Now, I have always written letters and even had many published — just not one every day. WarrenS inspires me to do better.
Many newspapers state that they will reject letters that have been published elsewhere, thus I have not been blogging letters … perhaps that should change. Thus, on a delay from ‘rejection’ (or lack of publication), here is an installment of the “unpublished letters” series publishing those LTEs that don’t get picked up by the editors.
18 December 2011
To the Editor,
With Glenn Kessler’s “Fact Checker,” The Washington Post fulfills an important journalistic role in helping foster a more informed public. At times, “Fact Checker” falls short of what it can and should be. Today’s Fact Checker purports to take a full-fledged look at Keystone XL pipeline job claims from across the political spectrum. A fair summary of the article: claims of 100,000s of jobs are highly questionable while a more reasonable statement would be to cite the pipeline company’s claimed 13,000 job years (6,500 for two years) which is what the Department of State did in its analysis.
Missing, however, is that the one truly independent analysis to date, by researchers at Cornell University. That detailed analysis lays out a strong case for questioning whether, in aggregate, the Keystone XL pipeline will actually end up costing Americans jobs and lead to increased unemployment. The tar sands oil that Keystone XL would move to Gulf Coast refineries where a large share (likely most) would be exported. Currently, that tar sands ends up in Midwest refineries and moderates gas and diesel prices in that region. Basic supply and demand: move that oil out of those states and the resulting increased fuel prices could hurt economic performance. And, much of Keystone’s claimed basis for employment is work that has already been completed (e.g, job years in the past), much will be down outside the United States, and …
Yesterday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson went to a children’s hospital to announce the new regulations to control boiler emissions that will address 40-year old gaps in the Clean Air Act. As Jackson and commentators have noted, these regulations will save thousands of lives and have an economic value easily nine times greater than the costs to implement them. An 800 percent return on investment should look pretty good to any of us. As David Roberts so accurately put it:
Examining the discussion of the new regulations suggests a question: has the Environmental Protection Agency and all the advocates for action gotten the value calculation wrong?
Based on an initial look, the answer seems to be yes.
While this is an incredibly complicated arena (how much do we value the life of an American citizen (or resident …), the health of ecosystems, etc …), the EPA and other Boiler MACT advocates seem to have fallen into a long-term pattern of inadequate analysis of the cost/benefit equation for environmental action.
Here is one specific example that does not seem to be part of the equation: considering the impact of mercury on the IQ levels of Americans in a Bell Curve distribution and the potential impact this has on future economic performance.
Let’s put aside any question about the accuracy of the Intelligence Quotient, since the specific numbers are not the issue but we are concerned about the Bell Curve and the distribution and, for this post, the concept of the ‘tails’. The ‘tail’ in the distribution are those extreme cases. Looking at the distribution to the right, perhaps one could suggest the tail to be the below 60 scores and above 140 scores where, total, we are speaking about a few percent of the population.
The scientific research shows a serious impact on IQ levels from mercury poisoning perhaps to the extent, across the entire nation, of lowering the average IQ by one point or more across all births. In 2005, a Mount Sinai hospital study looked at this issue
The Mount Sinai study, “Public Health and Economic Consequences of Methylmercury Toxicity to the Developing Brain,” … examined the magnitude of the impact on America’s children of the loss of intelligence (IQ) caused by mercury pollution.
Reductions in intelligence due to mercury pollution affect between 316,500 and 637,200 American children each year and will cost the United States an estimated $8.7 billion in lost earnings annually
Putting aside any minor little issue of quality of life for the individuals and families involved, that $8.7 billion of lost wages annually isn’t something to scoff at. The study attributed $1.3 billion of this to power plant mercury emissions. (See also Physicians for Social Responsibility published Coal’s Assault on Human Health, chapter 5 looks at coal’s impact on the nervous system which is mainly an issue of mercury emissions and poisoning.)
Okay, so what is the gap. After all, these sorts of costs are quite explicitly part of the EPA’s cost/benefit calculation.
There is an item of serious complexity and uncertainty that seems to be left out of these equations which, however, could have overwhelming impact. When one pushes the average up or down, one is also changing the tail distributions. E.g., mercury emissions from antiquated coal burning facilities is increasing the percentage of population below (let’s say) a 60 IQ, with all the potential implications for social costs (such as parents who work less to take care of intellectually disabled children, more intensive public school support, etc …), while reducing the percentage of children with IQs above 140.
Yes, again, IQ tests are filled with problems but a 140 IQ is a number often used as the separation point between smart and genius … E.g., coal mercury emissions are reducing the number of genius Americans. And, reducing that pollution will — as a simple corollary — increase the number of tomorrow’s genius Americans.
Thus, an incredibly difficult question to calculate with exactitude but a very simple question for thinking about:
With the announcement of the Boiler MACT rules, how many future geniuses did the Obama Administration create for America?
How many more Einsteins, YoYo Mas, Spielbergs, Steve Jobs, and so on are now going to be part of America’s future that wouldn’t be without these regulations? And, since everything devolves down to dollars and cents (without, at times, sense), how many $billions (or $trillions) of economic value will these future geniuses create? Consider that …. consider Apple’s economic value or how much money Spielberg movies have brought to the economy or the differences Einstein’s brilliance has meant for a century. As we seek to understand a cost-benefit calculation from this EPA rule announcement, consider this question:
Could just one of those future geniuses to be, fostered due to EPA’s action to reduce toxic mercury emissions, create more than $1.3 billion per year in new economic value for the nation?
December 20th, 2011 · Comments Off on Coal for caroling or for the stocking …
A few years ago, the coal industry decided to cheer up the
holiday season with some sacriligeous caroling. Let us remember that the Frosty the Snowman story ends in a way to tug at the hearts: melting away with a promise to come back some day. In consider their decision to link coal to Frosty the Snowman, amid many other Christmas carols, perhaps the coal industry was showing a short attention span as, after all, the burning of coal and coal’s contribution to global warming is shortening Frosty’s time horizon year-in/year-out.
Perhaps the best one-line commentary on this coal caroling campaign came Kevin Grandia,
Considering coal’s impact on human health, eco-systems, and contributions to global warming, the traditional concept of ‘lump of coal in the stocking’ does seem a far more appropriate association of coal with Christmas and any other celebratory season/event.
Lexington teacher Martin Mudd dressed up as Santa Claus, and says he brought gifts for the governor.
“Santa brought the governor some lumps of coal and switches because he’s been a naughty boy in not doing everything that he can to protect the people of eastern Kentucky and our mountains and water.”
Sadly, there are too many politicians, business leaders, and media ‘elite’ who merit their lumps of coal … Hmmm, if the coal industry would recognize this fact, perhaps they might find a more profitable business opportunity than seeing their product go up in smoke and into our children’s lungs.
December 20th, 2011 · Comments Off on Citizens Against Government Waste Promotes Wasteful Citizenry
One of the precepts from the right-wing sound machine (RWSM) is horror at government standard setting that leads to an improved marketplace. Whether seatbelts for cars or speed limits or building standards or …, there is little to no problem finding screaming voices letting us know how this is a fundamental invasion of individual rights and some sort of constitutional violation. This certainly has been the case when it comes to incandescent light bulbs, with a visceral movement promoting the necessity of maintaining inefficient lighting options on the shelf in the name of liberty and freedom for all.
the Federal government announces that it will purchase a product that will cost the taxpayer three times as much — not over lifecycle but in the first year and year-in, year-out, indefinitely.
Hmmmm … could you imagine, in this scenario, the “Citizens Against Government Waste’ going apocalyptic over this wasteful government decision? Well, that is — in short — the scenario when it comes to driving greater efficiency into light.
Let us take a simple lighting scenario for a federal workplace:
A 100 watt incandescent light bulb compared to the equivalent Compact Fluorescent Light bulb (CFL) which would use 73 percent less electricity (27 watts).
Incandescent bulb price of $0.50 cents with a 1000 hour life and the CFL price of $2.50 with a 4000 hour life
Light on 40 hours per week (a ‘traditional’ work week)
Average U.S. electricity price of $0.095 per kilowatt hour (kWh)
Over one year, that is 52 weeks, the incandescent light would cost the taxpayer $20.76 while the CFL option would cost $6.59. (Calculation after the fold.) And these savings continue, year in and year out, indefinitely. And, by the way, this doesn’t consider an additional cost: that the taxpayer would have to pay for the personnel time to change the incandescent twice each year while the CFL would last two years. And, consider the millions in the Federal workplace(s) … we have to multiply that light bulb example by millions of times over to come close to considering the taxpayers’ cost implication.
On the purest of financial payback terms, the CFL is the smarter choice by far even if one is solely concerned with the current budget year and aren’t pushed into “outyears” to justify looking at cost-to-own rather than a focus on “cost to buy”.
The federal government should not be interfering in Americans’ lives or influencing the free market. Traditional light bulbs are safe, cheap, dependable, and should be an available option for consumers. By contrast, energy efficient light bulbs are very expensive … A 100-watt incandescent bulb costs approximately $0.60 per bulb. An equivalent compact fluorescent light bulb, which uses less energy, costs $3.40 per bulb.
H.R. 2417 would repeal certain provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and eliminate onerous energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that are scheduled to take effect in 2012. These new regulations would reduce consumers’ lighting options by forcing them to purchase more expensive technologies, which disproportionately hurts lower income Americans. …
Lawmakers should not be allowed to senselessly remove product choices from consumers or pick technology winners and losers at the expense of taxpayers.
When it comes to energy efficiency, there is a real challenge of those who focus on “the cost to buy” something rather than the “cost to own”. “Traditional light bulbs” are “cheap” if one only considers purchase price and “dependable” if one isn’t considering longevity compared to other options. Asserting that “energy efficient lighting are very expensive” and “more expensive technologies” is an example of the shallowest pointing to the trees to avoid looking at the forest. The extra cost to buy a more expensive light bulb is paid back in weeks and keeps on that saving, week in and week out. Thus, the “more expensive technologies” to buy, when it comes to lighting, are the far less expensive technologies to own. If the government were making that more expensive choice, the Citizens Against Government Waste would rightfully be in a position to scream ‘Waste, Fraud, Abuse’. When it comes to the citizenry, in the name of “product choices”, the CAGW are one of the voices abusively leveraging fraudulent arguments to foster waste.
Forcing people to save is a cost that I am willing to bear.
And, by the way, the whole claimed ‘freedom to choose’ argument glosses over (actually, typically ignores) a simple fact: while the 100-year old Thomas Edison version doesn’t do so, what are set are standards for improved efficiency which even incandescent bulbs are able to meet. See, for example, here.
The standards will not limit consumer choice to compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Incandescent bulbs will still be available, as long as they achieve a certain level of efficiency. Efficiency standards have also spurred innovation that has provided more choices for consumers – such as energy-efficient incandescents and LEDs.
This guest post from Barath lays out a perspective on the interactions of climate change and peak oil — interactions in terms of people as well as substance. My perspective from a few years ago might be of interest: THE Progressive Crises: Global Warming and Peak Oil.
I’ve been wondering for the past year about the interactions between climate change and peak oil. They’re twin problems, rooted in our dependence upon fossil fuels (and oil in particular).
But there’s a lot of misunderstanding out there. Many people who know about climate change know little about peak oil. Many who know about peak oil dismiss climate change. Why? How can two problems have roughly the same cause, potentially major global consequences, and be understood so poorly? Why do some people dismiss one and not the other? Is one group right and the other wrong? I’d like to take a shot at explaining this mystery from a few angles. [Read more →]
Now, I have always written letters and even had many published — just not one every day. WarrenS inspires me to do better.
Many newspapers state that they will reject letters that have been published elsewhere, thus I have not been blogging letters … perhaps that should change. Thus, on a delay from ‘rejection’ (or lack of publication), here is an installment of the “unpublished letters” series publishing those LTEs that don’t get picked up by the editors.
5 September 2011
To the editor,
In “A jobs program — and a boon for kids” (1 Sept, opinion), Jared Bernstein, Mary Filardo, and Ross Eisenbray accurately identified boosted school infrastructure investments as one of the most cost-effective paths forward forward for reducing unemployment while increasing U.S. economic competitiveness for decades to come.
Sadly, they go wrong with the following sentence.
The work that FAST would enable — insulating buildings; fixing or replacing windows, roofs and HVAC systems; and implementing green measures, such as adding solar panels or wind generators — is still highly labor-intensive.
“Green measures” are not some sort of glorified add-on of show renewable energy. Improving insulation, fixing leaks, white roofing, putting in modern HVAC systems, etc … these are all core to any “green” retrofit program.
And, by incorrectly pigeon-holing “green”, they miss a significant benefit stream. Not only will this lead to reduced utility costs, but also healthier and better preforming students. In fact, ‘greening the school house‘ might be the only way to save money while achieving improved performance. And, what does that improved educational achievement mean: a stronger United States for decades to come.
I have this private mantra: it’s all about energy, it’s all about climate.
Somewhat like six degrees of separation, no matter the issue area, I can (I will …) bring any and all conversation items back to our energy and climate challenges.
But, when it comes to health (and health care) and energy, we’re not talking about six degrees of separation but, in fact, at least six ways they’re intertwined …
The United States is now a net exporter of petroleum products. Simply put, the United States exports more post refinery products than it imports. (E.g., it exports more diesel and gasoline, for example, than imported of these types of products.) This is real news, after all this reverses a net import refinery product balance of trade that went negative back in the 1940s. However, let’s keep perspective. As Kevin Drum highlighted
as the EIA chart below shows, when you add up both crude oil and refined products, the United States continues to import a net of 9.4 million barrels per day. That’s 3.4 billion barrels per year.
You’d only know this if you read the Journal article pretty carefully (it’s a single sentence in the 7th paragraph) but the United States is still a giant black hole sucking in energy from around the world. What’s more, that dynamic is not going to change anytime soon. Sorry to be such a killjoy.
Very simply, at $100 per barrel, the current import level translates to $340 billion in crude oil imports contributing to the import/export trade deficit per year.
As Kevin Drum emphasizes, the Wall Street Journal report buried the larger context well within the story even as it blared ‘news to confuse’ the average person who might distinguish between fuel products and total crude oil. This sort of misleading ‘blaring headline’ vs buried statement of the larger truth isn’t, sadly, isolated to the Wall Street Journal.
Look at that title: “U.S. on track to be net exporter of oil.” Geez, shut up all you people (including every President since Richard Nixon through Barack Obama) who talk about the need to reduce oil imports since, after all, we’re a “net exporter of oil”.
The opening to this report continues this emphasis:
I’m going to have to say this twice because this makes us go ‘what …’ The U.S. is on track to hit a new milestone: exporting more oil than we take in … exporting more oil than we take in. It’s stunning.
The announcer than turns this over to reporter Alison Kosik who begins “it does kinda make you take a double-take”. Within the body of the discussion, the Alison Kosik does discuss that being a net exporter of fuels does not make the United States suddenly a net exporter of oil. Within the body of discussion with the banner below Kosik, as she speaks, reading “U.S. could become net oil exporter”.
This is a situation where CNN could claim that they provided factual information even as the blaring context misinforms about a critically important issue.
December 13th, 2011 · Comments Off on “We can’t wait” … President stands up to Big Oil and Big Coal
President Barack Obama might finally have crystalized to a core message that, honestly, should have been core from the election through today.
We cannot wait …
– To address the health care inequities, costs, and shortfalls
– To foster a more honest engagement between the financial community (Wall Street) and the citizenry (Main Street)
– To develop a path toward sensible government fiscal policy enabling sound government not paid for by loans from the Chinese and the future
– To return to investing in infrastructure (physical, intellectual, and otherwise) to foster a better future
– To address mounting energy and other critical resource issues
– To take meaningful action to avert the worst of catastrophic climate chaos
– To stand up to those who are profiteering off damaging the American social contract and endangering our future prospects.
We can’t wait …
And, beyond rhetoric, are we beginning to see slogan transforming to political substance?
The President issued a veto threat to the extension of payroll tax due to Republican efforts to force in riders in support of fossil foolish interests (supported by fossil-foolish “Democrats”). There are two key poison pills at issue that are driving the veto threat, both in service of fossil fuel interests whose motto — when it comes to the health, security, and prosperity of America — seems to be: “Don’t give a hoot, POLLUTE.” (If you are unaware, some House Republicans sought to eliminate Woodsy Owl’s funding line. Woodsy funding saga satire here …)
A rider to override the EPA’s long-delayed boiler rules that would reduce mercury pollution, drive out some of the worst polluting systems in America, improve American’s health, and boost economic prospects.
A rider to move the Keystone XL pipeline decision out of the President’s hands (via the State Department) into the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) with language that would almost certainly drive approval of this reckless project.
H.R. 3630 seeks to put the burden of paying for the bill on working families, while giving a free pass to the wealthiest and to big corporations by protecting their loopholes and subsidies.
Again, while this should have been true from the first second in office, it is simply a truth that “We can’t wait” any longer to put Americans and American interest before polluting special interests. And, with this veto threat, President Obama is asserting that he recognizes this. [Read more →]
December 12th, 2011 · Comments Off on Bubbling … the news isn’t rosy
Sadly, this isn’t about Breaking Bubbles and my inability to get a good (let alone great) score while procrastinating. While that might merit counting as some form of distressing situation (in perhaps the saddest form of self absorption), the Breaking is about distressing news from Russian scientists.
In the backdrop of our lives, the atmospheric carbon dioxide count keeps mounting higher. While a level of 350 ppm might represent safety for human civilization, we are closing on 400 with little hope of keeping below 450 ppm (and likely to keep moving beyon that). We are already seeing climate catastrophe with mounting climate chaos (from droughts in Texas to floods in Durban around climate talks to …) causing damage and, yes, killing people.
One of the great concerns has been a basic question: at what point does the situation move beyond humanity’s ability to control. When do we reach the point where ‘positive feedbacks’ (no, positive is not a good thing) create out-of-control runaway conditions that will push catastrophic climate chaos into a death spiral for species after species … potentially even humanity.
One of the greatest concerns: methane burps (and Arctic methane release — including permafrost melting). That methane hydrates, methane capture at low temperatures and under pressure in the ocean, will start to release in massive amounts that will lead to runaway conditions. Methane, as a reminder, is roughly 25 times as serious a greenhouse gas per molecule than carbon dioxide.
The news … Russian scientists have reported massive size methane bubbling in areas of Arctic ice retreat, far before anything ever recorded before.
“Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It’s amazing,” Dr Semiletov said. “I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them.”
More than 100 plumes in the range of 1000 metres in diameter “over a relatively small area …” [Read more →]
Comments Off on Bubbling … the news isn’t rosyTags:Global Warming
in a Bell Curve distribution and the potential impact this has on future economic performance.
