We need to figure out the science and economics for engineering a "soft landing" into a green future, from the fossil fuel based economy we depend on today.

This is more important than figuring out who's at fault.

For reducing climate change, I think we need to figure out the science and economics for engineering a "soft landing" into a green future, from the fossil fuel based economy we depend on today.

More important than figuring out who's at fault, We need to think about things like this. How to implement solar? Is nuclear fission okay? Can we figure out hydrogen fusion. Can we develop hydrogen as a chemical fuel for transportation? Can we make public transit more convenient? How do we plan neighborhoods for affordable housing? Should we think of natural gas as a "bridge fuel;" better than coal or oil at least?

These questions interest me more than who's to blame for the situation we are now in.

Tariffs could mean shock therapy toward "buy local." Painful, but maybe what some folks, even on the left, wanted. Be careful what you ask for.

One potentially good thing about tariffs is that they could push local sourcing of supply chains, versus global supply chains. There are people who do complain about the so called "thousand mile salad;" food sourced from all over the world.

Locally grown produce is said to be better, though many of the folks, who celebrate local, still drink coffee; a product produced far from Bellingham, for instance.

I don't drink coffee, but I use chocolate and I do tend to eat from the thousand mile salad. In winter this area produces less variety anyway. In some areas, about all the agriculture there is would be grazing beef cattle; such as the high sagebrush deserts of Southeast Oregon.

Maybe we can adjust, however. Reduced consumption can help. I hear that the auto industry, which straddles many sides of international borders, is likely to take a hit.

This situation could result in a form of shock therapy toward re localizing of more supply chains. There are many tradeoffs in life. Be patient, hold on tight through bumpy waters and remember the Chinese proverb of blessing or curse, "may you live in interesting times."

Inflation coming again from tariffs and local sourcing. A different outcome than reducing inflation which is why so many people voted for Trump. It may, however, bring reduced consumption and localizing of supply chains.

Is belief in climate change and or belief in God just a hoax?

Some people feel that climate change is a hoax. Other people might feel that belief in something like a god is a hoax.

The objective truth stands separate from our own perceptions of what each of us think is the truth.

A concrete jungle may not be so bad after all given wildfires at the low density urban / rural fringes of cities like Los Angeles.

Inner city neighborhoods tend to be more resilient to wildfire spread than areas who are trying to have the best of both worlds; natural setting and the California Ranch Style Home.

More on this topic.

Are Washington State's carbon limits actually reducing the state's carbon footprint?

Some Republicans in Washington State Legislature want quicker access to results for lower carbon emissions from the state to measure if things like Cap and Trade are actually working.

Personally, I have a different measure. What do we get in return from the money collected? It could be bringing us less traffic, expanded bus service, more trains to Spokane, than only one train that arrives after midnight, and so forth. Worth it.

As for emissions from this state, I think it's working, somewhat. Not always an easy measure, due to other factors clouding the results; such as state population, continued car addiction and economic growth. In spite of these other factors, clouding the measurement of results, are carbon emissions, from our state, actually going, down?

Debate over Los Angeles fires. Land management or climate change the cause? It's both.

I'll admit that land management might have the upper hand, but climate change may be a close second in the debate over why the fires were so bad.

I call myself a liberal, but it seems like most liberals have forgotten a good talking point for environmentalism that I learned in my 1970s city planning classes from college.

I learned that sprawl is bad. Building at the urban / rural fringe is problematic; especially if homes are spread out among fire prone natural landscapes. Good city planning tends to favor more compact development within "urban growth areas" versus so much encroachment into rural areas.

If houses are sprawling out into nature, it's likely that populism and anti government regulation, will take the side of the houses meaning a win for removing natural vegetation if the vegetation is fire prone. Populism will want to "pave paradise and put up a parking lot," as the old song goes; especially an empty parking lot as a fire break. Of course a full parking lot could mean car fires spreading from gas tank to gas tank. Good firebreaks are needed around development.

Still, climate change is an issue as the environment is likely to become dryer, do to persistence of drought as well as becoming warmer. Longer fire seasons in the forests and scrub lands, for instance.
Image I found on the net

Insurance and or government should just pay for FEMA type trailers to rebuild, after LA fires and call it good.

My quirky idea for rebuilding homes that have burned due to the recent LA wildfires. This idea also addresses the lack of coverage / insurance crisis as well as the government funding burden. Provide cheap modular structures; like FEMA Trailers, so people have a place to live and call it good.

If folks wish to rebuild something larger, or different, they can pay for it out of their own pockets; if their private insurance coverage doesn't cover rebuilding the home.

This solution can work for all people living in high risk areas; such as floodplains or the coast of Florida.

Like it or not. Adapting to a changing world.

I can think of two aspects of addressing climate change. One aspect is reducing carbon emissions. The other aspect is community resiliency. Thinking about the fires in Los Angeles, resiliency comes to mind. Something similar can be said about Florida and many other localities. As the natural environment is changing the need for things like better fire breaks is needed to protect people's homes from wildfires. This could mean altering the natural environment; such as introducing invasive species that are less flammable than the natural species of plants in an area. This may have to be done if people's residences are, basically invading that same natural area. Modern American homes and the natural environment, in an area, don't mix. Modifying the natural environment, since the residential areas are already nearby, protects the homes from wildfire.

This can be done carefully by thinking about what plants to put in an area to better suite that area for the "American lifestyle and neighborhood planning" that has already invaded the area; for instance single family homes scattered out among a forest or area of naturally flammable brush.

Another idea related to resiliency that is more compatible to not altering the natural environment is to alter our city planning and lifestyles. More compact and denser city planning can be another form of resiliency which creates less sprawl of homes and buildings into formerly natural areas. Less use of the automobile and more alternative transportation can help reduce congestion in denser development. Changes in lifestyles and expectations, to more urban and less consumptive living, can make urban life work and even thrive.

Similar thinking can apply to places like Florida where rising sea levels and storms can mean too much water, rather than too little. Retreating from the coast is one strategy as the ocean starts to reclaim low lying areas.

Making buildings and houses more resilient to fire, flood and wind is also a strategy. These are strategies of resilience given the other strategy of curbing worldwide carbon emissions is slow in coming or could be difficult to achieve. Reducing worldwide carbon emissions is said to be the best strategy of all, however. How is that done?

Similar to community resiliency on the local level, it requires changes in planning, lifestyles and technology. Changing the plant mix in an environment, such as altering things for better firebreaks is a form of change also, though it's less popular with environmentalists. That type of practice, building the fire breaks, removing the flammable forest, for instance may end up being what will be done; especially in the era of Donald Trump. Problem is, Trump is not noted for careful planning. Thinking carefully about how to alter an environment works better than just saying "nuke em and bring in the bulldozers."

Similar situations exist in places like Florida where rising sea levels are likely to change the map of Florida.

A graphic I found on the web. This indicating the potential flooding of Florida. Graphic: Green Policy 360

An idea for reducing conflict between landowners when siting wind turbines.

Here is an idea I thought of today. Financial proceeds from leases for wind turbans could be paid to a special district, rather than individual land owners. Then all the landowners in the district could divvy up the proceeds.

Reason I think of this is I can guess that some of the opposition to wind energy comes from property owners who's land is less desirable for wind energy. Maybe they resent neighbors who's land is more desirable. Financial benefits could be shared with all in the area; even those with no wind farms on their land.

Wind farms do have some impact on the view, wildlife and so forth. I've heard the phrase, "there ain't no free lunch." At the same time, there are things that may need to be done for the greater good; such as energy production.

I've also heard that one turbine in one of the Snake River hydroelectric dams can produce as much power as over 200 wind mills.

Still, I sometimes think of windmills as being like modern art sculptures. As long as we are using energy, there is some price to pay, though wind farms may not be the best alternative. They do dot large portions of the landscape. Solar may be the best alternative energy in many cases.

There is now lots of arguing over the potential siting of another wind farm in the Palouse Region of Washington near where I grew up.

Eastern Washington has many wind turbines. It seems like there are very few in more densely populated Western Washington.

With my interest in geography, I realize that much of Washington State's power comes the eastern part of the state. Big power lines cross the Cascade Mountains.

Much of the power comes from dams on the Columbia and other rivers. Some of the power comes from a nuclear reactor in the Hanford Reservation. Solar is a growing source also. Here in Bellingham, many homes have rooftop solar panels.

My photos from various bicycle tours over the years.

Wind turbine in distance near Ellensburg, WA. Power line near Snoqualmie Tunnel. Generators at Lower Monumental Dam. Palouse wheatfields near Colfax, WA. Solar panels on restaurant in Palouse, WA.

Advent of heat pumps can lead to increase use more areas using air conditioning.

Map I found from a few places online. Darker areas need more air conditioning.

I'd add that increasing use of heat pumps for heating will increase use of air conditioning in cooler cities such as Seattle and Bellingham as air conditioning is an easy add with heat pump technology.

Heat pumps are good, but they may add their own increase in use of air conditioning beyond the increase due only to climate change.

This can effect estimates as to who is likely to get air conditioning in future years and how much energy savings heat pumps will provide.

A need for the missing middle affordable housing can unite labor, minority, environmental and other interests.

Very interesting podcast about Washington State's new bill for affordable housing.

House Bill 1110, which legalized “missing middle” housing statewide. A conversation with Rep. Jessica Bateman.

After decades of effort by urbanists, housing has arrived as a political issue. Big environmental groups have come around to the idea that dense housing is a crucial climate strategy, support is growing from unions worried that their members can’t afford to live where they work, and polls show that the public is increasingly convinced that there is a housing crisis.

Over the last five years, a wave of good housing legislation has been building on the West Coast, spreading from California to Oregon and now to Washington state. In this last legislative session, some 50 housing bills were put forward in the Washington legislature and more than a half dozen passed, any one of which would have been historic.

One of the most significant bills that passed this session — and one of the biggest surprises — was House Bill 1110, which legalized so-called “missing middle” housing statewide. Every lot in the state will now be permitted to build at least two units of housing, four units when located near transit, and up to six units if some portion are set aside for low-income homeowners.

Podcast on Volts.

Arguing over goals not met and compensation not available fails. How about making next Climate Conference into a tradeshow for green energy technology?

Seems like COP29 climate conference at Azerbaijan was mostly a failure. Not worth the jet fuel it took for bringing the delegates there. The conference was mostly about arguing over who should pay for the cleanup; so to speak.

An elephant in the room was USA who I doubt will pony up any money since Donald Trump has won the 2024 election. Maybe the US private sector will contribute however. Wealthy individuals, non profits and corporations can make a difference.

Besides fighting in the global sandbox over money, no goals were set for reducing carbon emissions. In reality, setting goals doesn't do any good if they aren't followed. In spite of past goal setting, by elite delegates at past climate conferences, world carbon emissions continue to increase.

Might there be a better strategy to reduce worldwide carbon emissions. I got to thinking that a better conference plan could be a tradeshow to show off alternative energy technologies. A trade show instead of an argument over goals that don't usually get far from the documents they reside on. Take a page from the more optimistic and enjoyable trade shows that Las Vegas is famous for; tradeshows exhibiting new computer technologies.

Maybe there could be an uplifting tradeshow presenting solar technology where products are improving and the price of solar is going down. Other technologies, such as electric vehicles, energy storage systems and wind power would be there also. Even nuclear power and hydrogen fusion research could inspire folks about the future.

I tend to have somewhat of a cynical view about mainstream human culture versus the promise of innovation and technology. At the same time, I feel like my own personal life has some lifestyle innovations around less desire for money than most folks seem to have in this culture. Yes, money for survival and a bit more is still needed, but downsizing is a good thing. I do find that there are many people in this world who do value quality of life over personal pocketbook issues.

Rightwing backlash against efforts to address climate change.

Attempts to maintain status quo in our car dependent, sprawling neighborhoods fuels rightwing pushback against government's attempts to lower the carbon footprint. Increased costs for things like gasoline often do fall harder on low income people.

Being willing to accept change, in our lifestyles and neighborhood designs, could bring realization that using public transit is less expensive than expecting people to own cars.

We do need to make deeper cultural changes than just having governments pass rules to try and meet lower carbon emission goals. I still plan, however, to vote against Initiative 2117 to repeal Washington's Cap and Trade system. Maybe cap and trade wasn't the best design, but it's something to address climate change. Looking at it another way, it does fund lots of things that benefit our state, such as salmon recovery, public transit and road safety improvements.

Yes, I realize that public transit is not available in all areas or convenient enough for some people. I think it is more convenient than most people realize, however.

Transition to greener technologies tends to take time. Solar energy's rollout, for instance could end up being slower than the goals set by government mandates.

Laws that ratchet up costs, such as cap and trade's increasing limits on carbon emission credits as the years go by, are likely to keep ratcheting up the cost of fossil fuels. This will likely happen faster than our ability to make the changes we need so it's not surprising that there is pushback; from lower income people especially.

Still, it does look like the polls are in favor of keeping the cap and trade, for now, in Washington State; a fairly liberal state. Conservatism, partially driven by the wish to hang onto "status quo economic life" seems more pronounced in other parts of USA. The red states, for instance.

In the long run, we do need to accept change, at a deeper personal and cultural level, than just imposing it by government mandate. Government mandates, that inconvenience people, tend to bring rightwing pushback, however I still do vote for them, usually. They are better than nothing, but they often do get tossed out, given the mood of the nation, at the ballot box.

What's the best ways to ease off fossil fuel?

Harris is backing away from earlier comments related to a ban on fracking. Media "gotcha" sound bytes, but it does make sense.

I've always thought that it's better to try and reduce consumption of fossil fuels, rather than reducing production. Trying to reduce our fossil fuel addiction by cutting off supply seems to just cause political instability even threatening democracy itself as angry consumers react to high prices for the things they still depend on.

If we are in a "climate emergency" we could try bans on excessive driving, but making it harder for people to get to work could upend our economy and our democracy. We could declare another state of emergency, like we did for the corona virus. Jobs ended, people went on unemployment, folks stayed home and in some cases did find they could still work from home. Money was printed. Inflation sped up.

I'm not necessarily advocating this, but we could try and revolutionize society by slamming on the breaks again. During corona virus, it did save some lives and may have taught us that the constant rat race of our economy and the lust for money isn't necessarily the only values we have in life. Doing this is definitely a political minefield.

I still hope we can incrementally transition to a green economy while keeping civil society intact. Just outlawing something doesn't usually work. Some people think that outlawing something can push industry and technology in a new direction. There may be some truth to that, in certain cases, but there is also the political minefield if new directions aren't easy.

These topics are nuanced and complex so any "I'll just fix it if I get elected" statement, like Trump often makes, is something to be wary of.

The Republicans are running with us versus the elites politics. Now it's time for the Democrats to offer messages for a sustainable world.

Rather than trying to beat Republicans at marketing to the working class, I think Democrats need to appeal to the need for a sustainable society, versus climate change, authoritarianism and chaos.

They need to appeal to both the rich, powerful allies as well as the poor and working class.

Many of the wealthy are culturally liberal due to the correlation between education and wealth. Even many of the rich realize that taxes aren't all bad and personal wealth is of no use if society and the world around us is crumbing.

Contradictory demands stand in the way of transitioning to a greener economy.

Transitioning to green technology, while maintaining the American people's consumptive lifestyles, is likely to be very difficult. I listen to both liberal and conservative experts and I especially hear from conservatives about logistical problems with things like mandating electric 18 wheeler trucks. Things like weight of batteries + vehicle, given road weight restrictions, for instance. Another topic is sources for the minerals in batteries, given restrictions on domestic mining. There's lots of nimbyism and contradictory environmental concerns that need to be sorted through.

Some conservatives make good points about economic logistics; when they aren't just yacking about the culture wars.

I still think the economic transition is possible, but it will take a lot more patience than most people have in this era of blame and finger pointing. I think we can make these transitions, but the current culture of blame and greed puts obstacles in the way.

In an ideal world, technology would keep advancing and evolve into greener practices, but it will be difficult to bring a lot of changes without people, themselves, accepting change. We will need changes; such as using more public transit and less private cars, on the one hand, while on the other hand, accepting more things like wind turbines, solar panels, mines and even nuclear power.

Transportation is just one example, but people will need to be open to big changes across the entire economy.

Some of these changes can be seen as improvements, rather than sacrifices; such as enhanced safety of public transit versus private cars and the health benefits of things like bicycling. Benefits; such as the quieter world of electric motors versus internal combustion engines comes to mind as well.

Advancing technology can help us. I don't think we can go back to the past; especially with our much larger population than before.

I wonder if we can make the transition and changes we need, given the political climate and the fact that so many people feel like they aren't getting a fair deal. People seem to always want more wealth.

Our entire culture will need some deep changes not just at the top, but at the grass roots level as well.

I wrote this after hearing an interview on June 26 Pullman Radio News with Idaho Congressperson Russ Fulture. After his dismal post mortem of Biden's performance at the debate (to be expected from a Republican) he talked about electric truck mandates. Yes, if we use current battery technology, it adds extra weight, on road surfaces, to an already heavy vehicle for tractor trailers. There are lots of rules about weight of trucks on highways. That could mean less weight devoted to the load which reduces "economy of scale" in transport. More cost, or a need for less consumption.

I personally think mandates are a bad idea leading to lots of pushback. For instance about the vaccine, it's a good vaccine, but the mandates may have backfired in terms of the overall goal of getting people vaccinated.

An example of change in culture could mean going to more rail, for transport of goods, versus highway trucks, but rail lines need to be built and changes in the way business is done needs to happen. This could also mean some inconvenience with less door to door delivery, but we could go back to having more patience as consumers.

Barge on Lake Washington Ship Canal. Image taken during my June 2024 trip to Seattle.

He also panned the proposals to remove dams on the Snake River and the loss of both hydropower and barge traffic. Yes, that fits the narrative of contradiction. Barges that ship wheat out of that Northern Idaho / Eastern Washington region could be another way to reduce reliance on trucks, but there are proposals to remove the dams. Lewiston now calls itself "the seaport of Idaho" due to barge traffic on the Snake / Columbia River system.

Yes, lots of contradictions in demands for having an economy while protecting the environment. Logistics that will need to be dealt with.

Is it better for the environment to keep an old car or buy a new electric car?

There is a lot of misinformation circulating critical of electric cars. At the same time, there are some valid things to consider related to electric cars and transportation.

Considering how much driving one expects to do in their future, there is a breakeven point as to whether it's less consumptive to keep an old car versus buying a new car.

Not using a car at all, seems best to me. On the other hand, I would guess that buying a new electric car is far better, for the environment, than buying a new gas car, if one is buying a new car.

People might forget that the battery is only one part of the car and I think battery materials can be recyclable. The battery may not be as consumptive as some people contend, but buying a new car means more than just the battery. There is still the consumption in making a new car, be it either gas or electric.

For protecting the environment, is it worth buying a new car just to go electric?

Supposedly the liberal side of politics says buying an electric car is better for environment while some of the conservative side points out the manufacturing cost of a new car.

One of my mostly liberal friends plans to keep his old hybrid, a Prius, instead of buying a new electric as he only drives a few miles each year. For him, buying a new car might not be worth the impact as he doesn't drive that much. He usually prefers walking for most of his errands.

There is probably a breakeven point on what the best choice is dependent on expected number of miles driven. There could be common ground between liberals and conservatives.

I'm remembering, early on in the Obama Presidency, the program called "Cash for Clunkers." That was to encourage folks to take their old inefficient cars off the road for newer more fuel efficient models.

Selling more cars was good for the auto industry and back then the auto industry, along with it's workers, were in trouble. Chrysler and GM were close to bankruptcy along with many financial institutions during the 2007-08 financial panic. Obama's presidency was born into that panic which was happening at the end of the Bush Presidency. The auto industry, workers and a lot of banks were put back on their feet.

November's vote may be a test of Washington State's resolve to address it's carbon emissions.

Low gas prices and reducing carbon emissions are contradictory goals.

In November, there will be an initiative, on Washington State ballots, to repeal the cap and trade system that was passed by the legislature. Cap and trade has been accused, in the media, of making gasoline more expensive, in Washington, than surrounding states. November's vote may be a test of our state's resolve to address it's carbon emissions.

I tend to favor a simple carbon tax instead of cap and trade, but cap and trade is better than nothing.

Carbon taxing does tend to be regressive taxing, but my solution to that problem is to try and reduce dependency on automobiles for transportation. Public transit is more efficient, though admittedly not available in many areas. Public transit is subsidized by taxes and it is something that the cap and trade, or tax revenue could go to.

Using public transit also reduces the need for another big expense with automobiles; the rising cost of car insurance. I'm still amazed that the bus fare to Mount Vernon, from Bellingham, is only $2 general, $1 senior on the County Connector buses.

Exxon CEO blames public for failure to fix climate change.

In the news I read; Exxon CEO blames public for failure to fix climate change. It looks like something I would say. I tend to blame consumption on consumers though I realize both producers and consumers share blame.

Have oil companies exacerbated the problem, or have they just been passive suppliers for consumer demand?

A big factor, not mentioned in the articles I saw, is the role played by politics; especially the role played by the Republican Party driven by populism. Climate change denial is still very strong among the public at the grass roots level. This is capitalized on by politicians, such as Donald Trump, who oppose measures to address climate change.

This political push doesn't necessarily come from corporations, but from politicians who rally populist segments of the public. Often the rallying members of the public are less educated about science than even corporate executives who may recognize the climate problem, while being inconvenienced by it.

I'll admit one can't totally blame average individuals for fossil fuel consumption as individuals are embedded in an economy that runs on fossil fuels. Still changes can be made with things like transit planning, zoning, carbon taxes, research, subsidies and so forth to move us toward reducing carbon emissions, but there is a lot of pushback, about these needed changes from voters and the politicians they elect. Part of that could be caused by voter apathy as who votes determines who wins.

I also think part of the problem is most people don't see the big picture. There isn't consensus around a vision for how all these things need to change together ranging from consumer behavior to technology to the way our landscapes are zoned and planned.