Tmyers

Earlier this week we noted that the 43rd District Democrats declined to endorse mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan in part due to his admission that he drives his Prius six blocks to work. They felt he should have walked or biked.

Today there is evidence that the First Lady could never meet the standard set by those looking for force lifestyle changes in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. The Washington Post reports:

Let's say you're preparing dinner and you realize with dismay that you don't have any certified organic Tuscan kale. What to do?

Here's how Michelle Obama handled this very predicament Thursday afternoon:

The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens.

Perhaps traveling one block for organic food is allowed but traveling six blocks to work, in a hybrid, is not. It certainly doesn't reduce carbon emissions, however.

Nobody said changing lifestyles would be easy.

When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, or addressing any environmental challenge, there is often a fight between efforts to force lifestyle changes and promote technology. Invariably, technology proves far better at reducing environmental impact and improving the use of scarce resources than forced lifestyle modification.

The fight between these two approaches is exemplified by two recent events.

First, the 43rd District Democrats debated endorsements last night and the Seattle Times, under the headline "Joe Mallahan admits to 43rd district Dems he drives six blocks to work, loses endorsement," recounted this moment in their debate about who to endorse for Mayor:

McGinn's most triumphant moment of the night may have come with a question about transit. The moderator asked candidates to talk about streetcars and buses, and also to say when each last rode a Metro bus. Mallahan recalled riding a bus over the summer from a Ballard bar to his home in Wallingford, but "I drive my Prius to work in Factoria," he said. Now that he's on leave, he admitted: 'I drive my Prius six blocks from my house over to Eastlake Avenue," where his campaign office located. McGinn has made a big deal throughout the campaign about being a bike commuter. He took the bus yesterday.

The Democrats decided not to endorse either candidate. It is hard to say what role this moment played in the decision, but when driving a Prius is considered disqualifying, it is emblematic of the commitment to lifestyle modification that drives the left's approach to reducing carbon emissions. That approach is also the centerpiece of the state's approach to climate change, driving spending on transit, light rail and imposing numerous new regulations.

On the other hand is a recent speech from Robert Shapiro, an economic adviser to President Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry. Speaking to the National Economists Club in Washington D.C., (you can listen to the speech here), Shapiro makes the argument for putting technology at the center of our approach to reducing carbon emissions.

In his speech, he notes:

There is one clear and clean intersection between climate, energy independence and economic growth, and the innovation process lies the heart of it. ... If a critical issue for climate is innovation – as it is more generally for long-term growth and productivity gains – then the conditions which affect the pace of innovation become much more important.

He goes on to argue that protection of intellectual property rights is critical to this trend. 

Shapiro also offers a strong defense of globalization and the critical role it plays in developing new technologies that are a critical part of improving energy efficiency.

We can figure out things that before we never had the techniques or the person-power to tackle. And part of it is globalization, which gives almost any organization access to the entire global pool of human capital. Globalization also has helped drive very rapid economic development across a number of large developing nations. As the number of middle-class people in the world has rapidly expanded, the market for many innovations has expanded with it – something perhaps most obvious in health care. And as that potential market has expanded, so has the R&D to develop new products, processes, materials, and ways of financing and marketing, and new ways of organizing and running a firm, to meet that demand. With those increases in R&D – which also probably have been accelerated by the global trend towards deregulation, which the current crisis may well reverse – we should expect to see increases in innovations based on R&D.

The choice between an approach that emphasizes regulation designed to force lifestyle modification and one that emphasizes creativity and innovation is the key decision governing our efforts to reduce carbon emissions and use scarce resources wisely.

The choice should be simple: technology not only honors personal freedom and choice that are central to a free society, but improves overall well being and has been consistently more effective at reducing environmental impact.

It is the mantra of the environmental left that they "follow the science." Frequently, however, repeating that claim substitutes for actually adhering to scientific rigor.

The latest example comes today in the Seattle Times, where State Senator Phil Rockefeller claims that "Quite literally, greenhouse-gas emissions threaten to render our planet unlivable." This is simply not true by any reasonable standard.

The body most often cited as the basis for the "scientific consensus," the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that such a threat is virtually nonexistent. The most likely scenario under a "business as usual" approach to carbon emissions is an increase of 1 to 3 degrees C (1.8 to 5.4 degrees F). It should be noted that if we apply current temperature trends, the projections are at the lowest end of that range. Saying that such increases would render the planet "unlivable" is hyperbole to the extreme.

The public should be dubious of policies that rely on unscientific hyperbole for justification.

Today's Seattle Times has a graphic outlining the environmental impacts of plastic bags. It says "Here’s a look at the environmental costs of bags," noting water use and CO2 emissions would be reduced. It indicates that water use for bag production will be reduced by 39 million gallons each year and it will reduce CO2 emissions by 6,000 tons each year. The estimated annual cost to achieve these goals is $10 million.

It is useful to put those numbers in context and relate the costs to the benefits.

One key question for any environmental policy is whether we could achieve the same environmental benefits for a lower cost. This is not only a concern about keeping taxes low (which in a tough economy should be reason enough), but it also asks whether we could do more for the environment with the same amount of money.

With regard to water and CO2 and even trash, the answer is "yes." Even if the bag tax performs as supporters promise, it wastes resources and misses opportunities to make real environmental improvements.

While 6,000 tons of CO2 sounds like quite a bit, it is actually a very small amount. In Europe it currently costs $20.52 to reduce one metric ton (2,204 lbs) of CO2. Reducing 6,000 short tons of CO2 would cost $111,731.40, or 1 percent of the cost of the bag tax.

When it comes to water, the Seattle Times' graphic notes that the tax would reduce the water used to make bags but doesn't put the number in context. Each day, Seattle uses about 130 million gallons of water. Reducing water use by 39 million gallons a year is less than one one-hundredth of one percent of water used in Seattle. Even that number is probably too high. Many of those 39 million gallons are used outside the city limits of Seattle, so reducing water use for bags doesn't reduce Seattle's direct water use. So, the amount of water saved by this tax is infinitesimal.

How much is that amount of water worth? Using residential rates, which have the highest marginal rates, the cost for 39 million gallons (5,213,904 cubic feet) is between $169,452 and $553,716 depending on the amount used, assuming use during peak times.

In other words, the bag tax will cost $10 million to create environmental benefits that could be acquired for $281,183.40.

Finally, the focus of most of the argument is on the reduction in trash in landfills. The Times estimates that plastic bags cost about $3.85 million annually to manage, about 2.5 percent of the total trash budget. Assuming that the bag tax reduces bag use by 50 percent, it could save $1.9 million each year. There are two things to understand about this number.

First, this number is high because it is unlikely that the City will reduce staffing or overhead costs because they still have to deal with all the other trash. Thus, a reduction of one percent in load does not equate to a one percent reduction in cost.

Second, it should be remembered that we already pay to collect that trash. While the bag tax increases costs for bags, it does not reduce the garbage taxes already being paid. So, Seattle taxpayers are unlikely to see any savings despite a reduction in trash volume. The Times does estimate that the City would use 47 fewer railcars of trash. Based on a rough estimate of cost per railcar, that amounts to less than $200,000 per year.

Adding the reductions in trash, water and CO2, the bag tax creates about $500,000 of benefit for $10 million in taxes.

Some will respond by saying that it is worthwhile to reduce our environmental footprint and that while the cost may be high, the need is great. But this argument is simply incorrect. Proponents of the bag tax claim to be concerned about waste of resources. Waste of money is waste of resources and the City could receive more environmental benefit by spending $1 million to reduce CO2, water and trash. The ironic conclusion is that the bag tax creates more waste by missing opportunities to reduce environmental impact.

Until environmental activists do a more rigorous analysis of the policies they propose, they will continue to support efforts that not only have little impact but are actually counterproductive.

Two weeks ago we held our annual Environmental Conference, featuring keynote speaker, climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels. More than 300 people joined us and if you weren't one of them (or even if you were) you can watch the conference on the TVW web page.

In my presentation, I address the free-market alternative to the ineffective government-based environmental policies Washington has been trying for the past several years. You can watch it below.

Those who believe in personal freedom and responsibility have a strong case to make that technology, prosperity and an honest assessment of priorities are far superior to our current approach.

My presentation begins 30 minutes in. Rep. Shelly Short provides an update on environmental legislation and issues during the first part of the video.

You can watch the keynote speech of Dr. Pat Michaels here. Our first panel on the precautionary principle can be watched here.

One month ago there was a great deal of fanfare surrounding a plan for the "world's largest" solar plant planned for Cle Elum. At the time we argued that there were still many questions about the Cle Elum solar plant that needed to be answered before judgment could be passed.

For instance, we wrote:

The cost is estimated to be "north of $100 million." At $100 million the installed cost would be $1,333 per installed kilowatt, which is much lower cost than other projects, so I'm guessing that it will be well north of $100 million. By way of comparison, the solar panels the city of Seattle wanted to put on Qwest Exhibition Hall cost about $12,500 per installed KW.

Today, the Seattle P-I has an update on this question. They write:

On July 9, Howard Trott, head of the Teanaway Solar Reserve, gave a $100 million estimate to build a 75-megawatt solar power plant near Cle Elum. But Northwest Power and Conservation Council formulas put the cost at $525 million to $750 million.

Those new numbers are certainly "north" of $100 million. The new estimate is more in line with traditional costs of $7,000 to $10,000 per installed kilowatt. This is up to five times as expensive as other renewables like wind power.

Further, it is estimated that the project will create "hundreds" of jobs. Assuming that hundreds means 500 (it could mean more or less), it would cost $1 million per job. Even if it creates 999 jobs (which would still be hundreds and not thousands), it would cost $500,000 per job. Such costs will be passed on to ratepayers. Despite those very high costs, it is likely that the project will be approved by the state because Washington's renewable portfolio standard, created by I-937, requires utilities to meet targets for renewable energy. That requirement virtually assures that even at this extremely high price, the power will be purchased and paid for by ratepayers.

When looking at these numbers it is important to remember that waste of money is waste of resources. Spending millions on projects that have a small environmental impact wastes money that could be used to support projects that truly make a difference. Government regulation and political subsidies, however, distort these calculations, moving environmental policy farther away from good science.