Emissions reduction on the national level

At the beginning of April, the federal government announced new regulations for fuel economy. According to a report in The New York Times, the EPA and Transportation Department increased the fuel mileage for new cars to 35.5 mpg by 2016. "The rules are expected to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases about 30 percent from 2012 to 2016," according to the article, and the rules could also save the average driver $3,000 over the vehicle's lifetime.

Getting the standard increase was a battle that started in the 1970s. However, given the state of the auto industry and the push for greener autos in general, the move should not come as a huge surprise. In fact, automakers may welcome the idea because it matches national fuel economy to the 2004 California fuel restrictions, meaning they won't have to market cars in one state but not another because of differing standards. It will cost the industry an estimated $52 billion, but will save $240 billion in reduced pollution, oil imports, and gas prices, the Times reported.

The fact that the fuel standards fight lasted so long is no surprise, given U.S. reluctance to nationwide sustainability policies. "The US federal government has been very reluctant to develop policy related to many other dimensions of sustainable development, including land use, energy consumption, resource use, greenhouse gas emissions, equity (apart from civil rights), or urban growth management" (Wheeler, 2004, 121). However, it seems appropriate that issues dealing with greenhouse gas emissions be handled on the national level. If states or even smaller governments set their own emissions standards, auto manufacturers would spend significant amounts of money just trying to determine a localities regulation. Additionally, like most pollution, emissions do not just affect one city or one state. They spread. Issues such as clean water and endangered species are also handled at the national level, partly because they are concerns that are not deterred by artificial boundaries.

However, in the past, states have acted to regulate auto emissions. As mentioned above, new rules meet California standards that passed six years ago. States and cities filed suit against the Bush administration in order to be permitted to regulate greenhouse gases. Wheeler argues that states "offer smaller and more manageable political arena in which to bring about change" (ibid, 125), and can also push the national government to adopt more stringent policies in the long run.

In the case of California, it is the poster child for regulations stronger than the federal government. Air pollution issues in the state are a driving force. The state is already working on new regulations to start in 2017 that will be stricter than the national 35.5 mpg rule, according the Times article. Is this fair? Should states continue to be able to create a patchwork of regulations? Yes. While such regulations may be a headache for automakers, it is important that states retain some modicum of control that allows them the option to improve the health of the state by more strict regulation. Also, state laws can act as incentives for the national government to continue to update its own regulations.

The state laws should only enhance, not reduce, national environmental laws, including fuel economy standards. There should not be a race for the bottom. But states with automobile-driven societies, like in Los Angeles and in Phoenix, have a more vested interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles than less populated or less spread out areas.

Striking a chord -- visually.

A friend sent me a link to Green Patriot Posters, a poster campaign to inform citizens about climate change. It is basing its campaign on the propaganda posters from World War II. The campaign was produced by The Canary Project, which "produces visual media, events, and artwork that build public understanding of human-induced climate change and energize commitment to solutions," according to its Web site.

Check out the energy rendition of Munch's "The Scream" painting: Green Patriot Posters.

Since I currently pay the bills as a graphic artist, I find this idea compelling. Visual reinforcement is a great way to reach out to people. What do you think?

Some startling comparisons

The New York Times magazine published an article by economist Paul Krugman last week titled "Building a Green Economy." In actuality, the article is far broader in scope than the title suggests, looking at basic economics of the pollution problem, analyzing the market-based incentives of cap and trade, political backlash, and, lastly, consequences for not taking action. If anyone picked up a cap-and-trade bill for their final, this is a great illustration of the mix of political values that shape the debate, as well as an illustration of policy design.

The article does a nice job articulating issues with negative externalities and questions the logic of those that say our economy could not adjust to a cap-and-trade system on emissions (when we've done so successfully in the past), but what really struck me were the comparisons of what the change in temperature really meant. A 9 degree difference in temperature, which is the predicted average spike of the Earth's temperature over the next 100 years, is equivalent to the difference in average temperature between New York and Mississippi. The pace of the warming was also highlighted because the Earth hasn't seen such a fast warming in 55 million years, when the planet warmed 11 degrees in 20,000 years. What caused the Earth to warm so quickly in that period? A sudden increase in carbon and methane in the atmosphere.

Dangers of draining aquifers

Mexico City is an example of what happens when you don't manage your water. The city is sinking -- and has been for a long time. It's an issue we know in Arizona as well, where water pumping can cause subsidence and fissures. However, the problem in Mexico's capital is more acute. The Arizona Republic reported Friday that the city's sinking issue is getting worse fast. Parts of the city are sinking by as much as 8 inches per year. The growing water demand because of a population booms, as well as a poor location for a city in general, are the culprits. Crews are working to shore up the cities buildings. Sadly, the experts note that all they can do is work to stop the city from sinking because they can not turn back the clock. In Arizona, there are water laws to prevent such catastrophes, although there are still problems.

When I visited Mexico City in 2001, we went down to the plaza where all the government buildings are located. The site is built on top of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital. The cathedral on the main square, built by the Spanish, is beautiful. And crooked. When we walked inside, my friend's cousins explained the the heavy materials used by the Spanish contributed to the cathedral's problems. Crews were working on it nine years ago and continue to do so today.

Assignment 6

As Cohen notes, environmental issues are becoming increasingly complex. He discusses in depth the Superfund and toxic waste in Chapter 5, which is directly related to my final on legislative efforts to reinstate the polluter pays act to help cover the costs of toxic-waste cleanup. "Toxic waste is fully multidimensional," he writes, meaning it includes all the different frameworks, including values, politics, policy design, science and technology, and management.

1) Values framework

The Superfund, also known as CERCLA, is a mash of strongly held and somewhat contradictory values. Americans value freedom and private property, a value called into question by pollution in general, but also specifically toxic waste. Toxic waste cannot be contained within one lot, meaning that what I dump in my yard could affect my neighbor, and his neighbor, and so on down the line depending on what carries the toxin. "What we consider discrete 'pieces' of property are, in fact, interdependent components of ecological systems" (Pg. 83). Pollution knows no bounds and challenges Americans faith in someone's ability to do what they want on their property. Related to the idea of private property is the anti-regulation argument. Government should not meddle in private or business affairs. However, without incentives, there is no reason for a business to not pollute because it may be cheaper for the company. No business is going to self-regulate at a detriment to its bottom line (assuming that it would be a detriment, of course, which isn't necessarily true).

Both of these values exist in the "polluter pays" debate. Passage of a polluter pays bill would reinstate the tax on petroleum and chemical companies that expired in 1995. Ultimately, its a regulation that costs companies money, and those costs could be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher cost of goods. Do Americans value the environment enough to pay the offsetting price increase? Maybe not. The anti-tax atmosphere is pervasive and the perceived improvement in toxic waste management create fewer lobbying groups with the zeal of those affected by the Love Canal. However, new discoveries on par with past toxic waste discoveries could awaken the sleeping giant to the extent that protection of public health, not the value of property and low taxes, dominated the debate and increased popularity for a polluter pays tax.

2) Political framework
Intertwined with the values on Superfund and the polluter pays tax are the politics of the issue. Yes, there are issues with anti-government, but also issues with where the pollution exists -- i.e. is there significant pollution in a legislator's district. Because toxic waste is generally caused by a local source, "addressing toxic waste is a matter of serving one's constituency, and elected representatives ignore such issues at their own peril" (Pg. 87). However, it may be possible for representatives and senators to ignore toxic waste and the current polluter pays issue if their constituents are not overly worried about its effects. The political ramifications of environmental policies "lie dormant" unless there is serious cause for public concern (Pg. 23).

Despite the anti-tax sentiment, there is a question about who pays for a clean up, and the
answer is certainly political. The Polluter Pay's Act is an excise tax on petroleum and chemical
companies. The intent of collected funds is to put the money toward "orphan sites," clean ups where the government was unable to locate a liable party. Since the excise tax phased out in 1995, the money has to come from somewhere else. Funding for these sites now comes out of the general fund, or in other words, the American public's tax dollars. In April last year, The New York Times reported that the federal government spent $600 million worth of stimulus funds for toxic waste clean up. “Ultimately, however, it should be polluters that pay for these cleanups, not taxpayers, which is why we will work to restore the ‘polluter pays’ principle," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., the Polluter Pay's sponsor.

3) Science and technology
The Superfund is greatly affected by advancements in science and technology because new methods and machines could help the government clean up sites at a more efficient rate. However, the link between science and technology and the Polluter Pays Act is less important than the link to values or politics. If technology improves, the Polluter Pays Act could be less vital to funding the program because, at least in theory, over time toxic waste cleanup would be less expensive. It seems, however, that such a reality is a long way off. Despite three decades cleaning up our past waste, "we still lack an adequate command of the science and engineering of toxic waste cleanup" (Cohen, 93).

4) Policy design framework
Clearly, it takes money to be able to do a toxic waste cleanup. Past government efforts show the activity comes with a high price tag. However, given the values and political reality, not taking action is not a long-term option. An excise tax on petroleum and chemical companies is a punitive tax for the industries' long history of polluting. But some toxic sites across the country, especially orphan sites, were caused by small businesses, not large industries. The tax does not provide any incentive for companies to not pollute. You could argue there is an incentive to stop any polluting activities now because you may have to pay for them later through these taxes, but since it is unlikely that the government will collect enough funds during the set time frame of this tax, the government could reinstate the tax again -- even if companies alter their behavior. It may be beneficial to include companion legislation that provides incentives for either donating to toxic cleanups or improving waste disposal technologies to encourage a change in behavior.

5) Management framework
We know the organizational capacity exists to collect a polluter pays tax since we did so until 1995. The more pertinent issue is the capacity to clean up sites efficiently so as not to waste the money the government collects. Our ability to clean up waste is better than 30 years ago, but it still remains a costly endeavor. A reasonable question to ask, then, is can this tax be put toward improving the cost factor? When Cohen writes about climate change as a management concern, he suggests that part of the issue it to invent new technologies that can assist in the problem. The same is true for toxic waste cleanup. Some money collected from the excise tax could go toward developing improved technology for cleaning soil and siphoning waste, as opposed to strictly for cleanup purposes. If successful, the measure could save significant amounts of money in the long term as we continue to deal with waste cleanup in the United States and abroad.

Can it be done?

Many climate initiatives seem to take a long time. I am constantly frustrated by the idea that we should make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. 2050? I'll be nearing 70.

This week, I watched a trailer for the movie "The Fourth Revolution -- Energy Autonomy" by German filmmaker Carl Fechner. The goal of the documentary is to spread information about renewable energy sources -- sun, wind, and geothermal -- in order to create a worldwide push for use of these types of energy. And the overarching goal is ambitious. The team wants to achieve all energy from renewable sources within 30 years. So not just cuts by 2050 but all energy renewable by 2040. Sounds aggressive (and probably expensive). The group's belief is that by showing the world its documentary, change will come because people will demand it.

What do you think? Is it an attainable goal? Check out the trailer and decide for yourself.

Irony in climate legislation

Since we all follow environmental news for this class, I am guessing everyone saw the news about President Obama opening up some offshore drilling as a more comprehensive plan to fight off our dependence on foreign oil and reduce climate-change effects. Obama said the decisions is "part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy," according to The New York Times. Does that logic seem twisted to anyone else?

Clearly, this is a political issue. The Times article demonstrates well the reasoning behind the decisions -- to reach across the aisle for more Republican support for a climate-change bill -- and even the political implications of where the administration wants to open drilling. For example, they avoided Maine and part of Florida in order to appease some swing votes.

But here's what gets me. I presume that offshore drilling is not cheap, although I don't have a figure. But we also have only guesses about how much oil is actually down there. High estimates for the Atlantic and part of the Gulf of Mexico estimate 4 billion barrels of oil. There is also natural gas reserves, but let's focus on the oil. 4 billion barrels -- that sounds like a lot of oil. But not for the U.S. The World Fact Book estimates that the United States uses 19.5 billion barrels a day. Multiplied by 365 days per year, that is more than 7 billion barrels annually.

I have two main fears associated with this announcement. 1) People will think this is a solution for rising gas prices, and it isn't. If there are 4 billion barrels, extraction will be spread out over many years, leading to little impact on gas prices. 2) It continues U.S. reliance on oil. Instead of investing in new energy technologies, companies will focus on offshore drilling, and if they don't find enough or as much oil as expected, they will push for new areas to be opened to offshore rigs.

Note: I ignored the natural gas claims. I don't have a comparison for how much they say is available through offshore drilling. If anyone has more information, please share it!