Daily Score Blog

Just so everyone knows:  most of us here at Sightline will be working a short schedule through the summer, taking Fridays off.  Plus Alan's on sabbatical for the summer.  Which may mean we'll be doing a little less posting on this blog until fall. 

But less certainly doesn't mean none -- so please, by all means, keep visiting!

In two recent posts, I argued that urban high-rise apartments--as are being proposed for downtown Seattle--can be good for housing affordability.   But in a thoughtful comment on one of my posts, Sheldon Cooper from Homestead Community Land Trust argues out that high-density urban redevelopment can crowd out affordable housing, not increase its supply. 

Now, who's right? 

I actually think we both are, since we were talking about slightly different things -- both of which are important, and which (sadly) can be at odds with one another.

Obviously enough, affordability is in the eye of the beholder.  What's affordable for one group -- say, middle-income households -- may be completely out of reach for those at a lower income ladder.  Which leads to a potential problem:  a trend that can make housing more affordable for middle-income earners can, in theory at least, make housing less affordable for the poor.

To read today's headlines you'd think Schwarzenegger just saved the world from global warming catastrophe a la the "The Day After Tomorrow." But why?

In a speech to the United Nations World Environment Day gathering in San Francisco, the gubernator proclaimed that the scientific debate on climate change is over and that the world needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I suppose it's encouraging that another prominent republican has made such a declaration, in contrast to the willful ignorance of the White House. But isn't this stuff common knowledge by now?

Schwarzenegger also unveiled a (non-binding) pledge to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. By 2050, he aims to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Okay, that last bit is impressive. But 2050 is so far over the hazy edge of the political horizon that it doesn't seem particularly courageous to make radical pledges for 45 years from now, when the near-term goals are actually fairly insubstantial.

Plenty of other places in the US have made far more aggressive commitments to battling climate change.   

I point this out not because I'm in favor of it, but because I think it's a trend worth watching:  the Klamath Falls, OR newspaper, The Herald and News is reporting on a project to use biomass--namely, thinned trees--to generate electricity.

Here's what the article has to say about the greenhouse gas effects of the project:

A major wildfire would release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. But the controlled use of that same wood for lumber or electrical production would be positive in terms of "greenhouse gas" emissions. Future fires would not release the same amount of carbon dioxide, the wood that goes into building products stores carbon, and the biomass that goes into power production offsets the need to produce that energy from fossil fuels.

To be clear, I remain skeptical -- but since I don't really know anything about the specifics I'll keep my mouth shut, and let wiser or more informed people speak.

But over the long term -- and if future prices for natural gas are as high as they're expected to be (link goes to natural gas futures contract prices) -- I can't help but think that the pressure for this sort of project will intensify.  And that seems to be a cause for concern.  Deforestation rates over the past 30 years have been high enough just to deal with demand for timber and wood pulp; adding electricity to the mix is, well, troubling.