Articles by Andy Brett

San Francisco takes the first step

San Francisco, or as I like to call it, number one, is already sinking its teeth into the Accords. City officials must have gotten an early copy, or taken a look at the wiki used to draft them before they were finalized, since the SF Examiner article reporting that officials will consider making green purchasing a reality for the city is dated May 30, before the Accords were finalized. Nevertheless, SF will be well on their way to knocking out Accord number five with this step.

While both the Examiner and Treehugger categorize the action as falling under the "precautionary principle," I don't know that I would do the same. From what I could gather the things to be eliminated from purchases are already known to be problems. San Francisco did adopt the principle in 2003.

On another note, how cool is it that there was a wiki for the Accords?

(Thanks to TH for the link!)

Urban musings.

One of of the things that always fascinates me about cities is how much personality people attribute to them. I have been told, on good authority, that before transportation got so fast and efficient, there used to be distinctive accents for every major city, not just New York or Boston, but places like St. Louis or Cleveland or Chicago or Pittsburgh. Cities take on so many characteristics of humans that it's sometimes hard not to think of them as living, breathing organisms.

On the other side of the coin, one of the most interesting challenges urban planners face is getting a diverse age range in the population of a city. So many times I have heard, "boy I love New York City but I sure wouldn't want to raise a kid there."

"Now's the time, the time is now" ... to read more.

A salient point in the nuclear debate.

Marketplace decided to broach that touchy, touchy subject this morning, running a brief segment on the nuclear debate and the support it's been getting from some greens.

For the most part, it's your standard, run of the mill coverage: Some greens are reconsidering because of global warming; others aren't so keen.

However, there was one item that caught my attention. Southern Nuclear, which runs three plants in the South, is considering filing a site permit, the first step to a new reactor. The whole process will take about ten years before the reactor is operational, according to the report.

The report then jumps to an interesting corollary:

It's that timeline that forced some greens to reconsider nukes. They figure if it takes a decade to get a plant going, the debate better get started.

While I have no problem with the debate getting started, I see the lag time as a huge strike against nuclear. Professor Martin Parry, the IPCC scientist, said on Talking Point that thirty, forty, fifty years down the line, it's reasonable to expect that we will have clean, low-emission technologies to meet the world's energy needs. Parry left it open as to whether nuclear would be included in these technologies (he listed nuclear, clean coal, and renewables).

My point is that when we don't plan to build a reactor this year, we are ensuring that no new reactors will be built for the next ten years. By the time a reactor gets online, the other available technologies will be that much better, and we might say hey, maybe we don't really want to have to deal with all the costs of nuclear when we've got renewables to beat it. Reading sites like Treehugger and WorldChanging makes me more optimistic every day that the day is coming fast when those who choose to do so can easily live an emissions- and isotope-free life.

We might regret settling for a single with a compromise on nuclear when we won't see benefits until after we've already hit the grand slam and found really clean alternatives. Sorry, it's baseball season.

Update [2005-6-14 16:10:2 by Dave Roberts]: Sorry to butt in on Andy's post here -- hi Andy! -- but Jim Harding and Denis Hayes just published an op-ed in the Seattle P-I that makes exactly the same point:

Changes in electric market structure -- generally termed deregulation -- have only added to the risks that utilities and investors must consider. In a deregulated market, there is no certainty that costs incurred will be recovered. Even in fully regulated markets, utilities must consider the possibility that any number of technologies -- fuel cells, photovoltaics, coal with carbon sequestration, gas-fired combined cycles, geothermal, conservation or wind -- could undercut their investments long before the capital costs are recovered. Peter Bradford, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, argues that nuclear power is fundamentally incompatible with a deregulated industry, and he is probably right.

They also make a good point about proliferation. Check it out.

One of my concerns about cities.

If it isn't already abundantly clear, I am a big fan of cities. If there's one thing that gets me a little concerned about them, though, it's the fact that they turn over so fast. According to Stewart Brand's recent lecture, cities replace at least 2-3 percent of their fabric every year, so every forty years or so they have been completely remade. Where does all that sheer mass go? And where do we get all that sheer mass? Regardless of where it goes, this doesn't strike me as a particularly sustainable way to go about things. The suburbs probably aren't much better in this department, but this is an issue that a good urban planner should have on her radar.

It's a minor quibble, really. I'll be back to the regularly scheduled praising of all things urban by tomorrow, most likely. And the Stewart Brand talk is just packed with great stuff; more on that surely to come as well.