Daily Score Blog

A while ago we bashed a new Washington State policy to apply car-rental taxes to car-share vehicles. We said it was "like taxing penicillin during an epidemic" because car-sharing benefits everyone, not just those who car-share (fewer cars, fewer collisions, less congestion, etc.)

And that's why everyone should be paying attention to the latest on this issue. A bill exempting car-sharing companies from car-rental taxes is before the Washington State legislature, and the House Finance Committee just heard testimony.

The Seattle Times summed up the rationale for the exemption.

Car-sharing firms and car-rental companies are very different. Zipcar members usually are residents already paying local taxes and who rent vehicles for a matter of hours. Rental-car customers tend to be out-of-towners who rent for days. . . .

Car-sharing helps people live without cars by providing them access to one when they need it. That means fewer cars and less carbon emission.

The state has set an ambitious goal of dramatically reducing  greenhouse gas emissions. Why would we tax one of the most cost-effective methods of working towards that goal?

Oh, cut it out, would you?

The City of Nanaimo [British Columbia] will reduce greenhouse gases and vehicle congestion by improving a busy stretch of road...New traffic lights, widened traffic lanes and improved access to the Swy-a-lana Lagoon Park... will improve traffic flow and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from idling vehicles.

So says the government of BC, propagating a silly urban legend as if it were fact.

I don't mean to be grumpy...no, forget that, I do mean to be grumpy.  This is just rubbish.  It's similar to the argument that adding lanes to a crowded highway will reduce emissions -- and for a detailed analysis of that myth, go here.

But you don't even need a detailed analysis.  I mean, think about it for a second -- is it really plausible that the key to a climate-friendly transportation system is to build wider, faster roads?  Can people really say that with a straight face?  Really?

Unfortunately, people do say it, all the time.  I think it's a form of selective reasoning:  people hate traffic congestion so much that they're willing to believe anything good about congestion relief.  But, unfortunately, it's the rare instance that widening a road brings both congestion relief AND climate relief.  More typically, wider, faster roads leads to extra driving.  And the climate impacts of extra driving, combined with the impacts of construction itself, absolutely dwarf the modest fuel savings from congestion relief. 

So sure, widening a busy stretch of highway might save a bit of fuel over the short term.  But over the course of a few decades, wider roads become a climate menace. Luckily, The Tyee has their number on this one. You go, Tyee!

By now, I think most people understand that organic food is supposed to be healthier for you.  But I think there are still some people who feel that the health benefits are a bunch of marketing hype.

Well, this new study suggests that it isn't just hype -- organic food really does reduce kids' exposure to some potentially risky pesticides. From the Seattle P-I:

The peer-reviewed study found that the urine and saliva of children eating a variety of conventional foods from area groceries contained biological markers of organophosphates, the family of pesticides spawned by the creation of nerve gas agents in World War II.

When the same children ate organic fruits, vegetables and juices, signs of pesticides were not found.

The interesting thing to me was that, after just 5 days of going all-organic, the organophosphate pesticide markers virtually disappeared from kids' urine.  That's a pretty remarkable result, and enough that it led the scientists -- normally a restrained bunch -- to state:

[W]e were able to demonstrate that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural production.  [emphasis added]

All the more reason to spring for the organic apples.

And in other toxics news:  make sure you don't use boiling water to sterilize your polycarbonate bottles!  Apparently, heat can make your bottles leach chemical yuckos (actual scientific term!) into your water.  Consider yourself warned.

Climate change is regressive by nature, but solutions don't have to be. A fair cap-and-trade system can be progressive, broadly sharing both the burdens and the potential benefits of preventing climate disruption. We have an enormous opportunity to get climate policy right -- and we know how it can be done.

In fact, smart policy is our opportunity to fight climate change and minimize economic injustice. This is the single most important economic fairness issue facing Cascadia right now: more important than reforming payday lending, more important even than reforming health insurance. It’s what every advocate for economic opportunity should be losing sleep over -- but then jumping out of bed to help shape the solution.

Something cool is afoot this week. Eban Goodstein an environmental economics professor from Oregon's Lewis & Clark College has organized the largest "teach-in" - maybe ever.

On Thursday, more than 1,500 U.S. institutions -- mostly colleges, universities and high schools, but also churches and civic groups -- will host events that bring students, faculty and other citizens together with elected leaders to discuss not just global warming, but climate solutions.

What's especially encouraging about this is that Goodstein is thinking big. He's realistic about the problem but optimistic about the opportunities involved with smart policy solutions. Small stuff: Better light bulbs and hybrid cars, Goodstein told the Oregonian, aren't going to prevent global warming from causing irreversible, worldwide damage. The United States must create the tools that today's students soon will need to "rewire the entire planet with low-cost, clean energy technologies, create tens of millions of jobs, stabilize the climate, and lay the foundation for a prosperous, sustainable future."

Exactly. And it's exciting to see young people mobilize around this sense of challenge and promise and see them engaging in a dynamic conversation about solutions and action.

The Oregonian has a great profile of Goodstein and the nation-wide event.

Find out more about Focus the Nation here and the teach-in here.

For Northwest audiences:

• Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels will take part in a University of Washington town hall.
  
• Gov. Ted Kulongoski and U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., will headline a forum at the University of Portland.
• Info for Tacoma, WA here.
• Portland State.
• Boise State.
• University of Montana.
  
• Bellingham, WA.
• Anchorage, AK.
  

Here are highlights from a statewide survey released this week on attitudes among Washingtonian voters about climate change legislation:

• Washington voters overwhelmingly support legislative action to reduce global warming pollution: nearly seven in 10 voters endorse the idea of requiring businesses and utilities to reduce their output of global warming pollution.
  
• Eight out of 10 voters support the idea of establishing programs to train people for green jobs in renewable energy and conservation.
  
• On the issue of climate change, there are no clear regional biases; at least six in 10 voters in every region of the state say they favor moving forward on legislative solutions to global warming.
  
• Washington voters agree that climate change is a serious issue and they support taking action to combat global warming.
  

The poll was conducted by Grove Insight and commissioned by Washington Conservation Voters, Washington Environmental Council and Climate Solutions.

Of the findings, pollster Lisa Grove of Grove Insight said, "The message from the people of Washington on climate change is clear. They want their elected officials in the state to lead on this issue and take action on global warming."

The analysis is based on 588 interviews among likely 2008 general election voters in Washington. An oversample of n=188 voters living in targeted legislative districts was conducted. The targeted districts included: 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 41, 44, 45, 47 and 48. The survey was conducted November 9-12, 2007. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence. The margin of error for subgroups varies and is higher.

Capitalism's veritable poster-child, Bill Gates (is he still the number one richest person in the world?), said today that we need to refine the free-market system.

"Free-market forces have failed the world's poor," he said.

He was addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland - an audience that's done well by free-market forces just as they are.

But Gates is calling for something new: "creative capitalism -- pushing beyond profit goals to more compassionate ones.

He admits that his company, Microsoft, hasn't always been about charity, but his own philanthropic work has taken him to places in the world where he's been faced with the brutal realities of poverty, places that have been bypassed while others thrive.

How would he do it? He offered a couple options:

In my line of work one sometimes hears strange things. These include allegations that leaf blowers or pet manure should be high priority targets for reducing climate emissions. I'm in a myth-busting mood today, so I am happy to report that leaf blowers don't really rate.

In the US, the emissions from all leaf blowers, both residential and commercial, for all of 2008 will be roughly equivalent to the emissions from driving that occurred between the arrival of the new year and 11:00 a.m. on January 1.

Add to that the entire year's worth of snowblowers, and you can equal the driving emissions up until 1:30 p.m. on the first.

Add in all lawn mowers, both residential and commerical, including the big riding and tractor-type units. Add in rototillers and other turf maintenance equipment. Add chainsaws, chippers, stump grinders, and shredders. Now add trimmers, edgers, brush cutters, and any other garden tool you can think of. The combined emissions from all of that racket-making equipment, for the entire year, is roughly equal to the driving that occurred before afternoon rush hour on January 6.

Of course, that's not really the whole story.

Climate change is a universal menace, threatening hardships for everyone. But it’s not an egalitarian menace: everyone will not suffer equally. Perversely, those people and nations least to blame for causing it are most vulnerable to its impacts.

Climate disruption heaps misfortune on the less fortunate, whether in low-lying Bangladesh, the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, or the flood plains around Chehalis, Washington. In climate change, the less you have, the more you’re likely to lose.

The European Union unveiled a road-map to a low-carbon future today. It effectively positions the bloc at the vanguard of global efforts on climate change.

The aim is to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent, boost renewable energy - including steep increases in solar and wind power generation - to 20 percent of supply, and improve energy efficiency by 20 percent - all by 2020. (It's being called "Triple-20"). Part of the new plan is to fortify Europe's existing cap-and-trade system with more auctioned permits (giveaways in the original scheme led to windfall profits for polluters and minimal emissions reductions).

The broader objective is to demonstrate to the world that jobs and growth are not dependent on carbon.

Europe is leading on this too: Acknowledging that the longer-term benefits of a low-carbon economy would be enormous.

As EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso put it, "Europe can be the first economy for the low-carbon age. There is a cost, but it is manageable. To the European Parliament, which will vote on the plans shortly, he made the brilliant point that "every day the price of oil and gas goes up, the real cost of the package falls."

Unless you live under a rock, you've probably heard something about the global stock market meltdown, caused in part by fears that the US economy is heading toward a recession.

Unfortunately for the middle class, incomes never did recover from the last recession. Sure, GDP grew; and even the Dow Jones has added value recently. But ordinary folks still haven't recovered to 1999 levels.

After peaking in 2000, things got worse for a few years until they hit a low point in 2004. In the following two years, average households added income, though they never regained what they had in the late 1990s.

It's not clear whether or not we'll see a recession soon -- or how severe it will be -- but whatever happens, the next few years are not likely to be wine and roses for the middle class. That red line could easily taper off downward again.

There's a pretty interesting comparison with high income households.

I find this both wildly perverse and perversely intriguing:

Ecological economist Robert Costanza... and his team of researchers have already released one study claiming to have commoditized the world’s biosphere. The total value: $33 trillion...

There's a big part of me -- the mountain-climbing, Edward Abbey-reading part -- that finds this simply appalling. The natural world is so astonishing and beautiful that I can't stomach the thought of putting a monetary value on it. Then there's the other part of me -- the pragmatic, Sightline-researcher part -- that tells me that we already put a monetary value on nature. We just don't do it systematically; and we often to do it in order to exploit rather than conserve.

Even though $33 trillion is more than the combined world GDP, and even though the researchers believe the estimate to be conservative, there's still something dissonant about putting a price on what feels priceless. Or, is it really the best way we have to quantify, and therefore protect, natural systems? After all, prices have a way of clarifying in a way that few things can.

Costanza will be speaking in Seattle next Wednesday. I doubt I'll be able to make it, but I'd love to hear what people think.

Update 1/18: This was probably one of the dumber posts I've written. I've been regretting it ever since I hit "publish," but I'm going to leave it up anyway in order to take one more crack at explaining what I was trying to do. Here goes:

Climate change has dire consequences. It affects humans, ecosystems and economies in alarming ways. But there are some ways of describing the problem that simply don't sound scary. One example of that is "trees are blooming earlier" -- it sounds nice. I was trying to suggest that if you have a choice between talking about wearing sandals more often or about unhealthful heatwaves, maybe you should go with the heatwaves. I didn't do a very good job of getting that across.

In any case, to go beyond my post, a huge amount of opinion research shows that talking about the consequences of climate change is ineffective. It paralyzes and overwhelms people. Instead, it's better to talk about solutions.

***

Says a leading presidential candidate:*

As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct. [my emphasis]

The trees are blooming earlier? Panic!

I mean, I spend most of my waking hours thinking about climate policy, but "the trees are blooming earlier" sounds about as alarming as Christmas being held twice a year, or bunnies getting fuzzier.

Whatever we do, we must stop the trees from blooming earlier!

This is one of those days when it feels like things are changing fast. Here are two stories that caught my attention:

1) A panel organized by Congress -- the melodically-named National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission -- just called for higher federal gas taxes. In fact, they recommend a 40-cent per gallon hike. 

It sounds like the tax would go mainly to repair and maintain current road infrastructure rather than road expansion. The panel also recommended a bevy of other fees, including tolling, congestion pricing, weight fees, and so on. And they recommended big investments in transit and other alternatives too. (Via Erica at Slog.)

2) Meanwhile, British Columbia continues to lead. Not only is the province considering a carbon tax, but the provincial government just released a $14 billion dollar transit plan. That's $14 billion just for transit.

A week or so ago, a fascinating health care study ricocheted around the blogosphere, comparing death rates among 19 industrialized nations--and looking in particular at deaths that could have been prevented with "timely and effective" medical treatment.

Not too surprisingly, the study found that the US was the worst of the lot, with higher rates of medically-preventable deaths, and slower reductions in such deaths, than any other country studied. (No wonder we're one of the developed world's laggards on life expectancy.)

But when I dived into the data a bit, it looks to me as if our leaky health insurance system isn’t the only story behind our comparatively high death rates. In fact, medically preventable deaths aren’t even half the story of why people under 75 die.