New research shows that replacing failing infrastructure in Keystone XL states creates more and better jobs than the proposed pipeline

November 19, 2013 Erin Ash

NEW YORK, NY and PORTLAND, OR (November 19, 2013) – Replacing aging wastewater, drinking water, and gas distribution pipes in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas can create more jobs and better jobs in the pipeline and construction industries than the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new report released today by E3 Network and Labor Network for Sustainability.

The Keystone XL pipeline has been touted as a means to address America’s job crisis. This new report, The Keystone Pipeline Debate: An Alternative Job Creation Strategy, shows that we can create five times more jobs than Keystone XL by investing in much needed water, sewer, and gas infrastructure projects in the five states along the proposed pipeline route. The study finds that meeting water and gas infrastructure needs in the five states can create more than 300,000 total jobs. Every dollar spent on gas, water, and sewer infrastructure in those states generates 156% more employment than the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

America is facing an infrastructure crisis. Unmet water and gas infrastructure capital investment and operations and maintenance needs exceed more than $32 billion along the proposed five-state Keystone XL corridor. The failure to repair and maintain this vital infrastructure causes gas leaks and explosions, sewage overflows, water main ruptures, and the loss and contamination of drinking water. The damage caused by leaking gas pipelines has cost these states more than $450 million in damages since 1984.

Replacing failing drinking water mains in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas can create 177,000 jobs. Replacing failing wastewater pipe in those same five states can create more than 100,000 jobs. Sustained investment in operations and maintenance of water infrastructure in these five states can support an additional 15,000 jobs per year – 219 times more permanent jobs than attributed to Keystone XL by a recent State Department analysis.

Essentially the same skills are required to build and repair water, wastewater, and gas pipelines as to build the Keystone XL pipeline. But unlike Keystone XL, which relies heavily on existing TransCanada contract employees, there is no reason that these pipeline and constructions jobs cannot hire locally.
“If we are really serious about creating good jobs in America’s heartland, we should put people back to work repairing our failing infrastructure first. The KXL pipeline promises little in terms of long term job creation, while significantly increasing carbon emissions and putting communities, farmland, and waterways at risk,” said Dr. Kristen Sheeran, Director of E3 Network.

As the study explains, all of the water, sewer, and gas infrastructure work in the five Keystone states can be paid for without burdening the taxpayer, by closing three federal tax loopholes for fossil fuel companies. The oil refineries that will use Keystone XL oil, along with the rest of the oil industry, receive large government subsidies. Redirecting just one of those subsidies to water infrastructure will create as many jobs as the Keystone XL pipeline.

“The KXL pipeline debate has caused significant friction between labor unions and environmentalists around whether to create jobs or address climate change – with President Obama trapped the middle,” said Brendan Smith of the Labor Network for Sustainability. “This is a false choice. For unions and other jobs advocates, there’s plenty of work that needs to be done fixing existing water and gas pipelines along the KXL route. This is a great opportunity for President Obama to show the country that we can create many more jobs by protecting the environment than by expanding the fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Read the full report here.

###

About Economics for Equity and the Environment: Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3) is a national network of economists working at the intersection of economics, social equity, and the environment. A program of Ecotrust, E3 Network works to provide timely answers to policy relevant questions, inform decision making and public debates, and improve economic practice. Learn more at www.e3network.org.

About Labor Network for Sustainability: The Labor Network for Sustainability is a national network of more than 6000 trade unionists, environmentalists, students and others dedicated to addressing issues ranging from climate change and green job creation to economic justice and renewable energy.www.labor4sustainability.org.

About Ecotrust
Ecotrust’s mission is to foster a natural model of development that creates more resilient communities, economies and ecosystems here and around the world. Over more than 20 years, Ecotrust has converted $80 million in grants into more than $500 million in capital for local people, businesses, and organizations from Alaska to California. Ecotrust’s many innovations include co-founding the world’s first environmental bank, starting the world’s first ecosystem investment fund, creating a range of programs in fisheries, forestry, food, farms and indigenous affairs, and developing new scientific and information tools to improve social, economic and environmental decision making. Learn more at www.ecotrust.org.

About The Authors:

Kristen A. Sheeran, Ph.D. is Vice President of Knowledge Systems at Ecotrust, and co-founder and Director of Economics for Equity and Environment Network.

Brendan Smith, J.D. is co-founder and policy director of the Labor Network for Sustainability.

Noah Enelow, Ph.D. is an Economist with E3 Network and Ecotrust’s Knowledge Systems team.

Jeremy Brecher, Ph.D. is co-founder and research director of the Labor Network for Sustainability.

New research links greenhouse gas reduction efforts with public health benefits in low-income and minority communities

September 20, 2012 Erin Ash

PORTLAND, OR, and WASHINGTON, DC (September 20, 2012) – Expanding climate change mitigation approaches beyond greenhouse gases to also target related pollutants would have enormous public health benefits in the nation’s most disadvantaged communities, according to a report released today by E3 Network and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

The report, Cooling the Planet, Clearing the Air: Climate Policy, Carbon Pricing, and Co-Benefits, found that the same industrial facilities that emit carbon tend to generate other harmful pollutants, such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, that actually pose a more immediate and direct threat to the health of nearby residents. Since these facilities are typically located in or near low-income and minority communities, adding these harmful “co-pollutants” to a climate change mitigation strategy would have an almost immediate positive health impact on the health of millions of poor and minority Americans. The research showed that the benefits would be comparable in economic value to the benefits of the carbon reduction by itself.

The peer-reviewed report is the first national level study to take such a careful look at the potential to further reduce harmful air pollution as part of any strategy to lower greenhouse gas emissions and reverse climate change.

“What we found was that with just modest changes in the approaches now under consideration, our climate change policies can deliver enormous additional health benefits that will be felt almost immediately in communities of color across this nation,” said Ralph B. Everett, President of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Danielle Deane, Director of the Joint Center’s Energy and Environment Program, added, “While we need to begin the process of reversing climate change now to protect future generations, reducing these co-pollutants as we move forward will enable today’s children to breathe easier long before they grow up.”

“Current climate proposals are missing out on an opportunity to achieve considerable health and equity gains through a common-sense approach that addresses co-pollutants such as soot and nitrogen oxides. And since the burden of these co-pollutants falls disproportionately on the poor and people of color, this is one of those opportunities for equity and efficiency to come together,” said report co-author, Manuel Pastor. “Cooling the planet and clearing the air can and should go hand in hand.”

With recommendations that strategically target specific industries, such as petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing, as well as a small number of facilities that yield the highest emissions of air toxins, the report offers a fresh look at how carbon policies can be designed to be more equitable and efficient going forward. “Climate change is real. So sooner or later, it will be back on the nation’s policy agenda,” said study co-author James Boyce. “The next time around, we think much more attention should be paid to the tremendous public health and air quality benefits we stand to gain by moving our economy away from fossil fuels.”

Kristen Sheeran, Director of the E3 Network who commissioned the report commented, “This report highlights often overlooked issues of environmental justice. Take for example the recent explosion on August 6 at the Chevron Refinery in Richmond, California. This refinery is the single largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the state of California, and over 85% of the residents who live within a three-mile radius of the plant live below the federal poverty line. We recognize an enormous risk—as well as an enormous opportunity—for public health and to address pollution where it is needed most.”

The Joint Center will host a panel discussion with the authors and The Honorable James E. Clyburn, Assistant Democratic Leader, this afternoon from 3pm to 4pm at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; 805 Fifteenth Street, NW; 2nd Floor; Washington, DC 20005.
Read E3 Network’s executive summary or full report.

###

About Economics for Equity and the Environment
A project of Ecotrust, Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3 Network) includes hundreds of applied economists from across the U.S. and world who are dedicated to building a new applied economics with social equity and environmental sustainability at its core. The E3 Network works to provide timely answers to policy relevant questions, to inform decision making and public debates, and to shape economic practice. Learn more at www.e3network.org.

About The Joint Center
The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is one of the nation’s leading research and public policy institutions and the only one whose work focuses primarily on issues of particular concern to African Americans and other people of color. To learn more, please visit www.jointcenter.org

About the authors:

James Boyce, Ph.D. is Professor of Economics and Director of the Program on Development, Peacebuilding and the Environment at The Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Manuel Pastor, Ph.D., is Professor, Sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity and Director of the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at the University of Southern California.

New research exposes flaws in government estimate of social cost of carbon

July 13, 2011 Erin Ash

Carbon cost recalculation reveals true value of emissions reduction investments

PORTLAND, Ore., (July 13, 2011) – The U.S. government’s estimate of the social cost of carbon — a calculation of the damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere — is fundamentally flawed and grossly understates the potential impacts of climate change, according to a new report released today by the Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3 Network).

The peer-reviewed report, Climate Risks and Carbon Prices: Revising the Social Cost of Carbon, finds that the true social cost of carbon is in fact more uncertain than the government’s $21 per ton estimate, a key policy-making factor in everything from power-plant regulations to car fuel-efficiency standards.

The entire range of new calculations arrived at in the report, reaching as high as $893 per ton in 2010 and $1,550 in 2050, are all well above the government’s $21 estimate, bringing into question prior analyses of the benefits of reducing emissions and potentially current thinking on what policymakers will consider cost effective.

“The government has been making decisions based on the flawed calculation that carbon dioxide emissions cost just $21 per ton. In fact, the real cost may be up to forty times that amount,” said Dr. Elizabeth A. Stanton, economist and one of the report’s two authors.

Comparing prior research on the cost of reducing emissions with the report’s new findings on the cost of carbon, the report concludes that it is highly likely it is costing us more to do nothing about climate change than it would to adopt mitigation measures.

“Now that we know how much we could end up paying to endure the impacts of climate change, investing in reducing our emissions is clearly the prudent option,” commented report author and economist, Dr. Frank Ackerman. “It’s the difference between servicing your car, or waiting for it to break down on the highway.”

Report commissioner and E3 Network Director Kristen Sheeran said, “E3 Network commissioned this report in response to a critical mass of research by climate and economic experts, all pointing towards what we now know: that the government’s estimate of the cost of carbon was a significant underassessment. We hope that those making decisions on US climate change policy will digest this new information and alter their investment approach accordingly.”

Read the full report, executive summary, peer review and other materials.

In addition to E3 Network, the World Resources Institute and the Environmental Law Institute today released a related report on the social cost of carbon. More than Meets the Eye: The Social Cost of Carbon in U.S. Climate Policy, in Plain English examines how cost-benefit analysis often include judgment calls and assumptions that do not adequately measure the real harm inflicted from climate change.

Background:
Dr. Frank Ackerman and Dr. Elizabeth A. Stanton authored Climate Risks and Carbon Prices: Revising the Social Cost of Carbon, working under the umbrella of E3 Network, a national network of more than 200 economists. The report follows E3 Network’s publication of an April 2010 white paper — The Social Cost of Carbon — by the same authors. Dr. Ackerman holds the position of Climate Economics Group Director and Dr. Stanton is a senior economist at the Stockholm Environment Institute’s U.S. Center at Tufts University.

Economists Warn Against Setting Price for Carbon Too Low

April 1, 2010 Erin Ash

PORTLAND, OR (April 1, 2010) – In its first attempts to regulate carbon emissions, the U.S. government is hindering its own efforts by using flawed economic models that grossly underestimate the impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) on the climate and on our economic future, says a new report issued today by America’s largest network of independent climate economists.

The report, from the Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3 Network), an organization of more than 200 economists, shows how a little-known federal task force has estimated the so-called “social cost of carbon” – the economic impact of each ton of CO2 emissions – at a “central value” of $21 per ton, which would translate to about 20 cents per gallon of gasoline.

Federal agencies will use the SCC as part of cost-benefit analyses to weigh the expected cost of regulations against the anticipated savings and avoided damages: The higher the SCC, the stricter the standards will be for fuel efficiency in vehicles, energy efficiency in appliances, and more. The number is crucial in the Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to fulfill its mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court to regulate carbon, and for many other agencies as well. It could also find its way into climate legislation being developed in Congress, causing even greater harm if it’s used to set low carbon permit prices or to justify lax emissions standards.

“The danger is that this will lead to ineffectual regulations that don’t make a dent in the climate problem,” said Dr. Frank Ackerman, lead author of the report, a senior economist at the Stockholm Environment Institute’s U.S. Center and a co-founder of the E3 Network. “We know that the higher the carbon price, the more it will reduce carbon emissions; that’s the whole point of a market incentive. If it’s this low, it will have hardly any effect.”

In the United Kingdom, by contrast, the government’s latest carbon price estimates range from $41 to $124 per ton of CO2, with a central case of $83; the report argues for at least exploring prices in this range for the U.S. The report also notes the urgency of setting a price on carbon in the U.S. Already, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are about 385 parts per million, up from 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution, and if current trends continue, they are expected to reach 560 ppm within this century. At that level, scientists estimate that the average global temperature would rise by at least 3°C (5.4°F), and more recent studies suggest increases of up to 6°C (11°F).
The full report is available at www.e3network.org, www.sei-us.org, or www.ecotrust.org.

About Economics for Equity and the Environment
Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3 Network) seeks to combat misleading junk economics popularized by climate skeptics. E3 Network organizes the expertise of economists from institutions across the U.S. who are developing and applying new economic arguments for active protection of human health, community prosperity and the natural environment. The E3 Network is sponsored by Ecotrust. More on the Web at www.e3network.org.

About the authors
The Social Value of Carbon report is by Dr. Frank Ackerman and Dr. Elizabeth A. Stanton, senior economists at the Stockholm Environment Institute’s U.S. Center, at Tufts University in Somerville, Mass. For more on their work, see www.sei-us.org/ClimateEconomics.

Economists Join To Say: We Can Afford A World Climate Policy

October 6, 2009 Erin Ash

Large Network of Economists Issues Report Ahead of Copenhagen Talks

PORTLAND, OR (October 6, 2009) – America’s largest network of independent climate economists has issued a major new report showing that the more aggressive world leaders are in curbing world carbon emissions, the greater the economic benefits will be.

The new report is co-authored by researchers from universities and think-tanks across the country, and it is designed to inform major initiatives including the Waxman-Markey climate legislation before Congress, the United Nations talks in Copenhagen, and Bill McKibben’s 350.org International Day of Climate Action on October 24.

The report from Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3), which consists of more than 200 economists, argues that a worldwide effort to lower atmospheric carbon concentrations to 350 parts per million is affordable; it can create more new jobs, spur more innovation and protect businesses, governments and households from the damages caused by the rapid heating of the earth. Today, global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are near 400 parts per million — and rising.

The report concludes that the estimated cost of reaching a target of 350 parts per million is roughly equivalent to one to three percent of world gross domestic product. However, the financial, human and environmental cost of not stabilizing the earth at 350 parts per million over the next 200 years will likely be much greater.

“The reason people buy fire insurance is not because they are certain that their house will burn down; rather, it is because they cannot be certain that it won’t,” said Dr. Frank Ackerman of Tufts University and Stockholm Environment Institute, the lead author of the report. “A target of 350 parts per million buys us insurance against catastrophic climate change.”

To reach a target of 350 parts per million by 2200, the report finds that the world would have to be virtually emissions-free by mid-century. If we begin aggressive reforestation efforts combined with ending large-scale deforestation, and if we can develop new technologies such as carbon capture and storage to remove carbon from the atmosphere, we can achieve 350-parts-per-million sooner and reduce the risks of catastrophic climate change.

The complete report is available for download at www.e3network.org or www.ecotrust.org.

About Economics for Equity and the Environment
Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3 Network) seeks to combat misleading junk economics popularized by climate skeptics. E3 Network organizes the expertise of economists from institutions across the U.S. who are developing and applying new economic arguments for active protection of human health, community prosperity and the natural environment. E3 Network is the one-stop resource for credible economic data and arguments behind innovations, policies, and ideas at the intersection of people, profit and planet.

The E3 network emerged from a series of conversations between academics, non-profit professionals, and foundation officers about the need for creating a stronger link between economics and environmental protection and restoration, for developing an alternative to the anti-regulatory anti-reform bias that dominates public policy debates, and for creating a network of economists actively working for environmental protection. Fiscal sponsorship of the E3 Network is provided by Ecotrust, and the director of the E3 Network, Dr. Kristen Sheeran, is employed by Ecotrust. More on the Web at www.e3network.org.

More Than 100 Economists Band Together to Fight Climate Change Skeptics

May 21, 2009 Erin Ash

Economists Launch RealClimateEconomics.org and Issue a New Report on National Household Greenhouse Gas Emissions

PORTLAND, OR (May 21, 2009) – In recent times, junk economics has replaced junk science as the cause of inaction on climate change issues. The case for inaction is no longer argued on the grounds of skepticism about the science; instead, some claim that it is too expensive to take more than token action on key initiatives.

In response to this trend, more than 100 of the country’s leading economists have banded together to launch RealClimateEconomics.org, an effort dedicated to using the weight of economic evidence to support effective public policy and business responses to the climate crisis. RealClimateEconomics.org is inspired by the success of RealClimate.org, a longtime effort by climate scientists to dispel the junk science popularized by climate skeptics.

RealClimateEconomics.org officially launches today with a new report from several of its members on interstate differences in per capita greenhouse gas emissions. The report explains why some states have much lower emissions than others and helps clarify the potential regional impacts of policies, such as cap-and-trade, which will impose a price on energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. The authors of the report are Dr. Elizabeth Stanton and Dr. Frank Ackerman of Tufts University (both are also affiliated with the Stockholm Environment Institute), and Dr. Kristen Sheeran, the director of Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3 Network). RealClimateEconomics.org is a project of E3 Network, and both efforts receive fiscal support from Portland, Ore.-based Ecotrust.

The key conclusions from the new report:

Greenhouse gas emissions, after correcting for interstate trade in electricity, vary widely from state to state. The highest-emission states have more than six times the per capita emissions of the lowest.
A few states stand out as having energy-related emissions around half the national average of 21 metric tons of CO2 each year. Those states, in order: Vermont; New York and Oregon (tie for second); Rhode Island, California, and Washington (tie for third). All of these states provide a U.S. lifestyle with European levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions in these six states are roughly comparable to those of Belgium, Demark, Germany, Ireland, Japan, and the United Kingdom. These states demonstrate that it is possible to lower emissions in the U.S. without compromising quality of life.
On the other end of the spectrum, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Louisiana all emit more than twice the national per capita average (for energy-related emissions). Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia are not far behind.
In transportation and residential emissions, the same six states — New York, Oregon, California, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont (tie) — together with the District of Columbia, have remarkably low emissions per capita, far lower than the national average of 11 mT CO2. Information about how these states have achieved these emissions profiles should be circulated widely across the country for other states to emulate. This is an important first step down the road toward reaching national emissions goals.
Some of the differences between states are based on factors states can’t control; for instance, the coldest states have high heating needs. But some of the differences between states can be readily addressed by climate and energy policies. The extent of public transportation in urban areas varies widely from state to state; the level of gasoline taxes differs as well. The reliance on coal for electricity generation has a large impact on residential emissions. Efficiency measures are important as well.

The complete report is available for download at www.ecotrust.org or www.e3network.org.

About RealClimateEconomics.org
RealClimateEconomics.org, a project of Ecotrust and Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3 Network), is a one-stop resource for discovering the real economics of climate change, an emerging body of scholarship that is consistent with the urgency of the problem as seen from a climate science perspective. RealClimateEconomics.org is a group of economists scattered across the U.S. who are developing and applying economic arguments for active protection of human health and the natural environment. The effort emerged out of a series of conversations between academics, non-profit professionals, and foundation officers about the need for creating a stronger link between economics and the environmental movement, for developing an alternative to the anti-regulatory anti-reform bias that dominates public policy debates, and for creating a network of economists actively working for environmental protection. Fiscal sponsorship for RealClimateEconomic.org and the E3 Network is provided by Ecotrust. More on the Web at www.realclimateeconomics.org or www.e3network.org.

About Ecotrust
Over nearly 20 years, Ecotrust has converted $60 million in grants into more than $300 million in capital for local people, businesses, and organizations from Alaska to California. Ecotrust’s many innovations include co-founding the world’s first environmental bank, starting the world’s first ecosystem investment fund, creating a range of programs in fisheries, forestry, food, farms and children’s health, and developing new scientific and information tools to improve social, economic and environmental decision-making. Ecotrust works locally in ways that promise hope abroad, and it honors and incorporates the wisdom of Native and First Nation knowledge in its work. More on the Web at www.ecotrust.org.