Daily Score Blog

A couple of hours ago, US stock investors finished taking a bath -- the worst since 9/11 -- precipitated by a collapse in the Shanghai market. And front and center on its home page, the New York Times already has up a minute-by-minute chart showing today's progress for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. (Hint: it's mostly down.)

Fair enough, I suppose. Measurement is important. And if the stock market ever deserves media attention, today is the day. But I have to confess that I'm baffled by a couple of things.

First off, the DJIA is a terrible indicator of general stock market performance. It's an antiquated relic based, in part, on a fear of long division. We've already gone into this in some detail, so I won't repeat it all now.

Second, why do we insist on clocking and and endlessly discussing every movement in stocks in a way that we do for little else? Are there no other important economic benchmarks? Or is it just that we're collectively obsessed with shiny new numbers, no matter how irrelevant they may be?

Want to know about trends for middle class incomes in your state? The most recent data are 2 years old. And you can't break it down by household size, so it lumps single-income households in with two-earner groups. The data have a number of other problems too.

What about poverty? Nope, sorry. The only reliable data for poverty and child poverty are also 2 years old. And the best analysis of those outdated numbers showed poor Americans heading off a cliff like the Dow did today. Too bad we won't know what happened in 2006 until sometime next year. And even when we get the new numbers, they'll be based on several specious assumptions.

There are many more examples, but I'll spare you for now. I simply think it's worth noting that what is measured well, we obsess over, and we try to improve. It would be nice, then, if what we measured well reflected the values and priorities of all of us -- not just the highest-earning 1/5 of Americans, who own 90 percent of all stock market assets. And not just whatever bright new numbers happen to be readily at hand.

I'm a bit late on this (that's my new thing), but things just keep getting bigger and better when it comes to climate policy. Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington are joining forces to reduce emissions. Kudos to all five governors who pledged that:

...within six months they will set a regional target for lower emissions. A year after that, they pledged, they will devise a regional cap-and-trade system, which would let companies that can't meet their emission reduction targets buy credits from those that reduce emissions more than required.

There's even icing on the cake: British Columbia is likely to join in, which makes sense given that North America's energy grid is pretty well integrated across national boundaries.

It strikes me that the combined commitment is good for at least two reasons: 1) It pressures each of the member states to take their goals seriously; 2) The sheer size creates an ever more effective market for reducing emissions, one that is big enough to force meaningful action from national governments. In fact, the combined population of the five states and BC is roughly that of Italy, France, or the United Kingdom (or, if you prefer, as large as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined).

A couple of interesting new studies related to US economic security.

1. An Associated Press analysis found that:

Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago.

2. And a McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that:

The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high...

The McClatchy findings are accompanied by an exceptionally good article on American poverty. It's a must-read for anyone interested in economic security issues.

Not only is Schwarzenegger leading California to many firsts in climate policy, he’s also leading the way when it comes to talking about global warming.

Any savvy politician knows you can’t get policy on the books without first winning over your colleagues and constituents. And Arnie is surely one of the savviest politicos around. Here’s how he’s doing it:

A wolf. Or least a wolf hunting tag if you're an Idaho resident. 

Bad, right? Yes, but it's not really as simple as it first appears.

As you may already know, the federal government is preparing to remove Rocky Mountain wolves from the the Endangered Species Act, probably this year or next. (The re-introduced wolves have been exceeding recovery targets since 2002.) When "de-listing" occurs, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming will initiate a regulated wolf hunt. This, by the way, is a certainty. There is virtually zero viable opposition to wolf hunting in those states. 

So the question for those of us who think restored wolf populations are a good thing for the West (see here, here, and here for a few reasons why), is how to make wolf hunting as beneficial as possible. The good news is that there are ways to do just that.

The first step is recognizing that the biggest threat facing Rocky Mountain wolves is not hunting. It's idiocy (cf. Idaho's Governor C.L. "Temper Tantrum" Otter). That is, the future for wolves depends on whether people treat them as wildlife to be protected and managed, or whether they're hated.

To date, a handful of Westerners have behaved like denim-clad Little Red Riding Hoods, wailing and shrieking at every mention of a wolf (cf. almost everyone in Wyoming politics). A well-managed hunt, however, can be an effective antivenin to their hysterics.

National Geographic has a fairly awesome new web feature. It's an interactive look at smart growth that does a good job of spelling out -- with pictures! -- some of the key differences between low density sprawl and healthier compact communities. There's more in the magazine.

Unfortunately, NG's representation of healthy urban development seems to make a puzzling omission. I was unable to find the multibillion dollar giant new elevated freeway through the heart of town -- the hallmark of responsible planning for the future.

A bit odd, if you ask me.

It's old news, but still worth paying attention to.  Last Friday, the Washington state House of Representatives passed legislation to ban toxic flame retardants known as PBDEs -- which are something of an obsession around these parts. 

This is a pretty big deal, since the bill covers deca-PBDEs -- the only form of the compound that's still widely used, as far as I know.  Washington's bill doesn't ban deca outright. There are still exemptions, and the ban is phased in over several years. Still, it  treats deca much more aggressively than, say, a recently announced Canadian PBDE ban that environmental advocates have called "toothless," because it leaves deca largely unscathed.  Deca appears to be less toxic than the other forms of PBDEs, and also less likely to accumulate in human bodies.  But there's growing evidence that, over time, deca can break down into other, more dangerous forms of PBDEs -- meaning that if we continue to use deca, we could be setting our grandkids up for some tough times down the road.

The key to the bill's passage (besides the aerospace exemption, which kept Boeing from nixing it) is that the ban on deca is phased in:  it only takes affect after an independent fire safety commision reviews of the safety and effectiveness of alternative flame retardants.   That seems prudent -- PBDEs may be bad, but fire is bad too, and other fire retardants may be no safer.  Phasing out deca makes sense, provided that there are good alternatives.

Which brings me to my second piece of news: here's a press release that recently landed in my inbox, about a new fire inhibitor -- something even better than a flame retardant.  I mention this mostly  because I was once a young boy, and thus a pyromaniac, and there's a really cool video of a room treated with flame retardants that totally goes up in flames.  Rockin!

(The video's kind of hard to find:  follow this link, click on "AF21" and then "demo". )

Yesterday was the first anniversary of giving up (OK, totaling) our family car.

To mark the occasion: a tally of our accomplishments, followed by an announcement of our plans.

Driving: We reduced our driving by two-thirds compared to our average in recent years. We drove 90 percent less than the average US family of our size and income. We drove about 2,500 miles—about 7 miles a day on average—in Flexcars (mostly), carpools that went out of their way to pick us up (often), and borrowed cars (occasionally).

Today's the second anniversary of the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and we're finally witnessing a race to the top among West Coast leaders: who'll implement a more aggressive response to global warming?

I'm proud of our region and bullish on our prospects, for a bunch of good and well-considered reasons.

But there's one not-so-good reason that I want to mention. In the grand scheme of things, it's trivial. Still, it's illustrative of what's possible on a much broader scale and of one of the key dilemmas we face.

Wow. Just wow.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that Washington was the West Coast's weakest link when it comes to climate policy. Since then, the Evergreen state has stepped up with the outline of a plan to put a sizeable dent in emissions. (That's in addition to some small-caliber but near-term policies). This was such great news that I was tempted to change my handicapping.

But then I read the papers yesterday...

• The Vancouver Sun reported that British Columbia's right-of-center premier has plans to develop a climate policy that may be explicitly modeled on California's, the most aggressive in North America.
• The Oregonian reported that the governor said he wants his legacy to be defined by making Oregon the clean energy capitol of the nation.
• And the Seattle Times editorialized in praise of Washington's go-slow approach to climate policy that will "study new options for at least a year." The piece also warns against forbidding giant new coal plants, and offers helpful bromides like: "Legislation and public policy have to mature along with climate science and our understanding of the threat." Oy.

On the one hand, I want to give a major shout out to Washington's leaders who are serious about big emissions reductions.

On the other hand, I just want to shout. It's important to get things right, but Washington does not need a road map to devise a framework for task force recommendations to be implemented by a study group with the guidance of a stakeholder action plan that may eventually do something about greenhouse gases.

We need action now. We need our leadership to stake out a clearer commitment to cap and trade in the near future.

And we need to catch up with our neighbors.

Sunday's Oregonian had a terrific editorial, calling on state leaders to fix Measure 37. It really nailed the fact that the measure is less about land use than it is about fracturing communities:

...Oregonians wonder what their state will become. Meanwhile, they hate the way the law has twisted neighbors and friends against each other. "On the way home from the last (legislative) hearing I felt very sad, like shedding tears for Oregon," farmer Jim Gilbert said Friday in an e-mail. "Here we are in this big mess, with neighbor attacking neighbor, and the social contract we all lived by for the past 35 years, broken."

The editorial also gave props to Sightline:

...it's impossible to say for certain that Oregonians have changed their minds about Measure 37. The only way to find out for sure is to put a new version of the law on the ballot. And, this time, call it by the nickname Sightline Institute used recently: The Bad Neighbor Law.

Last fall, Oregon's Measure 37 became the horror story that helped defeat similar ballot proposals in Washington, Idaho and California. Thankfully, those states learned from our misery. With any luck, there's still time for us to learn from it, too.

Not to brag, but it's Friday afternoon and I just feel compelled to share the joy of living in a place where I can reach most everything I want on foot or on bike.

At 8:30 this morning I walked 15 minutes from my apartment on Capitol Hill to Downtown Seattle where I work. Mid-day I jumped on my bicycle (I left it here last night) and cycled 20 minutes to a lunch-time pick up soccer game in the Queen Anne neighborhood. After the game, I stopped by my father's house for a cup of soup and a quick rinse. I was back downtown 10 minutes later. (My whole day's route is highlighted in red on the map.)

By 6:15 tonight, when I get home, I’ll have put in seven and half hours on the job, gotten plenty of exercise, and spent time with my family. Needless to say, it feels great to have my life close at hand. I'm not sure yet what I'm doing tonight, but perhaps I’ll head out to one of the 483 restaurants within one mile of my house. Or maybe I'll just stay home.

Yesterday, Sightline released a new, expanded report telling the stories of seven communities affected by Measure 37.

Here is another of the stories...

Protection. Farmer Ted Warrick knows that his wine grapes need protection to be good enough to craft the pinot noir, chardonnay, zinfandel, syrah, and eight other varietals he makes at Wooldridge Creek Winery and Vineyards. Proud of southern Oregon’s fertile Applegate Valley, Warrick insists that this area rivals California for wine-grape growing: the rich soil and fair weather conditions that produce near perfect pH levels, sugar, and acidity make for world-class wines. Even so, keeping his grapes out of harm’s way is paramount.

So, since the mid-1970s, Warrick has been protecting his southern Oregon grapes as best he can. His methods are both creative and diligent. At night, playing talk radio keeps hungry bears away. During the day, he sprays organic sulfur to give the grapes a coating that protects them from fungus. He sometimes fires air cannons to deter hungry birds. And over the years, he’s protected the crop’s viability with a solid marketing plan: Ninety-eight percent of the wine is nearly guaranteed to sell, thanks to his thousand-member wine club and an accessible tasting room at the farm.

But he can’t protect the grapes from Measure 37.

If given the chance, Oregonians would reject Measure 37 if it appeared on the ballot today. In 2004, the measure passed with 61 percent of the vote in Oregon. But feelings have changed significantly in two years. This, according to a telephone survey of 500 Oregon voters conducted by Moore Information, January 23-24, 2007:

• 52% of respondents said they would vote against the measure if they could vote again today
• 37% said they would support it

An even bigger majority – nearly two thirds of Oregon voters (61%) – said they want the legislature to either fix or completely repeal Measure 37.

Only 31% of voters want the legislature to “keep its hands off” of the measure.

Moore Information is an opinion research firm based in Portland and best known for its work with Republican candidates in the region. The survey was conducted for multiple clients, including 1000 Friends of Oregon.

The findings bode well for a burgeoning number of citizens who would like to see the Oregon legislature do something about the issue.