Is This the End of New Pipelines?

    We are seeing a major shift in the priorities of Americans. Americans are becoming less concerned with being a global leader in fossil fuel energy and becoming more concerned with becoming a leader of renewable energy. This has caused major strain on oil and gas companies due to the scrutiny they have been put under. The oil and gas companies have been forced to delay projects and spend millions of dollars in litigation to keep their projects alive. The argument against a lot of these projects is that we shouldn’t be expanding our oil and gas infrastructure but expanding on clean energy infrastructure. Increasing pressure from both democrats and left leaning conservatives has given power to environmental groups in the fight against continued expansion of oil and gas infrastructure. This has caused big hits in the number of jobs available and loss of job opportunity that would have been created if these projects were able to get up and running. Many states have also been jumping on board with the fight for greener energy which makes it increasingly difficult for these gas and oil companies to obtain permits necessary to begin their projects. These new policies are forcing established energy companies to rethink their outlook on the future of energy production. It’s becoming more and more apparent that oil and gas is beginning to fade, and greener energy is on the horizon.

COVID also isn’t helping these oil and gas companies financially justify taking on such large investments in infrastructure. The pandemic has caused a major drop in demand for oil and gas. Less people are driving now, and more people are staying home. This makes it more difficult to justify such huge investment commitments in the near future. With the hits these companies have faced in litigation from environmentalist movements and the state and federal governments, the pandemic only makes it that much tougher. 

Greener energy is a good thing for the environment. It may cause some strain on the economy at first because of the large initial costs necessary to begin making the switch. However, in the long run I believe that this shift will help keep our economy in front of the inevitable global shift to cleaner energy. As new technology develops, initial costs will fall and the idea of shifting into this new realm of energy will begin to seem more attainable. I look now and I can’t imagine a world with new gas engines and gas burning furnaces. It will take time and a huge shift in the industry to make this fantasy a reality. Adjusting to cleaner energy will help keep our planet in a condition to continue prosper and growth for the economy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/climate/dakota-access-keystone-atlantic-pipelines.html

San Francisco moving towards renewable energy

On Earth Day of 2019, San Francisco became the first US city to introduce 100% renewable energy requirements for commercial buildings. These requirements offer a timeline for when different sized buildings have to comply. All commercial buildings over 500,000 square feet have until 2022, buildings over 250,000 square feet have until 2024, and buildings over 50,000 square feet have until 2030. This move to renewable energy is expected to reduce emissions from commercial buildings by 21%. A big number considering commercial buildings make up 44% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the city. 

The ordinance comes with 3 important exceptions:

    1) If there is a lack of renewable energy available to meet demand

    2) If the cost for renewable energy is more than 5% of the providers default option

    3) If the new requirement conflicts with new state or federal energy laws

Number one is important, because you can not issue fines to businesses for failing to comply if the energy supply is not available. Such a drastic increase in demand would be hard for any supplier to meet. To prepare the city for this change, the Bay area has been offering incentives for energy companies to develop renewable options. San Francisco first established a goal of 100% renewable power back in 2008. Since then, they have awarded numerous grants for renewable energy projects. 

Number 2 is needed in order to stop energy companies from price gouging. By making the renewable energy a requirement, the city is forcing the demand line to become vertical at the number of all commercial buildings. The law would also make renewable energy an inelastic good. No matter the price, the businesses would still have to purchase in order to comply with the law. To combat this, the city put a price ceiling on renewable energy. We know that price ceilings often result in a shortage of supply, and the output of lower quality goods, so it will be interesting to see of the incentives offered by the government are enough to bridge the gap.

This type of large government action throws a big wrench into the workings of the free market. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out over the next ten years. San Francisco serves as a test run for other large cities, who can take this information and create plans of their own as we move to become a greener nation.

-Steven Brown

Sources

Go 100% Renewable Energy : San Francisco - 100% Renewable Power by 2030 (go100percent.org)

San Francisco Now Requires 100% Renewable Energy for Commercial Buildings (fbm.com)

Political Accountability and Access to Information

    The lack of political accountability along with suppression of information in regards to environmental protection was present during Soviet communism. When the communist regime became public so did the environmental atrocities committed through industrialization in the government owned economy. The "industrialize at all costs approach" without regard for the environment was made possible by limited information and lack of democracy. For example, the environmental problems that persisted in the USSR were not made public until after the fall of the Soviet Union. Concerned scientists took personal risks by coming forward with information about the environment and their information was not accessible to the general public. Lack of information and accountably haas been present in the United States, as well. "Many of the worst hazardous waste sites in our country resulted from U.S. military programs, shrouded in Cold War secrecy"(Goodstein and Polasky 268). The Hanford nuclear site being on of the most prominent examples. 

  

    While government action was the root of environmental degradation in the USSR, government is not the main source of environmental problems in free-markets. Some would argue that government inaction or ineffective action is the main cause of environmental complications in capitalist countries. Environmental problems in free-markets generally result because of a lack of payment for negative externalities from business, citizens, and even government. For government to create effective policy to target negative externalities there needs to be easy access to good information and "effective widespread democracy". Citizens need a method to air their grievances, otherwise their problems will go unknown and unsolved. Without tension from citizens to government, the demand for environmental safety and protection is not accounted for. In other words, the environmental costs are not paid for and there is a lack of incentive to pollute less.   

        Another example of limited information having negative consequences on the environment are poor developing countries that commit environmental atrocities similar to the USSR. Citizens in these countries do not have information to meet the needs for a cleaner environment, such as alternatives, nor the means to pressure their government to take action.

                                                                           Works Cited

GOODSTEIN, E. S. (2014). ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. S.l.: JOHN WILEY.

Value of Environmental Health Risks in China

     In the United States, we can place a return value on environmental regulations. As pollution related illness and death increase, the affected individuals can no longer contribute to the economy. When environmental regulations are implemented, they can change this value. If the number of people that will be able to contribute to the economy after the bill is high enough to offset the cost of the bill, it is more likely to be implemented. In China, individual income is much lower than in the United states, so environmental regulations in China are less likely to pay off.

    The median household income in the United States is around $43,000, so if a household were to die from a pollution based illness, the US economy would lose that contribution. China's annual disposable income is much lower on a individual basis. When implementing environmental regulations, it takes fewer affected individuals to pay off a bill in the United States than it does in China. For this reason, China's attention to environmental issues has been put on the backburner until recently. The lower disposable income per household in China also means that individuals are less likely to spend their money on health concerns. 

    In 2013, China implemented their first air pollution control act. The inability of their citizens to invest personal finances into the problem led to serious air quality issues that finally presented a financial burden on Chinas economic system. The edge was reached where improved health of the population would increase wealth enough to offset the cost to implement the plan and China spent 1.8 trillion dollars on the issue.

Projects to Stash Carbon Dioxide Underground Get a Boost

Pollution has become a growing issue and one that more people are taking more seriously. It’s become apparent that we cannot pollute as much as we want without consequences. Pollution comes in many forms from waste, oil spills, or carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. The latter is one that this article discusses trying to clean up. Many power sources require digging beneath the earths surface in order to gather the precious resources necessary to power our modern lives. This releases billions of tons of carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. This is an issue that scientists have been working on solving and are making headway into processes to reduce carbon dioxide pollution.

       Burying carbon dioxide is a process that may be a small contribution to the vast amounts of carbon dioxide created every day. Industrial plants are working on catching carbon dioxide emissions and burying them deep below the earths surface. This is a concept that hasn’t gone mainstream yet. This is due to complications with tax breaks that are in the works that would incentivize these industrial companies to take this action. This process takes a rather large initial investment. The Trump has recently approved the new tax breaks and the IRS is in the process of learning how to put this policy into action. This new tax break will allow these companies to receive up to $50 per ton of carbon dioxide that is permanently buried underground. This could be a big incentive. A coal plant in North Dakota estimates that it could capture up to 3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. That’s a significant income at roughly $150 million. 

These types of projects and concepts will help the hopeful transition into using only renewable energy sources. It will help make traditional energy resources such as oil, coal, and ethanol much easier to continue using. It will be easier to except these traditionally high pollutant contributing resources into slightly greener means until the technology and infrastructure is in place for renewable energy sources. This also allows the energy producing industries that create many jobs keep these jobs and hopefully make the transition smoother. Jobs created by energy resources are a substantial part of the labor force and will significantly hinder the labor market if the ability to use these high pollutant resources is stopped through policy. That’s why it’s important to develop concepts to make our current processes greener while new renewable energy infrastructure is developed. 

We are now in a time where nearly everyone is aware of the impacts that humans have had on the environment. It’s tough to deny our impact when we see the smog, increase in significant weather, and amount of waste created. It’s important to keep researching and developing different ways to improve our environment to ensure we can keep enjoying the resources we have.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/climate/carbon-capture-tax-break.html

New England’s Forests Are Sick. They Need More Tree Doctors.

    I’ve recently been more aware of the importance of trees and the impact they have on the habitat around them. This article caught my attention and it discussed a few important aspects of the importance of trees for the environment. I was surprised on the claims that this article makes on all of the different environmental factors that are impacting the overall health of our forests. Disease, invasive species, climate change and others all of a significant impact on trees. 

This is cause for concern because trees are vital for the health of our ecosystems and also play an important factor in our economy. Construction of residential and commercial properties are dependent on the use of lumber. Lumber seems like a commodity that is coming from a seemingly endless supply. Most people don’t really give much thought to it, they drive to the nearest home improvement store and there it is. Without much thought on how that wood got there. Luckily, wood is a very replenishable source. That replenishment, however, is being impacted by the high demand and stressors trees must overcome to stay healthy and grow. 

This article discusses the threats unhealthy trees can cause such as decreasing habitat quality for wildlife and threatening the overall success of tree survival. They are looking at trees in the New England area. Here in Colorado, we have seen the impacts disease and poor climate conditions can cause. I recently was helping with the East Troublesome fire in the Granby, CO area. The fire was devastating for the local population but even more for the forests and wildlife in the area. I have spent a lot of time in the forests in Grand County and have noticed the amount of beetle killed lodgepole pine in the area. You can look at the mountain side and see gray patches and sometimes whole mountain sides containing still standing and fallen trees that were overwhelmed with the beetle infestation. This is great fuel for fires and the East Troublesome fire flourished in the area. 

These fires cost millions of dollars to contain and fight. That is money that could have been spent elsewhere but due to the decline in forest conditions must be utilized to fight fires. This is a devastating reality that we find ourselves in. Most of the problems with our forests aren’t an easy solve. Weather and spread of disease are issues that can’t be solved in the short term. I do believe it is worth allocating resources into analyzing these issues and developing solutions. If we push it off, we could start to see loss of forest areas not caused directly by humans through logging but from environmental factors that humans have contributed to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/climate/new-england-trees-forests.html

Elk Return to Kentucky, Bringing Economic Life

    Too often do we hear about wildlife populations hurting because of the spread of human civilization over the landscape. It seems like every week there is a story about a predator had to be put down because of its proximity to a neighborhood or hear how our waste is affecting the ecosystems of the animals that most of us appreciate. This story is not one of those stories. This story is a success story, although it is does include a bit of sad irony. 

The irony is that we created as humans caused the problem that we are trying to fix. Since settlers came over the Atlantic ocean our wildlife resources have severely been depleted. Big game animals are the ones that took the biggest hit as settlers saw them as an endless resource until they almost did and for some ended completely. Elk have seen a huge comeback in the west over the last few decades, some say that some of the western states have elk populations restored to where they were before settlers arrived. However, the west is not where elk previously used to thrive, they thrived across the whole country, similar to whitetail deer today. 

In Kentucky elk used to thrive according to journals by settlers. The elk however were completely gone within the state borders by the start of the civil war. The rocky mountain elk foundation (RMEF) strived to return elk to Kentucky and see that at least part of the population can be restored. This project was set to happen in an area of Kentucky that had been decimated by coal mining in the 1900’s. This is an area that few people want to live because of the threat of disease from the old mines. However, this area has the right conditions for elk to thrive. The RMEF brought, by air, over 1500 elk from the western states in 1997. Kentucky is now home to over 13,000 Elk and the population is rising.

    I myself am an avid hunter and fisher, so naturally I'm a huge supporter of wildlife and wildlife habitat. I am also a member of the RMEF. Hearing stories like this really makes me happy because I do believe wildlife is an excellent resource that should not be taken for granted. Wildlife habitat continues to be encroached upon by developing towns and cities. In many areas the wildlife, particularly big game, are forced out of their habitats and forced to move to other areas. Elk used to be a prairie dwelling animal, however, with the continued pressure of humans, they have moved to the difficult landscape of the mountains to avoid human contact. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/science/kentucky-elk-wildlife-coal.html?searchResultPosition=1