Northwesterners should pay attention.

Cascadia is home to federal atomic facilities at Hanford and eastern Idaho, where much work remains to be done. Each site is heavily contaminated with atomic and chemical wastes from past weapons-connected operations, and the US Department of Energy (DOE) is carrying out environmental cleanup in both locations. Previous Sightline posts have covered each site. At Hanford, state and local officials are most concerned about “high level” radioactive wastes, in the form of some 50 million gallons in huge underground tanks, wastes that remain in liquid form today. Among other contaminants, Idaho holds liquid and solid “transuranic” wastes, containing Plutonium or other elements of higher atomic numbers than Uranium. Elected officials have been fighting the federal government for decades, trying to get those wastes stabilized and moved out of state.

A dilemma for Hanford, eastern Idaho, and  similar sites across the country, is that the contamination already there makes them targets for receiving even more when federal officials go looking for locations to store chemical or atomic wastes. In fact, in 2007, DOE identified eight federal facilities, including Hanford and the Idaho nuclear site, as recipient candidates for one particular category of atomic wastes produced at federal facilities and by commercial atomic plants. This is the map of the eight candidate locations:

Locations that the US Department of Energy (DOE) designated in 2007 as candidates to receive a particular type of radioactive wastes from across the nation. All eight are federal facilities, managed and/or being cleaned up by DOE. [Map Source: US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Management.]

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Today, Sightline is releasing a new report in Canada, one that tallies the potential carbon emissions from fossil fuel export infrastructure planned throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Across British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington there are active proposals for seven new or expanded coal terminals, three new oil pipelines, and six new natural gas pipelines. The projects are distinct, but they can be denominated in a common currency: the tons of carbon dioxide emitted if the fossil fuels were burned. Taken together, these projects would be capable of delivering enough fuel to release an additional 761 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide.

The Northwest enjoys a reputation for leadership in clean energy and environmental policy. Yet the new fossil fuel infrastructure planned for British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington would eclipse the region’s green reputation, transforming the Northwest from an aspiring climate leader into a carbon export hub of global consequence.

You can find the full report here.

Sightline will be releasing a US version of this report soon, so American readers should keep their eyes peeled.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Coal dust shrouds an East Coast coal train. Photo credit paulv2c.

Roger O. McClellan is regularly trotted out by coal export backers whenever they are trying to dismiss concerns about coal dust pollution. Yet last week in a Seattle Times opinion piece on  pollution from coal transport, he called for a comprehensive review of coal export plans, including along railways:

Debate over the terminals should be grounded in scientific facts and analysis. Well-established scientific approaches should be used to evaluate any potential environmental and human-health impacts.

Scientific assessments such as the one being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers should provide clarity and context for decisions by public officials. Science-based assessments should also identify any constraints needed to assure protection of the environment and public health. The public at large should encourage and, indeed, demand such assessments.

Good for him.

Although this is not the first time McClellan has said he supports a comprehensive review, such a plain public statement should come as a blow to coal export proponents.

When someone like McClellan calls for a comprehensive analysis of the dangers of coal dust escape from trains, it signals the true breadth of the opposition to fast-tracking approval for the proposed terminals. He has, after all, made a career of arguing for relaxed air quality standards, and he has often been paid by fossil fuel interests to provide expert testimony to government regulators. Yet as McClellan says, the Power Past Coal campaign and others are absolutely right to demand a region-wide assessment of the impacts of shipping coal.

Now I think it’s fair to say that McClellan is skeptical that coal dust escape is harmful. Fine. My own review of the science suggests that while the evidence is worrisome, it is spotty enough not to support definite conclusions.

We should all be able to agree, however, that the right course of action is a thorough scientific review of risks to the environment and human health—a review that includes a look at potential contamination along Northwest railways. I hope that the coal export backers will now come around on this point.

At the risk of nit-picking, however, the article did contain at least one factual error that should be corrected. He writes:

Coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana is currently being shipped by rail to ports in Washington state and Oregon… These terminals, which serve as a gateway to Asia, have been an important part of the regional economy for more than a century.

I’m really not sure where this comes from.

Neither Washington nor Oregon ship any coal to Asia. In fact, neither state has a coal terminal of any kind. Needless to say, then, coal ports are not an important part of the regional economy!

Maybe he’s mixed up about British Columbia’s Westshore Terminal? As I’ve documented, that terminal has been receiving modest volumes of US coal since about 2009, coal that does travel via railway in Washington. But even that doesn’t explain the “more than a century” bit because Westshore has only been around since 1970.

According to official figures, the volume of coal now traveling to Westshore—around 4 million tons if you believe US Customs and around 8 million tons if you believe the terminal—is miniscule compared to 100 million tons planned for proposed new terminals in Oregon and Washington. In other words, the region’s past experience with coal trains and coal dust is no guide at all to the future envisioned by coal terminal supporters.

Before the Northwest goes down that road, we should know more—a lot more—about the risks of coal and coal dust. That’s something that environmental activists and industry experts alike can agree on.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Photo courtesy of Paul K Anderson. Used with permission.

Huge news on the coal export front just now. As Scott Learn at The Oregonian reports, “Kinder Morgan drops plan to build coal export terminal at Port of St. Helens industrial park.”

Kinder Morgan had been planning to export as much as 30 million tons of coal each year on the Columbia River from a site near Clatskanie, Oregon, but their plans ran into a buzz saw of opposition from local communities, environmental and health advocates, and even nearby industrial users. This morning they announced that they are officially abandoning their plans to build a coal terminal at Port Westward.

Sightline’s research was instrumental in the debate. We published extensive documentation of Kinder Morgan’s problems with coal dust at their terminals, as well as the company’s lengthy rap sheet of fraud, illegal dumping, and lax safety. A month after we published our research, the utility PGE announced that it would not sublease its land at Port Westward to Kinder Morgan out of concern that the spread of coal dust would damage its gas turbines. Since then, the firm has struggled to configure its plans, but local opposition continued to mount while prices in Asia weakened.

Today’s news amounts to a huge victory for the Power Past Coal campaign. Of the six coal export terminals originally planned for the Northwest, three have now been withdrawn, in large part owing to an enormous backlash to the plans.

Predictably, Kinder Morgan is trying to downplay the role of coal export opponents in thwarting the company’s plans:

Kinder Morgan’s Allen Fore attributed the decision not to seek permits for a coal export terminal to site logistics at the Port of St. Helens industrial park, not the controversy over coal.

“We looked at multiple options and different footprints, but we couldn’t find one compatible with the facility we wanted to construct,” Fore said.

Yet the firm’s statement is revealing. Kinder Morgan had a specific project design that they presented to the public. After PGE rejected the plan—out of very justifiable objection to Kinder Morgan’s inability to contain coal dust—it had to go back to the drawing board. Having lost the element of surprise, they were met with opposition at every turn.

Kinder Morgan says, cryptically, that they are, “still looking for coal export sites in the Northwest,” though they won’t name specific sites.

Postscript 5/14/13: A reader points out that this is actually Kinder Morgan’s second failed coal terminal project this year. The company backed out of plans at the Port of Wilmington, Delaware after they failed to reach agreement with the local longshoreman’s union.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Anna Fahey at Whidbey Climate Conference. Photo: Jim Carroll.

Editor’s note: Wilderness guide, author, and activist Kurt Hoelting was one of the organizers of a recent Whidbey Institute conference for regional champions of climate solutions entitled “Calling the Choir To Sing.” He’s been writing about the conference on his blog, Inside Passages: Conversations Around the Fire, including this post with his commentary and a transcript of the talk by Sightline’s Anna Fahey. Many thanks to Kurt for letting us republish it here.

Anna Fahey, Sightline’s communications strategist, gave a powerful talk on “Tapping Into Dark Optimism.” Dark optimism, she says, is a term coined by Shaun Chamberlin to describe “our capacity to face dark truths, while believing unwaveringly in our human potential.” Anna consolidates many of the core ideas that I’ve tried to highlight in my writing, in a wonderfully condensed and heartfelt way, from the perspective of a dedicated policy professional. How, for example, do we get people exactly like ‘me’ to care about climate change, if I’m not really facing the hard truth myself? How do we harness the necessary intensity within our movement that has proven so elusive? And how do we confront the difficult emotions that our climate crisis evokes in all of us, with courage and resilience rather than fear and avoidance?

Why do Anna’s words matter? Because we are in this for the long haul, and it will take all the emotional intelligence and personal courage we can muster to stay with the truth of this crisis as it continues to unfold.

This week a number of global CO2 monitors recorded 400 ppm (parts per million) for the first time. This is a huge symbolic threshold, a “dark truth”. The last time we had this concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was several million years ago. 350 ppm is now considered by many scientists to be the upper limit to sustain civilized human life on earth. In other words, “If not now, when? If not us, then who?”

Here is the text of Anna’s moving “flash talk” to the fellow champions of climate change solutions who gathered on Whidbey Island on April 19:

As a communications specialist with Sightline Institute, I usually hand people well-researched talking points and tell them to repeat them as many times as they can, and then go on my way. Here I want to talk about our personal, emotional relationship with climate change, beginning with the question: “How do we get people exactly like ‘me’ to care about climate change?” I’m talking about people who already care a lot, but not quite enough to be really angry, or sad, or energized or motivated.

I understand this problem, because when I look at my own three year-old daughter, I almost never allow myself to think about climate change in her future.

I don’t dare. It’s too hard.

Maybe you know the feeling.

Psychoanalysts tell us that we can both know something and not know it at the same time. I feel that every day with climate change. Even for someone like me who is steeped in climate policy and climate science day-in and day-out, I find it extremely difficult not to push that emotional part away. Maybe you do too. I witness this in my own colleagues as we uncomfortably joke about dire, scary climate impacts rather than having meaningful conversations around the office about what it actually means for ourselves and our kids.

So the problem is to move from intellectual acknowledgement of the crisis to a more emotional place, and I think that starts with us. I mean, if WE can’t do it, how can we help other people do it, right?

If we let down our guard, we may feel helpless, skeptical, jaded, sad or afraid. We certainly feel a little bit lost when we think about democracy being broken, as someone mentioned earlier today—a pretty big deal, making solutions seem even more remote. To cope and stay sane, we have to sort of ignore. This tension between knowing and not knowing makes our job pretty hard, the job of pushing for policy solutions, and getting other people—a bigger percentage of the population—to stop ignoring as well.

We have to do it ourselves before we can ask others to join us.

But pushing this stuff away is the norm. Dave Roberts of Grist has said that talking about climate change is like farting at a cocktail party. (laughter) You’re laughing because you’ve experienced this too. It’s basically a taboo. It’s not discussed in polite conversation.

But rather than changing the subject, many scholars looking at the psychological dimensions of climate change are suggesting that we actually talk about it more, talk about the seriousness, and talk about the emotions. This is important not only for our own mental health, but because what drives social change isn’t necessarily broad-based support—like nothing will happen until everybody gets on board, but the intensity of the minority. In fact, an intensely committed minority can act as an amazingly powerful lever that shifts the rest of the population—or enough to shift the mainstream.

In fact, research shows that the tipping point, where a minority belief becomes a majority opinion is only 10 percent. Opinion research shows that we already have 10 percent when it comes to climate change, but I think that that intensity is not there—certainly not the level of intensity that we see among the climate deniers, or the pushers of doubt. So what this means is that what we need is a core group—maybe slightly more than 10 percent, because of those pushers of doubt and all the other weird psychology around climate change—who feel the climate threat down to their bones (This also comes via Dave Roberts, who has done some of the best thinking and writing on how to move the needle toward solutions).

Luckily 10-20 percent is pretty do-able. Those people are already with us. But the feeling part is really hard. So I’m not alone in thinking that this starts with us, with people like me, allowing ourselves to feel this in our bones—which is scary, but it could actually give us strength.

If we are a choir, singing, then that honest emotional underpinning will give the song its force, its power, and can make our voices stronger.

A colleague of mine, Renee Lertzman from Portland, who is a researcher in climate and psychology draws from a tradition called “engaged Buddhism.” She talks about bearing witness—not pushing away our despair and our concern, but relating with it as evidence of our vitality, our commitment and our humanity. She calls it “making friends with fatalism.” The point is that this friendship can actually empower and embolden us, rather than dragging us down.

I’m going to close with some of Renee’s recommendations for starting this process of putting ourselves “on the couch,” and allowing ourselves to have those feelings that are so hard:

•  The first is to pay attention to your feeling and thoughts. Notice when you judge or stifle your own feelings.
• Speak and write about those feelings. Break that cocktail party taboo.
• Listen to friends and colleagues, and practice creating space for feelings, rather than downplaying or joking about those feelings.
• Identify people you can talk to about your emotions without fear of judgment, or being considered too negative.
• Create support forums in your social or workplace networks (that’s what we’re doing today).
• Recognize that these emotions do not negate the power and importance of the work that we do. It’s natural and normal.

And it’s important to remember that it saps more of our energy to suppress this stuff than it does to let it out; there is liberation and freedom in letting out those feelings.

And I’ll add to Renee’s list that we need to hold others, and maybe especially our leaders and our media, accountable—but also ourselves—accountable for the seriousness and the emotion that’s involved in this. Don’t let them dismiss or sideline it.

And we need to celebrate our victories. Celebrate this community, and celebrate those times when we get to sink our teeth into something like coal exports or campus divestment. I think all this meaningful work at the local level has helped us break out of a rut, but facing deeper emotions is also a process that is going to help us learn how to bring others along with us.

Our intensity, and our emotions, and learning how to process all of that, is going to help us bring that 10 percent or that 20 percent of the population along with us with the same level of conviction and emotion.

“Dark Optimism” is our capacity to face dark truths, while believing unwaveringly in our human potential, and I think we can harness that.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Flood, KConnors, Morguefile.com

Another installment of the Yale/George Mason research project on American climate attitudes (pdf) is out. The latest report is focused on how Americans are connecting changes in weather to global warming. It’s based on a survey fielded in early April.

The takeaways of note: Even though our memories appear to be short—the recency of events affects how we answer questions about weather—there’s an upward trend when it comes to associating weird weather of many different types, from many different seasons, with climate change. Increasingly, even if respondents hadn’t experienced harmful weather first hand, somebody close to them did. They are likely to have talked about it with friends and family, and many have thought about how to be prepared for weather disasters in their own local communities.

• About six in ten Americans (58 percent) say “global warming is affecting weather in the United States.” In the West, 54 percent say this.
  

• By contrast, a mere 7 percent say global warming is not affecting the weather and only 10 percent say that global warming isn’t happening. One in four (25 percent) don’t know or
  did not answer the question.
• Many Americans believe global warming made recent extreme weather and climatic events “more severe,” specifically: 2012 as the warmest year on record in the United States (50 percent); the ongoing drought in the Midwest and the Great Plains (49 percent); Superstorm Sandy (46 percent); and Superstorm Nemo (42 percent).
• About two out of three Americans say weather in the US has been worse over the past several years, up 12 percentage points since spring 2012. By contrast, fewer Americans say weather has been getting better over the past several years—only one in ten (11 percent), down 16 points compared to a year ago.
• Many Americans (51 percent) also say weather in their local area has been worse over the past several years.
• Overall, 85 percent of Americans report that they experienced one or more types of extreme weather in the past year, most often citing extreme high winds (60 percent) and extreme heat (51 percent).
• Of those Americans who experienced extreme weather events in the past year, many say they were significantly harmed. Moreover, the number who have been harmed appears to be growing; up 5 percentage points since fall 2012 and 4 points since spring 2012. Reported harm from drought, heat and cold all increased over the prior year.
• Most Americans (80 percent) have close friends or family members (not living with them) who experienced extreme weather events in the past year, including extreme high winds (47 percent), an extreme heat wave (46 percent), an extreme snowstorm (39 percent), extreme cold temperatures (39 percent), an extreme rainstorm (37 percent), or a drought (35 percent).
• Over half of Americans (54 percent) believe it is “very” or “somewhat likely” that extreme weather will cause a natural disaster in their community in the coming year. Northeasterners (66 percent) and Southerners (57 percent) are the most likely to believe this. Notably, in the West, 59 percent feel that this is somewhat or very unlikely in their community.
• Half of Americans (51 percent) say they have put a “great deal” or “some” thought into preparing for a natural disaster. Southerners (59 percent) and Northeasterners (57 percent) are the most likely to say this.
• Americans who experienced an extreme weather event are most likely to have communicated about it person-to-person—either in person (89 percent) or on the phone (84 percent)—although some used social media, such as writing about the experience on Facebook (23 percent) or sharing a photo of the event or its aftermath using Facebook, Tumblr, or Instagram (19 percent).

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Nationally, the big story was that coal exports fell for the second consecutive quarter. By the end of 2012, quarterly shipments were down by 25 percent from the historic highs registered during the second quarter. Still, at 28 million tons, coal exports remained very high by historical standards.

A bit player in the national coal export story, the Western Customs District exported a little more than 2.1 million tons in the fourth quarter, a 16 percent increase from the third quarter.

The West was the only part of the country to see an increase in coal exports, a somewhat surprising trend given that the region’s major coal shipping venue, the Seattle Customs District, registered a steep decline. Seattle District shipments—entirely accounted for by coal traveling north from Washington into British Columbia for onward shipment to Asia—fell to 980,000 tons, a 39 percent decline from the high water mark in the third quarter. The decrease was almost certainly the result of damage to the coal-loading trestle at BC’s Westshore Terminal.

Coal exports rose sharply in both the Los Angeles District (presumably from LAXT at Long Beach) and the Anchorage District (from the Seward Coal Loading Facility).

As in previous quarters, Cloud Peak Energy claimed responsibility for nearly all the coal transiting the Seattle Customs District. According to their fourth quarter investor report, “Asian exports were approximately 0.9 million tons in the fourth quarter 2012 compared to 1.0 million tons in the fourth quarter 2011.”

For all of 2012, US Customs officially reported a bit more than 4.7 million tons of coal exported from the Seattle District. Over the same period, Cloud Peak took credit for 4.4 million tons of shipments to Asia. Assuming that all of Cloud Peak’s coal exits via the Seattle District, which is very probable, their numbers indicate that few other coal firms are currently in the Northwest coal exports business. Signal Peak may be playing a small role, and Westshore has also claimed to be exporting coal from Peabody, though the terminal’s managers have not made these shipment figures public.

The official US Customs figures reported by the US Department of Energy—those I’m relying on in this blog post—should be treated with caution. In some cases they are at odds with the numbers given by coal terminals, by anecdotal accounts of coal train movements, and with shipment claims by the coal industry. For example, financial information for the Westshore Terminal implies that the Seattle District exported something like 8.6 million tons in 2012, compared to the 4.7 million reported by US officials. (See p. 6, “Shipments from [US thermal coal] shippers accounted for approximately 29% of Westshore’s volume in 2012.”)

For example, one continuing mystery is the Great Falls Customs District, which includes the Sweetgrass, Montana border crossing, the logical route from the Powder River Basin to the Ridley Coal Terminal at Prince Rupert. Official reports continue to show near-zero figures at Sweetgrass. Yet rail watchers report that several coal trains are crossing the border each week, and the Ridley Terminal also claims to be handling at least a modest volume of US coal.

The EIA is promising final 2012 data in June, and I’ll report on it here when it’s available.

Thanks to Pam MacRae for research assistance.

All figures in this post are given in short tons. My previous reporting on quarterly coal export volumes can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. All data come from the US EIA’s latest quarterly coal report, covering the entire Western Customs Region. In addition to the districts shown on the chart here, the Western Region includes the Portland, Nogales, San Diego, and San Francisco Districts. These districts have been reporting virtually no coal exports.

Please note: The second chart shows Customs Districts, not individual ports. The Port of Seattle does not move coal, for example.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Photo Credit: Orin Zebest via Compfight cc

What’s the best way to make a case for a carbon pollution tax to conservative audiences? Why not speak their language?

Just listen to the outspoken conservatives who favor a tax on carbon pollution. Again and again they talk up carbon pricing with the familiar language of the market, calling for a level playing field and accountability for the true costs of energy, and touting the enormous opportunity in homegrown, free-enterprise energy solutions.

These conservatives also like the idea of swapping taxes from stuff we like—jobs, income, hard work—to something we’d be better off with less of: carbon pollution. In fact, pro-carbon tax conservatives talk about a carbon tax swap as a “golden opportunity,” an “old-fashioned, straightforward” solution, a “win-win” and a “no-brainer.” And they see a tax on carbon pollution as a good way to bolster our national security, strengthen our economy, and create “jobs, jobs, jobs.”

All that said, a carbon tax is still not a slam dunk with all conservative audiences.

Indeed, economist and former American Enterprise Institute scholar, Irwin Stelzer, sees that “Conservatives have before them a golden opportunity to accomplish several important conservative goals, but are so frightened by words like ‘tax,’… and ‘global warming,’ … that they are frozen in opposition to programs they should support.”

And, while many conservatives would prefer market instruments such as a carbon pollution tax to, say, Environmental Protection Agency regulations, most aren’t easily convinced that carbon pricing will actually be truly revenue-neutral—.

But, come on! When the “father of supply side economics,” Art Laffer, says a carbon tax would mean we “can at once clean the air, create jobs, and improve the national security of the United States—a triple play for the next American century,” and George Will (grudgingly) agrees with Al Gore that we should “tax what we burn, not what we earn,” it’s a sure sign of promising common ground.

Here’s a start at finding a common language, based on direct quotes from leading conservatives:

Making the case for carbon pollution taxes

There are growing ranks of conservative leaders—among them, prominent economists, academics, journalists, and current and former elected officials—who’ve been outspoken about their support for a carbon pollution tax. They are making the case for a carbon tax based on deep seated conservative principles. As Republican Bob Inglis puts it, “In reality, conservatives have the answer to energy and climate. It’s free enterprise and accountability.”

George Shultz.

Stability and predictability is good for business.

• “We’ve been on this roller coaster ride. This time it’s important to make it different. Every spike in the price of oil has put our economy in a recession. We want to have more diverse energy resources so our economy won’t be so vulnerable to the oil market… It’s a no-brainer.”—George Shultz, US Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, now chair of the Hoover Institution’s Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy.
• “It’s a terrible injustice to the business community” that the United States hasn’t passed either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, since it creates energy uncertainty …  “Utilities don’t know what to invest in.”—Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and chief economic policy advisor for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Bob Inglis.

Recognize the Full Cost of Oil Dependence

• “What we pay at the meter and at the pump doesn’t account for the emergency room visits and lost work days triggered by coal pollution, or the blood and treasure spent protecting overseas supply lines, or the chronic and costly risk that rising temperatures pose for our communities and enterprises from forestry to fishing and farming. … Just because these costs are socialized does not mean that they magically disappear.”—Alex Bozmoski, Strategy Director for the Energy and Enterprise Initiative.
• “Many forms of energy produce side effects, like pollution, that are a cost to society. The producers don’t bear those costs; society does. There has to be a way to level the playing field and cause those forms of energy to bear their true costs. That means putting a price on carbon…if we can capitalize on these opportunities, we will have a much better energy future, from the standpoint of our national defense, our national economy, and our national environment, including our climate.”—George Shultz
• “A carbon tax would attach the national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like oil, causing the market to recognize the price of these negative externalities”—Art Laffer, a professor and economist and head of the Laffer Center for Supply-side Economics, and Bob Inglis, former Republican representative from South Carolina who now serves on the board of the libertarian R Street Institute and also heads the Energy and Enterprise Initiative (E&EI), a campaign, based at George Mason University, devoted entirely to “unleash[ing] the power of free enterprise to deliver the fuels of the future.”

Eliminate market distortions

• “Get the prices right and let the competition rip. Because carbon is not priced into the cost of energy consumption—indeed, such consumption is enhanced by the variety of net subsidies accorded the oil industry—we cannot know just how competitive solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy would be in a non-distorted market, or whether they are a drag on the efficiency of the energy market.”—Irwin Stelzer, Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson Institute’s Economic Policy Studies Group (and formerly with the American Enterprise Institute).

• “[A carbon pollution tax is an] opportunity to fix a market distortion that prevents the free enterprise system from delivering the fuels of the future.”—Bob Inglis

Art Laffer.

Unleash the creativity and innovation of the market

• “By making all fuel types accountable for their costs, free enterprise will make clear the best fuels for our future. Reduce taxes on something we want more of—income—and tax something we arguably want less of—carbon pollution. It’s a win win.”—Art Laffer
• “[With a carbon tax,] we would clean the air, create wealth and jobs through a new technology boom and drastically improve our national security.”—Laffer and Inglis

Gregory Mankiw.

Tax the bad, not the good; keep it revenue-neutral

• “A good rule of thumb is that when you tax something, you get less of it. That means that taxes on hard work, saving and entrepreneurial risk-taking impede these fundamental drivers of economic growth. The alternative is to tax those things we would like to get less of. … If the tax on gasoline were higher, people would alter their behavior to drive less. … By taxing bad things more, we could tax good things less.”—Gregory Mankiw, professor and chairman of the economics department at Harvard University.
• “[A carbon tax is] a climate policy based on conservative principles … Let’s do a dollar-for-dollar tax swap that untaxes income and shifts the tax base onto pollution—tax the bad and quit taxing the good.”—Price Atkinson, Energy and Enterprise Initiative.
• “[A carbon tax] is an old fashioned, straightforward way, and it’s obvious that what you tax you get less of.”—George Shultz
• “A tax on carbon … need not swell the government’s coffers—if we pursue a second, long-held conservative objective: reducing the tax on work. It would be a relatively simple matter to arrange a dollar-for-dollar, simultaneous reduction in payroll taxes as taxes on, say, gasoline, increased. Anyone interested in jobs, jobs, jobs, should find this an attractive proposition, with growth-minded conservatives leading the applause.”—Irwin Stelzer

Naturally, there are details and even certain outcomes upon which climate hawks and pro-carbon pricing conservatives may not entirely agree—the role of government and regulations in solutions, for example. But the differences don’t negate the common ground. And it’s worth finding language that helps all of us see our shared values and goals.

Mark Feldman is a writer and communications consultant who works with environmental nonprofits, public agencies, and green businesses. As a principal of Writing Works he helps organizations and businesses communicate effectively and creatively.

Thanks to Todd Myer for his valuable feedback.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Fidalgo Island Oil Refinery near Anacortes, WA by 24hourmoon, cc

Big news just now on Washington’s accidental tax loophole for big oil: the House voted to close it as part of a larger package of reforms to even out the state’s tax code and raise money for public education. Closing the “extracted fuel use tax exemption”—the tongue-twisting name for our special giveway to big oil—will redirect $41 million per biennium from oil refiners to classrooms.

Governor Inslee has already endorsed the move in his budget, so the last obstacle to the loophole’s closure is the state Senate where a functional Republican majority appears more inclined to protect the tax preference for oil companies.

That’s a troubling position because there are few clearer cases of mistaken tax policy than this one. The loophole was first created in 1949, apparently as a small benefit to sawmills. At the time, Washington was home to exactly zero oil refineries, but when they later moved into the state, refiners ended up claiming fully 98 percent of the loophole’s benefit. Even the state’s formal bipartisan tax review committee can identify no public policy purpose for the loophole.

It’s time we close it.

Check out Washington Environmental Council’s press release for more details on this afternoon’s vote.

You can find more information about the tax loophole here:

• SIGHTLINE FACT SHEET: Washington’s Extracted Fuel Tax Loophole

• Hog-Wild Loophole
• The Accidental Tax Loophole
• The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) assessment
• The Department of Revenue summary
• The RCW

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

flickr, Portland Afoot

If you’re a keen observer of politics in Olympia, you may already know that the Columbia River Crossing—a massive highway expansion and rail transit project connecting Portland, Oregon with Vancouver, Washington—has emerged as one of the most hotly contested issues in the negotiations over the state’s transportation package.

But if you’re not from Portland, you may not understand how much local controversy the CRC has generated. Critics from the right think that the project is simply too expensive. Critics from the left…well, actually they tend to agree that the project is a budget buster, but they also quite reasonably point out that a wider bridge could boost traffic, sprawl, and greenhouse gas emissions. (The Economist has cleverly dubbed the right-left opposition the Green Tea party.) Both right and left are joined by a variety of more centrist critics who bemoan the serious flaws in the planning process—including early assumptions that traffic across the Columbia would continue to grow steadily (it didn’t) and that drivers would simply learn to love tolling rather than diverting to the I-205 span just down the river. These critics also raise concerns that toll revenues just won’t be there over the long haul—creating long-term funding burdens for both Washington and Oregon.

So amid all the controversy and the high stakes, I figured it would be a good time to recap some of the things Sightline has written about the CRC in the past:

• Where Are My Cars: Columbia River Crossing — In which we point out that vehicle traffic across the Columbia has remained fairly flat over most of the last decade. See the chart to the right. I just looked at some newer numbers, and traffic on both I-5 and I-205 across the Columbia remains below its all-time peak—raising questions about whether we really need so much extra highway capacity.
• Columbia River Crossing: Cutting Ped/Bike Projects — In which we point out that, in order to save money, project planners have started looking at ways to cut pedestrian and bike projects that planners had included to build political support.
• How Not to Forecast Traffic — In which we look at the patently absurd forecasting methods that had been used to project traffic growth across the Columbia River.
• Don’t Count on Toll Revenue Forecasts — In which we look at the spotty forecasting record of the company that’s been hired to estimate future CRC toll revenues.  (Hint: two toll roads they worked on in California are deep in red ink and may never have been financially viable!)
• Rural Sprawl in Metropolitan Portland — This isn’t directly about the CRC, but it looks at Clark County’s rather disappointing record in allowing scattered, low-density development outside the urban growth boundary, which is just the sort of low-density development that massive highway projects can facilitate.
• Our literature review on road tolling and traffic diversion — The quick summary: toll roads with toll-free parallel routes tend to miss their traffic and revenue projections!

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.