Had Hillary been Herman - The heartbreaking truth about American feminism

In response to Lauren Besser's article Had Bernie been Bernadette — The heartbreaking truth about American patriarchy and the many other articles I've seen on social media posted by my feminist friends.

I have never to my knowledge received a legitimate death threat that warranted FBI involvement. I don’t really know truly and personally what it feels like to treated as a second-class person. However, I have for my entire adult life known and supported female friends, who have struggled with body image issues, eating disorders, and wage gaps. I have seen the aftermath of sexual harassment, assault, and rape. I have on occasion called out male friends for making derogatory comments. I have made amateurish attempts to coach these female friends out of depression or in less severe cases through the anxiety induced by unnecessary social pressures at school and work.

I am, as best as I understand the word, a male feminist. I want a world where women don’t need to wake up an hour earlier in the morning get their hair and make up just right before going to work. I want a world where sexual violence is never blamed on the victim, or better yet it isn’t a default concern of half the population. I want to live in a country where a politician’s credentials, record, and character are their key to success – not their race, gender (identity), sex(-ual orientation), or other physical features.

In order to achieve this in my lifetime (or at least in the lifetime of my unborn grandchildren), we need to truly and fundamentally shift how society approaches these issues. We need not just one change agent, but many of them operating in earnest at all levels of society, business, and government.

It is with this understanding that I am growing continually frustrated with my many female/feminist friends, who are continually posting/sharing articles supporting Hillary as a true change agent, based on her credentials as a woman. (Or conversely, that Bernie is not the right choice for feminists - or any of the other many gender-related permutations of this conversation.) If Hillary had been born as Herman (and chose to remain as Herman as a gender identity), would you still admire her (or in this case his) credentials?

In one of the many articles considering where a feminist should stand on the Bernie or Hillary question, Lauren Besser poses/answers the questions:

“Are the sins of our institutions so terrible? Yes. Are those sins more terrible when committed by a woman? Seems so.”

I think she and other feminists (of any gender) would be better off asking themselves, “Do you want to change the system? Or do you want to have merely appeared to change the system?”

I would also suggest that these questions could also apply to many other issues, not the least of which being climate change, which all things being status quo means women should expect to be disproportionately impacted for generations to come.

A Call for Universal Human Dignity

Preamble

As we stand on the shoulders of giants and the progress of human innovation steadily ratchets up the ceiling on the realm of possibility, human society must vigilantly attend to the foundation on which that innovation was permitted to thrive, lest both crumble. As we continue to accrue the technological capital to allow a few in our society to approach a power that our ancestors would have considered god-like, we have the responsibility to ensure that even the lowest among us are able to live beyond the means of the kings of those same ancestors. It is with these sentiments that a call is issued for society to pursue and preserve a universal dignity for all of its members.

Tenets of Universal Human Survival

While nature abhors permanence and no individual being will live forever, the threshold of dignity cannot be bestowed upon someone who is unable to survive. Therefore, to support human dignity, these tenets of Universal Human Survival should be sought first and foremost for current and future generations.

1.          Clean Water, Air, and Food

2.         Basic Healthcare and Exercise

3.          Personal Safety and Shelter

4.         Reproductive Agency

Tenets of Universal Human Dignity

To ensure that no person is subjected to mere subsistence or servitude and that each person is able to experience as dignified an existence as nature will allow, a mutual bond between humans living in a free and modern society must concede the following tenets of human dignity to each individual member of society so long as it does not preclude the survival or dignity of another or put an undue burden on the society as a whole or the environment that supports it.

1.          Information and Education

2.         Communication and Expression

3.          Organization and Identification

4.         Mobility and Exploration

5.         Creation and Productivity

The Call

Similar to the physical laws of the universe, human society must counter entropy with work to prolong the values that we hold most dear. It is only through persistence of innovation and quality of character that human greatness can forestall the perils of time. By asking to ensure the rights of current and future generations, these Tenets do not leave room for waste, sloth, or pollution. However, where and whenever circumstances and technology permit, society should endeavor to cleave the tenuousness of human survival and dignity from unstable economic pressures, leaving only as much linkage as is necessary to perpetuate the institutions and systems that support Universal Human Dignity.

This is the first section of a longer document I wrote, originally published on the Revolutionary Peace Blog.

Climate Change Pledge

Hello Readers,

I would like to propose a simple climate change pledge that all politicians seeking elected office should be willing to take. Over the past several years, a number of members of congress and other public officials have made wild pledges, which have entrenched their political positions, such as the now infamous Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes. However, pledges to never or always do something are absurdly rigid in the face of an ever changing society and economy. Instead, I would like to propose the following pledge:

I acknowledge that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that human society and technology have the ability to influence and change the Earth's climate on a global scale, and I will consider the potential impacts of climate change, among other factors, when executing the duties of my office.

I believe that any elected official, who is not able or willing to make such a basic claim, is not fit to serve in office in the 21st century. If you agree with this sentiment, please contact to your elected officials and candidates, to kindly request that they take this pledge.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond
@WarmestGenrtion

Data Privacy & Decoupling Communications Utilities

Hello Readers,

I will start by acknowledging that this is the topic is a little outside of the sphere of my normal sustainability discussions. However, as more and more communications and data privacy issues have come to light over the past year, I have become increasingly concerned about the social and political ramifications of what governments and certain corporations are doing on the Internet. Because of the prevalence of these issues in the news, I will limit my preambulatory commentary.

The Internet is a technology and a concept that is so far beyond the wildest imagination of people in the 18th and 19th centuries that we need to explicitly address it in the US constitution, so that societal expectations for the Internet are clear. Therefore, I propose that we amend the US constitution to address and protect the inherent, unwritten freedoms that have thus far been the hallmark of the public Internet. While I will not attempt to offer specific wording for such an amendment, I suggest the following tenets of an amendment:

• Decoupling Communications Utilities: There should be a clear distinction between media content providers and communications infrastructure providers. In the same way that many states have now 'deregulated' electricity markets by drawing a line between owners of electric generators and grid operators to ensure that monopolies are as limited as possible, the Internet should be similarly segregated. It should be illegal for owners of communications infrastructure (e.g. broadband networks, cable providers, telephone lines, cellular networks) to create, provide, and develop the data or media content that is transmitted across its own infrastructure. Similarly, communications infrastructure owners should not be allowed to offer preference to content providers or charge variable rates based on the type of content that is transmitted.
• Data Privacy from the Government: The United States Federal government should pass and enforce laws that promote the active protection of the data, content, and information that is created, held, and transmitted by its people. As a matter of the Rule of Law, this protection requires the US government to provide a transparent judicial mechanism for reviewing attempts by US government agents to acquire citizens' data (as though data were physical property) as provided for by the 4th Amendment of the constitution.
• Data Privacy from Corporations: The US government should pass and enforce laws that protect its citizens' data from foreign and domestic corporate interests. The invasive and often secretive nature through which data is collected and redistributed over the Internet is unacceptable. Recognizing that some citizens may be interested in risking the trade-offs related to disclosing their data to reap the potential benefits of 'big data', it might be fair enough to create an opt-in 'tracking allowed' list. Such a list could allow people to be tracked when corporations explicitly notify them that they (and their data) are being tracked and where their data is being sent. Furthermore, corporations should be required to regularly provide their users access to a record of all the data that has been collected about themselves. Finally, people should be able to opt-out of such a list at any time for any reason without the possibility of legal action.

I'm sure their are many other possible issues to address with regard to the Internet. However, I have found the above issues the most troubling with the greatest possible 'slippery slope' consequences.

Regards,

Sean Diamond

A Sustainable Minimum Wage

Hello Readers,

In President Obama's 2014 State of the Union, the issue of moving the minimum wage closer to a living wage was deemed a top priority by the administration. I have had a few ideas for ensuring a more sustainable minimum wage by tying it to other monetary values. Here are two options:

• Political Contribution Limits: I propose that annual political contribution limits should be legally tied to the Federal minimum wage. Specifically, individuals and corporations should not be allowed to give annual political contributions that exceed the weekly salary of someone earning the minimum wage and working full-time. To be clear, the limit to political contributions for individuals and corporations should be the limit for the total amount of contributions to all PAC's, candidates, parties, etc. This would serve a dual purpose of limiting the money in politics and provide an incentive to keep the minimum wage at a reasonable level.
• Congressional Salaries: I propose to set the minimum wage as 12% of the standard Congressional salary. In 2014, the annual Congressional salary is $174,000, which would mean that someone working full-time and earning the minimum wage would earn $20,880 annually. In other words, the hourly minimum wage would be $10.04! This would also ensure that the minimum wage would be regularly adjusted (unless members of Congress turn down their own annual raises).

Just some thoughts on how to make the US economy more sustainable.

Cheers,

Sean

Pennsylvania Solar Refugees Take Note

Hello Readers,

It's been two years since the tanking Pennsylvania SREC market forced me to leave my beloved home state in search of new work in the solar industry. In December of 2011, I became a refugee of the Pennsylvania solar industry. I moved first to Delaware and eventually to Massachusetts to find gainful employment in an industry that seems to be growing rapidly everywhere except Pennsylvania.

In case, you aren't familiar with the saga of the Pennsylvania's solar market, the regulations and incentives that helped get it started, and the political inaction that forced it to nosedive at the first signs of progress, I'll point you to a few articles from my personal history...

• Pennsylvania HB 1580 - Fixing the SREC Market
• Pennsylvania HB 1580 - Bill Introduced
• Pennsylvania Solar Jobs put in perspective
• Response to Inaction on PA HB 1580
• Update: Inaction on HB 1580

Anecdotally, I know of at least a dozen other Pennsylvania solar refugees, and I expect that there are hundreds more out there. Whether you stayed in Pennsylvania but had to change industries or - like me - you were forced to leave the state to remain employed in a socially and environmentally responsible industry, you are a solar refugee!

For those in-state solar refugees, please remember to vote in the upcoming 2014 gubernatorial primary and election! If you are a displaced solar refugee, like me, please encourage your friends and family to take a close look at the energy and environmental policies of the candidates before voting.

By continuing to miss opportunities while the solar industry is still gaining traction globally (as appears to be the current governor's policy), Pennsylvania will lose out in the long run. Therefore, the outcome of the governor's race will not only determine the fate of the Pennsylvania solar industry for at least the next four years... it will likely ripple through the next four decades.

While many declared candidates mention the issues surrounding fracking on their campaign websites, few candidates have any mention of a comprehensive energy policy. As far as I can tell, only two candidates have any serious energy policy experience or a plan to reinvigorate the renewable energy industries in Pennsylvania (giving solar refugees a chance to return home): John Hanger and Kate McGinty.

John Hanger: http://www.hangerforgovernor.com/an_energy_policy_that_works

Kate McGinty: http://mcginty.ngpvanhost.com/press-releases/mcginty-outlines-jobs-plan-make-pa-leader-energy-development-while-protecting

As we near the primary in April, I hope to find out more about these two exciting candidates.

Electorally,

Sean Diamond

The Future of the Massachusetts Solar Industry

Hello Readers,

If you are following the solar market in Massachusetts, you may have heard about the recent announcement on May 1st by Governor Patrick Duval that the state has already exceeded its 2017 goal of 250MW of installed solar capacity. Included in this announcement is a revised goal of 1.6GW of solar capacity by 2020, a laudable goal indeed! Here are a few article links that describe the details:

• http://www.nesea.org/renewable-energy/massachusetts-rockets-past-solar-goals-patrick-shoots-for-the-sky/
• http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/02/massachusetts-crushes-solar-goals-aims-much-higher/
• http://www.seia.org/news/seia-applauds-massachusetts-new-solar-goals

Additionally, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources has a website describing the current status of the Solar Carve-out Program.

Obviously, as a proponent of solar technology, I am ecstatic about the state surpassing its goal and the governor's ambitious recalibration. However, as someone working in the industry, I am cautiously optimistic about Massachusetts' solar future.

Having worked in the solar industry in Pennsylvania in 2010-2012, I know all too well what a state over-shooting its RPS goals can mean for SREC prices, and by extension solar photovoltaic (PV) system owners. In Pennsylvania, the over-shoot resulted in SREC prices dropping from over $300/MWh to about $10/MWh over the course of about a year. Despite a concerted effort by PV system owners and installers (including many small business owners), the Pennsylvania legislature failed to act, allowing the industry in the state to collapse.

Fortunately, with the governor supporting a massive increase in the Solar Carve-out Program Massachusetts appears to be headed down a slightly different path than Pennsylvania did. Assuming the governor's plan is enacted, Massachusetts SREC prices should remain relatively stable for the remainder of the decade. This should allow new system owners (and their financial backers) to see a comfortable return on their investments once their PV systems are installed.

On the other hand, the fortunate prediction above is based on the premise that Massachusetts' solar industry can continue the exponential growth of the past few years. (This is where the 'cautious' part of my optimism comes into play.)

For those of you paying especially close attention to the solar industry in Massachusetts, you may have noticed that the governor's May 1st announcement, coincided with another of important event for the industry. On May 1st, just before the close of business, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) put into effect its new distributed generation interconnection tariff, the rules by which every grid-tied PV system in the state is installed.

While the increased goal was met with enthusiastic news and blog coverage, I suspect that many in the industry are unaware that the new tariff is in effect and that even fewer still have taken time to read and comprehend the (now) 133 page document!

The tariff, which went through a vetting and approval process that lasted the better part of a year, was modified in an attempt to clarify the process through which proposed distributed generation systems (such as PV) are safely installed. However, due in no small part to utility companies' initially tepid response to the solar industry's demand for a more fair and efficient interconnection process, the new tariff requires utility companies to track virtually every step of the interconnection process (from receiving an application through the customer being authorized to activate its system).

Unfortunately, the result is a quadrupling of the (already not insubstantial) administrative burden related to processing interconnection applications! While in the long-run this may mean that the solar industry gets a 'real-time' status bar of its applications, in the short-term the utility companies are now being forced to divert already strained resources away from pro-actively progressing projects toward system activation to the stenographic task of recording each step in the process.

Furthermore, due to an as-of-yet under-clarified Massachusetts DPU ruling related to net metering, the state's regulators are causing many apparently legitimate PV projects to be stymied unnecessarily. Initially, the DPU ruling 11-11-C was intended to preclude developers of massive solar projects from receiving more subsidies than those to which they were entitled, by requiring that utility companies only offer net metering services to customers through a single meter per legal parcel of land. However, the ruling cast its regulatory net perhaps a little to widely and disregarded the possibility of any exceptions for parcels of land that have multiple independent tenants (e.g. shopping malls, commercial buildings, and apartment complexes).

To make a long story short, it is hard to predict the ultimate result of the ever-evolving PV regulations, but where Pennsylvania's legislature may have let its solar industry languish in the free-market, Massachusetts may be allowing its solar industry to strangle itself in over-regulation. In other words, if Massachusetts is to meet its newly proposed 2020 solar ambitions, it may need to seek a more balanced approach in its regulatory policies.

Regards,

Sean Diamond

*Disclaimer and full disclosure: The author of this post works at National Grid, an electric utility company operating in the State of Massachusetts. This post is NOT intended to represent the views or opinions of National Grid. It is simply the personal after-hours reflections of the author.*

Theodore Roosevelt National Park vs. Fracking

Hello Readers,

I think this video about fracking near the Theodore Roosevelt National Park speaks for itself.


Pass it on.

Thanks,
Sean

Desertification - How to fix it!

Hello Readers,

I have been fairly busy the past couple of months, and so my posts have obviously been lacking. However, today I watched a TED Talk that blew my mind!

If you are interested in climate change, food justice, land management, livestock issues, and/or any number of other sustainability topics, this TED Talk is a must watch! Allan Savory, explains how to repair desertified regions in a manner that is counter-intuitive and frankly surprising.



For more information, you can also visit the TED website for a bio of Mr. Savory or the Savory Institute website.

Cheers,
Sean

Climate Change: How we can act!

Hello Readers,

I have found a TED Talk with a very important message for the Warmest Generation... How do we work together to solve the issues in front of us?





Let's give it a try!

Cheers,

Sean

Climate Change: Why we must act!

Hello Readers,

This week I'm going to post two TED Talks for the Warmest Generation. This first video is by James Hansen, and it describes why we must act on the threat of climate change! (Warning: The first half of this video provides some potentially depressing information if you are new to the climate change debate.)






Check back soon for information about how we might just be able to initiate some real action!

Cheers,

Sean

Pennsylvania Electronics Recycling Rules in Effect

Hello Readers,

If you are a resident or business owner in Pennsylvania, you should take note that it now illegal to simply throw away most electronics! According to the PA DEP website:

Beginning Jan. 24, 2013, desktop computers, laptop computers, computer monitors, computer peripherals, televisions, and any components of such devices may no longer be disposed in Pennsylvania with municipal waste. ... All of these devices are required to be properly recycled. - Electronics Recycling Management Program Website

These new rules are courtesy of the 2010 Covered Devices Recycling Act, which was passed in order to divert the hazardous chemicals inside electronic devices away from municipal landfills. Along with these new requirements, the PA DEP website provides information for businesses and consumers about where to drop-off old electronics (see Electronic Collections Program webpage), which include some municipal locations but also some non-profit and commercial locations (such as some YMCA, Goodwill, and Best Buy stores).

For this, I would like to say thank you, PA!

Cheers,
Sean

Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

 Hello Readers,

In this series so far, I introduced a premise for (and reasoning behind) a policy, which would involve dividing up the social security funding allocation pie. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In this post, I will put forth a possible mechanism or strategy for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

To begin this process in a politically tenable and socially agreeable manner, we need to start at the current baseline and move incrementally toward the goal(s) of this reform.

Currently, the social security pie is nominally set to give 100% of the funding allocation pie to slice number 1 (Funds paid out to all current retirees). However, the baseline according to ssa.gov's 2012 annual report summary:

"...The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086."

In essence, social security will not survive in its current form past 2033 (before anyone born in the 1970's or later starts collecting). Thus, it does not seem unreasonable to aim for reform to be fully implemented by 2030. In the graph below, I have offered one possible trajectory for social security fund allocations.

I would recommend implementing the various slices slowly at a rate of roughly 1% per year. I would introduce slices 2 and 3 (the generational and personal slices) starting in 2014, and I would cap their percentages at 15% and 10% respectively. In this way, no more than 15% of an individual worker's social security payments would go to their generational trust fund. Likewise, no more than 10% of an individual worker's social security payments could be diverted to a personal retirement account. 

Similarly, I would recommend introducing slice 4 (the national debt slice) starting in 2018 at a capped rate of 1% and let the cap grow to 10% in 2028. Starting in 2029 and beyond, I would recommend allowing slice 4 to fluctuate between 0% and 10% based on some reasonable measure of the federal government's deficit spending over the preceding decade.

While I am not in a position to determine which metric this slice 4 percentage is tied to, I would simply hope that the calculations would be clearly defined in such a manner that deficit spending results in a reduction in the amount of money allocated to social security spending. Thus, Congress would be heavily incentivized to reduce deficit spending (and thereby proportionately increase the amount of spending allocated to current retirees). Similarly, it would encourage current retirees to hold members of Congress accountable for short-term deficit spending.

***

In summary, I believe that each of these implementation timelines should be slow enough that there will not be any huge/unexpected shock to the economic system. Also, in the long-term, this will: (1) ensure that at least some small part of an individual's retirement funding will be secured regardless of when they are born or how many current workers there are, and (2) ensure that reducing the national debt is no longer simply an exercise in letting future generations resolve the issues of today.

I look forward to your thoughtful criticisms and suggestions on this matter.

Regards,
Sean

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)

 Hello Readers,

In the previous post, I introduced a premise for a policy, which would involve dividing up the social security funding allocation pie. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In this post, I will discuss why I believe that social security funds should start to be divided into these four slices. Then, in the next post, I will put forth a possible mechanism for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

1. Funds paid out to all current retirees

The reasoning behind the first slice "Funds paid out to all current retirees" is perhaps the most obvious. This appears to be the original intent of the social security program, allowing funds from the actively working body politic to help support the currently retired. This helps senior citizens mitigate the negative impacts of any short-term personal financial hardships during or immediately before retirement.

Thus, as long as social security survives, a certain share of any social security funds will need to be spread across all current retirees, who are actively receiving benefits. Perhaps this slice might appropriately be renamed the "we (the living) are all in this together" slice... to indicate that we are not going to leave senior citizens to fend for themselves.

2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees

The reasoning behind the second slice "Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees" is a new, subtle adjustment to the current social security scheme. Originally, (when social security was created) there would have been an expectation that with most citizens not surviving long enough to collect social security (or not surviving long enough to collect it more than a few years) that there would always be a sufficient number of active workers to fund the needs of living retirees.

However, today, with the 20/20 vision afforded to us by basically 80 years of practice, it is clear that for social security to function in perpetuity from generation to generation: each individual generation needs some certainty about their own retirement. By immediately spreading all incoming social security funding across the needs of current retirees, we will inevitably encounter situations (such as the crashing of the baby-boom retirement wave) where the working generations cannot reasonably be expected to support the needs of current retirees without putting in peril their own needs in the future.

Thus, I would suggest that one way to mitigate the impact of these fluctuations over time is to move away from a current workforce supporting current retirees model toward a current workforce supporting future retirees model. In this way, each generation would more directly be supporting itself, and (likewise) the size of each generation of retirees will be proportionately supported by a generation of roughly the same size (i.e. the younger version of itself). As such, perhaps this slice might appropriately be renamed the "we (our generation) are all in this together" slice... to indicate that we should not forget about our future selves even as we work to support the ones we love.

3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds

While the original version of the social security program appears to have had provisions that limit the level of benefits an individual is eligible to receive based on the amount of money they paid into the program during their working life, it does not appear that the program was ever intended to give individuals any autonomy over how their own funds were invested. As a result, citizens, who do not (whether by choice or circumstance) set up other retirement plans (e.g. pensions, 401k's, IRA's) for themselves, have little-to-no direct control over the future of their own retirement funds.

Understandably, this format runs contrary to the 'spirit of rugged individualism' upon which many citizens pride themselves, and I believe that ultimately the degree to which this 'spirit' is real or perceived (a not uncommon point of contention) is irrelevant. Politicians (typically on the left) will ignore this popular sentiment at the peril of the program they support.

I believe that for social security to have any real chance at surviving in the long-term that: (1) it is necessary to offer some autonomy to those who desire it, and naturally (2) the government should only offer up such a concession under auspices of a mutual understanding that - for those who opt for autonomy - there is some risk of failure (and some risk of loss).

In practical terms, I am suggesting that individuals be able to designate (each year they are working) a certain portion of the social security funds (that would otherwise be withheld from their pay) to be diverted to some sort of personal retirement account. Then, in a complementary manner, whatever portion of a retiree's pay had been diverted to their personal retirement account over the course of their working life would be deducted from the pay-out they would otherwise receive from the more traditional social security fund(s).

At this point, I do not have any preference regarding who would run such an account (whether run by the government or -more likely- the private sector), and I do not think that the administration of such a program would need to be any more complicated than the current system of claiming a tax credit for money deposited in an IRA at the end of each tax year. Instead, it is more important that Congress just settle on something that works - politically and practically.

All things considered, this slice of the pie might easily be renamed the "rugged individual" slice of the pie... allowing those who would desire it, the ability to take a chance to earn (or lose) a little bit more than their neighbors.

4. Funds diverted to paying down the national debt

The reasoning to include this "Funds diverted to paying down the national debt" slice of the pie may be much less obvious (and much more controversial) than any of the others. However, this slice of the pie stands firmly on principles of sustainability and inter-generational equity.

It has been rightly pointed out (no pun intended) that the United States federal government is spending a large amount of money that it does not have by borrowing money from other countries... and in essence from future generations, who will be forced to pay off that debt (or possibly go to war to avoid paying the debt if it is too burdensome). In any case, it is a fundamental issue of inter-generational equity that each generation do their best to pay for the governmental programs (especially those with one-off benefits) they benefit from in their own lifetime, rather than leaving that burden to those that follow them.

Also, in perhaps a more tangible way (especially for those born of since 1970 and/or those familiar with the Greek debt crisis): what good is it to have retirement benefits promised to you in the future, if the overall functionality of your government may come into question due to astronomical national debt?

I believe that by tying the overall pool of social security benefits to the amount of national debt (or lack thereof) incurred by each generation, every generation will be incentivized to manage government spending more prudently. While this concept may seem intimidating - and I can't promise that it isn't - it may be less intimidating than trying to address the national debt issue from fiscal year to fiscal year.

****

I have offered the best (brief) reasoning that I can muster for including each piece of the social security funding scheme that I am proposing. In the next post, I will do my best to offer a good way to implement the social security reforms that I am proposing.

Regards,
Sean

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)

Hello Readers,

Earlier this month, I offered a letter to the newly re-elected president, in which I discussed the need for swift and decisive action on climate change and the national debt crisis. I reasoned that by taking action on issues that will greatly impact my grandchildren's grandchildren, we can see immediate improvements in the short-term while moving in the right direction overall.

This week, I would like to take some time to see if we cannot help future generations and current generations (old and young) all at the same time. To do so, I propose that we dance on another third rail (perhaps the sixth rail?) of politics: social security reform.

Over a year ago, in the summer of 2011, I offered a detailed '3 year plan' proposal for implementing automatic adjustments to the social security retirement age. With much clarification provided in the posts (links provided at the bottom of this post), the proposal boiled down to this:

The United States government should enact legislation that implements an automatically adjustable retirement age for social security retirement benefits, such that: during the decade in which citizens turn 50 their retirement age will be set at an age that is 3 years less than the average United States life expectancy at the time.

After carefully re-reading and re-considering my thoughts from last year, I stand by that proposal, and I would like to offer up some more thoughts to President Obama and the Congress as they swerve to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" at the end of this year.

Before I start to layout my new proposal to re-cut the social security pie, I would like to point out that I know that my idea will not be perfect (and will need a lot of collective thought and will-power to implement effectively). Thus, I strongly encourage my readers to consider the spirit of my proposal fundamentally set while considering the numbers in my proposal to be entirely negotiable.

Now, as I understand it, many people have argued about the merits of whether or not the 'social safety net' of social security should exist (even if some elected officials equivocate in public for the benefit of gaining senior citizen votes). However, for the sake of moving towards action, it is important to come to an understanding that whether or not you believe that social security should exist or not, it does exist.

It exists, and millions of people now depend on it as at least one of their primary sources of income.  It exists, and it will not be politically feasible to (safely) dismantle it (even if you would like to see it go). It exists, and it directly impacts most of the country (whether they are paying into it whenever they are working or they are receiving payouts now or are expecting to receive payouts soon).

As such, I hope that all of my readers, will concede that social security exists, so it is important to address its viability now to avoid potentially devastating financial consequences that will span generations. To address this viability in the fairest and most politically actionable manner, I propose that we start in the middle of the middle of all reasonable proposals for social security reform (at least of those that I have come across) and then add a little bit more.

In essence, I suggest that we begin to divide up the social security funding allocation pie.** While this may superficially seem to make the process more complicated, please stay with me and hopefully it will make sense at the end. I believe that we should divide up the pie into four separate (but not necessarily equal) slices:

1. Funds paid out all to current retirees
2. Funds reserved for specific generations of retirees
3. Funds diverted to personal investment funds
4. Funds diverted to paying down any outstanding national debts

In the next post, I will discuss why I believe that social security funds should start to be divided into these four slices. Then, in another post, I will put forth a possible mechanism for implementing this pie-cutting process in a manner that will be fair to current social security beneficiaries but also address the needs of current (and future) generations of workers.

Regards,
Sean

**Throughout this entire series I am focusing solely on the social security program as it pertains to retirees, and I am not proposing to make any adjustments to parts of social security benefits for the disabled or other non-retirees.**

This "Recutting the social security pie" series:
Introduction: Recutting the social security pie (Part 1 of 3)
Reasoning: Recutting the social security pie (Part 2 of 3)
Implementation: Recutting the social security pie (Part 3 of 3)

The previous "Adjustable Retirement Age" series:
Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Response: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

The Challenge of Returning Veterans

Hello Readers,

I found a very interesting TED talk, which seems especially appropriate on this (observed) Veteran's Day.



As the speaker suggests, a program or organization like this might be a crucial step in helping veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to re-integrate themselves into society. Also, it could be an intelligent model for implementing a climate change adaptation policy or program, and I would suggest that it might not necessarily need to be limited to post-disaster relief. It could also be extended to include pre-disaster preparations and overall disaster mitigation strategies.

Respectfully,

Sean

A letter to the president

Hello President Obama,

I obviously want to start off by congratulating you on a well fought electoral campaign and, of course, your re-election. On Tuesday, I voted for you for a second time, and I wanted to let you know why.

I believe that we need to leave the planet and society in better shape than they were given to us.

I am not (especially) worried about myself, because I have been given the opportunity to share in a rich and on-going human experience: the opportunity to grow and learn and live. My main concern is that I leave the planet and society in such a state that my grandchildren’s grandchildren (which – for the record – are hypothetical, as are any children I may have in the future) will have the opportunity to say the same thing. I believe that if I live my life like this – asking for nothing that will detract from the human experience of my grandchildren’s grandchildren – my life, my neighbors’ lives, and my children’s lives will be enriched all the more.

I understand that none of our country's problems (financial, social, or environmental) materialized overnight nor could many of them be easily predicted (or avoided even if they were clearly predicted). Instead, the issues we face are the result of an accumulation of decades of (and in some cases generations of) complex decisions made with the best intentions.

I also understand that there are indeed limits to presidential power, and that it is necessary for a president to work with (or in some cases against) the Congress as well as many other parties. I understand that the social cost of not addressing our country's health-care system in your first term would have been great.

In short, I am very understanding. However, I voted for your re-election, because I believe that you genuinely care, speak and act sincerely, and possess the fortitude to that will be required to work through the issues at hand.

That being said, I must demand two things of you. The first, of which you are no doubt well aware, is that you do whatever it takes to get our nation's debt under control. The second, which you only mentioned in passing during your campaign and which in my mind is absolutely paramount, is that you put a truly unprecedented effort forward to implement substantial measures that address climate change - both its mitigation and (due to the unfortunately modest progress made on this issue thus far) our adaptation in response to the effects that can no longer be avoided.

You have been given 4 more years to accomplish both of these demands; however, the impact of your actions will determine the course of our history for the next 40 years or more. While others will demand necessary and useful short-term actions to fix the economy and provide more jobs over the next couple of years, any such short-term gains will be completely negated soon after the end of your term if a comprehensive long-term strategy is not initiated.

I have waited four years with patience and understanding. We cannot wait another four years. We need serious and comprehensive action now. We need to find solutions that work - whether they are government-based solutions or private-sector solutions or a little of both, I frankly do not care... whether it requires raising more taxes or making thoughtful spending reductions, I do not care. It simply needs to work. The rest of the details will sort themselves out over time, just make it work!

With high hopes and best wishes,

Sean Diamond
A member of the Warmest Generation

TED Talk - smart building materials

Hello Readers,

I thought you might enjoy watching this TED Talk about smart building materials, which provide passive air conditioning (reducing energy consumption).



Cheers,
Sean

Sandy: a footnote in history

Hello Readers,

Unless you have been living under a flooded rock, you know that hurricane Sandy started hitting the east coast of the US one week ago. There have been a flurry of articles in the news media discussing how climate change played a role in Sandy's strength...

Bloomberg Businessweek:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid

 ...among many others. And yet, climate change has just begun to take effect (according to basically any credible scientific climate model). Just imagine what the 14' storm surge in New York City could have been if the baseline sea-level had already risen 1-3' (as it may within the next several decades). What would the IKE be...

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/sandy-packed-more-total-energy-than-katrina-at-landfall/2012/11/02/baa4e3c4-24f4-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

...if the global temperatures were a few degrees warmer, and the atmospheric humidity was just a little bit higher (holding a little bit more rain water), which would add to the amount of rain that fell in the span of just a few days...

Washington Post (again):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/hurricane-sandy-recap-historic-storm-from-storm-surge-to-snow/2012/10/31/9a7c56d8-2362-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

So yes, the impact of hurricane Sandy was (and still is) devastating, and I certainly hope that those still living through those impacts the best of luck, but please take a moment to consider that this storm may be considered mild or average in two or three decades (if climate change plays out how the models predict).

After you consider that, let's have a discussion about what we can do to avoid a worst-case-scenario. (Again, sorry for implying that the current situation is nowhere near the worst-case-scenario, but it is not even close.) Let's start talking about how we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions nationally (reducing the long-term impacts of climate change) and how we can increase the baseline-resilience of our local communities (increasing our tolerance for extreme weather events). This is the two-pronged approach that we need to take in order to ensure our place in history as the Warmest Generation.

Regards and best wishes,

Sean Diamond

Before you vote, watch this...

Hello Readers,

I have finally gotten a chance to get settled in after my move into my new apartment and beginning my new job, so it appears that it is time to come out of blog-itudinal hibernation. Given that it is the last weekend before election day, I must urge that you at least take climate change in mind before you vote!

Here is a Frontline PBS special about climate change and politics...



I can't promise that everything that they say in the video is right or wrong, but at least they are talking about it... unlike the presidential campaigns!

Once you are done watching, GO VOTE!!!

~Sean

Coming Unscrewed

Hello Readers,

A couple of weeks ago, I was hired to work at a new job after a summer of unemployed job searching. I am still working in the renewable energies industry, but I have moved from one end of the industry to the other. As I've mentioned in the past, I was working as a solar PV installer and developer. However, now, I am working at National Grid as a Technical Support Consultant, which is code for a reviewer of renewable energy interconnection applications.

Over the past few weeks, I have been quickly learning and re-learning the regulations, requirements, background, and software systems needed to process complex interconnection applications. (Thus, my lull in posts on this blog.)

I also bought a car, and had to deal with an internal struggle regarding my own preference for avoiding car ownership and using walking, biking, and public transportation. However, as I was facing a choice between a public transportation based commute that is over 90 minutes each way (and twice as long as a car based commute) I had to relent and make the purchase. Hopefully, in the next few weeks I will be able to post some thoughts on that struggle.

In the meantime, this car based commute did result in me hearing a frustrating interview on NPR, which I have embedded below, entitled Are Today's Millennials The 'Screwed Generation'?.

In this interview, Michel Martin (NPR) and Joel Kotkin discuss the book and concept of the 'Screwed Generation' - a derogatory, underwhelming description of the Warmest Generation (otherwise known as Millennials). Kotkin does point out a few systemic issues that the Warmest Generation has had to deal with as they enter college and later the workforce. However, he also makes relatively discouraging claims about the motivations of those of us born in the 80's and 90's.

I recommend listening to the interview, but I certainly would not take Kotkin's opinions as facts (or even correct in many cases). Instead, I would take his bashes against the character of our generation as untrue, and the burdens and debts laid upon us by older generations as a challenge of which we were all well aware and working to overcome. Furthermore, I would like to stress that the interview fell far short by only focusing on the economic challenges faced by our generation, rather than mentioning the social and environmental challenges that our generation has already started to address.

Regards,

Sean Diamond

Gardening in Towns

Hello Readers,

I thought I would follow up the Gardening in Schools TED Talk post from Monday with a TED Talk from Pam Warhurst about turning towns into edible public spaces.

Please enjoy,

Sean

Gardening in Schools

Hello Readers,

Here is a great TED Talk about combining schools with green urban agriculture.

Enjoy,

Sean

Permaculture and Summer Social

Hello Readers,

I have not had too much time to prepare a post for today, but I thought you might be interested in two things:

For those of you who were following the MBTA Series and live in Boston: tomorrow (Thursday, August 2nd, 2012) there is a Summer Social hosted by Livable Streets at the BSA Space.

Event Details
Thursday, August 2, 5:30-7:30pm
At the BSA Space
290 Congress Street, Boston
Free and open to the public

The BSA (or Boston Society of Architects) is providing the space, and visitors can check out their current exhibit "Let's Talk About Bikes."

For those of you not living in Boston, I have found a thorough article explaining what Permaculture is: Taking the Permaculture Path to Community Resilience, which should be interesting for any aspiring sustainable community planners who want to take their calling to the next level!

Welcome to August!

~Sean

How to Discuss Climate Change

Hello Readers,

This is the level of discussion that we, the Warmest Generation, need to be having. If you don't understand climate change (or don't think that you do), please watch this:



It is time to understand that 'increased probability' means that climate change is happening! Anyone who tries to spin the message of 'increased probability' as anything other than climate change is happening, is misinformed (or trying to misinform).

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Proposal: Reducing the MBTA Debt (Part 3)

Hello Readers,

Earlier in this series, I provided some background on the MBTA debt crisis and offered some justification for introducing a Parking Space Tax (PST) as part of a comprehensive transportation policy for the greater Boston metro area. I also suggested that any possible solution to the MBTA debt crisis must meet three criteria: (1) effectively addressing the debt itself (rather than merely shuffling it around), (2) improving the overall commuter experience, and (3) increasing MBTA revenues without unfairly burdening individual riders through constantly increasing fares.

In this final post in the series, I will offer some specific stipulations and suggestions regarding the structure and scope of any PST introduced in Massachusetts. I offer each of these recommendations with the hope that they ensure that the financial burden of the PST is spread equitably and that the corollary transportation incentives of the PST are targeted effectively.

PST Considerations

First and foremost, I feel compelled to acknowledge that there are many legitimate uses of cars and that as a result there is some legitimate need for parking spaces. Growing up in suburban Pennsylvania, I experienced innumerable situations where attempting to use any other form of transportation would have been simply impractical. I can only assume that in Massachusetts there are analogous issues that must be considered. With this concession in mind, here are some principles worth considering:

1. Handicap Access - No matter how many elevators, ramps, and kneeling buses a mass transit system may introduce, there will be instances where forcing handicapped individuals not to drive (or have access to parking) will put an unreasonable burden on those individuals and their families. Thus, I recommend any PST or similar program waive all fees, costs, and limitations related to handicap parking spaces.
   
   
2. Population Density - That is to say that in areas with especially low population densities, a mass transit system may not be a viable option. In some situations, a rural population may only have enough people traveling to a shopping center each day to fill a bus three times per day. Of course, only having access to the shopping center three times per day or running a half-filled bus six times per day would not be helpful for the shopping center businesses, convenient for the local residents, or economical for a bus company or transit authority. In these areas, personal cars and parking spaces truly are the best option.
   
   At the same time, there are numerous suburban and urban areas where personal cars may seem like a necessity. However, this perceived necessity is typically much greater than the actual utility of personal cars. Specifically, by improving current transportation alternatives or introducing new alternatives, the local population could easily and effectively make (better) use of a mass transit system to the benefit of commuters as well as local residents and businesses.
   
   Thus, understanding the relationship between population density and the utility of personal car use, I strongly urge that any PST or similar program be directly correlated with population density, such that areas with higher population densities bare a larger burden than areas with lower population densities. In fact, areas with sufficiently low population densities should not bare any PST or mass transit burden.
   
   
3. Free over Fare - While there may be no right to parking, I would contend that there is a right to free travel. That is, no matter how rich or poor someone is, they should never be trapped by the cost of transportation or overwhelmingly obstructed by the infrastructure of non-free transportation (i.e. no mode of transportation that costs money should prevent someone from using free modes of transportation).
   
   Despite how beneficial cars, subways, buses, or any other mode of transportation may be, it should not trump the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. On the contrary, improvements to fare-based transportation should only serve to augment the ability of people looking to walk or bike to their destination. Thus, bike racks, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and benches should all be considered alternatives to parking spaces, and in related policies the introduction of new free-travel improvements should be an opportunity to reduce a community's PST burden.
   
   
4. Validated Parking - Often urban shopping centers, entertainment venues, and groceries stores 'validate parking' to alleviate the burden of the cost of parking for their customers. I would like to reconsider this concept in two ways in order to address some potential criticisms of a PST.
   
   Rather than validating parking in densely populated neighborhoods and towns, why don't stores 'validate' mass transit costs? Stores with parking lots or garages might easily charge a dollar or more per hour for parking, because in these cases, the stores have spent (or are spending) money to build or maintain the parking spaces, a cost that could be passed on to customers directly. However, they realize that it is beneficial to their bottom-line to subsidize this parking cost for customers that may be spending hundreds of dollars during a shopping trip. Wouldn't it make as much sense (or more sense) for those stores to validate mass transit fares instead and fore-go the expense of maintaining a parking lot or garage? Just imagine if for every $20 you spent on groceries, you could have a quarter added to your Charlie Card!
   
   On the other hand, many people live in the city where mass transit exists but work in the suburbs and country side in massive office complexes, which are not accessible (or barely accessible) via public transportation and are well out of the range of an average cyclist. In these cases, someone's livelihood may depend on their ability to have access to a car for their daily commute, which may mean that a hefty PST at home needs to be paid solely so they can get to work. As such, it would be entirely feasible for employers (especially large corporate employers), who have decided to locate their operations in a suburban locations, to validate their employee's residential parking costs. This may seem outlandish at first, but consider that many urban employers already offer similar commuter benefits to encourage their employees to utilize mass transit services.
   
   
5. Other Concerns - While I do not have a catchy name for this point, I would discourage any stipulations that taxed the use of private driveways at residences. Part of my justification for PST legitimacy is the over-use of public spaces, which admittedly has been stretched somewhat to include commercial spaces, as parking spaces. However, it seems inappropriate to try to assess parking taxes on farms or private residences. The purpose of the PST is not to make car ownership impossible, it is only to discourage excessive car use and encourage alternative forms of transportation whenever appropriate. Thus, I would also consider making provisions for car share programs, taxis, parking spaces at commuter rail stations, and even car dealerships and some long-term vehicle storage facilities.

One Possible PST Structure

One way to structure a PST would include calculating the rate of taxation at the municipal level on a per parking space basis, which is scaled to the local population density. For example, the tax could be designed such that the PST rate in each municipality is equal to $0.01 per day for each taxable parking space, multiplied by the local population density divided by 1000. In this calculation, a municipality's population density would be rounded down to the nearest thousand. The tax rates for the most densely populated municipalities in Massachusetts under such a scenario are listed in the box below.

Municipality	Pop. Density Per Sq. Mi.	Daily PST Rate Per Parking Space	Annual PST Cost per Parking Space
Somerville	18,448	$0.18	$65.70
Cambridge	16,358	$0.16	$58.40
Chelsea	16,081	$0.16	$58.40
Boston	12,753	$0.12	$43.80
Everett	12,314	$0.12	$43.80
Malden	11,716	$0.11	$40.15
Lawrence	10,974	$0.10	$36.50
Winthrop	8,803	$0.08	$29.20
Revere	8,750	$0.08	$29.20
Brookline	8,649	$0.08	$29.20

Population density figures based on 2010 census data posted on the arlington-mass.com website.

Each of the municipalities listed in the table above are already served in some way by the MBTA and would most greatly benefit from improvements to T service. Of course, there are some densely populated areas that are not served by the MBTA, see the map below. However, each of these areas could probably make use of some mass transit funding in the future. Furthermore, as you may note in the map below, there are also large regions of the state with population densities below 1,000 residents per square mile, which would not be subject to any PST rate at all.

Of course, as every urban planner and policymaker knows, every location is different. With this in mind, I will suggest that a state-wide PST follow the guidelines listed in the above section and establish a rate structure similar to the one in this section. Then, as long as the related legislation clearly defines what is and is not considered a taxable parking space, the actual administration and collection of the PST may be left up to the municipal authorities (with some small percentage of the revenues being returned to the municipalities to cover their administrative costs).

This will offer municipalities and local residents the ability to determine how to divide up the financial burden of the PST and develop innovative ways of reducing the number of parking spaces in their own municipality - while still meeting the needs of citizens and businesses. For example one town may decide to collect the revenues through residential parking permit fees, whereas another may elect to put the burden on commercial properties by increasing real estate taxes or charging a parking lot fee. Likewise, some municipalities may decide to erect new no-parking signs on certain streets, replace parking spaces with bike racks, or allow restaurants to block off old parking spaces for use as outdoor seating.

In any event, implementing a Parking Space Tax will involve a little bit of creativity. However, if done right, it can meet the three criteria necessary to solve the MBTA debt crisis and offer a sustainable alternative to the current de facto transportation policy in Massachusetts.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Click Here to go back to the First Post in the MBTA Debt series

Proposal: Reducing the MBTA Debt (Part 2)

Hello Readers,

In an earlier post, I introduced the issue of the overwhelming debt that is burdening Boston's mass transit system, the MBTA. In that post, I also suggested that a Parking Space Tax (PST) is a possible solution that will meet three criteria: (1) effectively addressing the debt itself (rather than merely shuffling it around), (2) improving the overall commuter experience, and (3) increasing MBTA revenues without unfairly burdening individual riders through constantly increasing fares.

In this post, I shall offer justification for taxing parking spaces as a means of meeting these three criteria. In the next post, I shall suggest some features and stipulations of a PST that ensure its equity and effectiveness as a part of a comprehensive transportation policy.

The Right to Parking

I recently watched the documentary Urbanized, a film directed by Gary Hustwit about urban planning. In the film, the former mayor of Bogota, Columbia (Enrique Peñalosa) drove home a point that stuck with me. He asked, essentially, where in the [Columbian] constitution is there a right to parking? Obviously, the answer is that there is no 'right to parking' in any constitution in the world, that a 'right to parking' does not exist. He also went on to suggest that in a democracy that it is the people who should be treated equally, not the cars. Thus, a bus that holds 50 people should have 50 times more priority and access to a roadway than a car that holds 1 person.

Building on the concept that there is no 'right to parking' (and preferring people's equity rather than cars' equity), I would like to suggest that parking is indeed a privilege and not a right. Furthermore, the existence of on-street parking spaces and public/commercial parking lots and garages (and the associated side effects of their existence) tend to put a significant burden on the public as a whole. Therefore, parking spaces should be subject to a tax.

Some Burdens of Parking Spaces on the Public

1. Physical Space - The most obvious and direct impact of parking spaces and parking lots is that their physical presence prevents the allocation of that space for other uses. Just imagine if every building in Boston had an additional 9' wide patch of green space in front of it or if restaurants and cafes could provide ample outdoor seating without obstructing the sidewalk! Likewise, consider what might be possible if the neighborhood grocery store had half of its parking spaces replaced with parks that included community gardens, bike racks, or even a public pool or ice rink.
   
   Instead, massive parking lots and on-street parking take up a lot of space. If on-street spaces were privately owned, you can be sure that the landlords would be charging rent for that space. However, since many parking spaces are publicly owned, car owners can use them rent free or nearly rent free.
   
   Even metered parking spaces are 'rented' at rates that are low compared to the surrounding land. For example in the City of Boston, a metered parking space is charged at a rate of $1.25 per hour. For each space, this works out to a maximum of $4,692.85 per year or just over $390 per month (after considering there is no charge on Sundays and at night) for a 216 square foot space (or roughly the size of a modest studio apartment). In other words, these spaces have a maximum financial return to the public of <$22/sq. ft each year, even in areas that may have a land values of over $200/sq. ft, which pay a property tax of well over 10%!
   
   
2. Increased Congestion - For decades, policymakers have been attempting to address congestion and traffic by adding lanes to highways and streets. During each of those same decades, congestion has continued to get worse (or at the very least not better) in most places. Why is this?
   
   The reasoning is that adding traffic lanes provides more opportunities for cars to pass one another. The counter-intuitive result is that more people are encouraged to drive more often rather than using other modes of transportation. In effect, adding lanes of traffic to roads makes other modes of transportation seem more dangerous (e.g. by increasing the curb-to-curb distance for pedestrians and forcing cyclists to cross multiple lanes of traffic to turn left from a bike lane) and more difficult (e.g. putting obstructions and vehicles between places that are physically close together), which encourages more people to drive - causing more congestion.
   
   However, it is not simply the additional traffic lanes (or increased danger for alternative transportation methods) that significantly affect congestion. Instead, it is the availability of parking spaces at the end of the journey.
   
   Consider, for a moment, if there were zero parking spaces available in Boston. How many people would drive into Boston? Basically none. Granted, there would still be some traffic through the city, and perhaps occasionally someone might drop off a friend and return without needing to park. Yet, this would certainly amount to very little congestion compared to the daily rush hour in Boston today.
   
   Now, consider a less extreme case, where there were simply fewer parking spaces and those that were available were a little more expensive or otherwise reserved for handicapped citizens, car share programs, and bike racks. While driving would still be an option, it would probably be reserved for special occasions. Theoretically, such a scenario would decrease congestion. Thus, conversely, allowing parking spaces to be relatively cheaper and more available (the current situation) encourages more driving and more congestion than is necessary.
   
   
3. Environmental Impacts - In my mind, the environmental impacts associated with parking spaces are relatively obvious even if they are somewhat indirect, so I will not dedicate too much discussion to this burden. Most directly, paved parking spaces cause increased storm-water runoff, compared to an equal amount of green space. Additionally, the vehicles parked on the spaces leak and leach fluids and oils that are often swept away with the storm-water into the rivers and harbors in Boston. Finally, as a corollary, all of the increased congestion related to parking spaces (as described above) means that each vehicle is spewing more pollutants per mile traveled.

So far, I have only discussed the issues and problems related to parking spaces and commuting by car. In the next post, I shall make a few concessions regarding the benefits of cars and parking spaces, as I offer some recommendations about the structure and limitations of any Parking Space Tax that may be introduced in Massachusetts.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Click Here to go to the Next Post in the MBTA Debt series

Proposal: Reducing the MBTA Debt (Part 1)

Hello Readers,

Earlier this summer I moved to the Boston area and began to search for local sustainably minded organizations and investigate the local sustainability issues. As I did so, I quickly ran into one issue in particular that seems to be on everyone's mind: the MBTA.

For anyone not living in Massachusetts, the MBTA stands for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which is the entity responsible for operating all commuter and mass transit services in the greater Boston metropolitan area, including local buses, ferries, subway lines, and commuter rail lines. According to the MBTA website (and the 2010 US Census), the MBTA services a territory with a population of 4,817,014 in a state with a population of 6,547,629 (i.e. nearly 75% of the population of Massachusetts). Though most often used in reference specifically to the subway system, the MBTA is commonly known as simply as the T.

The Issue

Unfortunately, from what I can surmise based on my discussions with people and searching through recent news articles, the MBTA is deeply in debt. So far in debt in fact that according to a BostInno article by Denise Provost, "Payment of interest on its debt eats up over 30 percent of MBTA’s entire budget."

According to an online Boston Magazine article, the total debt (at least as of February 2012) is $5.2 billion, which is attributable to three sources:

• $1.85 billion - debt from MBTA improvement projects since 2000
• $1.65 billion - debt from MBTA improvement projects prior to 2000
• $1.7 billion - debt from the 'Big Dig' project

To explain the reasoning behind this breakdown, a little bit of modern history is required.

In 2000, the state legislature restructured the MBTA, requiring it to annually balance its budget under a so-called "Forward Funding" scheme. As part of the scheme, the MBTA was required to payback debts that the state had previously incurred due to MBTA maintenance and improvement projects. The scheme also required the MBTA to take on debt related to the environmental mitigation projects related to the Big Dig.

The Big Dig is the unofficial name of a now infamous highway project in Boston that was designed to re-route I-90 and I-93 through underground tunnels as they passed through downtown Boston. As part of the environmental mitigation for the massive amount of environmental disturbance that the Big Dig would cause, the state legislature agreed to implement several upgrades to the T system. The highway construction of the Big Dig took nearly a decade longer than expected and the actual cost was billions of dollars over-budget.

For an extensive overview of how the MBTA got so far into debt, see the 2009 MBTA Advisory Board report (pdf).

The Proposed Solution

The default response to this issue by the MBTA has been to raise fares and/or cut back on services: the two aspects of its budget over which the Advisory Board has control. Of course, both of these responses discourage T ridership by making mass transit trips more expensive and less convenient. Simultaneously, this makes other forms of commuting such as driving relatively more attractive, and it puts an additional burden on those most reliant on the T as their only means of transportation.

I have found many other potential solutions floating around on the internet, including absurd suggestions like selling liquor on subway cars to more serious suggestions. For example, the 2009 MBTA Advisory Board report recommended that the state simply take back the debt from the MBTA and put it back on the state budget. Also, one proposal currently on the table would require selling the naming rights to the busiest stations, but it would only make $147 million dollars over 8 years (less than one fifth of the annual budget deficit - note not the whole annual budget, just the deficit).

However, I cannot find any suggestions (at least none with any significant description) that include: (1) effectively addressing the debt itself (rather than merely shuffling it around), (2) improving the overall commuter experience, and (3) increasing MBTA revenues without unfairly burdening individual riders through constantly increasing fares. Thus, I would like to propose a solution that may ruffle a lot of feathers but should fulfill all three of these criteria and be relatively straight forward to implement.

The proposed solution is this: a Parking Space Tax.

Now, Republicans and Libertarians please hear me out before stonewalling the very notion of a tax. I could have very easily tried to call it a 'service fee' or something else, but I shall call it what it is. The Parking Space Tax (or hereafter PST) will have some features and stipulations that I will describe in a later post. However, in the next post, I will explain my reasoning behind a policy connecting parking and mass transit.

Also, while you are waiting for the next post in the series, you can take a look at a related Boston Globe article that was published as I was editing this series. The article is actually based on a similar premise but has a limited focus: downtown parking garages.

Sincerely,

Sean Diamond

Click Here to go to the Next Post in the MBTA Debt series