Archive for the ‘Environmental Issues’ Category

Good News on Carbon Emissions

Sunday, May 9th, 2010

The Energy Information Administration is reporting that  carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. were down 7% last year.  According to the report, one-third of the reduction was due to the recession, one-third to reduced energy intensity, and one-third to the use of cleaner energy.

The report concludes:

…longer-term trends continue to suggest decline in both the amount of energy used per unit of economic output and the carbon intensity of our energy supply, which both work to restrain emissions.

Emissions were down 3% in 2008.  Thus, as Joe Romm notes, that puts us about halfway toward the goal of reducing carbon emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.

 

Of course, these are minimal reductions necessary to begin to contain climate change and surely will not be sufficient. But this data suggests that the idea that we cannot make substantial reductions without ruining our economy is just bunk.

Behind the Oil Spill Disaster

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

The British Petroleum oil rig that blew up last week, killing 11 workers, is now spreading oil over a massive area in the Gulf of Mexico… “Drill Baby Drill”,one of the campaign slogans from McCain’s presidential campaign, is not looking quite so catchy. It’s too bad Obama caved into oil interests recently and authorized more off shore drilling.

This comes on the heels of the Massey Coal Mine explosion that killed 29 miners a few weeks ago.

What do these two events have in common? Both British Petroleum and Massey Coal were nonunion work sites.

As economist Teresa Ghilarducci writes:

In 2009, four years after a BP explosion in a Texas refinery that killed 15 workers and injured 170, the Occupational Safety and Health administration imposed the largest fine in its history—$87-million on British Petroleum. BP also paid billions in criminal charges and civil claims for the accident: $50-million in criminal fines for violating the Clean Air Act and over 4,000 claims from a $2.1-billion claims fund.

Why does this company still operate in this country? How many more workers does it have to kill?

In my economics classes, I teach the economics of health and safety. The two-minute version has the same conclusion as the two lecture version: If it is cheaper for the company to kill workers than it is to safeguard the workplace so they are not killed, workers will be killed. Unions and hefty government fines would raise the price of killing workers. Both Massey and BP work sites were nonunion. And the rate of unionization in this nation is at a all time low: 7.2 percent.

No other developed nation has a weaker labor movement than the United States and this country kills more workers per year than most.

Even these numbers are suspect. And the United States, unlike other rich countries, does not count fatalities due to occupational disease as a fatality. Seven countries impose safety obligations upon either directors or senior managers of companies—Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Japan, Canada, and Australia—while the United Sates imposes none.

The U.S. Department of Labor classifies on-the-job fatalities as misdemeanors, even if the employer was negligent by willfully failing to follow OSHA safety standards. The maximum civil penalty OSHA can levy for a safety violation is $70,000,  and the maximum prison sentence for a willful violation of a safety standard that leads to a worker’s death is six months. Six months.

Check out Fair Warning for direct commentary on corporate health and safety practices.

These workplace fatalities are not accidents of nature; they are caused by the Congress’s and the president’s failure to regulate and protect workers who attempt to unionize

Climategate Revisited

Sunday, April 4th, 2010

You might recall that, a few months ago, emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia were published in which climate change researchers were apparently resisting freedom of information requests and engaging in biased peer review tactics.

Conservatives claimed that the emails undermine the scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change.

From a March 31 Associated Press article:

The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world’s leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they’d seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

No doubt, the scientists were unprofessional in some of their emails, and resisting freedom of information requests is not a good idea even when the requests are politically motivated. The stakes in this debate are so high that the science must be beyond reproach.

And this is only the first of a number of on-going official inquiries in to this sordid episode.

But it is good news for our planet that the conservative attacks appear to be bogus.