Daily Score Blog

Green industries grow jobs and labor income faster than environmentally high-impact industries. Perhaps we already knew that, but I just discovered an economic model that demonstrates how shifting Washington’s industrial output to green collar jobs will benefit workers’ pocketbooks.

For example, the model can compare educational services to petroleum products. And it shows that increasing sales in education, rather than the petroleum, will create 12 times as many jobs and 20 times more labor income.

These numbers don’t come from a crystal ball. They’re based on an Input-Output Impact Model, which is used by government agencies and private consultants to estimate the economic impacts of a project or a budget. The model tries to tabulate how industries stimulate one another by tracking how much they sell to consumers as compared to other local industries. It can be used to see the overall economic ramifications of boosting one industry versus another. In the example above, it tells us that educational services create a lot more local economic activity than petroleum products.

Scientists just now discovered this bit of holiday cheer:

The Ayles Ice Shelf - all 41 square miles of it - broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island...

Full story from AP here.

Copland said the speed with which climate change has effected the ice shelves has surprised scientists.

(Yes Virginia, that's a grammatical error in the original AP report.)

This news actually comes at a good time because the US Department of Interior just filed a petition to list polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. We're now in a 90 day comment period. And listing the polar bears, which are severely threatend by a warming Arctic, would put even more pressure on the Bush administration to actually do something meaningful about climate change.

I just returned from Christmas in a surprisingly balmy Minneapolis where I learned about a neat little tax shifting trick that could be a powerful technique for constraining sprawl. The best part is that it's actually fairer than the current system. Here's the scoop.

In most places, homeowners pay a simple sewage or drainage rate (it's often calculated as a percentage of water consumed). Minneapolis decided to break apart the sewage charge into two separate rates: one part based on water consumption and the other part based on the square footage of impervious surface. Okay, I know your eyes are glazing over, but don't stop reading yet!

Impervious surface is important because it is closely related to how much strain a property puts on city infrastructure and also how much it harms the local environment, -- especially the local water bodies that get all the toxic-laden runoff from hard surfaces. So it matters (at least a little) whether your backyard is an eco-groovy natural drainage haven or an asphalt parking lot. By connecting sewage rates to hard surfaces, Minneapolis is making prices tell the truth.

But that's not the half of it.

Most Sightline folks will be off for the next few days, so you'll have to live without the Daily Score until, oh, at least December 27 or so.

Meanwhile, if you're holed in a snowstorm with a good Internet connection, here are a few of my favorite Daily Score posts from the past year or so.  Post your own picks!

Best tall tale

Best post about Al Gore

Best decision?

Best win

Best inspiration

A draft of a paper (MSWord link, 4.6 M) just crossed my desk, and I thought it deserved a bit of visibility. It's by Tom Byers of the Cedar River Group, who's got a smart, homespun way of thinking about the recent controversy surrounding Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct:

When I was a kid, my grandfather used to tell me, by way of giving me the wits to find my way in the forests of the Smoky Mountains, that if I found myself smack between climbing a steep cliff and fording a creek full of water moccasins, I ought to consider stepping back to find a better way to get home....

So here we are [on the Viaduct issue], in deep woods, trapped between certain ugliness [a rebuilt aerial highway] and uncertain costs [the tunnel]...

One of the good things I learned, on those occasions when I actually followed my grandfather’s advice, is that it helps to define the problem correctly.  For example, my challenge as a kid in the woods was neither climbing the cliff, nor crossing the stream.  It was finding a safe way home.  Once I had realized that was the problem, I could see things in a new way.  I’d find clues I should have seen before, sometimes even a smooth and easy trail that had just been hidden by a fallen tree.

Tom's point, of course, is that when none of the officially sanctioned policy options look good, it's time for some fresh and creative thinking about the problem.  And he's got some very specific ideas about a third way on the Viaduct -- concentrating on moving people and freight, rather than cars.  It's worth a read.

Idaho Power is close to getting its profits decoupled from its sales of electricity -- which would be a very good thing for its customers, Idaho's economy, and our natural heritage.

If you haven't yet seen this encomium to Alan Durning (and Sightline), well, we're certainly not above pointing you to it. It's here.

It takes Alan's journey into the realms of carless-ness as an example of the larger challenges of aligning our lives with our principles. It's also about what we can do: namely, fix the systems that make it so tough to live sustainably. And we like author Bill Dietrich's description of how Sightline is trying to create a place where "doing the right thing is also the cheapest, easiest and most fun thing."

It's a front-cover story in the Seattle Times' Pacific Northwest Magazine. Did I mention it's here?

(This post is part of a series.)

Holy cow.

A recently formed company ... has purchased 440,000 acres of timber land in southern Oregon for $108 million, officials said.  [Emphasis added.]

Just in case you were wondering how much land that is:  the sale covers nearly 700 square miles, an area well over half the size of the state of Rhode Island.  Of course, Rhode Island is tiny, as states go.  But it seems like a lot of land, and at a bargain basement price, to boot. At $245 per acre even I could afford to become a real estate mogul.  Heck, some houses cost more than $108 million.

Silliness aside, this sale makes me wonder whether creating a carbon market -- say, a cap and trade system, where polluters have to pay for emissions reductions or sequestration -- might create huge opportunities for ecosystem restoration.  "Storing" carbon in forests is obviously a risky endeavor; among other problems, carbon stored in trees and soils can, quite literally, go up in smoke.  But by the same token, forests in the Oregon Cascades can store huge amounts of carbon; researchers have estimated that Pacific Northwest coastal forests, on average, could eventually sequester over 500 tons of additional CO2 per acre, on top of what's already in place. 

It would likely take over a century for sequestration to reach that point; but if there were a robust global carbon market in place, it's possible that carbon storage and managment contracts could, at least in some instances, pay for the purchase price of bargain-basement forest land. During 2006, Europe's climate exchange paid about $25 per metric ton for future-year CO2 credits.  If you can store a couple of hundred tons of carbon per acre, pretty soon you're talking real money.

Good news!  California has moved to curb the spread of coal-fired power plants. This is a really big deal, since energy companies have been vying to build as many as 35 of the carbon-spewing facilities in western states, largely to feed California's growing demand for electricity. 

But California state regulators -- justifiably concerned about the climate impacts of burning so much coal -- got  tricky:  they prohibited the state's utilities from buying power from any plant that emits more carbon than a super-efficient natural gas power plant.

In other words, new coal-fired power is a no-go for the California market, unless plant operators somehow figure out a way to burn coal without emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

That's the theory.  But the western power market may actually work to undermine California's good intentions. 

Astonishing.   Based on the best estimates I can come up with, residents of the US Northwest are on track to use a little less gasoline in 2006 than in 1999.  That's right, the region's gasoline consumption--total, not per capita--has flatlined over the last 7 years.

Over the same period, the region's population grew by 9 percent or so.  And that means that per capita gas consumption fell by about 9 percent between 1999-2006.  As far as I can tell,  that puts per person gas consumption in 2006 lower than at any point in the last 4 decades!

There are a probably a couple of forces in play here.  First, the region went through a recession a few years back -- unemployment was up and wages were flat.  So some of the decline in personal consumption may have stemmed from a slow economy. 

Second, gas was at historic inflation-adjusted lows in the late 1990s, but since then prices have more than doubled; and much of the price increase occurred just as the recession was easing.  People have responded to high prices by cutting back on consumption -- using transit a bit more, buying slightly more efficient cars, perhaps driving a bit less, or using the more efficient car if two are parked in the driveway. 

Third, a gradual trend towards more compact and centered urban development may be reducing how much city-dwellers need to drive to get to where they need to go.

No matter what the cause, it's reason for celebration in a gloomy, rain-soaked season.

I recently moved into a new apartment in classic 1920s building. It’s well maintained, centrally located, and charming. But one of the building’s so-called selling points – it’s even on the manager’s business card – is that “all utilities are included.” Is this really a good idea? And who benefits?

“Free” energy probably appears like a huge benefit to renters. But to me it was actually a turn-off. Surely, allowing tenants to gobble up electricity, heat, and water at no additional cost leads to energy gluttony and waste.  And in the end, that drives up rents. After all, tenants are still paying for utilities, it’s just that the costs are hidden in their rent checks rather than clearly stated in their utility bills. And under the “all you can heat” system I end up paying a portion of my profligate neighbor’s costs as well.

Since I moved in I’ve become accustomed to endless “free” hot water, toasty steam filled radiators, and never-ending electricity to power all my widgets. And wouldn’t you know, I’m beginning to see the energy hog creep out of me. My showers last just a little bit longer than they used to, my attention to turning off the lights is just a little more relaxed, and when I look in the refrigerator, I take more time perusing with the door ajar. I like to think of myself a frugal energy user – and if my discipline is slipping, then what’s to keep a less mindful tenant from air-conditioning their place by leaving the freezer door open?

But there is a potential upside to this story: the building owner assumes all responsibility for paying the energy bills for 140 people.  At four to five thousand dollars a month, that creates a huge incentive for conservation – at least in theory. 

An interesting pair of articles in my morning scan of the papers. This:

...scientists concluded Wednesday that the baiji [the Yangtze dolphin], a freshwater dolphin that was one of the world's oldest species, is almost certainly extinct.

And this:

Gov. Chris Gregoire on Wednesday promised the strongest winds of change in two decades on the long-stalled drive to rescue environmentally ailing Puget Sound -- work that could cost nearly $9 billion by 2020.

Now obviously, there are pretty big differences between the Yangtze Basin, home to 400 million people, and Puget Sound, which is home to fewer than 4 million. And, of course, there are huge differences in wealth too. Northwesterns have a lot more of it.

But the similarity between the two waters is striking:

The baiji, a beloved creature known as "the goddess of the Yangtze"... was once a common sight as it cavorted in the river.

Sounds a bit like our local charismatic megafauna, doesn't it? Everyone loves our local black and white endangered "whales" that, scientifically speaking, are actually dolphins.

There's an excellent essay in High Country News. Even better, it was written by Sightline's grants associate, Madeline Ostrander.

Here's a snippet:

Dina takes me down to the river, to a place behind her house on the reservation. "I want to show you my secret spot," she says. "C’mon."

The Big Sioux River smells like piss some days, or a wasting body. In my second summer working for the tribe, I have come to know the river’s disease...

It's the best thing I've read in a long time. And, no, I'm not just saying that because Madeline's desk is six feet away.

Subscribers to HCN can read the whole thing. Non-subscribers can subscribe. (At twice the price it would be worth every penny and then some.) 

Otherwise you'll have to find a hard copy, or else wait three months, at which point I believe that archived content becomes available for free on HCN's website.

I thought this was interesting. Here are some visual concepts for what Seattle's waterfront might look like sans Alaska Way Viaduct, presented yesterday by University of Washington students in the urban design and planning program.

One of the more unusual ideas: a series of large greenhouses that would step down from Victor Steinbrueck Park to the aquarium. (Davila Parker-Garcia)

I have no idea if greenhouses would pencil out or be the best use of civic space. Still, I love the underlying notion that we should think broadly and creatively about what could replace the elevated highway as the face of downtown. And truth be told, I kind of like the idea of greenhouses, which gesture toward nearby Pike Place Market.

A few more ideas after the jump.

“Don’t you college boys know? People don’t like hitch-hikers no more.” That’s what the state trooper told us—my friend John and me—25 years ago. We were standing in the rain, on the edge of an Ohio highway, our thumbs half extended, bedraggled from a sleepless night and unseasonably cold temperatures. Twelve hours earlier we “college boys” certainly had not known, but we had caught on in the meantime. For lack of rides, our planned hitch-hiking road trip to see America was going nowhere.

For most generations of North Americans before my own, thumbing rides was routine, even a rite of passage. Today—outside of a few islands and national parks—the United States and Canada have become virtual no-hitch zones. But the confluence of expensive fuel, climate-conscious entrepreneurs, and cell-phone text messaging may soon reintroduce hitchhiking—redubbed real-time ride-sharing—to the transportation scene. In fact, the start-up company Goose Networks (as in, "flocking together") is already executing instant matches between would-be riders and driving commuters five days a week in Seattle.

More on that in a minute. First, why is this car-lessly important?