It’s come to my attention that I haven’t yet made a public statement specifically about #GamerGate. But as it’s come…

It’s come to my attention that I haven’t yet made a public statement specifically about #GamerGate. But as it’s come up in a few threads, at this point, I think it’s about time that I made my position on this matter absolutely clear.

“GamerGate” is a lie from beginning to end. It has exactly three parts to it: it has its core, which is and has been from the very first day about allowing and preserving a “gamer culture” which is actively hostile to women (among others), and preserving it by means of threats, harassment, and violence towards anyone who ever suggests that it should be otherwise.

It has its bullshit layer, which is that it is about ethics in journalism. If it were about ethics in journalism, then you would see people talking about actual ethical questions in journalism, and you would have seen it from the beginning. But from its first days, its only ties to this notion were the use of bizarre (and provably false) accusations from Zoe Quinn’s ex-boyfriend to accuse game journalists of being in a cabal to destroy the “gamer culture” of its core layer, and one listserv thread (as covered on http://goo.gl/3B0wcc) where professional journalists did, indeed, have a serious discussion about journalistic ethics: about whether the newsworthiness of this blog post outweighed the potential harm to its subjects. But rather than portray this as journalists doing what ethical journalists do, Milo Yiannopoulos instead portrayed this as a conspiracy by journalists to support the Secret Feminist Cabal. That is, his article itself was bollocks from beginning to end, as has been the entire argument.

And it has its fellow-travelers, people who either actually believe the bullshit layer or do so vocally and disingenuously in order to confuse others and add a shroud of legitimacy.

How do I know that this is true, and that there is not a legitimate discourse mixed in with the violence and so on? That I am not unfairly tarring all of GamerGate’s proponents with the same brush?

It’s really simple. I have not once seen a proponent of GamerGate actually distance themselves from the hatred and violence, or excoriate it, or say that it is fundamentally wrong and that they do not agree with either its means or its ends.

What I have seen is lots of people coming up with ways in which they, too, are being harassed, and so claiming a false equivalency. I got to watch an excellent example of this on one of my own threads earlier today; there, one of its proponents argued that the movement being called a bunch of scum (as it had been by someone else) is a form of harassment, and perfect evidence of how “there are trolls on both sides.” Yet he elides the difference between that and people being chased out of their homes, people waking up every day to death threats, to real and meaningful impact on people’s lives. This is not a serious argument: it is an attempt to lie and to confuse the issue.

The other argument I have kept hearing is “I never distance myself from acts I have never associated myself with.” That is, people claim that they are under no obligation to distance themselves from the acts of the rest of GamerGate, even while they hoist its banner. Sorry: when a movement is known, first and foremost, for its violence, then to associate yourself with it does associate you with its acts. You cannot say “I support al-Qaeda. They’re really about the US military presence in Saudi Arabia,” or “Hey, the KKK has done a lot of great community service work,” and not thereby associate yourself with everything those organizations are really known for. Sorry; you lie down with pigs, you’ll get covered in mud. You keep doing that, and people will have every reason to assume that you like it.

The fact is that there is no meaningful way to “recapture” the GamerGate tag for anything honest, both because it was never tied to that in the first place, and because it has become far too polluted to do so. If someone actually feels like having a conversation about ethics in journalism, they should by all means do so — depending on what they say, I may even support them in this. But they should not do so in the company of villains, because that simply obscures any real discussion they might want to have with filth.

This is not behavior worthy of human beings. It is vile, it is violent, and if there is anything legitimate at all inside GamerGate, it needs to get its ass out of there right now and clearly separate itself from the bloodthirsty mob. Because right now, anyone who walks around with that label is painting themselves as being open supporters of it, and anyone who supports that is someone that I wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire.

I testified today before the New York CIty Council on Int. No. 738-2014 which calls for New York City to adopt the…

I testified today before the New York CIty Council on Int. No. 738-2014 which calls for New York City to adopt the goal of reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (i.e. 80×50).

What follows are the notes I used in making my comments. What I actually said followed the same general structure and content but with different words.

The 80×50 target is a good start, but we must consider several implications that aren’t well explored in the Mayor’s Plan:
Cleaner systems are typically cheaper when total cost of ownership (TCOE) is considered. Thus, 80×50 makes sense even if the climate change deniers are right and CO2 emissions aren’t important. Because cleaner is cheaper, we should target 80% reduction sooner than 2050.

Efficiency: The cleanest and cheapest energy is the energy you don’t buy or use. Efficiency can often have high up-front costs but pays off through lower energy and operating costs.

Thermal Energy: We focus electrical energy while ignoring thermal energy even though many buildings dump vast amounts of waste heat. We need to find ways for buildings to sell their excess thermal energy to neighboring buildings. Waste heat could be a profit center!

Fuel Switching: We must replace direct-use of fossil fuels with cheaper electric systems and increase the proportion of energy delivered and consumed as electricity.

2,000,000 vehicles are registered in our city. Most burn fossil fuels and would be both cheaper and cleaner if powered by electricity. Already, total cost of ownership of some electric vehicles is lower than their internal combustion equivalents. Electric vehicle costs will only drop further in the future.

The 1,000,000 buildings in our city are mostly heated with fossil fuels. But, Columbia University researchers estimate that as many as 80% of our buildings, mostly outside Manhattan, could be heated and cooled using often cheaper and always cleaner Ground Source Heat Pumps. Clean heat is cheap heat.

Today, PSC and NYSERDA policy discourages fuel switching!

The Second Great Electrification of our society:

Electricity is the fuel of the future even though it only accounts for one-third of the delivered energy in the US today. It is cleaner and cheaper than direct-use fossil fuels and will get even cleaner and cheaper in the future as renewable energy resources grow.

The First Electrification focused on lighting, communications, and appliances. The Second Great Electrification will focus on the transportation and heating/thermal applications which consume two-thirds of delivered energy in the US today and primarily rely on direct-use of burned, dirty fossil fuels.

While utilities seem focused on losses of market share to distributed generation, they should instead be preparing to double or triple the amount of electricity produced.

A Shift from Operating Expense to Capital Expense will require substantial support through financing programs. More money is needed than can be provided by cash subsidy programs.

Today, you pay for energy at or near the time when you consume it. In the future, you’ll pay more for “capacity” and you’ll pay less or even nothing as you actually consume energy.

Fossil fueled systems offer lower up-front costs, but their operating costs are higher. It is like giving razors away for free and then charging for the blades. Pay-As-You-Go is often more convenient than Pay-Up-Front, but it is much more expensive in the long run.  
It takes money to save money. Today, only the relatively wealthy, with good credit, can afford the cheaper, cleaner alternatives. This must change.

The solar industry has proven that large amounts of private capital can be attracted to clean energy technology that delivers good yield.
NYCEEC, NYSERDA and our Capital Markets can profitably provide the financing we need via leases, PPA’s, loans, loan guarantees, bonds, securitization, etc.

Notes: 
Some Electric Vehicles are already cheaper than their “same-class” alternatives. For detailed comparison, see 79 in the World Resources Institute paper “Seeing is Believing: Creating a New Climate Economy in the United States,” published October 2014 at: http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/seeingisbelieving_working_paper.pdf

Heat Pumps are both cleaner and cheaper than fossil fueled heating/cooling systems.

Grid powered heating/cooling systems, particularly ground source heat pumps, are cleaner than fossil fueled systems and usually cheaper. This is particularly true in New York City and Upstate New York since we have some of the cleanest grid-supplied power in the country. 

According to the EPA, the New York City/Westchester “sub-grid” delivers power with an average CO2 cost of 300 grams/kWh after transmission losses are considered. Furnaces that burn No. 2 oil at average efficiencies produce thermal energy at a CO2 cost of 324 grams/kWh_t. The CO2 cost for propane is 275 grams/kWh_t and for natural gas it is 221 grams/kWh_t.

Thus, using “clean” New York City grid power, any heating/cooling system that is 90% efficient will produce heat more cleanly than No. 2 oil. Any system with an efficiency of at least 110% will be cleaner than propane and any system with an efficiency of 140% will be cleaner than natural gas.

The EnergyStar minimum efficiency rating for Ground Source Heat Pumps is 310% (i.e. COP=3.1). Thus, any EnergyStar-compliant GSHP in New York City will be much cleaner than an equivalent fossil fueled system. GSHP augments grid-power with locally harvested thermal energy for > 100% efficiency.

Given 2013 New York City power and fuel prices, a ground source heat pump system with a COP = 3.1 would have “fuel” costs of only 53% that of a No. 2 oil burner and 51% of the cost of a propane powered system. At COP=3.1, natural gas would be cheaper. However, if the heat pump ran with an efficiency of 400% (COP=4), which is more typical of current industry standards, the GSHP would be 5% cheaper than the natural gas burner. COP’s will increase in the future.

I usually don’t re-post Google product announcements like this, but I’ve been using Inbox with my work and personal…

I usually don’t re-post Google product announcements like this, but I’ve been using Inbox with my work and personal email accounts for some time and I think it’s a really useful tool.

It’s different than gmail.  In fact in many ways it’s not email at all, it uses email as one of many transport layers.  It is incredibly useful though, and does a great job of helping you manage things.

I have a few invites, if you’re interested let me know.