In a push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Arlington County will buy more wind-generated electricity, give tax breaks for hybrid cars and require new public buildings to be green-certified, reports Annie Gowen at the Washington Post. The county also will provide a number of home energy audits, plant 1,200 trees and hand out 2,000 energy-efficient light bulbs at public events.
The county, which has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6 percent since 2000, aspires to shave another 10 percent in the next five years. Board Chairman Paul Ferguson says he was inspired by Al Gore’s movie about global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Ferguson estimates that the program will cost about $5 million in capital costs, while other initiatives like energy audits and handing out compact fluorescent bulbs will run less than $100,000. The initiative comes at a time that the county faces a projected $20 million budget shortfall due to the downturn in housing values and anticipated property tax revenues.
I’m torn. I’m all in favor of energy conservation. I favor policies that reduce pollution, shift consumption from depletable to renewable resources and wean the country from its crippling dependence upon overseas energy sources. But I’m a skeptic of the more hysterical claims made by global warming alarmists (for reasons explained in previous posts on this blog). Even if the entire world followed Arlington’s example and aspired to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent over the next five years, the impact on global temperatures would be too small to measure.
If a private company wants to indulge its ideological convictions by investing its own private capital to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that’s the company’s business. When a municipality commits its resources to do the same thing, it’s the taxpayers’ business. If Arlington County can demonstrate that its investment in energy conservation can pay for itself, then I applaud Ferguson and the board for its vision. If the initiative fritters away tax dollars for an objective that provides no measurable benefit to its taxpayers, then I’m very dubious.
Ferguson lays out the county program, Fresh AIRE (Arlington Initiative to Reduce Emissions) here. From an environmental perspective, it appears to be ambitious and comprehensive. But it’s also a statement of faith. There is no budget impact analysis whatsoever. There is no Return on Investment analysis whatsoever. There is no way for taxpayers to see how much bang (reduction in greenhouse emissions) they’re getting for the buck. If Arlington really wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to engage in moral preening, there may be ways to spend its money more efficiently, such as purchasing European Union CO2 emission rights. But those options are not discussed.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.