Deforestation report

Since we just finished our homework that asked what we thought about countries' rights to deforestation, I was amused when I came across a report of a U.N. report that shows deforestation is slowing. An article on BBC reported that deforestation slowed from 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s to 13 million hectares per year in the past 10 years. Tree planting is also up, so the net loss per year was 5.2 hectares per year in the 2000s, as opposed to 8.3 the previous decade. The report attributed the change to tree-planting efforts in Asia and efforts by Brazil and Indonesia to slow loss of trees. There is also evidence that suggests some huge losses came from Australia, not because of logging but because of drought. the worst losses remain in Africa and South America.

According to a graph in the report's key findings, China had the largest net gain in trees in the world.

By any other name

Around the time we were writing our Obama editorial assignment, signs of the cap and trade demise were already widely discussed in the news. A New York Times article attempts to trace its demise. Its complexity, the recession and fallout on Wall Street, and European permit price fluctuations are all considered contributors to the policy falling out of favor.

However, the article also mentions Cantwell and Collins' more simplified version called "cap and dividend" that would auction off permits instead of just giving them away. Money from the auctions would be returned to taxpayers to cover higher product and energy costs. Is cap and dividend dead too, or is it just cap and trade? This isn't clear to me. It seems like the same thing, albeit with a different name and more simplified language. (Media reports always report that the cap and dividend legislation is less than 40 pages long.) The bill is also notable because the senators belong to opposite parties, which seems almost unheard of in the partisan atmosphere gripping Washington and the rest of the country.

I'm absolutely baffled why we are still talking about cap and trade's death while touting its kid sister cap and dividend. Any ideas?

Legislative inaction: H.R. 564

H.R. 564, also known as the Superfund Reinvestment Act of 2009, was introduced to the current Congress and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means in January 2009. The Superfund program, also known as CERCLA, was passed in 1980 to clean up hazardous waste sites. Two other bills on the same topic, H.R. 832 and S. 3125, are also circulating. S. 3125 is the most recent incarnation, so I will consider it here. It was referred to the Committee on Finance on March 16 of this year.

Conversely known as the Polluter Pays Act, the bill reinstates the corporate environmental income tax until January 2019 to help pay for Superfund cleanups. The purpose behind the legislation is to take the burden of the cost of pollution clean up off the public. The tax was in place until 1995, when Congress failed to renew it. It taxed oil and chemical companies to help pay for clean up of sites without a liable party, either because the original polluter was defunct or in some cases deceased.

Assignment 5: Developing vs. developed nations

Do developing nations have a right to exploit forests?

The simple answer to whether developing nations have a right to exploit their own resources for economic gain is yes. However, reality isn't so much about the right to do something as it is about whether the exploitation is a good policy. Current problems in developed nations, as well as some impoverished nations that failed to capitalize on resources, suggest it is not. Billions and billions of dollars are easily spent annually in the United States to clean up the effects of ignoring the environment while pursuing economic outcomes. This suggests that economic pursuits that ravage the environment also come with a high price tag. However, if pursued simultaneously, nations can avoid costly clean up efforts.

Among the largest hurdles in tackling exploitation is the messenger. Developed nations, such as the United States and the UK, are guilty of sacrificing the environment to get ahead, and the case of rain forests, are some of the largest importers of timber, contributing to degradation in developing nations. Also, one need look no further than Haiti to see the costs of environmental degradation.

What expectations should industrialized nations have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
Different expectations for industrialized vs. developing nations was the major contributor to the U.S. Congress' refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The resolution against ratification suggested that the treaty could result in "serious harm to the United States economy" (Selin & VanDeveer, 2010, 275). It disagreed that industrialized and developing nations should have different targets.

I reject the stance by the Congress. My personal feeling is that the United States knows changes need to be made, and it should lead by example. However, we've let Europe take on that role. EU emissions are now lower than in 1990 and are half that of the United States (Selin & VanDeveer, 2010). While there should be some expectation of non-industrialized nations to work to slow global warming, even in aggressive pursuit of economic gains, it is the already industrialized and high polluting nations that bare responsibility for current emissions. The U.S., for example, still has per capita emissions rates that are four times the amount of China's per capita emissions rates.

In addition, we have the means to change whereas other countries do not. "Developing countries typically have fewer resources to adapt to a changing climate than industrialized countries" (Selin & VanDeveer, 2010, 280). Because of this disparity, developing nations likely will need and expect financial support to meet climate-change reduction goals. If industrialized nations want the actions by these countries to be successful, they will need to contribute monetarily to the efforts.

EnergyStar reality check

A few months ago, I needed to buy a new washing machine. I had a maintenance man look at my old one and he determined that the cost of the part was at least half the cost of a new machine, so I went shopping. I wanted to buy an EnergyStar washing machine, but in the end, decided against it because of the $200 price difference, or in other words, a 50% increase over the machine I purchased.

But maybe I shouldn't feel so guilty. According to a report in The New York Times, the program is fraught with problems. An investigation by the Government Accountability Office found it easy to get approval for an array of fake -- sometimes absurd -- products, such as a gas-powered alarm clock the size of an electric generator. The report suggests that the EnergyStar program is ripe for fraud, partly because it appears there are programs that are reviewed by an automated system. The EPA claims that all final approvals are reviewed by a human, but still vowed to take measures to strengthen the program.

Do you think the EnergyStar sticker is worth the price tag? In general, I suspect that most of the products do qualify, but past research suggests that many products without the sticker are equally as efficient, so the difference in price may be hard to justify. Perhaps the EPA needs to raise the bar for what should be classified as energy efficient.

Blake, this one is in response to your environmental justice post

Not really sure why I can't post a comment on Blake's blog, but I am tired of trying to figure it out. So here is what I wrote but couldn't get to post:

I do wonder about the balance between economic prosperity and environmental quality. I think a city could get into trouble if it doesn't have enough environmental regulation because how will it attract more residents if the air, ground, and water are polluted? However, finding that sweet spot seems almost impossible. You don't want to drive away industry and the money/jobs it can bring to a municipality, but you also don't want to create a situation where people work in your city, but choose to live in a bedroom suburb because of improved environmental quality. I like how you incorporated Potoski and Prakash into this argument. Clearly, there has to be an incentive for businesses to take on efforts to be more environmentally friendly and sustainable, otherwise they may cover up their activities. Also, government needs to encourage voluntary behavior, which is difficult with strict regulations that are costly to implement for businesses and costly for the government to enforce.

Environmental justice: A Phoenix study

It's hot in Phoenix. But did you know it is hotter in poorer parts of town? Last fall, The Arizona Republic reported on a study by ASU researchers Darren Ruddell and Sharon Harlan that concluded the more affluent areas of the city were actually cooler than parts of the city where residents had lower incomes. In their research, Ruddell and Harlan found that for every $10,000 increase in the income of an area, the temperature of the area drops by one-half degree Fahrenheit. How is this possible?

"Heat discriminates," according to the report. More specifically, the environment of the poor and affluent areas is different enough to cause the disparity. Richer areas have more grass and trees to shade and provide cooling, while poorer areas lack vegetation and are closer to freeways, subjecting the poor, elderly, and children to higher temperatures. "The people who are most vulnerable are also living in the worst conditions. It's a double whammy," Ruddell told the newspaper.

The urban heat island effect is more severe in poor, urban areas, and abates as it moves out to wealthier suburbs. The study was done in 2005, which from personal experience was an incredibly hot summer. The study found that urban neighborhoods were exposed to 22 hours a day of intense heat, whereas residents in highly-landscaped neighborhoods were exposed to just 4 hours of extreme heat. It was the landscaping -- not the location --that caused neighborhoods to be hotter. There was evidence of great temperature variance in neighborhoods separated by only a few blocks.

The situation in the Phoenix metro area is similar to Konisky's (2009) discovery of environmental injustice in government enforcement of environmental laws and codes. He discovered that there was a significant difference in enforcement between richer and poorer counties across the United States for the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Resource Conservation and Recovery acts. For these three laws, Konisky discovered "the effects of poverty on state enforcement are sizeable" (ibid. 114). Consider these findings:

* For every percentage increase in a county's poverty, enforcement of the Clean Air Act dropped 2.3 percent;
* For every $1,000 decrease in median household income, there is a corresponding decrease of 3.3 percent in enforcement of the Clean Air Act; and
* For every percentage increase in a county's poverty, enforcement of the RCRA decreased by more than 5 percent.

Also similar are issues with smart growth, which is supposedly meant to revitalize the core of cities, but too often new urbanism becomes "new suburbanism" (Rast, 2006, 252). In Phoenix, the core, with its poorer residents, is overwhelmingly affected by high temperatures because of the heat island effect, and there is less consideration of cooling properties of landscaping. Also, proximity to heat-attracting freeways and emissions from vehicles clearly place an undue burden on the city's poor. Often, smart-growth initiatives "take place without a strong commitment to improving conditions for low-income, inner-city residents" (ibid. 253). Interestingly, the ASU study also found that middle-class neighborhoods on the fringes were affected by long exposure to high temperatures because of a lack of mature landscaping.

Harlan and Ruddell's study is an unambiguous example of an environmental-justice issue because of the pronounced temperature variation in areas based on income. The Republic article reports that the city is already taking steps to help low-income families weatherize homes. However, as high temperatures rise, more will need to be done. Any plans to revitalize parts of the metro area need to take into consideration how the development will increase or decrease the amount of time residents are exposed to intense heat.

Cancer in sea lions?

Last night, one of my coworkers was joking about his wife's job. She studies ant socialization at ASU. He said if she were trying to cure cancer, maybe more people would support the study. So I interjected something about "ant cancer," which after some truly strange debate, we decided wasn't real.

But the reality is that other mammals do get cancer. We know that humans get cancer, and many have seen tumors on dogs and cats. How about sea lions? Yes, it is apparently a huge problem for sea lions, according to a New York Times article. Researchers also found cancer in about 18 percent of beluga whales that died in the St. Lawrence River estuary. For the whales, scientists linked the tumors to pollution, which may also be the cause for the sea lions. Unfortunately, it isn't clear what is causing the cancers, and because of a lack of prior knowledge of the issue, researchers can't determine whether there is an increase in sea lion cancer.

We know that the chemicals we put into the ground cause cancer in humans. I never thought before that we may also be causing cancer in sea animals.

To regulate or legislate?

A West Virginia Democrat is proposing a two-year suspension on potential greenhouse gas regulations by the EPA. According to a BusinessWeek report, Senator Jay Rockefeller wants to put a hold on regulations for refineries and manufacturers to give Congress more time to act on greenhouse-gas legislation. The EPA currently has authority to act to curb greenhouse gas emissions after the Supreme Court ruled that it had the power to do so under the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. Rockefeller's bill does not block the EPA from regulating fuel-economy standards.

This report follows action on the hill yesterday where Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski grilled EPA head Lisa Jackson about her stance on whether climate-change regulations should come from Congress or the EPA. Jackson has consistently stated that she believes the two are not mutually exclusive and legislation and EPA rules can work together. This appears to be an unacceptable answer for Murkowski. "I don't know that I'm any more clear based on your statement this morning as to whether or not you think it should be the Congress and those of us elected by our constituents and accountable to them to enact and advance climate policy," she said, according an article on the The New York Times web site.

This remark seems disingenuous. Murkowski has tried to overturn the EPA's finding that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health. If emissions regulations are left for Congress, I fear Republicans will stall throughout this session in hope of gaining control of Congress after the next election. If that happens, it could be a return to Bush-era environmental policies, at least as passed by the Legislature. Perhaps if Congress could move with a bit more speed, the EPA regulations would not seem so threatening to Murkowski. Rockefeller's bill is also misguided. It should not take two years for Congress to get its act together on such a long-standing issue.

A piece of Assignment #4

Here is the article I plan to use for the environmental justice assignment: Study: Wealth buys rescue from urban heat island. The study finds that poor neighborhoods' sparse vegetation and proximity to freeways make the neighborhoods retain heat longer than other, more affluent parts of Phoenix. More complete analysis to come...

An "urban village" in Des Moines, Iowa?

Last fall I went home for my sister's wedding. She only really wanted to talk about two things: the wedding (of course) and a plan by the Des Moines City Council to reduce the number of lanes on a major street just south of her house. The street, Ingersoll Avenue, has one of the city's highest crash rates, which has been the main argument for reducing the four-lane road to a three-lane road (one lane each way and a left-hand turn lane in the middle). However, I think the city is missing a huge opportunity to call it what it could be, which is an urban village. Des Moines, like many cities west of the Mississippi River, is not particularly walkable. However, Ingersoll Avenue is lined with small shops and boutiques. I used to get my hair cut there, and it is home to the city's best bakery and breakfast spot, La Mie. The measure will also add bike lanes and additional on-street parking. Those changes to me suggest that the city is looking to make the neighborhood a more pedestrian-friendly zone, like areas of Portland, Chicago, or San Antonio discussed in the book. The street also leads right into downtown, and slower traffic could encourage more people to bike to work because of increased safety. Some of the businesses along the street complained that it will hurt sales because drivers will just move to the next street over. Do they really believe that the people using Ingersoll as a thoroughfare to downtown are stopping to shop? That just seems unlikely to me.

The city is going to repaint the street lanes when the weather improves. Then, after six months of the three-lane system, they are going to review the traffic flow, accidents, and business and public opinions.

New Superfund site

The New York Times reported today that the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn will now be listed as a Superfund site, despite city objections. The EPA estimates clean up of the canal to cost between $300 and $500 million and that it will take 12 years. Pollutants include pesticides, metals, and "cancer-causing chemicals known as PCBs." The canal's history dates back to the 1860s when it was an industrial zone. Past Times articles on the topic reported that New York City wanted to be in charge of the cleanup. The city estimated costs of $175 million to reduce odors and prevent pollution. The article said nothing about cleaning up past pollution. The city has argued that a Superfund listing would put a stigma on the area, which could stunt development and hurt real-estate prices. However, the EPA and some residents argue that a more extensive, coordinated effort is needed, which the Superfund can provide. The EPA is requesting information from 27 potential contributors to the canal's pollution.

What do you think? Should the EPA have stepped in, or should it have allowed the city to tackle the problem? To me, it seems like the city plan did not adequately resolve the pollution in the Gowanus Canal. In addition, this pollution probably started 150 years ago -- it seems like the city had plenty of time to take action and failed to do so.