Reader Feedback

  • Suppose you go to the beach. What would you rather see on the horizon, a bunch of oil rigs or a bunch of windmills?
    A bunch of oil rigs
    A bunch of wind mills
    A bunch of both
    Neither
      
    Free polls from Pollhost.com

The Answer Desk

  • GOT A QUESTION?
    Got a question about environmental economics? Why do economists like benefit-cost analysis? Tradeable permits? Ask an environmental economist at the Answer Desk.

November 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 05/2005

« Couldn't they just require one of those bike-bell thingies? | Main | $4/gal. gas makes a lot of sense »

August 20, 2008

Green vs Green

We haven't talked about a good environmentalist wild-west style shootout in a while.  Authorites in California have endorsed the construction of a 150 mile electricity transmisson line to carry power from wind and solar projects in the desert to San Diego

State law requires utilities to supply 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2010 – a benchmark SDG&E has said it cannot meet. The San Diego utility supplies 6% today.

Unfortunately the transmission lines are proposed to go through some pretty areas and some environmentalists aren't too happy.

The idea that we’re going to sacrifice critical pieces of our environment to protect other pieces of our environment seems a little ironic,” said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the nonprofit California Parks Foundation. “That’s an irony I cannot accept. We have to find a way to do both.”

The governor find this ironic...

It’s a kind of schizophrenic behavior,” the Republican governor said recently at a Yale University conference on climate change. “They say that we want renewable energy, but we don’t want you to put it anywhere.”

...and so do I.

Comments

It's not the same people, obviously.

People who are not, broadly, environmentalists like to think the bucket holds a single type but that's not at all true.

People who are in it for the "pretty" many not be the same ones who are in it for the "health."

Replacing existing infrastructure with new infrastructure has an environmental cost!??!!

Who would have thought that?

Oh wait i did....multiple times. In fact I have written that here....multiple times.

environmentalists seem to come in a few common flavors however.

1) Altruistic but ignorant do-gooders
2) commercial interests playing on these peoples fears
3) A very few smart people who lack universal perspective (they tend to be grouped with the #1 group)

environmentalists seem to come in a few common flavors however.

1) Altruistic but ignorant do-gooders
2) commercial interests playing on these peoples fears
3) A very few smart people who lack universal perspective (they tend to be grouped with the #1 group)

operative word "seem", I guess

(Put another way, does everyone not in 1,2,3 support paving Yosemite for a new WalMart?)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogads

Subscribe

Search


  • Google



Google Ads



Stats




  • View My Stats

WSJ.com: Environmental Capital - WSJ.com

Common Tragedies

Environmental and Urban Economics

Globalisation and the Environment

Knowledge Problem