Author Archive

Washington State Finds the High Cost of the Precautionary Principle

One of the favored approaches used by the environmental community to put their thumb on the scales is the appeal to the “precautionary principle” which argues that in the absence of clear science, regulators should err on the side of “precaution” by banning whatever environmentalists fear, from chemical compounds to environmental practices. The problem, of course, is that taking action without understanding the potential impacts often creates more risk than it avoids. The latest example comes from Washington state.

After numerous scares about the impact of a vaccine preservative called thimerosal, including the claim it caused autism, Washington state put limits on its use. Those concerns turned out not only to be false but fraudulent. That realization, however, didn’t cause the legislature to change the law.

Now those limits are being waived in the face of a serious flu epidemic that has created a shortage of vaccines. In its statement, the Washington State Department of Health explained those limits contributed to the shortage.

Department of Health director Mary Selecky explained that Washington state law limits the amount of thimerosal “as a precaution.” What is the result of that precaution? Selecky’s agency goes on to explain:

Increased demand and disease has led to thimerosal-free flu vaccine being especially limited. This could stop children younger than three and pregnant women who want the vaccine from getting it. Suspending the thimerosal limits law removes barriers so people can choose to be protected against influenza. Pregnant women and children under three are at high risk for serious complications if they get the flu. Providers and patients now have the opportunity to use other types of flu vaccine instead of not vaccinating at all.

In other words, the limits on thimerosal contributed to a situation where those most at risk from influenza could not receive the necessary vaccination. Politicians in Olympia passed a law that created more risk than it avoided because it ignored the science in favor of a purely emotional precautionary standard.

What have state legislators learned from this experience? Sadly, not much.

State Senator Marilyn Chase recently introduced legislation that would expand the “precautionary” standard to all environmental policy. SB 5255 would allow state agencies to take action even when the science is not available. The bill says:

…it is the intent of this act that all agencies should implement environmental quality and public health policies through a precautionary approach, meaning that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to human health or to the environment, the lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect may not be viewed as sufficient reason for the state to postpone cost-effective measures to prevent the damage.

The clear intent of the legislation is to put politics ahead of science. If science can’t deliver a clear answer, politics will. Of course there is no standard for precaution, so any time a regulator decides there isn’t enough evidence, he or she can simply decide to take an action in the name of precaution.

Substituting the amorphous standard of precaution for science and ignoring the consequences of “precautionary” regulation in favor of feared, but unsubstantiated, impacts is why President Obama’s first regulatory czar called the precautionary principle “literally incoherent.”

Advocates of the precautionary principle say it codifies the simple maxim of “better safe than sorry.” Sadly, the results of the principle’s application show that ignoring science too often results in reducing safety and increasing sorrow.

Feb 05, 2013 | 3 comments | by

Green Schools That Aren’t Very Green

A report in the USA Today found that “green” schools in other states don’t actually perform as promised. The report, “Green Schools: Long on promise, short on delivery,” gave this example from the Houston Independent School District:

The nation’s seventh-largest school district added features such as automated light sensors and a heat-reflecting roof, in hopes of minimizing energy use. But the schools are not operating as promised. Thompson Elementary ranked 205th out of 239 Houston schools in a report last year for the district that showed each school’s energy cost per student. Walnut Bend Elementary ranked 155th. A third “green” school, built in 2010, ranked 46th in the report, which a local utility did for the district to find ways of cutting energy costs.

The reporter even mentions one school from Washington state, where we’ve highlighted the failure of green schools for years:

…Washington Middle School in Olympia, Wash., [was] projected to use 28% less energy. The school consumed 19% more energy than a conventional school in its first two years, and 65% more than planned, a state report shows.

Of course, this is exactly what we found in our ongoing analysis of the state’s “green” buildings requirements. Schools cost more to build and then end up using more energy, not less, in most cases. The state itself confirmed those findings in its audit completed last year.

How much are these requirements costing taxpayers? Washington state’s experience is instructive. According to a new study from Washington State’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, the total cost of meeting the state’s mandates for “green” school construction cost an additional $11.4 million for 13 new schools built in the last two years.

As the USA Today article notes, the real winners with green building standards aren’t students or the environment. They are the architects and engineers who charge more to design these buildings, and the politicians who tout support for “green” standards in public campaigns, even if the schools are short on delivering real benefits.

Dec 13, 2012 | 5 comments | by

Seattle’s Dolphin Safe, “Green” Certified Forests

With any luck, Seattle’s urban forests will soon be certified dolphin safe. That may seem strange, but it would be just about as meaningful as the city recently receiving a forest certification it promises it will never use.

With predictable fanfare, the City of Seattle has announced its urban forests have received certification from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), stating that  the “Seattle park system meets the gold standard in environmentally friendly forestry.” City Hall’s senior forester Mark Mead noted “The FSC certification helps ensure we are doing the right things to assure a healthy and sustainable forest for Seattle.”

Advocates of the certification say the city can now sell any timber from the urban forests to consumers who want to know the timber came from a sustainably managed forest. FSC and other certification systems are typically associated with working forests where timber is being harvested and sold.

The City of Seattle, however, promises it won’t actually use the certification. “We want to be crystal clear that we don’t have a mandate to sell any timber,” says Mead. In fact, the City is so strident about this position, it promises to never to sell trees, even if they have fallen down. “The certification would allow us to sell it as FSC-certified timber, if we wanted to. But there’s infinitely more value in leaving a tree that falls,” said Michael Yadrick, an ecologist with Seattle Parks.

The certification report, which the City of Seattle paid $2,000 to complete, has little to say about forest management. The top concern of FSC assessors was the fact that “off-leash dogs are causing erosion” and other impacts. This isn’t a forestry issue, but an urban parks management issue.

Ironically, the FSC assessment does make one recommendation that contradicts Seattle Parks’ harvest policy. FSC auditors recommended that Seattle Parks “develop a local procurement policy for building and maintenance materials.” As FSC is telling Seattle to use local timber for building, Seattle is telling FSC they will do everything they can to make sure those local materials don’t come from its own lands.

This is not to say that Seattle Parks should be harvesting, but it highlights how useless it is to use the public’s money and paid staff time to receive certification for timber production the city promises will never occur.

So, why do it? The City of Seattle is quick to admit it is about image. Like so much of our environmental policy, the goal is to cultivate a green image for the city and its politicians, even if the effect of the policy on the environment is zero.

Seattle Parks may argue FSC certification ensures they are managing forests sustainably for the future, even if they don’t produce timber. This, however, is contradicted by the audit report. FSC auditors made no recommendations regarding forest management. The closest they came is when the audit notes Seattle Parks “should give consideration” to creating a range of tree ages in urban forests.

Receiving FSC certification – a certification that added no new knowledge and won’t be used and actually contradicts Seattle Park’s forest policy – is about as useful as receiving a dolphin safe certification. Although, we imagine they will also be concerned about “fecal contamination” from off-leash dogs.

Sep 25, 2012 | 8 comments | by

Wind Power: Eco-Fad or Economic Fad?

Campaigning in Iowa, the President today defended wind energy subsidies, saying “These jobs aren’t a fad.” He was campaigning for the renewal of subsidies for wind energy and solar, known as the Production Tax Credit (PTC), claiming it creates jobs and clean energy. The Energy Information Administration notes that wind receives a subsidy of about 5 cents per kWh, compared to 6/100ths of a cent per kWh for natural gas or coal.

I pointed out in my book Eco-Fads that wind power is a fairly expensive way to reduce carbon emissions, costing about seven times as much to reduce a ton of carbon emissions as was paid in Europe under their cap-and-trade system.

Perhaps, as the President claims, promoting the creation of wind and solar energy is a good economic strategy, creating jobs and helping the economy recover. For one indication, we can look at the stock prices of renewable energy companies over the last two years since the PTC was renewed in the “stimulus” package.

Vestas is the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world. It lost 90 percent of its value, falling from about 300 to 29 today.

Gamesa is another large wind turbine manufacturer. It is headquartered in Spain which has many wind turbines. Spain’s unemployment rate, by the way, is 24.8%. Gamesa’s stock price started at 8, rose to 11 and is trading at about 1.50 today, losing more than 80 percent of its value.

There are other wind companies, but most of them have other products (like GE) or are Chinese owned and heavily subsidized by that government. Analyzing their stock prices isn’t appropriate.

Solar manufacturers also benefit from these subsidies as well. How are they doing?

Suntech is one of the top solar manufacturers. Its stock began at about 9 and has fallen to 1, a loss of nearly 90 percent of its value.

First Solar is another one of the top producers. There was a bit of fanfare recently when its stock price rebounded a bit. Over the last two years, however, the stock price has fallen from about 120 to about 20 today — even with the recent bump, a loss of nearly 85 percent.

Finally, in 2009, SunPower bragged that it was the “blue chip” of solar energy companies. Since that time, the price rose from 12 to 22, then collapsed down to about 4, a loss of more than 80 percent since the peak a year ago.

The record is pretty consistent — losses of 80 to 90 percent for both wind and solar, at a time when the federal government was providing significant subsidies.

It is true that the country is in a recession, so part of the decline is related to the recession. Just to be fair, here is the graph of the NASDAQ during the same period for comparison purposes – a gain of more than a third from 2,200 to over 3,000.

 

Aug 14, 2012 | 8 comments | by

Are Plastic Grocery Bag Bans Good for the Environment?

One of the new environmental trends sweeping local governments is the push to ban plastic grocery bags. The argument is that such bans protect wildlife by preventing the bags from getting into the water. This is just one of a range of claims about plastic bags and the environment, many of which are false or exaggerated. Here is a quick rundown of the claims about plastic bags and the actual data and science.

Plastic Bags Contribute to a Massive Garbage Patch in the Ocean

This is a common claim and one of the first arguments mentioned by advocates of the ban. It is, however, almost entirely false. While advocates say the Pacific Garbage Patch is about “twice the size of Texas,” the fact is that what does exist is much smaller. Angel White of Oregon State University released a statement last year noting “The amount of plastic out there isn’t trivial. But using the highest concentrations ever reported by scientists produces a patch that is a small fraction of the state of Texas, not twice the size.” She went on to say “There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists.”

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute echoed this conclusion in a study that found “the concentration of floating plastic debris has not increased during the 22-year period of the study, despite the fact that the plastic disposal has increased substantially.”

This doesn’t argue that plastic in the ocean has zero impact, but it provides a basis for understanding how best to address the real extent of the problem.

Plastic Bags Kills Thousands of Marine Animals

The obvious implication of the claim about garbage in the ocean is that it will harm marine life. One such claim was included in a packet for a city council in Washington state considering a ban. City staff claimed “the ecological impacts of this plastic include over a million sea-birds and 100,000 marine mammals killed by either plastic ingestions or entanglement.” This is simply false and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) has debunked this one thoroughly. On their FAQ regarding plastic bags, NOAA writes “We are so far unable to find a scientific reference for this figure.” They go on to speculate the number comes from another source relating not to plastic bags but to “to active fishing gear bycatch and not marine debris.” Banning plastic bags does nothing to address this problem.

As a side note, there is a serious problem with lost fishing gear — nets that continue to kill even after they have been lost. Confusing that real problem with unscientific claims about plastic bags, however, is dishonest.

Reusable Bags are Better for the Environment

The reason grocery stores moved to plastic bags is quite simple: they cost less. One key reason is that they use less energy to produce. Substitutes all use much more energy. Paper bags, for example, use about four times as much energy as plastic bags. Environmental activists often point to reusable bags as the preferred alternative, but research shows this is far from a panacea. For example, one study completed by the U.K. Environment Agency found reusable cotton bags took 173-times as much energy to produce as plastic bags. Assuming one trip to the store a week, it would take more than three years of use simply to break even, energy-wise. That may be possible, but if people regularly wash their bags (as they should) it is questionable how well the bag would hold up. Banning plastic bags would eliminate the lowest-energy product in favor of high-energy alternatives, which would likely increase overall energy use.

Plastic Bags Aren’t Recycled

This is largely true but misleading. Fewer than ten percent of plastic grocery bags are recycled, whereas paper bags are recycled at much higher rates. The reason, however, has much to do with the environmental mantra of “reduce, reuse, recycle.” Although plastic bags are rarely recycled, they are frequently reused. The City of Seattle estimates that about half of plastic grocery bags are reused as garbage bags, to pick up after pets, and similar uses. As noted above, plastic bags also do well when it comes to the “reduce” calculation as well, reducing the amount of energy-per-bag. Banning plastic bags doesn’t eliminate the need for garbage bags or the other uses, it simply requires consumers to buy other bags. A ban would neither reduce nor reuse.

Banning Plastic Bags is a Net Benefit for the Environment

This is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. If you believe that reducing plastic in the ocean is a good thing at any cost, then you probably support bag bans even if they have little benefit. That, however, is a simplistic approach that ignores huge environmental costs (not to mention economic costs). We are constantly lectured that climate change is the most important environmental issue of our time, yet the energy costs of banning plastic bags are often ignored. Indeed, we can even estimate the environmental value of banning the bags to see if we are receiving the environmental benefit we pay for.

When the Seattle City Council proposed taxing plastic bags, The Seattle Times tallied the overall reduction in resource use that would result. The city expected to spend $10 million, projecting that water use for bag production would be reduced by 39 million gallons each year and would cut CO2 emissions by 6,000 tons per year (this does not examine the costs of replacing the bags which, as noted above, would likely increase emissions). These numbers sound large, but actually the impact is quite small. To put a price on the value of the CO2 reductions, we can use the European carbon market price of about $20. Reducing 6,000 short tons of CO2 would cost about $109,000, or one percent of the cost of the bag tax.

The numbers for conserving water are similar. 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, or less than one-third of one day’s consumption. So, the amount of water saved by this tax would be infinitesimal. How much is that amount of water worth? Using residential rates, which have the highest marginal rates, the cost of 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 would cost $10 million to gain environmental benefits that could be acquired for as low as $278,452.

Like so many trendy environmental ideas, banning plastic bags is a policy that fares quite poorly when examined with a rigorous economic and scientific approach. That, however, hasn’t stopped a number of jurisdictions from banning the bags, sending out press releases proclaiming their commitment to saving the environment, and encouraging other cities to follow suit. Ultimately, the bans are more about politics than the environment.

Aug 12, 2012 | 8 comments | by

How is Creating Green Jobs is Like Banning Tractors to Create Farm Jobs?

Recently the “Political Economy Research Institute” at the University of Massachusetts released a graphic purporting to show “green” technologies create more jobs than traditional energy sources. The graphic, to the right, has been distributed widely by advocates of creating “green jobs.” This is a common assertion from the environmental left.

As I note in my book Eco-Fads, this claim is made by many on the left.

One Seattle Times columnist wrote approvingly of a study that found spending on ‘green’ projects “produced more ‘job hours’ than tax cuts or traditional infrastructure spending.” This, they claim, is a good thing.

The left, however, is halfhearted in its application of this approach. If they really want to create more jobs we can do much better.

For example, the graph shows 14 jobs are created per $1 million invested in solar energy, twice the amount created from coal. But we can do better. We can generate 500,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of perfectly clean energy (enough to power 80 houses for an entire year!) while creating hundreds of jobs.

I’ve modified the original graphic, which ended with the “Mass Transit/Freight Rail” row to include the best option of all – generating electricity using bicycle generators. Pedaling ten hours a day on a stationary bike, each person can generate 1 kWh. Investing $1 million in bicycle generators and paying people the going rate for the energy they create, we could create 1,610 jobs.

There is another benefit: these are not part time jobs. These are full-time jobs for an entire year, unlike many of the temporary jobs often included in “green” jobs calculations.

The reason solar power creates more jobs per $1 million is that solar is extremely inefficient, requiring more workers to do more as they produce less. We could easily apply this to other sectors.

If we want to create more farm jobs (after all the percentage of farm jobs in the economy has fallen dramatically in the last century), we could ban tractors. Think of all the jobs we’d create for farm workers!

Of course, the cost of farm products would rise dramatically, making it more difficult to buy food, especially for low-income families. But do we want to create jobs or not?!

If you’ve done the math by now, you may have figured out that I am paying my green-energy producing bike riders only 10 cents a day – the average rate for generating one kWh of electricity in America. So, let’s pay them $10 a hour. The cost per kWh would rise from 10 cents to $1,000. This might make it more difficult for manufacturers to buy the electricity, but it hardly seems fair to demand our bike riders earn less than a living wage, and wealthy investors like Warren Buffet can certainly afford to pay a bit more for electricity.

You may think that environmentalism and concern about resources means doing more with less. According to the Political Economy Research Institute and the environmental left, you would be wrong. They believe the way to create jobs and help the environment is by doing less with more – substituting high-cost solar power for low-cost natural gas. Using more resources (human and otherwise) and returning less energy.

And there are real-world examples of the “success” of this strategy. In 2008, Spain was widely lauded for its efforts to create a new, green economy. Today their unemployment rate is 25 percent.

The Pew Research Center ranks Oregon as the top state for “green jobs” in the country. Their unemployment rate has been above the national average every month for the last four years. Number three on the list is California, with a current unemployment rate of 10.9 percent. Last on the list? Natural gas rich North Dakota, with a current unemployment rate of 3 percent.

 

Jun 25, 2012 | 5 comments | by

Westin Makes the Free-Market Green Choice

If you have stayed at a hotel recently, you have seen a card in the bathroom exhorting you to help the planet by reusing your towels, thus reducing the amount of water, energy and detergent used by the hotel. Such appeals are typically based on guilt – you reuse the towels and the hotel receives the financial benefit.

The success of such efforts, however, is tenuous because it is entirely contingent on the convenience and good will of the guests.

Westin Hotels, however, have harnessed the free market to find a better way.

When I checked into my hotel in Charlotte last week, I noticed a door hanger lying on the bed which read:

“Make a green choice. Enjoy a $5 voucher at participating food and beverage outlets or 500 SPG Starpoints awarded at checkout for each night you decline housekeeping.”

Instead of guilt, Westin recognizes that sharing with their customers the benefit of conserving resources is likely to make the program more successful. And they are seeing results.

Chris Para from the Westin Charlotte said the program has grown in each of the three years they have offered it. He estimates that 16 percent of guests take advantage of the program. This is a remarkable result considering what it might take otherwise to cut water use for laundry by about one-fifth.

The program was actually conceived at the Westin and Sheraton in Seattle where the “green” ethic is ubiquitous. But it goes beyond simply cultivating a green image. Westin enjoys financial benefits in two ways. First, it saves money by reducing the laundry and housekeeping costs. Second, it is an initiative Westin can use to attract corporate customers from organizations requiring their employees to stay at “green” hotels.

The group most likely to be incentivized by the program and use it are business travelers, and Westin’s Starwood points are a particularly attractive reward.

Interestingly, Para seemed sheepish when I asked if the hotel benefited financially from the program. By providing benefits to the hotel and customer, however, the program is more likely to stand the test of time. Too many green programs are based on people being willing to endure inconvenience or cost and are jettisoned when times get tough. With the hotel benefiting, they are more likely to continue and even expand the program.

Instead of apologizing for the benefits they receive, Westin should be proud. Those financial rewards may encourage other hotels to follow suit, further reducing overall resource use.

By harnessing the incentives of the free market, Westin, its customers and the environment all benefit.

May 19, 2012 | 3 comments | by

U.S. Congress Offers Environmentalism for Dummies

In case you are visiting the Congressional gift shop, you might want to pick up the “Green Living” wheel which offers tips on how to live a more environmentally friendly life. Emblazoned with “U.S. House of Representatives” at the bottom, the cardboard wheel can be turned to reveal bits of environmental wisdom in a cutout window. The bits of advice, however, range from the simplistic to incorrect.

Here are a few examples of the advice being offered by a well-meaning U.S. Congress through the powerful vehicle known as “the gift shop.”

“Turn heat down at night and when you are away from home.”
If you need to buy this little cardboard wheel to figure this out, you probably are not capable of finding your way to the Congressional gift shop in the first place.

“Do not use disposable razors, pens or other items that have permanent options.”
I have a reusable ink pen, but short of everyone returning to quills, I’m not really sure how this is feasible. It also ignores that while the razor and pen case may be re-used, you still discard the blades and ink cartridges. This isn’t likely to make much of a difference in the global scheme of things.

“Use digital cameras instead of film cameras. Hazardous chemicals are used to process film. Avoid disposable cameras.”
This wheel was published in 2008. My question is, where would one even find a film camera in 2008 or 2012? Practically everyone has a digital camera in their pocket these days and don’t need to buy disposable cameras any more. This is a good example of the technology from the free market eliminating what might previously have been an environmental concern.

“Use voice mail instead of an answering machine. Answering machines use energy when plugged in & ultimately end up in landfills.”
Again, I don’t even know where I would find an answering machine today. Maybe I could sort through a local landfill.

“When traveling choose an eco-friendly hotel, they use less water and less energy.”
I don’t understand this. Are there hotels that intentionally waste water and energy? I do enjoy the cards at hotels that encourage me to re-use towels “for the planet” when their motive is really to cut down on laundry costs. Hotels already have a strong incentive to cut costs associated with using water and energy, and my guess is that every hotel wants to use less water and energy.

“Purchase locally when possible. It conserves energy that would be used to transport goods.”
This is actually bad advice and may do more harm than good to the environment. Transportation is only about 10 percent of the energy used in food production and ignoring the other 90 percent to make small improvements in the 10 percent is foolish. Growing food where it is most appropriate is a far more responsible use of resources than worrying about the final distance a food product travels.

Add all of these eco-fads together and the environmental impact will be extremely tiny or even negative. Like so much of the environmental movement these days, these steps are primarily designed to give people a sense they are helping the planet and making them feel good about themselves. That is the real value of such facile recommendations — to inculcate a sense of mission and participation in a movement larger than you.

By way of contrast, technology that emerged from the free market made a couple of these recommendations irrelevant. The price signals of the free market made others extremely obvious.

Given the choice between trendy environmental moralizing and free-market incentives to do more with less, the planet (like people) chooses the freedom and personal responsibility of the free market.

Come to think of it, maybe it is better if you don’t buy a “Green Living” wheel. It will just end up in the landfill.

May 08, 2012 | Leave a Comment | by

Solar Energy That Is Even Less Efficient Than Solar Energy

With so much focus on the inefficiency of solar panels, few are aware of an even more costly solar technology called “thermal solar.” Like solar panels, the Obama Administration has offered billions in loan guarantees for thermal solar projects across the country.

Also like solar panels, the thermal solar projects are starting to fall apart financially. Even those projects that are ultimately successful will have extremely high costs and produce little environmental benefit.

Unlike solar panels, which turn energy from the sun directly into electricity, thermal solar uses heat to create steam that generates energy. The result is that energy produced using thermal solar is even more expensive than energy produced by solar panels. The Energy Information Administration says the projected average cost per megawatt hour (MWh) of energy for photovoltaic solar (solar PV) in 2016 will be $211. For thermal solar, the EIA notes, the cost is projected at $312.20 per MWh, or nearly 50 percent more. As inefficient as solar panels are, thermal solar is much worse.

Some will argue that in the right places, like the desert, it makes sense. The EIA looks at that as well. It notes that the projected minimum cost for thermal solar will be $192 per MWh, with the maximum reaching $642.50. By way of comparison, solar PV’s minimum cost will be $158.90, and the minimum cost for wind energy will be $82.30. Among the “green” energy sources, thermal solar is by far the worst of all options.

Thermal solar’s high cost and low energy production is already leading the technology to bite its supporters and investors.

Forbes reported yesterday that BrightSource, a company that produces thermal solar energy, pulled its initial public offering abruptly due to “adverse market conditions.” Up to this point, Forbes argued, “BrightSource Energy, which is well capitalized and the recipient of a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee, seemed a likely candidate to be one of the few solar thermal startups left standing.” Now, that appears to have changed.

There are, however, other thermal solar projects that have received federal loan guarantees:

Another thermal solar project that was offered a loan guarantee (but turned it down because it was “too risky”), has recently filed for bankruptcy.

Aside from the financial problems and the high cost of thermal solar, there is also the environmental cost. Assuming that all goes to plan, thermal solar’s high cost also means it is a very poor way to reduce carbon emissions. For example, the Abengoa Solar Solana project is projected to reduce 544,000 tons of carbon emissions per year. Over a 25-year lifespan of the project, the cost per ton of CO2 reduced would be about $125. Compare that to the cost per metric ton in Europe of about $20 over the last few years, or the projected $30 per ton cost under the upcoming cap and trade system in California. Put simply, in the best circumstance, we’re paying the cost of four or five tons of carbon reduction but only getting the reduction of one ton. The SolarReserve project would spent more than $100 per ton of CO2 reduced.

The high cost and low environmental benefit are two reasons thermal solar projects are on shaky ground. The fact that both BrightSource and Solar Trust have both hit financial difficulties is a testament to those problems.

One could say that given the large sums of taxpayer dollars involved in these projects, thermal solar could end up being an even larger financial mess than Solyndra. It would be more appropriate, however, to say that even if these projects work as promised, the high cost to produce small amounts of environmental benefit mean they are guaranteed to be a significant environmental mess.

Apr 12, 2012 | 8 comments | by

Riverkeepers Play Sleight of Hand on Fracking Impacts

This week, the Wall Street Journal is hosting its ECO:nomics conference, discussing the state of green business. One panel featured an exchange between Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon and Paul Gallay of Riverkeepers. Gallay calls McClendon’s support of natural gas fracking “snake oil.” One particular claim stood out at me.

He first argues that the prevalence of benzene in the air around Dallas has increased. Then Gallay implies (at 2:30 in the video) that fracking has led to health problems for children, saying specifically “In the Dallas/Ft. Worth area the amount of childhood asthma is double the statewide average. These are the facts.” That may be a fact, but it has nothing to do with either fracking or air quality.

This is a common sleight of hand among environmentalists. Instead of citing air quality data, they cite surrogate data (like asthma rates), implying that the two are synonymous. They are not. Interestingly, asthma rates are climbing nationwide at the same time outdoor air quality has dramatically improved.

According to the EPA, in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, the number of days with “good” air quality has climbed from 124 in 2001 to 195 in 2011. The number of “unhealthy” days has fallen from 13 to 6 during that time period. The worst air quality, measured by the EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI), has fallen from 204 to 169. Put simply, the air quality in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area is much better today than ten years ago. I don’t know when fracking around Dallas began, but the amount is certainly higher today than ten years ago, and yet air quality has improved. If asthma rates are climbing, it is due to some other factor. (NCPA has addressed this in the past, for example “Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution.”)

There is a real danger here. Rather than focus on the real causes of childhood asthma, such sleights of hand distract our efforts for political purposes, making it more difficult to solve the problem. This is a fundamentally dishonest game and it harms efforts to improve childhood health.

If fracking is the threat to the environment and human health that Riverkeepers claims, why not use real data? Gallay chose two “facts” to point to the damage fracking does to the environment. If one of the two examples he provides is deceptive, why should we believe the overall case against fracking is any stronger?

Mar 23, 2012 | 1 comment | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »