Daily Score Blog

A quick refresher on carbon tax shifts: The plan literally shifts taxes, it doesn't add taxes. All revenue generated by the carbon tax in BC are returned to individuals and businesses through reductions in other taxes. But that's not always abundantly evident to consumers when they're standing at the filling station and opening their wallets. That's probably why public support has been moderate at the very least.

on carbon tax shifting:

• Almost half of B.C. residents support the tax (last July, 40 percent expressed support and 56 percent opposed it). Current support for the tax is close to, but not quite fully back to the level achieved in February 2008 soon after the measure was first announced by the BC government (but not yet implemented).
  
  
• When asked how they would feel about the introduction of a B.C.-style carbon tax in their own province, opinions remain divided in every province.
  
  
• Nonetheless, support has increased since last July in every province, most noticeably in Alberta (up 17 points) and Saskatchewan (up 13 points).
  
  
• Across the country, support approaches 50 per cent from the Atlantic provinces to Manitoba, and remains somewhat lower in Saskatchewan (41 percent) and Alberta (44 percent).

The survey was conducted by Environics, by telephone from May 21 to 26 with a representative sample of 2,003 Canadians, including 250 in British Columbia.

For our latest research report, we looked at gasoline consumption data in the Northwest for 2008 and found some significant drops. In fact, total gasoline consumption saw the biggest drop since 1980. It would be easy to attribute this to high gas prices and the economic downturn we experienced last year, but the fact is that this drop actually marks an acceleration of a trend that's been going on in the Northwest for nearly a decade.

That's right. Per capita gasoline consumption has dropped in 8 of the last 9 years. Northwesterners are leading the way as the nation takes steps to get off the volatile fossil fuel roller coaster. So, while price and economic factors play a role, we can also track a decade of smart trends that reduce consumption: several decades of smart growth policies, increased transit use, and improved fuel efficiency are just a few.

And even now that gas prices are a bit lower, early 2009 data indicates that our healthier new habits are sticking. In early 2009, Vehicle Miles Traveled have dropped as well adding some depth to our picture of how folks in the Northwest are taking steps to get off the volatile fossil fuel roller coaster.

What does it mean for local decision-makers? For one, investments in freeway capacity no longer make as much sense as investments in transit, walkable communities, and efficiency.

The full report is available here. Here are some of the key findings:

Oregon lawmakers today are hanging it up for 2009. How'd they do? Folks are celebrating bills to cut the carbon content of fuel in cars and trucks by 10 percent by 2020; requirements to increase energy efficiency in buildings; and prohibiting construction of new coal plants.

A few tears were shed for the failure to pass legislation putting the state on track for meeting greenhouse gas reductions. (For a fuller accounting of the session check out these round ups from the Oregon Conservation Network or the Healthy Climate Partnership, and check out this story in the Oregonian explaining nicely why things went the way it did for conservation-related bills.)

Here's a little more info on three bills making the cut:

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed the House narrowly on Friday. The epic, historic, landmark (insert favorite, happy superlative here) piece of legislation that sets limits on greenhouse gases and invests in renewable energy passed narrowly with a 219 to 212 vote. Even President Barack Obama made last-minute calls to get this thing approved. So how did lawmakers vote in the Cascadia region? 

The tally was an even split for and against--10 to 10, mostly down party lines. But there were a couple of surprises thrown in.

How many of us in this economic climate know someone relying on an unemployment check to pay a mortgage? And how many of them have a solid plan for what happens when that money dries up?

It's not a problem confined to desert towns with staggering unemployment. In Puget Sound's urban corridor, employees have been pink slipped by the tens of thousands. I'd wager that 95 percent of my former colleagues at the Seattle P-I, which closed three months ago, are still surviving on unemployment. It won't make your rich, but it's significant. Enough to pay most mortgages or rent. Enough to cover a month's worth of groceries and bills with some left over. And I'd also guess that many of them could not honestly tell you how they will manage when that money runs out.

 r9te7dczpi

A new book by four public health advocates called Globesity: A Planet Out of Control? was recently reviewed by Grist’s Jonathan Hiskes.  I haven’t read the book but Hiskes’ review got me thinking about how the origins of public health practice and current efforts to address climate change are related.

It might seem like a stretch. But public health was built on the premise that the most effective way to deal with disease and the death it causes is to stop it as close to the source of that disease as possible. Today we call this the “upstream” approach: trying to get to the fewest possible sources of a problem and focusing on them rather than disparate individual behaviors.

As the House of Representatives fine tunes legislation like the American Clean Energy and Security Act, public opinion weighs far less than other pressures. But as our elected officials make perhaps the biggest decision of their careers about the biggest, most sweeping climate and energy legislation ever, it’s worth noting that the American public is calling for "yes" votes – and that’s across party lines.

Washington Post and ABC took the nation’s pulse on this issue last week and here’s what they found:

• Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.
  
  
• 52 percent support a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. (Forty-two percent of those surveyed this month oppose such a program.)
  
  
• 62 percent of those surveyed said they would support regulation even if it raised the price of purchases and 56 percent would back cap and trade if it resulted in a $10 increase in utility costs, 44 percent said they would back a cap-and-trade system if it boosted monthly electricity bills by $25.
  
  
• Despite nay saying about costs to households and negative economic effects of a cap and trade system, 60 percent of Republicans back a cap-and-trade program.
  
  
• Six in 10 Americans favor US action, even if other countries do less to confront climate change.

So, in a nutshell, Americans from both parties favor action. A solid majority is ready for cap and trade (including a sizable majority of Republicans -- 60 percent). We are willing to pay a bit more for energy to make this happen. We're no longer content to use India and China as scapegoats for our own foot dragging. (According to the Post, while partisan divides are dwindling, age matters in voters' position on cap and trade and, understandably, income matters when it comes to the question of cost).

Photo courtesy Vees Blog.

Two new analyses on the economics of Waxman-Markey -- the ever-expanding legislation tackling US greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade program and investments in renewable energy -- conclude that the bill wouldn't break the bank for consumers, and in fact could even save people money. Not bad for a law that would bring sweeping changes to the energy economy and wean the United States off carbon.

On Tuesday the Environmental Protection Agency released its latest analysis (see the June 2009 links). It pencils out the cost of the permits under the cap, the amount of power that will come from clean sources, changing energy prices, and the cost and availability of offsets (paying non-regulated polluters to reduce emissions or for the protection/planting of carbon-consuming forests).

Considering scenarios that include different strategies for meeting energy needs, the EPA concludes that by 2020, average electricity prices might not change at all, or might rise by as much as 17 percent. It goes on to say that in the best-case scenario: 

"Actual household energy expenditures increase by a lesser amount due to reduced demand for energy. In 2020, the average household’s energy expenditures (excluding motor gasoline) decrease by 7 (percent)..."

In the least favorable scenario, household energy spending increases by 8 percent. Overall, the EPA said the average American could pay between $80 to $111 per year if the bill passes.

A study published in the Journal of Urban Economics  uses a model that combines residential density, driving and gasoline consumption that confirms something that most of us already suspect: sprawl means fewer transportation choices, more time sitting in our cars, more of our incomes spent on gas, and less time for other, more important stuff like family and friends.

So, even if it's true that people in areas that are sprawling really do tend to roll in bigger, less fuel efficient rides, it’s not just about personal choices (good or bad). More sprawl means more driving and more gasoline use and when school, the grocery store and work are miles away from each other the only sensible thing to do is drive. Unfortunately, short of where we live, many “choices” are made for us by the built environment.

One in which geothermal energy is heating greenhouses that help produce a pesticide-free application for strawberry patches, almond orchards and mint fields. The same hot water helps brew beer, raise tropical fish, melt snow off downtown sidewalks and sell homes in Klamath Falls' Hot Springs neighborhood. And renewable energy is just one plank of a plan to help right the rural area's economy by focusing on more sustainable business lines.

I don't know what Kool-Aid the region's newsrooms were serving this weekend, because it was one of several stories that reexamined iconic Northwest conflicts -- the timber wars and salmon recovery -- and found pretty constructive solutions.

That's not to suggest there hasn't been plenty of real fight to write about. And I'm no fan of self-serving "good news" stories pitched to make someone look good or mask actual problems. But as a journalist, it's also possible to get so bored with old narratives that you fail to see how the world has moved beyond them in interesting ways.

The Oregonian story isn't exactly a good news story anyway. It's about a place where unemployment hit 15 percent. Sure, there's a little positive spin about the "Sustainable Klamath" brand. But the story manages to offer a real - and surprising - portrait of a community that's thinking about its future and making investments so history doesn't repeat itself.

Check out the rest of the Northwest's top 10 sustainability headlines at Sightline Daily, or get the news delivered via email each morning by clicking here. All of today's news can be found here.

The intuitive view of most people might be that building green is going to be vastly more expensive and complex than building to the most basic standards required by local code. It follows that we assume affordable housing probably isn’t going to be green. But a recent article in the Communities and Banking magazine published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (FSB) this spring busts the myth that affordable housing and green housing are opposite and mutually exclusive concepts.

The myth doesn’t hold up locally either. We’ve looked at a study of green housing and the energy savings it creates for residents of the Seattle Housing Authority. And in Portland the Housing Authority built its first HOPE VI project green as well. We’ve also looked at the study of housing and health  where there is growing evidence that along with materials the location of housing can have an effect on resident’s health – and health care costs. And we’ve considered the savings that building green can create for schools and their communities.

Peter Steinbrueck former Seattle city councilmember and Sightline board member Gordon Price got together for a lively debate last night in Seattle’s downtown library. The question: whose home town was the greatest city – Seattle or Vancouver, BC.  The premise, however, was that each advocate had to argue for the other guy’s hometown. 

Steinbrueck launched his argument noting the fact that Vancouver had accessible and safe bathrooms in public places. Seattle has had a struggle with this issue and just recently scrubbed an effort to put more pay toilets in high traffic areas. It’s a great point. How can a city be vibrant if people are concerned about what they are going to do if one of them has to “go,” especially families with children?

A recent piece in the New York Times’ Home and Garden section featured the growing eco-consulting industry—entrepreneurs who give up-close and personal advice to people about how to live their lives more sustainably. The writer questions whether or not the small stuff adds up to real impacts. In fact, she reminds us that the biggest impacts are much farther “upstream”:

There is also debate about whether individual action matters at all, with some experts noting that the most effective greening people can do is in the voting booth. No individual action could compare, for instance, to the emissions avoided if the government found a way to replace coal with other technologies to reduce dependence on fossil fuels

We all know that the devil's in the details when it comes to legislation and the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a.k.a. Waxman-Markey, is no exception. This 900-plus page proposal tackling climate change and clean energy is chock full of such fiendish facets.

We at Sightline Institute carefully studied the climate portion of the ambitious bill from Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts and prepared our new-and-improved Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer to take a close look at what the bill proposes.

The primer will run you through the basic concepts of capping emissions and issuing tradable, carbon-pollution permits; it explains in (relatively) simple terms the moving parts involved in regulating carbon dioxide pollution; and it gives an assessment of Waxman-Markey's likelihood of tamping down emissions while investing in renewable energy and protecting American consumers struggling to pay rising fossil fuel prices.

Download a free copy of the primer or two-page executive summary here.

In brief, here's what we learned.

Last week, Eric Hess summarized the best tally of green-collar jobs in the United States. This new study, published by the Pew Charitable Trusts (pdf), mined and combined a set of commercial databases, some of them enormous, to identify clean-energy companies (and businesses with other environmental aims such as water conservation and pollution reduction) in one of the United States. It then confirmed the categorization with a custom-designed web-search tool. The activities these companies perform were similar to those in last month’s Washington study: energy efficiency, renewables, water conservation, waste recycling, pollution mitigation. This methodology yielded a ten-year time series of counts of green businesses and employees.

Unfortunately, the two studies diverge sharply about how many green jobs Washington has. The first study found 47,194; the second found 17,013.