TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    News

    Volts

    Volts is a podcast about leaving fossil fuels behind. I’ve been reporting on and explaining clean-energy topics for almost 20 years, and I love talking to politicians, analysts, innovators, and activists about the latest progress in the world’s most important fight. (Volts is entirely subscriber-supported. Sign up!)

    www.volts.wtf

    Advertise

    Copyright: © David Roberts

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    The many social and psychological benefits of low-car cities Apr 10, 2023
    Show notes

    A few years ago, Melissa and Chris Bruntlett and their two children moved from Vancouver, Canada, to Delft, a small city in the Netherlands where 80% of journeys are taken by foot, bicycle, or public transit. Their new book, Curbing Traffic: The Human Case for Fewer Cars in Our Lives, is about what it's like to live in a truly low-car city, and how other cities can capture some of the same benefits.

    Reading the book was a joy for me -- it reinforced so many of my priors! -- so I was excited to talk to Melissa and Chris about how to design streets for people, the connection between urban infrastructure and social trust, the flourishing that Dutch children enjoy, and the myriad evils of cars.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

    Learning curves will lead to extremely cheap clean energy Sep 28, 2022
    Show notes

    A newly published research paper out of Oxford suggests that a rapid energy transition will not "cost" anything -- it will save nearly a trillion dollars relative to the no-transition case. And the faster we move, the more money we save. I talk with complex-systems scientist and co-author Doyne Farmer about his optimistic projections.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

    Focusing on the climate actions that can make a real difference Sep 13, 2022
    Show notes

    Two veteran climate experts -- analyst Hal Harvey & journalist Justin Gillis -- have released a new book that seeks to home in on the climate policies that offer the most impact for the least effort. I talk with them about learning curves, performance standards, industrial policy, & more.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

    The long, sordid (ongoing) tale of California's biggest utility Sep 09, 2022
    Show notes

    In this episode, Wall Street Journal reporter Katherine Blunt discusses her new book, California Burning: The Fall of Pacific Gas & Electric — and What It Means for America's Power Grid, in which she details PG&E’s decades of setbacks and missteps.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsReporter Katherine Blunt was still new to The Wall Street Journal when 2018’s devastating Camp Fire broke out in California and she was swept into the biggest story of her career. Alongside colleagues Russell Gold and Rebecca Smith, she wrote a series of pieces on the ongoing travails of Pacific Gas & Electric, or PG&E, the utility whose power lines had started at the Camp Fire.The Journal's coverage was a finalist for the 2020 Pulitzer Prize, and Blunt has now expanded it into a new book: California Burning: The Fall of Pacific Gas & Electric — and What It Means for America's Power Grid. It is a rollicking tour through PG&E’s decades-long series of disasters and their roots in the early 20th century.I am a longtime critic of utilities, but even I was stunned to see all of PG&E’s incompetence and malfeasance gathered together in one place, alongside its well-meaning but serially failed attempts to put things right. It’s a story of failure and redemption, except the redemption keeps being interrupted by more failure. I couldn't put the book down, so I am eager to talk to Blunt about how the utility’s travails began, why is has struggled so mightily to take control of its fate, and what might come next for the electricity sector’s favorite punching bag.So, without further ado, Katherine Blunt. Welcome to Volts. Thanks so much for coming.Katherine BluntThank you so much for having me.David RobertsThis book, Katherine, is a bit of a mindblower. I mean, I probably, because of my job, followed this stuff as it was happening, closer than the average Joe or Jane, but it is still stunning to see it all put in one place. As far as I can tell, for the entirety of the 21st century, PG&E has been in one of three states: either a) causing some disaster that kills a bunch of people, b) dealing with the blowback and lawsuits that come as a result of the disaster that killed a bunch of people, or c) implementing an ultimately failed and useless attempt to mitigate the disasters that killed a bunch of people and prevent future disasters.There has not been a period of just normal operation of PG&E for decades now. It's all its perpetual crisis. How how much of that did you appreciate going into this story? How much of that? I mean, it's just such a dumpster fire. I can't believe I wasn't more aware of it. And I can't believe, like, the public's not more aware of it. How aware were you going in?Katherine BluntYeah, it's totally true. These last 20 years have been just exceptionally bad for the company. I had some idea of this going into it because of my coverage at the "Journal" that, as you say, I had collaborated on with two close colleagues. And one of the final stories that we did together was a really big picture narrative that tried to take readers through the last 20 years and what that's meant for PG&E. But as I got more into the details, I, too, was really surprised at some things and how bad it was.David RobertsWell, let's go back into the recesses of history. One of the most sort of telling tales from the beginning is that the original merger of PG&E with Great Western, another utility. This is the merger that ended up sort of saddling PG&E with all these power lines, that it never really understood. And that, to me, is kind of like the original sin, like the seed of everything that came after us. To tell us a little bit about the story of those two utilities and how they ended up as one.Katherine BluntThere's a couple of ways to think about this. It is a really fascinating part of PG&E's history. So, as I'm sure at least some listeners know, PG&E is a very old company, more than 100 years old at this point. It's got roots dating back to the Gold Rush. It only ever had, in the early days, one real competitor, and that was Great Western Power. Both PG&E and Great Western were competing to build systems to serve San Francisco to support the population growth there. And around this time, you're beginning to see the solidification of the conventional wisdom that utilities should be these monopoly companies. Because, of course, this industry is very capital intensive. And the idea was you shouldn't have a bunch of companies building duplicative infrastructure. And you're beginning to see the regulator emerge to oversee all of this.David RobertsThere's some wild quotes from that period where people are like, "nothing scares customers more than an outbreak of competition among you." It's just such a weird perspective based on our current way we talk about markets.Katherine BluntYeah, absolutely. There was a lot of kind of colorful stuff that I managed to dig up, like a lawyer for PG&E and a lawyer for Great Western, like, almost got into a fistfight at what was known as the Railroad Commission, which is now the California Public Utilities Commission. Pretty funny. So they competed for a while, and then they ultimately merged and it formed the big Northern California monopoly that we know today. And so there's a few consequences of this. So it really did give this company a lot of economic might, this merger, and it allowed it to exist as a pretty good company for most of the 20th century. It did a lot to invest in its system. It helped electrify different parts of the state. It supported economic growth. It was largely run by engineers.And as we will discuss in depth, this really begins to fall apart in the 21st century. And quite literally, in that, one of Great Western's power lines, one of the earliest transmission lines that this company built, that PG&E ultimately inherited, failed and started the Camp Fire. The component of the line that broke was literally 100 years old. It was installed somewhere around 1920, and it hung there ever since.David RobertsYeah, it's wild. Great Western built these lines, and then PG&E sort of inherited them in the merger and never really had good documentation of them, or, like, never really did particularly good monitoring of them. It's kind of a gimme for a utility to do well in the 20th century, since mostly what they were asked to do, during the 20th century, is build stuff. And they love building stuff, and that's how they make money. And now we reach the age of maintenance and everything falls apart.So before we actually get into the specifics, I wanted to, this is a bit of an axe I have to grind, so I have to emphasize it up front, but I thought your book was just this exquisite extended illustration of a point about utilities that I've been hammering for over a decade now — which is that investor-owned utilities make money by building new stuff. They get a rate of return on investments in new stuff. They do not get a rate of return on maintenance, on spending money, on monitoring and maintaining existing infrastructure. And that's just, that force, you see that at work throughout your entire book. Like, tell us, you know, that the one sort of engineer mentions, in the electricity department mentions, like, "if I spend $100 on a new line, we get 120 back. If I spend 100 on maintenance, that's it." So just, like, spell that out a little bit, that sort of disparity that sort of works its way into PG&E's operations throughout this whole century.Katherine BluntYeah, absolutely. So, of course, as I'm sure many listeners know, the argument for the investor owned utility model is that having this profit motive allows for greater access to capital. It's a capital intensive business. Okay? And I guess if we're talking about the balance between capital spending and maintenance spending, and the fact that strong financial performers are good at minimizing expenses to free up money to invest in capital, I guess, theoretically this is possible without compromising safety. But PG&E did not do this well. It didn't do this well at all.And a really big issue happened in 2010 in which a natural gas transmission pipeline exploded in San Bruno, which is south of San Francisco, and that results in this big federal investigation of PG&E gas transmission operations. The company, I think, provided the prosecutors something like 10 million pages of documents or something like that. And in those documents was evidence that the company had been under great pressure, in kind of the early 2000s to around the 2010 time frame, to reduce expenses. There were a number of reasons for this, but it found that, in particular, gas transmission faced major expense pressures, at the time that the company was still able to maximize its authorized rate of return. As a matter of fact, it exceeded is what some auditors had found. So it had been investing a lot of capital, making pretty substantial returns, and also underspending on operations and maintenance and gas transmission, far less than the company told regulators it had planned to spend.You can't draw a straight line between that finding and the fact that the pipeline blew up. But I mean, it's all part and parcel of the conclusion that it had basically broken federal law in the way that it was running its gas operations. And so what was striking to me, in kind of really delving into the underlying issues with the Camp Fire, as we discussed earlier in the program, is that there were a lot of parallels here. The Electric Transmission Division also faced a lot of expense pressure for various reasons. And the consequences of that were just devastating.David RobertsLike we were saying, it's kind of built in. Like, if you want to be a growing, you want to be on Wall Street, you want to be a traded company, you want to, you have to demonstrate growth and all that. And all spending on maintenance does nothing for that, does nothing to grow you, does nothing to make you any profits. Like, from the perspective of investors, every penny you spend on maintenance is basically just dead-weight loss.With that structure in place, the Feds can come along and say, "that doesn't mean you can't spend on maintenance. You still have to spend on maintenance." But like, you can say that all day long, but the financial forces point the way they point. And as you say, the San Bruno explosion was an early example of that. And after the San Bruno explosion, in the court case and everything, one of the things PG&E was forced to do was sort of, and this becomes a familiar story as well, after the disaster, there's this scramble. Like, we've got to do a major assessment of our gas pipelines. Now that the explosion has already happened, we need to go down and see if it's going to happen again. So tell us about what they found when they went down and looked.Katherine BluntSo they did find a lot of problems. One of the issues leading up to San Bruno is that the company was supposed to do more to test the integrity of welded pipes, who seems to have the potential to have some sort of issue. The best means of doing that is draining the line of gas, and filling it with pressurized water, and monitoring the pressure of that water running through the pipeline. And if you can see if there's any sort of rupture, or at worst an explosion...obviously, that takes a lot of time, takes a lot of money, and it's inconvenient for customers, for the company. Not a preferred mode of doing things for a while, but then they had to go back and do it.And there were several other pipelines that had issues with their scenes, and at least three, I think, exploded when they were hydro tested. It was also just like other stuff within the division that was antiquated, antiquated systems, antiquated trucks. And so they did a pretty big overhaul. But one thing that's frankly scary, and this is not just scary in PG&E's case, I think it's common for utilities across the country, it does take some sort of disaster to reveal the extent of the problems. And you made reference earlier to kind of someone talking about moving money around.Yeah, the CPUC had a really interesting day-long affair in which they had a bunch of experts talk about safety culture within utilities. And there was one guy who was like, "if you invest a dollar in capital, you get 120 back. If you invest a dollar in maintenance, it's just a dollar out the door." So you have this kind of slow decision making over time. All of a sudden, it's a dollar ten in capital and $0.80 in maintenance. And so it goes. And the consequences of that, initially, are next to nothing. There's no immediate consequence.David RobertsRight.Katherine BluntSo that's scary, frankly.David RobertsIt is scary. And this is another thing that comes up a lot in the book, in the court cases around this stuff, in the gas explosion and later the fires from the electricity transmission. There's this question of what exactly PG&E can be convicted for and whether it can be convicted of second degree manslaughter. Which first degree is, "I'm setting out willfully to kill you." Second degree is "I'm acting with willful disregard to your safety in such a way that I can reasonably predict the results." And so there's a lot of sort of discussion about, you talk about this long effect on decision making over time.No single person, no single manager is thinking, "let's break the law, even though I know it's going to kill people to save a buck." It's just a little incremental decision here, a little incremental decision there, a little decision there, and these things sort of snowball on themselves. And you get the sort of aggregate effect of willful ignorance of maintenance without anyone in particular being responsible for it. It brings up all these weird questions about how to hold companies responsible.Katherine BluntYeah, absolutely. And honestly, this is one of the more interesting questions that I tried to explore in the book. The idea of corporate liability is not intuitive. And so after these disasters, everyone's asking, who is culpable? And the answer, almost inevitably, is like, nobody and everybody.David RobertsRight, we want a bad guy. But there's no bad guy here. There's never a bad guy in the whole book. There's not a single truly malign actor in the whole book.Katherine BluntThat's true, I think. So the trial that came after the San Bruno explosion was a really interesting exploration of this question. And so I kind of tried to go deep in sort of the legal theory that underpinned this whole thing. And I won't, obviously, get too much in the weeds on this, but it was just fascinating to — what the prosecutors did was they brought forward a lot of employees who had some knowledge that the company was not abiding by regulation. And they also knew that they weren't doing enough and spending enough as a result of expense pressure to do inspections that could ensure these pipelines were truly safe when they were running at higher pressures.So, of course, you have to prove some level of intent to convict anybody, or a company, of a crime. And the idea of this intent was that, I think the exact definition was that they were, "acting with willful indifference to the regulations requirements," right? And so it gets kind of technical.David RobertsWell, it gets kind of philosophical too, right? Because by definition, a group of people doesn't have intent in the way we thin…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    What's up with Manchin's plan to reform energy permitting? Sep 07, 2022
    Show notes

    As part of his price for agreeing to pass the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act, Senator Joe Manchin extracted a promise from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to pass a "sidecar deal” addressing the issue of permitting reform.

    Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen thinks it's a bad deal. I called her to talk through her reservations about the deal, her larger take on permitting reform, and her thoughts on how to build the renewable energy needed to address climate change.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

    Talking through the Inflation Reduction Act with Don't Look Up director Adam McKay Aug 25, 2022
    Show notes

    In this episode, director Adam McKay returns to hash over some of his reservations about the Inflation Reduction Act and the larger political situation in the US. I try to persuade him to be happy about the IRA.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

    Diving further into the Inflation Reduction Act: Part Two Aug 19, 2022
    Show notes

    In this episode, energy modeler and expert Jesse Jenkins is back yet again, completing our two-part discussion of the details of the Inflation Reduction Act. This time around, we get into the tax credits, the green bank, the methane fee, and much more.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

    Diving further into the Inflation Reduction Act: Part One Aug 17, 2022
    Show notes

    In this episode, professor and energy expert Jesse Jenkins returns to the pod to dig further into the details of the Inflation Reduction Act. We discuss what the models can and can't tell us, the ugly fossil-fuel leases embedded in the bill, and what to think about the carbon capture provisions.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

    Some thoughts on the Inflation Reduction Act Aug 12, 2022
    Show notes

    In this episode, it’s just me by my lonesome, sharing some thoughts about the history and context of the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate legislation ever passed by the US Congress.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

    Volts podcast: how to get urban improvements done quickly Aug 10, 2022
    Show notes

    In this episode, transportation planner Warren Logan shares his expertise on how cities can make fast, cheap, impactful improvements to safety and walkability.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsWhen it comes to reducing transportation emissions, two main ideas compete for mindshare in the climate space. First is switching out internal combustion engine vehicles for electric vehicles. Second is improving the built environment to make walking, biking, and public transit easier, to reduce the amount of miles traveled in cars and trucks altogether.The conventional wisdom is that the former is faster. There are a few key policy levers that can be pulled to get massive numbers of EVs on the roads, whereas urban improvements proceed one at a time, each facing its own bespoke set of challenges.But there are people out there at the city level working to increase the speed of those improvements. One of them is Warren Logan, currently a partner at Lighthouse Public Affairs, but before that, policy director of mobility in the Oakland, California, mayor's office, a senior transportation planner for San Francisco, and an intern in the transportation office at Berkeley, California.In his time working on transportation projects, Logan has given a lot of thought to, and done a lot of work on, improving city processes to make safety and walkability improvements faster and less capital-intensive. He wants cities to free themselves up to make fast, cheap changes that can have big impacts without an enormous investment of time and money.As listeners will have noticed, I have been somewhat obsessed lately with urban design and transportation issues. I hope you will indulge me in another conversation about the nature of resistance to urban improvements, the kinds of changes that can be made quickly to dramatically improve safety, and the larger need to avoid over-reliance on EVs.Warren Logan, thank you for coming to Volts and sharing your time.Warren LoganThank you so much for having me, David.David RobertsLet's start with a little Warren background, a little Warren history here. Tell us sort of what your position was and what you're more to the point, sort of what your engagement was in transportation and transportation projects. Tell us about your last few years.Warren LoganSure. So before my time at Lighthouse Public Affairs, as a partner in Public Affairs, I was Mayor Libby Schaaf's Policy Director of Transportation and Government Affairs of the City of Oakland, which is two jobs that they pushed together. And I think it's important to share here just quickly that before my time in the mayor's office, I was also a transportation planner in the city and county of San Francisco. And before that was an urban designer as a consultant in the East Bay, in the Bay area here. And before that was a transportation planner again for the city of Berkeley.So my point here is I've done a lot of different cool transportation work across the Bay.David RobertsYeah, you must know so many NIMBYs. It's like a NIMBY survey you've done with your career.Warren LoganYeah.David RobertsBerkeley to Oakland.Warren LoganYou got it. And this might come out later in our podcast, but most of the subjects I've worked on have been like, "what's the most contentious issue at the time? Changing parking pricing. Let's talk about bike lanes. Let's talk about ... let's keep the city from falling apart during COVID," easy subjects really.David RobertsTell us then at the sort of high level of abstraction, which is just let's address this argument. If I'm Joe Schmo on the street, I know transportation needs to be decarbonized. And I look around and I was like, "oh, there's the decarbonized transportation right there. It's called an electric vehicle. Let's just stop making the gas vehicles, start making the electric vehicles. Problem done. Let's move on to the next problem." I think that is a fairly widespread disposition toward this issue. So just tell us why you think that at the broadest level, why that kind of thinking is insufficient.Warren LoganSure. So to all the Joe Schmos out there, the truth of the matter is that just switching to electric cars is not going to solve all of our climate issues. And I'm sure we'll go into all the different reasons why. But for me, and probably for anyone who's ever been near cars at all, it's not just about the climate that we have to think about. It's like traffic safety as well. And I can only stress this enough, that if you get hit by a car, it doesn't matter if it was an electric vehicle or not. In fact, it might be worse because they're heavier, which is in no way to say we shouldn't be considering electric vehicles.David RobertsAnd you might not hear it coming right?Warren LoganAnd you might not hear it coming, right. So, David, your point is so good, though, that there is certainly room for absolutely decarbonizing our vehicles. I will admit I own an electric vehicle, and I own an electric bike, and that together, those two means of transportation get me really far.David RobertsBut if you're talking to Joe Schmo and Joe Schmo says, "if I switch out all the cars, what is the remainder? What is left?" What is the ... and remember, we're just talking climate here. Like, there are obviously other issues of urban life, but if we're just focusing on climate, what is the remainder that's left after the electric vehicles?Warren LoganYeah, the remainder also includes public transit, which also we need to work on decarbonizing here in the Bay. And actually, in California, we passed a bill, I want to say last year or the year before that required that all of the transit agencies shift over the next, I think, ten years to electric buses, or electric and hydrogen, alternate fuel sources. So it's not just that we need more EV cars. We need EV trucks for all of the deliveries. We need EVs for the buses and similarly for trains. Not every train is electric. We're very fortunate here in the bay that Bart runs on electricity, but there are plenty of trains across the country that still use gas and diesel, et cetera.So there's plenty of room for improvement across every subsector of transportation.David RobertsContinuing as Joe Schmo here, I don't know why I chose this name, but we're stuck with it now. Another sort of, I think, intuition a lot of people have in this exchange is, "okay, I get it that maybe EVs aren't enough. I get it that there are other goals. We want quality of life, we want walkability, things like this. We want more public space." But in terms of speed, and this is really where the rubber hits the road in this argument.Warren LoganLiterally.David RobertsYes. I think Joe Schmo thinks, just quitting making ice vehicles and starting making EVs. I can see that happening quickly. The market seems to be accelerating, but it seems like changes in urbanism, changes in urban form, changes in building, changes in the way we do streets, this kind of thing take forever. Aren't they just intrinsically slower?Warren LoganThey don't have to be. Let me kind of break apart what you just shared, the first of which is that I don't think that speed is the only thing we're trying to optimize when it comes to transportation, even though I think you, Joe, and all the other Joes out there think I want to get there quickly. Absolutely. I'm not here to delay your travel, certainly. And yet, one of the things I've learned in my time as a transportation planner is that people really discount just how bad traffic can get at times and that they're part of that issue, and that once you get to your destination, parking is not typically readily available depending on where you're going.And so oftentimes when people say, well, my door to door time is only ten minutes, that's not really true. And there are plenty of studies that have been conducted, in fact, by my alma mater at UC Berkeley showcasing that people underestimate how much time it takes to drive somewhere and overestimate how much time they think it will take to take any other form of transportation. And I think that that's incredibly important. The second bit here. And I think this is kind of fascinating, that we've all gotten kind of explore this during COVID Is that the time that it takes for you to travel from point A to B, B to C, and C to A again or wherever you're going may not necessarily be as fast if you are not driving.But you are able to recoup the value of that time by answering emails or taking phone calls while you're sitting on an ideally quiet train, getting from your place to place. And then the last bit too, is that not everyone can or even wants to drive. Like fundamentally, driving is, I think, an exercise that people have truly believe that it's like the most fun thing you can do. And that's not really true for most people. Like, driving kind of sucks a lot of times.And we kind of have this idea that if only there was one more lane or if only the seats had air conditioning, I would enjoy this really rote exercise that gets really tough. And you're just I mean, there's a thing for it. It's called road rage.David RobertsWell, you'll notice that the number one most notable feature of car commercials is that they only contain one car in them, only the car you're supposed to buy. There are never any other cars on the street. I'm like, "where is that?"Warren LoganLike, where's the rest of this? Right? You never see a commercial of a car like, "hi, this is you stuck in traffic all day because this is what it's like to drive in a real city, or even in suburbs for that matter."David RobertsAll of that is interesting about speed of travel within the city, but that was not exactly the speed I was asking you about. I mean, sure, now I'm fascinated and want to follow up.Warren LoganI understand your second question, which is like, the speed of implementation, right?David RobertsYeah, speed of implementation. How fast are we reducing greenhouse gas, I guess, is where the rubber hits the road. Full of automotive metaphors today. This is not on purpose.Warren LoganI love it. It's great. I'm going to get my book of idioms, and I'll see if I can go toe to toe with you, which there's one right there. So in terms of speed of implementation, I think that I'm going to call BS, right? Like a. some people really can switch their cars quickly. That's true. There are people with means to go out and buy electric vehicles, but they're a. not free, nor are they cheap. The lowest price EV is, I think, the Nissan Leaf maybe. And you're still pushing like 40K. That's an expensive car for a lot of people.There are plenty of people ... and I want to just kind of talk about the ways in which people interact with the city, or even with suburbs, or even rural areas, is that there are lots of people who are in some ways so low income they have to drive, which is a really hard thing for people to conceptualize. But let me just unpack that for a second. We in America have actively discouraged people from living near their jobs vis-a-vis suburbanization. And then as more of, I would suppose, like my generation especially, have started shifting back towards city centers the price of housing in, I want to say all the cities, wildly here for a second, has gotten really, really high in places that are close to jobs.Which means then that the lower income folks, of whatever age we're talking about for a second, are then actively discouraged from both living in a city and actively pushed to farther and farther places that are not well served by transit, not very accessible by buses, or trains, or even bikeways, or by extension jobs. And Oaklanders kind of face this a lot where I live. But it's true of a lot of places that you have no option but to drive, but for the fact that you barely can really afford the car that you're driving, and there isn't an option for you to upgrade to a more efficient car.I think that that's kind of the fantasy that a lot of people want to live in, that if you own a car, you also have the means to maintain that car properly and by extension, perhaps switch the car that you're driving overnight. Oh, I just decided tomorrow I'm going to go buy a Tesla. That's not real. And so for a whole swath of people who are out there on our streets driving, their option for switching vehicles is really, really limited. And I can't speak for many other cities, but I can at least say for the Bay.If I step outside of my house right now, I can watch a bunch of cars that were built in the 90s or even early 80s. None of those people, and this is sort of a sweeping generalization, but I would just expect that most of the people driving those vehicles probably can't afford even a moderately priced electric car. Because we're talking about buying a $1,000 car, not a 10, or a 20, or 30, or $40,000 car, let alone financing a car, right. And I'm not even going down a rabbit hole of people's credit and their ability to buy cars.David RobertsIt's just one more way that we've made it expensive to be poor in the US, right? Like they are paying a ton for gas right now, but do not have the means. They could save money in the long term by buying the electric vehicle, but you have to have that upfront capital. If you don't have it, you're just stuck with these ongoing costs.Warren LoganAbsolutely. And so that is just one example of many that I will share with you in just a second of why this fantasy that we're living in that everyone can just switch to electric vehicles is just not real. So let's now shift gears to all of the other tools in our toolbox that we do have at our disposal. And this is kind of the thing I've said to lots of people, right, that we choose not to use effectively. So if we wanted tomorrow to have half of our streets dedicated to walking and bicycling, that is actually possible.And I know it's possible because I did it. And so you probably saw the kind of beginning of COVID, let's rewind two years plus a few months, right. A number of cities started implementing shared streets, healthy streets, slow streets, whatever name we gave them. I think that that movement proved that we've just been sitting on this gold mine of opportunity. And I want people to truly examine why is it that we refuse to exercise our ability to make that type of big shift, why we choose not to use that power, right? And so implicit in that question is holding all of your listeners by having them hold aside their opinions of whether or not we should have done that, just like set that aside for a second, because I've gotten enough heat about that for now.But to at least focus on the fact that not only was it possible, but it was possible in a lot of different cities with a lot of demographics, a lot of different economics, right, like a lot of different politics, that lots of different places did this really big thing nearly overnight. And not just like when I say nearly overnight, like over a couple of years. I mean, the time and space between a few text messages between myself, Mayor Shaaf and the DOT director here in Oakland, and then them setting up the signs is, I think, 72 hours. So I'm not making this up when I say that truly these types of changes are possible.However, and this is kind of the big caveat about speed, is that we have to choose to want that reality. And I think that that's the part that really gets me about let's just switch…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Previous 1 32 33 34 35 36 46 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights