Author Archive

Fracking Provides a Safe and Environmentally Friendly Energy Source

As recently as a decade ago, many scientists believed the U.S. was running out of oil. Peak oil was a major concern and many questioned whether the U.S. way of life was at risk. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking), developed more than 60 years ago, has eliminated fears of running out of oil. Although fracking was impractical and very expensive when first developed, it has become more feasible in the last few years due to technological advancements and rising oil prices over the last decade, leading to an 800% increase in shale gas production over the last decade. Fracking has led to an economic resurgence in many places across the country. And while oil and gas has to be removed correctly, using gas collected by fracking reduces greenhouse gases more than burning coal.

But that is not enough for some environmental groups who see fracking as a dangerous detour on a path to 100% renewables. The Green Party has complained that fracking squanders water. While fracking does use water, the amount of water used to drill all 3,000 Marcellus wells in Pennsylvania (and obviously not all are being drilled at the same time) equals the amount of water used by residents of Pittsburg in one year. Additionally, fracking is using the water once consumed by shuttered industries such as steel manufacturing which have been offshored or curtailed by the EPA. In fact of the 9.5 billion gallons of water used daily in Pennsylvania, natural gas consumes 1.9 million gallons or two thousandths of one percent.

Others claim natural gas is dirty. Actually natural gas is much cleaner to burn than oil or gasoline. It emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one third the sulfur oxides and one percent as much sulfur oxide as coal. While the fracking process does release some excess methane, a good portion can be prevented by sealing condensers, pipelines and wellheads.

Fracking will not cause water wells to blow-up as in did in the movie Gasland. In the movie, the Colorado home’s well was actually drilled directly into a naturally occurring pocket of methane. The drilling occurred before any fracking in the area. Hollywood is not in the business of fact checking. As long as companies use stronger cement and processing casings to ensure an impermeable seal, the methane cannot move into anyone’s home.

Finally, some claim that fracking will lead to radioactive drinking water. While shale has a radioactive isotope, tests of treated water and brine in New York and Pennsylvania found no elevated radiation levels. The treatment of water used in fracking makes the presence of significant amounts of radiation impossible.

While fracking requires following strict protocols, the natural gas supplied has been a boon for the United States. Fracking is cleaner than oil and coal, increases energy supplies and enhances economic activity. Some of the purported claims of the anti-fracking crowd are scare tactics created by those who have an economic incentive to see fracking fail.

Jul 02, 2014 | 4 comments | by

Georgia Subsidizes 90 Percent of Nissan Leaf

A government’s decision to subsidize one electric vehicle model over all other vehicles is a problem. It distorts the economy picking winners and losers regardless of the environmental benefits. But when such also increases greenhouse gases it is even worse. Yet, this is the situation playing out in Georgia.

Metro Atlanta is the second largest market in the U.S. after San Francisco for electric vehicle sales. And many of these sales are due to one vehicle model: the Nissan Leaf. Atlanta has been the Leaf’s largest market over the past year, in large part because Georgia offers Leaf buyers a $5,000 tax credit. Coincidentally, Nissan played a significant role in the tax credit’s passage. Yet other electric and hybrid vehicles do not receive the same tax incentive. In cases where vehicles are sold directly by manufacturers, only the first 150 are eligible for the tax $5,000 tax credit. This provision seems designed to prohibit Tesla buyers from receiving this subsidy, since Tesla is the only major vehicle not sold through dealers. The subsidy also does not apply to gas-electric hybrids such as the Ford Fusion or Toyota Prius.

But the Nissan Leaf cannot even claim it helps the environment. Much of the fuel used to generate power in Georgia is coal. As a result, when the Nissan Leaf charges its battery with electricity, it relies primarily on coal, one of the most polluting power sources on the planet. Yet when the unsubsidized Toyota Prius charges its battery, it uses its oil-powered engine. As a result the Prius is responsible for fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the Leaf. In fact the Nissan Leaf produces almost as much greenhouse gas as a conventionally powered vehicle with good fuel efficiency such as the Honda Fit.

The retail price for the Nissan Leaf is approximately $30,000. Yet after factoring in gasoline savings and state incentives of $5,000, drivers can lease a Leaf for free. The monthly payment for a 24-month lease is $235 per month for a total of $5,640. Add in the $5,000 state tax credit and lessees come close to breaking even. In addition, gasoline savings of savings of approximately $100 a month ($2,400 total) provide lessees with nearly $2,000 in yearly profit. Georgia spent close to $2 million on tax credits for electric vehicle owners in 2013. It is time to retire a tax credit that distorts the economy and increases greenhouse gas emissions.

Jun 25, 2014 | 2 comments | by

Compact Mixed Use Developments Do Not Help the Environment

Compact mixed-use developments are the latest development fad. While such developments promise environmental benefits, the reality is often far different. Two of the largest mixed-use developments in the United States have had limited environmental benefits.

Proponents often cite the fact that mixed-use development residents drive less as an environmental benefit. However, since most car emissions (90-95%) come from cold starts and occur in the first 15 minutes of a trip, the number of miles driven is much less important then the act of driving itself. Reducing the distance driven has a very minimal effect on pollution.

One major redevelopment project is Atlantic Station in Atlanta, GA. Atlantic Station is a new mixed-use development built on an abandoned, polluted steel mill. Cleaning up the steel mill itself, which was a superfund site, clearly had major benefits. But the day-to-day benefits of the mixed-use project are less clear. Despite being located just north of the transit-friendly Midtown area of Atlanta the project was not designed to be transit accessible. All residences come with underground parking and most residents commute to work by car. A bus connecting the development with the MARTA heavy-rail system was discontinued because of lack of use.

Most of the residents of the project moved from other mostly suburban areas of Atlanta but since much of Atlanta’s employment is north of the development, residents may not be driving any less than when they lived in the suburbs. The commute to the Perimeter North Area of Atlanta, which has the largest concentration of jobs in the Southeast U.S., is 13 miles from Atlantic Station. Yet it is only 11 miles from the suburb of Alpharetta, 8 miles from Roswell and 5 miles from Brookhaven. Yet many of these suburban residents who moved to Atlantic Station commute to the Perimeter for employment. And since they cannot reach transit, they commute by car. As a result, no more folks are using transit, and some of the Atlantic Station residents are commuting longer distances than when they lived in the suburbs.

The city of Hayward in the San Francisco Bay area has replaced its affordable housing with a new transit-oriented mixed-use development near its Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. The principle of a transit-oriented development is that most commuters will walk to work or use transit which reduces transportation emissions. However, most of the residences are only affordable to those earning six figure salaries, while most of the employment is in the low-wage service sector. As a result, most of the residents and the workers must commute to their jobs. While approximately 30% use transit, the remaining 70% commute by car. This 30% is still a higher share than the 10% who chose transit when they lived in the suburbs. Perhaps 30% of the retail workers at the development commute by transit, a share not much higher than the San Francisco average.

However, the situation is reversed for the low-income residents. Displaced to the suburbs because their homes were demolished or because their taxes increased so much that they could no longer afford to live in their homes, they now rely on transit which is very limited in the suburbs. When they lived in Hayward, 70% of them rode transit and 30% of them drove. Now displaced throughout the suburbs, only about 10% of them can reach their jobs by transit; 80% now drive and 10% lost their jobs because they could not reach them by transit and could not afford to buy a car. As a result the actual number of people using transit at the Hayward site has actually decreased. More folks are driving, producing more emissions.

There may be lifestyle benefits from building mixed-use developments, but a significant reduction in emissions is not one of those benefits.

Jun 02, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

Free-flow Highways and Pricing Reduce Congestion and Emission

Conventional wisdom suggests that the most effective way to reduce light-duty vehicle emissions in metro areas is by reducing car travel. Many planners and policy makers have embarked on a policy of removing freeways, adding road diets, installing speed humps and making life miserable for commuters. However, conventional wisdom is completely wrong.

Much of the emissions in large metro areas come from carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds. And most of those emissions occur when cars are traveling in stop and go traffic rather than free-flow speeds. Barth, a professor of Electrical Engineering and Boriboonsomsin, an Environmental Research Scientist at the University of California Riverside found that for Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides, emissions versus speed is a U-shaped pattern where cars traveling at free-flow speeds (between 40-70 miles per hour) release less carbon dioxide than cars traveling in stop and go patterns (speeds between 0 and 30 miles per hour). In other words, eliminating stop and go traffic and severe congestion improves the environment far more than restricting car travel. In fact study authors found that with adopted tighter vehicle fuel efficiency requirements and engine technology, increasing free flow travel speeds to 40 miles per hour is by far the most effective way to reduce emissions in the light duty vehicle fleet. And most major metro areas face numerous corridors with congested traffic from six to twelve hours per day.

The most effective way to add this needed capacity is to add variably priced express lanes on freeways which provide an option for the driver (the pricing is dependent on congestion to keep traffic moving at 45 miles per hour or higher). For busy arterials the principal is the same. Commuters could use variably priced bridges to keep traffic moving at 35 miles per hour or higher. On both types of roads, the priced lanes are completely optional. The priced lanes would be new; commuters would always have the option of using the existing free lanes.

In addition to having the users pay for a large part of the improvement, this policy would increase speed and decrease congestion. This pricing also encourages people to travel only as needed, reducing induced demand (the tendency of new roads to generate new car trips), which is the reason most planners dislike freeway and arterial improvements. Such improvements would also improve the fuel efficiency of buses and improve transit service. If the goal is to improve the environment, speeding up travel by adding lanes and pricing those lanes is the most effective solution.

May 28, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

Balancing Environmental and Economic Concerns

While climate change is a consideration for most Americans, some metro areas are adopting unnecessary draconian growth restrictions. The best example may be the state of California. California Assembly Bill 32 mandates that by 2020 the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Research indicates that the state has just about reached that goal. But instead of celebrating that goal, California lawmakers want to go much farther. Assembly member Quirk has introduced a bill to plan for carbon reductions of 80% by 2050. A 2012 report by Greenblatt and Long found that commercially available technology would be sufficient to enable California to reduce greenhouse gases by 60% by 2050. However, meeting the 80% threshold will require technological advances.

Over the last twenty years, the Los Angeles region has actually lost jobs. Between 2001 and 2011 alone, L.A. County lost 7.1 percent of its jobs. Since 1990 the region has lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs. While all metro areas have lost manufacturing jobs, Los Angeles has lost the second highest number in the country; and those jobs made up a larger percentage of the economy than first place New York. And while poor leadership and national factors have contributed to these losses, the biggest factor may be environmental regulations. Many of Los Angeles’ industrial jobs have moved to other states such as Texas with looser environmental laws. Obtaining an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases would require the city to control emissions from ships and trucks at the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach. Yet the ports are the largest and second largest container ports in the country and supply a significant percentage of metro area jobs. The ports are the biggest supplier of manufacturing jobs.

While an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases may be desirable, it will also eliminate some of the few manufacturing jobs in the region. Los Angeles needs to be increasing not decreasing the number of blue-collar jobs. And manufacturing jobs are high-paying quality jobs. In a region with major economic problems, a little balance could go a long way.

May 19, 2014 | 1 comment | by

Government Subsides Help Distort Science

A $500,000 study released this past Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal, Nature Climate Change, detailed how corn-based biofuels release seven percent more greenhouse gases in the initial five-year time frame compared with conventional gasoline. The study which was paid for by the federal government found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.

But administration officials who have devoted more than a billion dollars of taxpayer funds as well as the biofuel industry disagree. DuPont claims that the ethanol it will produce will be 100 percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says the study “does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol”.

But there are reasons to doubt DuPont and the EPA. DuPont is getting billions in subsidies to produce biofuels. Federal subsidies help its stock price; the company would be foolish if it did not defend biofuels. Meanwhile an Associated Press investigation last year found that the EPA’s analysis of corn-based ethanol failed to accurately predict the environmental consequences. California regulators earlier declared that corn ethanol would not reduce global warming and may in fact make it worse. Other federal studies have reached the same conclusion. David Tillman, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who has researched biofuels emissions from the farm to the tailpipe, says the recent study is the best he has seen on the issue.

This controversy highlights several problems. Despite claims to the contrary, politics seem to play a part at the EPA. The EPA could have simply released a statement that research in this area is still developing and it is sticking with its initial conclusion that biofuels improve the environment. By issuing such a strong rebuke, it seems the organization is not open to new information. Real scientists know new discoveries come along all the time. Scientists do not offer blanket statements, but politicians do.

Further, no matter how well intentioned, subsidies distort the market. Reducing carbon emissions is a good goal, but when government picks a winner everybody else loses. We do not know if there is a better solution that corn-based ethanol. We do not know if the EPA is investing in real science or attaching itself to its preferred winner. The EPA’s role should be to judge the best solution the private sector develops. When the EPA provides subsidies to one technology over another, taxpayer money and possibly scientific integrity are lost forever.

Apr 23, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

Emiminate Insurers of Last Resort

The reaction to Superstorm Sandy’s $65 billion in damage has been the predictable doom and gloom about climate change and rising sea levels. But instead of implementing draconian restrictions, we can prevent loss of life and property by eliminating insurance of last resort.

Extreme weather is nothing new. Paris was flooded on a regular basis by the Seine River until Napoleon III built walls for flood prevention. But while it was logical for earlier generations to live on higher ground away from major bodies of water, it now seems logical to us to build as close to the ocean as possible. Boston, New York City and much of the population in the state of Florida is flood prone. Between 1970 and 2000, East Coast areas grew in population. When four hurricanes hit Florida in 2004 and Superstorm Sandy hit the northeast in 2012, many people incurred major property losses.

Insurance companies made poor decisions to cover some of these properties. But most companies have adjusted their portfolio. Yet instead of letting the market work and forcing folks who rebuild homes on barrier islands to go without coverage, many states stepped into the game by providing insurance of last resort. Premiums for these policies are offered below market rate with taxpayers subsidizing the difference. For example in Miami-Dade County, FL the insurance premium on a $150,000 house with Citizens (the Florida insurer of last resort) costs $4,600. With a traditional insurance company the premium is $10,000. Worse, some states actually encouraged the private sector to dump questionable policies into the last resort pool.

If private insurers cannot provide insurance to certain coastal location, this is a signal that building a home in this location is a poor decision. And if one of these homes is going to get damaged by the next storm, it is not a good policy decision to encourage folks to live there. If the private sector cannot provide insurance to folks building new homes, the government should not provide it either. Current homeowners can be transferred over time to the private market, assuming they do not get hit by multiple storms. Potential owners can still build in hurricane prone areas, but taxpayers should not bail them out when the inevitable next storm strikes.

Apr 16, 2014 | 1 comment | by

Favoring Wind Power Endangers Birds and Bats

The Obama Administration has used subsidies and regulation to promote wind power. Yet the deaths of thousands of birds and bats from wind turbines, and the misappropriation of funds shows the danger of endless government subsidies and rules that are enforced only when they benefit certain industries.

Wind turbines kill approximately 600,000 birds a year. The American Bird Conservancy thinks that the Golden Eagle will wind up on the endangered species list because so many are being killed by turbines. Wind turbines also kill an estimated 900,000 bats each year. According to National Geographic bat-friendly turbine designs exist, but the wind-power industry has been slow to install the new turbines.

More disturbingly, the administration seems to be selectively enforcing laws. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Endangered Species Act prescribe strict penalties for killing eagles and condors respectively. But the administration has given an exemption from prosecution to a California wind company if the company is responsible for the death of the California Condor, one of the rarest birds in the world. The administration wants to grant a similar exception to birds on the 1,500-mile Texas to North Dakota migratory corridor. And the administration seems to be ignoring bat deaths altogether.

Other businesses that inadvertently harm protected animals face hefty consequences. Shooting or electrocuting the Bald Eagle can lead to a $250,000 fine and two years in jail. Harming the bird can also lead to legal fees incurred in federal prosecution. Further, the wind industry is allowed to build wind farms on protected lands despite the danger to native animals.

No power source is perfect. Coal and oil power produce emissions. Nuclear power plants require a site to store used fuel rods. Solar power panels use large amounts of land, displacing native animals. But the wind power subsidies and selective enforcement of laws shows the government is deliberately distorting the market to favor a certain industry. Eliminating subsides and uneven enforcement of rules would allow energy companies to produce high-quality low-cost energy. Further it would improve not worsen the lives of birds and bats.

Apr 07, 2014 | 2 comments | by

Road Pricing Can Reduce Pollution

California’s Legislature is considering modifying the cap and trade program in order to charge drivers a direct carbon tax at the pump. Sacramento should be applauded for realizing that the state’s cap and trade program needs revision, but legislators should put the program out of its misery and kill it. Instead, the body and other Legislatures across the country should enact market-based pricing to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.

Three of the largest emissions sources are volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO). VOC emission rates decline as travel speeds increase up to 65 mph, NOx emission rates decline as travel speeds increase up to 35 mph and CO emission rates decline as travel speeds increase up to 25 mph. As a result typical rush hour traffic speeds of 5-20 miles per hour reduce emissions more than free flow speeds of 30-60 miles per hour. Reducing congestion can help reduce emissions.

Road pricing is one effective way to reduce emissions. The long-term solution is to enact mileage-based user fees (MBUFs) to drive on all roads. MBUFs would vary based on type of road and time of day. Traveling on a freeway during rush hour would cost more than traveling on a local road in the middle of the day. This pricing could help divert traffic from traveling during peak periods to traveling during off-peak periods. It would take only a shift of 5-10% of all vehicles to substantially reduce congestion and emissions.

States from Florida to Washington are still testing MBUFs, so a shorter-term solution is also needed. Managed lanes and managed arterials can be part of the temporary solution. Managed lanes are optional variably-priced freeway lanes with guaranteed travel speeds of 45 miles per hour. Managed arterials include priced bridges or tunnels that allow drivers to bypass congested interchanges. Such lanes and bridges allow drivers the option of paying a small fee for congestion relief. Traffic in managed lanes and managed arterials emits fewer emissions since vehicles travel at approximately 45 miles per hour on managed lanes and approximately 35 miles per hour on managed arterials. And traffic in the non-priced lanes also emits fewer emissions because with fewer vehicles in their lanes they encounter less congestion and travel faster.

Mar 24, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

Electric Car Subsidies Distort Market, Without Reducing Pollution

Many states still rely on coal-burning power plants to generate over half of their electricity; electric cars are actually responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions per mile driven than hybrid cars, and are no better for the environment than comparable traditional vehicles. The hybrid Toyota Prius produces less carbon dioxide than the plug-in Nissan Leaf. The highly subsidized Chevrolet Volt in electric mode produces just as much carbon dioxide as it does when it operates in gas mode.

Lithium, the material in electric car batteries, can be resource intensive to mine. Since supplies of Lithium are limited, prices are expected to increase. Further lithium batteries need Copper and Aluminum to work correctly. Mining these elements requires significant chemicals, energy, and water.

Meanwhile conventional vehicles are becoming more fuel-efficient. For the 2013 model year, new cars averaged 23.5 miles per gallon. Cars averaged only 16.0 miles per gallon in 1980. With higher gasoline prices, manufacturers are scrambling to create even more fuel vehicles in the future.

Further, consumers are hardly demanding electric cars. Despite a $7,500 federal subsidy for buyers (and numerous state incentives), Chevrolet sold only 23,000 electric-powered Volts in 2012. The automaker sold more than 10 times as many Chevrolet Cruzes, the company’s gas-powered sister vehicle. By contrast, Ford sells 58,000 F-Series trucks a month.

Further, these programs fail to increase total car sales. Instead, they incentivize buyers to purchase a particular type of car — a Volt instead of a Cruz. Since consumers would buy a car anyway, this subsidy is a waste of precious resources.

Local municipalities like electric vehicle programs since much the subsidies come from federal and state sources. But this is not a federal freebie; it is a waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned money — money that instead could be spent or actual programs that improve transportation of the environment or better yet refunded to taxpayers.

Mar 12, 2014 | 2 comments | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »