Can’t Win for Losing

Posted on June 13, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

If we continue to burn coal to generate electricity, we might destroy the Earth’s capacity to support life. If we switch to natural gas, then fracking might poison the water and set our faucets on fire. Biomass sounds good, but burning it also releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Hydroelectric power requires dams, which destroy fish habitat. Solar panels take up too much space, and are too expensive to power a nation.
That leaves wind power, one of today’s favorites. But as we know, wind turbines chop up eagles and bats and migratory birds. Some people say the noise causes bizarre health problems. And now, there is another reason even wind may not work. Two new studies claim that man-made global warming is actually causing the wind to diminish significantly in some areas.
As one reporter wrote, wind energy is supposed to help fight climate change, but “climate change is fighting back.” Both studies conclude that estimates of wind energy’s potential may be flawed, because our use of energy is reducing the wind itself. As one of the authors put it, “Assessments of wind energy resource are usually based on today’s climate, rather than taking into account that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue to modify the global atmospheric circulation.”
These are real, serious scientific studies. The first was published November 24 in Nature Scientific Reports by three Harvard researchers, and the second, authored by three researchers in Boulder, was published December 11 in Nature Geoscience.
As the Washington Post wrote this week, “The world is turning more and more to renewable sources of energy… to fight climate change. But what if climate change itself alters the distribution of wind, or sunlight… or river flows, and so changes or even shrinks the potential of these energy sources?” It just seems that we can’t win for losing. No source of energy is without problems, so what are we to do?
I admit to feeling a little cynical about this today, because last night’s freezing cold wind messed up my Christmas lights, and I spent half the night outside in a frigid gale trying to put a little Christmas tree back together. So when I hear that the dreaded climate change may lead to warmer temperatures and less wind, I’m completely on board. In fact, it makes me want to stand outside with an aerosol can pointed at the atmosphere to make sure I’m doing my part to help.
The genuine skeptic will recognize, however, that there is a much larger question raised by these studies – and the scores of others that will surely follow, as long as there are government grants to university researchers. That is, will there ever be any source of energy upon which everyone can agree?
The answer is no, because not everyone shares that lofty goal. Instead, many activists are united by the notion that mankind’s presence is always bad for the environment. People are not part of the environment in this theory; they are an intrusion that should be stopped whenever and wherever possible. That requires government control, and nothing has more potential to provide that control than the concern about global warming. If everything mankind does can be said to affect the climate, then climate regulators would be able to regulate everything mankind does. So, climate regulators fund scientific studies, which inevitably back this view (he who pays the fiddler calls the tune). Such studies generate public concern, and public policy will follow.
Note a critical distinction in the two new wind studies. This wind reduction is not happening the same everywhere, but is especially noticeable in the two countries that have spent by far the most money developing wind energy – China and the U.S. Some readers might infer that it’s OK to continue investing in wind power in other countries, but may not be as effective here.
That hints eerily at similar policies that result in logging, drilling, mining, and manufacturing in other countries, so we can “protect” our own domestic resources. Those activities impact the environment anywhere, of course, but our conscience remains clear if we export those consequences elsewhere.
Some Americans may want to return to an earlier lifestyle, where they keep a milk cow and a couple hogs, raise beans in their own backyards, and eat year-round by canning a cellar full of mason jars. Me, I prefer grocery stores, cars, and comfortable homes powered by affordable energy. And if that results in slightly warmer temperatures and a little less wind, I’m probably OK with that.

E-Mail this Author. 

Posted in Energy | Comments Off on Can’t Win for Losing

The Logperch Veto

Posted on May 25, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:


Virginia has its very own snail darter – the Roanoke logperch, a threatened species of fish, the existence of which could delay or even obstruct a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project. The snail darter became a cause celebre for endangered species in 1973 when concerns arose that the habitat of the endangered fish would be obliterated by construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River. Although the dam ultimately was built, the controversy over the snail darter’s fate held up the project through years of legal appeals and eventually required a literal act of Congress to override a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The Roanoke logperch is one of six endangered or threatened species whose habitat will be crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The ACP won’t obliterate the habitats of the logperch,the Indiana bat, the Northern long-eared bat, the Madison Cave isopod, the rusty patched bumblebee, or the clubshell mussel in the way that the Tellico Dam did the homeland of the snail darter. But the pipeline will cross these species’ habitats, subjecting them to additional stress, and perhaps killing some individuals. A federal appeals court ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had set unacceptably vague criteria for monitoring and complying with the Endangered Species Act. Pipeline foes regard the threat to the species as sufficient grounds to shut down construction.
A question unasked by the media in coverage of the ruling is just how threatened are these species? What impact might pipeline construction have on their habitat? Could the pipeline precipitate their extinction or will the effect be marginal? But alert reader D.J. Rippert raised the issue in a comment to an earlier article on the topic. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCM) Red List, he wrote, “the Roanoke Logperch is one notch above endangered. The key question is whether the pipeline would push it from vulnerable to endangered.”
Good point, Don. Let’s see what IUCM has to say about the six species in question. But first some nomenclature: A “vulnerable” species is one that is likely to become endangered unless the circumstances threatening its survival and reproduction improve. The next steps up the ladder towards extinction are a “endangered” and then “critically endangered.” The term “threatened” applies to any species “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”
Roanoke logperch. Precina Rex is listed as “vulnerable.” Its range extends through the upper Roanoke, upper Dan, and upper Chowan river systems. Eight populations are separated by wide river gaps or dams. The fish resides in riffles, runs, and pools with sandy to boulder-strewn bottoms. Despite the ongoing threats of urbanization, industrial development, flood control projects, and agricultural runoff, the population is believed to be increasing. However, siltation from agricultural “and other human activities” remains a concern.

Indiana bat.Myotis soldalis is listed as “near threatened.” The bat has an extensive range across the eastern United States but the range and population have shrunk in recent years.  The most significant threats to the species are habitat loss, forest fragmentation, winter disturbance and environmental contaminants. Half the bats are believed to hibernate in Indiana (hence the name); other major population centers are located in Kentucky and Missouri. Virginia is a minor and peripheral part of the bat’s range.

Madison cave isopod. Antrolana lirais classified as “vulnerable.” This tiny critter is an eyeless, unpigmented freshwater crustacean that lives in flooded limestone caves in the northern Shenandoah Valley, with documented population centers around Staunton and Harrisonburg. The ICUN database contains little information about the isopod. Contamination of underground water is the major threat to the creature’s habitat — definitely an issue in the karst terrain in Virginia mountain terrain.

Rusty patched bumble bee. IUCM does not have this species of bumble bee in its database. But Fish & Wildlife does refer to it as “endangered.” “Rusty patched bumble bees once occupied grasslands and tall grass prairies of the Upper Midwest and Northeast, but most grasslands and prairies have been lost, degraded, or fragmented by conversion to other uses,” states the endangered species website. The range has constricted to 13 states, of which Virginia is one, plus one Canadian province. The biggest threat comes from intensive farming and the use of pesticides.

Clubshell mussel. Also not included in the IUCM database, the clubshell mussel is described by Fish & Wildlife as an “endangered” species. The bivalve, which lives in small to medium rivers and streams, once was found from Michigan to Alabama, Illinois to West Virginia — Virginia does not warrant mention as part of its range — and now is relegated to “portions of only 13 streams.” The major threats listed are pollution from agricultural run-off, industrial wastes, and extensive impoundments for navigation, all compounded by competition with the Zebra mussel.

Northern Long-eared bat. The Northern long-eared bat does not appear in the IUCN’s red list but it is listed as “threatened” by Fish & Wildlife. The bat’s range extends throughout most of the Eastern U.S. and parts of Canada. Its population decline has been caused by the “white-nosed syndrome,” a fungal disease. The disease has spread to bats in Virginia.
Bacon’s bottom line: This is a superficial survey, and I welcome the input of anyone who has more detailed and authoritative knowledge. But it seems reasonable to draw several conclusions.
First, none of these species are “critically endangered.” Only two are listed as “endangered.” The other four are classified as “threatened” or “vulnerable.”
Second, the habitat of four of these species — the bats, bees and mussels — extend far beyond Virginia. Indeed, Virginia accounts for only a sliver of the habitat for these four animals. The range of only two of the species — the Roanoke perch and the Madison cave isopod — are confined all or mostly to Virginia.
Third, it is hard to see how sedimentation from pipeline construction runoff would pose to either variety of bat or to bees threatened by pesticides and the loss of prairie habitat.
A deterioration in water quality could create problems for the logperch, the isopod, and the clubshell mussel. However, the mussel is indigenous to many other states, and it strikes me as a stretch to suggest that pipeline construction would have a measurable impact on its overall numbers. Construction runoff could be an issue for the vitality of the logperch and isopod, but it’s hard to gauge the level of risk without knowing more about the precise location of their habitats in relation to the pipeline route. If there is a genuine threat, it seems reasonable to require the ACP to take significant precautions to protect those two species. But is that grounds to shut down the pipeline? Readers, please weigh in.
(This article first ran in Bacons Rebellion on May 17, 2018.)
–
bacon-90Email this author

Posted in Environment, State Government | Comments Off on The Logperch Veto

Do Transit-Rich Neighborhoods Lead to Less Car Use?

Posted on May 25, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

A new empirical study in the journal Housing Policy and Debate has set off extensive discussions about Smart Growth and related ideas such as “location-efficient mortgages.” In the study, Nicolas Klein (Cornell) and Michael J. Smart (Rutgers) analyzed data from 11,000 families in a range of income brackets over the decade 2003-2013. The data come from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which tracks household expenditures over time by the same households. The idea was to see if families that live in or move to neighborhoods with lots of transit have lower transportation costs, as predicted by organizations such as the Center for Neighborhood Technology.
First, Klein and Smart looked for a relationship between greater transit access and lower transportation costs, but found only a weak correlation. Next, they looked at households that had moved from one neighborhood to another, to see if a change in transit access led to a change in transportation spending, but found nothing definitive. Third, they built a model looking at how transportation spending changed when a household moved to a better or worse transit location. Again, there was only a weak relationship. Among the variables that did not predict transportation spending were the neighborhood’s density, the area’s employment density, neighborhood compactness, and walkability. Klein told CityLab’s Laura Bliss, “It’s not that transit doesn’t help people. But lots of people who are making a totally rational decision not to use transit and to have their car are doing it to help their family.”
Assuming these findings hold up as further research is done, they undercut ideas such as focusing affordable housing on areas near transit stations and that lenders should provide “location-efficient mortgages” to those who buy near transit, since they will have more disposable income, etc. Scott Bernstein of the Center for Neighborhood Technology, a long-time proponent of location-efficient mortgages, challenged Klein and Smart’s findings as having drawn on too limited a sample, and reiterated his long-time (but unproven) claim that “People can, and often do, spend less in areas with high location efficiency.”
This debate will likely go on for a while, as more research is done. But from an overall societal basis, there is a glaring omission in using only consumer expenditure data on transportation. In a blog post on Planetizen (February 21, 2018), Steve Polzin of the Center for Urban Transportation Research pointed out that most of the spending on transit comes from taxpayers and is therefore not measured in consumer expenditure data on transportation. As an extreme case, he cited the example of Seattle, where the 2016 ballot measure imposed a transit sales tax that will add $326 per year to the average household’s expenditures, on top of $303 per year in pre-existing transit taxes. So counting only transit fares and auto operating and maintenance costs does not accurately reflect what households are paying for transportation.
(This article first ran in the May issue of Surface Transportation Innovations.)
–
Email this author

Posted in Transportation | Comments Off on Do Transit-Rich Neighborhoods Lead to Less Car Use?

Politicians Must Consider Unintended Consequences

Posted on May 25, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

It’s become a recurring, frustrating pattern, as legislators and regulators ignore the immutable laws of unintended consequences, to drive political agendas or aid favored constituencies, while harming others.
A good example is corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards on vehicles. Originally enacted in 1975 to offset the impacts of the OPEC oil embargo and US oil price controls, and slow the rapid depletion of oil reserves, the mileage standards grew increasingly stringent. During the Obama years, the earlier justifications were replaced with claims that a vastly tougher 54.5 mpg standard would somehow help prevent “dangerous manmade climate change.”
However, EPA’s own analysis showed that the new mileage standard would have brought emission reductions of a barely perceptible 3 billion tons of CO2 over the lifetime of vehicles covered by the new standards – out of an estimated two trillion tons of CO2 emitted worldwide during the same period.
That meaningless 0.15% savings was fraudulent enough. But as Competitive Enterprise Institute general counsel Sam Kazman, other analysts and I have often pointed out, the real impact of these rules has always been on people. CAFÉ standards kill, maim and paralyze drivers and passengers – because they force auto makers to downsize and plasticize cars and light trucks, making them less crashworthy.
Insurance industry and other studies found that the earlier 27.5 mpg standard resulted in 2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities every year, and hundreds of thousands of additional serious injuries, in collisions with cars, trucks, buses, trees and other objects. Minority and other poor families suffer disproportionate injuries and deaths, because they can least afford the higher priced cars and light trucks with advanced safety features. One can only imagine the extra tolls that would be associated with the 54.5 mpg rule.
Hopefully, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will underscore this lethal reality as he reexamines the Obama CAFÉ standards. (His predecessors paid no attention to the likely death and injury tolls, and Democratic politicians, environmentalist groups and liberal media have excoriated Pruitt’s proposal – raising serious questions about their priorities and concern about human lives and welfare.)
In contrast to this important and long overdue regulatory change – and in equally sharp contrast to his many other deregulation and reduced taxation actions – President Trump’s recent decision to impose a 25% tariff on imported steel products seems to have paid too little attention to unintended consequences.
Steelmakers and even the Commerce Department claim “cheap” foreign substitutes “threaten national security.” That’s a highly suspect claim. But even to the extent a threat can be demonstrated, the tariffs themselves represent a serious threat to national security … to every company, project and job in other sectors of the US economy that depend on affordable steel … and to the president’s promise to Make America Great Again and make American energy a dominant player on the global stage.
Indeed, one can understand an anti-fossil-fuel President Obama imposing these tariffs. But Mr. Trump?
Just consider their impacts on oil and gas drilling, fracking, pipelines, refining, petrochemicals and LNG (liquefied natural gas) export terminals. These are steel-intensive operations. Add 25% to the cost of pipes and other specialized steels, and you raise exploration, production, construction, maintenance and repair costs by millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars.
Building drilling rigs and production platforms that operate in thousands of feet of corrosive sea water, send drilling and production pipe thousands of feet into high-pressure rock formations, and bring oil and gas to terminals and refineries miles away requires millions of tons of high-quality steels that most US companies don’t even make anymore. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations do, as well.
Steel pipes that go down these holes have to be flexible enough to bend without cracking or breaking. They must be durable enough to last decades without corroding or rupturing. This niche market represents just 3% of the total US steel market, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL) notes, so most American steelmakers left the pipeline business to overseas competitors, who pay workers less, face fewer regulations, and can survive on lower profits. Subjecting this specialty pipe to tariffs makes no sense.
In 2017, America’s oil and gas industry spent $8.5 billion just on the steel pipe used in 11,300 wells to frack shale and drill conventional formations. That same steel would have cost $2 billion more, if these 25% tariffs had been in place, the AOPL explains. Similarly, a “typical” 280-mile pipeline would cost $75 million more, a “major” (Keystone XL) pipeline some $300 million more, under these tariffs.
China has already slapped tariffs on US soybeans, and recently signaled that it can add to these oil patch woes by directly targeting shale country products, such as petrochemicals and liquefied propane. The Chinese meanwhile use spies and hackers to steal US corporate, military and government information, and demand access to patents and trade secrets as a price for granting access to huge Chinese markets.
Ironically, two of the main beneficiaries of these tariffs and trade wars could be Russia and OPEC, who would see their own exports and revenues climb in response to declining US oil and gas production. The primary source of export revenues for the Russian economy is oil and natural gas, and many European countries get 50-100% of their natural gas from Russia. That leaves them vulnerable to Putin threats of pipeline closures – and less willing to challenge Putin in Syria, the Crimea, Ukraine and elsewhere.
That also resurrects the links between anti-fossil-fuel US environmental groups that have received funds laundered via the Sea Change Foundation and other intermediaries, from Russian energy oligarchs with strong ties to Putin. Perhaps Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller should investigate that Russian collusion.
(Oil and gas companies can submit a tariff exemption request to the Commerce Department, if a product is not readily available from American manufacturers or is needed for national security reasons. But separate requests must be made for each product; they take months to process and are valid for only one year; and American aluminum and steel makers can object to the request, dragging the process out.)
In essence, these tariffs might save a few hundred steel and aluminum manufacturing jobs. But they put thousands of US workers out of work in other industries that depend on affordable steel products as their basic raw materials. The protectionist tariffs also put dozens of projects on hold or out of reach.
In another irony, many of President Trump’s much desired and ballyhooed infrastructure construction and repair projects could become the victim of soaring steel prices, on top of 1931 Davis-Bacon Act rules that local prevailing union wages must be paid on public works projects. Still more people will then be injured and killed, due to dangerous road and bridge conditions that poorly thought out policies perpetuate.
Tariffs on foreign metals also persuade US steel and aluminum companies that they can raise prices, while still undercutting foreign competitors. That’s why American Keg – the last US manufacturer of stainless steel beer kegs, and a patriotic user of only domestic steel – had to lay off a third of its workers.
Environmentalists oppose mining in the United States. They oppose coal and natural gas as fuels, and the rail and pipe lines to get those fuels to power plants, foundries and factories. They are OK with the Trump tariffs, since they help stymie fossil fuel projects. But radical greens fail to recognize that wind turbines also require massive amounts of specialty steel for rebar, turbine and transmission towers, generators and other components – making them and their high-cost electricity even less affordable and justifiable.
The United States clearly cannot merely present diplomatic protests, while letting other countries engage in unfair trade practices, and worse. However, the politicians whose actions affect our lives in so many ways must do a far better job examining the nature and scope of the unintended consequences of their decisions. Mileage standards, trade wars and tariffs tend to get out of control, and innocent people suffer.
Meanwhile, the brinksmanship continues. Can the White House and Congress find better answers?
Email this author

Posted in Economy, Energy | Comments Off on Politicians Must Consider Unintended Consequences

Did Russia Manipulate U.S. Environmental Activists?

Posted on May 25, 2018 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology issued a report on March 1, 2018, detailing how Russian-supported entities teamed up with U.S. environmental groups to use social media to raise arguments against the production of oil and natural gas.
Meanwhile, Dr. Bonner Cohen recently wrote a column on May 13, 2018, about Russia’s attempts to influence U.S. domestic energy policy by using social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
As one reads such reports, it takes little imagination to conclude there might be Russian influence and money being used to undermine agriculture policy, as it clearly has on energy policy.
The Executive Summary of the House report claims the committee began investigating Russian attempts to influence U.S. energy markets in the summer of 2017. But the rumors in Washington regarding Russian money being funneled to U.S. environmental organizations have been around for years.
The letter from Chairman Lamar Smith, written last June, indicates “Russian-sponsored agents funneled money to U.S. environmental organizations in an attempt to portray energy companies in a negative way and disrupt domestic energy markets.”
Any of this sound familiar?
The House report states letters were sent to leaders of the social media industry and the following was concluded: “Documents that the American social media companies produced for the Committee confirmed that Russian agents were exploiting American social media platforms in an effort to disrupt domestic energy markets, suppress research and development of fossil-fuels, and stymie efforts to expand the use of natural gas.”
According to the report, many of the Russian-linked accounts targeted highly visible tension points in America, including protests against pipelines. The House report includes a lengthy section on why fracking in the energy field has reshaped the global energy landscape.
Connect the dots. Cheap oil is not good for the Russian economy. The increase in oil and gas production resulted in an enormous supply of oil and gas and some of this product is already making its way to European countries. Countries in Central and Eastern Europe are virtually totally dependent on Russia for natural gas.
One section of the report is entitled “Republicans and Democrats agree the Kremlin is manipulating environmental groups in an attempt to carry out their agenda.”
The report also claims that the Secretary General of NATO has claimed “Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations-environmental organizations working against shale gas – to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas.”
Even former Secretary of State and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made a speech in 2014. according to the report. The House document reports, Secretary Clinton said, “We [the State Department and the U.S.] were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I am a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort “oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.”
It gets better.
A Republican Staff Report by the Senate suggests that Russian funds have been funneled through off-shore corporations and passed on to U.S. based environmental activist organizations with the intent to effect political change.
Senator Ben Cardin, D, Maryland, has also released a report on how the Russians are manipulating the media. Sen. Cardin’s work indicates Russian intelligence agencies “…provide covert support to European environmental groups to campaign against fracking for natural gas, thereby keeping the European Union [countries] more dependent on Russian supplies.” Sen. Cardin goes so far in his report to state that environmental groups are “…useful idiots…”. Sen. Cardin believes unwitting environmental groups and activists are helping the Russians and are being manipulated in the process.
The House report suggests that the internet is being used by the Russians to further polarize issues we Americans debate vigorously. Russia is conducting an operation against our energy and environmental policies. The report goes on to list a number of social media posts which claim the energy companies are threatening justice and peoples’ lives.
The conclusion all of us should draw from the House Committee on Science’s report is that possibly the same strategy is being used against many issues in agriculture, such as property rights in the west, GMO questions and even opposition to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
Attorneys representing entities against environmental groups might want to check to see if Russian money is involved in their issue. You never know.
(This article first ran in Farm Futures on May 22, 2018.)
Email this author

Posted in Agriculture, Energy, Environment | Comments Off on Did Russia Manipulate U.S. Environmental Activists?