Tag: "environmental issues"

The Failure of U.S. Biofuels Program

Ending a relationship is never easy, even one with a proven history of broken promises, twisted logic, weak justifications and financial exploitation. Such is the bond between the American taxpayer and the domestic ethanol industry. In the beginning, statements of common goals sparked hopeful enthusiasm. Many eagerly supported the romantic notion of growing our way to energy independence and an American-led green-based movement towards world prosperity. But, alas, the thrill is gone, and the truth exposed. The once proud, almost pompous, biofuels sector is struggling for justification.

The affair began in 2007 with the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Contained within the act is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) provisions that sets forth incentives for the development of biofuels such as plant-based ethanol and biodiesel. At the time, Bush had committed to the goal of ending American’s addiction to fossil fuel. The original promise was a reduced dependency on Middle Eastern oil, cleaner air, a boon to agriculture and reduced fuel costs for consumers.

Unfortunately, ethanol has failed to live up to its promised benefits. Recent low prices at the pump have exposed its life-support dependency on the government. Although direct subsidies have expired, ethanol producers continue to benefit from other financial incentives and federal mandates. A study by the NARC Consulting Group calls the program an economic death-spiral and discloses its many flaws. Yet, industry groups rally for maintaining, even increasing, RFS percentages in the face of mounting evidence of the program’s failure. Still, in a recent rule change proposal, the EPA published a plan to amend the mandates.

The statutory requirement to blend government-supported biofuels with free-market fuels is market manipulation. If the value of ethanol and other biofuels were legitimate, forced consumption, through the RFS, would not be necessary. Congress should end this failed relationship and costly experiment. Let the free market drive innovation and job development. Below, are but a few of the adverse effects of the RFS:

  • disruptive to agriculture markets
  • increases food costs
  • rife with fraud
  • lacks self-sustainability
  • burdens Taxpayers
  • environmental damage
  • violates free-market principles
Sep 14, 2015 | 2 comments | by

Economic Gain Increases Environmental Quality

The relationship between environmental quality and economic development has been described as an environmental Kuznets curve: Initially, economic development exacerbates environmental problems; however, as an economy grows and develops, average incomes reach a certain point beyond which environmental indicators start to improve.  Indeed, as gross domestic product per capita increases, emissions of pollutants per $1 of gross domestic product falls. This is true also of industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, which was not traditionally viewed as an air pollutant, but is now regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.  [See the table.] This suggests that economic progress is a prerequisite for improving environmental quality generally, and specifically for meeting carbon dioxide emissions reductions goals.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

(kilograms of CO2 per $1 gross domestic product)

 

  1990 2000 2010
China 1.9695 1.0110 0.9084
India 0.6533 0.6538 0.5338
Japan 0.3341 0.3328 0.2966
Singapore 0.6105 0.3196 0.0510
South Africa 1.1881 1.0964 0.9692
United Kingdom 0.4272 0.3169 0.2416
United States 0.5988 0.5121 0.4174

 

Note: Dollars of GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity.

Source: Millennium Development Goals Database, United Nations Statistics Division.

Special contribution by NCPA research associate Jiawen Chen. 

Aug 26, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

The Golden-cheeked Warbler and Piecemeal Environmental Policy

A tiny, migratory songbird is causing a big ruckus in Texas. At issue is the Golden-cheeked warbler’s status according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The bird caused a related stir in 1990 when it was the subject of a petition by members of the anarchist environmental group, Earth First! The petition moved the FWS to exercise its emergency authority to declare a species endangered under the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA). In December 1990, the agency issued its final rule designating the bird to be an endangered species.

However, a recent comprehensive study has motivated several groups to call for the removal of the golden-cheeked warbler from the list. The findings, as presented by Texas A&M, has been peer reviewed, published in respected journals, and judged as scientifically sound. It appears the golden-cheeked warbler is not endangered. Even more concerning, the species may not have been in peril in 1990, the year FWS declared an emergency protected status.

What does this mean to the hundreds of private property owners who have suffered land restrictions, substantial fines, and criminal prosecution as a result of the warbler’s status? For example, one such case saw a Texas rancher penalized for clearing Ashe Juniper (Cedar) from his property. An activity FWS deemed damaging to the protected bird’s breeding habitat. In a negotiated settlement, the landowner transferred 48 acres to a public preserve and paid $220,260 in land management fees.

Even if one were to believe the earlier, mostly anecdotal based evidence that the golden-cheeked warbler was threatened, the latest research supports its removal from the list of endangered species. Still, some ask since recovery efforts have been so successful, why should the warbler be delisted to face uncertainty?

Simple answer first, the endangered species listing is for species that are, in fact, endangered. To maintain a status that is not evidenced based, delegitimizes the significance of the entire list. Second, although there is no geographical designation of warbler habitat, Ashe Juniper (Cedar) trees are recognized as essential to warbler nesting. So, while the bird is a protected species, landowners are subject to restrictions, in what amounts to a regulatory taking of property rights in regards to Ashe junipers.

Finally, the listing of the warbler has caused a clash of agencies, pitting federal against state in a battle of species management. As well, the limited focus on warbler breeding habitat protection has contributed to serious health issues, particularly for children.

To explain, while the FWS strictly enforces habitat (a tree) protection, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPW) calls the golden-cheeked warbler issue, “A single-species approach to wildlife management“. As a result of federal restrictions, the invasive characteristics of Ashe juniper has negatively impacted the natural ecosystem. According to TPW, in areas where the tree has been left to survive, it has depleted groundwater, increased soil erosion, and impacted the diversity of other plant species. The rise of Ashe juniper, being of little food value, has disrupted the natural habitat of other animal species. In fact, TPW has worked to limit, even eradicate the Ashe juniper while the FWS punishes citizens for clearing the tree from their land.

The increase in Ashe Juniper has also resulted in an upsurge of illness during its pollination cycle. Termed “cedar fever” the effects of Ashe juniper allergies can range from itchy eyes to pneumonia and even trigger asthma attacks. The Ashe juniper tree has one of the most allergenic pollens. In fact, The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) has named seven Texas cities in its 2015 list of the most challenging places to live in regards to annual pollen scores.

So here we have the question, should the golden-cheeked warbler be removed from the list of endangered species? Yes. If not merely for the logic the bird is not threatened, then for the impact the designation has to other sensitive areas. More consideration should be made to the causal sequence of government agency decisions prior to making rules. Consideration should be given to economic impact to private citizens, potential health issues, and an analysis of the possible harm to other plant and wildlife species. When pondering the importance of diverse species to a healthy environment, too often the human element is not represented in the equation. A more holistic approach would better assure a healthy, balanced ecosystem.

Aug 24, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Gold King Mine an EPA Superfund Site

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an Emergency Response Statement to a massive pollutant spill in Colorado. According to the agency, EPA contractors caused the accidental breach. As a result, contaminated water flushed from the long abandoned Gold King Mine into Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River. The following day, EPA released another statement to explain early reports of a much smaller spill. Following efforts by the U.S. Geological Survey to measure flow rate, the volume of lead, acidic toxins, and heavy metal-laden water was determined to be over three million gallons.

Additionally disturbing was the failure of the EPA to inform the state governors of the spill. “The EPA is not communicating openly with the state of New Mexico,” said Governor Susana Martinez to Fox News. “It took them about a little less than twenty-four hours before they even told us.” In fact, she goes on to explain that it was the Southern Ute Indians that notified her office and criticized the EPA for not revealing exactly what the toxins are.

To farmers, industry, and small business the EPA has the well-established reputation of intimidation and tyrannical authority. The enforcement section of their web page offers thousands of criminal prosecutions, a majority of them settled by a guilty plea. Comparable percentages in the criminal justice system are unattainable. Simply, the justice system requires the government to prove a person guilty while EPA’s system leaves little opportunity for one to even attempt to prove themselves innocent.

For example, Washington state dairyman Roger Bajema pled guilty to permitting wastewater discharge. His plea finally came three years after EPA inspectors took a sample of soil from a drainage ditch. Mr. Bajema acknowledges the ditch had a broken rain water pipe used to move run-off from barn roofs to a holding pond. Broken pipe aside, the family believes he was “targeted”. The farmer had attended an EPA informational forum the day before the inspection. Mr. Bajema spoke, voicing his displeasure with the heavy-handed presence of the agency in his community. The following day, while he worked to repair the cracked water pipe, EPA officials arrived at his farm and began inspecting and sampling. After three years of threats of fines for up to $37,000 a day, he finally learned of the results of the samples in a highly dramatized press release.

The EPA earned a $7,500 penalty for the three-year assault on the Bajema family dairy farm. A large sum of money for a small operator, but a mere pittance to EPA coffers. In 2014 alone, under Civil Enforcement Monetary Commitments, the agency raked in $9,738,000,000 (rounded up to the nearest hundred million) in court ordered Injunctive Relief. They received another $135,000,000 (give or take) in other penalties. In addition, under Superfund Cleanup Enforcement they realized $601,000,000 (thereabouts) and another $63,000,000 in Criminal Enforcement Fines (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2015). This to an agency with a 2015 enacted budget of over $8.1 billion and a workforce of over 15,000.

Still, the EPA is responsible for violating the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), the very law it is tasked with enforcing. According to 33 U.S.C §1251 et seq. (1972), the CWA makes it, “unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters” (EPA, 2015, para. 3). Mr. Bajema was penalized $7,500 and humiliated in his community for the charge of “potential” to pollute. As a result of the stress, he has sold the cows and closed his operation. Will the EPA suffer a similar punishment? It isn’t likely.

The superpower agency may have already begun working on a way to spin their failure. The EPA website shows the Upper Animas Mining District in Silverton, Co as a Region 8 Superfund site although not on the National Priority List (NPL). It is clear the EPA was aware of the issue for decades. However, a recent Associated Press (AP) news article blames the local community for standing in the way thus contributing to EPA’s failure to take action. This “it’s not our fault” approach to the disaster is not a defense Mr. Bajema offered.

Six days after the spill EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stated, “It pains me to no end to see this happening”. As well, at an event in Washington D.C. she said the EPA is taking full responsibility and when pressed by a reporter said, “I am absolutely sorry this ever happened“. This may be the closest we get to an apology. It pains us all, but where is the accountability? Are we to believe the zero tolerance attitude of EPA enforcement will result in an equal penalty, punishment, and public humiliation as suffered by other offenders? Or, like the General Services Administration (GSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Veteran’s Administration (VA) the EPA will go on and suffer no consequences.

Aug 17, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

NCPA Nationwide Survey of Anti-Fracking Activism – the “Frac Map”

3038

The NCPA completed a nationwide survey of successful anti-fracking activism that we presented to state legislators, energy associations and think tanks. This map demonstrates the threat of misguided activism to oil and gas production, the key to continuing our economic recovery, addressing the national debt, lowering the trade deficit and preserving U.S. superpower status into the future.

The NCPA “Frac Map” was also featured at the Washington Post.

 

 

Aug 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

A Bland but Workable Energy Plan

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski have been working jointly on a passable energy bill. The Congressmen have also been coordinating with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to ensure the bill will not get vetoed at the President’s desk.

On infrastructure, the Energy Policy Modernization Act (the Senate version) aims to modernize the electricity grid and add cybersecurity safeguards. There are also provisions to streamline the process for natural gas export projects and maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The bill provides for the “responsible development of American resources”, to include hydropower, geothermal and bioenergy, as well as traditional resources. Surprisingly, the act creates a new National Park Maintenance and Revitalization Fund to fix the maintenance backlog of the nation’s public parks (the park delayed an estimated $11.5 billion worth of maintenance last year alone).

The drafters of the bill chose to avoid big button issues such as the Keystone XL pipeline, allowing the exportation of crude oil and climate change.

The inclusion of maintaining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is in direct contrast to the transportation bill being presented by the Senate, which offers to sell part of the reserve to fund the Highway Trust Fund.

This week, 11 environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council, have come out against the bill stating that several provisions in the bill could cause detrimental effects to public health and the environment. The groups seemed specifically opposed to expediting liquefied natural gas exports and mineral mining permits because they felt “a stronger vision for accelerating the development and deployment of clean energy” was needed. The House bill received less opposition from these groups since it did not include measures on hydropower and liquefied natural gas exportation.

Jul 29, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Electric Vehicles: More Harm than Good?

A recent study by Stephen P. Holland from the University of North Carolina- Greensboro and other economics and business professors has found the environmental benefits and harms of electric cars vary state by state. The federal government currently awards a subsidy of $7500 for each electric vehicle bought, with some states adding their own subsidies to such purchases. Such subsidies reflect current movements towards green policies.

Electric vehicles, however, are clearly not “zero emission vehicles.” First of all, the components of those vehicles are made in factories most likely powered by fossil fuels. Second, the electricity used for the vehicles themselves comes from power plants across the United States, where around 70 percent of power plants operate on natural gas or coal. In most areas around the country, driving an electric vehicle means choosing to burn coal and natural gas rather than burning oil.

Due to differences in energy production by states, using electric vehicles may be better in some states while continuing to drive gas-powered cars in others may be best. In California, for example, the electric grid is relatively clean while gasoline vehicles produce more environmental damages. In North Dakota, the opposite is true as the electric grid uses more coal.

The report found that on average electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars. However, gas-powered cars are worse in congested urban areas while electric cars are worse outside of metropolitan areas. A one-size-fits-all policy regarding electric cars therefore does not make sense. The federal subsidy should be eliminated, leaving only state subsidies for electric vehicles where they already exist.

 

Jul 01, 2015 | 5 comments | by

Private-Public Partnerships Move to Improve Texas Energy and Environment

Apart from obvious biological costs of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, there were heavy indirect costs associated with the spill which most economists will likely never be able to calculate accurately. These intangible costs include the heavy blow dealt on the Gulf’s tourism sector that year.

The mere cleanup costs of similar spills have been monumental:

Cleanup of Oil Spills

Note: These figures are projections based on the estimated average cost of cleaning up a single barrel of oil in today’s dollars. They do NOT include the cost to other industries, countries, outstanding damages to private property or the value of lost oil. In the case of Mexico in its 1979 Ixtoc I spill, these three external estimated costs totaled an astonishing $872 million. 

Unsurprisingly, British Petroleum estimates that over 30 percent of medium-term oil production will be offshore oil, hence risk management strategies are not only a foremost ethical parameter but a rational metric for increasing a company’s profitability. Bearing this end in mind, the University of Houston and Texas A&M at Corpus Christi are forming the Subsea Systems Institute and Texas OneGulf, and will enjoy close collaboration with NASA, Rice University, ExxonMobil, Halliburton and Sclumberger among others. The two research organizations — aided by the private sector — will pioneer deep-sea drilling technologies designed to protect the environment and private enterprises through safer and more cost-effective deep-sea drilling practices.

Our vision is to create an institute that is recognized around the world as the undisputed leader in transformative deepwater technology… We will create, test, and provide the technologies that industry will need in the next five to 10 years.

– Ramanan Krishnomoorti, Chief Energy Officer and Interim Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer at the University of Houston

 

Jul 01, 2015 | 5 comments | by

The Clean Coal Technology Myth

The potential rise of clean coal technology has been hampered by its costly nature. Originally intended to prevent greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere, there have been few real applications of this technology. The most promising clean coal development was the potential to make hydrogen from water by using coal and then burying the carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen, a form of carbon capture and sequestration.

In effect, clean coal technology was supposed to give the coal industry a lifeline into the future of cleaner fuels. In reality, the costs associated with clean coal increase the price of generation by up to 80 percent and cuts efficiency by 30 percent. Initial funding from the federal stimulus bill in 2009 offered $3.4 billion for carbon capture and sequestration. The money, however, soon ran out as costs escalated.

In Mississippi, for example, a clean coal technology project already estimated at $6.2 billion went so over budget that the South Mississippi Electric Power Association withdrew from the project. The coal plant was already the costliest fossil-fuel power plant ever engineered. In February 2015, the Department of Energy similarly pulled its support on a $1.1 billion clean coal project, called FutureGen, in Illinois.

The growth of cheap natural gas has been especially worrisome for the coal industry. In the United States, Arch Coal, one of the largest coal companies, is about to be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. Even China, a country that traditionally burns half the world’s coal, has been increasingly switching to natural gas and renewable energy. Between January and April of 2015, China’s coal demand fell 8 percent.

Even with so much bad news, coal’s share of primary-energy use in the world is unlikely to fall below 25 percent, from a peak of 30 percent in 2010, by 2035. For many countries, coal still means cheap and reliable energy where such a thing is rare. In such countries, regulations aren’t driving up the price of generation ensuring a continuous supply of affordable energy.

 

Jun 24, 2015 | 1 comment | by

Environmentalists for School Choice

Last year I met Dr. Bart Danielsen, the Founder of Environmentalists for Education Reform. What a brilliant concept! As a long-time environmental economist, and urban economist, I should have recognized the vital importance of the connection between at least the “school choice” part of the urgently needed transformational education reform and environmental impact, not to mention the very fiscal and economic sustainability of central cities. Family flight to the suburbs has been a disaster; tax base loss, loss of business/jobs, and environmentally. The latter disaster arises from the blight of property abandonment and infrastructure decay, loss of open space to suburban sprawl, and increased driving which means more pollution.

Once the connection fully sank in, I recalled that my The School Choice Wars discusses a 1990’s Denis Doyle paper that describes survey results that said “school choice” would have kept a lot of middle/upper income families from moving to the Baltimore suburbs. Nathan Gray and I discovered a similar phenomenon in Edgewood, west of downtown San Antonio, TX. School choice attracted families and business, and drove public school improvement.

Well, thankfully, Dr. Danielsen recognized the vital importance of the connection.  He’s working hard to give it prominence through publication, networking, and the documentation of additional examples. Hopefully, this will significantly broaden the pro-transformation, pro-choice coalition.

Jun 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by
Next Page »