Maureen - Thank you for your interest in these important issues! I'm glad you found some of the exchange useful.
Feel free to contact me directly (or through LT, whichever you think is appropriate) and if I'm not the best expert on something, I can try to find you a better one. - Paul Shorb, Chair, Lincoln Green Energy Committee On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 5:21 PM Maureen At Beede < [email protected]> wrote: > As much as I would have liked to follow that thread, I respect your > process. Thank you for LT. I really enjoy it. > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 2:27 PM Maureen At Beede < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree. I was finding the dialogue very informative. >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:37 PM Pat Gray <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Paul, >>> Why? What’s the problem? I was learning a lot from reading the emails. >>> I read what I like on LincolnTalk and I delete the rest. We are adults >>> and can figure out how to do that. >>> Pat Gray >>> >>> On Mar 28, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Paul Shorb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> FYI, the LT moderators have asked Dennis & me to take any further >>> colloquy on this offline. >>> - Paul >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 3:14 AM Dennis Liu <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> *Paul Shorb wrote: > You misunderstand the proposal if you think its >>>> main motivation or justification is to benefit the builders or residents in >>>> future new buildings. It should be clear from the slides we shared in our >>>> two webinars and at Town Meeting that the main motivation is to take one >>>> small, initial step out of many that we need to take to slow down climate >>>> change. It just happens, so it was worth mentioning, that this small >>>> initial step has some cost advantages for builders and owners albeit. But >>>> as I mentioned elsewhere today on LT, I don't trust all builders to respond >>>> immediately to the modest cost delta, so a mandate is warranted. It's ECON >>>> 101 that the free market fails to produce the best result, and government >>>> controls layered on top of free market mechanisms produce a better result, >>>> in the case of major "negative externalities" associated with >>>> self-interested decisions - right?* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I apologize if I misunderstood the *intent* behind the proposal, >>>> perhaps giving your argument too much credit by reading into what you wrote >>>> below as making the point that builders/homeowners **WILL** benefit. >>>> I am glad that you have clarified your point that your/the committee’s main >>>> motivation is to force Lincoln residents to take a symbolic stand against >>>> climate change, and that any financial benefits are a mere side effect. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is telling that you use the phrase, “*I don’t* *trust* all builders >>>> to respond immediately to the modest cost delta, so a mandate is >>>> warranted.” So, Paul, are you making the concession that there is a HIGHER >>>> cost associated with this proposed law? And that any benefits would be >>>> down the road / over time, since it will take years to recoup the >>>> additional initial expense? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At the risk of invoking shouts of Godwin’s law, your phrasing is >>>> precisely what troubles classical liberals/libertarians like me. History >>>> is replete with technocrats/socialists who think that the elite, the more >>>> highly educated, the ones who deserve to govern have a moral responsibility >>>> to SAVE ignorant folks from the consequences of their own, foolish >>>> decisions. You are literally saying that you don’t TRUST folks to make >>>> decisions on their own, even when it’s to their benefit (in your opinion). >>>> Does that not strike you as being perhaps . . . a touch arrogant? That you >>>> (and your fellow committee members??) think you know best for everyone, and >>>> thus must force this change on everyone via passing a new law, because you >>>> don’t TRUST folks to act in their own self-interest? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Again, I am just highlighting that one cannot have it *BOTH WAYS*. If >>>> all-electric construction IS more cost-effective in the long run, then why >>>> would we need a law to mandate it? Who needs to be forced to save money? >>>> *UNLESS*. . . the change is actually NOT cost-effective over the long >>>> run? *OR* that there are additional, non-monetary expenses (say, a >>>> PITA factor, or less reliability, or inability to heat to a target >>>> temperature in cold weather, or any of another dozen PERSONAL preferences) >>>> that tip the scale in the opposite direction? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Also, it’s fascinating that you cite “ECON 101” when you mention that >>>> “*the >>>> free market fails to produce the best result, and government controls >>>> layered on top of free market mechanisms produce a better result, in the >>>> case of major "negative externalities" associated with self-interested >>>> decisions.*” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am certainly not an economist, nor do I play one on TV, but I am >>>> nevertheless confident that ECON 101 teaches us that when the price of >>>> something INCREASES, demand DECREASES, and vice versa. The simple law of >>>> supply and demand is what’s taught on day 1 of any introduction to (micro) >>>> economics ( >>>> https://medium.com/impact-economics/economics-101-supply-e35bcaabe11f). >>>> The takeaway here is that: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. if this law INCREASES the cost of housing in Lincoln, then >>>> demand will DECREASE, meaning fewer folks will want to / be able to >>>> afford >>>> to live in Lincoln; and >>>> 2. if this law somehow decreases the cost of housing in Lincoln by >>>> making things more affordable, then demand will increase – but then one >>>> WOULD NOT NEED a law in the first place, because rational homeowners >>>> will >>>> want it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To your point about *externalities*, I will quibble in a minor note >>>> that this is not quite Econ 101, but maybe Econ 103, lol. You are >>>> absolutely right in that “externalities” are an example of market failures >>>> ( >>>> https://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/marketfailures.html). >>>> The “tragedy of the commons” and all that ( >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). I fully agree >>>> that climate change IS a (classic!) example of an externality, and that the >>>> best way to address it is by *building it into a market structure*. >>>> Really, the best solution is to provide INCENTIVES to folks who are using >>>> fossil fuels to reduce that use, and to permit the market to find >>>> replacements for it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As I’ve argued previously, BY FAR the best solution today to reduce >>>> these emissions on a GLOBAL SCALE – literally, the one thing we can do >>>> TODAY that would actually HAVE AN EFFECT – is to switch more electricity >>>> generation from coal to natural gas. Per kilowatt hour of electricity >>>> generated, natural gas is WAY better than coal. To use market incentives >>>> to make it happen, all we need to do is to take the government boot off the >>>> neck of the fracking industry – the more natural gas we produce, the lower >>>> the greenhouse gas emissions! NOBODY disputes this! “But, gosh, fracking >>>> is bad, doncha know?!? We can’t PERMIT that! We’d lose all of our green >>>> credentials!” Ironically, if one wishes to invoke “climate justice is >>>> racial justice”, coal burning is the WORST offender – it generates the most >>>> air pollution and negative health impacts. So if one TRULY cared about >>>> “racial justice”, one would be in the streets, demanding more fracking so >>>> that more natural gas could replace coal. AND these protestors SHOULD be >>>> demanding that we build as many nuclear plants as possible – the cleanest, >>>> non-emitting, safest source of electricity available to humans today. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But back to using market mechanisms to solve for this externalities. >>>> The best way? CARBON TAXES. As popularized by local Harvard economics >>>> professor Greg Mankiw as “the Pigou Club” ( >>>> https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/smart_taxes.pdf and >>>> http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html), >>>> carbon taxes is the ideal way to let the free market sort this out. By >>>> imposing a carbon tax, it provides INCENTIVE for folks to use less fossil >>>> fuels, and INCENTIVE for inventors to work on delivering better renewables. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, we have to acknowledge that . . . with a barrel full of >>>> irony . . . that the Russian invasion of Ukraine added to skyrocketing >>>> inflation is *MANNA FROM HEAVEN* for those concerned about climate >>>> change. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why? Because . . . the high price of oil and gas is HAVING THE SAME >>>> EFFECT as a carbon tax! As we learned above from Econ 101, when we have an >>>> increase in price, we have a decrease in demand! People around the world >>>> are using less fossil fuel! Greenhouse gas emissions are lower than what >>>> they would be otherwise! Thanks to . . . Putin and the trillions in new, >>>> massive government spending! Surely you and fellow green committee members >>>> will join me in rejoicing at this unintended consequence? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * * * >>>> >>>> I will make one last point here. In 2018, the world collectively >>>> emitted 49 billion tons of greenhouse gas. The United States accounted for >>>> 5.79 billion tons. China and India combined accounted for more than 15 >>>> billion tons. https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Even if by the wave of a magic wand the United States completely shut >>>> down every single use of fossil fuels in this country, that would be less >>>> than 12% of global emissions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How much of that 5.79 billion tons of emissions would be reduced if we * >>>> *FORCED** and spent a trillion dollars to convert all buildings (not >>>> just new ones) to electricity? While proponents have tossed around numbers >>>> that suggest that 25% of US emissions are from heating, please remember >>>> that converting to electricity does **NOT** mean that we’ve reduced >>>> emissions by 25%; electricity is mostly generated from fossil fuel, after >>>> all. So, let’s be generous and estimate, complete WAG, that forcing all >>>> buildings to convert (as astronomical costs) would save 20% of that 25%, >>>> which means we’d save 5%, or 290 million tons. *That would be about >>>> one-half of one percent of global emissions.* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Now, if we do further math and consider just forcing NEW construction >>>> to be all-electric, then . . . let’s see . . . it’d be on the order of . . >>>> . maybe one-hundreth-of-a-percent over the next decade? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And consider what the impact is for **LINCOLN** to adopt this new >>>> law. Hmmm… sorry, I don’t think my calculator goes down that much. Ah, >>>> but what’s the **cost** to Lincoln folks? It’s real money out being >>>> forced out of the pockets of current residents who want to remodel or >>>> rebuild; and it’s an additional burden on housing prices for anyone that >>>> wants to move here. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In return for what? “Sending a signal” to . . . the legislature that a >>>> rich suburban enclave is willing to burden its residents in the name of >>>> virtue signaling in the hope that this will encourage the hundreds of other >>>> towns in the state to do the same? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Vty, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --Dennis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Paul Shorb <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2022 5:29 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Cc:* <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* Re: I'm just gobsmacked | RE: [LincolnTalk] Town meeting >>>> Article 40/31 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dennis - >>>> >>>> 1. You misunderstand the proposal if you think its main motivation or >>>> justification is to benefit the builders or residents in future new >>>> buildings. It should be clear from the slides we shared in our two webinars >>>> and at Town Meeting that the main motivation is to take one small, initial >>>> step out of many that we need to take to slow down climate change. It just >>>> happens, so it was worth mentioning, that this small initial step has some >>>> cost advantages for builders and owners albeit. But as I >>>> mentioned elsewhere today on LT, I don't trust all builders to respond >>>> immediately to the modest cost delta, so a mandate is warranted. It's ECON >>>> 101 that the free market fails to produce the best result, and government >>>> controls layered on top of free market mechanisms produce a better result, >>>> in the case of major "negative externalities" associated with >>>> self-interested decisions - right? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Do you read my posts that respond to yours? I feel like I responded >>>> to this point earlier. >>>> >>>> It's uncontested that fossil fuels have powered great economic growth >>>> which has lifted many out of poverty. However, if you think that trend line >>>> can continue so happily, you are ignoring the evidence about climate >>>> change. The good news is that human ingenuity has already come up with most >>>> of what we need to stop relying on fossil fuels (wind, solar, heat pumps, >>>> etc.) with more on the way (better energy storage, "green" hydrogen, new >>>> forms of nuclear, etc.) The problem is how fast we need to make the switch >>>> - that's going to require concerted social and political action. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - Paul >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:20 PM Dennis Liu <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> With all due respect: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. If it is true, as has been asserted, that building your new home >>>> to be all-electric “will not make the more expensive to build or >>>> operate”, >>>> then *we would not need a law to force people to do so*. One >>>> cannot have it both ways! If X is actually better for folks, then one >>>> would not need a law to force folks to do X! Even a casual reader of >>>> history will read about those in government who cry, “*the foolish >>>> people are just ignorant, and don’t see what’s good for them; we are >>>> just >>>> doing this on their behalf, forcing them to undertake what will be more >>>> beneficial for them! Don’t you get it? We know better than you do!*” >>>> >>>> >>>> Similarly, let us not forget that it’s not just about the money. >>>> Choosing X instead of Y can be driven not just be money, but by other >>>> benefits. Some folks might prefer certain attributes of Y, even if Y >>>> might >>>> cost less. As one example – if you live in a 3,000 sq foot house, you >>>> would almost certainly save money if you lived in a 2,000 sq ft house – >>>> so >>>> why would you want to live in the bigger house? You might save money by >>>> driving a Prius or a Tesla, so why shouldn’t we force people to only buy >>>> those vehicles? >>>> >>>> Is it so hard to see that individuals can make the best decisions >>>> for themselves, to decide what’s in their best interests? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. *“Climate justice is racial justice?” *Again, with all due >>>> respect, this is just . . . man, I lack the words. So we are clear – >>>> thanks to the growth of free-market (ish) economics in developing >>>> nations >>>> over the last three decades, primarily in China and India but also other >>>> developing countries, *OVER A BILLION PEOPLE HAVE CLIMBED OUT OF >>>> EXTREME POVERTY*. It’s an amazing feat! And one of the biggest >>>> drivers of that climb out of poverty – *THE AVAILABILITY OF >>>> AFFORDABLE ENERGY, POWERED BY FOSSIL FUELS*. >>>> >>>> Yes, read that again. Improved agriculture, the growth of >>>> manufacturing, expanding free trade, migration from rural to urban areas >>>> have helped billions of people climb out of horrible, subsistence-level >>>> (or >>>> below!!!) living. The middle-class is explosively growing. What drives >>>> all of that? Affordable, available energy. Countless families have >>>> transitioned out of subsistence farming, with heating and cooking using >>>> wood or dung and resulting in terrible casualties from lung illnesses, >>>> thanks to the availability of gas-powered machinery and available >>>> electric >>>> grids. >>>> >>>> The sheer . . . well, I won’t label it, but I will say that it >>>> astonishes me what folks living in the 1% in affluent American suburbs >>>> (and >>>> make no mistakes, if you’re a working adult in Lincoln, you’re almost >>>> certainly in the global 1%; you just need $34k in annual income) will >>>> make >>>> arguments on behalf of the ”oppressed”, and make claims of “racial >>>> justice”, *WHILE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THAT WHICH HELPED PROPEL MORE >>>> THAN A BILLION PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY*: affordable energy powered >>>> by, yes, fossil fuels. >>>> >>>> The primary reason why making these little symbolic, >>>> virtue-signaling gestures in rich American suburbs will have zero >>>> measurable impact on climate gas emissions is because America got rich >>>> by >>>> burning lots of coal and oil; now China and India are doing the same >>>> thing, >>>> lifting billions of poverty, thanks to burning lots of coal and oil. >>>> Who >>>> the heck are we to tell China and India, “hey, you guys missed the boat, >>>> you need to stop producing that critically needed energy, and immiserate >>>> your people!” >>>> >>>> Want **real** justice for the poor and oppressed around the globe? >>>> Stand by and let them climb out of poverty in the same way America did, >>>> starting a century ago, and focus instead on transitioning **mass** >>>> energy production to natural gas and nuclear, keep working on renewable >>>> energy, and **let human ingenuity research ways of mitigating the >>>> effects of climate change and even turning it back through terraforming >>>> measures.** >>>> >>>> https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/world/global-poverty-united-nations.html#:~:text=By%202015%2C%20the%20share%20of,extreme%20poverty%2C%20surpassing%20the%20goal >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m just . . . at a loss for more words. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --Dennis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Lincoln <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Paul >>>> Shorb >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2022 2:50 PM >>>> *To:* <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Town meeting Article 40/31 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to respond to some recent posts here that seem to critique >>>> a move towards fossil-fuel-free homes as an expensive luxury for >>>> high-minded hypocrites who blissfully ignore adverse cost impacts on those >>>> economically less well-off. Here are some relevant facts that may be of >>>> interest to LT readers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Requiring new homes to be all-electric will not make them more >>>> expensive to build or operate. In fact, due to the almost miraculous energy >>>> efficiency of modern heat pumps, they tend to be LESS expensive to operate, >>>> thereby benefiting not only high-end homeowners but also less-affluent >>>> renters. (Not to mention the health benefits of cleaner indoor air.) A >>>> recent state study show the cost benefits are even better for multi-family >>>> housing than for single family homes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> All-electric homes are not required to have an emergency generator. >>>> Whether someone wants to have an emergency generator is a personal choice; >>>> many homes powered by fossil fuels choose to have one. >>>> We mention emergency generators to underscore that we expect they would >>>> still be allowed as an option, when and if Lincoln adopts a bylaw. Even if >>>> you assume a generator to be an additional cost associated with an >>>> all-electric house, that likely will be offset by reduced operating costs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With regard to DIE, it's hard to come up with something with more >>>> disparate impact on people of color than our current fossil-fuel economy >>>> and the climate change it is causing. >>>> >>>> In America it typically is lower-income people - often people of color >>>> - who live closest to fossil fuel extraction areas, fuel refineries, power >>>> plants, and areas thickest with vehicle exhaust fumes, and who thereby >>>> suffer the most from the local pollution effects. >>>> >>>> Around the world, it is regions populated mainly by black and brown >>>> people that are getting hit the hardest by the many impacts of climate >>>> change. Those are the people who are most at risk of being pushed back into >>>> poverty and worse by extreme weather events, droughts, food shortages, and >>>> desperate migration attempts and ensuing political strife - even though >>>> they have done much less than the more developed, majority-white nations >>>> have done to cause the current climate crisis. >>>> >>>> That's why it is rightly said that "climate justice is racial justice". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - Paul Shorb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:16 PM Stephanie Smoot < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I found irony that they were adding all these programs but a waiting >>>> list for senior tax work off spaces! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 1:09 PM Richard Panetta < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> So did anyone else find any irony in a report given about inclusion >>>> diversity equity and anti racism then the very next article the presenting >>>> sponsor when questioned about losing electricity stated well you can JUST >>>> get a propane generator for those needs. Never mind a good generator can >>>> cost $5000 plus along with the yearly costs of the tank and propane. Just >>>> in case your non fossil fuel home loses power. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >>>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>>> Browse the archives at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> *Stephanie Smoot* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 857 368-9175 work >>>> >>>> 781 941-6842 personal cell >>>> >>>> *617 595-5217 *work cell >>>> >>>> 126 Chestnut Circle >>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>> >>>> Lincoln, MA 01773 >>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/126+Chestnut+Circle+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >>>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>>> Browse the archives at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>> >>>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>>
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
