Sorry Meg!

On Thursday of last week, this blog published a post in which a slight was made at Meg Whitman's position on AB 32. On Friday of last week, Meg Whitman responded directly to this blog over at foxandhoundsdaily.com, where she called out this blog and demanded an apology.

About a third of the above is true.

I did slight Ms. Whitman for saying that she would suspend AB 32 if she were elected. And, by strange coincidence, the next day Meg Whitman did actually post further thoughts on AB 32 at Fox and Hounds Daily. Which is close enough to a rebuttal for me. So today, a further examination of the issue.

Last week's post was less about Meg Whitman than it was about Measure 94, a proposed ballot proposition that would suspend the implementation of AB 32 until unemployment miraculously disappeared from California. That does not appear to be Ms. Whitman's proposed course of action. Instead she seems concerned with getting the details of implementing AB 32 correct. In which case, there is much room for compromise and debate. Ms. Whitman's recent defense of her comments on AB 32 can be considered part of that type of debate, so here are some counter arguments and points of agreement:

Point of Agreement: AB 32 is big and costly.

There's really no debate here, no honest debate anyway. Regulating the GHG emissions of the entire state of California's economy is a big and costly thing to do. So is ripping out the plumbing of your house and replacing it all. The bottom line here is this: big and costly are not grounds enough for not doing something. AB 32 bashers should stop pretending that "big and costly" is a sufficient enough argument and AB 32 supporters should stop pretending like the program costs as much as you could find between your couch cushions.

Point of Agreement: Providing the right incentives is many times the best course of action for the government.

No real debate here either. Meg Whitman says she wants to provide incentives for families and businesses to invest in clean energy and reduce their GHG emissions. I support that. Flood the market with government incentives for clean energy, for reduction of energy consumption, and for innovative new solutions we haven't even seen yet. These are tools that liberal and conservative environmental advocates can support.

Point of Debate: Government incentives are the best method to reduce GHG.

If there needs to be a full economic analysis of implementing AB 32, then there also needs to be a full economic analysis of instituting incentives and tax breaks in its place. How long will the government incentives and tax breaks need to be funding new energy and energy reduction efforts before they break even in the energy market? It won't be within the span of a few years. Any incentive package, to be effective, will need to commit California to a long term presence in the subsidy and incentive business. Fifteen years, twenty years from now, are California conservatives going to be glad they committed themselves to this strategy?

To try and tip the market towards clean energy you can raise the price of carbon energy or lower the price of clean energy. Cap and trade is messy, but at its core it aims to put a price on GHG emissions. The strategy of underwriting the clean energy market deserves just as much economic and fiscal scrutiny as pricing carbon energy does.

Point of Debate: Potential national regulation is a reason to pause AB 32.

There is some uncertainty as to how the politics of Washington DC will treat regional cap and trade programs if any legislation ever makes it to the president's desk. More than likely we know at least one thing: it will be messy. But this is a sideshow type of argument. California is either committed to AB 32 in full because it thinks it is the right thing to do or it stops AB 32 because it doesn't make sense for California. There is no reason to distract from the real issues with talk about a federal bill. Full implementation of AB 32 will not arrive until 2012, which gives California plenty of time to wait and see if the federal government gets anything done.

Miscellaneous Final Thoughts:

The Air Resources Board's AB 32 Scoping Plan has been noted by the Legislative Analyst's Office as an incomplete analysis of the full impact of AB 32 on California's economy. I agree that the plan could be more robust and lacked a certain level of confidence building in AB 32 in the short term. AB 32 is not perfect and nothing on this blog should be construed to suggest that it is. Also, it should be noted that there are significant steps towards GHG emissions reduction that California will be taking even if AB 32 is not put into effect.

Meg Whitman has pledged to pursue a reduction in GHG emissions if she were elected. For this, she should be commended, even if it is just political posturing. What is at the core of this issue is the answer to the question of how California will do this. That we should debate until we cannot stand it anymore.

I don't agree with everything she says on the subject, however this blog sincerely apologies for any previous jokes made at Ms. Whitman's expense. Please do not blog against us again. Pride hurts on the way down.

Wait Till Things Are Better To Screw Them Up

A ballot initiative working its way to the people of California is threatening the progress that the state has made towards being a leader in the green economy. Measure 94, which is currently waiting for the attorney general to assign it a title, would suspend the implementation of California's landmark AB 32 legislation until the state's unemployment rate fell below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. It is being touted as, "a reasonable measure at this time." It is instead a poorly disguised attempt to derail California's progress in the area of sustainability.

The last time the California unemployment rate was below 5.5% in four consecutive quarters was from 3Q 2006 through 2Q 2007. This was part of a broader trend that actually extends back as far as the 2Q of 2005. However, in the last 20 years, California has had only two such periods (the second period lasted from 3Q 1999 to 2Q 2001). In the last twenty years, only twice has California enjoyed the type of climate that Measure 94 demands be met before AB 32 can be enacted. The average quarterly unemployment rate from 1990 through 2009 in California was 6.9% unemployment. Even when 2009 is arbitrarily tossed out the window, the average is still at 6.7%. The proposed measure requires four consecutive quarters of unusually low unemployment before allowing AB 32 to be implemented.

Measure 94 disingenuously asks voters to wait until the economy is healthy before allowing AB 32 to, "Cost California up to 1.1 million jobs" and "Devastate budgets of California social service agencies" (both quotes from the website, www.suspendab32.org). It is a thinly veiled attempt to appear reasonable while knowing that the unemployment threshold the measure sets would be near impossible to achieve in any near future. Furthermore, Measure 94, along with Meg Whitman's pledge to halt all AB 32 related initiatives, would be highly detrimental to California. If forced to wait for the "right" employment conditions, California may be waiting an impossibly long time and at sizable cost.

So said the Legislative Analyst Office's report. The non-partisan office found that delaying the implementation of AB 32 would feel good now but would have consequences down the road. Specifically, we would be trading lower energy bills in the present day, for lost ground on new energy sources and the lost multitude of green jobs that would no longer be created. The LAO report notes that Measure 94 could result in some fiscal savings for the state because the administrative costs of implementing and enforcing AB 32 would be avoided. That's true in a simple analysis. But with regard to AB 32, it is a very narrow way to examine the issue. Will AB 32 cost money? Of course. But it also transforms an economy and makes California one of the leading sub-national governments in the world on greenhouse gas reductions. Not to mention the potential revenue lost because the state would no longer be regulating carbon credits. (Yes, some of this revenue would likely be passed to the taxpayers in a rebate system, but the state will not keep their hands off it entirely)

The measure raises a question that should be answered: are there economic conditions that would justify waiting to implement AB 32? Unfortunately, the nobility of the question is completely sidetracked by the complete lack of constructive solutions proposed by the measure.

Stopping AB 32 cold would be a bad move for California and its citizens. There are legitimate differences between conservatives and liberals on what the proper role of government is in combating environmental problems. There could even be very productive discussions about amending AB 32 given the current economic climate. Measure 94 is not a solution or significant contribution to these debates. Instead, it is bad policy that takes the state backwards in its efforts instead of forward. It's not wrong to try and correct or improve existing legislation. But Measure 94 is not interested in correction or improvement. It is simply concerned with endless delay and postponement. To say it in a way both sides could agree on: it is interested in what California cannot afford to do.

Krafty

Kraft Foods has reduced their packaging by 150 million pounds through reducing the inefficiency in the size of the packages and switching materials. Bravo for this sustainable advancement, which will reap benefits in reducing waste and for reducing the overall weight of their shipments, making the transport vehicles more efficient.

Avoiding the Runoff

Los Angeles County is considering new building code regulations that will change the way that new construction accommodates rainwater in Los Angeles. This new, Low Impact Development (LID) code, is currently waiting for City Council committee approval. The new code is a common sense measure that creates a winning scenario for California's most populated city and the environment it is located in.

The proposed LID code would represent a shift in how Los Angeles deals with runoff from rainwater. The LID code would shift the responsibility for runoff water to the building site itself, making builders responsible for being able to accommodate 100% of the runoff that would result from three-quarters of an inch of rain. For each gallon of runoff water that that site is not designed to handle, builders would face a $13 penalty which would fund off site-public LID measures to further curb runoff.

It is nothing new for local governments to exercise power over the type and style of development that happens within their jurisdiction. It is a a reasonable and accepted practice for local governments to regulate building codes for safety purposes among many other reasons. What might be painted as an extreme environmental regulation that will be a burden to development in Los Angeles County, is really nothing more than a responsible change to regulations and an internalizing of true cost of runoff in Los Angeles. The new LID code does not extend past the currently accepted role of the local government as a regulator of building and development codes. In fact, it is an example of local government doing what it does best, adapting building regulations to fit the unique conditions of the local environment.

It is no secret that Los Angeles lives in the perennial shadow of drought conditions and water use restrictions. The requirement to responsibly manage runoff from storm systems would go a long way towards helping the city deal with its consistent problem. Author of the new LID code, Board of Public Works Commissioner Paula Daniels estimates that the new code would prevent 104 million gallons of water from being washed out into the ocean. This would curb a major source of ocean pollution, as well as help replenish depleted groundwater.

In 2008, one finding of a National Resource Council report on the issue of urban runoff was that the federal EPA was doing too little to help local and state governments deal with their runoff problems. Should Los Angeles County adopt the runoff regulations of the LID code, it will not be the first municipality to encourage runoff management. Local agencies across the United States are actively encouraging private owners and developers to incorporate runoff into their development design. Among others, the state of Texas and the city of Austin both offer tax rebates on stormwater management systems. In the absence of national activity, local government are already stepping up to adopt measures like the proposed LID code in Los Angeles.

In fact, local governments are the best vehicle to attack these problems. The federal EPA, for all of its benefits, is more likely to adopt a one size fits all model for urban runoff. That's not a scathing criticism, that's just the nature of the beast. Local county regulation is best poised to handle its own unique problems.

The proposed LID code next goes before two City Council committees and then to the Council. Los Angeles County should move ahead with these common sense regulations. At their heart is not bureaucratic interference in the development of Los Angeles. Rather, the LID code represents a winning solution for residents of Los Angeles. It stays within long accepted boundaries for government action in order to promote advantageous solutions to one of Southern California's long standing problems.

Waste Free and It Feels So Good

It is important to highlight the victories. Read here about how seven different Pepsi plants in the UK are now running at zero waste. This means that seven manufacturing facilities now no longer "use" the landfills. They send absolutely nothing off site as waste.

Remarkable.

Tradeoffs No Excuse For Inaction

In this article in the NY Times, we hear about the rise of "green" disputes between couples. The article itself is mostly pointless, but it does highlight an interesting type of behavior.

In the article, we learn that people are feeling the stress of relationships in which they believe they need to be more "green" than the other person does. The article notes that one woman feels the stress of trying to live environmentally friendly lifestyle when she goes to visit her parents and they insist on eating off of disposable Styrofoam plates. The kicker is what reason her mother gives for insisting on using disposable, impossible-to-decompose plates instead of washable, reusable plates. The article explains:

"Her mother, who says she prefers the way food tastes when it is served on Styrofoam, notes that washing dishes has its own environmental cost."

Excuse me. She prefers the way that food tastes when it comes off a Styrofoam plate?

In a serious discussion of the problem though, this is a laughable example of a very real problem. When it comes to things we don't want to do, we are very good at finding a problem with the suggested change in behavior. Want me to serve food on reusable plates because it won't result in waste? Well, you know, I'd just be wasting water washing that reusable dish. Problem solved. Now, because the suggested alternative wasn't perfect, we can continue our normal course of behavior without disrupting our routine.

The example is absurd, but the problem is real. I think it is especially damaging in the area of sustainability, but my own bias probably informs that view. Whatever the case, the correction is simple, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. When deciding how best to approach an environmental problem, each alternative should be weighed against the others to see what the best approach is. The most destructive approach is the one that says that none of it matters at all, that all options are created equal, and who cares what any one person does or doesn't do. Take the reusable bags offered at many stores now. These are a common sense alternative to wasteful plastic bags. However, there is still a huge difference between a reusable bag that was made from virgin materials harvested specifically for the purpose of making the bag and a bag made from recycled materials and even still a bag made from leftover (waste) materials from other manufacturing processes.

So we have a hierarchy of environmental decisions. From Worst to Best* we have:

1) plastic bags

2) virgin material reusable bag

3) recycled material reusable bag

4) a bag made from the scrap material of another process

The general idea, that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, is applicable to many other areas of life. This just happens to be a blog about sustainability. And the game of finding problems with other people's arguments is a fun one. We love to play that game. Unfortunately, we often don't know how or when to turn that critical eye back on our own actions. We are all guilty of it. But once again, communal guilt is no excuse for complete inaction.

*(Note: the line between 2 and 3 is not quite so obvious in total Life Cycle Analysis. For example, virgin material harvested in accordance with sustainability guidelines could in fact be more environmentally friendly than certain methods of recycling. Recycling is great, but not always the magic bullet for being kind to the environment.)

Unapologetically American

Kevin Surace, CEO of Serious Materials, addressed the U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Caucus with a message on why America needs to champion the energy efficiency revolution. Greenbiz.com posted the text of his address, which is long but well worth reading. It is an unapologetic call for America to lead the world in manufacturing energy efficient building materials and technology. Bravo to Mr. Surace and here's hoping we actually follow through with his vision.