All posts by Todd Myers

Todd Myers is the Environmental Director at the Washington Policy Center, a market-oriented think tank in Seattle. He previously worked at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. His work has been featured in many Washington newspapers, the BBC, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

The Cost Doesn’t Matter…It’s For the Environment

A refreshing take on environmental policy appeared recently in Governing Magazine, written by Stephen Goldsmith, the Deputy Mayor of Operations for New York City. Arguing that policymakers need to assess the cost of reducing environmental risk, he highlights the negative tradeoffs that can result from making poor environmental policy. He writes:

Green is not free, however. We have to make public decisions with an eye toward how to accomplish our environmental goals in a way that compliments and does not threaten essential services. If we prematurely commit to expedite expensive school renovations in order to mitigate against “risks” that aren’t risky at all, that $1 billion expense would result in layoffs for teachers.

When governments spend billions to make only minor improvements in environmental quality, they miss opportunities to address more serious, but less trendy, environmental problems, or use those resources to address other issues, like education, health or improving the business climate to create jobs.

It is a lesson that is not being learned in Oregon. For years, the state has offered generous taxpayer subsidies to “green” industries in an effort to reduce unemployment. For their efforts, Oregon has been rewarded with an unemployment rate of 10.2%, more than a point higher than the national average. The Portland Oregonian reported last week that the subsidies have failed to produce the promised jobs, writing:

In some cases, the state has spent millions of tax dollars and gotten only a handful — or no — jobs in return because the companies didn’t perform as billed, were sold and shut down, or went bankrupt and folded.

What’s more, the subsidies are breaking the state’s budget. The subsidies are so generous and have so few restrictions, that costs have exploded.

The net result has been an explosion in state spending on the tax credits. The latest estimates, contained in a recently released state report, show the subsidies will cost Oregon’s general fund nearly $300 million over the next two years. That’s a 60 percent increase over current spending and quadruple what the state shelled out just four years ago.

This comes at a time when Oregon is grappling with a significant budget shortfall.

The irony is that these lavish expenditures are not only bad for the economy and the budget, failing to create the promised jobs, but the spending is also bad for the environment. Spending billions on projects that result in very little improvement in energy efficiency leads policymakers to eliminate funding for other efforts to improve environmental quality. While legislators justify the expenditure in the name of environmental protection, it is more likely they are actually doing environmental damage by ignoring real risks.

Solar? No. Wind? Nope. Biomass? Verboten.

One of the climate policies proposed by President Obama in his State of the Union Address is a “renewable portfolio standard,” or RPS, which would require 80 percent of our electricity to be generated using renewable sources by 2035. A number of states have already put this in place, including Washington state, Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, although with different targets.

The problem arises when energy companies actually try to build clean energy plants to meet the standard. Across the West, environmentalists have opposed virtually all of the allowable forms of energy.

Biomass

In Washington state, environmentalists are going on the offensive to prevent construction of new energy plants that would use forest scraps left after a timber harvest, including branches and other shrubs. Ironically, biomass was specifically defined as “renewable” in Washington’s RPS law proposed by the environmental community just a few years ago.

Today, however, some are trying to stop biomass plants from actually being built. In the Seattle Times, environmental activist Duff Badgley decided to forgo subtlety, and accuracy, when he wrote “The outrage comes as science documents biomass combustion is ‘dirtier’ than coal, stokes climate change, rains toxic pollutants on regional populations and would decimate our forests.” At least he put “dirtier” in quotes.

None of that is true, as we have pointed out elsewhere. Even if it were true, why did the environmental community specifically include it when they wrote the law? One reason is that solar simply isn’t a viable option in Washington, so wind and biomass are the only real opportunities to generate renewable energy. Without those, there is simply no reasonable way Washington could meet any renewable energy target.

Get rid of biomass and the only thing left in Washington state, really, would be wind.

Wind

And, of course, the environmental community doesn’t like that either. One of the best locations for wind turbines in the Northwest is along the Columbia River Gorge that separates Washington and Oregon. Air from the Pacific is steered by the Cascade Mountains through this narrow gap, creating strong, consistent winds that have made it a haven for windsurfers. The Gorge has also been designated a scenic area, putting limits on development inside the boundaries.

Now, Friends of the Columbia Gorge have determined that any development that can be seen from inside the Gorge is also unacceptable. Although the turbines proposed as part of the Whistling Ridge Energy Project would be outside of the Scenic Area, that’s not enough for the Friends. They, like Dr. Seuss’s Yertle the Turtle, want to be “ruler of all that I see.” They oppose the wind farm because turbines can be seen from inside the scenic area. One supporter said he supported wind in “Eastern Oregon and Washington” but not near the Gorge. Apparently he doesn’t think much of the scenery in E. Washington.

This is a familiar refrain. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. opposed wind turbines that could be seen from his family’s compound. The Audubon Society in Ellensburg, Washington also opposed a wind farm in that community. In each instance, supporters claim they support wind energy, but just want it somewhere else.

Solar

There’s always solar right? Nope. Environmental groups are now suing to stop a major solar project in California. The New York Times reports “At peak output, the five licensed solar thermal projects being challenged would power more than two million homes,” and would help California meets its RPS goals. One of the projects was stopped, however, when regulators expressed concern about “the project’s impact on the Mohave ground squirrel.” The Sierra Club sued another project “claiming the 7.2-square-mile power plant would devastate the imperiled desert tortoise and other wildlife.”

This might be a blessing in disguise. Solar power is extremely inefficient, costing many times more than natural gas, nuclear and even wind power.

Two things come to mind with these stories.

First, environmental activists frequently claim climate change is the most important environmental issue we face. Activist “scientist” James Hansen wrote last year that “The predominant moral issue of the 21st century, almost surely, will be climate change, comparable to Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century and slavery faced by Lincoln in the 19th century.” When push comes to shove, however, climate policies take a backseat to other issues including scenery. The consistent opposition of environmental activists to the various forms of renewable energy undermines their stated concern about the seriousness of climate change.

Second, despite consistently professing the need to think globally and act locally, environmental opponents of renewable energy are thinking locally and ignoring the global consequences they say they fear.

Some argue the true agenda of the environmental left is to oppose all energy — energy they believe facilitates environmentally destructive prosperity. That is certainly true for some. But for others, the problem is seeing beyond the end of their nose, even when it means being consistent with their professed values.

If President Obama is serious about creating a renewable portfolio standard, he may find significant opposition from his own friends once he tries to implement it.

A Rough Week for Climate Change Myths

The past week or so has been rough on those trying, as the BBC might put it, to “sex up” the threat of climate change. Three examples stand out.

Paul Krugman Blames Egyptian Unrest on Climate Change

This has received a fair amount of attention and deserves to be highlighted again. On February 6, Krugman wrote:

But the evidence tells a different, much more ominous story. While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.

The question is, have we seen a consistent rise in food prices and shortages as temperatures have increased over the last few decades? The clear answer is no.

Roger Pielke Jr., author of “The Climate Fix” — a book I highly recommend, posted this chart on his blog under the title “Krugman Loses Perspective.”

As temperatures have increased during the past few decades, food prices have steadily declined. Krugman is only looking at the last few years while ignoring the decades-long trend. When it comes to crop prices, this kind of cherry picking is very expensive when it is used to justify bad policy.

Al Gore Blames Blizzards on Global Warming

This also has been roundly mocked as unscientific. Frankly, such claims smack of desperation. Rather than admitting that not every weather pattern is a symptom of climate change, Gore makes an argument that is not only counter-intuitive but is simply unscientific. He claimed “scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe.”

In the past, of course, those looking to distort climate science to make political points dismissed severe storms as “weather” not “climate.” In February of 2010, just one year ago, skeptics were mocked for linking the snow and climate. An article on ABC noted:

Scientists, however, are quick to repudiate those comments, firing back that a few days, or even a few weeks, of inclement or cold weather in one part of the country does not disprove climate change — a phenomenon, they say, that affects the entire planet over the course of decades. “This conflation of weather and global climate is a classic ploy by skeptics,” said Mark Serreze, a professor at the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Now, those same voices are saying the opposite — that snow storms are proof that climate change exists. Climate Progress now argues, “The scientific literature is clear that indeed global warming will cause more snow.”

What is the truth? Who can tell? It is hard to take seriously the claims of scientists who say one thing this year and the opposite the next, both times claiming their position is long-standing.

State of Washington Claims We’re Already Impacted by Climate Change

On Monday, the Washington State Department of Ecology released its proposals to cut carbon emissions, claiming “Washington is already feeling the impacts from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.” As with the snowstorms, which have missed Washington state, Ecology points to weather incidents to claim climate change is already occurring.

In the past, Washington elected officials have claimed that snow pack in the Cascade Mountains has already declined (which was shown to be false), that sea levels would rise by a meter (which they later changed) and that we are seeing more storms due to climate change.

University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass has addressed these claims in the past, writing in the Seattle Times, “As an environmental scientist, I am frustrated by the poor information distributed by public officials, the media and others regarding the current and predicted frequency of extreme weather events.” He went on to say:

How many times have you heard that severe windstorms and heavy rains will increase in the Northwest under global climate change? The truth is, there is no strong evidence for these claims and the whole matter is being actively researched. Some portions of the Northwest have had more rain and wind during the past decades, some less. And initial simulations of future Northwest climate do not suggest heavier rain events.

Nonetheless, Washington state politicians continue to make the claim to justify climate policies, citing these very events as evidence of climate change.

There are indications that increased atmospheric carbon can influence the amount of energy in the climate. But good policy requires good science, and this past week has revealed numerous examples of fitting the science to the policy rather than the other way round.

The King of the Tacos

Today we offer a segment called “unlikely environmental headlines.” At what point do you think we will see either of these headlines?

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service places cattle on the endangered species list

Scientists say bison population plummeting. WWF advocates listing as ‘threatened.’

My guess is that these are extremely unlikely to occur at any time in the near, or even distant, future. The first headline is patently absurd. If anything, environmentalists want fewer cows, not more. The second headline would not have been outlandish a few decades back but is now absurd, given that ranchers are now actually raising bison. In both cases, the reason for the animals’ abundance is that they are in demand by consumers at steak houses. Bison is now on the menu at restaurants beyond just Ted Turner’s joints.

So, my reaction to a big story last week was a bit different than the responses of others.

A restaurant in Tuscon decided not to sell tacos containing African lion meat after it received threats of violence. The AP reported that “Bryan Mazon, the owner of Boca Tacos and Tequila, said Monday that his Tucson eatery has received ‘many threats’ against the restaurant, family members, customers and vendors since he announced last week that he was taking prepaid orders for the exotic tacos.” In the past, the restaurant has offered tacos with python, alligator, elk, kangaroo, rattlesnake, oysters, turtle, duck and frog legs.

People have eaten stranger things than lion…and that’s just my in-laws. But I digress.

I assume the concern by those threatening violence is concern for the population of African lions. I can’t say that I would enjoy lion tacos, but if they did catch on, is there any reason to believe that the number of lions would increase as has occurred with bison? Making lions a valuable commodity is likely to increase their supply, giving lion ranchers (and those looking to go into lion taming), a financial incentive to increase their population.

Of course all of this depends on the quality of the lion meat, which we’re less likely to know about with the restaurant’s decision not to serve the tacos. It is, however, an opportunity to note that so much of what passes for environmentalism these days is more about emotional reactions than thoughtful solutions. Increasing the market for lion meat would, in all likelihood, increase the population of the species. Keeping them a luxury, to be enjoyed only by those wealthy enough to afford a safari, continues to create costs for protecting them borne by countries that aren’t exactly stable or wealthy, is a strategy that is more tenuous in the long run.

In this case, however, the visceral reaction (known by culinary experts as the “ewwww…gross” reflex), won the day. It is a reaction that I must admit, I share. It is the same reaction some in India have when we eat cattle.

Imagine, though, what would happen if lion meat did take off as a delicacy. They could change Burger King to Lion King.

When Environmental Science Catches Up With the Environmental Scares

It may take some time, but good science often catches up with the political claims. Here are three examples from just the last few weeks.

Was Erin Brockovich Wrong?

Recent research in Hinkley, California, the town made famous by the film Erin Brockovich, has seriously called her claims into question. Brockovich claimed that PG&E had poisoned the residents of that community with hexavalent chromium, leading to extremely high cancer rates. Research from a highly respected epidemiologist using the California Cancer Registry found the rate of cancer in the community was actually slightly lower than average. He told the LA Times, “we did look at a dozen cancer types in earlier surveys of the same census tract for the years between 1988 and 1998. Overall, the results of those surveys were almost identical to the new findings, and none of the cancers represented a statistical excess.”

Oceanic “garbage patch” not nearly as big as portrayed in media

As part of the justification to ban plastic bags, many politicians and environmental activists have pointed to the existence of a giant patch of plastic garbage in the ocean they claimed was “twice the size of Texas.” New research from Oregon State University shows this is wildly inaccurate. Complaining that “exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists,” Oregon State scientist Angelicque White noted “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.”

Additionally, the amount of plastic in the ocean isn’t increasing. The Oregon State piece notes “Recent research by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that the amount of plastic, at least in the Atlantic Ocean, hasn’t increased since the mid-1980s – despite greater production and consumption of materials made from plastic.”

Link between vaccines and autism proves to be forged

Environmental activists have been among those pushing the claim that a vaccine preservative called Thimerosal, derived from mercury, caused autism. Previous research showed the link to be false, noting “Researchers from the state Department of Public Health found the autism rate in children rose continuously during the 12-year study period from 1995 to 2007. The preservative thimerosal has not been used in childhood vaccines since 2001…”

Now, new research goes even further, saying the “study’s claims were not only incorrect, but part of “an elaborate fraud.” ” While some claim better safe than sorry, the result has not been benign. The Wall Street Journal notes “Vaccination rates went down in many countries following the Lancet paper’s publication and subsequent to-do. Meantime, measles outbreaks have been linked to parents who didn’t immunize their kids.”

These distortions of science harm the credibility of science and impose unnecessary economic costs. Just as important, however, is that these distortions also harm the environment by distracting us from real issues that harm the environment or human health. Those who pushed these scares should be willing to admit they did more harm than good.