BREAKING: Barack Obama joins the Tea Party

In a devastating blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's already frail public image, President Obama has gone on the attack once again, rejecting EPA administrator Lisa Jackson's suggestion for updated air quality standards and effectively nullifying years of scientific research and pro-environment lobbying in one fell swoop.

Obama cited one of his executive orders from earlier this year that requires environmental regulations to be "based on the best available science". This was an attempt to discredit the EPA's scientific rationale for trying to impose stricter ozone regulations, but claiming that research conducted over the last five years is somehow inadequate or outdated is preposterous, and he should be ashamed for disguising his political weakness as a call for academic integrity. Propping up hack science in the public sphere has been a right-wing tactic for as long as I've been paying attention to politics - from family planning, to environmental policy to marriage equality. Barack Obama, welcome to the Tea Party.


Perhaps President Obama knows something the public does not, and the toxic industrial emissions that contributed to thousands and thousands of premature deaths just five short years ago - not to mention innumerable respiratory, cardiovascular and childhood development problems - has reconsidered its position on being harmful. How thoughtful!

Taking that into consideration, I guess this 1999 report is now outdated and irrelevant, as well, the one that says "Ozone [which the EPA's recent proposals were aimed at reducing], when it occurs at ground level, presents a serious air quality problem in many parts of the United States. When inhaled—even at very low levels—ozone can cause a number of respiratory health effects". That's great news! Because back in 1999, ozone was proven to have adverse effects on young people, old people, people with asthma and other respiratory diseases, adults who spend a significant amount of time outdoors and some completely random healthy people. Since that includes almost everyone on the planet, I guess all we can do is thank God that smog 12 years later is no longer dangerous. Let's try not to breathe a collective sigh of relief, though, just...well...it might still be kind of risky.

Obama even tried to argue that the new regulations would further impede businesses trying to crawl out of the recession, and that it would discourage employment growth. For a second, I thought Christine O'Donnell or some other Tea Party magician had put a mind control spell on poor old Barack:

I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. With that in mind, and after careful consideration, I have requested that Administrator Jackson withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time.

At its core, the notion that environmental regulations hinder economic growth is bullshit. In the United States, there is almost zero empirical evidence that suggests environmental regulations reduce the international competitiveness of our domestically-manufactured goods [1]. As for economic growth and jobs creation, common sense should tell us that stricter regulations spur innovation. Requiring manufacturers to invest in cleaner technologies further diversifies the economy, creating MORE JOBS in a sector that has previously been all but ignored in the US. Opposing environmental regulations and supporting the theory of free market economics are not the same thing. On the contrary, it demonstrates a clear lack of faith in the strength and sustainability of the American economy.

Alas, if common sense fails us, we can turn to Paul Krugman for a cogent explanation:

And now you can see why tighter ozone regulation would actually have created jobs: it would have forced firms to spend on upgrading or replacing equipment, helping to boost demand. Yes, it would have cost money — but that’s the point! And with corporations sitting on lots of idle cash, the money spent would not, to any significant extent, come at the expense of other investment.

The federal government has a responsibility to implement legislation that protects our nation's business interests, but its responsibility to protect the physical health and well-being of American citizens supersedes it. A government that knowingly and willingly sacrifices the safety of its constituency for the sake of big businesses is demonstrative of a political system that has failed.

Obama seems less and less environmentally conscious every day. He has been dishearteningly quiet on energy and environmental issues since he was elected (which is even more dangerous in a country where the government allows public schools to ignore climate change in the science curriculum), his response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was lackluster, and he has allowed "conservatives" to chip away at the EPA's authority. He also seems increasingly incapable of fending off Republican/Tea Party attacks, and regardless of their absurdity and childishness, the attacks seem to be working.

It's important to have passionate people in Washington, and I think Barack Obama really is trying to do great things. But, if a leader is incapacitated because he's let a terrormongering fringe of the Republican Party paint him as weak and ineffectual, then he is, in fact, weak and ineffectual.

If you can't do your job, it doesn't matter how good of a person you are. You need to get out and let somebody in who can stand up to the idiots.

-----------------------------------------

[1] Jaffe, Adam B., Steven R. Peterson, Paul R. Portney, Robert N. Stavins. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?" Economics of the Environment, Selected Readings (Fifth Edition), ed. Robert N. Stavins. Norton: New York, 2005.

Alan Krueger Is In!

Obama announced this morning that Alan Krueger will take over the White House Council of Economic Advisors. This is great news for the country, as Professor Krueger is one of the most prominent labor economists in the world.


For me, this nomination is even more exciting because he's one of the pioneers of the Environmental Kuznet's Curve theory, a central element of most environmental economics literature. I used it extensively in my undergraduate thesis, and I know it will play a big role in my master's degree.

This is a good step forward for the US. Best of luck Dr. Krueger! You'll need it.

What the Frack?! An Earthquake in Washington, DC

Hydraulic fracturing could have caused the earthquake today that shook DC, New York, and other major US cities.


I've read before that fracking is commonly associated with earthquakes, which makes sense considering that the process involves pumping a toxic cocktail of water and chemicals almost two miles into the earth's crust to break apart the dense shale that contains natural gas. I've also read about widespread fracking in neighboring West Virginia. So today when I saw the news about the earthquake in Virginia, I put two and two together and did a bit of research on Google Scholar.

As it turns out, Bame and Fehler (1986) found a statistically significant relationship between microearthquakes (between 0.4 and 3.1) and their proximity to fracking sites. Fehler, House and Kaieda (1987) also found a significant relationship between fault and joint planes, i.e. where earthquakes occur, and the fluid path created by the hydraulic fracturing injection process. The science must be convincing, as even Fox News reported earler this year that Arkansas earthquakes were very likely associated with fracking.

It's sad that despite the overwhelming evidence against fracking, oil companies and their Washington shills are still able to get away with this blatantly deleterious practice. Not only have they repeatedly enacted dangerous legislation that helps companies hide their chemical lists, they've even gone so far as to encourage fracking with tax subsidies and other government benefits. Remember, these companies are some of the most profitable in the world, yet the US government continues to reward them for polluting our water, land and air.

Now, that's not to say that natural gas extraction is 100% bad or that mitigating its environmental impacts is impossible, merely that it's poorly regulated. In fact, it's much cleaner than coal and petroleum, generating about half as much CO2, less than a fifth as much CO, and a fifth as much NOx as coal. Obviously, problems still exist, but a recent study by researchers at MIT notes that:

the environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable. Shale development requires large-scale fracturing of the shale formation to induce economic production rates. There has been concern that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing fluid, but there is no evidence that this is occurring. There is, however, evidence of natural gas migration into freshwater zones in some areas, most likely as a result of substandard well completion practices by a few operators.

Moreover, There are some economic benefits from expanding natural gas use. For one, it's cheaper, cleaner and more readily available than coal and petroleum. There are also some national security benefits, as we would be significantly less dependent on foreign oil. For more of the benefits on natural gas (and no drawbacks!), visit the American Natural Gas Alliance.

Stricter regulation is necessary, especially if a misstep by a well-worker can lead to groundwater contamination for a local population. Congress has to allow the EPA to do its job and make the distinction between science and politics.

But, even if regulation is improved and the process is cleaned up, the relationship between fracking and earthquakes is hard to deny. More broadly, it's also difficult to deny the relationship between human-induced climate change and the increasing occurrence of natural disasters. Hard decisions have to be made, and it's unfortunate that our voices will be ignored, even though the general population is the most directly affected.

Sources:

Bame, D., and M. Fehler (1986), Observations of long period earthquakes accompanying hydraulic fracturing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 13(2), 149-152.

Fehler, M., L. House, and H. Kaieda (1987), Determining Planes Along Which Earthquakes Occur: Method and Application to Earthquakes Accompanying Hydraulic Fracturing, J. Geophys. Res., 92(B9), 9407-9414.

你胖了!

"Nihao, Ma Shukai! Ni pang le!"

This is how I was greeted today as I saw my host family for the first time in almost two years.

"Hey Matthew! You've gotten fat!"

It's alright to say that in Chinese culture (right Kelli?), but it still shocks me a little every time I hear a Chinese person say it. In Aunt Pan's defense, I was pretty skinny last time I was here.

Other than being verbally assaulted (I'm kidding, obviously), catching up with Aunt Pan and Uncle Zhou has been great. I think they were genuinely happy to see me, and I am definitely glad to be back in Shanghai with my Chinese family.

At dinner, Aunt Pan handed me a big bowl of....红烧猪肉 or pork braised in soy sauce. Thanks again to Chinese cultural traditions, it would have been very rude for me to refuse it, even though I'm a vegetarian now. My stomach hurts a little bit now, but I'm going to go to bed early and see how I feel in the morning. I guess a two week break from vegetarianism won't kill me...

China!

Greetings from the Coffee Bean in Shanghai!

I forgot to mention that I'll be in China for the next two weeks. I've come for two reasons: first, to present my thesis at the Shanghai International Conference on Social Science, and second, to visit friends and (host) family who I haven't seen in almost two years. A huge thanks to the Croft Institute and the SMB Honors College at Ole Miss for funding!

Shanghai is HOT and HUMID, but I'm used to it, so it's not unbearable. The sky seems a little clearer here, but it may just be because the rain/monsoon has washed some of the smog away. I'm sure when it heats back up, I'll see those beautiful orange skies I'm used to.

I have a pretty exciting schedule of things to do while I'm here. On Monday, I'm meeting with the author of a book on water pollution and droughts along the Yellow River in China, Bert van Dijk. He also writes for a newspaper in the Netherlands, so he's basically doing exactly what I'd like to do for a career, at least before I go back for a PhD (if I decide to do that). On Wednesday, I have to go register for my conference, and after that I'm going to an LSE send-off party hosted by the Alumni Association. I couldn't go to the one in Atlanta because it was too close to my China trip, so hopefully this will be a good way to meet some people before I leave for London in September. The next day is the first day of the conference, and I'll present my paper on Saturday. Needless to say, I'm very excited. I'll leave Shanghai on Monday, August 22.

I'll try to post again before I leave.

Until then,
Matthew

On the London Riots

There's a lot of terrible news coming out of London right now. Unfortunately, this kind of "activism" is a sham, just like the rioter's putative hardships - an excuse to act like animals and take what's not theirs, all under the guise of social change. These self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" are spitting in the face of real activists - people in Syria and Libya and Tunisia and Egypt who have given their lives for a real cause and continue to face real struggles. Sure, every country has its problems, but this kind of behavior doesn't solve problems; it exacerbates them.

London rioters are thugs, they're thieves, they're cowards, they're domestic terrorists, and they deserve to be punished under the fullest extent of British law. There is no excuse for burning down people's businesses or stealing their livelihoods. There's no message to be sent by blowing up buses or looting every store you see.

And do you really want to talk about police brutality? Perhaps it's my Republican upbringing or my experience in China, but these delinquents better be glad I'm not their Chief of Police...

A final word, true activists don't have to cover their faces when they protest because they're not ashamed of what they're doing. These people in London are pathetic and deserve sympathy from no one.

Call Mr. Nunnelee about fracking

I called Congressman Alan Nunnelee's (R-MS) office a few days ago to let him know how I felt about this whole debt ceiling debacle. Today, I received a very nice letter from his office thanking me for my input. I noticed on his letterhead that he's a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, so I went to his website to see if he was taking advantage of his position on such an important subcommittee.


Nowhere on his House website does Nunnelee mention climate change, despite the fact that his district is currently facing unbelievably high temperatures. It was 117° in North Mississippi this week. My car read 121° the other day in a parking lot. He touts his participation in the American Energy Initiative, a Republican effort to "address rising gasoline prices and expand American energy production." However, despite the Initiative's support of the development and implementation of sustainable energy production techniques (e.g. wind, geothermal, etc.), there is little mention of climate change, and searching "climate change" yields a list of inflammatory, anti-Democrat articles, as though Congressional liberals have somehow conjured up higher temperatures, melting glaciers, desertification and increased frequencies of natural disasters. Both the Initiative and Congressman Nunnelee's websites mention alternative energy, but focus almost primarily on US energy security.

Certainly, expanding domestic energy production is necessary and is in the interest of our national security. But, a huge part of that must be research and development of NEW and SUSTAINABLE energy options. A solid first step is admitting that climate change is real, and to stop citing bogus science that suggests otherwise and planting doubt in the public's mind. It must be a central issue for every politician, regardless of political affiliation, especially those who sit on relevant committees and subcommittees. For example, Nunnelee is part of a Republican movement called the House Energy Action Team (HEAT), but despite their name, there is no mention of global warming. Ironic? Yes. Surprising? Not at all.

Republicans have vilified environmentalists, legitimate climate change scientists, politicians who support environmental legislation, and economists who tackle pollution and abatement issues. The health of our communities has been politicized, and it's a shame.

But Mr. Nunnelee has an opportunity to do something great. As hydraulic fracturing (also known as "fracking", which I've discussed here before) continues to spread across the country, it has met very little political resistance. The EPA is powerless to stop this extremely harmful practice; they haven't even won the battle that would require oil companies to disclose what chemicals they use. And recently, a New York law that would have forced a more comprehensive review of the environmental and health ramifications of fracking in the Delaware River basin was struck down by the US government, citing "sovereignty" issues. It seems the government may be scared of what a complete report might uncover, and the fact that our government is so quick to dismiss such an obvious health hazard is very frightening.

So what can Mr. Nunnelee do? First, he should publicly condemn hydraulic fracturing, and as a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, his doing so would be very powerful. It would also make him look like a strong, open-minded conservative leader, rather than a pawn of Tea Party fruitcakes like Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton (a documented liar and quite possibly the worst, most corrupt, most ignorant person in our government, evidenced here and here). There is no room for compromise (an idea most Republicans seem especially comfortable with following the recent debt talks) when it comes to pumping unknown chemicals thousands of feet underground to break up the rocks. Remember, it makes tap water flammable. This isn't a partisan issue, and conservative members of Congress - members like Alan Nunnelee - now have the opportunity to show Americans that Republicans are capable of caring about more than big corporations.

It's time for Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to stand up for the people they represent, and Robert Stavins discusses the possibility - and feasibility - of market-based environmental protection initiatives that would allow for "flexible compliance" options and should pacify both Democrats and Republicans (and, like, save the world, obviously). He goes on to warn us about the consequences of falling prey (again) to partisan politics:

[R]egardless of what they think about climate change, conservatives should resist demonizing market-based approaches to environmental protection and reverting to pre-1980s thinking that saddled business and consumers with needless costs.

Market-based approaches to environmental protection should be lauded, not condemned, by political leaders, no matter what their party affiliation. Otherwise, there will be severe and perverse long-term consequences for the economy, for business, and for consumers.

These kinds of regulatory policies would be an easy sale to Democrats. So now it's time for Republicans to step up. A good place to start is for Republican Congressmen like Alan Nunnelee to use their positions on relevant committees and subcommittees to make a difference. They must recognize the legitimacy of climate chance science and the exigency of its implications, and they must act now.

If you agree, call Mr. Nunnelee at (202) 225-4306 and let him know.