Given that all energy sources have environmental impacts and risks, people have to accept that while none is perfect some are better than others. Natural gas, solar power, wind and (waste disposal aside) nuclear are less damaging and less risky than coal, with its massive environmental impact, and oil, with its significant impact and politically uncertain sources of supply. And with hostility to the United States in the world, hostility to the Northeast in the United States, and hostility to New York City (and, by connection, the rest of Long Island) in the Northeast, Downstate would be wise to meet its own energy needs to the extent possible, and to diversify sources of supply otherwise, even at a somewhat higher cost (which would also encourage conservation) and despite some impact and risk. For New York City, relying on Upstate New York for additional electric power is a bit like relying on countries where Osama Bin Laden is popular for oil.
Category: News and Opinion
What I Would Do About Energy
|Given that all energy sources have environmental impacts and risks, people have to accept that while none is perfect some are better than others. Natural gas, solar power, wind and (waste disposal aside) nuclear are less damaging and less risky than coal, with its massive environmental impact, and oil, with its significant impact and politically uncertain sources of supply. And with hostility to the United States in the world, hostility to the Northeast in the United States, and hostility to New York City (and, by connection, the rest of Long Island) in the Northeast, Downstate would be wise to meet its own energy needs to the extent possible, and to diversify sources of supply otherwise, even at a somewhat higher cost (which would also encourage conservation) and despite some impact and risk. For New York City, relying on Upstate New York for additional electric power is a bit like relying on countries where Osama Bin Laden is popular for oil.
Browbeaten, Intimidated and Humiliated Into Not Betraying Its Principles, WFP Finally Does The Right Thing In Suffolk
|Chronology:
On October 28, 2006, in an article dissing the Working Families Party, I wrote:
“In the Senate Dem’s number two targeted race, against Republican Caeser Trunzo, WFP took sides in the Democratic endorsing the thoroughly decent David Ochoa against the thoroughly decent Jimmy Dahroug, who won the primary. As of this morning, WFP’s website still indicates support for Ochoa, whose presence in the race only helps Trunzo, and WFP has billboards all over Suffolk urging a straight vote on its line to ‘send a message’, which, I assume is ‘Joe Bruno, you owe us big’”
Downstate New York State Energy: NIMBYs Gone Wild
|In prior posts, I covered the energy situation for transportation. The good news is that New York City is an inherently energy efficient place, thanks to its high transit use and many pedestrian trips. The bad news is there is no political leadership to improve things further, by organizing a large-scale carpooling system for places not readily accessible by transit, for example. This post is about the energy required for other purposes, for heating, cooling, and use in buildings. Here again, the good news is that New York City is inherently efficient, since attached houses, apartment buildings, large office buildings, and other commercial space in multistory mixed-use buildings have less exterior surface area per square foot, and thus require less energy to heat and cool. And, the New York City lifestyle is energy efficient, because New Yorkers have less (because there is nowhere to put it) but do more. Making, moving and disposing of goods takes more energy than services, which rely on the human energy New York has in abundance. The bad news is that Downstate New York faces a local shortage of both electricity and fuel for heating, cooling and cooking — above and beyond the overall energy problem in the Untied States and the world — based on access to supply. And NIMBY’s gone wild, both outside the Downstate area and inside it, are blocking any and all possible solutions to that shortage, stoked by puffery from pandering local pols.
Downstate New York State Energy: NIMBYs Gone Wild
|In prior posts, I covered the energy situation for transportation. The good news is that New York City is an inherently energy efficient place, thanks to its high transit use and many pedestrian trips. The bad news is there is no political leadership to improve things further, by organizing a large-scale carpooling system for places not readily accessible by transit, for example. This post is about the energy required for other purposes, for heating, cooling, and use in buildings. Here again, the good news is that New York City is inherently efficient, since attached houses, apartment buildings, large office buildings, and other commercial space in multistory mixed-use buildings have less exterior surface area per square foot, and thus require less energy to heat and cool. And, the New York City lifestyle is energy efficient, because New Yorkers have less (because there is nowhere to put it) but do more. Making, moving and disposing of goods takes more energy than services, which rely on the human energy New York has in abundance. The bad news is that Downstate New York faces a local shortage of both electricity and fuel for heating, cooling and cooking — above and beyond the overall energy problem in the Untied States and the world — based on access to supply. And NIMBY’s gone wild, both outside the Downstate area and inside it, are blocking any and all possible solutions to that shortage, stoked by puffery from pandering local pols.
Productivity: Economic and Political Definitions
|Charles Brecher of the Citizens Budget Commission, in a New York Times essay, called on the MTA to enact productivity initiatives equal to the 2.5 percent average annual productivity gains achieved in the private sector, in order to reduce expenditures over time. As someone who has thought about this a great deal I agree with the concept, and not just for the MTA, but not with the number, for reasons discussed below. In political debates, however, the term “productivity” has been used for policies that have nothing to do with its economic definition. Economic productivity is an increase in output given the same amount of work, or a decrease in work for the same amount of output. Political “productivity” can be a reduction in total compensation for workers (generally non-wage benefits), an increase in hours or days worked given the same pay, or a decrease in the quality of services. Any and all of these may or may not be justifiable, but they have nothing to do with productivity. In general, a real productivity gain does not produce losers. By stretching the term where it does not belong, conservative policy advocates have created opposition where none should exist.
Productivity: Economic and Political Definitions
|Charles Brecher of the Citizens Budget Commission, in a New York Times essay, called on the MTA to enact productivity initiatives equal to the 2.5 percent average annual productivity gains achieved in the private sector, in order to reduce expenditures over time. As someone who has thought about this a great deal I agree with the concept, and not just for the MTA, but not with the number, for reasons discussed below. In political debates, however, the term “productivity” has been used for policies that have nothing to do with its economic definition. Economic productivity is an increase in output given the same amount of work, or a decrease in work for the same amount of output. Political “productivity” can be a reduction in total compensation for workers (generally non-wage benefits), an increase in hours or days worked given the same pay, or a decrease in the quality of services. Any and all of these may or may not be justifiable, but they have nothing to do with productivity. In general, a real productivity gain does not produce losers. By stretching the term where it does not belong, conservative policy advocates have created opposition where none should exist.
Render Unto Spitzer
|Earlier this year, some observers expressed shock that the right wing “Jewish Press” made an early and emphatic endorsement of Eliot Spitzer for Governor. I was not surprised. The endorsement proved that, however conservative the "Jewish Press" may be on social issues, the Orthodox Jewish establishment is more interested in being on the side that's winning, with all that entails, than with any social agenda. Or as one Rabbi once said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's". Or was that render unto Spitzer? (and with which character in the quote does he identify?)
Chris Owens Should Run For The 40th City Council Seat
|This advice is unsolicited. It comes after taking a long look at the field of entrants for the 40th City Council seat that Yvette Clarke must vacate soon, as she steps up to Congress. It comes after reading the response from Chris Owens to my “Grapevine #8” column, last Saturday (see “comments” section of the thread). I believe that Chris Owens will make the best candidate in this upcoming race; the problem is that he doesn’t intend to run.
Since that column, there have been a few new developments in the race, for example, recent rumors have Roy Hastick (founder of Caribbean Chamber of Commerce) moving to the head of the line and reconsidering his stance on running or not. I am told that the Clarkes (Yvette and Una) will support Roy if he decides to go. It’s also said that Haitian-American Michelle Adolphe is seriously considering the race, so too Wellington Sharpe. Then there are at least two possible entrants that I am not at liberty to divulge at present, and someone named Victor Babb who is nothing short of a political unknown.
Tricks Not Treats From Some Republicans
|As a pre- Halloween gift to the gullible, Urban Elephants posted a third hand report claiming that dead people are voting for Democrats in New York.
Via Instapundit, just in time for Halloween, despite Republican John Ravitz serving as head of the Board of Elections, it seems that the dead still vote frequently here in NYC– generally for Democrats.
So what will it take to clean up the New York voter database once and for all?