A week ago, I sat down to write an end of year blog post. My colleague Joie had assigned me the task, “2020 sucked but here’s some good news.” It felt overwhelming and impossible. What good news could I possibly write about, during a raging pandemic, ongoing environmental gloom, protests against injustice all over the country, gridlock in Washington… You see my dilemma. My first thought was to give up, and email Joie to say that I just couldn’t do it.

But I hate letting Joie down. So I did what anybody would do in this situation, and googled it: “positive environmental news 2020.” Turns out that there are several sites out there that are devoted to posting positive environmental news stories – not in a Pollyanna-ish, stick-your-head-in-the sand kind of way, but more as a counter to the persistent doom-scrolling many of us have been engaging in lately.

I read about the founder of one of these sites, Grant B. from Happy Eco News . He writes, “I found that when I really started looking, I could see in between all the doomsday articles and posts, were a few that were actually very positive. And so I started saving them with the intention of sharing with friends to let them know that there is some good news.” One thing lead to another, he says, and now he posts on average five times a day, and rounds up the week’s news with the weekly Top 5. Clicking on random posts within the website, I realized that there is a lot of good news out there, but our minds get hijacked by the constant doom-mongering. Outrage gets more clicks than hope. News networks and social media algorithms know that, and they take advantage of it.

So here are a few positive developments from the past year that focus on the intersection between economics and the environment:

1. President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to return to the Paris climate accord, and has appointed John Kerry as “climate envoy” and Gina Mccarthy as climate czar (Kerry’s focus will be international, while Mccarthy’s focus will be domestic) Biden’s Twin Climate Chiefs, McCarthy and Kerry, Face a Monumental Task). While we try not to be too overtly political in this blog, the fact that the climate will be elevated to such a high level in the incoming administration gives me a little hope. Not too much- I’m not going to go crazy or anything – but some. Plus, as I’m always reminding my students, real climate action takes place at the state and local level, and there’s a lot going on in Maine (where we’re located) right now.

2. Renewable energy is gaining ground. Coal is finally on the decline. Britain is ending subsidies for fossil fuel industry. While I am mindful of the difficult transition those who work in the fossil fuel industry are facing, ultimately this is good news both for the climate and for air quality.

3. Past and current injustices are being uncovered. The shooting of Breanna Taylor in March and the horrific murder of George Floyd in May served as (yet another) wakeup call to the reality of structural racism in this country. While there’s a real temptation to think that things are getting worse, perhaps they are finally being uncovered, to paraphrase adrienne maree brown. We cannot create a more sustainable future without acknowledging and reckoning with our past. 

4. The Great American Outdoors Act. Not only is the Great American Outdoors Act one  of the biggest pieces of federal environmental legislation since the Clean Air Act, it is also one of the few examples of successful bipartisanship that we can point to. The legislation provides badly needed funding to restore crumbling infrastructure in our national park system, and guarantees a steady stream of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

 5. Technology. Advances in lithium batteries could soon make the “million-mile” battery within reach. Advances in hydrogen fuel cell technology, as well, could help us in our quest to decouple the economy from fossil fuel use. 

6. Socially responsible investing hits the big time. 2020 actually began with a letter from Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, to his investors. In that letter, he called for a fundamental reshaping of finance, recognizing that climate risk is financial risk. BlackRock is now, in their own words, putting sustainability at the center of their investing. It remains to be seen whether this gesture marks a seachange. But when the world’s largest investment firm makes a commitment to sustainability, others will sit up and take notice.

So, yes. 2020 was a dumpster fire of a year, no question. And yet, there is some positive news on the environmental / economic front. We just need to remind ourselves to look.

The one-two punch of recession-pandemic this year has made vulnerability a more pressing topic globally. While resiliency has been discussed in our previous blog post, how to develop it requires a thorough understanding of where the metaphorical weakest link is. COVID-19 has proven to be an accelerant in many industries both in terms of developing trends and uncovering flaws in our economy. These vulnerabilities become much more apparent when considering the risk to human life imposed to our communities. 

U.S.News & World Report ranked Maine as the most economically vulnerable state to the pandemic. Maine has the highest percentage of citizens over the age of 65 (20.6%) and our economy is the 6^th most dependent on tourism and hospitality. The state is in economic hardship from missing out on the full summer tourist season which has rippling effects across small businesses. While the pandemic may not be a long-term problem for the state, the vulnerabilities it has exposed will be and should be addressed now to develop resilience.

Looking further ahead, Maine has other long-term economic vulnerabilities. The dependency on tourism and hospitality has shown us that having diverse industry representation like manufacturing and skilled professionals is essential for economic resiliency and growth. The global climate crisis will have lasting impacts to the state’s economy and public health. The Gulf of Maine has been found to be warming faster than 99% of the global ocean, disrupting the fishing industry and weather patterns in the area. The threat of sea level rise will dramatically impact coastal communities around the state which represent 34% of its population. The economic impact of these changes means that the once scenic locations are at greater risk of flooding, higher insurance rates, and less attractive for industry. Due to these challenges, Governor Janet Mills has set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2040 and 80% by 2050. 

A new study from Robert Pollin and the Political Economy Research Institute at UMass-Amherst shows how to start the economic recovery in Maine by addressing the climate crisis.  The primary directive is for the state to invest in large scale projects to update the energy structure of the state. Coming from both the supply and demand side with energy efficiency standards and expanding on renewable energy in wind and solar. Given the temperature shifts in the state, energy efficiency is invaluable to buildings in the area so public buildings would undergo deep energy retrofits.

The economic impact of the program would be dramatic, estimating that $2 billion in investment from public and private sources would create nearly 15,000 jobs by 2022;  An investment of this scale would represent 2-2.5% of Maine’s economy each year.  Short term stimulus will boost the current recovery and long-term infrastructure investment will create jobs at scale and with longevity. The long-term annual investment of $500 million from 2021-2030 would create 7,300 jobs per year. These would be good paying working class jobs that would support Maine families. ¹

Transitioning into clean energy will  help shape a new perspective around climate policy with equity in mind. Creating good working-class jobs demonstrates that tackling climate change isn’t an elitist issue and the benefits of doing so far outweigh the costs. Nate Barr of Zootility, tool manufacturer turned mask maker, has a factory right next to the Portland Waterfront, he says “If we don’t tackle climate change, we’ll literally be underwater.” While it may be more expensive to address climate change than ignore it in the short term a greater vulnerability will be exposed in the not so long-term. Climate change will then cripple local economies much like COVID-19 has already. 

Our firm looks to address environmental issues to improve economic conditions. We do this by expanding our perspective to see how vulnerabilities can transition into resiliencies. Maine wasn’t built to handle COVID-19, but it can develop the infrastructure to combat the climate crisis and come back stronger from this pandemic. 

Policy implementation like this will need broad public support to create significant change. Elected officials base decisions on their constituents’ views highlighting the importance of clear public opinion. Look at your elected officials and see their stance on climate change. Write to them and share your views on making the economy more equitable and sustainable to create the shift needed for change. Policy decisions are one of the most effective ways to address climate change and develop a more climate conscious economy. We understand that political views are very personal but the impacts of climate change will be very real. Knowing where elected officials stand before November 3^rd will make you an informed voter and citizen, but most importantly, make sure you vote.

Written by Tom Dolloff, Intern

1. Schreiber, Laurie. “New Study: Maine Can Recover from Economic Crisis by Addressing Climate Change.” Mainebiz, 31 Aug. 2020, www.mainebiz.biz/article/new-study-maine-can-recover-from-economic-crisis-by-addressing-climate-change?utm_source=Newsletter.

We are excited to announce the publication of River Voices: Perspectives on the Presumpscot published by North Country Press. The book includes a chapter by Dr. Rachel Bouvier, “The Economic Value of a Restored Fishery on the Presumpscot River.”

In describing the chapter Dr. Bouvier said, ” I discuss the economic value of restoring a native alewife run to the Presumpscot River, one of the most heavily dammed rivers in the northeast. The chapter discusses traditional economic values such as increased property values and tourism, as well as less well measured – but no less important – values such as community revitalization, quality of life, and civic pride. It is not often that we get a second chance at something, from an ecological perspective. But just last year, one of the dams that has been impeding alewife from returning to the Presumpscot was removed. It heralds a new era for the fish, for the city of Westbrook, and for the environment.”

The publishers website describes the book as “a celebration of a river, a vision of stewardship and caring, with chapter topics ranging from geology to Native American history to fighting for fish passage. Illustrated throughout with original and historical works of art, this book embodies the concept of managing a river through appreciation of all of its attributes and aspects. If you live in this watershed you will appreciate it.  And if you live somewhere else, this is a model for caring for a river.”

For more information or to purchase a copy of the book visit North Country Press.

1. Can proximity to urban green spaces be considered a luxury? Classifying a non-tradable good with the use of hedonic pricing method Edyta Łaszkiewicz⁎, Piotr Czembrowski, Jakub Kronenberg  Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 237–247

In this article, the authors examine apartment rents in Lodz, Poland, to see whether proximity to “green space” (defined as parks, forests, cemeteries, and allotment gardens) could be considered a luxury good, by which the willingness to pay increases disproportionately as income increases. The authors examined how apartment rents varied according to distance to green space, while controlling for other factors such as square footage and other characteristics. Results demonstrate that proximity to parks and forests has a positive effect on apartment rents – in other words, the closer the park or forest, the higher the apartment rent. However, the results demonstrated that proximity to cemeteries has a negative effect on apartment rents. Although the authors did not discuss this, there is an environmental justice component at play here – if proximity to urban green space is considered a luxury good, then low-income housing is likely associated with a lack of urban green space.

2. From supply to demand factors: What are the determinants of attractiveness for outdoor recreation? Lea Tardieua, Laetitia Tuffery  Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 163–175

Sites such as national parks and other outdoor recreation parks must pursue the dual goal of environmental conservation and attracting recreation.   Managers of such sites constantly face the challenge of increasing visitors without destroying the attributes that appeal to such visitors in the first place.  However, models that predict how attractive a site is to recreation are typically different from those that predict how ecosystem services vary by site. Because of this, it is difficult for managers to evaluate land use tradeoffs. The authors of this study combine data on visitation to a national park in France with spatial data showing characteristics of the specific areas that were visited, and simultaneously relied on a model that predicts habitat quality (the InVEST software). The authors find a negative correlation between the attractiveness of a site to recreation and habitat quality, implying that the two goals (increasing recreation and preserving biodiversity and habitat quality) are at odds. This is not terribly surprising. However, the integration of the economic “travel cost” model with the habitat quality model may be helpful to evaluate the trade-offs arising from land use change proposals.

3. Microclimate effects of wind farms on local crop yields Daniel T. Kaffine Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 96 (2019) 159–173

In Maine, as well as in other states, the possibility of using wind farms to generate more renewable electricity has become a key strategy in mitigating climate change. In many cases, wind farms are sited on agricultural farms as a possible added source of income to farmers. However, one of the possible externalities of wind farms – the effect of wind farms on crop yields – has not been much studied in the economics literature. This article examines microclimate effects: the changes in local temperature, moisture, and carbon dioxide concentrations due to “vertical mixing, turbulence, and wakes created by wind turbines that extend well-beyond their local footprint” (p 159). The article itself is fascinating – describing the scientific microclimate effects of wind farms and their resulting effects on crop yields (soy, wheat, corn, hay, and wheat). Fortunately for advocates of wind power, effects of wind farms on crop yields are either positive (in the case of corn, soy, and hay) or statistically insignificant (in the case of wheat). 

4. The effects of recreational cannabis legalization on forest management and conservation efforts in U.S. national forests in the Pacific Northwest Mark Klassen⁎,1, Brandon P. Anthony Ecological Economics 162 (2019) 39–48

A fascinating and timely study, this article considers the effects of recreational marijuana legalization on forest management and conservation efforts.  The authors point out that illicit drug crop cultivation has actually been identified as a “major stressor impacting the management of public lands,” as over half of the marijuana plants eradicated in 2008 had been grown on public lands. The environmental impacts of such illegal cultivation has led to removal of native vegetation, diversion of natural waterways, agro-chemical pollution, and littering. Furthermore, safety concerns organized crime syndicates had made it difficult for national forest employees and researchers to pursue management goals. Finally, the US Forest Service had to spend resources on monitoring and enforcement, meaning that they could not devote those same resources to other pursuits. The authors attempted to discover whether the legalization of marijuana had reduced the amount of illegal grow sites, which in turn would reduce both environmental and safety concerns. They conclude that “the legalization of recreational cannabis is significantly correlated with a reduction in the annual number of discovered grow sites in national forests in Oregon, while found insignificant in Washington (47).”

Measuring Willingness to Pay for Environmental Attributes in Seafood

Hilger, J., Hallstein, E., Stevens, A.W. et al. Environ Resource Econ (2019) 73: 307. 

We found this article very interesting because of our recent work with CEI on growing farmed scallop in Maine.  Most research suggests that consumers are willing to pay for environmental attributes (like sustainable harvest) in seafood, but the majority of that research are stated preference, rather than revealed preference, studies. In other words, they are studies of what consumers say they’re going to do, rather than studies of what consumers do.  It is more difficult to design a controlled experiment that adequately captures consumers’ actual behavior than it is to design a survey! This article uses a “natural experiment” by which the researchers compared sales of seafood before and after a sustainability labeling scheme (using red, yellow, and green labels) was implemented. The researchers found that consumers did express preferences for wild-caught versus farmed seafood, US-caught versus no-US caught seafood, and selective harvest methods to less selective harvest methods. Another interesting aspect of this paper is the discussion of the yellow label, which was described as “proceed with caution” on the label but actually meant that not enough information was available to make a final decision. Consumers seem to have responded to this ambiguity by substituting away from this alternative altogether.

Do energy efficiency standards hurt consumers? Evidence from household appliance sales.

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volume 96, July 2019, Pages 88-107

Arlan Brucala; Michael J.Roberts

In yet another article investigating policy and its effect on consumers, this article looks at Energy Star ™ labels on washers, dryers, and air conditioners, and the effect of those standards on prices and consumer behavior.  Contrary to expectations, the authors find that stricter standards increase consumer welfare, by encouraging substitution towards more durable and energy-efficient goods.        

Urban afforestation and infant health: Evidence from MillionTreesNYC

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volume 95, May 2019, Pages 26-44

This is a fascinating study of the effect of planting trees on infant health in urban areas. Whereas most of the literature on the positive effect of trees on health looks at the effect of proximity to green space on health, this article takes advantage of the MillionTreesNYC program in New York City to study the effect of planting trees on infant health. The authors use a database from the US Centers for Disease Control to compare the health of infants born to women in New York City to those born to women in similar areas where no afforestation occurred.  They take advantage of several cutting-edge statistical methodologies to control for confounding factors, such as socio-demographic factors. Their findings imply that a twenty percent increase in in urban forest cover (such as occurred under the program) decreased prematurity and low birth weight among mothers in New York City by 2.1 and 0.24 percentage points, respectively, relative to similar mothers outside of NYC. While this doesn’t seem like much, the difference in low birth weight is equivalent to that of a mother who doesn’t smoke to a mother who smokes two cigarettes a day during pregnancy. The effect seemed to be greater among African American women, indicating that urban afforestation may be significant equity effects as well.

For generations most companies have measured their success or failure by the amount of profits and losses they experience.  This is in part because financial gains and losses are easy to quanitfy, but also because legally a company owes a fiduciary duty of care to its stockholders, and must weigh stockholder impact when making corporate decisions.  That impact is generally measured in dollars and sometimes is taken to the extreme of “maximizing shareholder value” above all else.  Publicly held companies, companies that sell stock to the general public, are required to prepare annual reports that contain these gains and losses and file those reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  Most companies also issue a similar report for their stockholders and prospective investors. 

But business is changing, and more and more companies are seeking to measure their achievements in a manner that considers more than just how much money they make; they want to include their social and environmental impact as part of their success too.  In a business world where the common approach is to increase profit and maximize the benefit to your stockholders, and in some cases face stockholder lawsuits for NOT doing this, how can you find a way to include your social and environmental impacts as part of your bottom line reporting?

Enter the benefit corporation and Certified B-Corporations (often abbreviated to B-Corp).

Benefit Corporations and Certified B-Corps came into existence to help companies that want to take a triple bottom line approach to how they do business and how they report on their success.  Benefit Corporations and Certified B-Corps are often thought to be the same thing, but there are some important differences.

Benefit Corporation

A benefit corporation is a company that has legally incorporated as a benefit corporation in their state.  Currently 34 states allow for companies to file as benefit corporations; a few of these states allow for benefit LLCs as well.  If your state allows benefit corporations, you file to become one in the same way you file to become a traditional corporation.  But what exactly is the difference between a benefit corporation and a traditional corporation? 

When you file as a benefit corporation your legal obligations and duties are expanded to include the company’s impact on society and the environment.  It allows company decision makers to take actions that might create a greater benefit to society or lessen the company’s impact on the environment even if those actions reduce company profits or shareholder value.  Company decision makers are protected from potential shareholder claims when the company takes such actions.

Benefit corporations publish annual reports just as traditional corporations do, but they don’t just report on the financial bottom line, the company’s social and environmental impacts are reported as well. 

Certified B-Corp

You may have seen the Certified B-Corporation logo popping up on websites, product labels, and office front doors in the past few years.  The Certified B-Corporation came into existence to provide a way for those in states that do not currently have the option of incorporating as a benefit corporation to be able to “consider the impact of their decisions on their workers, customers, suppliers, community, and the environment” in addition to the financial impact.

The certification is issued by the non-profit B-Lab.  Companies who wish to become Certified B-Corporations must apply via the bcorporation.net website.  They undergo a review to assess the company’s impact on “its workers, customers, community, and environment.”  If the company scores high enough on its review, they must then agree to transparency by making the report available on the B-Corp website.  Finally, they must take the step of amending their bylaws, or other legal governing documents, to “require their board of directors to balance profit and purpose” when make decisions. 

The B-Corp website states that there are currently 2,500 Certified B-Corps around the world.  There are many companies that are both benefit corporations and Certified B-Corps.  Having the third-party B-Corp certification can demonstrate that a company is not just paying lip service to triple bottom line accounting, but is actually actively pursuing a more sustainable way of doing business.

Benefit corporations and B-Corp certification provide triple bottom line minded companies with a way of doing business that is in alignment with their purpose.  Putting society and the environment on par with profits creates new avenues for such organizations to measure their success.  The transparency required provides consumers and investors with the information they need to make decisions on which companies are in line with their personal values.  In the end, having more companies that take a triple bottom line approach to doing business benefits us all.

On December 28, 2018, the Trump administration announced that the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS) that restrict mercury emissions were too costly and without enough benefits to make them necessary. Those in favor of the restrictions argue that the real cost comes from changing the standards.

Why is mercury an issue?

Mercury is a heavy metal that is released into the atmosphere from a variety of sources, with coal burning power plants being one fo the primary sources.  Once mercury is released into the air, rain and snow send it to the waterways, where it converts to the toxic methyl mercury. From there, it contaminates the water we drink and begins to work its way up the food chain beginning with smaller fish and accumulating at higher amounts in larger fish, such as salmon or tuna exposing humans to further risk.   

Difference in cost-benefit analysis

The debate about the restrictions e. centered around the cost-benefit analysis of MATS, and specifically around what should be considered a co-benefit.

The original analysis issued by the EPA  in 2011 factored in the co-benefits [JG1] of reducing particulate matter (PM) as well as the direct benefit from cutting back on hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. In this analysis, the projected health savings were $59 billion to $140 billion annually. This more than offset the estimated $10.9 billion annual cost of regulating emissions.

Some of the health benefits identified include preventing:

• 6,800-17,000 premature deaths
• 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma
• 850,000 days of people missing work
• 5.1 million days of restricted activity

In 2018, though, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produced a Supplemental Cost Finding proposing that including co-benefits related to PM is flawed, and the analysis should only consider quantifiable benefits from HAP reductions.

Using this revised approach, the health-related co-benefits would only be $4 to $6 million annually. Compared to the billions needed to enact the regulations, the new finding claims that it is not “appropriate or necessary” to regulate emissions, since it’s not cost-effective.

The proposal also indicates that while there are other benefits, they are unquantified and not enough to support the stricter standards.

Timing and intent

One of the surprises of the revised analysis is the timing. When MATS was passed, facilities had up to 5 years to meet the standards. This means that the majority have already paid to install the necessary technology to reduce emissions. Changing the standards now won’t give them that money back. On the other hand, many utilities are already recouping their investment through regulated pricing.

This has raised some questions about the intent of the supplemental analysis and who would benefit from the change.

Benefiting the coal industry

Power plants are the primary source of most pollutants, and within the power sector, coal-fired plants produce 99% of mercury emissions. They also generate the majority of other pollutants. As a result, they’re the most impacted by MATS.

Those coal plants would therefore stand to gain the most. It’s uncertain how helpful this would be, however, given that coal-fired power generation has fallen more than 40% since 2007.

Opening the door to health problems

Changing the cost-benefit approach could set a dangerous precedent. It could set a new standard the way health benefits are considered for all future standards and environmental rulings. Such a change is significant because of the potential damages.

Mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage the brains and nervous systems of unborn babies and young children. As a result, consuming fish with high mercury levels can cause serious harm, especially for children, nursing mothers, and women who are pregnant or might become so. The EPA estimates that each year, more than 300,000 newborns may have a higher percent of learning disabilities due to mercury exposure.

Other health impacts can affect all ages and include damage to the brain, heart, kidneys, liver, and immune systems. This can lead to muscle weakness, loss of peripheral vision, lack of coordination, speech impairment, and impaired hearing and walking.

Mercury is widespread – including in Maine

What makes the health implications even more worrisome is that mercury is widespread, and it lingers for a long time. A study by the EPA in 2009 found that 48% of lakes and reservoirs nationwide had levels of mercury exceeding the guidelines (0.3 parts per million).

Maine is far from immune, since prevailing winds bring mercury emissions from coal-powered plants in the west. The state of Maine already warns people that due to pollutants, they should not have more than two servings of fresh-caught fish per month, depending on where fish are caught.

But restrictions on mercury emissions have been making a difference. According to research done by Nicholas Fischer of Stony Brook University in New York, mercury has been decreasing in the Gulf of Maine. This has also led to lower levels of mercury in tuna, declining at the rate of 2% per year.

Rolling back standards has potential for increased costs in several areas

Those gains would likely be lost, though, if the new proposal goes through. Also, while the coal industry might have a reduction in costs, other sectors – such as recreation, education, and employment – could see higher costs.

For example, the original cost-benefit analysis pointed to 5.1 million days of restricted activity due to emissions. Those impacted won’t be out skiing, hiking, hunting, or fishing, something that hurts states like Maine who have economies that are dependent upon eco-tourism.

The cost impacts on  education is another factor. Mercury negatively impacts the brainmdevelopment of young children who are exposed to it; children effected by mercury exposure will need extra care and support in educational settings. According to the National Education Association, a  student who needs this sort of assistance can cost $9,369 more to educate than a student who does not need assistance.

When  these students become adults, their opportunity for employment and earnings will likely be   reduced by those early health impacts.

Mercury levels also have implications for the fishing industry. Bluefin tuna are only now beginning to make a comeback after conservation efforts. They’ve recovered enough to allow some fishing in the Gulf of Maine, including an 801-pound catch in 2018. Ttheir economic impact is considerable. In 2013, a single bluefin sold for more than $1.75 million at a Japanese auction.

Unfortunately, these tuna are also likely to have elevated levels of mercury, especially if emissions increase. If the fish become more dangerous to consume, they’ll be less viable in the Maine economy.

Additionally, mercury has a negative health impact directly on fish. Elevated mercury levels can slow growth and development in wildlife and fish, and reduce their rate of reproduction. That doesn’t bode well for an economy that relies heavily on fishing and brought in $616.50 million in 2015.

Conclusion

Although the health benefits from reduced emissions are not easily quantifiable, they are still significant and shouldn’t be discounted. It also seems counter-productive to remove standards when the costs of implementing them have already been paid. The Trump administration would do better to leave the standards in place so the people of Maine, and the rest of the country, can enjoy the benefits.

---

 [JG1]Define co-benefit 8