Daily Score Blog

Moises Velasquez-Manoff of the Christian Science Monitor gets this exactly right:

[N]ot-very-glamorous changes like [compact fluorescents lightbulbs] as well as obsessively sealing and insulating your home will save more than, in the words of one expert, "greenie weenie" additions like green roofs and solar panels.

The whole article is worth reading. But in case you're too busy, here's the point in a nutshell:  if you really want to reduce the environmental impact of your home, do all the simple, boring things first.  Seal up holes with caulk, insulate, and buy efficient lights and appliances.  It's not sexy, it's not trendy, but it's important.

Once you're done with all the boring (but cost effective) stuff, you can think about the nifty high-tech energy solutions, like solar panels.  (Or, perhaps you'll do even more good by helping your neighbors do the simple stuff, too.)

The rains have set in. And with the approach of the holidays, the waning of the light, and the inevitable existential angst, Northwest homeowners turn their thoughts to the season's verities: turkey dinners, Christmas lights, and flooded basements.

But not me. This season it's all eggnog and overeating for me. (And existential angst, of course. That goes without saying.) 

That's because in a fit of uncharacteristic virtue, my wife, Jill, and I embarked on a backyard landscaping project last summer that's already paying dividends. And I think it's helping ease my home's environmental impact to boot.

Last January, I wrote a bit about my backyard and how soggy, even lake-like, it became in the rain. The heavy clay soil allowed worrisome amounts of water to pool up, turning the lawn into something resembling the Everglades. But rather than stocking my backyard lake with trout, as my Dad suggested, we vowed to landscape our way out of the problem.

Here's a perfect example of why pay-or-waive laws don't work. In the rural Oregon community of Prineville, a property owner filed a claim under Measure 37 demanding to be allowed to build his house on a specific portion of his property that's zoned otherwise. Instead of waiving the zoning law, the county council became the first in Oregon to offer taxpayer compensation instead: to the tune of about $47,000.

But that's not good enough for the property owner. Now he's coming back with a new proposal for a diner and condominiums on the restricted portion of his property. The choice he's giving the county is the same, but with higher stakes: pay him for the "lost" value of the buildings or waive the zoning. 

Now, it's not that he wants to build a diner and condos. That's hardly the point. He simply believes he can force the county to offer him more taxpayer money (he's talking about as much as $5 million) or, faced with that unpleasant option that they will waive the zoning for him. Either way, he'll come out the winner and his community will come out the loser.

And now a quibble with the media coverage. The Eugene Register-Guard posted a very misleading AP story. The story makes it sound as if Prineville's zoning prevents the fellow from building his house anywhere on his property. But that's not right. Under the zoning he's legally allowed to build almost anywhere on his land, just not with 200 feet of the rimrock, which is restricted from building inside city limits to preserve scenery.

An intriguing new study argues that social interactions actually diminish in higher density settings. (Media coverage here, full pdf of study here.) What's odd about this finding is that it's in marked contrast to most other empircal studies of the relationship between density and social capital.

The literature on the subject (summary fact sheet) is certainly not uniform. But in general the research suggests that people tend to forge more social bonds when they live at higher densities. And, interestly enough, those social bonds can be protective of health -- meaning that it's possible that living near your neighbors can actually improve your health outcomes, at least on average.

The problem with these kinds of studies, however, is that it's very difficult to tease apart cause and effect. There's a good chance that people self select into communities that reflect their values. Those who want to socialize may want to live near a vibrant walkable commercial center (or, if this new study is correct, in a lower-density community with many people similar to them.) And there are the usual confounders like race, education, and income, all of which play a role in how many social interactions a person is likely to have.

I find this stuff fascinating, but despite a fair bit of exposure to the research, I can't make up my mind about how important sprawl may be to social capital. See, for example, my ramblings here and here. If folks have thoughts on the subject, I'd welcome ideas and references for further study.

On most days, my wife and I commute together by car.  And since my kids started a new, out-of-the-way school, our commute has gone from a fairly straightforward 15 minute trip -- mostly in the carpool lanes -- to a congested daily slog that, depending on traffic, can last over 45 minutes.

We definitely pay for our longer commute, through higher bills for gas and repairs.  But we don't have to pay for the road space -- we drive on the "freeway," after all. 

But stuck in rush hour gridlock, among all the other drivers parked on I-5, it strikes me that the term "freeway"  is a misnomer. In fact, we do pay a toll to drive on the freeway, especially during rush hour.  It's just that we pay with our time, not our money. 

Perhaps it doesn't have to be that way.  Last Friday, the Seattle Times reported on a high-tech experiment, conducted in the Puget Sound region, designed to test what would happen if people had to pay tolls to drive on the region's roads.  In theory, tolls can ease congestion by reducing the number of trips on a crowded highway; tolls, in effect, let drivers exchange money for time.

That's the theory, at least.  And the experiment bore it out.  Charging drivers variable tolls, based on the type of road and the time of day, did encourage people to drive less -- especially during rush hour.

But, perhaps, not as much less as I might have hoped.

Each time I walk to a Flexcar in my neighborhood, I pass scores of parked private cars. I sometimes fantasize about strolling up to one of them, swiping my Flexcard over the dash, and driving away. I’d be debited automatically; my neighbor would be credited, less a slice for Flexcar. And I’d have a vastly larger pool of vehicles at my disposal.

This fantasy is less fantastical than it may seem.

Advances in information technology and the growth of car-sharing could converge with trends such as high fuel prices, urban densification, and caps on carbon emissions to create a thriving market for private cars’ idle hours—for people to pimp their rides.

The benefits for consumers and society would be colossal, and the obstacles to such a market emerging do not seem insurmountable. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Over at Max Sawicky's blog, smart dude Gar Lipow has argued that market-based mechanisms (particularly emissions trading and carbon taxes) won't do much to solve global warming. Instead, he claims that energy consumption is, in broad strokes, determined by infrastructure:  highways, railroads, power lines, power plants, the layout of our cities, and the like.  Market-based mechanisms might affect things at the margins, but major "decarbonization" can only follow from substantial change to infrastructure -- which Gar argues can only come about as the result of major investments by the public sector. 

It's a point of view worth considering, and I have no interest in debating him on the point right now. 

However, in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, I notice that proposed Washington State energy efficiency standards for new apartment buildings were just scrapped, because developers argued that the they would make new downtown high rises too expensive to be worth building. 

In other words, a misaligned energy market is making it harder to make the case for the kind of greener infrastructure that Gar seems to think we need.

The city of Seoul, Korea just tore down a massive urban highway carrying 160,000 cars a day. And the result was an absolute catastrophe: the city's economy soured, drivers were stranded in gridlock all day, and puppies and small children shed tears of remorse and longing for their lost highway.

Just kidding. Really, the results were beautiful, everything went just swimmingly, and the project has gotten rave reviews from residents.

Well, ok, then:

The state's controversial law calling for an automatic review of the minimum wage each year does little to harm business and benefits the vast majority of low-paid workers, a new study by Washington State University says...

The study...found the increase will have a mostly positive effect on the state economy. [Emphasis added.]

I don't expect this research to be the last word in the minimum wage debate.  But it's fairly consistent with other empirical work, finding that -- contrary to standard economic theory -- hiking the minimum wage is generally a net plus to low-income workers.

But try telling that to the critics.

I sort of hoped that the term "EcoDensity" -- a word coined to describe Vancouver's plan for new development within city limits -- would grow on me.  But it still sounds pretty clunky to my ears.

That said, it's a pretty apt description.  If the greater Vancouver region is going to add more residents over the next few decades -- as seems pretty much inevitable -- by far the most environmentally friendly path is to create more housing in places that are already developed.  The alternative is to put more people in places that aren't developed -- "greenfield" development on farmland and open space -- which can create all sorts of fiscal problems (see, e.g., this interesting lit review) as well as environmental ones.

Sure, when people see high-rise condos or big apartment buildings, they don't often think of  "unspoiled nature."  That's understandable.  But it's also an error:  person for person, living in a high rise neighborhood (or a similar compact community) can help dramatically reduce your environmental footprint -- particularly for energy, since you're sharing walls (and heating bills) with neighbors, and often can drive less to get to stores, services, and jobs.

The aim of the EcoDensity plan is to spread new, denser development across the city, not just in the downtown core.  That could bring some of the benefits of density -- easier access to stores and services, frequent and cost effective transit service -- to even more Vancouver residents.

But, to some people, the big issue in this plan has nothing to do with the environment.  Instead, it's all about the housing market -- and in particular, whether EcoDensity will help make Vancouver's housing more affordable.

Ah, Seattle in November... it's right up there with Paris in the spring. And this November: what a month! As of the 15th we've broken our record for the rainiest November on record, with 11.64 inches so far.

Speaking of rain and our far-distant spring... this past spring, I succumbed to a fit of eco-grooviness and bought a rain barrel. After all, what could be better than capturing my roof's rainwater and keeping my plants happy in the summer?

I got a bargain on a 60-gallon orange job from a Seattle Public Utilities program. It was originally used to ship peppers or olives from Greece and you can still see Cyrillic characters on the side. 

I like my rain barrel not because it's reducing my water consumption--it's not in any meaningful way--but because it taught me something elementary about rain in the Northwest. There's a lot of it.

And there's a lot of it running off our roofs and driveways. Take, for example, my house, which is fairly "cozy." (That's realtor-ese for "small.") Roughly one-third of my roof--about 300 square feet--drains into the barrel.

Any guesses how many gallons of water come down from that one-third of my roof in a 1 inch rainfall?

In our recent Property Wrongs report, we told the story of one of the more egregious claims made in Oregon under Measure 37: a proposal to develop a mine, energy plant, and vacation homes inside a national monument.

The story is compelling, but the video is even better. Check it out.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

There's rumors on the Internets, as they say, that property rights supporters are going to revive Washington's Initiative 933 and California's Proposition 90. And it hasn't even been a week since the election!

I mention this for two reasons. First, I've been dying for chance to write the phrase Whac-A-Mole -- and this is really the perfect opportunity. Second, it underscores the extent to which we need to continue improving our understanding of property, fairness, individual rights, and community.

We'll also need to take a hard look at our current policies. Are they unfair? Are they unclear? And, if so, what can we do about fixing them?

That's the subject of a thoughtful piece in today's Seattle Times. The article centers on a rural property owner, who's also one of Sightline's "property rights" guest bloggers, Arie van der Hoeven. I think his point is worth taking seriously:

"Initiative 933 isn't the solution," van der Hoeven says, "but there is a problem."

...many foes, like van der Hoeven, also acknowledged there was some truth to what I-933's backers were saying: Land-use rules aren't always fair.

This is the video of the week.

It's scary stuff, in my opinion. It takes viewers below the sparkling surface of Puget Sound to the infamous "dead zone" in Hood Canal. Narrated by a marine biologist, viewers get to see first hand the consequences of the pollution that robs the fjord of oxygen. More information here.

I've heard it said that one of the biggest problems of marine conservation is that unlike forests or mountains, most people simply don't see the critical areas underwater, whether they are coral reefs or kelp forests. And without a visual connection, it's difficult to create a broad constituency of supporters. So the conservation challenges for marine areas are just that much more difficult. This video takes a step toward bridging that gap.

Am I the only one who senses a remarkable shift -- or, really, 3 shifts -- in how the press is covering climate change?

First, a year or so ago I started seeing much less coverage of climate change as a scientific controversy, and much more coverage that accepts the actual state of affairs -- namely, that the scientific underpinnings of climate change are remarkably uncontroversial, and that the vast majority of atmostpheric scientists think that it's real.

More recently, I've seen much more coverage of the economic costs of climate change -- take for example, the British report suggesting that unchecked climate change could lead to a global recession. Previously, the larger part of the coverage talked only about the costs of fighting climate change -- as if those were the only costs worth thinking about.  As I've said before, one-sided coverage of the costs of climate change enables "magical thinking" -- namely, that if we just bury our heads under our pillows, the costs will go away.  Balanced coverage -- making it clear that "business as usual" carries huge costs and risks -- makes that sort of magical thinking harder to sustain.

And now, I've started seeing mention of the ethical dilemmas associated with climate change.  See, most recently, this, from the Christian Science Monitor.  The following quote nails it:

"Climate change not only raises ethical questions, but the most profound ones - literally matters of life and death, who's going to survive, the fate of nation states, obligations of one nation to another, of the rich and the poor."

In some ways, this third trend in media coverage is the most heartening to me.  It's not that economic arguments don't matter.  Far from it.  Still, they only go so far -- especially for genuinely long-term problems, where costs accrue right now, but the benefits go to people who don't even exist yet. On purely pragmatic and self-interested grounds, it's a hard sell to convince me to pay $10 now to avoid $100 in potential costs a century from now.  After all, I won't be around to reap the fruits of my labor.

That's where ethical arguments can have some sway.  I, for one, would rather pay $10 now to prevent climate change, than face the thought that other people -- especially my grandkids -- might view me as a moral midget.