NOx standards on new vehicles in LA

In the summer I listened to an EconTalk podcast with Prof. Robert Frank of Cornell University. The podcast can be listened to here. Consider this statement from Robert Frank:

"In Los Angeles, in order to meet the air quality targets they were shooting for, they had to adopt stringent nitrous oxide (NOx) requirements on new vehicles because they were unwilling to have old vehicles comply with the pollution requirements--mostly low income drivers drive the old vehicles and it was thought to be too onerous to require them to comply. So we ratcheted up the requirements on the new cars to meet the target and it was about $900 a pound to get all the NOx out of new cars--all the low-hanging fruit had already been picked in that domain--so for the inevitable democratic impulse to shield poor people from hardship we ended up spending $900/pound to get NOx out of the air, whereas if we had forced older vehicles to come into compliance we could have gotten that same pound out for $10. Way cheaper over all if we'd taxed wealthy motorists in California a little bit extra and given a voucher to poor motorists, who would turn in their old cars and buy a 5-year old Toyota Corolla or some other compliant vehicle."

The example above relates to the content of a class I am taking called "Environmental Policy Analysis".We talked today about pollution standards and how they could be inherently more inefficient in terms of social and economic costs. If we wanted to improve air quality for everyone (using the LA example), then it would be more sensible to tax the wealthier motorists so that enough money could be re-distributed to lower-income drivers to purchases cars that are less intensive in terms of NOx. This would be a much less expensive way to alleviate pernicious pollutants that cause respiratory illnesses. Standards are helpful but when considering overall economic costs, there are more efficient and equitable ways of doing it. Yes, this is also a political game, but political games such as these ones can make everyone worse off.

More to come on risk management, environmental policy and how to improve decisions that make everyone better off.

An "Economy vs. Environment" Debate

I was reading an article from the New York Times titled "Muddy Road Molds Debate on the Future of Guyana". The article reminded me of that classic debate between the economy and the environment. While this particular example is far more complicated, it illustrates how a country (Guyana) has the opportunity to pave a 300-mile road that connects the capital (Georgetown) to Letham, a boomtown on the border with Brazil.

Investors from Brazil are ecstatic about this because it would allow them to search for a deepwater port near Georgetown, giving northern Brazil a "modern artery to export its goods to the Caribbean and North America".

For Guyana, the project presents an opportunity and a threat. Could the road help provide Guyana with an identity, especially an economic identity? This small country of 753,000 is the poorest in South America, with per capita income lower than Bolivia. The road would help Guyana reap significant benefits from trade and take the country more aggressively forward into the global economy.

On the other hand, Guyana could take the more ecologically sustainable path to its economic development. Indeed, the President, Bharrat Jagdeo (who visited Trent University in October) has demonstrated great leadership on forest protection policies and other environmental initiatives.

Environmentalists are deeply concerned about the potential road. Paving it could damage the forest, disrupt and displace river otters, arapaima fish and jaguars. It is projected that two million acres of rain forest could be affected if the road is paved.

Road proponents have acknowledged that the project could bring about upheaval. But they also see how it could ease Guyana's poverty. But, who's going to pay for it? The Prime Minister of Guyana, Sam Hinds, supports the project, as long as Guyana could find $350 million to finance it. There is no indication as to how much the Brazilian government will pay for the project. Their return on investment would be quite adequate considering their expanded trade routes. While the road would be stretched across the country of Guyana, it would be completely inequitable for this poor nation to finance the project at 100%.

Citizens have come out and expressed their deep concerns. Justin de Freitas, 35, who worked as a porter along the road said "that road is going to end our way of life".

There are others as well (including Indigenous) who could be affected by such a project.

To build or not to build? A looming question with seemingly clear costs and benefits. Does the country risk sacrificing its native species, local ecosystems and forested areas for a paved road that will ostensibly bring economic progress? Does it jeopardize its image as a global leader in forest protection policies? These are just some of the tough battles that Guyana now faces with concomitant pressure from the rising economic power that is Brazil.

Key message: These projects are incredibly complex. Squandering an economic opportunity for environmental protection is always a tough one to swallow. A country like Guyana has ambitions to utilize more renewable energy and continue to protect its pristine forests. However, tough decisions lie ahead about economic opportunities that can potentially bring about more benefits to the country's citizenry and alleviate national poverty.

No need to salt our roads: Spring is approaching and salt poisons our water…

A geological study from the University of Toronto has found that road salt poses numerous threats to groundwater and water quality. Their research findings come from a study based on Pickering, ON. Pickering is a GTA community relatively close to the 401 highway and a community that has witnessed a lot of suburban growth. Both the 401 and suburban roads use copious amounts of road salt for highway and road safety and to minimize the likelihood of accidents. Alas, in the Pickering context, a lot of this salt has ended up in a nearby watershed called Frenchman’s Bay, a lagoon on the shores of Lake Ontario.

The geologists found that over 3,600 tonnes of road salt end up in Frenchman’s Bay every winter due to direct runoff in creeks and streams. It is no coincidence that the fish population in this lagoon has been declining due to increased levels of salinity. Putting the salinity levels in some context, it is estimated that the lagoon has levels of salt that closely resemble ocean water. Higher levels of salinity simply contaminate the waters and drive the younger fish population away. Younger fish, unlike older fish, do not have the capacity to cope with saline intrusions because they are not used to it.

The impacts of road salt on Pickering's ground and surface water imply a higher than average amount of road salt usage. In Canada, about five million tonnes, or approximately 150 kilograms per Canadian, is used on roads each year to make them safe for travel in winter. A lot of this road salt is applied to roads in Ontario and Quebec.

Where does government intervention fit into all of this? Well, Environment Canada has recognized the “adverse” impacts of salt on wildlife, plants, water, soil etc. In the past, they considered adding road salt to the nation’s list of toxic substances, but... that never happened. Six years ago, the government instituted a “voluntary code of practices” to "encourage municipalities and others to use the de-icer more sparingly", while maintaining highway safety.

It is the province though that is using road salt for the 401 highway, not the municipalities. Plus, communities like Pickering are growing rapidly placing more pressure on local government to salt their roads because it is the most economically sensible way of ensuring road safety.

Voluntary code of practices should not be applied in this particular case. The geological study provides convincing evidence that road salt has negative ramifications for the large Pickering watershed. While other options are currently being reviewed, I think that municipalities must establish regulations that govern the use of road salt to account for their environmental impacts. Quotas must be established until we come up with more sophisticated engineering solutions.

Key message: The use of road salt helps make our roads safer at the expense of contaminating water quality, declining fish populations and wildlife. In an era where we are trying to sensibly integrate public policy with science, we need to find more practical alternatives that benefit society and nature.

Can Brownfield redevelopment take off?

The Wikipedia definition of Brownfield sites is "abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities available for re-use." In certain parts of the U.S., Brownfield sites are becoming more popular and accepted in this era of environmental sustainability. With Brownfield sites, there is massive potential for increasing density and optimizing land uses in an urban environment. By re-using land that is closer to the urban core, you can effectively increase urban density, allow people to live closer to their workplace (assuming they work downtown) and minimize urban sprawl (which is environmentally disastrous).

Places like St. Paul, Minnesota have been highly successful at showcasing the economic and environmental benefits of Brownfield redevelopment. St. Paul expects that redevelopment of the city's 1,000 acres of Brownfields will create as many as 13,000 new jobs and $25 million in annual property tax revenues. That is super progressive and innovative.

So St. Paul has been successful with implementing Brownfields, but many Canadian cities have not been. With Brownfield redevelopment for housing, the liability and regulatory barriers are significant obstacles because the greater number of end users are exposed to potential risk. More importantly however, the bigger obstacle is the stigma around Brownfields themselves. There is a lot of stigma around Brownfield sites according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), this is because the media and developers deem Brownfield sites as contaminated and unsafe and thus highly risky.

This stigma has been perpetuated and has worried many developers from putting in redevelopment projects- those perceived risks have stifled innovation in industrial design and construction. It is really unfortunate because the media does not showcase cities that have been successful with Brownfields, St. Paul being the prime example.

In Canada, the CMHC has been talking about having public outreach programs designed to educate participants in the Brownfield redevelopment process on the real risks and benefits of the process. Alas, this has not taken off as vigorously as many sought. With a weakened economy, developers have not taken many risks with Brownfields, instead, many continue to construct massive sub-division projects which only perpetuate that problem of urban sprawl. This is happening in Peterborough and in areas close to the Greenbelt.

Brownfield redevelopment can restrain urban sprawl. It’s like an urban containment policy. Brownfield redevelopment is really expensive though. There has been a reluctance of lenders to provide financing for brownfield redevelopment projects. Unless the risk assessment process is sound, the lender may not want to provide a loan because the land might be worth nothing down the road.

A Brownfield project is a way of providing affordable housing within existing urban areas while reducing expansion (in essence, it does work towards social justice and environmental sustainability).

It can also encourage economic development through concentrating more mixed commercial and residential uses in the urban core, however, this has to be popular and attractive for developers! Developers need to understand how such redevelopment can protect and improve human health, promote stronger live-work relationships and above all, maximize economic profitability.

Sadly, one of the biggest loopholes of this process is “the inability to transfer liability when land is sold”. This has caused some large corporate landowners to mothball their properties

Key message: Brownfields can alleviate the environmental repercussions of urban sprawl. Education and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities can both help make this process a heck of a lot easier.

What do we know about tap water? Lessons from the U.S.

City Brights blogger Peter Gleick, recently wrote a highly informative post about tap water in the U.S. Both in the U.S. and Canada we are very fortunate to access our drinking water from our taps, something many people in the developing world cannot do. With the possibility of contracting cholera, typhoid, dysentery, the risks are simply too high.

Interestingly, the U.S. has a federal act titled the "Safe Drinking Water Act", but it is outdated and in need for reform. The Safe Drinking Water Act regulates 91 chemicals. Yet there are tens of thousands of chemicals that can contaminate our waters and that haven't been assessed for their risks.

Gleick writes that "We have also known for a long time that research into the health effects of many contaminants has been underfunded, slow, and piecemeal. Such research is extremely hard to do because of the vast numbers of possible chemical contaminants and the difficulty of identifying health effects of exposures to low concentrations or complex mixes of different chemicals."

Last year, people in the U.S. purchased 33 billion litres of bottled water- an average of 110 litres per person. As enviroboys has explained before, people buy bottled water for all sorts of reasons; one of those reasons is fear of tap water because of the ostensible contaminants. There is always reason to fear this but we should know that our water is being treated with filtration, chlorination, and other modern water-treatment systems.

It is way too difficult for Environment Canada and the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate every single chemical in our water supply (because there are hundreds). Gleick calls for an upgrading in our municipal water systems with the latest, sophisticated technologies for treating water. Out of precautionary principle, we should be installing the sophisticated membrane and disinfection technologies capable of taking things out of our water.

A good way to pay for these system upgrades would be through water bills and imposing a fee on industries that release these chemicals. Water is fundamental to life and our existence, surely we can cut down on satellite tv or cable channels to pay for better treated water. The fee imposed on industry can as Gleick writes "support all the necessary research needed to evaluate the health risks they pose, to pay for remediating contaminated sites, and to help pay for sophisticated water-treatment systems to remove the contaminants they've released. In other words, the polluters must pay for their pollution as a cost of doing business".

Key message: Tap water is important and significantly cheaper than bottled water. Whether in the U.S. or Canada there should be strict legislation and funding in place to upgrade water systems to ensure a safe and adequate supply.

Is climate change really about risk management?

This post is a sequel to Chris's post about the Munk debates on climate change.

According to Greg Craven, climate change is a game of risk management. As he explains in the video, we can take action on "global warming" and spend trillions of dollars doing this. But, what if global warming is "false"? Then we run ourselves into a global depression. Or we spend trillions of dollars and we benefit through this as it greatly minimizes the risks associated with global warming. Or we do nothing (status quo) and global warming does not prove to be as catastrophic as it was predicted to be. Here we do not take action, nothing significant happens and we save $$$. And if we don't take action and it actually happens.... well, then we are screwed.

I am just summarizing the video. Watch it with a critical eye. There is so much controversy surrounding this issue, how much thought have you given climate change? For you, is climate change a question of risk management? Or is it more of a science issue or political problem? Feel free to share thoughts about the video on enviroboys. We always welcome comments.

If you want to know more about Greg Craven, see here.

Dyer's gloomy and doomy perspective on the world...

I attended Gwynne Dyer’s lecture last night and was blown away with both hope and despair. The title of his talk entitled “Climate Wars” inherently has that feeling of global desolation. Dyer revealed many important points about the numerous implications of climate change. These included its impact on global food production, the melting of permafrost, depleting groundwater aquifers, population growth, warming oceans and their eventual inability to absorb carbon dioxide emissions and many more.

His 1 hour lecture was filled with compelling arguments albeit scary, wit and humorous jokes and stories of his visits to and interviews with numerous political leaders, scientists and military generals around the world.

He organized and structured his talk with five conclusions. This would make for an excessively long blog post if I went into detail for each one, so instead I will just tell you what I thought was interesting and frightening at the same time. Firstly, Dyer says that a global temperature rise of two degrees Celsius (note this is important) can have cataclysmic consequences for world. Take food production in sub-tropical states for example, with increased droughts creating less favourable climate conditions for crop production and irrigation, countries can face massive food shortages. A two degree rise can cause India to lose up to 25% of its food production, that’s equivalent to roughly 250 million of its inhabitants becoming hungry.

He kept making reference to how a two degree rise in global temperature can have drastic consequences. Consequences such as disasters causing environmental refugees to seek new places for food and water and face governments who are themselves concerned with feeding their own populations. Mexico and Central America have a combined population of 200 million people, food and water shortages can send these people north to the U.S. says Dyer. The U.S. has been somewhat pro-active with upholding security at the Mexican border, but things can get a lot more defensive in the future.

There are many other examples that Dyer draws on including potential water/nuclear conflicts between India and Pakistan, or Iraqi refugees on the Saudi Arabian border. Point being, that armies or the “generals” as Dyer puts it, are going to have lots of work coming their way in terms of protection and natural security against potential refugees.

On Copenhagen, Dyer is cynical but realistic. In short, he thinks it will be an utter failure. He expects nothing positive to come out of it because Obama has not made any federal commitments to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Not yet at least. The U.S. has to have a solid plan or proposition for a conference like Copenhagen, otherwise the prospects of creating a global climate change binding agreement is hopeless.

Same goes for Canada, realistically we would have to cut our national emissions by as much as 40%, yeah sounds absurd doesn’t it? The average Canadian emits 21 tonnes of carbon emissions annually, gargantuan in comparison to China’s 4 tonnes per person or India’s 1.5 per person. A global agreement on climate change is only possible if nations like Canada, the U.S. and France are willing to make major cuts.

The world is presently at 390 ppm of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. We are adding about 3.2 ppm every year which over 20 years will bring us to 450 ppm. 450 ppm is considered the tipping point! Crazy how 4 out of every 5 Americans own a car. This number would be higher but the other 20% of the nation is either too old or young to drive, or find themselves in prisons says Dyer.

Key message: In order to stay below 450ppm and avoid a global temperature increase of two degrees, Canada and the U.S. are going to have to step up. We are going to have to make major emission cuts which means more significant changes to our lives… driving less, spending more on energy efficient appliances and eating more locally. Sounds pretty easy to me, but harder to pitch to North America as we know it.

Kelowna, BC: Growth accompanied with risk…

Kelowna is in a glorious geographical location. Situated right in British Columbia’s Okanagan valley surrounded by a vast array of forests, wilderness and natural environments. Climate conditions have always been variable in Kelowna- mild winters and warm to hot pleasant summers. Good climate conditions, spectacular scenery, and a non-congested environment are only some of the many benefits one obtains from living there. Additionally, it is very quiet and calm and simply ideal for any urbanite who has become tired of the congested city life. So people have been moving out of the cities into this area purchasing property that has a price tag over a million dollars.

Alas, the dismal side of the story is the region’s susceptibility to forest fires. It really boils down to a game of risks. Many residents in the region are completely cognizant of the forest fire risks but simply prefer to inhabit an area where natural beauty is ubiquitous. Forest fires, including the recent Terrace Mountain fire have caused tremendous damage to homes and infrastructure within the area.

Forest fires have destroyed hundreds of homes over the years due to drier summers and the recent phenomenon of pine beetles. The pine beetles have been chewing away at the lodgepole pine trees so rapidly that thousands of trees have become susceptible to devastating fires. Climate change is generally warming BC winters which allows pine beetles to proliferate because the temperature is not cold enough to kill them.

There are some serious planning and economic development challenges in Kelowna. Western Kelowna had the fastest population growth in Canada from 2001 to 2006. Housing development projects including sub-divisions and million dollar homes have been erected and continue to be built because of the sufficient demand and popularity of the region. All of this housing development has provided economic justification for big box stores to move in as well - Canadian Tire and Wal-Mart just to name a few.

Any developing or booming area will be accompanied with commercial outlets or stores to provide goods and services. But such commercial development should not be happening in the wilderness and natural areas of the Okanagan. People decide to leave more urbanized settings because they want a life that is not overwhelmed with housing and commercial development and congestion. However, despite this, population growth and development are now concentrating in these natural environments because of all of the aforementioned benefits. However, I do not think these people are being adequately advised on all of the risks that are posed to them. For instance, are they aware of the egregious pine beetle problem that is only being exacerbated by climate change?

Climate change has conflict and uncertainty written all over it. We know that climate change is making the region generally drier and therefore more prone to forest fires. Yet local planning departments continue to process an abundance of new residential and commercial building permits. Local economic development is prosperous but these planning departments cannot overlook the risks posed by climate change. What needs to happen is more dense and concentrated growth in the municipality of Kelowna (population 106,000). This would be much more appropriate especially for commercial development and safer in general.

Having commercial development in the more environmentally sensitive and pristine areas is irrational environmentally speaking. Residents can travel to the municipality to access these commercial amenities. It is dangerous to encourage such vast growth in this region because of the potential exacerbation risks of forest fires in the future.

Key message: Planning departments and economic development officers have to be more careful these days with issuing housing and commercial permits. Though anyone is entitled to live in the Okanagan region, the risks are quite high and climate change is only providing more uncertainty. This must be factored into the equation and planning departments should be encouraging growth in the municipality which is a safe distance from the dangers associated with forest fires.