« My Thoughts on “The Millionaire Inside” | Main | Why the Long-Run is so Important When Investing in Stocks »
Denver’s Aggressive Environmental Plan
By JLP | June 11, 2007
I saw this on the Drudge Repot.
From Rocky Mountain News:
Denver may ask residents to make personal sacrifices to combat global warming. Ideas being considered:
- Making heavy users of electricity and natural gas pay more – Isn’t this already done through electric bills! If you use more electricity, you pay a higher bill. Right?
- Charging residents who throw away a lot of trash – This seems logical for the most part.
- Setting energy-efficiency standards for new construction – Aren’t builders already doing this?
- Giving carpoolers and hybrids priority for parking – Carpoolers I can understand but hybrids too? What if you have a fuel efficient car that isn’t a hybrid?
According to the article, once Denver’s goal is met, it will have the equivalent effect of taking 500,000 cars off the road. My guess is that it will take a lot more cars than that off the road in Denver because people will simply move away.
Topics: Miscellaneous | 14 Comments »
June 11th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I agree with charging more for more trash, and setting energy-efficient construction standards, but not so much on the others.
Increased energy usage already = increased bills. You hit it right on the head.
It is not easy to monitor parking for carpoolers or hybrids and the city would also have to pay to do so. (and then there would be an underground market for hybrid stickers on eBay! Wait, I let out my secret plan to millions, now I can’t dominate the market!)
It looks like a big PR stunt to me.
June 11th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“it will have the equivalent effect of taking 500,000 cars off the road. My guess is that it will take a lot more cars than that off the road in Denver because people will simply move away.”
That made me crack up! My city has a tiered billing system for its water/electric use, so I’m adjusted to it already. For example, the first 500kwh I use monthly is billed at one rate, the next 1500 is at a higher rate, and so on. Since I actively conserve electricity I never use more than 500, so I’m kind of happy believing that those who do use electricity excessively are subsidizing those who use less.
Our state allows (or at least allowed) hybrids in HOV lanes with single occupants. I really didn’t agree with it then, and don’t now. But opening privilege to all high efficiency vehicles is problematic. How is highway patrol to know all the models that get over 35mpg? What if one of them is not maintained and doesn’t actually get the EPA estimates? This is too much of a gray area and I would say just ditch the idea of special privileges.
June 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
If all the polluters move away, Denver will be a much nicer place to live. I doubt they’ll be missed.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I think they sound like some great ideas – people (and society) need to make aggressive changes to make real headway against global warming and I’m glad Denver is looking to encourage that!
June 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Charging more for trash is a no-brainer.
Electricity is already “tiered” in most areas, depending on rate schedule, electricity provider etc. I would think they’d just do MORE of that. That’s a good idea (most) people have a good amount of control over how much energy they use. If they want to save money, they can. Raising the cost of electricity increases ROI on energy efficiency upgrades as well, especially since those upgrades save on the most expensive tier of electricity (if that makes sense).
Construction standards for new buildings happen on a state-wdie level only if those standards are more stringent than nationwide standards. California’s Title 24 is fairly strict, and largely owing to that, California per capita greenhouse gas emissions have not increased much since the 1970s, while the rest of the country’s has increased over 30%.
The joke about people moving away from Denver is pretty funny, but I think past experiences largely show that these kinds of efforts generally improves an area and raises revenue. See Santa Monica, Portland, Boulder, etc. Even if they don’t, strictly speaking, improve the quality of life somewhere, they vastly improve image. Denver hosted the last US Green Building Conference that attracted some tens of thousands of attendees and hundreds of sponsors. Some city officials may just as quickly be trying to fill their coffers as save the earth.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
You mean that “renters” can move away. Home owners may be stuck.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Michelle,
That’s a good point. I wonder if something like this could affect Denver’s economy?
June 11th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Speaking as a Denverite, I’m not sure what is so shocking or appalling about these points that would drive people away from Denver in droves.
The Denver metro area is pretty open to environmental solutions like this. For example, we have HOV lanes on our freeways and have made a big investment in a light rail project that is in its third phase to bring efficient train service throughout the metro area and reduce car dependence.
We still have room to improve on the enviromental front however. I say bring it on!! A greener Denver would only make me happy.
DB
June 12th, 2007 at 12:47 am
If it’s California that Chris is talking about, hybrids with the “carpool lane exemption” have to get stickers that are put on the car so the cops can see that the car’s a hybrid. Not every hybrid gets one: there are a limited number of these stickers given out every year.
That said, I don’t really hold with this sort of power-train micro-management. If they want to do incentives based on fuel economy or emissions, that makes some sense. But doing this sort of thing based on the design of the engine and power delivery system in the car is silly.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:38 am
>Making heavy users of electricity and natural gas pay >more – Isn’t this already done through electric bills! If >you use more electricity, you pay a higher bill. Right?
My guess is that currently, the more electricity you use the lower the price is per unit – so even though they have a higher bill, they pay less per kwh. So the improvement is probably to increase the per unit cost for the higher tiers of usage.
>Setting energy-efficiency standards for new construction – >Aren’t builders already doing this?
Building codes are state/local so I don’t know what CO is like, but at least in PA they are NOT doing this.
As for people moving away, you really think these suggestions are so terrible they’ll force people to leave their jobs? Really?
June 12th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I seriously doubt they’d make people move away. A lot of people who come to Colorado to enjoy the beautiful scenery and nature. A cleaner environment would only strengthen Colorado’s “brand.” The ideas they’re talking about would probably attract even more residents. Of course, that might not be what they want….
June 12th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I also heard they were thinking of putting a tax on the most polluting cars.
Adding tax is always a dumb idea. in 5 years even if cars are no longer creating as much pollution as today, the tax will probably still be there.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Chris: When they introduced the tier pricing, did they decrease the lowest tier, or just increase rates for higher usage levels? If, as I suspect, it is the second, those who pay more aren’t subsidizing anyone, just lining the coffers with more loot so city government can spend more money.
Ryan: So when those “tens of thousands of people” visited Denver for the US Green Building Conference, did they drive hybrids and actively try to “be green”?
As Kermit says, “it’s not easy being green.”
(Sorry, I had to toss that in.) =)
June 14th, 2007 at 6:59 am
People will just move to the suburbs, Denver will look bettter but the surrounding area will look worse.