Local Rent Control, Recycling Sanitary Sewer Water in Aurora, CO, and EVs are neither saints nor devils.
Fresh of “Local Gun Control” Assembly Democrats are now going to push Local Rent Control.
Like a troublesome weed, it seems like the idea of rent control pops up over and over. I marvel at it too; how many cities that implemented it have had success?
San Fran?
NY?
Nonethless, the yet-more Progressive Assembly is lurching more to the left and moving to copy their "success" of letting local governments crack down on guns by letting them also institute rent control (it, as was the case formerly where there was a law that prevented local gun control, is not allowed currently under state law).
The press is all abuzz with the juicy possibility of conflict between Polis and the more extreme leftists in the Assembly fussing over this--a little like watching Ho Chi Minh argue communism with Mao--but I'm not too interested in that dynamic.
I also think I'm probably safe from facing things like this out here in Logan County (though I have thought about moving for a local initiative if this law passes just to cut my teeth on a local initiative). You may not be, so I wanted to pass it along to you in case this was something you wanted to speak up on.
By looking at the bill (linked below an article by CPR for reference), I can see it's up for committee on 2/15, so there is some time to prepare if you wanted to advocate. But not much.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/01/24/colorado-rent-control-bill/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1115
Recycled sanitary sewer water, what do you think?
The article below details a planned expansion of Aurora's existing recycled sanitary sewer water. The process is detailed in the article below, but, given that it took me a read or two to understand, I thought a schematic might be helpful. It's attached.
I'd be curious to hear what you think about this (whether you live in Aurora or no). Strong feelings? Feel free to share in the comments.
I myself can't help a natural aversion to the thought of drinking water that came back out the sewer. I say this knowing that at some point every drop I drink has passed through some animal or human. I also know perfectly well that it's safe. I'm still alive after all.
I think it's like what I read once in the book "Fast Food Nation". They were discussing irradiating meat as a way to prevent e coli infection (when you slaughter a cow, you have to be careful to not let the contents of its gut get in the meat because it's contaminated with e coli).
The discussion had it that irradiating the meat might incentivize slaughterhouses to speed up the line. After all, if you're not going to get someone sick with e coli because the meat will get sterilized later with radiation, why not?
The relevant phrase was that it might be safe, but consumers might not appreciate eating irradiated s**t.
Yeah, that.
One last thing. A bright spot in my view. Doing this water recycling is a way (as mentioned in the article) for the Front Range to help ease the burden on Ag by not taking as much runoff out of the water system. That is a good thing.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/01/19/prairie-waters-aurora-recycling-reuse-expansion/
EV’s are neither saints nor devils, they have (as does every tool we use to solve a problem) advantages and disadvantages.
This post was inspired by a tweet that CPR's transportation reporter Nathaniel Minor sent out. That thread is linked first below. He asked the head of Colorado's Energy Office Will Toor for his opinion on an article (linked second below).
I got curious about the article and Toor's response and so read both. If you would like to see Mr. Toor's response (given via Twitter) see either the link below or the screengrabs.
Reading the article, seeing Mr. Toor's response, and knowing what I do in general inspired some thinking that I thought worth sharing with you. If it sparks thoughts/questions for you as well, please feel free to add to the comments.
We need to remember first and foremost that all technology is a tool to achieve an end, a tool that comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages, benefits and consequences. EVs are not an exception to this rule.
They are not saints and they are not devils. If we choose to EVs will eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from driving one compared to a gas-powered car. They will not (at least not til our grid is carbon free and we have electric transportation, and electric mining dump trucks, and electric cargo ships, and on and on and on) completely eliminate all sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector.
They will eliminate the need to get gas out of the ground and refine it. They will reduce our dependence on getting gas from politically unstable parts of the world (so would producing more fuel of our own, but that's another post).
Nor will they have no environmental/human impact. As detailed the article linked second and third below, there is right now a significant environmental and human cost to getting the materials needed to build EVs out of the ground. There is likely similar for some parts of gas powered cars, but it's worth remembering that we are not trading up here. We're trading across at the least.
Switching to EVs is switching to a different set of benefits and costs, not switching over to all benefit and no cost.
The second thing we need to remember about EVs is to watch how our government is selling them to us. If you haven't yet, go look at Mr. Toor's response to the CPR reporter. I want to take some points he makes in the order that the tweets are labeled.
1. Mr. Toor points out that we can't meet our climate goals without electrifying vehicles. That may be accurate. The thing is, we need to remember that climate goals didn't come down a mountain on stone tablets carved by God with lightning bolts. They were a choice made by a very progressive legislature and governor. We could have different goals.
2. We are going to need to dig up tons of minerals for EVs. Whether or not this dwarfs what we are doing re. fossil fuels is debatable. Oil and gas wellheads have a different footprint than a pit mine. If Mr. Toor includes coal here (he didn't specify), he should indicate such and should give a number. Incidentally, the coal we strip mine would be used for now to power the EVs that we're strip mining for.
3. There are genuine environmental concerns raised by the processes and inputs that go into EV production. No choice is without consequence. There are genuine human rights concerns about sourcing for EV inputs (see below). These need to be addressed. If it is true, as you indicate that this can be done responsibly (both in terms of the environment and other humans), what does this mean for the cost of inputs and, ultimately the EVs themselves?
4, 5, 6. As to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT's) and planning/incentives, I wonder what the government's, the governor's, and department head's (such as Toor) responses will be if (more likely when given historical patterns) people choose not to drive and live they way these two think they should?
It was interesting to read the original article tweeted out by Mr. Minor because I don't think that I had an inkling prior that there was a segment of the environmental movement that is not necessarily pushing for EVs. There is a segment that holds that the only solution is to get everyone off the roads, regardless of what you drive.
That strikes me as extreme (and I'm guessing there are a fair number of those in the environmental movement NOW at least) but I wonder how this will evolve. I think it's instructive to look at California because they're a few years ahead of us on this trajectory.
In broad strokes ...
California started with emission/fuel standards and trimming everywhere.
Then it was no gas-powered cars being allowed to be sold there.
Now, it's (look at screenshot 7 from the blog linked fourth below) the recognition that even these steps won't meet their goals; they're going to have to do things to get people to change their driving habits. A list of ideas to do that is in the article.
A better strategy would be to work with what's feasible and reasonable, not "bold" yet unachievable ideas that frustrate everyone (environmentalists included).
This means things like not putting all our eggs in the EV basket, i.e. being open to other technology that might be better.
This means encouraging EV purchase (not subsidizing) where it makes sense.
This mean revising our goals to be more in line with sanity and reality.
https://www.curbed.com/2023/01/electric-vehicles-biden-batteries-lithium-mining.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=tw
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/briefings/transition-minerals-sector-case-studies/human-rights-in-the-mineral-supply-chains-of-electric-vehicles/
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2022/12/19/carbs-scoping-plan-for-climate-action-calls-for-much-less-driving/