The world famous ferris wheel at the Santa Monica Pier got an upgrade last week.The new wheel, which cost $1.5 million, contains 160,000 energy efficient LED lights and will draw energy from solar panels installed on the pier from the previous wheel.The new ferris wheel joins the Santa Monica Civic Center parking garage as the latest local iconic structure to have an environmentally friendly design.
This November, California voters will have the opportunity to pass a ballot measure that will combine public and private money in order to develop a high-speed train that would connect all of the state’s population centers (Sacramento, the Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego).If built, a trip between the Bay Area and Los Angeles would take 2.5 hours (and is projected to cost $55 for a one-way ticket).
A newly added component on the measure would specifically encourage private investment in the project, which is estimated to cost $42 billion and targeted to be completed in 2020.
According to Assemblywoman Galgiani (D-Stockton), a proponent of the project, “If we don’t do high-speed rail, we will have to add 3,000 miles of highway and five airport runways in the state.”
It is our opinion that this is exactly the type of project that we, as a society, should be pursuing.Not only is effective mass transit good for the environment, but it is also good for the health and development of the community.Much of California has become paralyzed by gridlock.Flying from city to city is difficult because it can be hard to just drive to the airport (let alone get through security).An integrated, high-speed rail system, could greatly increase intra-state mobility, improving both the economy and civil society.Of course, intra-city transport, like subways and light-rails, are equally important.Otherwise people will have to fight the same old traffic, just to get to the high-speed rail stations.
According to a recent survey, 58 percent of Californians favor the bond and 32 percent oppose it.We will be keeping an eye on this measure and the arguments for and against it as we move towards the election in November.
[Update: Hat tip to reader Merritt for catching the mislabeling of the prior graphic.]
The LA Times is reporting today that while the California Coastal Commission denied the expansion of the toll road route as proposed, there is still the option of appealing the decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce since the land is owned by the federal government and leased to the state by the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base.According to the Times, since 1977 about a dozen of these types of appeals have been made and about half of them were successful.The other option for the toll road is to take a different route near the coast which could potentially take it out of the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission.It looks like the potential for a happy medium might be reached after all?
Recently banks have been putting out credit cards with green rewards programs. Think: carbon offsets instead of free plane tickets. However, according to the Wall Street Journal’s calculations, these banks are paying back on average the equivalent of less than 2% of the users’ purchases towards carbon offsets. The Journal notes that standard rewards cards pay around 3%. This raises the question of whether the banks are taking advantage of customers’ good will towards the environment in order to increase their margins, by decreasing the amount they have to pay in rewards?
Of course nothing these banks are doing is (or should be) illegal. But is it immoral? The Journal also notes that: “For financial institutions, adding green cards to their product lines is a way to boost their own corporate environmental credentials.” So basically, by offering green rewards cards, the banks are having their cake and eating it too. They increase the value of their brand by appearing to be environmentally friendly and they increase the value of their bottom line by decreasing the percentage of purchases that must be rewarded back.
While this seems a little shady, in our opinion it is a good thing when large corporations implement green consumer strategies. It is no secret that the goal of corporations is to make a profit. So when an industry finds a way to make added profit by going “green” this can only benefit the environment. Critics may say, “yeah, but they should reward the same percentage as for regular cards.”But the truth is they don’t. At least not now. So until more competition comes along offering a higher green reward this will have to do. It is an interesting step in the right direction.
Here is a list of three green rewards cards compiled by the Journal:
In a follow up to our previous post the California Coastal Commission decided to deny the request to extend the toll road on Route 241 to Interstate 5. This is a victory for both surfers and environmentalists. It will be interesting to see what, if any, more environmentally friendly alternatives to the gridlock on Int. 5 will develop. One common proposal is a widening of the 5 itself. We wonder how those environmental impacts will rate in comparison to those that would have resulted from the now rejected toll road. One of the arguments opponents made was that the expansion would have allowed for increased development in Orange County which would consequently do more damage to the environment. We wonder if the more likely reality is that development will continue but only without the necessary infrastructure? Might this be a Pyrrhic Victory for the road’s opponents?
Just in time for the California primary, LAist.com posted a written interview with Hillary Clinton on Tuesday.Some of the highlights relating to Los Angeles and the traffic woes include Clinton’s assertion that she would increase investment by $1.5 billion in public transit and $1 billion in intercity rail systems (on a national level).While this sounds like a move in the right direction, these dollar amounts are on a national level and may not have a material impact on Southern California.Basically, this does not seem to be a game changing policy akin to Eisenhower’s federal highway program. Which, in fairness to Clinton, is not how it is being touted.
Additionally, it is clear that just throwing federal money at a problem is not going to solve it on its own, as seen by the decision to direct over $23 million in federal funds towards developing a bus lane on Wilshire Blvd. from Santa Monica to Downtown.For a frustrated yet insightful take on this plan check out this post at metroriderla.com.
