Category: Environment

New England’s Unique Environmental Problem: Lead

New England’s Unique Environmental Problem: Lead

Lead and Solder Products” by colinmford is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

In New England, even though most sources of drinking water are lead free, lead was a common material used for constructing pipes until 1986. Even today, while copper has eclipsed lead as the most common material used for pipes, lead solder can still be used to join copper pipes. Corrosive water can then cause the lead to leach into the drinking water. Lead contamination from drinking water is one of the most common forms of lead poisoning in both New England and across the country. 

Every state in New England still has lead pipes carrying water to houses (as well as lead contamination in schools). In Rhode Island, for example, there are 30,000 known lead service lines that are a contamination risk. Fortunately, New England is taking steps to remedy this problem. There are two “fronts” on which the battle against lead contamination in drinking water is being fought: in public infrastructure, such as schools, and in private residences and businesses, which is more challenging. In terms of schools, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire require consistent testing to see if lead is contaminating the water supply. In all three states, tests have come back confirming that a portion of the public school water supply is contaminated with lead. Meanwhile, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island do not require schools to test for lead, although Massachusetts has a robust voluntary testing program. Connecticut, for its part, does require young children to get tested for lead, but does not extend this requirement to schools. Assisted by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, states are investing in replacing lead pipes with safe, modern ones. These projects will not finish overnight, but still represent an important step in the right direction. On the federal level, the Lead and Copper regulates the amount of lead and copper in public drinking water, which currently stands at 15 ppb (parts per billion) for lead. However, science (and indeed the EPA) has emphasized that no amount of consumed lead is healthy or safe.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently estimated there are 9.2 million lead pipes carrying water throughout the country. Lead, which is commonly found in paint, ceramics, plumbing materials, gasoline, batteries, and pipes, among other products, has numerous negative health effects if consumed. Adults who consume lead can face high blood pressure, as well as kidney, brain, and reproductive complications. Adults are most commonly exposed to lead through drinking water as well as consumer products. Meanwhile, children who consume lead can face brain damage, slowed growth and development, and even hearing and speech problems. Children are most likely to be exposed to lead through paint dust. To address this long standing problem, the recently passed Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates $15 billion towards replacing lead pipes.

The social and physical costs of lead contamination, such as how lead disproportionately harms poor communities, are relatively easy to see, but it is important to consider the economic consequences as well. From an economic standpoint, health externalities such as kidney or brain complications harm the economy in the form of further burdening the logistics and finances of the healthcare system. Meanwhile, stunting childhood development harms long-term earnings, and some studies believe that lead exposure increases crime.  In 2019, lead exposure cost Maine $226.8 million dollars, Connecticut $984.4 million, Vermont $115.9 million, Massachusetts $2.0 billion, New Hampshire $272.9 million, and Rhode Island $257.1 million. This expense includes costs of reduced lifetime productivity, greater health care, education, social assistance expenditures, and premature mortality. State and federal budgets, as well as the private sector all bear a portion of this cost. Ultimately, the exposure of both children and adults to lead contamination is as much an economic issue as a moral one. 

Although the health problems associated with lead in drinking water have been known since at least the late 1800s, the problem still remains. Lead contamination is a prime example of how environmental and economic issues are very intertwined. Both the private and public sectors should continue working to reduce (and eventually eliminate) lead contamination in both children and adults. Doing so would be wise from both an economic and moral perspective. Overall, while lead poisoning might seem like a moral problem, its economic consequences prove that lead contamination is a multifaceted policy issue worthy of attention.

By Connor Feeney


Works Cited:

El-Dib, I. (2021, November 12). Lead exposure poses threat, especially to children, in Rhode Island. The Brown Daily Herald. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/11/lead-exposure-poses-threat-especially-to-children-in-rhode-island 

Frazin, R. (2023, April 4). EPA estimates 9.2 million lead water pipes in US, doles out funding to replace some of them. The Hill. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3933154-epa-estimates-9-2-million-lead-water-pipes-in-us-doles-out-funding-to-replace-some-of-them/ 

 Costa, C. (2022, May 31). All Maine schools are required to test for lead. here’s what they’re finding. newscentermaine.com. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/investigations/testing-reveals-alarming-levels-of-lead-in-school-drinking-water-maine-cdc-drinking-water/97-0d23e363-5e9e-4d7c-b12c-259113d20e9a 

Emanuel, G. (2023, February 24). Mass. gets a ‘C-‘ in effort to address lead in school drinking water. WBUR News. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/02/24/lead-water-school-daycare-facility 

Tan, T. (2023, January 8). Lead water pipes in 300 Bennington homes have been replaced in pioneering project. VTDigger. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://vtdigger.org/2023/01/08/lead-water-pipes-in-300-bennington-homes-have-been-replaced-in-pioneering-project/ 

Fleisher, C. (2018, July 13). Get the lead out. American Economic Association. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.aeaweb.org/research/lead-poisoning-health-intervention-long-run-impact-charlotte-north-carolina 

For parents. CT.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Environmental-Health/Lead-Poisoning-Prevention-and-Control/For-Parents#:~:text=In%20Connecticut%20every%20child%20between,optional%3B%20it%20is%20the%20law.

Lloreda, C. L. (2020, January 14). Lead poisoning hits low-income children harder than their affluent neighbors. Massive Science. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://massivesci.com/articles/lead-flint-water-crisis-poverty-income-health-pollution-poor-rich/#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20children%20from,highlighted%20in%20red%20and%20yellow. 

Altarum. (n.d.). Value of lead prevention. http://valueofleadprevention.org/index.php?error=2 

Perls, H. (2022, August 10). EPA’s lead and copper rule: Examining challenges and Prospects – Environmental & Energy Law Program. Harvard Law School. https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2021/01/lead-and-copper-rule/ 

About Lead. New England Lead Prevention. (n.d.). https://www.newenglandlead.org/about-lead/#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20source%20of%20lead%20poisoning%20in%20New%20England,built%20before%201978%20contain%20lead.

Lithium Mining: The Economics of the Future

Lithium Mining: The Economics of the Future

The recent discovery of a “world-class” lithium deposit in Newry, Maine, has sparked off a contentious debate over the environmental and economic future of the State. In response to this revelation, a recent bill was proposed to change Maine regulations to allow for unlimited mining for metals of any size, with up to 100 acres per individual location. However, the bill would retain Maine’s regulations requiring developers to prove that there will be no acid mine drainage or harm to water before any mining begins. Currently, Maine only permits open pit metal mining in 3 acre sections. 

Geologists believe the lithium deposit has a value of over $1 billion dollars, presenting Maine with an economic opportunity. The lithium crystals appear to be of very high quality, far surpassing the quality necessary for batteries. Furthermore, the change in regulations will affect the harvesting of other metals considered crucial for the transition to green energy, including a manganese deposit in Aroostook county. This has led to several environmental groups, including the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, coming out in support of this regulatory change, while others want the acre limit reduced or outright oppose the relaxation of mining regulations. 

There are also several other bills under consideration by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. These alternatives present a range of options, such as a five-year moratorium on lithium mining, as well as a proposal that would exempt the type of minerals found in Newry from the law altogether. 

At the center of this mining debate is whether or not the definition of “metallic mineral” should be changed. Advocates want to make exemptions for lithium and other metals used in renewable energy. This is because Maine’s quarrying rules are much less stringent, making for a more efficient but less stringent process.

Under current law, “metallic mineral” is a policy definition which depends on what the harvested metals are used for. This makes it difficult to classify minerals on how they might be used in the future. This is especially true in regards to Newry, where the metals would be sold to out of state distributors. 

This topic is a clear example of how environmental and economic issues intersect. The push for sustainable green energy is creating a demand for lithium and other metals. This, in turn, necessitates more mining, which has a negative effect on the environment. Meanwhile, for the State of Maine, taking advantage of these deposits presents economic opportunities at the potential cost of the local environment. In a strange political twist, prominent environmental groups are calling for an expansion to mining and decreased regulations surrounding these metals, making the calculation that the long term economic and environmental benefits outweigh the risks. In conclusion, the national transition towards renewable energy is shaping the economic, cultural, and environmental debate in Maine. It will ultimately be up for the state to decide, but the economic and environmental tradeoffs are fascinating and caught our attention here at rbouvier consulting. If you are interested in this issue, the referenced sources below provide more detail, or contact us directly. 

Works Cited: Cough, K. (2023, April 24). State lawmakers consider removing size limits on open-pit metal mines. Press Herald. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from https://www.pressherald.com/2023/04/23/state-lawmakers-consider-removing-size-limits-on-open-pit-metal-mines/

PFAS Chemicals: Why Prevention is the Best Medicine

PFAS Chemicals: Why Prevention is the Best Medicine

What are PFAS chemicals? Although the name is obscure, their effect is widespread and overreaching. PFAS are a group of approximately 9000 hazardous chemicals used in both industrial processes and consumer goods. PFAS chemicals were created in the 1930s and subsequently used in America’s commercial and industrial sectors, even contributing to the success of the Manhattan Project. After the efficiency of the chemicals became widely known, their usage increased dramatically. But because of the ubiquitousness and persistence of the chemicals, they ended up in our wastestream, with widespread consequences. 

For both environmental and economic reasons, waste treatment facilities have historically sold sludge to farmers to be used as fertilizer. This saved money for farmers and municipal waste facility operators as it seemed to be a practical disposal method. In short, this process was a prime example of the circular economy at work, and many environmentalists (including some of us at rbouvier consulting) lauded the practice. Unfortunately, PFAS chemicals (also known as “forever chemicals”) have since been demonstrated to be hazardous for the environment, capable of rapidly spreading, and extremely durable. PFAS chemicals spread through groundwater aquifers, air, building improvements, surface soils, deep soils, and water. In humans, exposure to PFAS chemicals has been linked to thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension, ulcerative colitis, and increased cholesterol. Lastly, PFAS chemicals harm the environment and have a negative effect on wildlife. 

In other words, the well-intentioned use of the sludge as fertilizer ended up harming the very farmers it was intended to help. In Maine, that has led to financial disaster for many dairy farms and disruption to the local food system. Moreover, rather than being able to be used as fertilizer, the sludge has had to be diverted to landfills, where the liquid sludge may cause an imbalance and increase the risk of collapse. 

How did this happen? And what can we do to ensure this doesn’t happen again?

Vehicle for application of liquid sludge” by Sustainable sanitation is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Prior to 2016, many chemicals were regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which gave the EPA authority to require reporting and restrictions for various chemicals. Unfortunately, it was widely acknowledged to be ineffective. In 2016, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill updating TSCA that would test unregulated chemicals currently on the market to ensure they meet environmental standards. Among these chemicals is, of course, PFAS, which have already been shown to be toxic for the environment. 

While a good start, it will still take decades for the EPA to test and approve of chemicals already present in the marketplace, let alone new ones, which are being introduced all the time. In the meantime, cleaning up PFAS chemicals will be expensive. Inaction, though, would also be costly, although those costs (primarily health and productivity) are not always as overt. The Investment and Jobs Act, which passed with bipartisan support, allocated roughly $2 billion dollars to help remedy the effects of PFAS chemicals on drinking water. 

Complicating things further, state level approaches to PFAS chemicals vary widely, as reported in a recent article in the Portland Press Herald. California, a state known for its commitment to environmentalism, has taken no action to stop the spread of PFAS contaminated sludge onto farmland. This is a position polar opposite to Maine, which sparks several questions. Does California know something Maine doesn’t? Are there additional environmental and economic factors at play? Meanwhile, the EPA has yet to announce a formal position on how to address PFAS chemicals, a result which many states are waiting on before taking action. Ultimately, the strong contrast in responses between California and Maine – two traditionally environmentalist states – shows that the issue of PFAS chemicals is far from settled.

The concern about PFAS chemicals is a prime example of actions that seem to save money in the short run, but are actually costly in the long run. Economists call these actions “false economies.” This is our mission at rbouvier consulting, to address environmental issues from an economic perspective. If you are interested in this issue, the referenced sources below provide more detail, or contact us directly. 

Post by Connor Feeney

Works Cited

Tachovsky, M., & Bell, R. (2021, May 11). Real estate damage economics: The impact of 

PFAS “forever chemicals” on Real Estate Valuation. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10406026.2021.1923926 

Cordner, A., Goldenman, G., Birnbaum, L. S., Brown, P., Miller, M. F., Mueller, R., Patton, 

S., Salvatore, D. H., & Trasande, L. (n.d.). The true cost of PFAS and the benefits of acting now. Environmental Science & Technology. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c03565 

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). EPA. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from 

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions-address-pfas

Overton, P. (2023, March 19). From Maine to California, the solution to sludge disposal is not settled. Press Herald. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://www.pressherald.com/2023/03/19/from-maine-to-california-states-struggle-with-sludge-solutions/

What is a Regenerative Economy?

What is a Regenerative Economy?

Does it mean biological means of production? While regenerative farmers are talking about high yields with no-till methods and soil biodiversity, some economists are talking about “a new vision for prosperity” that leaves behind the “rational man” of neo-classical economics for a new model of participation and dignity, one that meets the social needs of everyone while operating within the ecological limits of the planet. 

One of the most prominent voices for a regenerative economy is Kate Raworth, author of Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think like a 21st  Century Economist. Raworth recently spoke at Schumacher Center for New Economics on the topic of Planetary Economics: New Tools for Local Transformation. In her talk last November to a record-breaking number of attendees for the Institute, Raworth suggested that transformation of the economy to save the planet is imperative and that the innovation we need is going to come from that bottom-up and be local. She is offering the Doughnut model as a guide and has launched the Doughnut Economics Action Lab as a collaborative toolbox for local economic renewal and participatory climate action.

The basic theory on Doughnut Economics focuses on a thriving future that emerges from balancing the ecological ceiling and the social foundation. The model has been adopted by over 40 cities and regions including Philadelphia, Amsterdam, Leeds, Barcelona, Mexico City, and Toronto. Place-based administrations and community coalitions around the world are using it as a way to reimagine and recreate the future in balance.

Raworth suggests that through multiple crises, humanity is awakening to an awareness of our profound interconnectedness with the living systems of Earth, and each other. Raworth’s idea for a regenerative and distributive economic reality is interesting. The framework borrows from the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals to define the social foundation as the essential of life. The outside of the doughnut are the planetary boundaries defined by Roskstrom et al (2009). The planetary boundaries are what keeps life working on Earth. Raworth compares her doughnut to the dynamic circles of various Indigenous cultures around the world symbolizing health and wellbeing. She says that she is coming to see the doughnut as a “Western economic mindset recovery program”.  

We are paying attention to Doughnut economics because of the way that it embeds the economy within society and within the environment.

What does this mean for our clients and colleagues? We think that the model is useful as a holistic view for municipalities, civic organizations, businesses, trusts and finance. Whichever sector you are in, whether you’re in the visioning stage, looking for participatory tools for engagement or need just-in-time research or local impact analysis, we can help. Our consultants will partner with you to help you learn about the challenges of the changing world. 

Here are the eco-social and inventories areas of the doughnut. Contact us to learn more about the Doughnut or any of these parameters. Let us know if you are working on a Portrait of Place.

Ecological ParametersSocial Parameters
climate crisismobility / transportation 
load on the soilcommunity and connectedness
freshwater consumptionsocial participation and equality
loss of biodiversityhousing and energy
greenhouse gas emissionshealth and education
waste production, pollutionfood and water
deforestation and land use changework and income
air pollutionculture
peace and justice
political participation

Blog post is by Rachel Lyn Rumson


References

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

Assessing the Carrying Capacity of the Blue Hill Peninsula

Assessing the Carrying Capacity of the Blue Hill Peninsula

What trends in Maine (unceded Wabanaki Territory) are threatening conservation of the farmland, forests, wetlands, and wildlife habitat that is needed to sustain ecological and community health in a changing climate?

As our communities attract more and (perhaps more urban and wealthier) households, how will the influx affect the capacity of our communities to sustain itself?

regional carrying capacity measures are social, economic and physical

The team at rbouvier consulting recently completed a study: “Assessing the Carrying Capacity of the Blue Hill Peninsula,” looking at just that. The project was done at the request of Blue Hill Heritage Trust (BHHT), a conservation organization that is shifting the meaning of conservation from recreation and scenic preservation to working lands and community use. BHHT uses outreach and education to increase the chances of fulfilling their mission: “to lead in conserving land, water, and wildlife habitat on the greater Blue Hill Peninsula; to teach and practice a stewardship ethic; to promote ecological, economic, and community health for this and future generations” (BHHT, 2022). The study looks at the current trends of climate and covid migration impacting the communities of the Blue Hill, Brooklin, Brooksville, Castine, Deer Isle-Stonington, Penobscot, Sedgwick, and Surry. 

Want to know what we found?

For this research, rbouvier consulting looked at two specific trends: 1) pandemic-related population trends and climate-related migration trends, trends that have the potential to impact the entire state.) Our charge was specifically to to the following:

  1. Assess the extent of COVID-19-related migration on the peninsula and its impacts.
  2. Investigate if climate migration is happening on the peninsula and what the future impacts may be.  
  3. Assess the carrying capacity of the Blue Hill Peninsula and the region’s ability to absorb an inflow of migration.

To assess how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted domestic migration patterns on the peninsula, researchers used change-of-address (COA) request data to quantify estimated change in population due to Covid-19. They identified the origins of movers to the project area, from 2018 to 2021 and determined the origins of migrating households. The findings show a clear overall increase in total COA requests (both permanent and temporary)  to the peninsula presumably due to COVID-19 (22%), with variable rates in each community, changing the trend from negative net population to positive. The group also looked at both school enrollment data and housing prices to learn more about the impacts on migration locally. Findings include:

  • Both temporary and permanent migration spiked in March 2020. Compared to March 2019, permanent COA requests were up over 53%, while temporary COA requests were up by almost 264%.
  • However, in 2021, those trends seem to have reversed, and net COA requests were once again negative, indicating that the population influx may not have been permanent.
  • Incoming COVID-19-related migration patterns reveal people moving to the peninsula were predominantly from outside of New England and from urban areas.
  • The number of building permits increased slightly, as did home sales and real estate prices.

To assess the impact of climate migration on the Blue Hill Peninsula our researchers were concerned with assessing a) if climate migration is occurring, and, if so, b) who is migrating and from where. To investigate these questions, we completed a literature review of climate migration studies, and inquired into national taxation data published by the IRS to compare filings before and after the pandemic. As part of our investigation, we compared migration trends with weather information for specific climate events and gleaned demographic information about climate migrants to the Blue Hill Peninsula. Further assessment was done to estimate the impact of this trend on housing, jobs, infrastructure and schools.

  • Households driving current climate migration trends have the financial wherewithal to move by choice to escape from perceived dangers (wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, or a pandemic).
  • The households that migrated to Hancock County in 2020 had an average income that was 20% above the average household income for the county in 2019.  

For this study, rbouvier consulting defined carrying capacity in terms of regional sustainability. Looking at regional analysis and tourism impact studies, we determined three interconnected component systems that simplify regional systems: a) physical, b) economic and c) social. With these three focus areas, we developed candidate indicators and screened those indicators for data availability and accessibility. Initial data collection focused on establishing a threshold level for each. With these indicators and baselines set, we evaluated each indicator against the threshold and were able to categorize each indicator with a rating scale based on levels of constraint on the system.  When we combine migration findings with carrying capacity analysis, the findings reveal present and future constraints on the carrying capacity of the region as follows:   

  • The impact of a wealthier, more urban population may affect the carrying capacity of the peninsula. 
  • The wastewater treatment facility in Blue Hill is not likely to be able to withstand a significant increase in population. Moreover, the facility is at risk from sea level rise. 
  • Roads and schools are likely to remain unconstrained for the foreseeable future.
  • Land for development is already constrained, though it varies in each community.
  •  There appears to be enough land for farming, but to the extent it is being farmed is unknown. Preservation of farmland is already below  conservation targets. 
  • Both cost of living and housing affordability are likely to worsen, as is the economic inequality in the region. 
  • Social conflicts are likely to accelerate between long-term residents and new arrivals.

 Why is this work important?

We feel that this is exactly the kind of research that communities should have at their disposal while they are working on planning the future in uncertain times. The pandemic might have spurred  a spike in migration, but  climate migration seems to be an progressive trend, bumping up migration with each significant climate event. That is why we have begun to study the migration trends for Cumberland County. We expect to release our findings to the public soon. So, stay tuned for that. In the meantime, we have permission to share the study if asked. If you would like to read Assessing the Carrying Capacity of the Blue Hill Peninsula, please drop us a line.

China Recycle Ban Brings Challenges and Opportunity

China Recycle Ban Brings Challenges and Opportunity

Recycling changed dramatically in 2018, when China went from accepting 45% of the world’s plastic waste to almost none. As a result, by 2030, up to 111 million metric tons of plastic could be displaced.[1]

All that extra plastic, as well as the paper and other materials China is refusing, has significant and far-reaching effects. It impacts waste management systems and the economics of recycling, and it may also force people to re-evaluate their behavior.

Read More Read More

Taking the Measure of Plastic Bag Bans

Taking the Measure of Plastic Bag Bans

MichaelisScientists [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)]

Americans go through 102.1 billion plastic bags each year, and those bags end up everywhere. Whether they’re in whale stomachs, or in our water as microplastics, the volume has people concerned.

In an effort to reduce the amount of plastic, bans on single-use plastic bags are on the rise. California and New York already have state-wide bans, and Maine has just become the third state to do so. In other states, cities like Boston, Seattle and Chicago have their own bans, and more seem likely to follow.

While it’s popular to attack plastic bags, it’s still important to ask questions to make sure the bans are necessary and effective.

Are plastic bags as bad as people think? What are the alternatives, and are they any better? What impact do these bans have on people’s behavior and the environment?

It turns out that when you look at the whole lifecycle of different bags, and the unintended consequences of the bans, the results aren’t straightforward.

Cost of Bag Production

The environmental cost of production is a good starting point in measuring the impact of different bags. Contrary to what you might think, from this perspective, plastic bags win out.

Plastic bags are made by using ethylene. Ethylene   is a by-product of the crude oil refining process and natural gas production.   Manufacturing plants have also gotten very efficient at making plastic, so this process doesn’t generate many greenhouse gases per bag.

Paper bags, on the other hand, require cutting down trees and then processing them in an energy-intensive way. A 2005 Scottish study noted that paper bag production uses about four times as much water as plastic and creates three times the amount of greenhouse gases. It should be noted that in the United States, many paper manufacturing facilities use biofuels and co-gen systems to generate the power used in the manufacturing process which may mitigate some of these emissions.

Even cotton tote bags aren’t better for single use. This is because you need to factor in the land and water used to grow the cotton, as well as the processing and production. One study found that you’d need to use the tote bag at least 131 times to be better than a single-use plastic bag, based on the production impact.

Recycling and Decomposing

One of the biggest problems with plastic bags is what happens after they’re used. This is true whether they’re used once or a couple of times.

While the bags can technically be recycled, municipalities don’t accept them with other recyclables. This puts the burden on the consumer to save them and bring them to a place that will accept them, and most people don’t go to the trouble.

When plastic doesn’t get recycled, it either goes into a landfill or ends up as litter.

In a landfill, plastic takes an average of 500 years to decompose. The volume of these bags in the trash also comes at a cost. California alone spends $25M annually on disposal of plastic waste in landfills.

Paper, on the other hand, decomposes in just two to six weeks. It can also be easily recycled.

Other Impacts of Plastic in the Environment

Additionally, when plastic ends up as litter, the environmental impact is much worse than with paper.

Plastic has become one of the most common kinds of waste products, with much of it ending up in the ocean. A study from UC Santa Barbara found that each year, the world’s oceans receive almost 8 million metric tons of plastic.

As an example of how widespread this is, a recent dive by American explorer Victor Vescovo found a plastic bag at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, seven miles below the surface.

One of the biggest concerns with this is the impact on marine animals. Many are tempted to eat plastic bags, thinking they’re food, but instead the bags block their digestion.  As many as 1 million sea animals die each due to the plastic in the oceans. Among them was a dead sperm whale found in April 2019 with 48 pounds of plastic in its stomach.

A less publicized issue is the fact that plastic bags can cause problems in urban settings by clogging waterways and drains. This was discovered as one of the primary factors in flooding in Bangladesh in 1988 and 1998, which led them to ban plastic bags in 2002.

Microplastics are another concern. These form when the plastic breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces.

No one has enough evidence to show any specific health impacts of microplastics, mostly because it is unethical to ask human test subjects to ingest microplastics due to known health hazards of plastic in general, but the amount and range makes it worth watching. A 2017 study found that 94% of tap water samples from the United States contained microplastics and other studies have found high concentrations of microplastics in fish and shellfish commonly eaten by humans.

Another study also noted that when plastic bags are exposed to sunlight, they begin to give off ethylene, and continue to do so even after the sun sets.  This ethylene can contribute to the creation of atmospheric carbon monoxide, a greenhouse gas.  

.

These factors are what make the plastic bag bans so popular, even though from a production standpoint, they can do less environmental damage than the alternatives.

Considering Consumer Behavior

One issue that policymakers often overlook is how consumers will react to their policies. Production and disposal are only one part of the story. It’s also important to consider if people actually do reuse those bags, for what purpose, and how consumers will change their behavior after a plastic bag ban.

In some cases, people do use the plastic bags again, though often only one other time. The most common examples are to line small trash cans and to pick up after dogs. Those needs don’t disappear with the bans, and those are things you can’t use tote bags for.

As a result, one side effect of the bans is that people buy more trash bags for those purposes. Rebecca Taylor, an economist at the University of Sydney, saw a 120% increase in sales of small, four-gallon trash bags. From an environmental perspective, trash bags are worse than the single-use bags, since trash bags are thicker than grocery bags. This means they use more plastic, and it takes longer for them to degrade.

A quick glance at the comments section of the Portland Press Herald, in an article announcing the ban, revealed that many commenters were “hoarding” their plastic bags in response to the ban, or even buying rolls of plastic bags in advance of the law’s April 2020 effective date.

Additionally, the use of paper bags increases significantly after bans. A survey of a few areas in California found that paper bag usage jumped from 3% to 16%. This meant increased production for paper bags, as well as higher volumes of paper trash.

Still, the bans do encourage people to reuse bags by 40%. The bans also reduce the amount of plastic that ends up as trash, which is the other piece to consider.

Conclusion – It’s Complicated

Economists are notorious for responding “it depends” when asked a question comparing two alternatives.  The impact of bans on plastic bags is no different.  Depending on what you measure, you can find support for using plastic bags, and support for banning them.   

It’s important to remember that the impact doesn’t stop with the manufacturing. It continues with how the bags are used, and what happens with them when they’re no longer in use. It’s also important to recognize that no law is ever passed in a vacuum. We need to consider how people will respond, what alternatives are available to them, and what the unintended consequences may be.   

References:

Defining Safety Levels for Particulates Could Hurt Your Health – and the Economy

Defining Safety Levels for Particulates Could Hurt Your Health – and the Economy

You’ve probably heard about some of the recent changes from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But you might have missed the proposal about particulate matter (PM), since it didn’t get as much press. Or even if you saw it, you might not have recognized all the implications because they’re not immediately obvious.

This proposal is to define a safety threshold for what’s called PM 2.5, and it’s a reversal of the EPA’s prior stance. Until recently, the EPA said that no amount of particulate matter can be considered safe. Changing that could have serious impacts on our health – and the economy.

What is PM 2.5, and where does it come from?

Even if you’ve never heard of particulates, you’re likely familiar with them. These are the fine particles of liquids and solids that contribute to haze-filled cities and poor air quality. In fact, another name for PM is particle pollution.[1] This is because the tiny size allows these particles to get everywhere – including deep in your lungs.

PM 2.5 is a specific kind, named because the particles are only 2.5 micrometers in size. For comparison, an average human hair is 75 micrometers in width.[2]

These tiny materials are everywhere, coming from a number of places, including cigarettes and fireplace smoke. But the vast majority come from two sources:

–          50% is from industrial production, with 20% of that from coal-powered plants

–          35% is from gas-powered vehicles of all kinds[3]

Costs and benefits with current policy 

Under the current policy, with no level of particulate matter considered “safe,” any reduction of PM 2.5 below current levels is considered a benefit, and can be included in federal cost-benefit analyses.

In other words, if regulations to reduce greenhouse gases simultaneously reduce PM 2.5 (as they would, given that they share many of the same sources), that reduction counts as a co-benefit. And those co-benefits can play a significant role in the cost-benefit analysis of any proposed regulation to reduce greenhouse gases.

For example, the Clean Power Plan from the Obama era had an estimated $20 billion in climate benefits. But the benefits go up when you consider that the same technology used to reduce power plant emissions would also cut PM levels. Those changes result in an additional $13 to $30.3 billion in health benefits, effectively doubling the benefits.

Similarly, the Mercury and Air Toxics standards save $4 to $6 million by reducing toxins. And in this case, the co-benefit from reducing particulates is even higher, coming in between $37 and $90 billion.[4]

Proposed change reduces benefits

Now, under the proposed changes, lowering PM levels below the suggested “safety levels” won’t count as a benefit. After all, if anything below the threshold is already considered safe, bringing it down even further won’t be helpful.

This means that moving forward, climate change initiatives like the Clean Power Plan wouldn’t be able to factor in the lower levels of PM 2.5. And without that, the initiative might not get implemented, because the cost would be considered too high without the co-benefit to offset it.[5]

Damages from air pollution

 The impact on regulations is a concern, but those aren’t the only considerations. Air pollution already causes damages between $75 and $230 billion annually. And PM 2.5 contributes more to that than their size indicates.

Even though these particulates only account for 6% of emissions by weight, they cause 23% of the damages. The damages from PM 2.5 alone are between $17.25 and $52.9 billion annually. [6]

Health and economic impact

Most of the economic damage caused by PM 2.5 is due to increased health costs.[7] Health issues associated with PM 2.5 include:

–          Respiratory illnesses like bronchitis

–          Premature death

–          Low birth weight

–          Higher risk of asthma

–          Greater risk of heart disease

–          More instances of lung cancer

These conditions all carry increased economic cost. Some of this is a result of increased medical care, such as hospital visits and medication. [8]

But the costs also come from lost work time and reduced productivity. People who need to take time off for appointments and medical care won’t be as effective. Similarly, those who can’t breathe as well have less energy and will be less productive, even if they don’t require urgent care.

In addition, since particulates contribute to poor air quality, people might be more likely to stay inside. This means lost revenue from outdoor recreation and the potential of reduced health from lower levels of activity.

Poor air quality actually could have a negative impact on region’s workforce. Putting a priority on quality of life is becoming more common – including looking at factors like air quality. If an area has a distinct haze, or higher levels of respiratory conditions, people may choose to leave, or to not move there to begin with.[9]

Conclusion

While it’s impossible to identify all the effects of the EPA’s proposed safety threshold, it’s clear that the negative impacts could be far-reaching. Given that, the EPA and other agencies should take all of the risks into account before accepting a change that could cause such extensive damages to our environment, our health, and our economy.

Photo Credit:   Eltiempo10 [CC BY-SA 4.0], from Wikimedia Commons

[1] https://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.particle

[2] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/kill-climate-rule-trump-s-epa-wants-redefine-danger-soot

[3] http://www.rff.org/blog/2007/what-do-damages-caused-us-air-pollution-cost

[4] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/kill-climate-rule-trump-s-epa-wants-redefine-danger-soot

[5] Ibid

[6] http://www.rff.org/blog/2007/what-do-damages-caused-us-air-pollution-cost

[7] Ibid

[8] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2011/05/06/we-are-what-we-breathe-the-impacts-of-air-pollution-on-employment-and-productivity/

[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/05/29/how-the-air-quality-where-you-live-might-be-affecting-your-health/#2881f8b37017

Keeping the Lights On Doesn’t Mean More Pollution

Keeping the Lights On Doesn’t Mean More Pollution

Photo – Creative Commons/Flickr Amy the Nurse

In August of 2017, Energy Secretary and former governor Rick Perry proposed to strengthen subsidies to coal- and nuclear-fueled electricity plants.  Why?  According to his proposal, coal and nuclear power plants are indispensable to our national security by virtue of the fact that they can store energy on-site. And, since the past few years have seen declines in both coal and nuclear facilities in the United States, the concern is that the nation’s electricity grid will be less reliable in the future. The proposal would have guaranteed cost recovery and a fair rate of return for generators that can store at least 90 days’ worth of energy on site.  Fortunately, the Federal Regulatory Commission rejected it.  Even so, it’s still worth looking at the pros and cons of such a proposal.

More power outages and more disruptions would, of course, harm our energy-intensive economy. As the recent spate of hurricanes (including high winds in my home state of Maine) have shown, such energy disruptions can be costly. In fact, 2017 was the costliest year in terms of economic damages from natural disasters in the US.

Would subsidizing coal and nuclear facilities really have been the best solution? To answer that, we need to take a deeper look.  When I teach cost-benefit analysis, I encourage my students to consider the baseline – what would have happened in the absence of the policy or proposal in question. The number of coal and nuclear plants in this country has been declining for decades. The decline can be attributed to several factors, including environmental regulations, but mainly the declines are due to market forces (low electricity prices, declining electricity demand, and new supplies from natural gas) and aging infrastructure. Without taking a close look at the finances of the plants in question, we can assume that at least some of these plants would have been likely to follow.  Increasing subsidies to already struggling nuclear and coal plants would likely have been just another case of throwing good money after bad.

When considering the costs and benefits of the proposed plan, there would have been several different categories, each accruing to different groups.  The beneficiaries of the plan would likely have been owners and shareholders of the qualifying coal and nuclear plants.  Their consumers, as well, may have benefited from a lower average wholesale price of electricity; however, the proposal recommended adding a surcharge to consumers’ bills in order to cover the costs. According to the analysis done by Resources for the Future, the drop in the wholesale price of electricity would not have been enough to cover the surcharge.

Moreover, practitioners of cost-benefit analysis need to carefully consider all the costs and benefits of a proposal, not just those that are easily monetized.  A complete analysis of the costs and benefits of Secretary Perry’s proposal should include the damages caused by pollution from coal and nuclear-powered plants to humans and agriculture. (While the generation of electricity from nuclear plants does not create air pollution, the mining for uranium does create environmental destruction.) Such external costs are in reality a passive subsidy that coal and nuclear plants have enjoyed for decades. An additional subsidy would exacerbate the problem. According to the analysis done by Resources for the Future, the proposed plan would have immediately increased sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, two pollutants generated by the combustion of fossil fuel.  This increase in emissions is linked to an increase in premature deaths caused by respiratory diseases such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Once environmental costs are factored in, net benefits to society would have been decidedly negative.

The next question is: would the subsidies have alleviated the problem of grid instability? The answer to this question actually lies in the question itself.  Is there really a problem of power disruption caused by declining coal and nuclear plants? Some recent research by the Rhodium Group says no.  Researchers examined the data collected by the Department of Energy whenever an electricity generator experiences an outage or a disturbance.  Results indicate that disruptions in fuel supply were responsible for less than 1 one hundredth of one percent of lost customer service hours between 2012 and 2016.  The remainder were caused by disruptions to energy distribution  Primarily, those disruptions were caused by severe weather, not by supply disruptions.  The FERC ultimately agreed when it rejected Secretary Perry’s proposal.

However, the FERC did agree that the reliability of the grid was an issue looking into.  If the goal of Secretary Perry’s proposal was to increase the reliability of the grid – not just to prop up nuclear and coal – there are several less costly and ultimately beneficial ways of doing so.  One such possibility is to replace our nation’s aging energy-related infrastructure, much of which dates to the 1950s and 60s. Energy infrastructure actually received a “D+” on the 2017 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Upgrading the energy infrastructure would come with many ancillary benefits.

A second alternative would be to invest in distributed energy and microgrids.  Distributed energy is the use of small, decentralized power generation and storage systems. While larger utilities consider the rise of distributed energy to be a threat to the existing system, the greater use of distributed energy could actually increase the resilience of our current, outdated system.  However, doing so will require innovations in monitoring, modeling, “smart switches,” and other technologies to manage peak demand and integration.

A third possibility is to invest in better long-term energy storage. Lithium ion batteries may be our best choice for now, but other storage technologies, such as flow batteries or zinc air batteries.  But by far the best alternative – one that should be a crucial part of any solution – is energy conservation.  A unit of energy conserved is one that doesn’t need to be generated.  You don’t get much more reliable than that.

The Rising Cost of Hurricanes

The Rising Cost of Hurricanes

The hurricane season of 2017 has been a severely damaging one. Hurricane Harvey devastated parts of Texas, Maria savaged Puerto Rico, and Hurricane Irma dealt a punishing blow to an already-reeling Florida (not to mention Nate and Jose). As I write this, Hurricane Ophelia – the tenth named storm in a season that was predicted to be “less active than usual” – is brewing in the eastern Atlantic. Whatever the cause of this increase in hurricane frequency, though climate change is a likely culprit, no one can deny that these storms are growing more costly

The World Health Organization estimates that the global cost of hurricane damage per season is rising by 6% a year. (That’s in real dollars, not nominal, by the way, so inflation doesn’t factor into it.) If storms are increasing in strength and frequency, why is more not being to mitigate the costs?

Two words: incentives and avoidance.

Economists believe that people respond to incentives. Make an activity less expensive, and more people will engage in it. Make an activity more expensive, and the level of activity will drop off. Why is that important here?

It turns out that if policy makers make it relatively inexpensive to build your house in a floodzone, lo and behold, more people are going to build their houses in floodzones. Houses that are built in floodzones are, no big surprise, more prone to flooding. According to the Economist magazine’s recent article, Harris County, Houston’s home, has allowed 8,600 homes to go up in the 100-year floodplain. (The 100 year floodplain is not, despite its name, an area where a flood is expected to occur every 100 years. A 100 year floodplain is an area that has a 1 percent chance of being flooded in any given year. That means, over the life of a 30-year mortgage, the change of a such a flood occurring is just about 26 percent.) The more houses located in a floodplain, the greater the expected cost of such a flood. Simple math.

Not only that, but by developing in the floodplain, much of that land was converted from prairie land to impermeable surfaces, like roads, driveways, and sidewalks. Coastal prairie land can absorb large amounts of rainfall. Concrete and asphalt cannot, leading to more flooding and more runoff, and more erosion of existing soil, as the velocity of the water is increased by those impermeable surfaces. The act of putting more development in vulnerable areas is a double whammy – you’re putting more homes in harm’s way, and you’re taking away the natural infrastructure that helps protect against flooding in the first place.

I also mentioned “avoidance” as one of the reasons why hurricane costs have been increasing. It’s no surprise that most people tend to avoid thinking about negative information, and that applies to getting insurance. According to the Insurance Information Institute, only 12 percent of American homeowners had flood insurance in 2016. While most banks and mortgage companies require flood insurance if your home is in a high-risk area, federal law does not require coverage in a moderate to low risk area and almost 25% of all flood-related claims come from those areas. Why is that? Maybe they see it as too expensive, or they’re putting it off. Maybe they’ve simply made a bad bet. Or perhaps they expect the federal government to foot the bill. Even if the government does cover some of the damage (and the federal government did cover about 80% of Hurricane Katrina’s damages), that still means that taxpayers may be subsidizing an increasingly risky bet.

And those bets are becoming riskier. What was once considered a 100-year storm – that is, where the probability of one occurring is one percent annually – is now occurring more frequently. Scientists estimate the likelihood of a storm of a certain size occurring based on historical figures – and we know that more intense storms are happening more often. (For a great discussion of how the US Geological Survey draws the “flood maps,” see this piece from Five Thirty Eight.)

It’s not only the insurance companies, the homeowners, or the federal government who shoulders the increasing costs of hurricanes and other natural disasters. Municipalities can see a blow to their tax base, a rise in the cost of borrowing, and even the possibility of litigation if it’s found that the municipality issued building permits or approving subdivisions that increase the potential of flooding.

What can be done to stop these costs from continuing to increase? Well, for a starter, communities need to take a good long look at their land use regulations. We need to stop subsidizing bad risks. It should be more, not less, costly to build in flood plains. We need to stop subsidizing the conversion of wetlands and other buffer zones to development. We need to preserve our natural infrastructure. And, we need to implement more resiliency efforts.

Municipalities should also make sure that businesses and homeowners fully understand the potential costs of not having flood insurance We need to make sure that the people involved in these kinds of decisions have a clear understanding of the full social and environmental costs of their actions. These moves make economic sense as well as environmental sense.

rbouvier consulting’s mission is to promote a more transparent economy by making sure that social and environmental costs are included in economic decisions. Visit our website to find out more.