Tagged: Economy

2008 Ford Escape Hybrid Test Drive and Mental Strife

We’re fortunate enough to be comfortable in these trying times, so – and I’m rationalizing - we should be thinking about stimulating the economy in whatever way we can; getting a new car at the same time seems like as good a plan as any. Buying a new car is a large purchase so it’s reasonable to think one may teeter on the decision. But, I think I’m more conflicted than most would be. Obviously purchasing something that fits our lifestyle and future plans is important, but I also want to raise the national average miles per gallon (if only fractionally) with whatever vehicle we purchase. Only a handful of automobiles that would fit our needs would do that. One of those is the Ford Escape Hybrid.

Over the weekend, Katie and I test drove a used 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid. Besides being a most terrible bright blue color, the test drive went just fine. We’ve been talking about possibly getting a new car since this country’s dire economic state makes for good deals . . . except on Ford Escape Hybrid of course. The problem is that these damn Escapes are harder to find than Sasquatch. Why won’t Ford build more!? We averaged over 28 mpg on our jaunt through Granite City, Illinois, home of the demonstrating steel mill worker, and happened to drive by an affordable housing project I recently worked on that’s under construction; it’s looking great!

As you may know from reading this blog before, we live in a loft in downtown St. Louis. I walk to work and my wife takes our one and only car, Samosa, to work. The problem is, when you’ve decided you want something, you generally don’t listen to any counter arguments. But, yesterday I broke out our scooter, Tofu, for the first time in 2009 to get to a board meeting. The ride was a bit chilly, but relatively short. Being able to travel independently made me question the need to another car, which would make the third motorized vehicle for a family of two humans (four if you include our two four-legged creatures).

Is that being “green”? Am I being too hard on myself for wanting the ability to move around quickly and conveniently? Clearly hypocrisy would play some part if we bought a new car, but would it involved enough that the decision would categorize abandoning my beliefs? Okay, so I’m being a little dramatic.

Buying a car doesn’t mean that it would automatically get used an extraordinary amount. This is great from a fuel-burning standpoint but probably not the wisest economic decision. Additionally, I would have no need for the car sharing program downtown. Using this program has been relatively convenient but also emotionally rewarding. Subscribing to the one car per person norm would only be the status quo, no worse. And owning a hybrid would make being in that classification slightly more bearable, but that’s no way to fight the good fight. Ahhhh.

Stimulated by Stuff

Stuff. Things. Trinkets. Widgets. Doohickeys. Our economy is based on the consumption of the aforementioned. That’s not a good thing, but that’s reality. I would love to live in a world where “things” lasted longer than they do now and money was spent on, and people were employed providing, services to enhance our overall quality of life. A new enlightenment if you will, but structured around experience, health, awareness, etc . . . Dream over. The issue at hand is how can the economy be “righted” by spending money on stuff. Infrastructure aside, the debate revolves around whether people should be put to work directly through government spending or by giving taxpayers money back to spend how they see fit . . . in theory at least. This is where the problem in logic arises.

How can conservatives think increasing tax cuts will more quickly recover the economy? Seriously. I’m all for more money in my pocket but that’s exactly where it will stay. In this conservative La La Land of economic thinking, those who need money the most will get the least. Further, some conservatives don’t want to give any relief to those who don’t pay taxes. Ignoring for a moment that these are the people who have been most marginalized by society and need the most help, isn’t the idea here to help those who need help, not give a pro rata share of money back to those who paid it in? It’s one thing to hold this thinking as a philosophy, it’s entirely another to think it will stimulate the economy.

There are items in the latest stimulus bill which give me pause but spending money on infrastructure and creating a domino effect of spending through job creation seem like the most effective and speedy ways of invigorating the economy. Tax cuts and/or rebates will go into consumer spending or savings. The former doesn’t create jobs in the short term because everything being bought has already been made, and once the stimulus money is exhausted, spending will stop. Companies will not hire more people or ramp up production in anticipation of this and because they all the need extra money to shore up losses or pay people who are owed money. The latter may catalyze markets but most of this money will just sit in cash accounts until something worth investing in comes along, which will be a while if we’re not investing in anything substantial.

The vote along party lines for the stimulus bill doesn’t bode well for Obama’s dream of putting partisan politics aside and working together to help “one America”. Fortunately my team has the majority of votes. Unfortunately that doesn’t necessarily mean wise decisions. Hopefully the new transparency professed by Obama’s adminstration will shed light on waste and eliminate it. I’m happy to see the philosophical basis of majority of our elected officials in Washington move toward compassion and selflessness but we must all remain aware that wasting money is arguably worse than being efficient but selfish with it.

A New Day

My high from the election is waning, but my hope is doing anything but, even as evidence against a bright short-term future mounts. My only complaint from the regional election is that two public transportation propositions failed in Missouri. Sucks. Does doing something that’s the exact opposite of right justify stupidity? What next, bailing out poorly managed companies that signed bad labor deals and put out junky products for the last few decades? Oh wait . . .

Obama & Co. seems to be doing as promised thus far. His team seems qualified, though not as new to Washington as I had hoped. Perhaps the Clintonites will add the experience Obama’s detractors thinks he lacks. We’ll see. Their task is monumental.

So, last week, the Oxford English Dictionary awarded ”hypermiling” its word of the year award, 15+ months after yours truly posted “A Mile Case of Hypermiling” on this very site. Check out both links, and kudos to the OED for finally getting its stuff together. I’m kidding of course.

Anheuser-Busch is no more. Half a victim of a crappy US Dollar and half a victim of a crappy foreign growth strategy, the All American Beer is now Belzilian (Belgian + Brazilian). Oh well. While it’s a sad day in STL, the future of this city hangs on so much more than one company. Let’s get over it and kick some ass.

I’m all over the place today. Woo hoo!

Who Turned Out The Lights?

Apparently it was the Bureau of Land Management, which said recently that an extensive study was needed to determined the environmental effects of the construction of large solar plants in the Western U.S. Helping the environment getting in the way of helping the environment. Sucks, doesn’t it?

So, coal plants are being shut down before they open (yeah!) , nuclear is on the hot seat and now solar projects are on hold for up to two years. From where will we get all the energy we need to waste? By the way, you can discover more about the moratorium from Dan Frosch here. A few tidbits from the piece though:

  • The manager of the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact study, Linda Resseguie, said that many factors must be considered when deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being proposed, among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers often hire environmental experts to assess the effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel.
  • While proponents of solar energy agree on the need for a sweeping environmental study, many believe that the freeze is unwarranted. Some, like Ms. Gordon, whose company has two pending proposals for solar plants on public land, say small solar energy businesses could suffer if they are forced to turn to more expensive private land for development.

Clearly there are two positions here, and on the surface both have the planet’s best interest involved, intentionally or not. Of course if I had a contract to produce and sell energy made from the sun I’d be hard pressed to agree with the moratorium. But, I don’t, so thinking a little caution is warranted is easy. Plus, building in the desert has already had enough negative environmental impact; my heart bleeds for the desert tortoise and the Mojave ground squirrel.

So why am I still feeling conflicted? Because, stopping large scale solar installations will have a negative effect on the entire solar industry. The average consumer who is considering the purchase of photovoltaic cells for his house or company will now suffer as well. The benefit to society of large scale technological innovation and implementation is that variations of that technology can be made available to you and me at a fraction of the cost, in a safe and efficient form. Solar technology will only get more efficient and cheaper over time. Stopping the production of solar plants for two years means delaying the small-scale benefits to individual consumers by two years, at least. While solar panels on homes and automobiles and factories won’t stop all greenhouse gas production, their mere presence raises awareness, and a little enlightenment goes a long way.

John McWhatThe . . .

I feel like I’ve been apologizing quite a bit recently for posting sparsely. Well, apologies for all the apologies, and once again for the original apology’s catalyst. The much more steady communicator, Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, sent me (and thousands, if not millions, of others) this email a few hours ago:

The Curious Senator John McCain
June 9, 2008

Richmond, VA — It’s getting harder and harder to understand where John McCain stands on energy. Here’s his story, just this year:

First he was against all subsidies. Then his policy staff told us that solar and wind did, after all, need tax credits even through McCain had voted against these. Then he was against subsidies again, except that there weren’t enough of them for nuclear in the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill, so he couldn’t support it. But he was definitely for renewables, efficiency, and for serious action on global warming. 

Then, today in Richmond, a donor offered him an entirely new version of his position, which McCain promptly embraced. McCain was gung-ho about nuclear power and expanded domestic drilling for oil and natural gas. When a donor in Richmond summed up his advice as “nuclear, and drill wherever we’ve got it,” McCain responded: “You just gave my speech. Thank you, my friend.”

This new position contradicts all previous versions of McCain’s stated energy goals, makes doing anything meaningful about global warming impossible, and puts McCain solidly in the “all-oil, 24/7″ Bush wing of American politics.

What’s clear is that John McCain is not only John “McSame” in regards to the Bush Administration’s economic policies, he is also completely mercurial in regards to effective environmental policy. What’s most frightening is that McCain’s inability to advance a concrete set of ideas related to the environment will hurt not just the planet, but the economy as well. If smart environmental policies are not devised and implemented, America’s energy and economic future will continue to hinge on the decisions of other countries, only some of which are friendly towards the U.S.

I think I’m finally over the high caused by Obama’s yet-to-be-made-final triumph. The real work starts now, and the biggest part of repairing the harm done to this country over the last eight years is to raise the overall awareness of Americans. If the facts can be communicated to the average voter, Obama will win by double digits.