Topic: Energy and Environment

Do Scientists Suppress Uncertainty in the Climate Change Debate?

Ever wonder about the neutrality (or lack thereof) of scientists investigating the subject of global warming? Does it seem that far too many of them eagerly sound alarm bells when it comes to documenting and communicating the potential consequences of human-induced climate change to the public? Well, that little voice inside your head telling you something is awry appears to be vindicated based on new research published in the journal Public Understanding of Science.

In an article that is both enlightening and damning at the same time, Senja Post (2016) set out to investigate the “ideals and practices” of German scientists in communicating climate change research findings to the public. Post accomplished her objective by conducting and analyzing a representative survey of German scientists holding the academic rank of full professor and who were actively engaged in climate change research. Altogether, 300 such scientists were identified and invited to participate in her survey, and 42 percent of them responded with a completed questionnaire in which they were queried about “various aspects of climate change, their attitudes toward publicly communicating scientific uncertainty, and their media relations.”

According to Post, the results of her survey indicated that “the more climate scientists are engaged with the media the less they intend to point out uncertainties about climate change and the more unambiguously they confirm the publicly held convictions that it is man-made, historically unique, dangerous and calculable.” Similarly, the more scientists were convinced of the alarmist narrative that rising atmospheric CO2 is causing dangerous climate change, the more they worked with the media to disseminate that narrative. Post’s survey also revealed that “climate scientists object to publishing a result in the media significantly more when it indicates that climate change proceeds more slowly rather than faster than expected,” which finding, in her words, “gives reason to assume that the German climate scientists are more inclined to communicate their results in public when they confirm rather than contradict that climate change is dramatic.”

Such findings are saddening and shameful, highlighting a near-ubiquitous bias among climate scientists (at least in Germany) who willfully suppress the communication of research findings and uncertainties to the public when they do not support the alarmist narrative of CO2-induced global warming. Such deceit has no place in science.

 

Reference

Post, S. 2016. Communicating science in public controversies: Strategic considerations of the German climate scientists. Public Understanding of Science 25: 61-70.

Oil Prices Too Low?

Remember peak oil? Remember when oil prices were $140 a barrel and Goldman Sachs predicted they would soon reach $200? Now, the latest news is that oil prices have gone up all the way to $34 a barrel. Last fall, Goldman Sachs predicted prices would fall to $20 a barrel, which other analysts argued was “no better than its prior predictions,” but in fact they came a lot closer to that than to $200.

Low oil prices generate huge economic benefits. Low prices mean increased mobility, which means increased economic productivity. The end result, says Bank of America analyst Francisco Blanch, is “one of the largest transfers of wealth in human history” as $3 trillion remain in consumers’ pockets rather than going to the oil companies. I wouldn’t call this a “wealth transfer” so much as a reduction in income inequality, but either way, it is a good thing.

Naturally, some people hate the idea of increased mobility from lower fuel prices. “Cheap gas raises fears of urban sprawl,” warns NPR. Since “urban sprawl” is a made-up problem, I’d have to rewrite this as, “Cheap gas raises hopes of urban sprawl.” The only real “fear” is on the part of city officials who want everyone to pay taxes to them so they can build stadiums, light-rail lines, and other useless urban monuments.

A more cogent argument is made by UC Berkeley sustainability professor Maximilian Auffhammer, who argues that “gas is too cheap” because current prices fail to cover all of the external costs of driving. He cites what he calls a “classic paper” that calculates the external costs of driving to be $2.28 per gallon. If that were true, then one approach would be to tax gasoline $2.28 a gallon and use the revenues to pay those external costs.

The only problem is that most of the so-called external costs aren’t external at all but are paid by highway users. The largest share of calculated costs, estimated at $1.05 a gallon, is the cost of congestion. This is really a cost of bad planning, not gasoline. Either way, the cost is almost entirely paid by people in traffic consuming that gasoline.

Going to Extremes: Federal Climatologist Slams Alarmist Federal Climate Report

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Second only to incidences of high temperature, supporters of government action to restrict energy choice like to say “extreme” precipitation events–be they in the form of rain, sleet, snow, or hail falling from tropical cyclones, mid-latitude extratropical storms, or summer thunderstorm complexes–are evidence that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities make our climate and daily weather worse.

The federal government encourages and promotes such associations. Take, for example, the opening stanzas of its 2014 National Climate Assessment: Climate Change Impacts in the United States, a document regularly cited by President Obama in support of his climatic perseverations:

This National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country.

Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours.

President Obama often calls out the extreme rain meme when he is running through his list of climate change evils. His Executive Order “Preparing for the Impacts of Climate Change,” includes:

The impacts of climate change – including…more heavy downpours… – are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation.

So, certainly the science must be settled demonstrating a strong greenhouse-gas altered climate signal in the observed patterns of extreme precipitation trends and variability across the United States in recent decades, right?

Wrong.

Protecting Coal Mining From the Stream Protection Rule

On Wednesday, February 3, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will hold a hearing on a new “Stream Protection Rule” being proposed by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM) that looks to be another nail being hammered into the coal industry’s coffin by the Obama Administration.

Energy and mineral resource development in the U.S. is being thwarted by a wave of agenda-driven federal agency rulemakings being rushed through before the end of this administration. Oil, natural gas, and coal have been targeted for replacement by renewable energy sources. The coal industry has been fast-tracked by the OSM’s proposed new “Stream Protection Rule” (SPR). 

The new SPR would supersede the existing Stream Buffer Zone Rule, enacted in 2008 to regulate surface coal mining on aquatic environments in Appalachia. But, as is so often the case in the world of environmental regulation, that was not sufficient for the OSM, and, over the past seven years it has continued to press for more and stricter regulations on coal mining all across the United States.  They seem to prefer a nationwide one-size-fits-all regulatory enforcement scenario, even though local geology, geochemistry, and terrain vary widely between states and basins.  As it is, these concerns are more efficiently addressed by the states and policed by the industry.

That aside, the real impacts of the SPR, openly acknowledged by OSM, leave tens of billions of dollars’ worth of coal in the ground with no chance of future development—“stranded reserves,” as OSM terms them in the rule. Those coal deposits, according to OSM, “…are technically and economically minable, but unavailable for production given new requirements and restrictions included in the proposed rule.”  Yet, OSM’s engineering analysis, cited by a Congressional Research Service study, states that there will be no increase in “stranded reserves” under the SPR. In other words, the same volume of coal will be mined under the proposed rule as under the current rule…an OSM oversight, no doubt.

The proposed rulemaking employs questionable geoscience and mining engineering issues such as overemphasizing the importance of ephemeral streams to limit mining activities in all areas, requiring needless increases of subsurface drilling and geologic sampling, redefining accepted technical terms such as “approximate original contour” and “material damage to hydrologic balance,” and creating new unfamiliar terms such as “hydrological form” and “ecological function.”

But OSM likely is not focused on technical issues as much as their main concern: that the new rule is more stringent than the existing 2008 rule as is possible, and that it will apply nationally. Hence, the rule appears to be more for the benefit of regulators and places undue burden and expense on coal miners. Neither is OSM overly concerned with the big three tangible adverse impacts of their proposed rulemaking: lost jobs, lost resources, and lost tax revenue—with Appalachia being hit the hardest. Consensus estimates—not OSM’s—of the number of mining-related jobs lost nationally due to the SPR: in excess of 100,000 to upwards of 300,000. The decrease in coal tonnage recovered: between roughly 30 to 65 percent less. The annual value of coal left in the ground because of the rule: between 14 to 29 billion dollars. The estimated decrease in Federal and coal state tax bases: between 3.1 to 6.4 billion dollars. These are not very encouraging statistics for an industry that is currently responsible for supplying 40 percent of U.S. electrical power generation.   

Interior’s Office of Surface Mining has failed to adequately justify its proposed Stream Protection Rule in light of the federal and state rules and regulations already in place. Rather, OSM has embarked on a seven year odyssey of agenda-driven rulemaking that would force-fit regional and local characteristics coal mining operations to a nationwide template. However, Congress and the courts had already established that a uniform nationwide federal standard for coal mining would not be workable given the significant differences in regional and local geology, hydrology, topography, and environmental factors related to mining operations everywhere. On the non-technical side, OSM does not retreat from its admission in the preamble to the proposed rule that the SPR is politically motivated. Press reports have quoted an OSM official as acknowledging that there was pressure to get the SPR done in this administration’s last year.

Enacting the new SPR would be an ominous threat to a coal mining industry that deserves much better from this or any other future administration. This is one reason why OSM’s proposed SPR has been tagged by the National Mining Association as “a rule in search of a problem.” However, to paraphrase a more appropriate quote: the voluminous Stream Protection Rule is not the solution to the coal industry’s problems—rather the Stream Protection Rule is the problem.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the Senate on Wednesday.

Proposed Stricter OSHA Regulations on Airborne Silica Exposure Seem Needless

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is soon set to release new exposure limits to air-borne silica dust. The rulemaking has been in the works for about three years with a final rule scheduled to be announced this year. The silica industry is not enthused.

Silica dust is known to cause respiratory illnesses (e.g., silicosis, lung cancer, other airways diseases) that may contribute to or lead directly to death when it is breathed in high enough concentrations over long enough time periods.

OSHA explains that exposure to respirable silica “occurs in operations involving cutting, sawing, drilling and crushing of concrete, brick, block and other stone products and in operations using sand products, such as in glass manufacturing, foundries and sand blasting.”

OSHA’s proposal, generally, is to lower the existing permissible exposure limits (adopted in 1971) by about 50%, dropping them from around 0.1mg/m3  to 0.05mg/m3 (specific details here). OSHA explains:

The agency currently enforces 40-year-old permissible exposure limits (PELs) for crystalline silica in general industry, construction and shipyards that are outdated, inconsistent between industries and do not adequately protect worker health. The proposed rule brings protections into the 21st century.

And, as the government likes to claim with all of its regulations, the added restrictions will save lots of lives, and in doing so, will save lots of money:

OSHA estimates that the proposed rule will save nearly 700 lives and prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis per year once the full effects of the rule are realized.

The proposed rule is estimated to provide average net benefits of about $2.8 to $4.7 billion annually over the next 60 years.

Interestingly, a visit to the Centers for Disease Control in search of deaths from silica inhalation produces this chart graphing silicosis mortality over time. The numbers have dropped considerably over the past 40+ years, and by 2010 had fallen to about 100 or so deaths per year (U.S. residents over the age of 15) attributed to silicosis as either the underlying or contributing cause.

Figure 1. Silicosis: Number of deaths, crude and age-adjusted death rates, U.S. residents age 15 and over, 1968–2010 (Source: CDC).

Figure 1. Silicosis: Number of deaths, crude and age-adjusted death rates, U.S. residents age 15 and over, 1968–2010 (Source: CDC).

The CDC data shows that silicosis deaths have been declining and although the decline has slowed, it continues to drop while under the current OSHA guidelines. And further, the 100 or so deaths that are occurring annually are several times less than the annual number of deaths that OSHA predicts will be saved by the new regulations. That’s a pretty neat trick—the new regs are going to save several times more lives than are actually lost!

Will Senate Use Energy Bill to Weaken FHA Mortgages?

As I recall from my time in the Senate, there’s nothing like an energy bill to attract misguided proposals.  This week the Senate begins consideration of S.2012 — the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015.  Among the almost two hundred filed amendments is a proposal (Amendment #3042) from former real estate broker, Senator Isakson, to mandate that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reduce the quality of its loans in order to encourage more efficient energy use.

The two most concerning aspects of Amdt 3042 are 1) it would allow “estimated energy savings” to be used to increase the allowable debt-to-income (DTI) ratios for the loan and; 2) require “that the estimated energy savings…be added to the appraised value…”

These changes might not be so bad in the abstract but when combined with existing FHA standards, they set the borrower up for failure and leave the taxpayer holding the bag. Let’s recall that borrowers can already get a FHA mortgage at a loan to value (LTV) of 96.5%, and that’s assuming an accurate appraisal.  If borrowers were required to put 20 percent down, then this amendment would be a minor problem, but under existing standards, borrowers would mostly likely leave the table with an LTV over 100%, that is already underwater before they’ve even moved in.  Did Congress learn nothing from the crisis?

The increase in DTI might not matter if FHA did not already allow a DTI as high as 43% of income.  Under Amdt 3042 borrowers could easily leave the closing table devoting over half their income to their mortgage.  Again, did Congress learn nothing from the crisis?

To illustrate that the intent of the proposal is to have the taxpayer take more risk, Amdt 3042 actually prohibits FHA from imposing any standards that would offset this risk.  If these new loans perform worse, as one would expect, FHA cannot put them back to the lenders.   And let’s not forget FHA allows the borrower to have a credit history deep in the subprime range.  So you could have a subprime borrower, say FICO down to 580, LTV > 100% and DTI > 43% - what could go wrong?

If indeed energy savings actually increased the value of the home, that would be reflected in the price.  There would be no need to mandate such.  Not only does this proposal weaken FHA standards, and expose the taxpayer to greater risk, it takes us further down the path of an already politicized housing policy, where instead of relying on market prices, values are dictated by Soviet-style bureaucratic guesswork.

Happy Birthday, Gabriel Roth

Gabriel Roth, who turns 90 years young today, is a rock star among transportation economists, and a special inspiration for those of us who support reducing the federal government’s role in transportation. According to his C.V., Roth earned degrees in engineering from London’s Imperial College in 1948 and economics from Cambridge in 1954.

In 1959, he began research into improved road pricing systems. This led to his appointment to a Ministry of Transport commission that published a 1964 report advocating pricing congested roads in order to end that congestion.

In 1966, the Institute for Economic Affairs published his paper, A Self-Financing Road System, which argued that user fees should pay for all roads, and not just be used to relieve congestion. Roads should be expanded, Roth noted, wherever user fees exceeded the cost of providing a particular road, but not elsewhere.

In 1967, Roth moved to the United States to work for the World Bank, where he did road pricing studies for many developing countries and cities, including Bangkok, Manila, and Singapore. After leaving the World Bank in 1987, he continued to work as a consultant until 2000, among other things helping design the Dulles Toll Road and writing Roads in a Market Economy, a book published in 1996.

Since then, he has been a regular participant in transportation conferences, meetings, and hearings. He edited a 2006 book, Street Smart, co-authored a 2008 paper showing how electronic tolling could be done without invading people’s privacy, and made a presentation about tolling at the 2010 American Dream conference.

My home state of Oregon is now experimenting with mileage-based user fees, and I’m one of the volunteers in this experiment. If it goes well, we may see the realization of Roth’s ideas before he turns 100.

I hope to see Gabe on my next trip to DC. I know I’ll be able to find him by looking for the nearest transportation conference.