvania legislators act in time to bring that investment money back to PA (It has already left!) in time to save the thousands of existing solar energy jobs in the state?

Or will the legislators remain inactive leaving installers with the choice between the unemployment line and a move out-of-state? Will legislators remain inactive, leaving utilities (and utility ratepayers) in a perilous position in a few years as the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standardcreeps closer to the 0.5% solar requirement in 2021 with fewer in-state installation crews available? Will legislators remain inactive, forcing Pennsylvania utility ratepayers to continue to subsidize out-of-state solar installations (and the associated jobs)?

The slow initial rollout of the requirement for Pennsylvania SRECs was designed with the expectation that the PA solar industry would not fully develop until around 2015 (the year where the hockey stick starts to bend). It was designed before the federal government removed the $2000 cap onthe 30% tax credit for solar energy installations, which has ensured that solar photovoltaic installations will remain financially viable in the US through 2017 as PV module manufacturing ramps up to bring down prices.

The Pennsylvania solar requirement rollout was also designed before the state invested (past-tense, already paid!) millions of dollars in the form of the Sunshine Rebate Program to help ensure that the solar energy jobs and private investment money were attracted to Pennsylvania rather than elsewhere in the US. The Sunshine Rebate Program attracted attention (and monetary investment) more quickly than was expected due to the high demand for solar energy when the payback period was reasonable.

Thanks in part to the federal and state incentives over the past 2-3 years, there is now roughly 4 times more solar photovoltaic energy generated each year in Pennsylvania than is required for the 2012 fiscal year (June 2011-May 2012). However, this is still significantly less generation capacity than will be required once the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard is fully matured in 2021.

As a result, there will be a need for more solar installations in Pennsylvania before the decade is out. The Pennsylvania legislature needs to decide now (or rather 6 months ago) whether that need will be met smoothly with Pennsylvania citizens performing the installations (at a truly negligible cost to utility ratepayers and absolutely no additional cost to taxpayers) or through a rough and likely more expensive process starting in 2015 with out-of-state labor. Yes, the choice is that clear.

As I mentioned, PA House Bill 1580 works to resolve these issues but does not have enough declared legislative support to ensure its passage, which will need to overcome the long-standing and well-funded coal, oil, and natural gas lobby that understand and feel threatened by the long-term viability of the solar photovoltaic industry if it is allowed to get its wheels fully off the ground.

Legislators please take notice! Thousands of solar energy industry workers in Pennsylvania are depending on your immediate action to save their jobs. Tens of thousands of current residential and commercial photovoltaic system owners are waiting on your action to give them the financial payback they were promised. No one else is able to fix this situation. It is purely a legislative issue. It is your responsibility to fix! Act now!

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Hell and High Water: Texas Style

2011-09-08T10:00:00.002-04:00

Hello Readers,

In case you haven't heard, Texas is on fire! According to an article on Think Progress, the amount of the state that has been burned so far this year is the size of Connecticut (3.6 million acres). Most recently, the Bastrop fire (map) "has burned approximately 600 homes and 30,000 acres, according to the Texas Forest Service. The fire has set a record for the highest number of homes lost in a single fire in Texas history."

Of course, this is not just a standalone occurrence. It is the result of a multi-month heatwave and drought (a historic heatwave by any standard), and thanks to continuing climate change droughts and heatwaves are only going to be more and more likely over the remainder of the century.

For more details, I encourage you to read the Think Progress article: Hell and High Water Stoke Texas Blaze: “No One on the Face of This Earth has Ever Fought Fires in These Extreme Conditions”.

Stay Safe,

Sean

Alberta Tar Sands - pipeline decision

2011-09-06T10:00:00.006-04:00

Hello Readers,

Yesterday, I came across post about Obama's current predicament about the XL Keystone Pipeline proposal. I recommend checking out the post as it offers many links to resources and provides a review of the considerations that the president must take.

Also, you can check out the author's interview about the topic below:

...it's a bit dry, but its fairly thorough.

Enjoy,

Sean

Another EV: Smart's "ED"

2011-08-29T10:00:00.001-04:00

Hello Readers,

This is my last post for August. I plan on starting my regular posting again after Labor Day. I hope you stayed relatively dry this weekend!

A review in the New York Times of the "Smart ED"... it's a bit of mixed review, but we have to start somewhere.

~Sean

1000 Mile Electric Vehicle

2011-08-27T10:00:00.001-04:00

Hello Readers,

I plan on returning in full force in September. However, in the meantime, check out this article from Treehugger about an electric vehicle that went 1000 miles on a single charge.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

Solar Entreprenuership

2011-08-21T10:00:00.003-04:00

Hello Readers,

This month Forbes Magazine featured the CEO of my company, MainLine Solar, in an article about young entreprenuers. Enjoy the video below and check out the company website for more information or the full article.

~Sean

Shareable Cities TED Talk

2011-08-17T15:32:00.000-04:00

Hello Readers,

Enjoy this TED Talk about sustainable/shareable cities...

Airline Emission Editorial

2011-08-03T22:28:00.000-04:00

Hello Readers,

As you may have noticed, I took an extended break from my blog this summer as my workload increased significantly at the solar PV installation company I am helping run. Also, I took my first vacation (holiday) since finishing grad school last year to return to England for graduation.

For all the rest of you who find occasion to fly to, from, or within the European Union, you may find some interest in an EU plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes that land or take-off in Europe. Please see this recent editorial in the New York Times for a few more details.

It is likely that my posts for the rest of the summer will be infrequent; however, you can take some small measure of solace in the fact that the US debt limit was raised this week, so it looks like the everyone owed money by the US government will be paid (at least for now).

Till later,

Sean Diamond

zero packaging grocery store

2011-06-27T10:00:00.001-04:00

Hello Readers,

This week I am going to focus on food subsidies. As I pull my thoughts together on this matter, I wanted to point out a "new" type of grocery store that is being created in Austin, Texas. It is a grocery store that specializes in bulk foods with no disposable packaging. Check out this article about the store called In.gredients or watch the youtube video:

This is a great idea for a grocery store. In fact, it would be great if every grocery store was like this. However, I do need to point out that this idea is not new. This is exactly what open-air food markets and farmer's markets have done for hundreds of years.

Really, the question should be why did grocery stores stop offering bulk foods as their primary way to sell food? And why is every meal sold packaged individually in two or three layers of plastic?

Peripherally, I will be answering these questions and other food related questions while trying to tackle the issue of excessive food subsidies in the United States.

Stay tuned,

Sean Diamond

a non-ruling on climate change

2011-06-22T10:00:00.004-04:00

Hello Readers,

According to a recent New York Times article, the Supreme Court has rejected (refused to entertain) a lawsuit filed by several states, New York City, and others against several major utility companies. The lawsuit sought to force these utility companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Supreme Court has (citing a 2007 ruling) declared the Environmental Protection Agency is the sole part of the government with the expertise (and authority under the Clean Air Act) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

I encourage you to read the full NYT article for all the details; however, one particular quote intrigues me:

“The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job [regulating greenhouse gas emissions] than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “Federal judges lack the scientific, economic and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.”

While I agree with Justice Ginsburg, I am worried that if there is a congressional repeal of the EPA's regulatory authority, this quote/mentality may be used to deter judges from later making a necessary ruling.

On the other hand, this quote/mentality may be a good argument against a congressional repeal. In fact, it may suggest if the EPA's current ability to regulate greenhouse gas related grievances is insufficient, a congressional improvement rather than repeal may be needed.

I will be sure to post on this topic again as it appears in the news.

Sean Diamond

Bill Ford's TED Talk

2011-06-21T10:00:00.002-04:00

Hello Readers,

I thought you might find this interesting. Bill Ford (of Ford Motor Company) has given an interesting TED Talk. It discusses potential efficiency gains in driving and transportation technology. It also offers an interesting look into the thoughts of an automotive industry leader. He even briefly references Ford's upcoming release of an all electric vehicle (the electric Ford Focus).

I would be curious to see what you think of his suggestions. While he does focus a lot on car-based advances, I am a little surprised to here him advocating for public transportation. Just imagine that suggestion from an auto executive 10 or 20 years ago.

Happy Summer,

Sean Diamond

Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

2011-06-17T10:00:00.075-04:00

Hello Readers,

This is the second part of the discussion based on the post Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age. All of the previous posts in this series are listed at the bottom of this post.

I was asked: "But Sean, if it comes down to it, will you really want to retire at 78?!"

Simply put, no. I do not want to wait that long to retire. I do not think that anybody does. Unfortunately, if nothing changes about the current social security payout process, there will not be any such retirement benefits for my generation at any age! The system will have been bankrupted before I reach my 60s let alone my 70s.

However, I don't know that I would necessarily need to wait so long to retire if my proposal were implemented. Other than self-funding my retirement until social security kicked in, a combination of 'early retirement' and 'semi-retirement' could be a great option.

Official 'early retirement' is already allowed under the current social security program (allowing participants to collect a lower amount of benefits over a longer period of time). I don't see why this would need to change. I would think that entering early retirement and working part-time at age 73 would be preferable to being required to work full time until my life expectancy of 81 (or longer, as it was pointed out in the comments to the proposal that life expectancy and lifespan can certainly differ).

The question was posed: "What happens when the life expectancy plateaus or declines?" Under my proposal, social security would remain intact. Despite having the name 'social' security, the program was designed such that individuals should not ever collect more in retirement than they contributed while working.

Aligning social security benefits more closely with individual citizen's needs (as opposed to desires for long retirements), the program should also be able to better weather inter-generational fluctuations in the ratio of workers to retirees by decreasing the length of time for which people are entitled to collect social security benefits. Eventually, this may even allow the program to be retuned to take in less and allow more people to save more money individually for retirement.

Every individual would find out what their retirement age is during the decade they turn 50 (between ages 41 and 50). Under current life expectancy conditions, everyone would have 20-30 years or more to plan out their retirement. If life expectancy declines to the point where most people are dying in their 60s or earlier, there would be less time to make plans and save money. Yet, there would also be less time for which plans and funds are required.

Of course, if the life expectancy in the US falls below 50, my proposal would indeed run into some difficulty. However, I would posit that in such a case 'retirement' would be the least of our worries. This may sound callous, but it is extremely practical.

Finally, I must point out that this progression of posts has attempted to touch upon a topic that could take a couple of books to resolve: reforming social security in order to keep it permanently intact.

To make any progress in this matter, readers must concede that the purpose of social security is to promote the security of our citizens at the end of their lives. It cannot be to fully support multi-decade retirements. To expect a 15-25 year retirement after only working for 40-50 years is simply not sustainable at a country-wide, multi-generational level.

Furthermore, the current program structure exacerbates the problem by requiring significant political momentum to accrue on a regular basis to make the tough decision to alter the retirement age periodically. Thus, with some modifications as brought out in this discussion, my proposal still stands:

The United States government should enact legislation that implements an automatically adjustable retirement age for social security retirement benefits, such that: during the decade in which citizens turn 50 their retirement age will be set at an age that is 3 years less than the average United States life expectancy at the time.

While this will not 'save' social security as it is now, it will certainly go a long way toward making it financially sustainable.

Posts in this series:
The Times They Are 'A Changin'
Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Response: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

I hope this series helps to start a lively discussion. Please look for the next series of posts related to climate change and national debt, which will discuss: reducing or eliminating farm subsidies that result in overproduction of unhealthy foods.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

a plastic bag manufacturer complains, files lawsuit

2011-06-16T10:00:00.002-04:00

Hello Readers,

You may have heard about the plastic bag islands hovering over the Pacific Gyres. You may have even seen it on TV... for example this 2004 CBS News Report (sorry about the preceding commercial... I do not necessarily agree with whatever might appear prior to the news report). Or perhaps you just understand that plastic grocery bags are an unnecessary bit of waste as the EPA has been suggesting for years.

Well, according to a recent New York Times article, a industry leading plastic bag manufacturer is now complaining that Chicobag (a reusable bag manufacturer) has been making damaging and misleading advertising claims. The NYT article points to one particular claim sited in the plastic bag manufacturer's lawsuit against Chicobag: "that ChicoBag’s Web site cites Environmental Protection Agency information that is outdated. The E.P.A. no longer endorses estimates like the one ChicoBag cited: that only 1 percent of plastic bags are recycled. Mr. Keller [Chicobag's president] said an industry site used the same figure until recently."

Perhaps there are more claims in the lawsuit, but it does seem as though this lawsuit is more likely an attempt to rack up court fees against a smaller competitor rather than right a wrong.

Reduce by Reusing!

Sean Diamond

Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)

2011-06-15T10:00:00.023-04:00

Hello Readers,

So far I have proposed the implementation of an automatically adjustable retirement age for collecting social security retirement benefits and reviewed some of the comments that the proposal prompted.

After considering all of these comments, I would like to put forward a few counter arguments and clarifications to defend my position as well as a few amendments and concessions to help sharpen my proposal.

Yet before I continue, I must clarify that the proposal would not force the elderly to remain in the work place. It simply delays the age at which government-funded social security retirement benefits could be collected. Anyone who has enough personal savings to retire would still be perfectly capable of retiring. Such self-funded retirees would just have to wait for social security payments to kick in at the same age as everyone else. To my knowledge, the current system also works this way just with a much earlier retirement age.

A lot of the comments focus on the extra burden placed on each aging individual, so a majority of the discussion will have a similar focus. Retaining more seniors in the work place admittedly has the potential to pose difficulties for individuals, families, companies, and/or society. Thus, altering the legislation would need to be accompanied by a shift in corporate culture as well as society in general.

After innumerable conversations with my grandfather, who is currently in his 80s and regularly recounts his doctor's advice to stay active, I find a great deal of difficulty with assertions that encouraging a later retirement age will decrease life expectancy. To the contrary, I would suggest that allowing and/or encouraging seniors to remain active in the workplace just a little bit longer may be to their benefit.

However, as one comment pointed out, "[J]ust because the average life expectancy has increased, does not mean that people's capability to work/support themselves has stretched out likewise." Unfortunately, this is largely the case. As people age past middle age, their stamina and mental acuity often decline, which could lead to frustration for seniors, coworkers, and customers.

Still, this difference between youth and age does not necessarily mean that seniors are incapable of working. Instead, it may just mean that contemporary career ladders need to be reassessed. Today, most careers (at least in theory) start off with 'entry-level' or apprenticeship work move onto some version of team leader or 'mid-level' management and then progress to an executive or 'senior-level' management position before heading into retirement.

Of course, modern career paths are often fraught with diversions, road-blocks, and side-tracks. Yet, the pattern typically remains the same: the older and more experienced a person becomes the more responsibility is placed upon them up until retirement. Perhaps this career arc needs to include a bit of socially lauded decompression.

This could take a variety of forms ranging from simply allowing for decreased working hours for more elderly employees to allowing aging workers to start to assume mentoring or less strenuous positions with lessened direct responsibility. This sort progression already takes place to some extent when seniors 'come out of retirement' to take on part-time jobs.

This discussion is continued in Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2).

Intro to USDA subsidies

2011-06-14T10:00:00.001-04:00

Hello Readers,

In preparation for the next topic in my The Times They Are A-Changin' series, I encourage you to take a look at this Climate Progress blog post about USDA food subsidies. Here are some visuals from the Climate Progress posting:

Don't worry, the rest of the conversation about Social Security reform will continue on Wednesday and Friday this week.

Happy Tuesday,

Sean Diamond