Daily Score Blog

Straight talk from the Georgia Straight:  the greater Vancouver regional government has admitted that there's no way it can meet the Kyoto protocol's goal of reducing climate warming emissions to 6 percent below 1990's level by 2012.

In fact, it will probably take all the political will the region can muster to cap emissions at 10 percent above 1990's levels by the time the Kyoto deadline rolls around.

This is no knock on Vancouver per se, since I'm sure that it's no farther from Kyoto's goals than other parts of North America.  And a 10 percent increase still means a per capita decline in carbon emissions:  the population of Vancouver has grown by nearly 35 percent since 1990.  Measured per capita, Vancouver's climate emissions must be moving in the right direction.

Obviously, though, per capita measures don't mean much to the climate -- climate change is driven by total emissions, not emissions per person.  And the fact that even Vancouver -- a regional leader in curtailing sprawl and creating walkable places where residents don't have to drive much -- is so far from meeting Kyoto's relatively modest climate goals is a reminder of just how much more work there is to do to make a meaningful dent in the problem.

Note: This is part of a series.

As I mentioned last week, I'll be writing a series of posts about the struggle over property rights that is perhaps the single biggest environmental controversy in the Northwest. I was planning to build on last week's question when I was sidetracked by every researcher's best friend and worst enemy: data!

Data, specifically, from Oregon, where property owners are currently making claims under Measure 37, a prototype pay-or-waive law that forces governments to either waive land use regulations or else shell out tax dollars to property owners for the losses they claim. Voters in Washington may soon face Initiative 933, a very similar proposal. (And Idaho and Montana voters may see something similar too.)

How much would I-933 cost Washington? That is, how much would taxpayers be forced to pony up to enforce land-use regulations under a pay-or-waive scheme? The best way to answer that question may be to take a look at what's happened in Oregon. What kind of losses are land owners claiming in Oregon under Measure 37?

Apparently, the sky's the limit. According to Oregon's handy registry of Measure 37 claims, nearly 1,400 claims have been filed, for a total value of nearly $3.3 billion. The average claim is $2.3 million. (This business of "losses" is a tricky one as it requires assessing not  just what the property would sell for, but what the economic value of activity on the property would be if it were not regulated.)

One claim in particular leapt out at me: the claim of a Pendleton-area landowner for $284 million, by far the most expensive claim under Measure 37 so far. (For comparison, Seattle's brand new Qwest field, home of the Seahawks, cost $360 million to build.) Just what exactly has this Pendleton landowner been prevented from doing that's worth $284 million?

What could it be that she's planning to do--currently outlawed--that could bring in that kind of dough? The registry doesn't list the size of the property or its current use, so it's hard to judge. But it does list an address, so I used Google Maps to find a satellite image of the place. Turns out, the place is arid land well outside Pendleton proper, closer to the little town of Pilot Rock. Irrigated farming appears to be the primary land use in the region, as evidenced by the green circles in the dusty landscape.

$284 million, huh?

It's a quiet day for sustainability news here in the Northwest, which meant a long hunt for the Tidepool editor this morning.

Today's top story at Tidepool illustrates a new trend for funding parks in California. The solution could apply to other places in our region dealing with population growth and sprawl. In a related article, the Portland-area Metro Council has chosen six tracts of land they would purchase if voters approve an open-space bond measure in November.

Also, the B.C. government has agreed to protect 138,000 acres of forest in Haida Gwaii. The article is just a short note, really, but the news is significant. I would like to see a longer article exploring the Haida's unique and exemplary conservation efforts, and the strategic role played by Guujaaw, their Council President. Why hasn't this been covered? In case Northwest-coast culture interests you, a piece ran in the Globe and Mail this week on my favorite Haida artist, Robert Davidson.

One last note: Yesterday was Endangered Species Day. Did you even know there was an endangered species day? The Tri-City Herald ran an editorial about the plight of Hanford's charismatic minor-fauna, the genetically unique pygmy rabbit, which is nearly extinct.

This is promising:  at a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, Oregon senator Gordon Smith floated the idea of vehicle "feebates" to boost fuel efficiency.  Bully for him!!  With gas prices as high as they are, and the security costs for ensuring North America's petroleum supplies (think, say, of the cost of America's military involvement in Iraq) feebates are an idea that deserves a serious airing.

The basic idea of feebates is to charge car buyers an extra fee when they buy a gas guzzler, and rebate that money to people who buy efficient vehicles.  The amount of the fee or rebate depends on the miles-per-gallon rating of the vehicle, compared with the average for all new cars sold.  (For more details, see here).

The beauty of feebates is that they create incentives for continual improvements to vehicle efficiency.  That is, no matter how efficient the average car or truck becomes, feebates will still help boost sales of the most efficient vehicles on the market. 

It doesn't take a big feebate to have a big impact.  One 1997 study found that a feebate of only $70 per rated mile per gallon would boost new-car fuel economy by about 1 percent every year.  (If that study's findings had been acted on in 1997, the average Northwesterner would be saving about $100 per year on their annual gasoline budget.)  Higher feebates probably would have saved consumers even more on their gas bills.

Some people are sure to see a feebate system as a new tax, but it's really not.  The government doesn't keep any of the money (except, perhaps, for a little to administer the program).  Instead, a feebate system just rejiggers market incentives a bit, and then stands back.  After that, consumers and automakers figure out how best to respond to the incentives.  In theory, automakers will be more inclined to offer more fuel-efficient car choices; and buyers will be more inclined to snap them up.

Of course, the devil's in the details, and I'm sure that both auto manufacturers and car buyers will figure out ways to game the system; but they already do that with CAFE standards.