“I know that many on these lists are unaware of a very dangerous, in my opinion, proposed development,” wrote a resident of the Laurel neighborhood a few months ago on a listserve meant for “anyone who lives, works, shops or plays” in the area.

He was scared that a real estate firm called Urban Green Investments planned to build 65,000 square feet of residential units in the area, to be reserved for Section 8 renters.

The idea that a large number of families who have a hard time making financial ends meet could be supported by a new neighborhood institution was, apparently, a violation of the author’s safety.

ellabaker, 29.05.13.

a comment on the article:

I was born in north Oakland, I present to the world as non white, but because my father is white, he was able to buy homes in areas that are typically difficult for minorities to enter as homeowners without strict back round checks and possibly fighting invisible red lining that is still practiced to a large degree.

I ride a bike, I present with brown skin and of adult age in places where I am deemed “out of place” such as my own neighborhoods where my father still owns properties. Not sure when I became profiled but I noticed as I got older it has become more aggressive.

I have no criminal record and have attended graduate school, yet I know I must be careful on because I have been followed and had other odd occurrences such as being questioned by police for bike riding in the wrong neighborhood while brown skinned in old tennis shoes. I know I should dress up more to make my neighbors more comfortable with their fears but I am not really the dress up type, despite having been raised in the same upscale neighborhoods that I am now profiled. For me some old white keds leggings and a tee shirt is sufficient for a bike ride, but not if you are brown, then the casualness of your attire will be deemed a sign of poverty and you will be followed, pulled over and profiled.

Sigh. It is a very horrible place to know that your very innocence is a state of criminality that must be policed.

just did my presentation in my Climate Change & Geographical Economics class at TU (Technische Universität) this morning.

I discussed Richard J. Plevin’s 2010 analysis on the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) policy. It’s chapter 10 of his 200pg dissertation (no, I didn’t read the entire thing), Life Cycle Regulation of Transportation Fuels: Uncertainty and its Policy Implications, for his phD in Energy & Resources at UC Berkeley.

Short summary of this chapter:

background:

• Carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector comprise about one third of total CO2 emissions in the US, and 40% of the total in California. 
• Many national and regional governments have been promoting biofuels as a strategy to mitigate the climate change effects of the existing petroleum-based transportation system.

goal of the California LCFS: 

• To reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector in California by about 16 million metric tons in 2020.

problems:

• Leakage: reshuffling of biofuel markets and the rebound effect
• Uncertainty in life cycle assessments (LCA)

conclusion: 

• When the rebound effect and reshuffling are taken into account, along with uncertainties in ILUC (indirect land-use change) emissions, the actual benefits from the LCFS appear to be small to negligible. 
• Rather than building a complex market-based system based on highly-precise quantification of an observable, subjective, and uncertain measure like the life cycle GHG emissions, we should recognize the limits of scientific analysis and develop policies that observe these limits.