A Huge Dilemma: Bailing Out the Big Three

It appears that the troubling economic cloud looming over America will continue to impact our nation's economic climate, as yet another bailout package has been proposed for a sinking industry. More than a month ago, a $700 billion bailout plan was approved to resuscitate the ailing financial sector. Now, constituents of the automotive industry are begging for a injection of capital from the government to ensure their corporations survival. U.S. companies GM, Ford, and Chrysler, otherwise known as the Big 3 due to their majority stake in the domestic car market, are seeking a sum of $25 billion to help keep them from filing for bankruptcy. Numerous media outlets have picked up the story, including The San Francisco Chronicle, which features the article "Congress Debates Industry Bailout" on the front page of their website. The article offers an analysis of the gloomy situation the manufacturers are facing, citing several reasons for their downfall, including the credit crunch and longstanding poor managerial practices. The blogosphere is also teeming with debate over the issue, as individuals have been weighing the pros and cons of extending aid to the corporations considered over expanded and ill equipped to continue to viably operate. One blog featured on Newsweek's website, "In Defense of Detroit," concedes though the Big 3 have been "a disgrace," their vitality is nevertheless of integral importance to the American economy. Conversely, I found another Internet editorial with a differing view on the automotive site The Truth About Cars. In "Is the American Automobile Industry Worth Saving? Pt. 2," writer Robert Farago disputes that though GM, Ford and Chrysler do have a sizable presence in the U.S. auto market, they only constitute 50% of the market share and employment has steadily declined since 2000 (see graphic to the right). He furthermore asserts $25 billion is simply not enough to save the manufacturing giants from their impending fate. Instead, they should be left to fail to ensure their "rebirth" into more efficient and streamlined corporations, dexterously able to respond to market and consumer demands. After reading each of these two posts, I felt compelled to offer my own opinions on the subject. While my comments may be found under the comments section of each blog, I have provided them below for convenience.

"In Defense of Detroit"

Comment:

Mr. Gross,

Your article provides important insight as to why it is imperative domestic automakers receive a government backed cash infusion similar to the package granted to our ailing financial sector. It can be a tricky matter understanding the complexities of the many interrelated issues impacting our economy, and the plight of car manufacturers happens to be one of them. You bring up an interesting point that filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is an expensive and extensively drawn out process for companies like GM, Ford, and Chrysler. In rationalizing this assertion, you write, "people would be reluctant to purchase expensive, long-lived assets from a bankrupt entity." Though the Big Three’s products appear to match these asset types, why do you hold this to be true? Is it because no matter what the market conditions, consumers demand a constant supply? It seems that in a significant downturn like the one we are facing, it would be a shrewd option to declare Chapter 11 and sell cars at a significantly discounted amount. Though consumers may be presently reticent to purchase large expenditures, if price tags were reduced to an incredibly attractive figure, vehicles could be sold at a high enough volume to possibly lift these manufacturers out of bankruptcy. Your discussion of the regional implications resulting from this sector’s potential collapse warrants reconsideration by those currently against the proposed bailout package. The forecasted figure of three million jobs lost nationwide is enormous, especially given the realities of the economic recession. It is significant that a large number of businesses in our country, large and small, have some affiliation with the U.S. automobile industry. According to a recently published article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Detroit lawmakers claim that one in ten jobs are tied to domestic vehicle manufacturing. Though these figures may be somewhat inflated, the inextricable nature of this sector with other currently fragile parts of the American economy grants legitimacy for a plan to keep it from failing. Though I agree with your arguments supporting the existence of U.S. carmakers, I worry that the proposed amount may be too little, too late. $25 billion may not be enough to save the sinking industry from its fate. Hopefully though, the amount will be enough to keep these corporations from bankruptcy, yet will be insufficient to keep them from operating in their current state. The Big Three need to downsize and streamline operations in order to realign with the marketplace and become attractive again to American consumers.

"Is the American Automobile Industry Worth Saving? Pt. 2"

Comment:

Mr. Farago,

I found your arguments against the issuance of a bailout package for U.S. car manufacturers to be extremely informative. It is important to examine this type of governmental expenditure given the current economic downturn. You bring up several great points in defense of your assertions. I agree with you that companies composing the Big Three (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) are bloated corporations in need of an overhaul. They need a shake up that will restructure their management and restore their prominence as premier American brands, delivering products with amenable features customers want. However, I believe it should be a concern of our nation’s citizens that foreign automobile makers have such a stranglehold on the domestic market. I do not share your sentiment that this is an unavoidable reality. American cars can indeed make a comeback through careful revision of their manufacturers and their subsequent realignment with the market. You advocate that the industry should be left to fail, yet what do you think about this sector’s synergy with other areas in the economy? According to the Center for Automotive Research, as many as 2.5 million workers could become unemployed nationwide if any one of these corporations go bankrupt. That is a significant amount of jobs lost, especially considering the recession is expected to raise the unemployment rate considerably by the year’s end. It is true that the Big Three have been consistently unable to competently respond to foreign competition, and they have indeed been mismanaged for years. Yet they appear to exist as a cornerstone of the American economy and job market. Therefore, wouldn’t it be a better plan to keep these corporations afloat, but in doing so demand they concede to requirements they have been avoiding for years? Stringent mandates could be attached to the bailout, successfully realizing the implementation of guidelines such as higher fuel economy standards. These types of policies would not only help to address environmental concerns, but they would help automobile manufacturers to put cars on the road better matching the evolving demands by consumers for more innovative products. I agree with you that “the new car ‘bubble’ has burst,” but more pragmatic policy approaches could be introduced to address the U.S. carmakers than to simply let them fail.

Great Change Ahead: The Dawning of a Green New Deal

Several weeks ago I wrote a post emphasizing the importance of electing a president who would focus attention on the issue of climate change and the development of renewable resources. I argued Mr. Obama was the candidate best fit to undertake t task, and his subsequent appointment certainly represents momentous change for Washington and the United States. However, the President-elect now faces a myriad of challenges during his presidency that could potentially delay the advancement of sustainable energy policies. The current condition of our nation’s economy is a principle worry among many, as the American people face a recession projected by experts to be as bad The Great Depression of the 1930s. Rising unemployment rates, decreases in household wealth, and stifled growth across numerous sectors are just some of the realities facing the once-mighty American market. Similarly, European countries are experiencing the same struggles, demonstrating the inextricable interconnectedness between many national economies. Consequently, the worldwide downturn has led citizens of the U.S. and those of foreign countries to call for decisive global action similar to The New Deal, which was enacted by President Roosevelt to counteract the turmoil he faced during his term (see graphic left). This contemporary version would introduce a series of policies and reforms to combat the slowdown by converging social welfare programs with increased governmental involvement in both the private and public sectors. Differing from FDR's New Deal, which utilized public works projects to stimulate the U.S. economy, a contemporary version would rely on the advancement of sustainable practices and alternative energies to restore the health of markets worldwide. Despite the promise of such a program, critics contend its likely exorbitant cost would be an overbearing burden on already financially troubled countries. Other naysayers cite fundamental economic theory, which holds that the present market conditions do not encourage the necessary investment and development of new technologies and fuel types. While I acknowledge the legitimacy of these concerns, the potential benefits associated with a Green New Deal, including the possibility of greater social equality through expansion of an entirely new market sector, would garner enormous promise for the future.

There are numerous realities potentially undermining the success of an environmentally focused New Deal. One of the major worries is the costly price tag associated with such a plan, as well as its potential to distract policymakers from addressing more critical issues. A piece featured in Time Magazine, "Will Green Progress Be Stalled by the Bad Economy?" reflects this pessimistic outlook. It contends that the present climate is causing many European governments to re-evaluate the markedly higher greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets they put forth in 2007. It appears the cost to realize these initial figures is forecasted to be $100 billion per year, a financial strain many nations cannot afford, as more pressing issues require government attention and spending. This then is problematic for legislation that promotes the development of various alternative energies yielding benefits in the long term. Additionally, basic economics also appears to have the potential to deter the launch of a Green New Deal. Discussing the matter is Newsweek, citing Fatih Birol, the chief economist for the International Energy Agency, for his analysis of the realities of a recession. He argues that during a downturn, commodity consumption decreases, and so too does the price of energy. Therefore the current stagnant market conditions do not induce the proper incentive for investment in the development of alternative sustainable fuel sources such as solar power and ethanol production.

Still, despite these potential deterrents, a number of factors support the likelihood of a modern New Deal. Many people feel that a new source of economic growth is needed in order to adequately remedy the world's current ills. It is my belief that the development of a “green industry” represents the greatest potential for expansion, and this outlook has been supported by a number of sources. Pete Altman, Climate Campaign Director for the NRDC, asserts that investments in clean energy "create more jobs per dollar invested than tax cuts, military spending, or oil and natural gas” (see graph). In review of the data, it would behoove the elected bodies of nations’ with climbing unemployment rates to encourage the growth of these areas. In addition, social reform groups view a "green revolution" as a way to bring wealth and greater equality to marginalized members of society. Van Jones, founder of the organization Green For All, envisions the creation of a "Green Growth Alliance," formed to champion the cause of minorities in the name of sustainable development. He claims "we can take the unfinished business...of equal opportunity, and combine it with...a green economy, thereby healing the country on two fronts and redeeming the soul of the nation." Thus Mr. Jones sees the encouragement of this emerging sector as vital in not only increasing the number of jobs available to Americans, but a method to provide more opportunity to low income earning individuals. I too agree with Mr. Jone’s belief, as the industry's relative infancy enables social welfare groups the ability to influence how it will ultimately take shape. Engaging in dialogue early on can effectively establish the interests of the constituents they represent. Furthermore, another strong indication that suggests the likely implementation of a plan of this sort is that world leaders, including newly elected President Obama, hold energy independence and investigation into other resource types to be a top priority. The American President is quoted in a Time Magazine interview, saying, "there is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.... That's going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office."

In review of the arguments concerning the feasibility of a Green New Deal, I find that a program of this type could not be launched at a more vital time. According to the previously cited Newsweek article, American employment rates are expected to climb from 6.1% to 8% by the end of this year, the highest they have been in twenty-five years. Introducing this plan could stave off further unemployment and provide new opportunities for workers. Furthermore, in the past two months, the United States has witnessed an unprecedented degree of government intervention in the form of the $700 billion dollar bailout that was quickly passed through the Congress to assuage the financial markets. This, in tandem with the prospect of a significant economic downturn, reflects the reality that the United States may witness a degree of change not seen since The Great Depression. The parallels between our current situation and that time period are too similar to be ignored. Though we may have fallen on hard times, I believe that hitting the bottom allows us to start anew, to reevaluate the policies of our country, and implement new plans that can ensure the future success of America. Thus, I believe 21st century New Deal would be a viable way to address the many social and environmental ills we currently face today.

Santa Monica's Prop T: A Local Sustainability Debate

Last week in my post "Election 2008: Seeking the Greenest Energy Plan," I offered a detailed analysis of the energy strategies put forth by each candidate and why Senator Barack Obama possessed the most comprehensive and suitable option. This week, I came across a topic of local interest currently being debated amongst residents of the city of Santa Monica, a municipality plagued by traffic ills due primarily to a daily influx of working commuters (see graphic to the right). In an effort to reduce automotive congestion, a group of local residents have banded together to form The Coalition for a Livable City. Their solution to the problem has been introduced on this year's ballot as Prop T, known also as RIFT (Residents' Initiative to Fight Traffic). It identifies commercial development as the principal contributor to traffic in Santa Monica. To remedy this, it calls for a cap on this building type at 75,000 square feet each year for 15 years. Opponents of the measure counter that this stringent imposition will do little to lessen the number of cars on the road, and will actually stifle future progress made by the community government's ratified redevelopment road map, the LUCE Strategy Framework. A variety of local media outlets cover the ongoing debate over the efficacy of the initiative, including ABC 7, which features a video on their website showcasing its controversy (see graphic below). Additionally, Nate Berg, assistant editor of reputable source Planetizen, offers a well-balanced discussion of RIFT. Many blogs have also been offering analysis on this proposal, positioning it as a case study of municipal planning aimed to promote sustainable civic practices. After review of the comments made by the authors of various blogs, I felt compelled to share my thoughts on the matter. I came across a defense of Prop T by Peter Donald, a Santa Monica resident highly involved in civic affairs. His opinion piece "No On T Campaign Aims to Confuse" may be found on the Santa Monica Dispatch website, which has largely published supportive articles on the measure. Mr. Donald identifies commercial development as the prime contributor to traffic, and that private developers are putting a negative spin on the proposal. Another post comes from the blog No On Proposition T (RIFT) in Santa Monica. It is operated by Neal Payton, a native of the city who works in downtown Los Angeles at a urban design firm. He staunchly opposes the initiative, and his blog has become a preeminent resource for those in the online community who believe it would be ineffective in accomplishing its goals. Among the numerous oppositional posts on his blog, Payton features one titled, "Proposition T in Santa Monica is my Candidate for the Worst Urban Planning Idea of the Year." He writes that advocates of the measure are using the issue of traffic to mask their underlying belief in the need for less commercial development. This opinion piece is featured in the popular blog site Streetsblog. I have left my comment here because his post at this location has already generated significant discussion. While my comments can be found under the comments section of each blog, I have provided them below for convenience.

"No on T Campaign Aims to Confuse"

Comment:

Mr. Donald,

Thank you for your insight as to why Prop T is a viable regulatory measure for helping to reduce traffic in Santa Monica. While I am not a resident of the city, I am a proponent of initiatives that promote sustainable civic practices. In reviewing arguments put forth by supporters and opponents of the proposition, I am able to see why the topic is so divisive. With over 10,000 signatures and support from several prominent city council members, it appears that Prop T enjoys a major backing by its residents. However, I ponder the process used by proponents to substantiate advocacy of the proposal by the public. It seems to me that as is true for most political issues, the methods for garnering support can be suspect. A good deal of those cited to be in favor of Prop T may not have ever fully understood both sides of the issue at hand, instead opting to initial their approval of something they were told would be an instrument to effectively reduce traffic in Santa Monica. I tend to agree with your logic that “it seems counterintuitive that less commercial development will have no affect on reducing traffic volume.” However, while this may in fact be true, do you think that this initiative is one that adeptly addresses the identified issue? In my analysis, I only see that it only slows down the impending rate of traffic entering the city. Because of Santa Monica’s beauty and the myriad of activities it offers, it will always be a destination for tourists and individuals from the surrounding Los Angeles area. Thus, I find that Prop T would not be a viable solution in helping to reduce the basic contributors of congestion ills. Instead, it would behoove Santa Monicans to support initiatives providing incentive for locals to utilize alternative means of transportation. Furthermore, members of the community could vote in favor of building infrastructure including public transportation that would support the city’s evolution into a more transit-friendly community. Thus while I understand why you support Prop T, I see it as a measure concerning not the issue of traffic, but one that asks its residents whether or not they are fundamentally opposed to further development in their area.

"Proposition T in Santa Monica is my Candidate for the Worst Urban Planning Idea of the Year"

Comment:

Mr. Payton,

I have found your critical assessment of the merits of Prop T to be quite compelling. While I am not a resident of Santa Monica, I do believe in the implementation of sustainable civic planning policies. I find your argument that the methodology used by the Coalition for a Livable City was ineffective and outdated to be very interesting. If this were indeed true, then the foundation for this measure would be based on faulty premises. I ask you though, how did you know that this was the case? You assert that "their tool is the product of a methodology born in the 1960's," but where did you locate this study? After searching through both various websites in support of Prop T and Santa Monica civic websites, I have been unable to locate the subject of your analysis. I agree with your belief that this initiative targets more than just traffic reduction. This being said, I question the motives of its backers. I understand the clear interests of private developers and the frustration this may cause some people. However, as you have intimated, if this is not singularly about traffic, what do voters who do not have an interest in commercial development have against private development? If the answer is that they have no qualms, then it seems to me that a great deal of residents in support of this issue are voting on the shallow supposition that stifled development lessens traffic. Though I am not a professional planner, based on common sense I would agree with the logic of the argument put forth by Prop T advocates that freezing commercial development would consequently facilitate a renewed emphasis on residential housing. If an underlying aim of this initiative is to offset the imbalance between commercial and residential building types, wouldn't removing an option to build more commercial thereby stimulate construction of residential housing by developers? I understand your argument that a policy of this type leaves the potential for "mono-culture" type residential buildings, but if the principle short-term issue is a lack of housing options for commuters, then enacting measures that facilitate expansion of supply seems to be a sound maneuver. Nevertheless, because of its ambiguity concerning what it is attempting to address and my lack of confidence in its degree of effectiveness, I am not in favor of Prop 10.

Election 2008: Seeking the Greenest Energy Plan

With Election Day less than two weeks away, the United States stands on the precipice of what may be the most significant presidential election in recent history. Financial woes, increasingly tense foreign relations, and a multitude of domestic issues are just some of the difficulties plaguing our nation. However, chief among these concerns is America’s exorbitant consumption of foreign nonrenewable resources. It is therefore imperative that the next Commander-in-Chief establishes this topic as a premier priority during his term, by directing policies that facilitate energy independence and alternative fuel development. While John McCain and Barack Obama possess similar beliefs in the need for renewed focus on how the nation derives its power, their means of implementation fundamentally differ. Careful analysis of each Senator’s proposal and scrutiny of past voting records reveal which candidate looks to be the best suited for dealing with our energy problem. A number of blog and news sites have been comparing and contrasting the ideas put forth by the two presidential hopefuls, and in critically assessing the arguments championed by these sources and each candidate’s plan, I have drawn my own conclusions about who is best fit to tackle the country’s energy crisis.

John McCain's plan, The Lexington Project, reflects his underlying belief that government intervention in free markets should be avoided when possible. Geoffrey Styles, author of blog Energy Outlook offers an interesting analysis of McCain's stance on the matter. He argues that the Republican nominee advocates enacting measures that focus on achieving results through the use of incentives to stimulate private industry. Under this model, encouraging investment would develop technologies necessary for alternative fuel development. For instance, Senator McCain has proclaimed that if elected, he would hold the Clean Car Challenge, a contest open to the public that would award $300 million to whichever party could markedly improve the current rechargeable car battery. While it aptly demonstrates the use of rewards to catalyze progress, I find this type of competition to be a gimmick designed to placate voters who want alternatives for the way in which automobiles are powered. America’s growing energy issue must instead be addressed with much more aggressive legislation to ensure necessary change. The Arizona Senator’s disapproval of involvement by the federal government is made further apparent by his objection to the introduction of a federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The proposal would institute the adoption of alternative fuel types by requiring specific benchmarks to be to be achieved. Instead, he believes that such consumption milestones should be left to the discretion of the states. I see a distinct problem with this however, as some of them have not elected to enact any form of stringent regulation in the past. Thus McCain’s two principle strategies are not aggressive enough in reducing America’s reliance on foreign nonrenewable resources. Under laissez faire policies, free markets have not adequately responded to the nation’s true energy needs, while vesting regulatory powers to the states, which eschew heightened emissions standards and the mandatory use of different fuel types, would continue to allow unabated energy consumption. His support for these types of policies reveal why his expectations for carbon emission reduction, 60% below 1990 levels by 2050, are substantially more modest in comparison to Mr. Obama's declared cutback goals. Yet if these examples were not enough to show the degree to which John McCain prioritizes America’s energy crisis, the Republican nominee has been quoted for stating his disbelief in the ability for alternative fuels to provide a greater supply of power to America. An article written by Joseph Romm cites a YouTube video in which Mr. McCain declared at a town hall meeting that "the truly clean technologies don't work.” Furthermore, the Senator’s extensive voting history portrays him as a representative who by and large has not supported legislation that deviates from traditional power sources. Susan Kraemer, a correspondent MatterNetwork, reveals how Mr. McCain's record in the Senate affirms this fact. Thus a significant part of the presidential candidate's strategy centers not upon diversified investment in new technologies, but continued reliance and expansion of existing policies and practices. His proposal to drill into America's untapped oil reserves does not reflect an emphasis on utilizing renewable resources, and his long-term plan to build forty-five nuclear power plants by 2030 has been criticized for its feasibility and the danger nuclear technology presents. The Senator has also reported his support for developing clean coal technology at a cost of $15 billion per year, though the probability of the technology actually coming to fruition has been shown to be suspect. Such solutions proposed by John McCain represent the inadquecy of his plan to solve our nation’s energy crisis.

Barack Obama considerably differs in his view of how the United State's energy woes should be remedied. He puts forth a plan demonstrating his belief that results can only be truly achieved through substantial government involvement and spending. This proposal is dissected in a similar way by Geoffrey Styles, who offers that the Democratic candidate advocates a hands-on approach, as current policies concerning the energy market has not properly facilitated an environment necessary for encouraging the development of alternative fuel sources. Instead, he writes that Mr. Obama would implement a system which would “[entail] the collection and redistribution of many hundreds of billions of dollars--not temporarily…but on an effectively perpetual basis.” This quote emphasizes the permanence of this policy type, which directly contrasts with the temporality of the current Republican administration’s decision to stimulate the financial markets through an injection of federal capital. Thus, the presidential hopeful emphasizes the need for legislation that would set mandates enforced by the government in order to guarantee energy improvements. I believe this is a more effective strategy, for it would force companies and states, two groups largely held unaccountable for their emissions, to adhere to more stringent requirements. Furthermore, unlike Senator McCain, Mr. Obama supports the federal RPS, which would make it mandatory for the United States to produce 10% of its electricity from renewable resources. Commitment to this policy demonstrates his confidence in a diverse set of alternative energies as viable solutions to satiate our nation's consumption needs. I feel that this underlying optimism, in tandem with real regulation, is the recipe for successful results. Not only this, but as Its Getting Hot In Here discusses, the Democratic candidate views alternative energy development as a significant source for new jobs and industry, a growth driver which would help lift our country out of the current recession. Additionally, Barack Obama favors higher fuel efficiency standards for consumer vehicles and has stated that if elected, all new cars produced in the United States would be forced to fulfill flex fuel requirements. I think that these types of systematic government regulatory measures should be encouraged, for they ensure that the United States is energy self sufficient through a diversified portfolio of renewable resources. To emphasize just how reliant we are a single fuel type, the graph to the right illustrates the disproportionate amount of petroleum used by our country. Dependency on a single energy source has resulted in the substantial influence of oil interest groups in Washington, a lobbying constituency that represents companies who desire to maintain their control as primary suppliers of American fuel. I fervently believe this has led to policy benefiting a select few, while sacrificing the greater good for many. Thus, Barack Obama's call for encouraged development of alternative fuel sources is encouraging, as it lessens our dependence on oil and introduces positive competition into the industry. The subsequent diversification of resources that results not only decreases the influence of unchallenged oil companies, it facilitates the development of more efficient methods of fuel production while breaking our dependency on foreign companies for our energy needs. Addressing each of these concerns in this way would actively solve the growing crisis our country currently faces.

Though both presidential hopefuls hold the energy issue to be top priority, I find Barack Obama's comprehensive proposal is better suited to enact the degree of change our nation needs. In studying the past, it has become apparent that hands on federal intervention is the most expedient and reliable way to encourage and embrace the integration of alternative energy into our country’s power grid. Though it would be the largest degree of involvement seen in this industry, Mr. Obama’s energy plan ensures an overhaul of this sector. Furthermore, our economy is in need of new growth drivers, and a reduction in dependency on foreign oil would not only be economically shrewd move, it would likely decrease our potential for conflict abroad as well.

Sustainable Connections: A Guide to Green Tech and Real Estate

This week I scoured the web to aggregate twenty informative, respected blogs and websites devoted to sustainable practices and real estate. I feel that this coalescence is valuable, for it provides readers with additional resources to explore as they read my blog postings. Utilizing criteria put forth by the IMSA and Webby Awards, I judged these sites based on the level of user activity, as well as their depth of content, structure, visual design, functionality, and interactivity. These resources have been broadly broken up into groupings pertaining to the environment, sustainable technology, sustainable urban development, and resources and sites devoted to championing the cause of sustainability and real estate. While access to these sites is available in my linkroll, I have included my analysis of each site below.

The first two sites focusing on environmental issues I found to be of interest were Envirowonk and Gristmill. While both of these are devoted to coverage of the environment, their strength and significance lie in their analysis of political issues as they pertain to environmental issues. Referenced in my politically focused post last week, Gristmill is an outstanding resource because of its depth and breadth of coverage. Yet the opinions of its bloggers tend to be written with a heavily influenced liberal viewpoint. Therefore readers should take this into account when perusing the site. Envirowonk's visual design is far superior to Gristmill's and thus is recommended for the casual viewer looking to brush up on current political and environmental events. Two other websites similar to these are Treehugger and The Daily Green. While Treehugger provides news on a wide range of disparate topics such as fashion and transportation, its writers manage to dexterously craft their blog postings in a manner that is relevant to the environment. The Daily Green is similar in this way, although it appears as though the site's main purpose is aimed at targeting consumers drawn in by the idea of "going green." Evidence for this is substantiated by the number of "How To" articles detailing how to reduce one's ecological footprint. Significantly however, this website has a consumer-centric focus, positioning its content in an attempt to market and sell consumer products. While a good resource, it is advised that readers take into account this site's capitalistic leanings as a potential distraction. The next websites I found center upon sustainable technology and alternative energies. Ecotech Daily and Earth2Tech are two well-organized blog sites that provide balanced coverage of sustainable technology. Both of them appear to value simplicity as an aesthetic, grouping their coverage of sustainable technology advancements into broad, overarching categories, such as "Water" or "Environment." This facilitates an enjoyable experience for a casual viewer who wants only to peruse postings of interest. However, both websites do not tag their articles. This can be frustrating for a reader who is searching for specific areas of interest. Cleantechnica is another website which features environmental coverage as it relates to technology, but significantly offers a disproportionate amount of information concerning renewable and alternative energy. Similarly, Ecogeek, co-developed by Hank Green, the man who also developed Envirowonk, focuses on technology but has a great deal of coverage spent on technological advancements benefiting the automotive industry.

In my search for web resources, I also came upon several sites that thoroughly covered the topics of sustainable urban development and design. Inhabitat is a fantastic sustainable design blog that contains a myriad of resources and websites found conveniently on the right side of its page. Furthermore, it appears to have a loyal following of people who regularly comment on the site. For those who are interested in forward thinking architecture and design, BLDGBLOG is a great resource. A unique element of interest for viewers is its interview section in which forward thinking ideas are gleaned from architects, planners, and academicians. Ecoble is a site that proclaims its purpose in providing exposure for "Sustainable Design, Environmental Innovation, and Green News." The blog site stays true to its tagline, although it tends to offer postings that have a more intimate impact on individuals, in contrast to coverage of current events impacting people on a grander scale. For those seeking greater interaction between technological advancements and sustainable real estate, Green Building Elements adeptly balances both. Articles are interesting and grounded in sound scientific principles, yet are written in a way that continues to capture reader attention. Additionally, New Urbanism is a site that declares it is concerned with "Creating Livable Sustainable Communities." While it provides a vast number of articles and resources pertaining to topics such as sprawl and urban redevelopment, the site lacks a vibrant community. This negatively differentiates it from the many other sites I have included. Consequently, visitors of the site must take their thoughts elsewhere, a disappointment considering that it is an organization presumably desiring to attract members.

I gathered other sites that are helpful resources and organizations meant to equip readers with the means to help encourage and support sustainable living practices and sustainable real estate. Low Impact Living is tailored to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions to lower their carbon footprint. The website's layout is well designed and features the ability for viewers to calculate their environmental impact. Similarly, Energy Star, an inception by the government in 1992, features a website detailing the possibilities available for sustainable practices to be structurally integrated into new and retrofitted buildings. While informative for consumers, the site is especially helpful for those involved with construction and civic planning. Similarly, the USGBC is an organization that aims to "make green buildings available to everyone within a generation." To keep its many members informed, the organization's website has an e-newsletter and a section for its members where they can participate in forum discussions. For those interested in purchasing a home, Listed Green is a great resource for finding ecofriendly energy efficient home across the country. This site is a great idea, but the relative lack of listings unfortunately reveals how small the market is for these types of buildings. Though largely a site dedicated to the discussion of planning and development, Planetizen features articles discussing the costs and pros and cons of going green. Furthermore, Jetson Green is an outstanding resource for finding information on sustainable design and innovation, yet its appearance is drab and frankly a bit tedious. Its tri-color scheme, possibly an attempt at a simplistic aesthetic, actually makes it hard to navigate and differentiate the different parts of the site. I have found these resources to be extremely helpful and informative, for they serve as viable supplements to my blog's content.

Uncertain Times for Renewable Energy: The Congressional Tussle Over The Renewable Energy Act

While in last week's post, "The Sahara Forest Project: Oasis,or Mirage?" I chose to cover The Sahara Forest Project, a largely conceptual sustainable development project with political and environmental implications, this week I chose to focus attention on the current congressional
conflict over the bill H.R. 7060. This piece of legislation, also known as The Renewable Energy Act and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008, seeks to provide $17 billion for renewable energy industries, most notably concerning those involving solar and wind. While the bill does benefit the oil industry by providing tax credits for heavy oil refineries, it is a piece of legislation that is extremely beneficial and important to the sustainability of renewable energy industries. Most notably, it extends the existence of Investment Tax Credits, considered pivotal to the sustainability of the solar industry. Despite the positive contributions this bill provides, it is currently under debate by members of the House and Senate. The bill, covered by news website Bloomberg, passed by the Senate last week by a 93-2 vote margin. It was then passed by the House by a 257-166 vote margin. Significantly however, amendments were made and have thereby stalled the bill's progress (see linked graphic above).

After perusing the blogosphere, I came upon several reputable blogs detailing coverage of the bill that compelled me to respond to their posts. The first of these posts came from Gristmill, a well-regarded environmental news blog. The post, titled House vs. Senate, was written by Kate Sheppard, a D.C.-based political reporter that writes not only for Gristmill, but also for other well-known media outlets such as The Guardian and MSN. I wrote a comment on Ms. Sheppard's post, as I found it to be a well written account of not only the benefits outlined within Renewable Energy Act, but also the influential role interest groups play in passing legislation. Her apt usage of quotes from members of the House are also effective in providing understanding as to why there is considerable disagreement over certain elements concerning the bill. Another blog post I came upon was found on Matternetwork, a news and blog website which promotes and provides awareness for sustainable ideas and practices. The post, titled House Fully Funds Renewable Energy Act, Possibly Sinking It, was written by Susan Kraemer, a correspondent for Matternetwork. She has written numerous postings that have received a high volume of web hits. I commented on Ms. Kraemer's post because I found her critique of the bill's current status to be a bit more argumentative. Her exasperated account of the hurdles facing the passage of the bill reveal how bipartisan our politics can be, while furthermore revealing how imperative The Renewable Energy Act is for the sustaining the advancement of
renewable energy industries. Ms. Kraemer ends her post with an interesting and informative excerpt from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website (see linked graphic to the right).

Many, including myself, worry that the House and Senate will continue to fight over provisions of the bill, including most importantly whom will foot the bill. These delays, in tandem with our country’s current dismal economic outlook, make it look as though the bill will not pass before the end of the year, ringing a death Nell to companies involved in sustainable energy. While my commentary is available under the comments section of each blog, I have also provided them below.

"House vs. Senate"
Comment:

Thank you for your concise, yet informative coverage of the ongoing legislative battle to pass the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008. H.R. 7060 is a bill that I feel is of seminal importance to both our Nation's economy and security, as incentives for the growth of renewable energy can provide jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It is indeed frustrating that the bill passed through the Senate earlier last week but was then revised by the House. This is especially true since it was emphasized by the bill's proponents in the Senate that the bill pass without amendments. I agree with your conclusion that given this obvious roadblock, it is indeed unclear as to what the future holds for this bill. This is especially true given the nature of our economy's financial crisis.

The proposed $17 billion for the energy tax measure is a relatively small figure for spending when compared to the proposed $700 billion to resuscitate our failing financial institutions. The American economy is indeed in trouble, but there is a distinct possibility that providing funding for renewable energy industries would help prop up our economy. It was reported by Bloomberg correspondent Daniel Whitten that solar companies such as First solar Inc. and Suntech Power Holdings Co. would "create 441,000 permanent jobs and inject $232 billion in new spending into the economy by 2016." These are significant growth figures. We should be learning from the mistakes that brought us into our financial crisis. There must be greater emphasis on Green-tech and alternative energy companies within the American economy.

It is disappointing to see a piece of legislation with such promise look as though it may be shot down as a result of squabbling over who will bear the bill's cost. I find it disheartening that interest groups have such influence over matters imperative to both our economy and the environment. For instance, the objection to scaling back tax breaks for oil companies with foreign interests as a way to pay for renewable energy credits was obviously a reflection of House Republican's defense of their oil lobbyist's interests.

I hope that despite the focus on the proposal to spend $700 billion to bail out our financial institutions, the Senate and House can come to an agreement that will support and advance the renewable energy industry. If passing this legislation does not happen by the end of the year, the investment tax credits will expire, almost certainly crippling companies devoted to the advancement of renewable energies such as solar and wind.

"House Fully Funds Renewable Energy Act, Possibly Sinking it"
Comment:

I enjoyed your insight regarding the current status of the Renewable Energy Act, a piece of legislation that I find important to the support and advancement of the renewable energy industry. I agree with you that the amendment by the House may indeed cripple successful passing of the bill. As you intimated, it was a shrewd move by the Senate to combine the bill with aid for disaster victims affected by Hurricane Ike. Pragmatic decisions such as these provide for successful legislation. I feel that this was a diplomatic move emphasizing compromise, not a subversive tactic meant to strong-arm renewable energy legislation into being passed. However, members of the House evidently did not perceive it this way, as they extracted the two provisions into two separate bills. I believe that this was an unwise move, for packaging the funding this way would be a way in which both taxpayers could benefit from the Renewable Energy Act and citizens affected by the hurricane could receive aid.

Yet as you intimated, ultimately the struggle over passing the Renewable Energy Act may be irrelevant, as it is ultimately contingent on President Bush signing the bill into action. As you stated, he is not in favor of the Senate's request to fund the bill in a manner that would impact oil companies. I think that this is a travesty, considering that the bill only lessens subsidies for oil companies involved in overseas investment. This does not mean these companies would be taxed; rather, they simply would not benefit as much from their interests in foreign ventures. I feel that this is a small price to pay for the advancement and support of a growing renewable energy industry. In fact, to ensure long-term viability, energy companies heavily involved in oil should be looking to invest in renewable technologies as oil market instability continues and supply reportedly shrinks.

Failure to pass this bill would result in the expiration of Investment Tax Credits (ITCs), which provide incentive for investment in technologies such as solar, arguably the most successful renewable energy developed so far. If these were to expire, progress in this industry would be stifled. Many companies, including GE, have stated that their continued operations are largely contingent on the 8-year extension of ITCs provided by the Renewable Energy Act. These companies would then have to seek out other sources of funding, a gloomy prospect given our nation's current financial situation. Thus, government funding in the form of the Renewable Energy Act appears to be the most economically viable solution for the continued development of renewable energy industries- industries which possess tremendous growth potential and are thus vital to our nation's troubled economy.

The Sahara Forest Project: Oasis, Or Mirage?

As populations continue to increase and developing nations modernize, it has become accepted by many that humanity's current consumption patterns will continue to put a considerable strain on the world's available resources. Many forecast the date when resources will disappear entirely. Others have postulated ideas on how to mitigate this potential reality from occurring. While no one idea has been determined as the single answer for our civilization's continual growth and preservation, development of recent technologies gives us hope that environmental disaster can be averted. One idea considered for assuaging our resource needs is the concept of the "sustainable development." The idea of a structure that houses the ecological needs of humans in a self-contained environment has been discussed for years. While structures such as bio domes have been ultimately deemed economically inefficient, a recent announcement of a new structure may dissipate critiques of the effectiveness of sustainable developments as a viable solution to sustaining our resource consumption.

Earlier this month, a team of entrepreneurial innovators, planners and architects unveiled The Sahara Forest Project, depicted left. It is a considerable plan to transform the Sahara desert, one of the hottest places in the world. The project is a sizable undertaking, aiming to create a fertile, self-sustaining ecosystem by utilizing technologies that will provide water, energy, and ultimately food in one of the world's most desolate places. A variety of blogs and news sources covered the announcement, including Inhabitat and Treehugger. The Guardian, a well-known print and digital newspaper in the UK also featured an article covering the announcement.

The article examines how this project looks to make this seemingly impossible feat a reality. By utilizing two core technological concepts, Concentrated Solar Power and the Seawater Greenhouse, green technology correspondent Alok Jha writes that "the Sahara Forest project would marry huge greenhouses with concentrated solar power (CSP), which uses mirrors to focus the sun's rays and generate heat and electricity. The installations would turn deserts into lush patches of vegetation...and without the need to dig wells for fresh water." Thus, the project would be entirely self sustainable, as captured sunlight would continually power greenhouses that yielded electricity, water, and ultimately, food.

Another aim of The Sahara Project would be to produce a surplus of energy to help power other areas in the world, including parts of continental Europe. Leonora Oppenheim, a correspondent for sustainability blog Treehugger effectively outlines how the project would accomplish this. She writes that by combining and implementing both Concentrated Solar Power and Seawater Greenhouse, as much as 85% of solar energy could be collected, in comparison to a 25% yield by a conventional solar thermal power plant. The implications for this are enormous, as it could position Africa as the world's energy producer in the not too distant future.

Interestingly, the idea to make Africa a central energy provider to the world has already been envisioned by world leaders, manifested in a plan called DESERTEC. Developed and put forth by the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC), a group composed of European, Middle Eastern and African countries, DESERTEC is a plan attempting to provide Europe with at least 1/6th of its power needs by 2020. This looks to be a considerable undertaking, as the project will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 30 years. Still, as represented by the image to the right, a comparatively very small amount of land housing Concentrated Solar Panels in North Africa could power not only the European Union (EU) and Middle Easterners and North Africans (MENA), but also the entire world.

While on paper projects such as The Sahara Forest Project and DESERTEC look to be feasible and significantly positive contributors to the world economy, many weaknesses are attributable to both. A primary concern for projects such as these are their projected construction costs. Determining who will finance a venture such as The Sahara Forest Project will be problematic given not only the current financial climate, but who will principally benefit as well. Though the generation of potable water, vegetation and water would largely benefit African nations, these countries are presently ill equipped to finance such a technologically sophisticated venture. Local governments are having a considerably hard time feeding their citizens, relying at times on foreign aid. Still, the idea that The Sahara Forest Project could serve as a continental power plant could potentially attract fiscal consideration from European countries. I think that this is especially the case if European governments enact sufficient policy measures to encourage the importation of energy from Africa. Thus, if the project were to be realized, the onus would most likely be on European representatives to pay for the project in the short term, allowing African countries to reap the initial rewards, while benefiting in the long term by having a significant annexed energy source.

Furthermore, even if construction costs were realized, determining what body would act as principal controller of the project would be problematic. Eleven countries border the Sahara desert or semi-incorporate it into their lands, and cooperation amongst countries in this region has proven to be inconsistent. Furthermore, if the project were to involve European investment and supply power to European homes and industry, the governments of these countries would certainly want a say in matters of the project. This is because not only of financial interest, but also in matters of national security as well. Essentially having an external power plant outside of a country leaves them vulnerable to terrorist attacks and events out of their control, including inclement weather and civil strife.

Another fundamental issue concerning this project is a conceptual one. The Sahara Forest Project is touted as a sustainable development aimed at creating and maintaining electricity, water, and flora and fauna for the world's citizens. However, a fundamental problem with it is that it is really substituting one ecosystem for another. Implementing such a development usurps the naturally existing desert ecosystem in which plants and organisms live. While the Sahara desert is a harsh landscape for humans, it is nevertheless a naturally occurring biome on Earth. Thus, the realization of a project such as this imposes an alien, man-made ecosystem on an entirely natural one deemed sub-optimal for human civilization.

Despite issues associated with The Sahara Forest Project, I feel that it is conceptually an extremely compelling idea. As stated in an address by one of the team's founders Michael Paton at the 4th Annual Future of Science Conference, The Sahara Project is "a metaphor for any desert that formerly supported vegetation and could do so again, given sufficient water." Thus, if not actually implemented in Africa, the existence of the technology represents more than a step in the right direction for the promotion of sustainability. I would advocate that a project such as this be tried in a locale deemed safer for economic investment and under the control of a single country. This would be a reasonable response to the financial and control issues concerned with the project. In addressing the issue of the project being potentially invasive on an existing ecological system, I feel that in order to ensure the viability of both the human race and the Earth, sustainable practices must be implemented. In this case, the reward is much higher than the sacrifice. While certain organisms may be able to survive presently in the Sahara, it is more imperative that projects such as these are enacted to be evidence to the world of what positive change is possible to help the Earth and its inhabitants as a whole.