It’s remarkable how often economists ignore physical reality. Whether they’re suggesting that economies can act as perpetual motion machines or suggesting that resource availability is meaningless to economic growth, I’m always prompted to think they should make science classes a mandatory part of the economics curriculum.
Brad Johnson of the Wonkroom sparked Natasha to return to this subject with his calling out of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf for his testimony which placed economic implications of 6+ degree warming in the range of just a few percent of the overall GDP. As Natasha put it,
Elmendorf, testified that the US economy would barely notice changing environmental conditions such that we should be more worried about potential economic damages and job losses caused by climate mitigation.
The already desertifying American Southwest has cost the agricultural sector billions of dollars every year, just in California, and wildfires are expected to increase as a result. Increased floods in the Midwest have cost farmers and municipalities dearly, as well as costing the federal government aid dollars sent to clean up disaster areas. Those are just two projected impacts of climate disruption, drought and flooding, that have been happening at a minor scale compared with what will occur during projected changes.
In fact, the Midwest is also expected to get heat waves within our lifetimes that would prevent corn crops from setting seed. Does Elmendorf live in a cave that this prospect means nothing to him?
Elmendorf really doesn’t see the US economy being much affected by such events increasing in magnitude, spread across the entire globe? The killer heat waves, coastal inundation, environmental refugees, reduced water supplies, none of that will put a dent in the smoothly purring economic engine we’ve got going here?
Preposterous.
Indeed, “preposterus”.
What is astounding is that other than a few blog posts like Brad’s, Natasha’s, and here at GESN, Elmendorf’s (and CBO’s) utter disconnect with any common sense (and scientifically sound) understanding of the risks of catastrophic climate change seems to have been missed in public discussion and, well, entirely glossed over by traditional media: science, environmental, energy, or any traditional media journalists.
The CBO analysis utterly misses massively important system-of-system benefits from moving toward a carbon-free economy (such as reduced cancers due to ending fossil fuel pollution). And, while CBO has been explicit about not including the values of mitigating climate change in their analysis, what has not been highlighted before Brad’s work is how their utter disconnect from any sensible valuing of the benefits of reducing catastrophic climate change justified their decision to exclude that ‘insurance policy’ and risk reduction from their work.
Too many people have celebrated the CBO’s work as showing that ‘it will only cost a postage stamp a day’ to mitigate climate change, the reality is that a real calculation of the value of that mitigation combined with a valuing of positive benefits (such as improved educational performance) would show that CBO’s economists have the sign wrong in front of the number: aggressive action to mitigate climate change won’t carry a minus sign (cost) but a plus sign (benefit).
As Natasha concludes
If the CBO and the media are incapable of looking at the facts and recognizing the truth of the situation, they need to go back to school.
This guest post from Think2004 provides one homeowner’s story about moving a home from energy glutton to net zero re electricity.
This discussion provides a clear window on the many things that can be done, rapidly, to reduce existing building infrastructure energy use.
And, it shows that existing homes can be made ‘net zero’.
And, while it is possible to make the tremendous achievements and homes of The Solar Decathlon a reality, this discussion shows that the vision of low carbon pollution homes is very possible to achieve even starting with existing, inefficient homes.
The legitimate policy question becomes: at what cost that last 10 percent? In other words, how high a share of solar electric capital cost is sensible to be funding via tax (and other) dollars? Early adopters merit additional support as a path to help build up demand and to build up capacity (installers, dealers, code inspectors, …). But, at what point is that imperative fulfilled … and at what cost?
Yet, remember, the journey starts with ‘negawatts’ before arriving at ‘clean watts’ production.
In any event, take a look at one homeowner’s journey from polluter to clean energy producer.
I bought my first house, in the heart of Dallas, Texas, back in 1994, when I was single and had just adopted a dog. It was a cute 1100 sq. ft. bungalow, with hardwood floors, original kitchen and bath, and plenty of space for me and the dog. I got lucky; I found the neighborhood before it became “hot,” so I paid less than the price of a new loaded Cadillac Escalade for my little piece of the American dream.
Fifteen year later, I’m still in that 1100 sq. ft. house, only now, I have been joined by a husband, a child, another dog, and assorted porch cats.
And 25 solar panels on the roof to power the whole thing.
Today, many companies are “going green.” But at Anheuser-Busch, we’re proud to say our tradition of environmental stewardship dates back to our founder, Adolphus Busch. In the late 1800s, he began recycling leftover grain from the brewing process, using it for cattle feed, a practice that continues today. …
We’re always looking for ways to operate more efficiently, while maintaining our quality standards, and be better stewards of the environment. It’s the right thing for the environment and our company.
Anheuser-Busch’s actual engagement with policy-making doesn’t necessarily live up to these stated ideals.
With the last moments of competition, with the last event, the
German Decathletes Celebrate
German team of Decathletes surged forward to seize the lead, seize the victory of the fourth Solar Decathlon, topping second-place Illinois (The Gable House) by less than 11 points out of 1000 possible (908.27 to 897.3).
The margin of victory came from just one event, an event that Germany was almost certainly slated to win from the first word go: “net metering” or the house’s ability to generate electrical power, support the house’s requirements, and send the power back to the grid. Germany earned 150 points out a possible 150 while the UIUC team earned an incredibly impressive 137.236 (the second place in the event) with far less solar PV on the structure than Germany . The first 100 points came from producing enough power for the house, which was done by both Illinois and Germany (and which, if I understand correctly, 14 of the 20 homes did). The next 50 points was based on the amount of surplus energy the houses sent back to the grid, where the German house seems to have surged ahead significantly.
October 15th, 2009 · Comments Off on Something old, Something New: A Gable on the Mall
The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), entry into the Solar Decathlon could be called understated from the outside, a form and boarding reminiscent of 19th century barns with a stunning interior, all built to Passiv Haus standards. The Gable House is a well-conceived residence, combining 100 year old wood boards on outside with leading edge hot water systems in a way that is easy to see becoming someone’s home. (Let’s be clear, an amazing thing about the 2009 Solar Decathlon is that everyone of the 20 solar powered homes has something to say for itself. If we took a good group of people to the Mall, it seems clear that each home would be on the top of someone’s list …)
At this time, The Gable House is standing on the top of The Solar Decathlon’s leader board, with just 10 points separating the top four teams (Illinois, Germany, California, Ontario/BC). The last two competitions: net metering (electrical generation) and engineering. Illinois is a difficult situation in the first, as Team Germany has the largest solar system on The Mall but The Gable House might be drawing less power to operate its systems, perhaps closing that gap. (Gable House has 9+ kw of solar on the roof, about double their estimated requirement to run the house.) And, it is clear that the Illinois team has done a good job at engineering solutions, with innovation but also simplicity and viability. In truth, any of these four are viable candidates for top of the leaders board (with the 30+ point gap to the fifth-place Minnesota and 65 points to sixth-place Alberta make them less likely).
While one was simply a lobbyist-driven disinformation effort and the other an attempt at a serious examination, these two have several fundamental similarities that illuminate problems in achieving a meaningful public (whether in the general public or in the political arena) dialogue over the critical issues of health care and climate change.
What are those ‘similarities’?
There is a bit of Mr Bill from Saturday Night Live in reporting from these. In essence, OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! No matter what serious understanding of these analyses might suggest, there data engendered a bit of ‘the sky is falling reporting’. [Note, video below is from prior to Katrina.]
As for that reporting, both were poorly reported in The Washington Post. The Post put the Price Waterhouse AHIP report above the cover, on the front page, without serious examination of the study’s parameters which (quite seriously) skewed its results. The Washington Post entitled its story Cap-and-Trade Would Slow Economy, CBO Chief Says, with no meaningful examination of how (based below) the CBO’s study falls short of providing what any reasonable person would consider an appropriate path toward accounting the costs and benefits of any policy option.
Both Price Waterhouse and CBO work provide ammunition for those seeking to mislead the public and the political process, undermining necessary change to strengthen the United States and increase the prospects for today’s and tomorrow’s Americans.
There is that old adage, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”. The AHIP Price Waterhouse ‘study’ seems to merit all three. The CBO work, on the other hand, seems to fall only in the third category, underlining the importance of reading (and understanding) footnotes to place the study in context.
The real issue, of course, comes from failures in the media process and inadequate critical review. With any serious, objective review, it is hard to see the justification for giving an AHIP-backed “study” (essentially a lobbyist press release) space in a newspaper of record, let alone giving it prominent front page coverage.
The CBO study was caveated and testimony last week clearly stated that the work didn’t coverage the full range of issues (“CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf emphasized that his estimates contained significant uncertainties and “do not include any benefits from averting climate change,””). Traditional media reporting, however, doesn’t seem to have peeked between the wizard’s curtain of economic analysis to see how CBO processes can skew results (and how counting rules can drive the US toward sub-optimal policy) and, probably even more importantly, how the CBO processes exclude a huge range of benefits that, if included, would flip the CBO results from ‘some costs’ to ‘massive benefits’ from acting to mitigate climate change.
In any event, when it came to AHIP’s Price Waterhouse ‘study’ relative to health care policy and CBO’s examination (and testimony about) the costs/benefits of action to mitigate climate change, The Washington Post (sigh, and too many ‘traditional media’ outlets) failed its readership and the general policy discussion. And these failures helped create Mr Bill “Oh, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!” moments for at least some in the critical health care reform and clean energy/climate change mitigation arenas.
Note: This is a somewhat unfair comparison. The CBO study has serious problems, but these do not seem to be from any intention to create a misperception or purposefully skew the discussion. The CBO works with a scoring system that creates confusion and worked within a stove-piped analysis, that doesn’t enable a robust examination of costs and benefits. The Price Waterhouse work, on the other hand, is perhaps more appropriately compared to the SAIC “studies” released by the National Association of Manufacturers as part of their battle to prevent action to mitigate climate change. Like Price Waterhouse’s press release highlighting the limited nature of their work (and how they had excluded significant components of health care reform plans in their work), the SAIC “studies” had footnotes that explicitly absolved SAIC of any responsibility for the results and conclusions. That footnote: “The input assumptions, opinion and recommendations are those of ACCF and NAM, and do not necessarily represent the views of SAIC.”
As a consequence, a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming of about 7° Fahrenheit (F) by 2100. … “the risk of catastrophic outcomes associated with about 11°F of warming by 2100? gives a projected “loss equivalent to about 5 percent of U.S. output and, because of substantially larger losses in a number of other countries, a loss of about 10 percent of global output.”
This is jaw dropping. Does anyone at CBO have the slightest understanding of the potential real-world implications of seven degrees of warming? Anyone at all? For a robust discussion, see Brad’s stellar work. In short, however, this sort of warming would massively disrupt US agriculture, have significant portions of America’s coastal areas awash due to rising seas (with huge infrastructure costs from lost cities and ports, industrial and transportation infrastructure lost, etc), significantly increased forest fires, … And, well, again, see Brad’s sobering work. It seems that the CBO should pay a bit of attention to the US Climate Change Research Program and perhaps actually read (highlighter in hand) the report on Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Perhaps spending some time with science and facts might lead CBO to revisit their quite odd (rather bizarre) results.
Today is Blog Action Day, with thousands of blogs discussing global warming.
Here is the RPV candidate for Attorney General parroting global warming denier lines, showing his tendency to allow his ideological preferences and biases to triumph over science and the work of 1000s of scientists.
October 13th, 2009 · Comments Off on Making Sustainable Options Fun …
Let’s face reality, it takes a sort of unusual person to describe crawling through attics to seal air leaks or slithering in crawl spaces to insulate piping as a “fun” activity. Turning over the compost pile; separating materials for recycling; turning off lights; putting on an extra sweater while turning the thermostat down in winter; … While we might see the value of these actions, “fun” is rarely the motivating factor (again, unless you’re that ‘special’ type of person).
Yet, sustainable options can be “fun”. Riding a bike (okay, at least in nice weather) is fun. Watching a child pluck a freshly ground tomato, warm from the sun, and plop in their mouth is fun. Driving an electric car (or a hybrid on electricity) with the windows open, listening to birds sing is fun. Dining on The National Mall, in a Solar Decathlon house (as I did last evening) is certainly (majorly) FUN!
Think about ourselves, think about what motivates. Making activities “fun” can make them more likely to happen. (Think that ‘clean up, clean up’ song used with toddlers to get them to put things away after play time. Or, perhaps, singing a song while washing the dishes.)
Thus, the question to ponder: How can we make the sustainable fun?
Stairs vs escalator: a battle to make the sustainable fun.
October 13th, 2009 · Comments Off on Menendez lays down a solar challenge
One Senator has chosen to pay attention to The Solar Decathlon on the Mall and issue a challenge. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has issued A Challenge to Universities. He opened with a strong statement of praise and support for The Solar Decathlon.
Every two years at this time of year, an exciting thing happens on the National Mall in Washington D.C.: the Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon. It is a competition in which universities from around the globe compete to design, build, and operate homes powered solely by the sun. This year’s competition, like every past competition, features no representation from New Jersey universities. As a leading supporter of solar power in Congress, I know well that our state is a world leader in solar technology. That’s why I think it is high time that our state’s renowned educational institutions show that they too are world leaders in solar technology.
The deadline for applications for the 2011 Solar Decathlon is coming up fast, 17 November. This is not far away for what is a quite serious commitment. When one gets a chance to speak with Solar Decathletes, the extent of the challenges they faced and the achievements they’ve made in raising funds, designing and building the homes, developing innovative features, and simply making it to the Mall become even more impressive. The 20 teams, no matter who wins or who comes in 20th, merit credit because they all have impressive elements and they all are, eminently, habitable, net-zero homes.
But, back to New Jersey …
Senator Menendez lay down a marker for NJ’s educational institutions:
I hereby issue a challenge to New Jersey’s universities and colleges to enter the 2011 Solar Decathlon.
October 12th, 2009 · Comments Off on Let’s see some bets under the sun
The U.S. Congress is often the site of friendly (sometimes not so friendly) wagering, when rival teams meet each other in important events.
Virginia Tech: Lumenhaus
This occurs around University football games, World Series, the Superbowl, March Madness, and other competitions. Right now, there is a 20-team competition underway almost literally in the shadow of the US Congress and, yet, there seems to be nearly zero attention from Members of Congress and, as far as can be told, no friendly (or less than friendly) wagering going.
The Decathletes from around the United States (and Spain, Germany, and Canada) are serious in their endeavors, creating top-notch products competing across 10 different categories from electrical power generation to architectural design. This is an event attracted 100,000s of thousands of visitors, a number of on-scene people that easily rivals the sports events that generate that Capital Hill wagering.
In contrast to those sports events (and despite mythic views of sports), The Solar Decathlon has the potential for truly changing lives and America’s future prospects. It is an event meriting attention and focus from Members of Congress.
As we look to paths to confront the challenges and seize the opportunities created by Climate Change, and attempt to set a path forward where America is a leader and winner (rather than follower and economic loser) in the green energy revolution, The Solar Decathlon is the sort of event and environment that merits significant attention — attention that Members of Congress simply don’t seem to be giving it.
Multiple searches of the U.S. Senate website, for example, showed zero references to the 2009 Solar Decathlon. In 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whose state did not (and does not this year) have a contesting team, visited the Decathlon. (Nothing from Bernie yet this year, but it would be surprising if he didn’t take a stroll down to the Mall to do some house site seeing. A question to ask: Who will join Bernie?)
Sticking with the Senate, there is serious discussion about climate legislation (with the introduction of the Kerry-Boxer >>>) with many (far too many) Senators sitting on the fence, evidently unconvinced that actions to mitigate climate change won’t only reduce risks but create new (and exciting) economic and social opportunities. P erhaps some attention to events on The National Mall might help them readjust their thinking.
Could Senator Kerry (Team Boston) ask Senator McCain (Arizona) to join him for a stroll on the Mall? (Perhaps making a wager as to having to wear the team t-shirt for a day dependent on which ends out ahead.)
Could Senator Boxer (Team California) sent a Twitter note to Senator McCaskill (Team Missouri) making a boast that California’s solar production will top Missouri’s this week?
Perhaps Senator Kerry (Team Boston) could challenge Senators Webb and Warner (Virginia Tech), wagering some clam chowder against crab soup.
There are teams from Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Virginia, Louisiana, California, Missouri, Texas, Iowa State, Minnesota, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and New York. The range of betting pool opportunities, with ten different competitions, are pretty staggering in numbers.
To be honest, encouraging gambling habits isn’t a normal practice but this is a case where it would be great to see some heavy (and heavily publicized) betting going on.
into the Solar Decathlon could be called understated from the outside, a form and boarding reminiscent of 19th century barns with a stunning interior, all built to Passiv Haus standards. 
challenge. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has issued 
Decathlon is coming up fast, 17 November. This is not far away for what is a quite serious commitment. When one gets a chance to speak with Solar Decathletes, the extent of the challenges they faced and the achievements they’ve made in raising funds, designing and building the homes, developing innovative features, and simply making it to the Mall become even more impressive. The 20 teams, no matter who wins or who comes in 20th, merit credit because they all have impressive elements and they all are, eminently, habitable, net-zero homes. 