What most interested me about the book was one of Stoft’s political ideas—something he calls an “untax.” Such a policy would tax carbon, but refund the money collected by the government directly back to the American people each year. There are two main advantages to this. First, it provides a powerful incentive for businesses and individuals to conserve energy and invest in renewable technology. As we saw in 1973 and 1979, major spikes in oil prices do in fact lead to dramatic conservation efforts. Pricing is a powerful tool. By raising carbon prices artificially, we effectively incentivize efficiency and renewable energy innovation. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, an untax avoids the political stigma associated with the very word “tax.” Untax policy, unlike cap and trade or traditional carbon taxes, could have great potential to receive bipartisan political backing.

Under ACES, Congress settled for a cap and trade system, which is also a powerful tool in efficiently addressing carbon emissions. Unfortunately, one problem we have seen is the enormous political influence of big industry in the shaping of the bill. It will be interesting to see how effective this policy is in the coming years.

The conservative, rural Midwest, with its high per capita carbon emissions, would face a dramatically higher “carbon bill” than would the more liberal, low-carbon coasts. These stratified carbon costs help explain the recent struggle of the American Clean Energy Act to produce significant steps towards CO2 reductions: in order to appease carbon-intense states, Waxman-Markey had to concede 80% of its cap and trade auctions, channeling funds back to polluting utilities.

Carbon inequality is deeply rooted in our existing social and political system. A strong negative correlation exists between regional per capita carbon emissions and per capita income. Blogger Devilstower articulated the foundations of this phenomenon in a post in the Daily Kos:

Areas that are centered on extraction industries are far more likely to be poor exactly because of the nature of these industries. These are very top heavy businesses that leave behind environmental damage, little to no infrastructure improvements, and a populace whose jobs skills are not easily transported to another industry. Over the last thirty years, voters in these areas often support conservative politicians because they see these politicians as protective of their jobs. To support these industries, conservative politicians remove regulation that would improve environmental remediation, reduce taxes that would benefit communities, and drive out unions that would protect worker’s rights.

Coal workers want to keep their jobs, so they support conservative politicians who will vote against curbing CO2 emissions and who secure massive coal subsidies. But by ensuring the future of these coal plants, these politicians are, in effect, exacerbating damage to the health, infrastructure, environment, and economic well-being of their supporters. The vast, central region of our nation is powerlessly trapped in a vicious “carbon cycle.”

The solution? Invest in sustainable, clean energy jobs, end coal subsidies, and promote environmental resuscitation in Midwestern states. Cut government funding for coal plants, and, at the same time, provide a way out for workers by instead subsidizing wind and solar. End the carbon cycle.

Fortunately, the Midwest holds great potential for renewable energy investment. Wind power remains a largely untapped resource: the states of the Midwest rank among the highest for potential wind power capacity. North Dakota holds more potential than any other state, and could add about 137,000 MW of capacity. Kansas could add another 120,000 MW. Solar, though slightly less promising for the region, is another opportunity for growth.

Until the entire nation is on board a clean energy revolution, we’ll still be locked in political gridlock. We need environmentally-based community development initiatives that expand opportunities for Midwest workers through education, infrastructure, and clean energy jobs. We need to get workers out of coal mines and onto fresh-air windfarms. Only then will we have broad-based support and productive climate laws.

Zimride.com – Zimride occupies a unique place in the world of carpool. It was the first rideshare site to utilize Facebook, and it’s gained quite a bit of popularity on  college campuses (I wasn’t able to find too many Zimride users on the Brown Facebook network, but that may be due to an already well-established transportation system on campus). With a tidy user-friendly interface (always a plus in my book) and neat appearance, Zimride has expanded rapidly since its founding last year. The start-up also recently established a partnership with car-sharing company Zipcar, which allows Zipsters (Zipcar members) to easily find Zipcar carpool matches online. The site’s only been up for a year, but it’s expanding rapidly. Pretty neat stuff, in my opinion.

eRideshare.com – According to Yahoo and Google, eRideshare is the most popular national carpool connector out there. The site has been around since 1999, and works pretty simply: you sign up to post your regular commute or your one-time long-distance travel and eRideshare automatically provides a listing of potential ridesharers who travel a similar route. eRideShare’s layout isn’t the most aesthetically pleasing and the user interface is a bit difficult to use, but it certainly has a large number of users, including imports from craigslist. Its option for “employers, schools, events, clubs etc.” also proves handy for large groups hoping to improve their carpooling system.

MyCasualCarpool.com – MyCasualCarpool relies on a method of carpooling known as “slugging,” in which carpoolers agree on a local parking lot where they meet for their daily commute. Drivers/riders will meet up at this area (often a church, school, or other local lot that gives the commuters permission) to carpool to their destination. What’s in it for the driver? Mainly, use of the HOV lane in commuting. While the driver isn’t technically supposed to charge his passengers, often benevolent ridesharers will make “donations.”

GoLoco – The brainchild of Robin Chase (founder of Zipcar), Goloco allows users to post “trips” and specify which goLoco users (friends, colleagues, neighbors) are able to see them. One unique feature of the site is an option by which carpoolers can share the costs of the trip.

NuRide – NuRide takes an incentive-based approach to carpool. In addition to having access to a ridesharing network, users can log their eco-friendly trips to earn points, which can be later used to purchase rewards (restaraunt coupons, retailer discounts, show tickets, and the like). There are a number of memberships restrictions—including being over 18—but I like the idea (though I still think carpooling is often its own reward).

RideshareOptimizer – A relatively new site, RideshareOptimizer prides itself in its ability to quickly match users with the most logical carpool group. Like Zimride’s, the site’s matching system is route-based, rather than based only on start and stop locations.

Well, there we have it. A few of the many ridesharing site on the Web. Turns out, there’s a ton more out there, so let me know if you think a specific one deserves special attention.

With such a multitude of carpool sites, here’s what worries me: it seems like in order to find the optimal ride, one must often log in to five different carpooling sites. Ideally, I think we should have one website that uses the best ridematching technology and user interface out there. These sites are really only effective once they amass a large number of users.

Visit Adam’s site

It’s still in the planning stages, but I’m hoping to expand the solar schools project in Rhode Island, as I’ll be at Brown University next year. I’m investigating an initiative called Rhode Island Solar on Schools.