President Obama concedes the wrong point in pollution regulation

© 2011 Joshua Stark

President Obama has pulled back from his earlier proposal to put stricter limits on ground-level ozone, a major pollutant and cause of asthma attacks and deaths, reports the Associated Press.

By this act, the President has conceded to opponents the very idea that pollution regulations are job killers, and opened the door to a flood of rollbacks, and the subsequent pollution increases that will come with them.

Hard choices have to be made, and the President has ducked a big one right here.  Sadly, he has done it by buying into the notion that pollution control is a net loss to our economy, thus legitimizing the idea, even though, under our current circumstances, it almost never has merit. 

In our dirtiest places, Americans live like 3rd World countries.  California's Central Valley has thousands of Americans who can't even drink their own tap water, and one-fifth of their children have asthma (for a thorough look at the impacts of asthma and ozone on the Valley, click here).

The regulation that the President has backed off would have direct impacts on asthma rates in places like the Central Valley, improving the quality of life for millions of Americans, particularly the poor.  But, what would be the economic impact?

Well, in 1997 the EPA estimated that asthma cost the U.S. between $9 and $11 billion (today, that would be $12.5 to %15 billion).  And these rates don't calculate lost productivity due to parents' worries over a hospitalized child, stress from losing a child, young people's inability to perform work throughout their life due to their impaired physiques and oxygen loss during growth.

Additionally, these calculations don't take into account the value of individual dollars - a gaping intellectual hole when calculating economic impacts.  Simply put, one dollar is worth more in a poor person's hands than it is in a rich person's hands, especially now.  A poor person, when getting a dollar, will spend that dollar, because it is more valuable turned into food than it is sitting in a bank.  A rich person may spend that dollar, or they may save it, because its value as a saved dollar may be bigger than its value as one more hamburger.

Right now, our economic problem is in large part due to our low total demand for goods and services because we can't afford them, because there isn't enough circulating money.  Money isn't circulating because we have too many people out of work, unable to afford things.

We are in the beginning stages of a vicious cycle, economically-speaking, and this cycle has nothing to do with our pollution.  But, regulating our pollution can go a long way toward ending this cycle and getting us out of our current slump.  Robust pollution regulation can lead to direct job growth in the testing and regulating industries (often public-private partnerships), and it will lead to increased productivity among those who would see improved health.  The additional demand from this growth of more valuable dollars would lead to increased supply to meet that demand, pushing up employment.

Make no mistake, companies who fight these regulations want to pollute.  If they didn't want to pollute, they would not care about the regulation.  They do not care about total demand, they do not care about social health improvements.  The individuals who work in these companies might care, but officially and professionally, they don't make their decisions based on what is good for the nation; they cannot, because the pressures of their fiduciary duties and their pressures to see quarterly profits are too great.


Economic reasons aren't the only reasons for robust pollution controls, and they shouldn't even be the first reasons.  But, there are real economic benefits to robust pollution control, and the President, by ignoring these, has lost sight of the good of the nation and has given over to ideas that will further stunt our growth, economically and otherwise.

Not buying the premises

© 2011 Joshua Stark

California State Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg says that a budget deal with Republicans is close, which most likely means that:

A)  A tiny cadre of probably termed-out Republicans will support a tax increase, most likely in the form of regressive taxes (sales, vehicle license fees, etc.); and
B)  Democratic leadership will probably support environmental regulatory shortcutting in the name of "job growth".

I don't buy either premises.

First of all, the notion that we can re-establish a robust state government relying even more heavily on the backs of the poor and lower-middle class are ridiculous.  I've talked about the problem with regressive taxes before, but I'll be clear and concise right here:  A tax that disproportionately impacts poorer people is unethical and bad economics, because it devalues dollars by moving more valuable dollars (one dollar is worth more to a poorer person than to a richer one) into a pool of less valuable dollars, it exacerbates the problems of poverty (which require more government expenditures to fix), and it makes government revenues rely upon a more volatile base (poor people's purchasing power fluctuates a lot more than rich people's, which is why everybody wants to be rich).

The second premise is a bit more hidden:  If Democrats agree to curtail environmental regulations in order to grow California's economy (jobs), then they are agreeing to the premise that environmental regulations are dragging California's economy.

I've yet to see a study showing this to be true.  Further, I've seen studies showing that, if anything, the opposite is true.

To be honest with you, the majority of places where California's economy is in dire straits are those places where: 

A) California's environmental regulations have been lax or inconsistently applied;
B) Places where California's economy has always suffered.

Think places like the Central Valley and other poor communities.  For goodness' sake, we refer to them as environmental justice communities! 

Just consider this another unintended consequence of term limits.

Trying to stay afloat - and taking on Monbiot

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Work and life can really take from one's blogging time...  I wish I could say that the World has had no environmental ethics dilemma as of late, and that's why I've been so sparse in blogging, but alas, that is not the case.

So, one fairly quick comment on some recent environmental conversation, hopefully to get my writing juices flowing.

George Monbiot, prominent environmentalist, has changed his mind about nuclear power, in light of what has happened at Fukushima.  His article, "Seven Double Standards", is a strong defense for nuclear, though he hasn't convinced me.  He is catching a lot of flak for his position - undeservedly so, as I truly believe he is looking out for the world's interests.

Still, he hasn't convinced me to support nuclear.  His major argument, that if we eliminate nuclear as an option, we will turn to the far dirtier, people-killing coal, is true, but not inevitable.  He conveniently leaves out both the option to turn to other renewables and more importantly, conservation.  His idea that if Fukushima is the worst that can happen then nuclear is sound makes a point - to which I counter, a massive failure of a nuclear plant in a sparsely populated corner of the world's most technologically advanced country is not the worst that can happen.  The worst that can happen is a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant near a massively populated region of one of the world's least technologically advanced countries.  Of course, that could only happen if that country has enemies crazy enough, and of course, India is loved by all, right?

Even the article I link above, though generally well-written, completely ignores conservation, and makes a stretch about some other ideas (his last double-standard makes a wonderful argument against nuclear that I hadn't even considered, for example).  But, he is right about coal:  It is far, far worse than today's best nuclear options.

The question is:  Where should we be spending our resources for our future production?  I say, we should be focusing on generation that doesn't include catastrophic failures either as a means of doing business (coal) or as a potential (nuclear, hydroelectric).  Thus, if it takes ten years to build either a good nuclear plant or a good solar plant, I choose the latter option.   

The Precautionary Principle might have come in handy...

© 2011 Joshua Stark

California Watch reports on lead, arsenic, and other toxins found in climate-friendly LED lights.

While reading this post, I thought:  Well, there's another technological fix with the subsequently ugly, unintended consequences (see glyphosate-resistant crops, methyl iodide, and DDT even).  I also remembered my post on our inability to "sell" conservation. 

Right now, if you hear a spokesperson for any environmental advocacy group, you are far more likely to hear about green jobs, high-mileage brand-new cars, high-tech solutions to saving the planet, efficiency gains, etc.  What you will rarely hear is one of them saying, "just turn off your lights, and turn down your thermostat.  And for goodness' sake, hold off on buying that new car!"  It's hard to sell, "buy less".

But this post isn't on conservation, it's on preparing for all these new technological advances that purport to save us from ourselves.  As I read that report, I thought: how do we keep from shooting ourselves in the foot with each new attempt at efficiency gains, especially here in California, the Land of the Next Big Thing?

Then I remembered that simple, great, conservative pillar of environmental justice:  The Precautionary Principle.  This principle merely states that a new item (chemical, technological process, etc.) must prove that it is generally benign to the environment before it can be mass produced. 

That's it.

When people hear about this principle, they are usually struck by the notion that things don't have to prove that they won't leave tremendous amounts of toxins persistent in the environment.  In the case of LED lights, for example, I'm sure people are thinking,  "but, we regulate lead; how did these things make it here in such huge amounts?"

Regulation is an interesting term, and while most Americans think it means that everybody gets equal scrutiny under the law, the reality is often far, far more complicated.

It comes down to this:  Most Americans believe, inherently, that our regulatory agencies follow the Precautionary Principle, because it is a very conservative way of looking at the World.  But, they don't.

What we need are far more sophisticated models of thinking, rather than re-packaging the same materials in new ways.  We need, when we consider costs, to include the total lifecycle of the product.  We need to consider the noneconomic impacts, even if that means coming up with some quantities to at least represent them (and we need to continually re-work those quantities).  At the very least, we need some form of the Precautionary Principle, some proof that the Next Big Thing doesn't come with the Next Big Cleanup Effort.

Rural California: Where bad economic and environmental practices meet

© 2011 Joshua Stark

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the AP's Economic Stress Index, which shows that 15 out of the 20 worst counties are in California. 

Of course, there's no real news here, nor is there any change from what would be the case if this were a booming economic time and not a lingering recession.  These counties are chronically the worst in the country.

The sad part?  They are also the counties with the highest agriculture revenues in the world.

In the world.

These are the same counties whose boosters proclaim that they feed the world.  These same boosters cry in anger to the (political) gods whenever the Delta must have more water, screaming that it will destroy, is destroying, their way of life, their jobs and economy.

Never mind that ag. was the only growth industry in the State, even during those drought years.  Never mind that these counties suffer huge numbers of smothering poverty, drug addiction and violence.  Never mind that these counties tend to have much higher asthma rates among its children, and that in dozens of communities throughout their gold-producing fields, nobody is allowed to drink the groundwater, because it is contaminated from runoff.  Never mind that their own rivers are dammed and run dry.


These counties remind me of a drug addict.  Whenever their supply is threatened, they talk about how much they need it, how much better they do with it; even, sometimes, how after this time, they'll work to get off it, but they need this just one more time.  Of course, they talk through blackened teeth, while their children go hungry behind them.

I grew up and live in rural California.  I love it with all my heart.  That is why I talk like I do.

Rural California needs to see a shift away from its typically feudal/colonial structure.  It needs permanent jobs with local and regional focus, it needs industries that do not pollute its water and air and offer minimum-wage (or less) with no benefits. 

California Cap & Trade loses its court fight, and salt ponds show quick rebound

© 2011 Joshua Stark

A couple of unrelated news items, but both timely and interesting.

The California Air Resources Board's adoption of a cap & trade program was shut down by a judge yesterday, due to CARB's inadequate analysis of alternatives, a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirement.

CEQA requires state agencies to analyze alternative ways of achieving a project's goal, choosing the most environmentally appropriate way to accomplish it.  In the case of cap & trade, a coalition of environmental justice (EJ) advocates, led by the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, successfully argued that CARB didn't adequately analyze the alternatives to cap & trade that they'd put forward.  And, they have a point. 

Many EJ folks have a serious problem with cap & trade.  While on the large scale, C&T could lower total carbon emissions, it does it in a way that favors particular regions (usually rich ones), and hurts others (usually poor ones).  For carbon, this isn't a problem, because carbon doesn't, say, cause asthma near where it is emitted.  However, impacts to industries that would cut back on carbon emissions would also lead them to cut back on "co-pollutants", those pollutants that come out with carbon, and these are typically very harmful to local communities.

The way C&T gains economic efficiency over other methods is by allowing companies to choose whether it is cheaper to cut their emissions (by lowering output or installing cleaner tech.), or cheaper to buy emissions credits on a market.  By doing this calculation, the price of carbon becomes clear in a market-like manner, and we see cuts to carbon emissions.

It is a simple leap, then, to understand that, if company A wants to buy carbon emissions credits instead of cleaning its emissions, then it will continue to emit carbon, and whatever else comes out of that smokestack.  In fact, if California's cap & trade is tied to a larger market-like mechanism, California could theoretically see increases in its own air pollution, including carbon. 

It's the "whatever else" that bothers EJ advocates and the judge.  CEQA's job is to ensure that state activities consider the most environmentally appropriate actions.  In addition, CARB is mandated to decrease air pollution, and if its activities actually increase pollutants, it may well be in violation of its own mandate. 

Stay tuned for more in this arena, for sure. 

In other, happier news, recovered salt flats in the South San Francisco Bay are returning to their natural state at a very fast clip.  As a Son of the Delta, I am always thrilled to see wetlands recover so quickly, especially considering just how cautious scientists have been due to concerns over water pollution. 

My favorite line from that report:  "A similar study done in 1,400 acres of former Cargill ponds in the North Bay near the Napa River also found a wide abundance of bay fish had come back, including striped bass, tule perch and even a chinook salmon, some only weeks after the ponds had been breached."

A similar scene has been taking place for the last seven years in Iraq, too - if you are interested in that one, head over to Nature Iraq.

California okays methyl iodide

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Yesterday, the State gave the final approval to methyl iodide, despite the opposition of dozens of scientists, and more than a few legislators. 

Back in June, I posted a piece using the methyl bromide-to-iodide controversy as a great example of "internalizing externalities".  In the case of this switch, it seems ridiculous to me that we should replace one chemical because of its impacts on the ozone layer with a chemical that stays closer to home, thus raising serious cancer (and other) risks. 

As sfgate.com reports, State officials are reassuring the public by claiming that this fumigant will only be applied by specialists, and the soil will be covered by an impermeable tarp... must I point out how much more awful that makes the product sound?  What a way to reassure!

And this reassurance illustrates, yet again, just how we structure our ag. policies to favor huge, monocropping companies.  How many mom-&-pop small farms will be willing or able to tap strawberries when the big companies are able to increase yield/lower prices by paying for "specialists"?  The burdens to entry into the strawberry market are thus ratcheted up, leaving it safer for oligopoly. 

Again, in the wrong direction with our agriculture.

Kern county defends its poop ban

© 2010 Joshua Stark

The L.A. Times reports that L.A. and Orange counties are appealing a voter-approved Kern county ban on their biosolids being trucked onto its county.

I think it's time that local governments work out local solutions to their own messes.  Go, Kern county!

Environmental Justice and hunting groups together? Why not!

These two groups are about as far from each other on a traditional political spectrum as can be, but the political spectrum is irrelevant to conservationism. First, a little background:

By "hunting groups", I mean to include those organizations whose original impetus for creation came from hunting. In my mind, this includes folks like The Wild Turkey Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, the California Waterfowl Association, etc. These groups are largely made up of older white males, people who care deeply about hunting as a tradition and the wild as a necessary component to humanity. These are people who often cradle baby chicks in their hands, understand animal husbandry as well as shooting, and think hard about a conservation ethic.

By "environmental justice groups", I mean to include those organizations whose original impetus for creation came from an outrage against pollution in their immediate communities. This includes groups like Citizens Against Waste, the Coalition for Clean Air, the Verde Group, the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, etc. These groups are largely made up of poor and disenfranchised folks who have organized out of a sense of outrage and a desire to protect their towns, neighborhoods, and children. These are people who see lung cancer rates in some places at 1,000 times the national average, folks with a quarter of their kids suffering from asthma, people who are literally fighting to keep other people's poop from being dumped on them.

Now, these two cliques, as radically different as they seem on the surface, share some remarkably deep traits. Both grew out of battles against huge businesses and business trends, fighting and beating major corporate interests. Both have a deep sense of conviction and an evangelical streak when it comes to their passion. And both serve large, more socially conservative constituents who enjoy the outdoors.

Hunting groups tend to forget just how radical were their ideas when first proposed: Huge tracts of land taken completely off the market, owned and managed by the government or quasi-governmental institutions and run by volunteers, not profit; species and entire habitats protected from hunting; water quality improvements forced on major companies. Many hunters can, with pride, talk about the conservation efforts of the hunting community and our conservation forefathers like TR and George Grinnell, but doing so means that we are proud to support government efforts that curbed business interests for the greater common good.

On the other hand, many EJ groups represent constituents who trend more socially conservative than the typical environmental policy analyst. EJ communities tend to be deeply religious, are usually one generation or less from the farm or the wilds, and carry a strong fishing and hunting tradition. Today, many folks who live in EJ communities can be found fishing local ditches for carp and bass, hunting the National Forest and BLM lands for deer, squirrel, and quail, and, increasingly, showing up at the local wildlife refuges for ducks and geese.

Now is a great time for these two communities to get into active conversations and cooperative arrangements, and two places where this seems a natural fit are in community/youth outreach, and work on public policy. Both groups are fighting to stay relevant to young people, and each group has something to offer the other - they both currently cater to very different people, yet these people could mesh well. Setting up information booths at each others' outreach events would be a great start, with each group bringing their strength: EJ groups, bring the kids, urban youth, and their parents, who know how to hunt and know the land; hunting groups, bring baby birds, bring recipes and sausages and video of ducks and deer. Heck, bring guns - people like to shoot guns, it's fun.

The political policy realm may be a bit trickier for these two groups, as they tend to fall on different sides of the political spectrum, but there are many common goals, and their political tendencies can result in some major victories. My recommendation? Work on a local public lands access issue or clean-up effort. These make for good media, and can bring together pretty diverse people for a common, and reachable, goal.

In our current economic climate, conservation efforts are going to take a hit, both at the public policy and individual levels. Cooperative efforts are vital at this point, and they are also vital in the long run. These two groups have important things to share, and their cooperation could take the establishment by surprise and by storm. It would be just in time.

The heating climate around the, uh, heating climate

Back at this blog's first post, and in a few others, I've pointed out schisms in the conservation-environmental community. Now, the purpose of highlighting all the breaks in ideas, directions, and actions within our community is not to destroy us, nor is it to sell (you'll notice at this website that I'm not selling anything); the purpose is to illuminate the ethical reasons behind our positions and decisions, and to therefore make us stronger. If we can see where we disagree, we can, hopefully, weed out the bad ideas while increasing tolerances for each others' divergent views. At the same time, we can hopefully strengthen our defense of the wild. The ultimate goal here, then, is greater protection, and I follow a mantra when it comes to that goal, one I learned as a park interpreter: Through education, appreciation; through appreciation, protection.

With that in mind, let's turn to a a major conflict within the community, over how to curb carbon emissions. Last week in, of all places, Washington D.C., this conflict came to a head when a number of environmental justice groups took over the D.C. office of Environmental Defense (article here). Right now, there are two competing views on how to begin curbing carbon emissions, a "carbon tax", or cap, and the creation of a carbon market with caps, or "cap & trade."

This disagreement is primarily between the traditional environmental groups and the environmental justice groups. The former has, for the most part, come down in favor of a market, and the latter in favor of a cap with no market. Personally, I'm on the fence, and so I feel I can adequately provide the arguments for and against both concepts.

First, a quick description of cap & trade: Most simply put, it is the creation of a market for the sale of carbon and other greenhouse gasses (GHG's). Really, though, let's start with the goal, to cut GHG emissions from as many major sources as we can. Right now, people emit GHG's into the atmosphere willy-nilly, as a byproduct of combustion, and nobody wants to own these emissions. As you probably remember from your high school econ. class, all markets require scarcity, demand, and supply. Government creates the demand & scarcity by capping the total amount of GHG's allowed per year below current emissions, and then allowing the GHG's below the capped amount to be traded among emitters (hence the term 'allowances'). Over time, it is expected that government will continue lowering the amount of GHG's being traded, either by lowering the cap, or by buying up allowances in the market, effectively removing them from play. Being a market, it quickly gets more complicated from there, but that is the basic model.

Proponents of cap & trade argue that effective markets have been created to deal with other pollutants, notably SO2 (an acid rain component). They argue that the funds created through an initial sale of allowances (to kick-start the market) can be used by the government to mitigate climate change effects on areas that are hardest hit by climate change and/or the market (say, poor communities, habitat, the state of Florida). They also argue that, since CO2 is not a pollutant that hurts people locally, but is instead a global problem, then it doesn't matter where it gets capped, and so there will be no direct local pollution problem to worry about. Last, they argue that by allowing the market to function on a larger scale, then economies of scale, innovations, and money will drive down GHG emissions, while encouraging corporate buy-in, rather than causing foot-dragging and litigation to slow down emissions cuts.

Opponents argue that contrived markets are easy to game, that the market won't work quickly enough to actually curb GHG's, that compromises with industries for a market will probably exclude the initial sale of allowances, and that the market will affect poor communities the most in a number of ways. This last is the biggest concern of EJ groups, because companies with the worst pollution records operate in their communities, and the co-benefits of having to curb GHG emissions will almost certainly also cut other, more dangerous local emissions. For example, if you cut your CO2 emissions, you also usually cut your ozone emissions, and ozone is a cause of asthma attacks. 1 in 5 children in San Joaquin Valley have asthma, so you can see that communities in SJ Valley have a high stake in seeing these emissions cuts be local.

Instead, opponents argue for an across-the-board cap on carbon emissions through a GHG tax. Each emitter will have to account for their emissions, and if they run over their cap, then they must pay a cost-prohibitive tax for additional carbon. This would require all sources to account for and cut emissions.

Of course, major corporations would prefer nothing, but that is long gone, so they are pushing hard for a cap & trade market with free allowances to start, and to include many offsets, which are carbon trapping mechanisms, like forests, in their GHG totals. So, for example, a company may purchase some allowances, purchase some offssets, and cut whatever is left.

The legal grenade thrown into this? Last year, courts ordered the EPA to regulate carbon as a pollutant.

The incoming Obama Administration has a lot to work on.