Putting NM back on the path to sound environmental policy
Todd Myers
The Toyota Prius, the symbol of environmental consciousness, was created by a business seeking a profit, not by politicians trying to burnish their environmental image.
As the world celebrates Earth Day, it is time to separate real environmentalism from the fake variety. If there is one rule to follow in this regard, it’s this: If an idea is trendy, it probably isn’t good for the planet.
As environmentalism has become trendy, politicians and businesses have learned that appearing green can lead to profit and political gain. Increasingly, science takes a back seat to policies that make people feel good or appear environmentally friendly.
I write about the rise of trendy environmentalism in my book “Eco-Fads.” I outline the ways people often substitute feel-good approaches for the difficult work of following the science and economic to protection the environment.
In New Mexico, two examples stand out.
‘Green’ building standards
The push by school districts to require schools be built to “green” building standards is often more about image than results. Politicians push systems like Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) supposedly to make buildings more energy efficient. The results, however, often fall far short of the promises.
Santa Fe school officials built an LEED-certified school in an effort to save energy. To their credit, officials did something that few others do – they audited the actual energy performance of their building. As a result, district officials say they won’t build another “green” building.
Why?
First, to meet the LEED standards, the district spent money on design features that do little to save energy. For example, the district created parking spots to charge electric cars even though there are few electrics on the road. It cost the district money but didn’t yield environmental benefit.
Second, many green schools use more energy than other schools. In Santa Fe, the LEED-certified school actually spends more on energy than average schools in the district. This is not unusual. Many “green” buildings across the country end up using more energy than traditionally built schools in the same district.
One of the reasons “green” schools fare so poorly is that building managers already know how to save energy and they have pursued these savings before it was politically popular. That is likely the case in Santa Fe. Like many school districts, Santa Fe’s schools were green before we knew it.
When Governor Richardson was in office, he signed an executive order requiring many state buildings to meet these same, failed standards. Given the fiscal challenges facing New Mexico, rescinding that order would be one way to cut state costs.
A ‘political’ pledge
That’s not the only eco-fad in New Mexico.
Ten New Mexico cities joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005-2006. City leaders pledged to reduce carbon emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012. When officials signed on, they sent out press releases touting their commitment to reducing the risk of climate change.
The deadline is now approaching, so how are these cities doing? The answer is: not well. New Mexico’s emissions as a whole were nearly 10 percent above 1990 levels in 2009 and the state would have to reduce emissions by nearly 20 percent between 2010 and 2012 to meet the promised target.
The results in individual communities could be different, certainly, but will officials in any of the 10 cities want to find out? Probably not.
This has been the case elsewhere in the country. Seattle, whose mayor started the Climate Protection Agreement in 2005, recently admitted that it would not meet the goal, dismissed the pledge as “political.”
A recent study finds this is the rule. Looking at California cities with climate plans, the study found that “climate plans are largely rhetorical.”
Embrace creative free-market forces
How then can New Mexico, and other states, take meaningful steps to help the environment? The simple truth is technology created by the free market is the most powerful force for conservation – doing more with less – the concept at the center of environmental sustainability. The Toyota Prius, the symbol of environmental consciousness, was created by a business seeking a profit, not by politicians trying to burnish their environmental image.
Politicians often jump on the bandwagon of new technologies like the hybrid, but they are followers, not leaders.
The Land of Enchantment rightly enjoys a reputation for natural beauty and resource riches. By embracing the creative free-market forces that encourage all of us to do more with less, we can put New Mexico back on the path to sound, science-based environmental policy.
Todd Myers is the environmental director for Washington Policy Center, a Seattle-based free-market think tank. He is the author of the landmark book, “Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism is Harming the Environment,” and an adjunct scholar with the Rio Grande Foundation.
By embracing the creative free-market forces that encourage all of us to do more with less, we can put New Mexico back on the path to sound, science-based environmental policy.
No, we can’t.
The whole point of Pigou’s 1932 work The Economics of Welfare * is that the free market cannot possibly work by itself to deal with pollution problems, or problems of limited energy resources. Those are externalities – situations where some of the costs are borne by those who are not parties to the transactions and thus don’t have a place in the market. With pollution, some of the costs are borne by people who breathe the air, even if they don’t drive cars. With limited resources, part of the cost of running out of oil will be borne by people in the future, who have no say in the current market.
Thus, the basic premise of the column is false.
The falsity of the premise is amply demonstrated by the example of the Prius. While it’s a rather nice gadget, you may notice that it hasn’t driven all the gas guzzlers out of the market, so it really isn’t doing much to reduce oil consumption. Worse, even if every vehicle in use worldwide today was magically transformed into a Prius, it still wouldn’t be enough to fix our energy and oil problems. The market can’t fix this problem.
* http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Pigou.html
While it has been criticized in some of its details, the principal that government action is necessary to correct for externalities has been accepted by every economist from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman.
Cap and Trade, a Free Market approach mandated by the the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, was successful in curbing acid rain. Levels in 2000 were significantly less than levels in 1990.
Anyone who has spent time in Los Angeles, California knows that without Government Regulation the air quality in LA would be as dismal as it is in Mexico City. If you want to see what unfettered capitalism can do to clean air, visit that Workers’ Paradise in Beijing.
So, Mr. Myers, I’m not sure I get your point. Is your point that we shouldn’t jump on any fad that comes along? Then I agree with that. Is your advice that New Mexico should avoid slick advice from the Consultant Class? Then I agree with that.
If you’re saying we should just wait until somebody in the Mythical Market Place offers to give us clean air and clean water because the Market will solve all of our problems? Well, don’t hold your breath.
Michael J. Flynn (Liberal in the Market Place, Liberal in Politics)
Stever- Yes, I’m being serious. My point is that picking and choosing a few data points is hardly the science-based argument that the author claims to want to follow. Buildings that are LEEDS certified, in the aggregate, are substantial energy savers. More work will, of course, be done. To dismiss building the higher energy efficient standards because of questionable audit results in Santa Fe is hardly the scientific method. Here is a link to an actual data-based study of LEEDS buildings: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778809000693
The author seems to want to dismiss those advances in environmental design in the face of actual data showing the system is viable and works. His position is simply another trojan horse attempt to do away with any environmental efforts that hamper profit-at-any-cost business. It’s a weak argument and a weak article. Why didn’t he examine the aggregate results of the LEEDS building programs instead of picking one that was not successful yet? It’s a dishonest article in my opinion in that he never quite comes out and advocates for what he is proposing. Which environmental laws does he want quashed? I’d bet the New Mexico Pit Rule would be the first. Clearly air quality would be right up there. Does he get paid by oil, gas, mining, timber, manufacturing interests to lobby against stricter rules? If he does, that sort of puts the lie to his call for “science” based decision making in my view.
There is big money in enviro-issues, the politicians have embraced it all due to the huge amounts of money the enviro-lobby pours into politicians…
The $175 Million that enviro-lobbyists for Exxon-Mobnil and the Koch brothers put into lobbying against the climate change bill absolutely dwarfs the $22.4 Million spent by energy groups such as the Sierra Club. See:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/08/climate-change-environment-groups/1
At least, in the world of Dr J, 22.4 is far, far larger than 175.
Otis, I have to assume you are not being serious. To pick and choose with no sense of economic proportion or history, makes me wonder. Not be outdone, in the two areas where the federal government has been active in terms of actually building and operating facilities, The DoE (Hanford, Savannah River, LANL, INL, etc) and the DoD (too numerous to list) there are plenty of environmental “disasters” go around.
Of course, the federal government doesn’t talk about them as much.
Toyota was able to seize a business opportunity with its Prius because govt had taken steps to level the playing field. An important govt function is to offset the advantages some have when they use the “commons” at no cost to themselves; in this case the air we breathe. If auto manufacturers and the fossil fuel industry had to pay for the damage they do to the commons and thus include it in the price of their products many more different business models would be able to compete with them. Govt levees specific fees and provides subsidies in an effort to promote this competition.
If environmental sustainability = doing more with less
Then:
austerity = doing more with less because you have less (due to government)
efficiency = doing more with less because you need less (due to science)
depression = doing more with less because you have less (due to economy)
How do you believe the author would describe the current economy? As a Recovery or a Depression? Recovery…because he is the establishment.
Is the author forecasting a sudden economic downturn? No.
Is the author lauding scientific advances? new discoveries? new efficiencies? No. No. No.
If the economy does not need to be addressed because it is fine, if there is no belief in green buildings or the green movement because it is all just political posturing, then this author is preparing you for doing more with less because of austerity; i.e. the government is going to take more from you. He knows it; and he is not telling you. He is a deceiver.
Here comes fascism. Here comes the public-private partnerships.
How true gm, and if you love the wacky, inept, corrupt, and incompetent attributes of Santa Fe, you are in luck. Their mayor, the prime architect and leader of this mess, is running for state legislature to bring his “talents” to the state as a whole.
I second the motion…..
Surprised that the mayor of Seattle says that the pledge in the Climate Protection Agreement is political….Isn’t he the guy that wants everyone to ride bicycles? Latest poll shows Seattle tied with Santa Fe for second behind San Fran for wacko capitol of the USA…
The idea that 10 NM cities could have any effect on climate is beyond ridiculous. Tilting at windmills. I think the former guv knew his order was “tilting” but he cultivated the green saviors of the planet who vote in a bloc.
Mr.Myers writes:
The Toyota Prius, the symbol of environmental consciousness, was created by a business seeking a profit, not by politicians trying to burnish their environmental image.
As were the Exxon Valdez, Love Canal, DeepWater Horizon, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Three Mile Island and a host of other state of the art technological wonders that have been spectacular environmental blunders.
Bravo, well said and something the enviro-lobbyists will vigorously attack. There is big money in enviro-issues, the politicians have embraced it all due to the huge amounts of money the enviro-lobby pours into politicians who talk the talk. And of course the special interests in “green” businesses also are very generous to politicians who pass laws and regs that make them winners with taxpayer subsidies and other corrupt handouts from politicians. Meanwhile, as above, nothing substantive happens and very few even check the results, as that is not the important part anyway.
You must be logged in to post a comment.