Daily Score Blog

Many of you probably know that, in a huge win for Washington's economy and air quality, the 2005 Washington Legislature voted to adopt stronger emission standards for new vehicles--"clean-car standards." The bill includes a landmark provision calling for a 30-percent reduction in global warming pollution.

The catch is that Oregon has to adopt them as well, which is generating lots of discussion in the state right now. Oregon's Environmental Quality Commission has the authority to adopt the standards administratively, and Governor Kulongoski has said he intends to use that authority.

Some members of the Oregon House have moved to block the effort (see this editorial on the subject); they even passed a non-binding resolution discouraging state agencies from taking any action to reduce global warming pollution - a flat-earth society gesture that was previously seen only in fossil fuel stronghold states like Wyoming and West Virginia. But the groundswell for reducing global warming pollution and fossil fuel dependence in Oregon is strong. The state is the last missing piece in constructing a contiguous clean-car market - up the west coast, across Canada, and throughout the Northeast - that would comprise 40 percent of the North American vehicle market. Can you say "tipping point"?

I thought this might happen: according to the Union of Concerned Scientists' Hybridblog reports that a US federal transportation bill contains provisions that would open up HOV lanes to hybrids.  The problem -- not only could that clog HOV lanes (slowing down the buses, carpools and vanpools that depend on them), but the US Congress is trying to lower the bar, letting even low-mileage hybrids into the fast lane:

In the end, the Senate provision would open HOV lanes to vehicles that achieve at least a 50 percent increase in fuel economy in the city or a 25 percent increase in fuel economy in combined city-highway miles over the non-hybrid model, regardless of the number of passengers.  This... opens up a Pandora's box of potential abuses.  Not to mention the fact that both the House and Senate language do not even consider smog-forming emissions-with hybrids you don't have to trade off fuel economy and smog, but instead of recognizing this fact, these bills would allow some higher mpg vehicles into HOV lanes despite the fact that they are among the dirtiest vehicles permitted by law (4-10 times dirtier than many of the hybrids on the road today).

Seems to me that opening up HOV lanes to hybrids was a so-so idea to start with.  But it just got a whole lot worse.

Michael, a thoughtful reader of our Fundamentals blog, posted a comment about our proposed principle, Ensure every child is wanted, in which he asks: "[This] goes beyond sustainability's purview, doesn't it?"

Sightline has long argued that family planning plays a significant role in a range of sustainability issues, starting with our book Misplaced Blame back in 1997, and as recently as our latest book, Cascadia Scorecard 2005 (pdf)--not to mention as a regular feature of this blog.

But what do you think?

Does "Ensure every child is wanted" belong on our short list of sustainability principles?

Don't leave your comment here, though. Navigate to our full discussion of principles and values and give us a piece of your mind!

A good article in today's Oregonian about some aggressive conservation measures that Portland General Electric is pursuing. PGE is already a national leader in customers who purchase green power, but the utility is looking to further boost its renewable energy portfolio. The basic idea is simple: for a few extra dollars a month, utility customers can sign up for a program that buys renewable energy--wind, geothermal, and low-impact hydro. The goal is to provide a market-driven incentive for more development of clean energy and increasingly less reliance on polluting sources.

Unfortunately, the article didn't consider the energy parallel. Green energy consumption is not just about what kind of power you use, it's how much. I'm all for PGE's program--it's a promising way to spur renewable energy development, avoid the pernicious consequences of the status quo's energy portfolio. But it's not the best way to minimize environmental damage from energy. The best way is simply to unplug.

Consuming less energy in the first place--whether by keeping the heat lower, using energy-efficient appliances, or reducing consumption in other ways--is clearly a better alternative, one I wish the article had mentioned. Rather than paying extra, consumers save dollars and they forgo the environmental consequences of both old dirty power and the more limited harm of newer green energy.

But since people need power from the grid, the best solution would be a combination. Pay a little extra to join the green energy program and save a little extra by reducing consumption. PGE's program is terrific; it'd be even better if it were married to a program for improving efficiency or reducing consumption.

Car crashes kill about 700 Washington residents each year.  Now, remember, that's out of a population of over 6.1 million -- meaning that, on average, your chance of dying in a car crash this year is just over one in 10,000.  With odds that slim, are collisions really such a big deal?

As far as I can tell, yes.  Here's why.

First there's this:  car crashes skew young.  Surprisingly, motor vehicle accidents are the leading killer of Washingtonians between the ages of 1 and 44, reaching a peak between the ages of 15 and 24.  Similarly, for those before retirement age, traffic deaths are third leading cause of shortened lifespans, trailing only cancer and heart disease.  So the significance of traffic accidents to human health is far greater than the absolute numbers might suggest.

And then there's this:  For every traffic fatality, there are about 54 nonfatal traffic injuries and more than 200 collisions that cause no significant injury. And not only do those collisions take a toll in terms of pain and suffering, they're really costly.  According to the National Safety Council, you can get a pretty good estimate of the direct, out of pocket costs of traffic accidents by multiplying the number of traffic fatalities by $5.4 million dollars.  (They estimate that this figure will cover medical costs, lost wages, property damage, and other direct, out-of-pocket costs resulting from collisions.)  Using figures for 2002, that means that traffic accidents in the state of Washington were responsible for about $4 billion in direct economic costs.