Green is gold… nominally
Tags: Al Gore, apportionment, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, census, cnn, coal, congress, david vitter, Generation Investment Management, green energy, green investment, house of representatives, Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, Motely Fool, New York Times, Nobel Laureate, representation, sprawl, trains, treehugger, wall street journal, Warren Buffett
The New York Times ran an article this week highlighting the “controversy” over the investments of eco-champion Al Gore. Apparently, some perceive a conflict of interest between the Nobel Laureate’s environmental fervor and his wide-ranging financial stakes in green industry. Conservative lawmakers have questioned Gore’s true intentions, citing his ties to Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, as well as his chairmanship of Generation Investment Management, both of which maintain significant holdings in green technology/clean energy (here’s a list of KPCB’s green investments). Here’s a little video of an exchange between Gore and a Representative from his home state of Tennessee:
Gore’s strategy to transform markets by displaying the economic viability of more responsible technologies is a good thing… and it’s working — the folks at Motley Fool suggest that even Warren Buffett is following Gore’s lead. There’s certainly something funny about the critics of green industry claiming that clean energy is both economically unfeasible and also a product of Al Gore’s profiteering – slightly contradictory.
However, the big deal mentioned in the Motley Fool piece that went through this week has both positive and negative implications for the direction of investment in green tech. The aforementioned Warren Buffett, whom some compare to Rich Uncle Pennybags (seriously, he’s featured in his own version of Monopoly), made a bold move by fully purchasing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, much to the pleasure of train enthusiasts everywhere. The purchase of BNSF might signal that the Obama Administration’s heightened interest in rail is finally starting to take foot with investors, perhaps strengthening the effort to significantly reduce emissions. Still, others view Buffett’s purchase of the railroad as a bet on economic growth and infrastructure improvements in Asia, as BNSF is well positioned to transport essential building materials (read US steel) to important Pacific ports. Dig a little deeper, though, and the BNSF purchase sends mixed signals regarding a greener and cleaner future.
As noted by both the Wall Street Journal and Treehugger, half of the freight transported by Buffett’s new railroad is coal. In fact, 20% of the US’s coal runs along BNSF lines. Though it would be nice to think that this deal signifies a shift in investor confidence to align with the environmental and infrastructure priorities of the White House, the BNSF deal might equally signify a vote of confidence in the proliferation of coal energy. I fully hope other investors will invest in rail for its own sake, but only time will tell. In the interim, Al Gore might have reason to grimace as he sits atop his piles and piles of green investment bullion.
Changing the way we count:
Though it’s been effectively blocked by the Senate, a proposal by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) to count only US citizens in the apportionment of congressional seats could be an issue of significant division heading forward. Under current law, the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives is based upon population, regardless of citizenship, as stipulated by the US Constitution. Any change in apportionment to discount non-citizen residents would lead to a significant reduction in electoral representation for the most populous states, specifically impacting urban areas.
Here’s a video from CNN giving a little background on Vitter’s proposal:
Good point by Vitter about the census not counting people who live in France — right…
This should matter to planners in the US, especially as we’re trying to encourage the concentration of population back toward the urban core through transportation and land use policy. The legislation proposed by Senator Vitter would shift more political power to suburban and exurban areas, potentially hindering the ability of local and regional authorities to discourage continued sprawl. Additionally, under-representation of immigrants (both legal and illegal) at the federal level could leave cities under-resourced in comparison to suburban areas, creating further incentive for people to sprawl.
Again, this is not likely to pass with the current Democratic trifecta and even if it did pass, it’d face certain constitutional hurdles, but the issue is worth noting. The urban/rural divide has long been at play in US politics, but it may heat up even more as we make more concerted efforts to recast the shape of our city-regions.
Of course, there are plenty of other problems with Vitter’s proposal…
