Uncategorized

CAFE standards reduce fuel use, but increase the total amount of miles driven

A point of clarification about CAFE standards, apropos of Dave's post below.

According to this report (careful, it's a pdf) from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, increasing CAFE standards would, in fact, save fuel (contrary to the claims of this this moronic article). The problem is that more fuel-efficient cars are also cheaper to drive. And that would mean that CAFE standards, even as they save fuel, would also slightly increase the number of miles people drive.

Now, driving obviously has all sorts of "externalities" -- costs that are borne by someone other than the driver. Some of the externalities are related to fuel consumption and the resultant air emissions; CAFE standards do help reduce those problems. But extra driving also means more car crashes, more congestion, more noise pollution, more risks for walkers and bikers, higher rates of obesity, lower rates of physical activity, more expenses for road building and maintenance, and so on.

So in simple terms, all the bad stuff that comes along with extra driving would overwhelm the good stuff that comes from consuming less fuel. Yes, we'd import a bit less oil, but we'd get in more crashes, build more roads, sprawl a little more, etc. And the human and environmental costs of all those other things (according to the VTPI report, at least) outweigh the good that's done by raising CAFE standards.

I don't think that's reason not to have CAFE standards. But it is reason to be very careful about what other policies you have in place that would help soften those unintended consequences.

How McIntyre got famous

One of the very few front-page stories The Wall Street Journal has ever run on global warming was about the work of an obscure semi-retired businessman named Stephen McIntyre. Said work criticized the infamous climate-change "hockey stick." The story catapulted McIntyre -- who was and is regarded as a bit of a kook among actual climate scientists -- to fame, and he's since been lauded by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tx) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).

Inquiring minds want to know: WTF?

Paul Thacker has the back story.

Update [2005-10-11 14:59:40 by David Roberts]: Antonio Regalado from the WSJ wrote to inform me that the above is inaccurate -- the WSJ has in fact printed several page one stories on climate change (his unscientific survey turned up 14). Consider me chastened and corrected.

Recent magazines catalogue the planet’s grim tidings

I just spent a few days at the fair helping out with 4H activities. This gave me time to catch up on my periodicals.

Resources for news and opinion on the hurricane

Hurricane Katrina has unleashed almost incomprehensible destruction on the Gulf Coast, particularly New Orleans. Some resources:

• The New York Times has a brutally frank story on the unwisdom of building human settlements on the Gulf Coast at all.

  As long as people could control floods, they could do business. But, as people learned too late, the landscape of South Louisiana depends on floods: it is made of loose Mississippi River silt, and the ground subsides as this silt consolidates. Only regular floods of muddy water can replenish the sediment and keep the landscape above water. But flood control projects channel the river's nourishing sediment to the end of the birdfoot delta and out into the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico.
  
  Although early travelers realized the irrationality of building a port on shifting mud in an area regularly ravaged by storms and disease, the opportunities to make money overrode all objections.

• The NYT also has an editorial on the same subject, and USA Today also has a story on it.
• The Washington Post has the latest on the flooding and the refugee crisis (odd to think of refugees in the U.S., isn't it?) -- pay particular attention to the story on how the rerouting of the Mississippi, along with rising sea levels from global warming, has led to a dramatic shrinking of the coastal wetlands that once sheltered Louisiana.
• The WaPo also has a fairly stunning set of photos of the hurricane's aftermath.
• An AP wire story calls attention to a possible environmental crisis, namely that the storm may turn New Orleans into "a vast cesspool tainted with toxic chemicals, human waste and even coffins released by floodwaters from the city's legendary cemeteries."
• A Reuters story says that the EPA has relaxed green-fuel regulations in areas hit by the storm.
• Los Angeles Times has a story on how Katrina has turned attention back to global warming and a good chart showing the oil pipelines, platforms, and refineries in Katrina's path.
• The NYT has a piece casting doubt on the theory that global warming has caused more intense storms.
• TIME has a piece supporting the theory.
• Speaking of global warming, Ross Gelbspan has a completely over-the-top editorial in the Boston Globe calling global warming the "cause" of just about everything but herpes.
• Democracy Now! has a great show on whether global warming is raising storm intensity, with New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and hot-stuff meteorologist Kerry Emanuel.
• The Environmental Economics blog has a roundup of links on the subject of Katrina and gas prices.
• Worldchanging has an interesting post on foresight in the new climate age we've entered.
• California Yankee has a fairly comprehensive list of organizations to which you can contribute to help the victims.
• Of course, despite the pretensions of this post, your real one-stop-shopping destination for news about Katrina is Wikipedia, which never ceases to amaze.

Feel free to leave other significant links in comments.

Update [2005-8-31 11:0:47 by Dave Roberts]: Oh, and perhaps the most important story of all: The disaster is so bad that President Bush has cut short his vacation by two days. Inspiring.

Update [2005-8-31 12:43:35 by Dave Roberts]: Oh, and I forgot to mention perhaps the best hub of coverage of all: New Orleans' own Times-Picayune, which also had this tragically prescient series on NO's vulnerability to a big storm.

Oregon joins Washington and California with emissions limits

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski just tipped over the last clean car domino on the West Coast: He's directed his Department of Ecology to draft regulations for adopting California's clean-car standards.

This is a major step. Washington State had opted for California's standards, provided that Oregon adopted them too. Because Canada has adopted similar standards, Oregon's move has created a clean-car corridor stretching from San Diego through northern British Columbia. Together, between California, Canada, and the northwest and northeastern states that have followed their lead, about 40 percent of the North American new-car market will soon be cleaner and, if all goes well, more fuel efficient to boot. (There's a pretty good chronology of all the political action on the car standards here, if you scroll down through the posts.)

Ho Chi … Man, I Gotta Pee

Vermont rest stop combines advanced green toilets with Vietnam memorial Like chocolate and peanut butter, it’s a combination so natural you wonder why nobody thought of it earlier: Vermont has built a $6.3 million rest stop featuring an ecologically advanced flush-toilet system, a greenhouse, and … the country’s oldest Vietnam memorial. Located along Interstate 89, […]

The Story of the Hurricane

In which we help you keep up with the bad news on Katrina Even as they mourn the loss of life and devastation of communities throughout the Gulf Coast, greens wonder whether global warming is responsible for Hurricane Katrina’s intensity and worry about the possible toxic disaster that could ensue as waste, chemicals, and bodies […]

Act now!

Speaking of irrigation, the folks at the International Center for Environmental Arts emailed Grist about the South African students who won the 2005 Stockholm Junior Water Prize.

From the press release:

A response to a response to a response, only better than it sounds

Hm, looks like this post on CAFE standards stepped into quite a vigorous ongoing conversation.

I want to address Matt's response, but first let me recommend some other background reading:

• Brad Plumer makes basically Matt's argument: gas taxes are better and more direct than CAFE.
• Brad DeLong agrees.
• Ezra Klein thinks Brad and Brad are wrong (read the comment thread, it's good): CAFE is preferable.
• Kevin Drum also writes in defense of CAFE.
• Andrew Samwick says neither CAFE nor gas taxes actually reduce gas consumption much.
• A report from the National Academy of Sciences argues that CAFE standards have, in fact, worked.
• Our own Clark Williams-Derry discusses a report concluding that CAFE standards are counterproductive.

Hm. Confusing.

Anyhoo, Matt responds to my accusation of the dread policy literalism by trying to frame his gas tax proposal in terms of "broad values and coalitions." It's the right spirit, but I don't think it works. Here's what he says:

Hybrid tax credits

A great rundown on the hybrid-related tax credits in the energy bill over on Hybridblog.