Alaska posts from the Daily Score blog - Sightline Daily

Northwest Leads In Internet Use

Eric de Place — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:47:55

Because the Census Bureau emails me data, behold:

The table shows a rank-ordering of states with the highest rates of Internet use in 2009. Nationally, only slightly more than two-thirds of US residents access the Internet at all. (More Census data here.)

It's groovy enough, but the Internet is sometimes overlooked as a transportation solution. That's not to say you can drive a car on it, but that given high speeds and high rates of participation, web access can replace quite a number of trips -- shopping, commuting, etc -- that might otherwise occur on roadways. (We're probably seeing some of that dynamic at work in Alaska where it's simply not practical to make certain kinds of trips.) So given the exceedingly high rates of Internet use in the Northwest, and in Washington in particular, it would be nice to see public transportation planning focus more on Internet-oriented strategies to reduce congestion and vehicle travel.

Already, the Internet has enabled many of the clever trip-reducing web technologies that are beginning to take hold in the Northwest. Consider grocery delivery services like Vancouver, BC-based Spud, which has a presence in all the big Northwest cities, as well as Amazon fresh, which currently serves only Seattle neighborhoods but is likely to expand. Then there's Goose Networks, the "high-tech hitchhiking" outfit that Alan has written about, as well as car-sharing networks like Zipcar. And don't forget Seattle's wunderkinds at Front Seat who have given us Walkscore and City-Go-Round, among other web tools to help us rethink our habits.

I'm sure there are dozens more web-based transportation strategies that I'm overlooking; leave them in comments, please!

Fish Sticks for Everyone?

Jennifer Langston — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:13:52

To our BC readers, we realize this Thanksgiving post comes a month late. But as those of us below the 49th parallel make our holiday shopping lists, a study on salmon shows that many of our mental maps about how we eat and buy food—organic vs. conventional, fresh vs. wild—are really too simple.

The conclusion that’s grabbing headlines is that frozen salmon is generally better for the climate than fresh salmon. The authors of the study found that fresh salmon tends to be shipped around the globe in airplanes—consuming prodigious amounts of fuel per pound of fish. Salmon that’s flash-frozen at sea can go by slower but more efficient rail or container ship. In the end, they calculate that frozen salmon releases less carbon on its journey form the ocean to the typical plate, marking an apparent exception to the rule that frozen foods consume more energy than fresh.

But before you swear off fresh salmon for fish sticks, there's more you need to know. Early results of the ongoing salmon life cycle assessment being done by the Portland-based Ecotrust, Dalhousie University in Canada and the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology are pretty nuanced:

Rather than pushing for organic or land-based production, or worrying about simple metrics such as “food miles,” the study finds that the world can achieve greater environmental benefits by focusing on improvements to key aspects of production and distribution.

What farmed salmon are fed, how wild salmon are caught and the choice to buy frozen over fresh matters more than organic vs. conventional or wild vs. farmed when considering global scale environmental impacts such as climate change, ozone depletion, loss of critical habitat, and ocean acidification.

Unfortunately for anyone standing in front of the fish counter, all of those details do matter. And so does geography. For those of us in the Northwest, the simple eat-frozen-over-fresh rule may not hold: if you’re eating fresh salmon right off a boat near where the fish was caught, the total emissions may be far lower than for a frozen fillet that made a long trip to the fish counter or grocery freezer.

Sheesh, that's a lot to keep track of.

For wild salmon, the fishing method also makes a big difference to climate impacts. Salmon caught by purse seiners closer to shore have greenhouse gas emissions an order of magnitude lower than trollers that burn diesel fuel chasing fish with hooks and lines across the ocean, researchers found. They calculated, for instance, that the greenhouse gas emissions released just in catching troll-caught Alaskan salmon were higher than farming, freezing and shipping salmon from Norway to Chicago.

All of this begs the question: what’s a shopper to do? Sustainable seafood guides tell you to eat Alaska longline cod, and to avoid monkfish, based in large part on how plentiful the fish are. But typically, those guides don’t factor in the diesel fuel burned to catch the fish or emissions associated in shipping it. And trying to figure out the provenance of a piece of fish—much less all the energy that was expended to get it to your dinner plate—is a lot to ask of someone who's just trying to get through their shopping list. Heck, calculating carbon footprints is a complicated enterprise even for a grocery conglomerate that just wants to give its customers some decent information.

Now, multiply the problem with fish by all the ingredients that go into a Thanksgiving dinner. How much can the average person be expected to know about the life histories and production methods for everything from turkeys to squash to cranberries? Sure, there are general principles to live by: it’s a good bet that eating food grown close to home is more sustainable. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.

Here’s a more reliable solution: put a price on carbon. Climate policies and mechanisms that hold food producers and other businesses accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions would make things more transparent for consumers. If policies factor a cost for releasing climate-warming carbon dioxide into the things you eat and buy, things that pollute more would cost more. You’d buy fewer of them. And it might even be easier than calculating the carbon footprint of your grocery list.

Photo of Pike Place Market salmon courtesy of flickr user Justin Masterson via the Creative Commons license.

Look to Alaska for Energy Efficiency

Roger Valdez — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:28:00

Eureka! I have discovered a huge new source of clean energy in Alaska that can create green jobs too. Well sort of.

I’m not the first to strike gold, but lately I’ve been describing the potential of energy efficiency like hitting the jackpot. Efficiency is a clean, domestic energy source that would add, in the next decade, $1.2 trillion dollars to the economy. The big numbers (like saving 9.1 Quadrillion BTUs in Two Minutes) get people’s attention. If the kind of economic impact we could gain from energy efficiencies was a natural resource buried in the ground, you can bet that every level of government would be trying to dig them up.

Instead, the job is really about aligning interests, stimulus dollars, and great ideas to capture as much of that potential energy savings in the economy as possible. And that takes time. But Alaska, a state very familiar with taking natural resources out of the ground, has a great model for stoking the demand among homeowners for retrofitting their homes—and tapping this new energy source I’m talking about. The program is just the kind of example that is worth looking at when problem-solvers set out to get green jobs right in their jurisdictions.

The Home Energy Rebate Program is run by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and provides homeowners up to $10,000 in rebates for retrofits that will produce significant energy savings. It works like this:

Homeowners contact the AHFC to sign up for an audit, and with the auditor identify where the biggest savings might be. The improvements can range from insulation to water heater replacement, whatever creates the biggest improvement on the scorecard used by the auditor. The homeowner has to pay for the work and can only be reimbursed for the materials and the audits before and after the work. Once the homeowner has an estimate the AHFC will earmark funds for approved work and hold it for 18 months. Once the work is done and a follow up audit is complete the funds are released.

Don’t have money for the work? For those who qualify AHFC provides financing for everything. And the program has had a lot of takers. A recent report in the Alaska Journal of Commerce cites some pretty impressive numbers.

Since May of last year there have been 1,675 approved rebates with an average cost of about $9,000 for each project. Of that, the program paid out an average of $6,100 in rebates per project, or about two thirds of the projects’ costs. Of the $160 million appropriated by the Alaska legislature, about $110 million has been set aside for the program and about $20 million has already been paid out. The average savings per household so far has been gauged at more than $500 per year, meaning that for those average retrofits, payback for the owner’s investment should take about 6 years.

Where is all this money coming from? Alaska experienced huge increases in its oil tax revenue, and they have used $200 million of those dollars for energy efficiency programs like this one.

Another thing this program has going for it is the jobs it is creating. The AHFC estimates that the rebate program, along with weatherization, has directly created 2000 jobs. Some of the jobs are efficiency raters for the before and after audits. There were 30 qualified raters when the program started, now there are more than a hundred, enough to fill more than 6 pages. For a frame of reference, there are 7 in Wasilla alone—population: 10,256.

This program scores big in my book because it does many of the things that are critical for getting it right on both energy savings and green jobs. There is an audit at the beginning and the end of each project, with the biggest savings incentivized (not just fancy new windows—but whatever humble improvements that may prove to be the biggest bang for the buck). There is financing available and AHFC has consolidated all the information in one place, not quite an energy concierge, but darned close. And all of this is funded with oil tax dollars. Not the most sustainable source of funds, but a use that would complement comprehensive cap and trade legislation well. As the cost of oil goes up, that revenue can be turned into efficiencies and alternatives to help us get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster.

I plan on digging into this program more. Members (a Republican and a Democrat) of the Alaska Legislature’s energy committee have issued a report recommended adding $150 million more dollars to the program next year. Senator Bill Wielechowski, one of the authors of the recommendations, had this to say about the report.

This report is a call to action. Alaska’s energy future depends on what we do now. With oil prices on the rise again, Alaska is at a crossroads. We need to invest now for Alaska’s long-term benefit. This plan is an effort to shine the light on one of Alaska’s most pressing needs and offer solutions that can move Alaska forward for decades.

The committee is accepting public comment until next week, November 15th.

We are trying a new way of measuring energy efficiency programs in the region. The check mark indicates which of the most important elements a particular program includes and that they are doing it well. A red dash means the program doesn’t address the element or isn’t addressing it as effectively as it could. Each of these indicators emerged from careful review of dozens of energy efficiency programs in the region. You can find a full description of each of them in our one pager Green Collar Jobs: Realizing the Promise--Energy Efficiency. Let us know if you have a program you’d like us to review.

New Numbers On State Commuting Habits

Eric de Place — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:13:50

Some new-ish Census figures on commuting habits in 2008 suggest that Washington may be the Northwest's leader in alternatives to driving. Or possibly Alaska, depending on how you count.

Driving alone is still the dominant mode of commuting, but all five Northwest states have less solo driving than the national average.

When it comes to carpooling, the region's leader is Idaho. But again, all five Northwest states have more carpooling than the national average.

If Idaho's leadership in carpooling is surprising, perhaps it shouldn't be. Very often, states with driving-centric transportation systems tend to perform well on carpooling, which can be the most practical way for commuters to avoid solo driving.

But in public transportation, Washington is the only Northwest state that does better than the national average.

Washington's ranking here is probably due in large part to the fact that the state is more populous and urbanized than other US Northwest jurisdictions. Obviously, transit ridership tends to be higher in places where there are robust transit systems, which in turn tend to be located in urban areas.

I've got no big-picture analysis here, I just thought it was interesting. And somebody should explain Alaska to me.

Googling the Unemployment Rate

Eric de Place — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:08:46

I once said that if I had to marry a search engine, I would be willing to make a commitment to Google. For some reason, people thought I was speaking hyperbolically, but I was not. (Sorry, Jill.)

If that sounds crazy, consider:

Behold, Google's display of state-level trends in unemployment! (Go play with it; it's fun.)

I know, I know, it's no big thing. Google has all kinds of stuff like this and the data are derived from some other source. (From the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in this case.) But that's what kills me: it's so clear and easy-to-use and, well, beautiful. I love it.

And holy cow, is Oregon's employment situation ugly.

H/t to my BlueOregon

A Northwest Personality?

Eric de Place — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:46:18

Via Andrew Sullivan, here is a fascinating study (pdf) in academic psychology that appears to show the presence of a fairly distinct Northwest personality. The researchers ranked the 50 states plus DC according to the presence of each of five personality traits: extraversion; agreeableness; conscientiousness; neuroticism; and openness.

Northwest states are among the most open and least neurotic places you can find, but we are also among the least extraverted. Not surprisingly, Oregon and Washington perform almost identically on every measure. More interesting, perhaps, is that Alaska, Idaho, and Montana are also very similar in some respects (though quite different in some others).

First, the bad news. If you're looking for extraverts, you've come to the wrong place. Oregon is the most extraverted state in the region, but it ranks only an unfriendly 44th most extraverted. Remember, this is the state who's governor famously said: "Come visit us again and again... But, for heaven's sake, don't come here to live."

Meanwhile, Idaho is 46th for extraversion while Washington is 48th, and Alaska is 49th. Montana, partially in the Northwest, is 43rd. To find a comparably chilly reception, you'd have to visit the New Hampshire-Vermont region (50th and 47th, respectively) or the Maryland-Virginia cluster (45th and 51st).

The good news is that the Northwest is not a neurotic place. Washington is the 46th least neurotic state in the union, followed by Alaska at 47th, and Oregon at 48th. (Idaho and Montana rank 32rd and 39th, respectively.) To get any less neurotic, you'd have to move to South Dakota (49th), Colorado (50th), or Utah (51st).

The other nice thing about the Northwest is our openness. Oregon is the 3rd most open state in the nation while Washington is 5th. (Only New York, Massachusetts, and DC are comparably open.) But move away from the urban Northwest and the openness appears to fall off: Montana is 16th; Idaho is 30th; and Alaska is 49th.

When it comes to conscientiousness, we're fair to middlin', but we're similar to one another. Washington (25th) is the most conscientious state in the region followed by Idaho (26th), Montana (29th), and Oregon (31st). Alaska, however, ranks 51st; it's the least conscientious state in the country.

We're about average on agreeableness too, but we're not as internally similar. Oregon (18th) is a bit more agreeable than Washington (22nd), but both states are a lot more agreeable than Idaho (39th), Montana (42nd), or Alaska (51st), which is the least agreeable state.

Anyway, interesting stuff I thought. Oh, and it's worth remembering that these five personality traits are part of a widely used model in psychology and that they have specific clinical meanings. Here's what the Wikipedia entry has to say about them:

Openness - appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, curiosity and variety of experience.
Conscientiousness - a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behavior.
Extraversion - energy, positive emotions, surgency and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
Agreeableness - a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
Neuroticism - a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.

Image is of the old redwood signs that used to grace Oregon's borders, "welcoming" travelers -- and reminding them to keep on moving.

Should Cruise Ships Pay For Puget Sound?

Eric de Place — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:32:43

Update: A version of this post appeared in Real Change News.

Let's say, just hypothetically, that Washington were facing a ginormous budget shortfall. And let's also say that the state had made an ambitious -- but mostly unfunded -- commitment to cleaning up Puget Sound. That would be a real pickle. But do you know what I'd do?

I'd levy a tax on the cruise industry, that's what.

Washington's cruise ships are only lightly regulated, sometimes to the detriment of the local marine environment. And cruise ships visiting Washington do not pay head taxes as they do in Alaska, which means that Washington is missing out on badly-needed revenue that can be used for environmental protection and oversight. Consider how they do it up north:

Ketchikan levies a $7 per passenger tax on cruise ships that visit the port.
Juneau levies a $8 per passenger tax.

By contrast, Seattle -- now the most popular point of departure in the Northwest -- levies nothing. But if the city were to to charge a comparable fee on the roughly 886,000 cruise passengers that left Seattle in 2008 it would have netted around $7 million. Granted, that's not going to fund the complete restoration of Puget Sound, but it might fully fund an important program or two -- the very sorts of programs on the chopping block of budgetary constraints.

But that's not the half of it. The state of Alaska also levies a $50 per passenger tax. What would happen if Washington did that?

At $50 per passenger, Washington would pull down $44 million per year even if you count only the passengers that embark from Seattle. Once again, that's not the whole price tag for Puget Sound, but now we're talking about real money that could be put to good use in shoreline restoration, contaminated sediment clean up, spill response teams, or dozens of other uses.

For a variety of reasons it might make more sense to structure Washington's charge as a fee rather than a tax. Among other things, that would keep the money out of the general fund and necessitate using the funds on projects related to the cruise industry. Given the serious environmental impacts of the cruise industry -- see this Crosscut article by Fred Felleman, for example -- finding a nexus between the fee and the revenue use shouldn't be difficult at all. Puget Sound has many financial needs and a cruise industry tax can plug a few holes at least.

Better still, a cruise ship tax isn't regressive -- in fact, it's explicitly a tax on the well-heeled. It doesn't discourage small businesses or home ownership and it doesn't annoy property owners, as other fees and regulations are sometimes alleged to do. In fact, a cruise fee would mostly be paid by people from out of state.

It's possible, I suppose, that a cruise ship fee could result in some ships diverting to Seattle's main competitor, Vancouver, BC. But given the similar funding needs for marine protection in British Columbia, I'm sure the state and the province could work out some mutually agreeable solution such as, say, a $50 per passenger fee in BC too. That would keep the playing field level and boost environmental efforts in the shared waters of Puget Sound and the Straight of Georgia.

Alaska's cruise ship tax, which was the product of a citizen's initiative, does even more. It also levies a corporate income tax on the cruise line earnings and it taxes the gambling profits that occur while the ships are in Alaska waters. That's yet more revenue and a tighter leash on an industry that sometimes has trouble playing by the rules.

It's not often that the Evergreen State takes environmental cues from Alaska, but this may be the rare instance where it makes sense.

Bear Country

Eric de Place — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:13:56

Just wanted to let folks know that we have an updated and corrected version of our grizzly bear range-map. The former version of the map incorrectly showed that grizzly bears no longer live on the southeast Alaskan Islands of Chichagof, Baranof, or Admiralty. In fact, grizzlies are still present -- and in extremely high numbers. Still, the major lesson of the map -- that grizzly range is drastically reduced -- is probably the more important point that the map makes.

An animated version can be downloaded here; static versions in several sizes can be found here.

A big hat tip is in order to sharp-eyed reader Bill Walker of Billings, Montana who caught the mistake.

Huge Alaska Property Victory

Eric de Place — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:41:18

As I've written before, voters in Alaska's Mat-Su Borough are confronted with 2007's only regulatory takings ballot initiative. Or rather, they were.

The initiative, Proposition 1, was a near carbon copy of Oregon's Measure 37 and the raft of 2006 initiatives. It would have led to a development free-for-all. And I'm pleased to report that on Tuesday, voters handed out a stunning victory to sensible planning and public policy: the ballot measure was defeated by 71 to 29 percent.

The Mat-Su election comes on the heels of last year's spate of so-called "property rights" measures. You remember? The ones that Western voters overwhelming shot down? (One did pass in Arizona, mostly because the ballot in that state was crowded and much the natural opposition was preoccupied with other issues.) The most surprising result at the time was conservative Idaho which delivered the most crushing defeat to a takings measure, trouncing it 76 to 24.

In a way, it's not surprising that the public keeps rejecting these initiatives. Consider how the sponsor of the Mat-Su ballot measure described the outcome to the press: he called the vote "a stunning victory for socialism."

Yikes.

This is not the sentiment of a guy who believes in community, or even the basic tenets of local democracy. It's the ranting of an ideology that is wildly out of step with American life.

In light of the Mat-Su vote, it's becoming abundantly clear that no matter what a handful of "property rights" activists like to believe, Americans really and truly like having a say in their communities. It's not that local government is perfect, or that zoning is uncontroversial, or that everyone always gets what that want. It's just this: Americans believe in democracy.

The United States of Climate Change (Again)

Eric de Place — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:47:53

I'm happy to say that I have not yet finished annoying readers of this blog with my climate change maps. Because now they look professional thanks to awesome designer Laurie Kellogg.

Each map shows places with equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.

Behold, a glimpse of a straightforward state-to-country version:

Here are bigger and better versions.

And behold again, a peek at a more conceptual map showing groups states compared to large countries (and continent) emitters:

Bigger and better versions here.

Half Baked Alaska

Eric de Place — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:15:31

When in comes to property rights, all eyes are on Oregon as voters there consider trimming back Measure 37. But in some ways, Oregon isn't the most interesting game in town. That honor may belong to Alaska, where voters in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough will weigh 2007's only regulatory takings ballot initiative in the form of Proposition 1.

While the "Mat-Su" isn't known much outside of Alaska, it will be an interesting laboratory for examining the next round of "property rights" arguments. It's likely that activists will try to improve their rhetoric and strategies after their not-terribly-successful outing to the polls in 2006.

I'll have more to say on Proposition 1 in the coming months, but in the meantime you can find good newspaper coverage here and here.

And here the local paper, the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersmen, inveighs against the measure in an editorial that appears to have been truncated on the web. Still, I thought there was some apt language, so I'll close with an excerpt:

In this case, one's rights can make a wrong for all. Hogtying the borough, a city or any special district in how it makes public land use policy will result in a chaotic, expensive system no agency could possibly afford.

Oh, I almost forgot: I do have one big criticism of the editorial's language. Prop 1 isn't really a threat to what an "agency" can afford; it's a threat to what the public -- you know, citizens and taxpayers -- can afford.

Nation-States of Climate Change Redux

Eric de Place — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:14:08

(*Update: Newer and better versions of these maps are here and here.)

Because I love maps so much that I just can't stop making them.

This version is a bit a more conceptual than the previous map. But even though it's a bit weirder, but I actually like it more because it really drives home the outsize significance of US climate policy.

Each state, or cluster of states, is labelled with a country or continent that has equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.

See the full US map here.

The 291 million in Americans (in 2004) is the greenhouse gas equivalent of the more than 3 billion residents of other countries listed on the map.

The detailed population comparison is below the jump...

Number of people, 2003 (in millions)

Africa	853.2	42.1	AR + DC + KY + MD+ MO + NC + TN + VA + WV
Argentina	38.7	7.5	AZ + NM
Brazil	182.0	9.4	IA + MN + ND + SD
France	60.2	35.5	CA
Germany	82.4	51.7	NJ + NY + OH + PA
India	1,049.7	33.0	LA + MS+ OK + TX
Indonesia	234.9	15.5	MI + WI
Ireland	3.9	3.5	CT
Israel	6.1	0.5	WY
Italy	58.0	18.8	IL + IN
Jordan	5.5	0.8	DE
Malaysia	23.1	10.7	MA + ME + NH + RI + VT
Morocco	31.7	0.9	MT
Pakistan	156.1	4.6	NV + UT
Philippines	84.6	6.1	WA
Sweden	9.0	4.9	ID + OR
Thailand	63.3	9.0	CO + KS + NE
UK	60.1	34.4	AL + GA + FL + SC
Norway	4.6	0.6	AK
Ecuador	13.1	1.2	HI
Total	3,020	291	Total

The full map for the US is here.

The methodology is the same as the last time around. All data are from the US Department of Energy. Ghg data are an average of the period from 2001 to 2003; population data are for 2003. Emissions are from energy use only and they do not include carbon sinks. Countries are considered "equivalent" if their total emissions are within 10 percent of a state's emissions. Obviously, there a million ways to slice these comparisons since many states and countries have similar levels of emissions.

The Nation States of Climate Change

Eric de Place — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:59:46

*Update: Newer and better versions of these maps are here.

Ever wondered if your state's climate policy really makes a difference in the big global scheme of things? If so, here's a little map I made.

For each state, the map shows a nation with equivalent greenhouse gas emissions from energy.

The full US version is here.

When I've shown drafts to people, almost everyone wants to compare populations. The Western states population comparison is after the jump. The full data are here (xls).

Number of people (in millions), 2003

Arizona	5.6	Nigeria	122.8
California	35.5	Mexico	103.7
Colorado	4.5	Cuba + Columbia	52.9
Idaho	1.4	Jordan	5.5
Montana	0.9	Morocco	31.7
Nevada	2.2	Norway	4.6
New Mexico	1.9	Finland	5.2
Oregon	3.6	Ireland	3.9
Utah	2.4	North Korea	22.5
Washington	6.1	Iraq	24.7
Wyoming	0.5	Vietnam	81.8
Total	65	Total	459

I find the full US map a bit overwhelming. Even more so when I realize that the 2003 population of the US -- less than 300 million -- has the same climate impact as the more than 1.5 billion people represented by the other countries listed on the map.

And now, a word about my methodology. All data are from the US Department of Energy. Ghg data are an average of the period from 2001 to 2003; population data are for 2003. Emissions are from energy use only and they do not include carbon sinks. Countries are considered "equivalent" if their total emissions are within 10 percent of a state's emissions. Obviously, there a million ways to slice these comparisons since many states and countries have similar levels of emissions.

More information:

Can We Catch California?

Justin Brant — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:39:49

Meet Justin our new research intern. He recently moved to Capitol Hill, in Seattle, from Corvallis, Oregon, where he got a Master’s Degree studying the effects of climate change on forest productivity, and where he tried to spend as much time outdoors as possible.

There has already been a mess of state climate legislation passed in Cascadia during 2007. But who has the time to make sense of all those targets, standards, and dates? (Who’s promising 10% below 1990 levels by 2020? How does Idaho compare to California? And wasn’t there some kind of renewable energy standard?) Well never fear, because I’ve sorted it all out in this nifty table. You can see how your state (or province) stacks up.

Full version here.

The upshot is that Cascadian lawmakers are trying to follow California’s lead on regulating greenhouse gas emissions. In the 2007 legislative session, both Oregon and Washington passed statewide goals for reducing GHGs. It was a good first step to establish a framework, and the goals themselves are ambitious. But ultimately, they’re only that: goals. Unfortunately, they don’t include binding enforcement mechanisms. Only California did that, with its AB 32 bill.

In addition to setting goals, many states enacted more concrete legislation to reduce future GHG emissions. (Again, check out this nifty table.) British Columbia, California, Montana, and Washington all recently banned the building of new coal power plants unless a significant portion of GHG emissions can be permanently sequestered. In California and Washington, the bans even extend to electricity purchased from out-of-state.

These same states also mandated that a large portion of their energy portfolio be generated by renewable sources in the coming years. And they took the lead on incorporating renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel into gasoline. Both policies reduce GHG emissions, while creating jobs in the rapidly expanding renewable fuel and energy industries.

Especially intriguing are the incredibly ambitious goals laid out by BC Premier Gordon Campbell in his speech from the throne. In this speech Campbell laid out an exciting climate agenda, setting non-binding emissions reduction targets. BC recently joined with western states in establishing a regional carbon-trading scheme, and the provincial utility scrapped two coal-fired power plants in the works. Campbell picked up a lot of favorable press, but it remains to be seen if the Premiere will back up his boisterous talk with some actual legislation and legal mandates.

Some Cascadian governments are taking the lead nationally (and even internationally) to reduce GHG emissions. The next step may be getting Idaho, Alaska, and the federal governments of North America to start passing similarly aggressive laws.

Takings Whac-A-Mole: Alaska Edition

Eric de Place — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:56:43

Property rights activists are floating a new regulatory takings measure -- this time in Alaska.

A new ballot initiative is being proposed in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, an area north of Anchorage that is expected to experience rapid growth in the coming decades.

Why a "property rights" bill in "Mat-Su"? Tough to say. Property is so lightly regulated there that the borough's website prominently includes this explanation:

Zoning, Land Use and Building Regulations DO Exist in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Be advised that permits may be required.

That's right: may. Is there any legitimate need for regulatory takings measure here? Or is there something else going on?

Here's a theory.

(And, yes, this is just a theory.) In some ways it's not surprising that an intensely local ballot measure is being proposed in rural Alaska. It's precisely in keeping with the strategy that property rights radicals are rumored to follow. Having been stymied for years at the federal level, they resorted to Plan B, the states. But after an initial success in Oregon, the states have mostly handed them convincing, expensive, and ideologically damaging defeats. That leaves them with Plan C: local areas. Unfortunately for them, even in its earliest generations, Plan C has been a failure. But by retreating to the Mat-Su and other far-flung localities, they can hope to regain enough momentum to float these measures elsewhere.

At the moment, the activists' website claims that the measure is already qualified it for the October ballot. (That seems fishy since the ballot language seems to be worded for a vote in 2006.) Anyway, word has it that the language is still being hashed out, so it's not yet clear what Mat-Su voters can expect. The current version does not appear to be retroactive, unlike Oregon's Measure 37, and it includes the usual exemptions for public nuisances, federal laws, health and safety, and sex commerce. So while the proposed initiative is more reasonable than, say, Initiative 933 was in Washington, it will by its very nature hamstring local democracy and sow the seeds of an unwise development free-for-all.

Stay tuned.

(h/t to David Goldberg at Smart Growth America)