Daily Score Blog

This is curious. Washington state initiative-mogul Tim Eyman is known for writing ballot measures that appeal to eastern Washington residents, but give western Washingtonians -- particularly in greater Seattle -- a sharp poke in the eye.

This election season, though, Eyman has thrown his usual tactics into reverse.  His new ballot measure, called Initiative 985 (or I-985 to the...er...initiated), is ostensibly targeted at a problem that's mostly focused in greater Seattle:  traffic congestion.  And the solution Mr. Eyman proposes is to suck tax revenues from all over the state, put the money into a special traffic account -- and spend most of the cash on transportation projects in greater Seattle, leaving almost nothing for his political base east of the Cascades.

Huh?

I was puzzled enough by all this that I dug into the numbers a bit, just to make sure.  Could he really be alienating his traditional supporters so badly?

Well, at this point, my best guess -- well, at this point it's more than a guess, it's a near certainty -- is that, yes, I-985 does in fact shift large amounts of money from Eastern Washington to the Seattle area. 

We looked in detail at the flow of revenue into I-985's transportation fund, the required spending under the initiative, and the regional concentration of the congestion problems to which I-985 is directed. And whatever Mr. Eyman might hope or claim, I-985 would wind up shifting about $180 million in revenues from the rest of the state into greater Seattle.   Over 5 years, we expect that the average family of four outside of the Seattle area will ship about $229 in tax dollars to pay for Seattle-area road projects.

See the full report, with citations and methods, here.

So if Mr. Eyman has his way, folks from Spokane, Walla Walla, Vancouver, the Tri-Cities, and rural areas and small towns all across the state will foot the bill for increased transportation spending in the central Puget Sound.  And weirdly, it looks to me that even Pierce County loses out in I-985; the Tacoma area has fewer HOV lanes and less congestion than its neighbors to the north, so Pierce County residents would probably wind up shipping some money northwards.

Here's how it all works...

Like everyone else watching the stock market, I'm having that scary weightless feeling. It's the same feeling I had when, as a kid, I took a dare to jump off a 55-foot cliff into Lake Chelan. Uh-oh, it's a long way down.

If there was ever a day to watch the market, it was today. (And tomorrow too, probably). But something always grates on me. We obsess over the volatilities of the stock market while essentially ignoring the basics of the "real" economy -- the one that people live in.

What are arguably the most important economic indicators are almost always overlooked. Here's a look at US median income. It's probably the single best indicator of the health of the American middle class.

As you can see, things haven't changed much since 1998. Sometime during the mid- or late-90s, the middle class hit a permanent plateau. To be sure, total wealth skyrocketed during this period. GDP went gangbusters. But all that new money managed to bypass the middle class.

And here's a look at the US poverty rate.

People often ask me, “Is your family still car-less?”

I myself am still car-less, but the family has changed. Amy and I have separated, undone our vows, and revised our coupledom into a parenting partnership. The divorce paperwork is underway.

Don’t worry: I’m not going to regale you with the emotional tale. This isn’t that kind of blog.

Instead, I’m going to do what the Daily Score does best: wonk out. In this case, about the carbon footprint of divorce. (No kidding.)

Converting the Pacific Northwest over the next few decades to a place of compact, walkable communities that run on superefficient, renewable energy system—a climate-safe economy—will be a lot of work: paid work. But for all the exciting announcements of solar jobs and green-tech investment that pepper the newspapers, the skill sets of today’s workers are not yet aligned with the needs of this future.

Of course, riding a real bike rather than driving a car saves much more energy than riding a stationary bike attached to a generator, said Clark Williams-Derry, research director for the Sightline Institute, an environmental research center in Seattle. Nonetheless, Mr. Williams-Derry said, the human power initiatives “show the kind of ingenuity that we’re capable of, and a comprehensive, smart climate policy would unleash lots of similar efforts.”

I have to admit that we were more than a little amused that Clark, of all people, found his way into the Fashion and Style section of the paper. Does this mean wonkiness is the new black?

Coming next week: Sightline on the cover of Vogue.

I just can't help wondering what else we could do with $700 billion.

According to the United Nations, the entire debt for the entire continent of Africa was about $320 billion in 2003. Adjusting for inflation and further accumulated debt, let's call it an even $350 billion.

You could install solar panels on 20 million American homes for $300 billion. (I'm ballparking a rather conservative $15k for full installation of enough solar infrastructure to fully power an average American house; the price would surely come down drastically at that scale.) By the way, 20 million houses is more than one-quarter of the entire stock of occupied detached houses in the U.S.

Of course, the solar panels would actually pay for themselves pretty quickly. Under this plan, lucky homeowners (or renters) would then pay nothing for their new solar electricity -- we just footed the entire bill. It might be nice to target low-income folks, who generally inhabit the least efficient buildings. Even better, because the sunniest parts of the US are also, generally speaking, some of the most coal-dependent we'd shut down coal plants across the Sun Belt. So it's a huge win for global warming to boot.

That still leaves $50 billion lying around under the couch cushions.

We could install ground source heat pumps for 5 million American homes for $50 billion. (I'm ballparking a mildly conservative $10k for enough GSP installation to fully heat an average house.) Again, this would also pay for itself pretty fast. Plus, lucky low-income folks in the colder climates would be looking at a lifetime of carbon-free (and money-free) heat for their homes. One good place to start would be in places like the northeast where expensive and inefficient oil heating is common.

Pretty sweet. I just retired every cent of Africa's crushing debt. Then using conservative estimates, I provided an eternal supply of free electricity or heat to 25 million households -- thereby drastically reducing US carbon emissions.

Alternatively, some credible analysts have suggested that paying the full cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the entire world would run $716 billion. (I should mention that other credible estimates are much, much lower.) And this figure doesn't count the tremendous savings from avoiding the potential costs of climate change impacts -- estimated at trillions of dollars just for the U.S.

Seattle's perenially contentious Alaska Way Viaduct is making headlines again.

First, the annual city sustainability rankings by SustainLane includes a prominent piece on the viaduct. It also has some good perspective from gadfly Cary Moon:

“They told us, ‘You can’t fight the highway department,’” says Moon.

But Moon is doing just that—and says she’s got the power of facts on her side.

First off, she says, highway I-5 runs parallel to the viaduct. Does Seattle really need two highways running side-by-side?

And not only that: the viaduct isn’t really used like a highway—most car trips on the roadway are in-city trips where drivers use the viaduct as a shortcut around downtown. Well-designed city streets could serve that same purpose.

If the viaduct is eventually replaced with something more human-oriented, then perhaps Seattle (#3) can overtake Portland (#1, yet again).

Second, the Congress for a New Urbanism ranks the urban freeways that are most in need of a giant delete key. Seattle's viaduct is number one.

Interestingly, the viaduct is the only highway west of the Mississippi to make an appearance on the list.

And finally -- just when you thought the highway era was drawing to a conclusion -- there's another rebuild proposal...

A new poll by AARP finds that many Americans ages 50 and older are driving less as a result of high gas prices. But getting around isn't always easy - inadequate sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as insufficient public transportation options are obstacles to older Americans saving money by leaving their car at home.

• Almost one of every three people 50 and over (29 percent) say they are now walking as a way to avoid high gas prices.
  
  
• But as those people set out to walk, almost 40 percent of the 50+ population say they do not have adequate sidewalks in their neighborhoods.
  
  
• Additionally, 44 percent say they do not have nearby public transportation that is accessible.
  
  
• Almost half (47 percent) of poll responders say they cannot cross the main roads safely (this is crucial: 4 in 10 pedestrian fatalities are over the age of 50.)

Update: We now have all of Sightline's Western Climate Initiative work compiled in one handy page.

The Western Climate Initiative -- North America's biggest cap-and-trade system -- just released its final proposal: here.

This is historic stuff. The proposal leaves room for improvement -- I'll get to that in a minute -- but let's take note of where we are. This will be the first major climate policy to tackle all the principle sources of climate pollution. And it's by far the biggest cap-and-trade system proposed in North America. It's a giant step forward.

With 85 million people spread out across 7 states and 4 provinces, WCI all by itself represents nearly three-quarters of Canada's economy and a fifth of the American economy. (And in combination with states that are participating in other cap-and-trade programs, more than half of North America's population and economy are in cap-and-trade jurisdictions.)

The WCI also brings together a very diverse group of players. There's a big difference between Quebec and California, New Mexico and British Columbia. And the proposal WCI brings forward today represents ground rules -- a common foundation that everyone can agree to. Today's proposal is not a ceiling. Individual states and provinces can do better -- and they will

Here in the Northwest, Washington Governor Gregoire and Oregon Governor Kulongoski have both demonstrated tremendous leadership on climate protection over the last few years. (So has British Columbia premier Campbell, on whom I've heaped praise in the past.) So there is every reason to believe that leaders in the Northwest will springboard from WCI's recommendations to design a program that is effective and fair -- and that makes sense for the Northwest.

In the end, we'll benefit from joining other forward-looking states and provinces in a big program, even as we craft a local solution.

Now. None of this is say the proposal is perfect. To be frank, WCI's position is not what we hoped for. It leaves unanswered some large questions about fairness. And in the early years it doesn't go far enough -- or quickly enough -- to capture all the major sources of carbon. These are the sorts of things that local leadership will address.

***

Cool update, 11:00 a.m.: Just as I expected, Northwest leaders are stepping up to make WCI fair and effective. Here's Oregon's Governor Kulongoski:

I will work with the state legislature, stakeholders and other jurisdictions to expand the scope of auctions because the ten percent minimum is just that – a minimum – and I believe we can achieve a balanced program that meets both our environmental and economic goals. 

***

How does cap and trade work? Check out Sightline's brand new Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer.

What exactly does WCI's new proposal say? If you want to read the 122 page document you can find it here. Otherwise, I hit the highlights below the jump...

I have nothing to add to Matthew Yglesias' point:

Why not tie this bailout to something like the second stimulus package of enhanced food stamps, extended unemployment insurance, and enhanced aid to state governments straining under the yoke of Medicaid payments?

It’d be absurd for the government to be moving hundreds of billions of dollars around amidst an economic crisis while doing nothing for, say, janitors who get laid off from Lehman Brothers. The problems to worry about here are in the “real” economy. Propping up the financial sector can help accomplish that, but we also need to prop up normal people trying to pay the bills and weather the storm.

Right.

Relatedly, via Atrios, the sort of poll numbers one just doesn't see. According to the latest numbers from American Research Group, Inc., exactly 0 percent of Americans think the economy is getting better. Yes, 0 percent. (Eighty-two percent think it's getting worse. Everyone else either isn't sure or thinks it's staying the same.)

This concerns me.

Some people wonder why I'm harping on Oregon's Measure 63 (see here, here, and here). Is something as minor as eliminating building permits for improvements under $35,000 really worth worrying about?

Well, yeah, I think it is. But not so much because of the policy outcome, but because of the larger principle at stake. Measure 63 masquerades as a minor irritant, but it's really of a piece with a much more dangerous and radical ideology. Think I'm exagerating? Here's the beginning of the very first sentence of the text:

Whereas a property owner should not be required to obtain the approval of government to make improvements to his or her property...

Wow. 

Think about that for a second. That's an incredibly sweeping statement. And it would knock out pretty much every protection that property owners rely on. Without the government's "approval" you could build an airport in a residential neighborhood, sex offender housing next to a school, a nuclear waste dump next to a maternity ward... and on and on.

Sure, I'm being a little facetious (but only a little).

Here's the deal: property laws are fundamental to our way of life and they're critically important. And they're just common sense. Without them, property owners would be exposed to massive risk -- not only financial risk, but also in terms of basic health and security.

That's not to say that each and every property law is smart and well executed. Some need fixing! But Meaure 63's anarchist approach is the property law equivalent of finding out that one cop is corrupt and so disbanding the entire police force -- and maybe the fire department to boot.

Snarky-ness aside, the poll shows that depressed moods are at their highest rate so far this year:

“The percentage of Americans experiencing a lot of happiness/enjoyment without a lot of stress/worry hit a new low for the year on Monday at 39%. The depressed mood coincides with the beginning of the turmoil on Wall Street and in the financial markets that began to unfold in the major news media on Sunday and Monday.”

Also check out our previous writing on happiness.

Hot off the presses comes Sightline's new report: Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer.

I know it's hard to believe, but the primer is even more exciting than it sounds. Seriously.

Inside, you'll find a friendly, yet comprehensive, look at "cap and trade" -- the leading stategy to tackle global warming and take control of our energy future.

• How does cap and trade work?
• What does a good system look like? 
• How do we make sure it's fair for everyone?
• What about offsets?
• Why not use a carbon tax?
• What's the rest of the world doing?

All this and more. So much more.

Go check it out. Here's the pdf: Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer.

"Drill, baby, drill" is kind of fun to chant, I suppose, but does it really make any sense? Bruce Ramsey seems to think so.

His Seattle Times column today so exemplifies the tortured logic behind drilling that I want to spend a few minutes refuting it. Not to pick on Ramsey, but to point out what's wrong with the idea.

 Early on in the piece Ramsey allows this:

It is said, for example, that drilling won't produce enough oil to give Americans energy independence, or to arrest the decline in U.S. production, or to produce any new oil for several years. All of which are probably true.

Wait, what? That's all true? To his credit, Ramsey's trying to take a clear-eyed approach to problem. He's being honest.

So let's get this straight: even drilling supporters agree that it won't provide energy independence, meaningfully improve our production, or even give us any at all energy for "several" years (aka "many" years).

I don't know about you, but those seem like pretty big strikes to me. Especially in light of these two facts:

• The Pacific Northwest is hemorraghing $61 million each day on oil and gas. Every penny of that leaves the region to pay for what Ramsey later admits is an addiction.
• "North Pole Ever Closer To Having No Ice" -- that's a headline in Ramsey's cross-town newspaper rival, the P-I. And it's no joke. Fossil fuel combustion is fundamentally -- and quickly -- changing the very nature of the earth.

Just so everyone's perfectly clear, the reason not to drill is because it prolongs our addiction to oil. And that addiction is 1) bankrupting us; and 2) destroying the planet.

Apart from that, more drilling is a fine idea.