The environment thread

[StrangeSox]

From Nate Silver via 538.com

 

Regional considerations tend to loom larger in debates over environmental policy than in other sorts of affairs. Some states consume more energy than others. Some states have more carbon-intensive economies than others. Some states are more or less likely to be negatively impacted by global warming. And some states are better equipped to take advantage of green energy development.

 

Today, I'm going to focus on the first of those concerns: household energy usage. The goal here is simple: the Congressional Budget Office recently put out an estimate (.pdf) of the costs of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. The CBO estimated that the average American household would wind up paying a net of $175 in additional energy costs in the year it benchmarked, which was 2020. But how does that cost translate to individual states?

 

First, here's the map, and then I'll explain how I arrived at these numbers:

 

 

 

 

Before I go any further, let me make clear that my objective is to translate the CBO's numbers, using my best interpretation of the CBO's assumptions, to the level of individual states. I don't make any other sort of judgment about the reliability of their numbers. If you don't like the CBO's numbers, you won't like mine.

 

There are two principal drivers of the differences in costs between different states. One driver is the amount of carbon that residential customers in each state use, and the other is its income distribution. The reason the latter is important is because Waxman-Markey offers a series of direct and indirect subsidies to taxpayers that are intended to offset the increased energy costs, and some of those subsidies are targeted based on the income of the taxpayer.

 

But first, the more straightforward issue, which is carbon consumption. These numbers are taken from the EPA's most recent (2005) estimates (.pdf) of the amount of CO2 emissions released in each state. The EPA breaks these down into five categories: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and electric power. We are concerned with two of those categories: residential and transportation.

 

Direct, residential use of carbon, such as for home heating fuel, is actually a relatively small part of the carbon picture, accounting for 5-6 percent of domestic carbon consumption. As you can see, the rule here is pretty simple -- it evidently takes more carbon to heat your home than to cool it, and so colder states are associated with more residential carbon usage per capita, with the exception of a few states in the Pacific Northwest.

 

 

 

 

Most carbon consumption in the transportation sector -- about 60 percent -- is the result of the usage of personal cars, and is therefore paid for directly by taxpayers in the form of gasoline prices. Some states, particularly Southern states, do more driving than others; there are also differences related to fuel efficiency standards, the availability of public transportation (such as in New York) and so forth. A couple of states -- namely Wyoming and Alaska -- are extreme outliers owing to what I believe is the relatively high usage of personal aircraft. Note that transportation constitutes a much bigger piece of the carbon puzzle than do home energy costs -- about 30 percent of all U.S. emissions.

 

 

 

 

To estimate the amount of residential carbon usage in each state, I take the EPA's CO2 estimate for the residential sector and add it to 60 percent of their estimate for the transportation sector, then divide the result by the number of households in each state. What about the other sources of carbon emissions, like industrial use and electricity production? They are certainly relevant insofar as the regional impacts of Waxman-Markey go, but they are not relevant in terms of interpreting the CBO's estimates, which seek to determine the direct cost to taxpayers in the form of higher energy prices only. For instance, West Virginia is associated with high carbon consumption in its commercial sector because of its production of coal. But much of that coal is exported to other states; the amount of carbon that residential customers in West Virginia consume is not particularly high. That does not mean that West Virginians don't have reason to fret about Waxman-Markey -- it's just a different type of cost than we're trying to get at here. Conversely, some states like Maine which have high residential use of carbon do not have particularly carbon-intensive economies.

 

The other major factor is the income distribution in each state. Under Waxman-Markey, the CBO estimates, people in the lowest income quintile will get 94 percent of their marginal costs back in the form of direct consumer rebates, whereas people in the top income quintile will get 18 percent back, with the other quintiles scaling accordingly. These types of benefits, in other words, are directly proportionate to carbon consumption. There are also indirect forms of subsidy, in the form of offsets offered to carbon producers that will "trickle down" to the household level. I assume that these indirect subsidies are unrelated to carbon consumption and are solely determined by a state's income distribution.

 

Let's get a bit more specific. The CBO estimates nationwide costs and benefits from the cap-and-trade program to be as follows:

 

Now, how do we translate these numbers to individual states? There are four relatively simple steps:

 

Step 1. Scale the gross costs to each state's income-adjusted carbon usage. Minnesota, which we'll use as our example, uses 15.1 million metric tons of residential carbon per household, which represents 108 percent of the national average. So, do we simply multiply the gross costs in Minnesota by 1.08? Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy, because per the CBO's method, we're trying to estimate the carbon costs for particular income quintiles in each state, and not simply the overall number. Minnesota uses more carbon than average, but it's also wealthier than average, and wealthy people use more carbon, all else being equal. Thus, we have to scale each state's carbon usage to its income distribution to avoid what amounts to double-counting. I won't go into details, but this lowers Minnesota's income-adjusted carbon usage to 104 percent of the national average. Therefore, I multiply the gross costs from the CBO's national estimates by 1.04 to cater them to Minnesota.

 

Step 2. Account for rebates. As mentioned previously, I assume that the direct rebates are proportionate to the cost of carbon consumption for each income quintile in each state. Consumers in the lowest income quintile get 94 percent of their costs back, scaling downward to 76 percent, 44 percent, 33 percent and 18 percent as we move up the income pyramid. Conversely, I assume that the indirect subsidies are not proportionate to carbon usage and are the same in each state. In other words, I simply plug in the CBO's numbers for these.

 

Step 3. Subtract the rebates from the gross costs for each income quintile. This is trivial.

 

Step 4. Take a weighted average of the net costs for each state based on its income distribution. This is also straightforward. If 30 percent of a state's residents fall into the lowest income quintile (relative to the entire country), we multiply the net cost estimate for the lowest quintile in that state by 30 percent, repeating this process for the other quintiles to create a weighted average.

 

Here, then, is our estimate of the per-household cost of cap-and-trade for Minnesota:

 

 

 

We estimate that the average cost per household in Minnesota per the CBO's assumptions is $202, which is slightly higher than the national average of $175 owing to the state's slightly higher-than-average residential carbon consumption and its slightly higher-than-average incomes.

 

I realize that those last four or five paragraphs are probably just about the most boring thing you've ever read on FiveThirtyEight but sometimes you have to show your work. In any event, here are our estimates for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia:

 

 

 

 

And here's that map again:

 

 

 

There is a fair amount of state-to-state variance, although it is exaggerated somewhat by the presence of a couple of outliers: Florida and D.C. on the one side and Wyoming and Alaska, which I think are being punished for the use of personal jet travel, on the other. The key question for the bill's passage might be whether Democrats can pick up some Republican votes in large, coastal states like Florida, California, New York, and North Carolina, each of which appears to be associated with below-average costs to end-users. Conversely, most of the places with the highest direct costs are places where the Democrats weren't likely to pick up many votes anyway, although this does suggest that votes like Mark Begich's in Alaska and Mary Landireu's in Louisiana will be tough ones if this gets to the Senate.

Edited June 26, 2009 by StrangeSox

[HuskyCaucasian]

Shouldnt be a problem for Alaskans. They get well over a $3000 check from the state each year.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I am loving the debate on the floor of the house. Various Republicans kept ranting "We havent seen the amendments. Where can we find them? no one has seen them. They were done in the dark of night They are no where to be found".

 

Then one Dem gets up and says "they've been on the website for a long time now. They are sitting on the table right up there". Then another stands up and says he finds it ironic that they keep ranting that they cant find it when not an hour before one of their republican colleges stood up and WAVED the amendments for everyone to see!

 

Update: LMAO! Someone just stood up and asked for a moment of silence in remembrance of all the jobs that will be lost with the Cap and Trade bill.

 

Update x2: Rep Joe Barton just said the goals of the bill are unachievable by 2050 because "you cant run a nuclear reactor on an airplane". The point he tried to make was that airplanes will always use fossil fuel. Moments before I read this: Swiss Team Unveils Prototype For Sun-Powered Plane

Edited June 26, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

Didn't the military repeatedly try nuclear powered aircraft back in the 50's?

[Y2HH]

Here is the biggest problem with all of this -- these bills, cap and trade and the like -- should have nothing to do with politics, yet this is what it's become. It's nothing BUT politics, sneaking things in, adding hundreds upon hundreds of pages into this bill at the last minute while running over a few bullet points while ignoring all the other garbage stuffed in those pages. The entire process is republicans and democrats making stupid point and stupider counterpoint, and none of them truly care how will this affect the people. Who the f*** cares, anyway, as long as they get to show the entire world that they're better than the Republicans, we'll call it a victory of epic proportions! The results these types of bills have on the people are unknown, with no guarantees, and depending on who you listen too, it's either the birth of awesome itself (if awesome was tangible), or it's the end of the United States as we know it.

Edited June 26, 2009 by lostfan
Post modified from original, inappropriate tone.

[BearSox]

This is absurd. The house yet again passes another insane bill.

 

I really don't care how you feel about Global Warming, but honestly, how can anyone be in favor of this particular bill? It's the largest tax increase in American history, the debate about Global Warming is far from a settled one, no one read the bill and it was about 1300+ pages, no one really understands the bill, and right now in this bill, the only people who seem to gain are politicians and select businesses.

 

Okay, you want to do something about Global Warming, fine. But how about we first prove Global Warming is a real threat, and come up with a much more logical and well thought out bill?

 

This is sickening. Hopefully the Senate has more sense than the house, but I doubt it... The country that I love is really going down the s***ter.

[Balta1701]

This is absurd. The house yet again passes another insane bill.

 

I really don't care how you feel about Global Warming, but honestly, how can anyone be in favor of this particular bill? It's the largest tax increase in American history, the debate about Global Warming is far from a settled one, no one read the bill and it was about 1300+ pages, no one really understands the bill, and right now in this bill, the only people who seem to gain are politicians and select businesses.

 

Okay, you want to do something about Global Warming, fine. But how about we first prove Global Warming is a real threat, and come up with a much more logical and well thought out bill?

 

This is sickening. Hopefully the Senate has more sense than the house, but I doubt it... The country that I love is really going down the s***ter.

[Y2HH]

 

Not sure how funny it is. There are people out there that can't afford health insurance, so what do we do? We make energy more expensive, so it costs them more to get to and from work, it costs their employers more for heating, air-conditioning, etc., the list goes on -- how does that help any of this current economic situation? Nothing like tackling one problem at a time and making sure it's solved before we move onto the next world changing issue as if it were just another page in a 2$ magazine.

 

Sometimes people make me laugh at how f***ing shortsighted they are, regardless of how smart they may be.

 

Whatever the case may be, and this isn't to you in specific, but this isn't a laughing matter -- none of this is, from past administrations to the current -- a few problems were solved, and a million more created.

 

Same old, same old, as they say.

 

But, I still think life is great...either way.

 

I'd really like to think everything we are doing today is making a world of difference for tomorrow, but I look back and see the era our parents came from and can't help but think, "didn't they think the exact same things...yet things are this f***ed up?!"

 

They did think the same...and a lot of good it did. All I can say is enjoy it while ya got it! I know I am.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Not sure how funny it is. There are people out there that can't afford health insurance, so what do we do? We make energy more expensive, so it costs them more to get to and from work, it costs their employers more for heating, air-conditioning, etc., the list goes on -- how does that help any of this current economic situation? Nothing like tackling one problem at a time and making sure it's solved before we move onto the next world changing issue as if it were just another page in a 2$ magazine.

Except of course...that doesn't happen. Ignoring the CBO summary doesn't make it go away.

[StrangeSox]

Does too!

 

Surprise, Republicans are promising to filibuster the bill in the Senate.

 

Inhofe Says 'Cap And Trade' Dead

 

House Filibuster

 

They really want to earn that obstructionist label.

[BearSox]

I got a question... how does it make any sense to pass a bill that is suppossed to fix something that might not even exist? Should we also be passing bills that tax the American people a total of billions of dollars for search parties to find and destroy ManBearPig?

 

This is beyond ridiculous. How about instead of the dems shoving "Global Climate Change" down everyone's throat, we have a legit and very serious argument about it first?

[Y2HH]

I got a question... how does it make any sense to pass a bill that is suppossed to fix something that might not even exist? Should we also be passing bills that tax the American people a total of billions of dollars for search parties to find and destroy ManBearPig?

 

This is beyond ridiculous. How about instead of the dems shoving "Global Climate Change" down everyone's throat, we have a legit and very serious argument about it first?

 

Because your argument doesn't agree with theirs, so it's wrong, and it makes you automagically ignorant because you don't believe them...regardless of the fact that there is science for it and against it -- and the against it side is growing by the day.

 

Watch, someone will respond to this with "facts" on the side of warming, which will make me sound ignorant for not buying into the scam, while "conveniently" ignoring all the counter science.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Eh, no, its because there's been a "debate" in scientific journals for decades. That's where science gets hashed out, not on the floor of the Senate. And the overwhelming majority of the conclusions of the papers published in the journals is "Climate Change is real, and we play a part in it." The legit and very serious argument has been had between scientists. Most (something like slightly over 90% of actively publishing scientists on all topics) are convinced that there's at least some human aspect to global warming.

 

Watch, someone will try to assert that there's somehow an equal amount of evidence on both "sides" even though this doesn't come close to reflecting reality. Oh, wait...

Edited June 27, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

Eh, no, its because there's been a "debate" in scientific journals for decades. That's where science gets hashed out, not on the floor of the Senate. And the overwhelming majority of the conclusions of the papers published in the journals is "Climate Change is real, and we play a part in it." The legit and very serious argument has been had between scientists. Most (something like slightly over 90% of actively publishing scientists on all topics) are convinced that there's at least some human aspect to global warming.

 

Watch, someone will try to assert that there's somehow an equal amount of evidence on both "sides" even though this doesn't come close to reflecting reality. Oh, wait...

 

That's seeming to change by the day. Funny the Aussies are starting to sway away from the "science of global warming" all of a sudden -- but I'm sure you'll have some geo-political excuse as to why.

 

You can probably also explain why the warming has flatlined since 2000...oh wait, you can't.

 

Just stop. Just because you say "90%" of the science agrees with global warming, 1) doesn't mean it does, and 2) means there is money in it...and scientists wanna be paid, too. When the science says 99.9% of scientists agree with it, the other .1% being wackjobs, then maybe you can stand up on that pedistal and crow about being right, but right now...it's not 90%, as there is no "hard percentage" that agrees or disagrees...what I do know is there are a lot of scientists that don't agree...and the facts don't add up.

 

What facts?

 

The f***ing fact that the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods long before man existed.

 

Stop refuting that FACT, and then maybe we can have a discussion.

[Y2HH]

And sorry, but these topics infuriate me.

 

If global warming was such reality, why'd they slyly change it from global warming to climate change? The answer is because the more they studied it the more they realized it was a load of crap. But climate change...that cannot be wrong. Ever. Why? Because, the climate has changed forever...and will continue to change forever.

 

The people who thought this up are all getting rich...off of you.

 

The only regret I have is that I wasn't the one that thought of it. I can promise you a better world long after you're dead -- so either way you never even know if my promise came through or not -- and I get to be rich while you're alive!

 

Sounds like a perfect plan...and very "convenient".

 

Just ask you're God, Al Gore how his finances are doing since the Global Warming sham he started.

 

He went from being wroth 1M$ to 100M$ in less than a decade...all based on the "science" that apprantly, 90% of the world scientists agree with -- except those that don't, we just don't count them...or we call them 10% so they seem like such a minority they can be dismissed as loons.

 

Meh.

[BearSox]

^If the cap and trade eventually gets signed, Al Gore is likely gonna become a billionaire off "Global Warming." Also, Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of the other progressives are gonna profit big time off of it. They all have very large investments in companies that will be benefiting tremendously from this tax.

[BearSox]

Eh, no, its because there's been a "debate" in scientific journals for decades. That's where science gets hashed out, not on the floor of the Senate. And the overwhelming majority of the conclusions of the papers published in the journals is "Climate Change is real, and we play a part in it." The legit and very serious argument has been had between scientists. Most (something like slightly over 90% of actively publishing scientists on all topics) are convinced that there's at least some human aspect to global warming.

 

Watch, someone will try to assert that there's somehow an equal amount of evidence on both "sides" even though this doesn't come close to reflecting reality. Oh, wait...

You got a credible link to that "90% of science agrees with Al Gore"?

 

Also, I'm pretty sure there was a time when about 99% of science believed that everything revolved around the Earth, and that Earth was flat... granted that science was forced to believe that, but is it really different today than it was back in the dark ages? Think about it, if you don't believe in Global Warming, you are attacked by the liberals and labeled as "deniers", like you are some sort of crazy person.

[Y2HH]

Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A) CEO Warren Buffett agreed that it's important to "move on carbon emissions" but had this to say about cap-and-trade:

 

I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved.

[NorthSideSox72]

I haven't yet read the details of the bill, but I suspect its another case of a generally good idea, poorly executed.

 

The whole far-right take on climate change (or whatever you want to call it) is pretty hilarious. Basically, it goes like this...

 

Liberals/Moderates: Thousands of peer-revied scientific pieces all agree basically 100% that its real, and a large chunk of those see an anthropomorphic effect.

 

Conservative: They don't all agree, look at these scientists! *pulls out link to article written by non-scientists gathering anecdotal data*

 

Liberal/Moderates: But, that isn't science, or its lousy, unreviewed, silly science.

 

Conservative: Well hey, at one time, science thought (fill in with silly assumption made at some point in history), so what makes them right this time? (this is what I call the scorched earth method of argument - since my stack of evidence is so much smaller than yours, I'll level the playing field by saying all evidence is useless)

 

 

There is no point in even having a logical discussion when the other side is basically going to say they will ignore the overwhelming majority of evidence in favor of their gut feeling or some columnist they like.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So, about the bill itself, a few points for discussion...

 

1. CBO and EPA say this will cost households on average $100 or $200 a year, somewhere in that range. Spread that out over 80 million households, that is $8B to $16B, and is effectively a tax increase. That's an increase in cost that will be put directly on families, and that seems less than ideal. However... why is it that some people are OK with spending 100 times that amount of money fighting wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, but they aren't OK with this amount of money spent on getting us out of their grip and-oh-by-the-way maybe making all our lives healthier? Seems like screwed up priorities to me.

 

2. GOP'ers are claiming the real costs will be much higher when you factor in passed-down costs. Probably true. But then, the CBO and EPA numbers also don't reflect the creation and sustaining of a lot of high-paying jobs that this will result in, with money going to that instead of out the door for oil. So, you need to really look at both sets of indirect cost/benefit pieces, not just the one that fits your views.

 

[Y2HH]

So, about the bill itself, a few points for discussion...

 

1. CBO and EPA say this will cost households on average $100 or $200 a year, somewhere in that range. Spread that out over 80 million households, that is $8B to $16B, and is effectively a tax increase. That's an increase in cost that will be put directly on families, and that seems less than ideal. However... why is it that some people are OK with spending 100 times that amount of money fighting wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, but they aren't OK with this amount of money spent on getting us out of their grip and-oh-by-the-way maybe making all our lives healthier? Seems like screwed up priorities to me.

 

2. GOP'ers are claiming the real costs will be much higher when you factor in passed-down costs. Probably true. But then, the CBO and EPA numbers also don't reflect the creation and sustaining of a lot of high-paying jobs that this will result in, with money going to that instead of out the door for oil. So, you need to really look at both sets of indirect cost/benefit pieces, not just the one that fits your views.

 

Unless the CBO guarantees to pay any additional costs on top of their estimations, I call bunk. Notice there is no such guarantee, because they don't actually care one way or the other.

 

Even Warren Buffett is saying it's going to be a tax passed right onto the consumer -- to think for one second the utilities are just going to suck it up and pay it is laughable. When it comes to money, I tend to trust Buffett more than the government -- he actually makes profits more often than swimming in red.

 

As for the "science" of climate change -- regardless of what you think, there IS valid science on both sides. To simply ignore one side just because it doesn't agree with you is ignorant. Again, there *is* counter science. This is another case of "our science is prooven, 100% real, your science is fake trash!". Yea, ok, because that's how it works.

 

In the 1970's, the science of global cooling was "90%" prooven fact, too. Funny how that changed the second the money started flowing toward warming. It's bulls***, it's about money, it's always about money.

[BearSox]

I haven't yet read the details of the bill, but I suspect its another case of a generally good idea, poorly executed.

 

The whole far-right take on climate change (or whatever you want to call it) is pretty hilarious. Basically, it goes like this...

 

Liberals/Moderates: Thousands of peer-revied scientific pieces all agree basically 100% that its real, and a large chunk of those see an anthropomorphic effect.

 

Conservative: They don't all agree, look at these scientists! *pulls out link to article written by non-scientists gathering anecdotal data*

 

Liberal/Moderates: But, that isn't science, or its lousy, unreviewed, silly science.

 

Conservative: Well hey, at one time, science thought (fill in with silly assumption made at some point in history), so what makes them right this time? (this is what I call the scorched earth method of argument - since my stack of evidence is so much smaller than yours, I'll level the playing field by saying all evidence is useless)

 

 

There is no point in even having a logical discussion when the other side is basically going to say they will ignore the overwhelming majority of evidence in favor of their gut feeling or some columnist they like.

Your the arrogant one if you completely ignore the science against it. Global Climate Change or whatever the hell it is called now is FAR from a fact. In Europe you are seeing more and more scientists stepping up against Global Warming.

 

But yeah, you're right... we're just all deniers if we don't accept the crap Al Gore has been feeding us over the past several years. I should get my head checked because I don't agree with "90% of science."

[kapkomet]

I'm glad "tax and kill" passed the house...

[StrangeSox]

Your the arrogant one if you completely ignore the science against it. Global Climate Change or whatever the hell it is called now is FAR from a fact. In Europe you are seeing more and more scientists stepping up against Global Warming.

 

But yeah, you're right... we're just all deniers if we don't accept the crap Al Gore has been feeding us over the past several years. I should get my head checked because I don't agree with "90% of science."

 

:facepalm:

 

It's not about Gore. Forget about Gore. He does not matter. Personally, I think he's a jackass. Doesn't matter one bit. Pay attention to peer-reviewed science, not political figures or editorials. That's what matters.

 

As for the 90%, here's a link.

 

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

 

 

The tide isn't turning. There's no global conspiracy to suppress evidence or data showing otherwise. It's not an insidious liberal agenda and its not about greedy scientists. Put away the tin foil hats and pick up a copy of Science, or at least Scientific American.

 

It wasn't that I've read a lot of the science or that "hmm, they mostly agree" that convinced me; it was the completely vacuousness of the counter-arguments.

 

There will always be doubters and contrarians. There's still fringe scientists out there who deny evolution or relativity. You'll find that they have the same global conspriracy, suppressing the truth, in-it-for-the-money, but the tide is turning! rhetoric.

[StrangeSox]

In the 1970's, the science of global cooling was "90%" prooven fact, too. Funny how that changed the second the money started flowing toward warming. It's bulls***, it's about money, it's always about money.

 

Another false meme. Literature reviews of papers published show a 44-7 margin in favor of warming in the 70's. What Time or Newsweek chooses to hype doesn't determine what the mainstream scientific thought is. They will often pick the more sensational story. Also, the cooling periods cited were often 10 or 20k years out, not exactly short term.

 

It's not about the money. If you think it is, then you probably don't know any actual scientists. With that line of thought, you can just dismiss any and all scientific findings because they're just lying for money. It makes me sad to see people denigrate scientific study in such an ignorant manner.