Tag: "environmental issues"

California High Speed Rail Advocates Want to Ignore Law

The California high-speed rail project is an out-of-control train careening down the tracks. Everybody knows the project is a disaster in the making. But Governor Jerry Brown and California’s political elite are so enamored with being remembered, they are less concerned with whether it is in a good or a bad way. Earlier this month, the authority broke ground on the first planned section between Madera and Fresno.

For those keeping track, the proposed high speed rail line has no realistic funding plan and uses wildly optimistic and unrealistic ridership forecasts. It has violated the language of its 2008 bonds by providing far slower service than initially proposed. It plans to use gas tax funding from an environmental protection plan to help build the train even though the California Air Resources Board found that high speed rail will increase greenhouse gas emissions for the near term.

The past few months have brought one more twist. Since its inception, the rail authority has promised that the project would comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). But after plaintiffs filed seven different lawsuits, the California High Speed Rail Authority asked the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to invalidate these lawsuits arguing that the project only has to comply with federal guidelines that they say have been cleared because of regulatory approvals of the 114-mile Fresno to Bakersfield segment. In late December, the STB agreed with this dubious logic. However, the plaintiffs have promised to appeal and most experts doubt the Supreme Court will side with the STB.

A previous attempt by state lawyers to argue that CEQA was negated by federal approvals was rejected by a Sacramento appeals court. Further, the state Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a bullet train case in a similar case.

The authority’s spokesman says this isn’t an attempt to get around CEQA just an attempt to “clarify” matters. But it is clear the only reason the authority does not want to go through CEQA is because it will slow down of potentially cancel construction of the rail line.

The federal Surface Transportation Board consists of three appointees of President Obama who has strongly supported rail with earmarked high-speed rail funding and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants. So the authority is making an end-run around the law which they ideologically support to get the train built. And they are turning to their political friends in the federal bureaucracy to ensure they can get away with ignoring the law. How many laws and rules will California politicians ignore to get this train built?

 

Feb 16, 2015 | 1 comment | by

Does it Matter if Alleged Climate Change is Alleged to be Human-Caused?

Three things happened recently to prompt this plea for clearer thinking on the issue of alleged climate change.

  1. A fund-raising letter from the Environmental Defense Fund, a once fine environmental policy think tank that has lost its way on “Global Warming”, which was the subject of the letter.
  2. Paul Jacobs Common Sense column, which focused on disagreement on natural vs. human basis for alleged climate change.
  3. Several of the comments on Bjorn Lomborg’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed on Climate Change Alarmism focused on human vs. natural causation.

By the way, as an economist, I don’t have a noteworthy opinion on the physical science of climate change. As an environmental economist (before I jumped into school system reform studies), I can see that there is a lot less agreement among climate scientists on this issue than the mainstream media outlets argue. For example, climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer laments: “Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.” And the unscientific basis for widely-assumed human causation depresses Dr. Spencer.

What depresses me is the continued failure to focus on the central issue, which is the ability to cost effectively address the issue. Instead, there is a lot of focus on the nearly irrelevant causation issue. Suppose scientists detect a huge meteor on a collision course with earth. Can you imagine someone saying ignore it because it is not human-caused? Suppose another ice age is imminent? We wouldn’t worry about cause. We’d be doing benefit-cost analysis on ways to warm things up. If/when catastrophic warming becomes imminent, we’d better stop the finger-pointing and focus on cooling strategies, or lacking cost-effective cooling strategies, we’d better invest in go-it-alone, no-regrets strategies and adaptation to a warmer planet. In this period of uncertainty and controversy about the scope of the threat and cost-effectiveness of feasible strategies, serious people will give special attention to the many available policies that reduce methane and fossil fuel emissions as a side benefit to already attractive policies from other perspectives (= no regrets). One of those is the challenge to eliminate costly shortages of highway space. The popular term for such “shortages” is traffic jam, which are very costly just for the delay they cause, not to mention vehicle wear and tear, increased air pollution, and over-building of roads to meet the demand at a direct price of zero. The ECO 101 cause of all shortages is setting price too low. At rush hour, “free”-way is too cheap.  Economic illiteracy is often very costly.

Feb 09, 2015 | 2 comments | by

Super Bowl is Good for the Environment?

The Super Bowl is the most watched television broadcast in the United States with an estimated 111 million people watching each year. The amount of electricity consumed during the broadcast exceeds 11 million kilowatt-hours or equivalent to the amount of electricity generated by a medium-sized power plant.

However, right before and during game time, electricity consumption drops 5 to 7 percent on an average Sunday afternoon in winter. Research conducted by Opower suggests that there are several reasons for this drop in electricity consumption:

  • People gather at public places to watch the event and leave their homes with most everything turned off.
  • Most appliances around the house are turned off during the Super Bowl.

Hardly anyone would have guessed that the Super Bowl is good for the environment and conserves electricity.

Feb 02, 2015 | 2 comments | by

Dallas Imposes Plastic Bag Tax

After over two dozen cities around the nation have banned plastic bags, Dallas officially joined this year at 5 cents per bag. This new imposed fee encourages the use of reusable bags. However, the Dallas plastic bag ban will end up having a negative effect on the city.

Contrary to the myth propagated by environmental lobbyists, plastic bags are not a significant source of waste. Indeed, the national 2009 Keep America Beautiful study does not even include plastic bags in its top 10 sources of litter. A recent study found that plastic grocery bags make up less than 0.6 percent of the overall waste stream.

Negative effects of a plastic bag tax:

  • Stores affected by bag bans reported an increase in missing shopping carts and hand baskets.
  • Stores inside the Los Angeles ban area reduced their employment by more than 10 percent. Stores outside the ban area increased their employment by 2.4 percent. This occurred despite the fact that the overall unemployment rate in Los Angeles County fell dramatically.
  • The cost to taxpayers also will rise as lawsuits are filed challenging these bans.

Reusable bag dangers:

  • On the economic front, China is the leading manufacturer of reusable bags, while plastic bags are made in the U.S. with the industry employing thousands of workers.
  • When the bags are used to carry meats, poultry or fish, blood and other fluids can soak into them. If not cleaned regularly and stored properly, bacteria — including E. coli — can take up residence and mold can form.

Free plastic bags benefits:

  • Plastic bags reused to line bathroom trash bins, collect dog waste and used cat litter, to securely seal soiled diapers and more.
  • A number of major retailers have set up recycling boxes at the entrance of their stores to encourage recycling, and plastic bag recovery has increased by 31 percent since 2005 and according to EPA data, this growth is more than nine times the 3.4 percent increase in recovery of all municipal solid waste from 2005 to 2009.

Consumers like choice, and most choose plastic bags for their convenience, flexibility and strength. Evidence indicates that cities with bag bans lose, where people cannot choose.

Jan 05, 2015 | 2 comments | by

New Fracking Process Benefits Environment

A new step that removes salt from the water that is used for the fracking process makes the water reusable. Researchers at MIT and in Saudi Arabia can now add a new step to fracking called electro dialysis.

Produced water from fossil-fuel wells can have salinity three to six times greater than that of seawater; the new research indicates that this salt can be effectively removed through a succession of stages of electro dialysis.

The idea would not be to purify the water sufficiently to make it potable, the researchers say. Rather, it could be cleaned up enough to enable its reuse as part of the hydraulic fracturing fluid injected in subsequent wells, significantly reducing the water needed from other sources.

Lienhard explains that if you’re trying to make pure water, electro dialysis becomes less and less efficient as the water gets less saline, because it requires that electric current flow through the water itself: Salty water conducts electricity well, but pure water does not.

While the electro dialysis technology is available, new fracking equipment is needed that will utilize the new step. This new step will help recycle water that can be used again for fracking and will draw less resources from water starved states like Texas.

Oct 27, 2014 | 4 comments | by

How We Misjudge Costs and Benefits with Energy Efficiency

Imagine walking up to someone sitting in a Lexus and offering a $5-an-hour job flipping burgers. How many people do you think would accept? Probably none.

Yet, I often see people waiting at Costco for half an hour to save 10 cents a gallon on gas. Even for the owner of an SUV with a 20-gallon tank the savings amount to two dollars, or just $4 an hour. The burger-flipping job would be a better use of their time!

A key mistake people make when it comes to energy efficiency is overestimating the benefit of some strategies, spending a dollar to save a dime.

For example, some argue we need so-called green construction standards like LEED. Government mandates, like LEED rules, are very expensive, and even when they do save energy (which they often do not), the savings realized are so small they rarely make sense.

Still, some argue if it can be shown to work anywhere, it can be made to work here. But in the U.S., electricity costs about one-third what it does in Germany, even when you include the environmental costs. Expensive green buildings may make sense in Germany but are often entirely wasteful here.

If consumers want to save money, they should do a careful analysis of the costs and savings when seeking to be more efficient. If our goal is to help the environment by saving energy, we can afford to be less picky, but it would probably be better simply to buy renewable energy credits or invest in carbon-reduction projects. We’ll get more environmental bang for the buck.

My advice is to skip the gas line, pay a few cents more and spend the day at the beach.

from the Wall Street Journal

Oct 01, 2014 | 1 comment | by

Bag Bans are Bad Business

This past year the NCPA published numerous studies on how both bag bans, and bag regulations were harming consumers. The details of the studies revealed that not only were the local governments cashing in on taxpayers, but that the environment would still be suffering as a result. How can this be? Wouldn’t a decrease in the plastic bags being sold help the environment? After all, ecosystems suffer from trash and pollution daily, this could be the next steps towards cleaning up the country. However, this is a free market, and unintended consequences from government interaction has been an issue since people started submitting themselves to others.

Paper Bags: Plastic bags were at one time our nation’s solution to paper. Deforestation was running rampant in the world, and environmentalists were demanding paper bag removal from stores. Plastic bags, which were more efficient, cheaper and did no harm to any forests or the ecosystems within. It is also extremely important to note that paper bags create a far bigger environmental footprint than plastic, and are not able to decompose in landfills. As we approach an alternative to plastic it seems that reusable bags are in. Despite numerous reports of E.coli collecting on them, and the fact that stores are able to sell them for a bigger profit than free plastic bags, our economy is not ready to suddenly change overnight.

Increasing Taxes: Many local governments decided that instead of a ban they would propose a tax on every plastic bag used. DC for example, utilized a 5 cent fee on every plastic bag sold to consumers. The more groceries you bought, the more you would be charged. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, other countries who did the same thing ended up having to raise the tax repeatedly over time. Their tax began at 15 cents in 2001 and jumped to 22 cents in 2007. The government was forced to raise the tax after they noticed that bag use was increasing as consumers began absorbing the cost of the bags. This exact identical situation also happened to Ireland.

Sep 08, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

The Challenge of Becoming a Green Nation (Part 2)

In my previous blog post, I critically examined our nation’s predisposition to view public policy, if formulated by a democratic process, as being sufficient for promoting the public interest in managing our nation’s energy economy. Abandoning decentralized, voluntary market transactions and embracing centralized, regulated energy resource allocations does not ensure a superior pathway for satisfying our nation’s long-run energy needs. Specifically, I noted that:

  • Competition over scarce energy resources exists, whether they are allocated in the private or public sectors.
  • Self-interest guides citizen choices in both the private and public sectors.
  • Power and influence were unequally distributed in both the public and private sectors.

These realities imply that there is plenty of room for inefficient development of energy resources to arise from poor public policy design. Further, we also need to understand the many challenges of implementing regulatory policy over our nation’s energy resources.

Observation #4: Critical knowledge for efficient and sustainable energy resource allocation is scarce and it tends to be concentrated in the same markets that the federal agencies are tasked with regulating.

This means that government agencies need to hire industry experts from the very markets that they try to regulate. Also, regulators from these agencies tend to be heavily recruited by special interest groups operating in the markets that are being regulated. With such cross-pollination of talent, there exist many opportunities for unequal influence to occur in the design and implementation of public policy which may not necessarily reflect the public interest.

An illustrative case is the recent announcement that the second highest EPA administrator resigned from his federal appointment to head a non-profit group that seeks to influence the EPA’s federal energy policy design and implementation. Whether we agree or disagree with this organization’s goals and objectives, it still illustrates how public policy is not insulated from the same concentration of influences that supposedly contaminate private sector resource decisions.

Observation #5: All of the costs surrounding any resource allocation decision must be fully paid, whether in the private or public sector. In the public sector, however, the benefits of public policy often do not accrue to those who bear these costs.

Most people understand how oil spills or auto exhaust emissions can impose negative spill-over costs on third parties. This often drives the call for greater regulatory intervention. Yet, few people recognize that similar cost externalities are often created when the government control over resource allocation decisions replaces the private, voluntary transactions in the marketplace.

For example, it is well-documented that food prices have risen ever since federal policy forced oil refineries to add ethanol (mostly made from corn) into our nation’s gasoline supply, in part to reduce fossil fuel consumption rates. When U.S. agricultural markets shifted 14% of its corn production away from food products, this moved the United Nations to ask the U.S. to lower its ethanol requirements to ease the impact of rising food prices on developing nations.

Observation #6: All the potential impacts from a resource allocation decision cannot be anticipated, even by the experts in a regulated market. The private sector has much more flexibility to adapt to these unforeseen impacts than the public sector and to send accurate signals of relative value in competing proposals for developing a resource.

By definition, private sector decisions are always voluntary and public sector decisions are always compulsory. Pursuing public policy to allocate energy resources replaces the potential of markets to find innovative solutions and forces the government to pick winners and losers in competing energy policy proposals. It also creates distorted price signals about competing plans for developing our nation’s energy resources.

Consider what transpires when the government imposes eminent domain upon a private landowner to facilitate a given energy policy. While the land owner is constitutionally assured a fair market price for the lost benefits for using the appropriated resource, we must remember that this same owner always had the opportunity to sell the resource at its market price, but preferred to not sell it. This means a voluntary sale would require a much higher price.

This reality implies that if the government were to acquire the needed resources to facilitate a given public policy through a voluntary market process, it would be far more expensive than simply imposing eminent domain. This makes it much more likely that the public policy in question would have been found inefficient, had it been forced to compensate the owners of all the needed resources for the full value of their lost benefits.

Andrew Morris (J.D., Ph.D.) is a law and economics specialist who serves as Senior Fellow at the Property & Environment Research Center. In a recent study he notes that,

Eminent domain laws are inadequate for coping with this growth in infrastructure, for protecting landowners’ rights in the face of expanding utility easements, and for giving utilities inappropriate price signals.

The bottom line is this: for all the concern that developing energy resources in the private sector would fail to reflect the public interest, there is no guarantee that public policy — even when designed and implemented in a democracy — would better reflect the public interest. We must dispassionately and carefully examine both public and private sector approaches to make an informed decision.

Aug 13, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

Environmental Regulation through Litigation

Through sue and settle litigation, interest groups have forced the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue new regulations, often bypassing proper procedures.

How does this happen? Twenty U.S. statutes contain what are known as “citizen suit” provisions, allowing citizens to file suit against a federal agency when that agency has failed to carry out a nondiscretionary duty by its prescribed deadline. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, for example, allow for citizen suits. And because federal agency rulemaking is notoriously behind schedule, every missed deadline provides an opportunity for litigation. The EPA has been a party to a number of these lawsuits.

  • After environmental groups file a complaint against the EPA based on these missed deadlines, the parties work out a settlement or consent decree between themselves. This process allows regulation-friendly plaintiffs to work out a rulemaking plan with a federal agency without involving third parties.
  • Intervening in these cases is difficult, and affected parties are frequently unaware that a lawsuit has even been filed until an agreement has already been worked out.
  • From 2009 to 2012, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce puts the number of sue and settle lawsuits at 71, with the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians leading the way as plaintiffs in 34 and 20 cases, respectively. The EPA was a defendant in 60 of these cases.

Plaintiffs have used sue and settle with great success. However, the agreements are often procedurally deficient, and the deadlines to which the litigants agree often leave interested parties with insufficient time to comment effectively on the proposed rules:

  • After a lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, among others, the EPA issued its Utility MACT rule, which regulates mercury emissions for power plants. The strict deadlines in the consent decree gave the EPA a very short period of time to assess public comments and issue a final rule, despite the complexity of the rulemaking. The regulation carries an annual cost of $9.6 billion, and it has forced many coal plants to shut down. At the end of 2012, 9.5 percent of coal-fired generation capacity had decided to retire due to Utility MACT, and 20.4 percent were undecided about whether to retire.
  • Environmental groups used sue and settle in five separate lawsuits to force EPA action on states’ Regional Haze plans. The Regional Haze program is intended to be a state program. But in multiple instances, the EPA imposed its own federal plan on states, rather than allowing the states time to correct and develop their own plans, because of the deadlines to which the agency had agreed in the consent decrees. Ratepayers in these states are facing extraordinarily high electricity costs as a result of these lawsuits.

Sue and settle is an attractive vehicle for regulation, because it is very difficult for states and industries to intervene in these lawsuits. Moreover, plaintiffs are often compensated for their attorneys’ fees, incentivizing litigation.

Aug 13, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

House Passes ESA Reform as Veto Looms

Last week, the United States House of Representatives vote on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) passed 219 to 190.  HR 4315 will now go to the Senate and the White House has said that it will veto the bill.

In addition to requiring federal agencies to make ESA decisions publicly available while respecting while respecting state data privacy laws and private property, HR 4315 would:

  • Require the federal government to disclose to affected states data used prior to an ESA listing decision, and require the federal government’s “best available scientific and commercial data” to incorporate data provided by states, tribes, and local county governments.
  • Require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to track, report to Congress, and make available online the federal taxpayer funds used to respond to ESA lawsuits, the number of employees dedicated to ESA litigation, and attorneys’ fees awarded in the course of ESA litigation and settlement agreements.
  • Prioritize species protection and protect taxpayer dollars by placing reasonable caps on attorneys’ fees to make the ESA consistent with existing federal law. For example, the federal government limits the prevailing attorneys’ fees to $125/hr in most circumstances, including federal suits involving veterans, Social Security, and disability, supporters said. But under the ESA, attorneys are being awarded huge sums, in many cases, at a rate much as $600/hr, they indicated.
Aug 04, 2014 | 1 comment | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »