Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Just Call Me Bigfoot

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Virginia metropolitan regions are among the biggest contributors to global warming, asserts a new Brookings Institution study, “Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Urban America.” According to the study…

Washington: The average resident in metropolitan Washington emitted 3.115 tons of carbon from highway transportation and residential energy in 2005 — ranking it 89th out of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the United States in energy efficiency. Another way of putting it, Metro Washington residents had the 12 largest carbon footprint per capita. What’s more transportation and residential energy use increased 7.2 percent between 2000 and 2005.

That compared to 2.24 tons of carbon emitted by the average 100-metro resident and 2.60 tons of carbon emitted by the average American from transportation and residential energy.

Hampton Roads: The average resident in Hampton Roads emitted 2.340 tons of carbon from highway transportation and residential energy in 2005. That made it the most energy-efficient of Virginia‘s three major metros, with the 36th smallest carbon footprint in the country. What’s more, the region has been trending positive: Energy use declined 0.86 percent between 2000 and 2005.

Richmond: The average resident in metropolitan Richmond emitted 3.039 tons of carbon from highway transportation and residential energy in 2005, giving it the 15th largest carbon footprint per capita of the top 100 metros. Richmonders can take some consolation, however, that transportation and energy use decreased 2.68 percent between 2000 and 2005.

Commenting upon the Brookings study, Trip Pollard with the Southern Environmental Law Center said:

Virginia has lagged far behind other states in funding energy efficiency, but has taken some initial steps to promote a more balanced transportation program. Governor Kaine has recognized the importance of global warming and the threat it poses to Virginia, including creating the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change.

We must be particularly careful, though, when reviewing new transportation funding, not to advance more oversized, expensive highway projects that would lock us into decades of sprawl, driving, and pollution by subsidizing fossil fuel-dependent development patterns and increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Here are strategies that Brookings recommends for metro regions to pursue:

  • Promote more transportation choices to expand transit and compact development options

  • Introduce more energy-efficient freight operations with regional freight planning

  • Require home energy cost disclosure when selling and “on-bill” financing to stimulate and scale up energy-efficient retrofitting of residential housing

  • Use federal housing policy to create incentives for energy- and location-efficient decisions

  • Issue a metropolitan challenge to develop innovative solutions that integrate multiple policy areas

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Bob Avatar
    Bob

    Why not measure the amount of carbon emitted from zoos? How effective are baby seal clubbers and Japanese whalers in reducing carbon footprints? (Not to mention methane reductions, which is more evil than “carbon.”) Carbon is carbon, regardless of its source. So why not start killing people and animals to reduce the planet’s carbon footprint?

    Of course, global warming is now global cooling. But just for a while, according to this article by a science guy.

    It’s hard to come up with something more comical than the current climate change debate. Except there’s nothing new here. The NY Times argued in the 19th Century against building the Panama Canal and Suez canals because the merging of the two oceans would cause a global climate catastrophe. It makes for hilarious reading here (hope the link works)
    “A CHILLING PROSPECT:
    November 21, 1876, Wednesday
    A year ago the Herald saved this country from total destruction, and all honest men ought to be glad to acknowledge its eminent services on that occasion.”

    How is this any different from the anti-progress climate hysteria 142 years later?

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The problem I see with these studies, including a previous one by Glaeser, is that they only consider residential use.

    Cities with a good climate to begin with, catch a break. So it is hard to see how San Francisco comes out well. Is it settlement pattern, or settlement placement? Or both?

    But a frequent claim is that denser cities are more efficient and pollute less. Glaeser at least points out that he has not considered commercial or industrial energy uses.

    No one has even mentioned public uses of energy, other than subway, and I’m not sure even that is added back when we give residences credit for driving less.

    If it is true that cities, in general, after allowing for local climate, are more efficient, then you sshould be able to take an energy usage map and divde it by th epopulation per square mile and come up with a map that looks like the negative of the first one.

    You should be able to do it with a heat island map, or a CO2 emissions map. But what happens is that when you perform this calculation, the energy usage per capita is remarkably constant.

    This study reports on a per capita basis, so it seems to be different, in that it shows per capita usage. Except it doesn’t show that’ unless you include the commercial, industrial, and public use of energy.

    I don’t disagree we use too much, but I’m not so sure that where we use it makes much difference. Surely not as much difference as HOW we use it.

    RH

    RH

  3. charlie Avatar
    charlie

    the Brookings Study did not include local roads, which is where the bulk of the congestion is in NoVA. So I think the picture is actually far worse. Take out the 10% who use Metro to commute to DC and you can see how bad the situation is in DC.

    And the metro-to-Dulles isn’t going to solve that.

    And making Tysons a “downtown” isn’t going to help either — unless you start adding additional feeder transit lines into Tysons. The $5 billion on metro would just go to subsidizing commuters from Arlington and Reston.

  4. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    How to reduce carbon footprint:

    1. Build more nukes.
    2. Tax gas more.

    Advice to Jim Bacon: If you ever personally go carbon neutral, seek medical help immediately.

  5. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    How to increase carbon footprint:

    1. Refuse to even study the mining of uranium in your state despite understanding that it is a key input for nuclear fuel.

    2. Refuse to raise the gas tax (in cents / gallon) for decades.

    3. Guarantee a “rate of return” to the monopoly electricity generator even though that company is an indifferent laggard in energy conservation / alternate energy.

    4. Declare a coal fired power plant to be “in the public interest”.

    5. Declare that you are reducing the demand for gasoline by adopting a huge toll-tax on a tiny percentage of the state’s drivers.

    6. Maintain complete power and control through the strict adherence to a failed 19th centure doctrine of state infallability.

    In other words, just keep on being the bumbling, stumbling, corrupt Virginia General Assembly.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the Brookings Study did not include local roads

    How did they do that? You got a link to the report?

    Wouldn’t you just figure out how much fuel and electricity is consumed, and divide by the number of people? OK, so out of towners buy some fuel, too.

    (Actually, I think I saw a VDOT graph that says most congestion is on the interstates)

  7. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Yep, podunk iowa is a major GHG generator based on a per capita basis. They would have done better if there were fewer pigs and more people. Take greentown San Fran. for instance. The citizens can take great pride in the fact that while they are totally polluting half of Calif., it doesn’t mean anything because Libby Larry eats organic and rides the cable car. They can rightly look down their noses at the heathen in podunk.

    But guess what? We can kill off all the pigs in podunk, and the overall numbers won’t even notice. Then this stupid report will be exposed as the big government, more taxes fraud that it is.

    Here is a site that some may find interesting. Nice maps.

    http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/plots.html

  8. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    This site also has some xls spreadsheets for each county. When you sum up the individual columns, know who the big polluters are in order? Utilities, transportation, and industrial. The sore thumbs are the rural counties that host power plants, which provide power for the ‘green’ urban areas.

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Lordy …. what a scene…

    I agree about the Nukes…but I’m worried why Dominion is pursuing both coal and nukes….

    either they think we need both… or they’re hedging their Nuke bets or they plan on making a pile of money selling electricity to the NIMBY states who won’t allow coal plants nor Nukes in their state.

    I’m not sure but I’m starting to suspect that Groveton has it in for Southern culture…

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Living in Podunk.

    Do you know what state has the shortest average commute time?

    North Dakota, by far.

    Do you know the difference between the Old South and yogurt?

    Yogurt has an active culture.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have a report that tells how to calculate your footprint.

    1. Square footage of your house.
    2. number of people in your house
    3. how far your food must be transported, and how much meat you eat.
    4. how far you drive to work
    5. what you drive.

    Calculate your footprint, then divide it by your happiness.

    RH

  12. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry:

    Virginia <> the South. Sorry, but I have tested this theory in many places that would clearly be considered the South (e.g. South Carolina, north Florida, Georgia, North Carolina).

    Culturally, Virginia is mid-Atlantic. Think Maryland, West Virginia, southern Ohio, Kentucky, southern Indiana, southern Illinois.

    I know that the “decendants of Pocohontas” are refighting the “War of Northern Aggression” in their minds as they sip gin and tonics at the Country Club of Virginia.

    Meanwhile, in the real south, economic development is on the agenda (and has been for decades). From Jacksonville to Charlotte to Raliegh to Atlanta – politicians are trying to bring good jobs (and the quality of life that those jobs engender) to their states. That because, in the real South, intellect prevails over emotion. For example, Texas enacted a 2 year moritorium on the sale of roads to private companies. Why? Because that state (in the real South) wants to balance the “rush to judgement” of selling public facilities to private enterprise against the possible long term economic consequence of that “idea”.

    This has nothing to do with “southern culture”. It has everything to do with the imperial culture of the self-knighted aristocracy in Virginia. In the real south moritoriums have been enacted to limit the self-described aristocracy’s ability to impose toll-taxes on the serfs.

    The real South is beyond government by Civil War re-enactments. The real South is operating as an effective democracy. Virginia is operating as an effective aristocracy.

    The only real question is where Virginia stands among its real peer set – Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    South Carolina has a law against perpetual conservation easements, folloing the legal principal that the hand cannot reach beyond the grave, and that legislators may make no law that cannot be unmade.

    RH

  14. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    I question the validity of Brookings’ methodology, too. The narrative about the Richmond regional data, for instance, suggests that transportation emissions *declined* some 10 percent between 2000 and 2005 — in the face of rising population, scattered development and the lack of any new mass transit capacity.

    I find those numbers highly improbable… Which suggests that Brookings is doing a lot of extrapolating from numbers based on somewhat arbitrary assumptions.

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “This has nothing to do with “southern culture”. It has everything to do with the imperial culture of the self-knighted aristocracy in Virginia. In the real south moritoriums have been enacted to limit the self-described aristocracy’s ability to impose toll-taxes on the serfs.”

    I actually agree with you.

    And a good example in my mind is the Republican response to Kaine’s transportation budget.

    They have no published counter plan and part of the reason why is, if you read enough news, that the House Transportation Committee “will decide”… what the plan will be or not be.. and they’ll do it no doubt in Secret without a recorded vote.

    I’ve been a long-time supporter of citizen referenda in Virginia – even advisory agenda but the folks in the GA want to control the questions on the ballot – and not voters.

    but I’m convinced also – that ultimately, information is more powerful than aristocratic tendencies and we are starting to see it.

    Richmond sunlight last year started to video the meetings where votes were not recorded – in essence – citizen “recording” of the votes and then posting the video along with the citizen-transcribed record of votes…

    But I don’t think Va is unique in it’s somewhat imperious approach to legislation… either.

    in the end, it is up to citizens to challenge all forms of this – directly and relentlessly…

    and your idea of an information portal website is a very powerful one… that I encourage …

    a couple of years ago, citizens wanted to know about the budget for a fish hatchery ..yes… a fish hatchery…

    they ask for the info from DGIF and were stonewalled.

    they finally had to go to court.. and the judge gave them the entire budget which clearly showed money spent for an African Safari…

    and you know the rest of the story…

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It’s tempting to conclude that any carbon reduction policy should target the highest emitters. But that would be faulty logic–or at least bad economics. Efficient policy design requires policies target the least cost reductions. That may or may not be the biggest emitters. The easiest way to guarantee a policy is efficient? Establish a price for carbon and let it be traded–I’ll bet you could see that coming a mile away.”

    Environmental Economics Blog

    You could jsut as easily replace the words carbon reduction policy with pollution or congestion and the result is the same.

    When I suggested that we just pay people to car pool, and raise the money by charging the people who don’t then you are establishing a price for congestion and let it be traded. it is a far more efficient policy than what is going to happen with tollls as a result of our imperious powers that be (and the special interests that guide them).

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Want to see into the future of tolls?

    “The speed camera program began in 2005 and netted the city $600,000 in revenues; nearly 7,000 tickets at $85 each were issued during that timespan. In March 2006, the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas ruled that the city ordinance of giving support to the speed camera program was illegal and unconstitutional.

    The city refused to remove the cameras, however, because it stated it was “bound by contract to continue the services” of Traffipax, Inc., the US subsidiary of ROBOT Visual Systems, a German corporation.

    Despite attempts to remove the cameras, the city continued to defy the judge’s order and reinstated an identical ordinance to continue issuing citations. Councilman at Large Michael Hernon cast the sole dissenting vote re-instating the traffic cameras. [7]

    In mid-2006, Attorney Gary Stern filed a class-action lawsuit against the city of Steubenville for illegally collecting fines and generating unnecessary revenue from motorists. He won the case in December 2005 and the city was forced to refund thousands of tickets totaling $258,000 [8]. City Gary Stern also gathered enough signatures from the residents of the city to put forth a referendum that posed the question of whether the city’s ordinance authorizing the speed camera program should continue. On November 8, 2006, the voters of Steubenville voted to end the city’s speed camera program with a 76.2 percent majority [9].

    On May 4, 2007, Attorney Stern asked the Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge to hold Steubenville in contempt of court for failing to mail out $7,947 in owed refunds stemming from the lawsuit filed in mid-2006 [8]. Stern stated that the city has held possession of the money owed for nine months, an unreasonable amount of time, and that the city should be charged interest for the money held. The checks, which were mailed out on August 3, 2006, were returned due to incorrect addresses listed. On March 30, Stern sent a letter to the city listing the people who had not been reimbursed for the traffic camera violations, which featured the amount of money owed; the addresses were updated, however, the city did not respond. A similar letter was sent April 11, however, the city failed to reply again [8].”

    Wkipedia

    RH

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    are you talking about toll roads or speed cameras?

    speed cameras can and are put in a lot of different places.. and yes on a contractual basis.

    Is this a reason to be against toll roads …or speed cameras…

    what say you?

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “You could jsut as easily replace the words carbon reduction policy with pollution or congestion and the result is the same. “

    I think you are getting confused as to the government discouraging a behavior for no valid reason verses the government acting to protect the public from harm.

    There are many examples of the government inappropriately discouraging different kinds of conduct on the basis that such behaviors are deemed harmful – but without real proof that they are.

    Congestion has real implications if it results in higher infrastructure costs for everyone.

    Pollution has real implications if some suffer adverse health problems as a result of it.

    If I understand correctly, you advocate ..essentially..paying people to NOT pollute…

    this assumes that that only the people who pollute would be entitled to be paid to not pollute.

    So the folks who don’t pollute pay money to others to not pollute.

    the only way there could be equity would be for everyone to pollute…

    and then have everyone paid to not pollute…

    but where would the money to pay everyone to not pollute come from?

    well… it would come from everyone.

    why does this sound like a pyramid scheme?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Congestion has real implications because it results in excess pollution which endangers people. It is also a waste of time and energy, and generally non-productive.

    “There are many examples of the government inappropriately discouraging different kinds of conduct on the basis that such behaviors are deemed harmful – but without real proof that they are.”

    BINGO. And other examples of encouraging behaviors without real proof that they are helpful.

    I think it is probably cost effective to have mroe analysis before we go off half-cocked. But, a better, faster, cheaper, more consistent way to go about it is to make sure that everyone, universally, pays for the environemtal benefits (pollution abatemet) they get. Then THEY can make the analysis of whether it is worth while.

    With most products, this already happens: the cost of pollution abatement is built into the cost of the product.

    ———————–

    “So the folks who don’t pollute…”

    Who exactly is that?

    Why does this sound a little like having Mary cast the first stone?

    RH

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “the basis that such behaviors are deemed harmful – but without real proof that they are.”

    BINGO.”

    Ray – air pollution is quantifiable.

    do you think they have ozone days by flipping a coin?

    re: “folks who don’t pollute”

    check that..

    folks who pollute LESS

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Ray – air pollution is quantifiable.”

    And therefore, so is the damage from air pollution. That is one term in the equation I showed you before.

    That means that you cannot afford to pay more for pollution control than for the damage it causes. to do so is wasteful, and it amounts to taking someone else’ property for no good reason.

    Jim Bacon said;
    “I am one of those who distrusts the manner in which advocacy groups and the media have cherry picked the science to peddle alarmist scenarios to the public.”

    Why do you suppose that he used the word distrust?

    I think it is because he is afraid that overselling the possible consequences (setting the cost too hihg) means that he will pay excessively for benefits of little or dubious value.

    He is afraid of someone “taking” his property.

    “the government acting to protect the public from harm.”

    The government has valid reason to protect people from harm. Among other things, that means the government can’t force people to pay too much to prevent harm that is too little.

    But, special interest groups do not have that restriction. Their only interest is in promoting their agenda. If a little is good, more is better. Also, they know that special interest groups on the other side are pushing equally hard in the other direction.

    As a result,the government “may” wind up discouraging behavior for no valid reason. The only protection we have from ourselves on this is the EPA policy that says no person should pay disproportionately for environmental protection, enforcement, or lack thereof.

    But the key point is that whether government sets the cost of pollution too high, or too low, the result is a taking of someone’s property.

    RH

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”cannot afford to pay more for pollution control than for the damage it causes.”

    Ray – you have a big problem here.

    How do you know how much the damage from pollution is?

    and let’s say you do know.. does that mean that if you learn that it costs more than you originally thought – that you cannot require more reductions even if costly?

    How would you make such determinations?

    Don’t you think when the government comes back for subsequent further reductions – that cost more money – that they have, in fact, determined that such further restrictions – are necessary?

    why do you assume that for the status-quo that such restrictions are justified but for new ones that they are not?

    the point here is that we don’t know everything we need to know about the harm from pollution..and we are always adding to the level of information that we have.. and then the time comes when we decide that we do need to further restrict.. even if it does add costs… it is still “worth it”.

    why do you not agree with that process?

Leave a Reply

Read More