Daily Score Blog

It's almost trail season again. For semi-compulsive folks like me that means it's time to start nailing down plans for summits and other backcountry fun. And it's also time to start feeling just a smidge guilty about what is surely my personal largest source of carbon emissions: driving to trailheads.

So on Saturday when I finally laced up the hiking boots again after an unusually slothful winter, I chose to slog my way up West Tiger Mountain 1 and 2, partly because those destinations can be reached by driving fewer than two dozen miles from home. (Tangent: wow, there's a lot of snow out there.) But then today, as I was starting to feel pretty good about myself, I got an email from Andrew Engleson, the editor of Washington Trails Magazine, who one-upped me by biking from Seattle to the trailhead at Cougar Mountain, and then biking back home. Read about it here.

Andrew's adventure reminded me of a site I've been meaning to blog about: Hike Metro. It's a very cool smattering of hiking ideas, complete with instructions, about how to get to trailheads on bus fare. By necessity, of course, most of the listed hikes are relatively near cities, but there are a few far flung locales too.

It also reminded me that I've long wanted to ask folks about how they get to trailheads without that little lingering guilt. I carpool whenever possible, of course, and I drive a fairly fuel efficient car, even on roads that it's probably not designed for. But to be completely honest, I'm not going to cut back my hiking, skiing, or climbing. So what should I do?

And what about folks in British Columbia and Oregon? Are there ways to hike by bus -- or even by bike -- in those parts of the Northwest too?

Update 4/15: Adding that, somewhat counterintuitively, busing it may not always be the most carbon-efficient way to reach the trailhead (because when the seats are full, cars are pretty darn efficient per passenger-mile). It is, however, a good choice for those who choose to live carless, which is itself highly carbon efficient.

Matthew Yglesias nails the subject of climate fairness. I loved the post so much I'm quoting the entire thing here:

Given that coal and oil companies aren't run by idiots, it's clear that they're not going to make arguments of the form "we shouldn't act to ward off preventable environmental disaster because that would be bad for our shareholders and executives." Instead, polluting energy firms are going to ride on to the scene as apostles of class warfare, condemning carbon pricing, congestion fees, energy efficiency mandates, and everything else under the sun as an undue burden on the poor.

As readers know, I think that argument is often factual off-base. But at other times it has some real truth to it. If you make energy more expensive to use, this will inconvenience everyone to some extent, but it'll be much less of a problem for more prosperous people. But what this analysis leaves out is that the price of inaction will also fall hardest on people of modest means. If changing weather patterns make food more expensive, then burden falls hardest on the poor. If natural disasters destroy people's homes, then it'll be hardest for the poor to rebuild. If water shortages lead to scarcity and black markets, it's the rich who'll be able to get what they need. This is the general virtue of having a lot of money -- it can be exchanged for tangible items of value. Consequently, the downside impact of any widespread change will be hardest on those who have little of it. But that's not a reason to never change our policies if the status quo is going to lead to even worse outcomes. You're not ultimately doing the poor any good by condemning them to live in a world of climate catastrophe.

I only wish he'd added that it's entirely possible to price climate emissions and still solve all of the regresivity the problems of higher energy prices; it's even possible to improve upon current income distribution.

It goes like this: 1) cap carbon, 2) auction the permits, and 3) rebate all the revenue on a per capita basis. The bottom two income quintiles come out substantially ahead; the third quintile also does better, but just slightly; the fourth quintile does slightly worse; and the wealthiest income quintile takes a small hit. Problem solved.

Done.