Clean energy is about more than just climate change

Imagine for a moment that climate change wasn’t happening. That the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change hadn’t determined major inevitable and irreversible climate changes are likely on the horizon due to release of greenhouse gases. Would our transition past coal to a new energy economy still make sense?

According to a new working paper by researchers out of Arizona State University, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of North Carolina, it probably would. This is because, even in the absence of climate change, coal fire plants expose people to dangerous pollutants.

In particular, this new working paper focused on the pollutant PM2.5, which are basically tiny inhalable particles that can end up in people’s lungs and sometimes even bloodstreams. These particles can cause coughing, difficulty breathing, aggravated asthma, irregular heartbeat, heart attacks, and even death for people who inhale them. In addition, particulate matter can make lakes and streams more acidic, change nutrient balances in river basins, deplete nutrients in soil, damage forests and farm crops, kill animals and plants, and create acid rain.

This new working paper argues that people are exposed to significantly less particulate matter now than they were 20 years ago. Among a wide range of socioeconomic groups, particulate matter exposure was down 86-90% in 2018 compared to 2000 exposure levels.

The researchers also found that the racial gap between Black and white exposure to particulate matter has decreased over the past two decades. While in 2000, Black exposure to particulate matter was 30% higher than white exposure (3.22 micrograms per cubic meter per person vs 2.47 micrograms per cubic meter per person), that gap had shrunk to 14% by 2018 (0.32 micrograms per cubic meter per person vs 0.28 micrograms per cubic meter per person).

The researchers estimate that more than half the particulate emission reductions during the period of study are attributable to a shift from coal-based to natural gas-based electricity production, while most of the remainder was due to reduced emission intensity, potentially driven by air pollution policies like the Clean Air Act.

Over the period from 2000 to 2018, Ohio saw a 58% decrease in energy production with coal. Meanwhile, natural gas production ballooned over that time period by a factor of 24 (a 2,418% increase). Natural gas, which was only producing 14% as much energy as coal in Ohio in 2012, surpassed coal energy production in 2014 and hasn’t looked back. In 2020, natural gas produced 30 times (2,956%) as much energy as coal.

Natural gas isn’t completely clean, it too produces particulate matter. Transition to alternative sources of power such as solar and wind will further reduce particulate matter pollution in Ohio. This will lead to less individual exposure to particulate matter, thus reducing morbidity and mortality associated with exposure to particulate matter. It will also curb the environmental impacts of particulate matter. 

Climate change on its own is a reason to want to transition Ohio’s energy economy. But clean energy will also help Ohioans breathe easier, our riverbeds and soil be cleaner, and our forest and wildlife be more healthy right now and for years into the future. This gives us another reason to want to move into the next phase of Ohio’s energy economy.

This commentary first appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal.

Ohio economists mixed on impact of inequality on economic growth

In a survey published by Scioto Analysis this morning, Ohio economists reported a mixed response to the claim that rising inequality in Ohio is slowing state economic growth.

While a slim majority of economists (14 of 26 respondents) agreed that rising inequality in Ohio is hampering economic growth, a substantial minority (8 of 26) were uncertain about the claim while four others flat-out disagreed with the claim. Those who agreed with the statement pointed to research literature suggesting inequality has an impact on economic growth through health impacts and impacts on consumer spending.

Among economists who were uncertain about the claim, some suspected inequality was reducing economic growth but were hesitant to make the claim without more evidence it is doing so. Some of these economists also were not sure how to define economic growth in this context.

The Ohio Economic Experts Panel is a panel of over 40 Ohio Economists from over 30 Ohio higher educational institutions conducted by Scioto Analysis. The goal of the Ohio Economic Experts Panel is to promote better policy outcomes by providing policymakers, policy influencers, and the public with the informed opinions of Ohio’s leading economists.

What can Ohio do to fight PTSD?

If you are interested in the world of public health, you may have heard the growing conversation around adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)—traumatic events in childhood that have health and economic impacts that ripple into adulthood.

According to the Health Policy Institute of Ohio nearly two-thirds of Ohio adults reported exposure to ACEs in 2015. This included over half the population reporting emotional abuse, 41% reporting substance abuse in their household as a child, and over a third reporting experiencing divorce.

Ideally, we can work to prevent adverse childhood experiences from happening. But even going as far as to half these numbers would still leave millions of Ohioans dealing with the traumatic effects of abuse and other problems stemming from childhood. 

On top of the human cost to these individuals, this means higher costs for health care to treat health problems stemming from this trauma and lower labor market earnings due to the effects of trauma on productivity. Trauma is bad for well-being, health, and the economy.

Luckily, we have a tool for ameliorating the impacts of trauma for people experiencing it that has decades of experimental validation: cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT is a form of psychological treatment that attempts to change thinking patterns through strategies like facing fears, roleplaying to prepare for difficult interactions, and learning to calm the mind and relax the body.

Cognitive behavioral therapy is not only thoroughly supported by experimental research, it also has been found to have large economic benefits.

The Washington Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) estimates that for every dollar spent on cognitive behavioral therapy for adults experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, $89 are generated in public benefit in the form of higher labor market earnings, lower health care costs, and reduced chance of death associated with depression. $49 of those $89 are recouped by taxpayers, mainly through new taxes generated from higher labor market earnings.

So what can we do to encourage the use of CBT by people who need it? Some good examples of what states can do come from Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution.

One suggestion by Reeves is to increase mental health screenings to help identify individual need for cognitive behavioral therapy. This is a recommendation from the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force and has been shown to be effective at improving take-up of treatment. Reeves suggests universal screenings in schools, colleges, and clinical settings.

Another suggestion from Reeves is to make CBT free for patients. WSIPP estimates that a dollar invested in CBT leads to $49 in savings for taxpayers and $89 in total social benefits, making the economic case for covering CBT for patients strong. Reeves suggests CBT can be provided for free in public schools and college and for people serving in civilian or military services corps. He also suggests allowing for Medicare and Medicaid to cover CBT first, accommodating for teletherapy, and expanding community health centers.

A lot has been said about a growing mental health crisis, especially in industrial states like Ohio that have become the center of the conversation around deaths of despair. Encouraging use of one of the best tools we have to fight trauma would improve lives, health, and the state’s economy.

This commentary first appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal.

Ohio economists split on windfall tax for oil and gas companies

In a survey published by Scioto Analysis this morning, 15 of 26 Ohio economists agreed a windfall tax on the excess profits of large oil and gas companies – with the revenue rebated to households – would be an efficient way to provide temporary relief for the average household in Ohio from rising energy costs.

Of those who agreed with the statement said that the tax would reduce consumption of petroleum in favor of other goods and that this approach was more efficient than other forms of taxation. Others pointed to alternatives such as elimination of oil subsidies and reduction of market power of producers.

Of those who were uncertain, disagreed, or had no opinion, some economists argued a windfall tax would make energy more expensive. Others argued it would be difficult to determine what constitutes excess profits. Still others worried that a tax in times of excess profits would imply a subsidy for a time of low profits, which could cause problems for other reasons.

The Ohio Economic Experts Panel is a panel of over 40 Ohio Economists from over 30 Ohio higher educational institutions conducted by Scioto Analysis. The goal of the Ohio Economic Experts Panel is to promote better policy outcomes by providing policymakers, policy influencers, and the public with the informed opinions of Ohio’s leading economists.

Scioto climate change cost study comes before U.S. Senate

On Thursday, August 4, Power a Clean Future Ohio Executive Director Joe Flarida delivered expert testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs during its hearing, “Borrowed Time: The Economic Costs of Climate Change.”

US Senator and Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown invited Flarida to present the findings from a first-of-its-kind report released by the Ohio Environmental Council, Power A Clean Future Ohio, and Scioto Analysis. The Bill is Coming Due: Calculating the Financial Cost of Climate Change to Ohio’s Local Governments provides a conservative estimate of the additional costs that municipalities can expect to incur due to climate change. According to the analysis, local governments across Ohio will need to increase municipal spending by as much as $5.9 billion annually by midcentury to adapt to the challenges of a worsening climate crisis.

“Local governments are burdened with the most challenging public problems we face. They are the eyes that see these problems first, the voices that raise the alarm when we reach a tipping point, and the hands that are asked to implement the solutions we identify,” testified Flarida. “Today, I am here to lift up those Ohio elected leaders and the tireless staff in cities and counties across Ohio that are raising the alarm on the financial costs of climate change that they see coming.”

The climate damages considered in the report are projected to only intensify in approaching decades, generating new costs associated with climate-driven disaster recovery and adaptation, and creating a major strain on already overstretched taxpayers and cash-strapped local governments.

“Climate change is here. The country knows it,” said Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Committee Chairman, as he called the hearing to order. “Ask mayors, ask school superintendents, ask county commissioners about the increasing costs they deal with already because of climate change — costs we know will only get worse — and we know who will be forced to pay for these costs. It’s not the oil companies making record profits… it’s the local taxpayers. The likely impact of climate change could cost people in my state $6 billion a year.”

For more information on the report, click here.

To watch the hearing, click here.

Landmark federal climate bill could change Ohio’s energy landscape

On Sunday, the U.S. Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, a bill that will reduce spending while at the same time offering nearly $370 billion is new initiatives to fight climate change.

While Ohio has many options for mandating clean power and pricing carbon that will reduce carbon emissions, the Inflation Reduction Act takes a different approach, providing a mix of rebates, credits, and grants to reduce carbon emissions and bring the United States closer to the goals set out in the Paris Accords.

Analysis by researchers at Princeton finds the Inflation Reduction Act will push greenhouse gas emissions to less 50% of 2005 levels by 2034, much lower than the projection of the status quo at 73% of 2005 levels but short of the 40% levels needed to reach a “net-zero” emissions goal.

That being said, this is some of the most monumental climate legislation passed in congressional history and large amounts of it are going to go to farmers, manufacturers, and governments in communities across the country, including Ohio, to support the transition to a new energy economy.

Below are some of the provisions in the bill that could bring new clean energy investment into Ohio.

The bill will offer an estimated $30 billion in production tax credits to accelerate U.S. manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and critical minerals processing. This could lead to more domestic manufacturing in the state of Ohio.

The bill provides $30 billion targeted grant and loan programs for states and electric utilities to accelerate the transition to clean electricity. These could help with purchase of capital and modernization of Ohio’s utilities and state and local governments.

The bill will invest $27 billion in clean energy technology acceleration, which could help deploy technologies to reduce emissions in disadvantaged communities in Ohio.

The bill invests $20 billion in climate-smart agricultural practices. Ohio’s $9 billion agricultural industry could get a substantial boost from investment like this.

The bill allocates up to $20 billion in loans to build new clean vehicle manufacturing facilities across the country. This could help jump start the manufacture of clean vehicles in the state.

It also sets aside $10 billion in investment tax credits to build clean technology manufacturing facilities. These could be used for companies to build new factories in Ohio that make electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, or other new energy economy components.

The bill requires over $9 billion of federal procurement of domestically-manufactured clean technologies to create a stable market for clean products. This could provide a market for manufacturers looking to produce clean tech in Ohio.

It will also provide $9 billion in consumer home energy rebate programs, focused on low-income consumers, to electrify home appliances and for energy-efficient retrofits. This will help low-income people adapt to the new energy economy by reducing the use of energy.

These are just a few provisions of the new bill that could have a big impact on Ohio’s energy sector. Let us hope that if this bill passes the House and is signed by the president, state and local government in Ohio will take advantage of the opportunity to use these resources instead of resist them for petty partisan reasons.

This commentary first appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal.

How to confront tradeoffs in policy analysis

In public policy analysis, there is a concept called “dominance”—when one policy is better than all others and the status quo on the dimensions of effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and other relevant criteria. Unfortunately, dominance rarely occurs. 

This is why Eugene Bardach lists “confront the trade-offs” as his sixth step in his “eightfold path” of public policy analysis. 

What guidance does Bardach give an analyst for confronting tradeoffs? Analysts have a few tools they can use to help sort out seemingly incommensurable tradeoffs inherent in policymaking. 

Analysts must confront trade-offs by having a focus on outcomes, not on alternatives. It is not enough to say “we have a trade-off between establishing a carbon tax or putting a cap-and-trade program in place.” The policy analyst must focus on outcomes (such as carbon tons abated, dollars of economic impact, jobs created or lost) that give policymakers direction when crafting policy.

Ultimately, in order for a policy analyst to help a policymaker confront trade-offs, she needs to establish commensurability. This can be done by monetizing outcomes, which can utilize break-even analysis when the value of one outcome is unknown. The policymaker should be trying to reduce discrepancies, this means framing trade-offs “crisply”: trying to establish magnitudes of tradeoffs so policymakers understand what they are trading off against with one policy versus another.

A way to think about trade-offs in a way that helps a policymaker is to remember that trade-offs are about increments. This means understanding that if two criteria are quantified, that one can be put in terms of another. For instance, if a given policy option will abate 10,000 metric tons of carbon and cost 100 jobs and another policy option will abate 12,000 metric tons of carbon and cost 150 jobs, the former policy is better if you are looking for the most “efficient” policy in terms of job loss but the latter is more “effective” at reducing carbon emissions. The relative value of carbon abatement versus job retention would drive the policy choice for the policymaker.

This process can be made easier with an outcomes matrix. By allowing a policymaker to look at a table that shows what the different outcomes of a policy are across different dimensions, giving the policymaker a tool for conceptualizing tradeoffs inherent in making a given policy decision.

In a case in which outcomes are difficult to quantify, sometimes it is better to put them in terms of the better and the worse. This means ranking policy options rather than rating them. This can be a useful exercise when the budget constraint is uncertain and gives policymakers a general idea of which policy is better than the other.

Tradeoffs are inherent in public policymaking. Policymaking forces policymakers to confront tradeoffs between economic growth, equity, effectiveness, administrative capability, legal feasibility, and political feasibility. The policymaker can only illuminate so much of this policymaking process for the policymaker, but ultimately she has the tools to make the process of confronting trade-offs easier for a policymaker.

How should a policy analyst project outcomes?

In this installment of a continuing series on the steps in Eugene Bardach’s A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: the Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving, we address what Bardach calls “the hardest step” of policy analysis: projecting outcomes.

Projecting outcomes is difficult for two reasons. First, it requires us to predict the future, which we are often very bad at. Second, it requires us to confront the eternal problem of the forecaster: optimism. Lastly, politics often drives people to overstate confidence in their predictions.

Bardach begins by saying that projection of outcomes should extend the logic of common sense. This means using social science to create multiple models of the world, tempering it with facts on the ground and using metaphors to understand a complex world and communicate how it works.

Important when projecting outcomes to choose a base case to compare the policy to. This base case could be anywhere from the present situation to the future situation without the policy in place. It could incorporate future conditions under business as usual, changes that would occur if some policy were adopted, or even results of a certain policy option. The point is to provide a reasonable baseline scenario to compare the policy you are analyzing against.

In order to give actionable and credible information to policymakers, dare to make magnitude estimates. It is often not useful enough to give the direction of the results of a policy: an analyst must go beyond this to say how much the status quo will change under adoption of the policy. While a point estimate can be helpful here, a range will be more intellectually honest in the vast majority of analyses.

An analyst should also pay attention to trends, since trends might be the basis of projections. The analyst should pay attention to the past versus likely future scenarios to see if they line up with one another and should also make sure that cyclical trends are acknowledged so that short-term trends are not overextrapolated into long-term trends. 

One tool for the analyst in projecting outcomes put forth by Bardach is break-even analysis. He advocates the usefulness of this technique because break-even estimates can shrink uncertainty. He suggests using break-even analysis to locate the point of minimum effectiveness given the costs. He also suggests applying this analysis to points in the process to see how effective those points need to be to give good results and to see how likely it is these results will come about and estimating probability of failure. All these approaches improve the credibility of policy analysis.

Bardach further urges analysts to try sensitivity analysis. Techniques such as Monte Carlo Analysis and Long Term Analysis can help determine how robust the analysis is and how likely a scenario will change based on assumptions made.

Important in projections is to confront the optimism problem. Bardach suggests doing this by “scenario writing”: imagining scenarios where things don’t go well and projecting outcomes under those scenarios. Analysts can also brainstorm undesirable side effects like moral hazard, overregulation, rent seeking, and how policies impact other policies. Optimism can pose risks, overlooking the harm policies can do to certain people, so addressing it is vital to ethical policy analysis.

Another factor to consider when projecting outcomes is the emergent-features problem. Sometimes policies can interact with other factors to create new outcomes that are hard to predict. This is a difficult problem, but one that can be ameliorated at least on the margins by playing out how major actors are likely to react to new policies.

A way to organize complex information when projecting outcomes is to construct an outcomes matrix. A table that lists policy options down one axis and criteria down another axis can be a useful tool for helping you as an analyst and the policymaker to understand the tradeoffs inherent in choice of different policy options.

We like to think of policies as transportable from content to context, but policy contexts differ. Just because something works in rural Ohio doesn’t mean it will work in urban Copenhagen. Paying attention to where studies are conducted and how comparable the context is can lead to better policy analysis.

Lastly, the analyst must setup for the next step. Using an outcomes matrix or otherwise making it clear what tradeoffs policymakers will be dealing with will help make the step of confronting trade-offs much easier.

How can cities reduce pedestrian deaths?

Smart Growth America’s 2022 “Dangerous by Design” report highlights the growing trend of pedestrian deaths in cities and states across the U.S.

Overall, Ohio does pretty well in this report compared to other states, with only 1.18 pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people, putting it in the top half of states for safe streets. Unfortunately, the bar is low and pedestrian deaths are on the rise throughout Ohio.

According to the report, fatality rates were up 31% in the second half of the 2010s compared to the first half of the decade statewide. This trend was shared by nearly all of its major cities with Toledo (14% increase), Columbus (36% increase), Cincinnati (36% increase), Cleveland (44% increase), and Akron (32% increase) all seeing increases in pedestrian deaths in the second half of the decade over the first.

Smart Growth America argues that these pedestrian deaths are a function of more dangerous streets. If streets are built to facilitate fast movement of cars over pedestrian safety, they are likely to lead to more pedestrian deaths. This leads to less people gaining the benefits of exercise, more use of cars that produce carbon and local emissions, and most directly kill pedestrians in the process

So what can we do to make our streets safer for pedestrians?

One of the most interesting parts of the report to me reading as an Ohioan was that it contained multiple mentions of an Ohio Department of Transportation document, the only state document mentioned in the report. This is the Department of Transportation’s Multimodal Design Guide, a tool for planners and designers to incorporate walking and biking into transportation planning with the goal of eliminating roadway deaths in the state.

One design element included in the guide is to build “buffer zones” between pedestrian walkways and roads. So rather than abutting a sidewalk to a road, the state suggests building a buffer zone anywhere from two to eight feet wide between the two. This means that if a pedestrian falls outside of the sidewalk or if an automobile comes off the road, there is a space between that can reduce the chance a pedestrian will be hit in this instance.

Another element of safe design from the guide is to keep the sidewalk level. An uneven sidewalk can cause pedestrians to exert more force, can disrupt balance, and can increase the risk a pedestrian will fall over, putting her at risk of injury.

The guide also covers the use of different materials for construction of sidewalks. Concrete is preferred since it is firm, smooth, the coloration provides a distinct difference with the asphalt of roads, and it requires less maintenance than asphalt, bricks, and pavers, which all become uneven more quickly than concrete.

There are more things the guide suggests for protecting pedestrians, like providing for a sufficient number of crossings, visibility, and time for pedestrians to cross roads. The point here is that we can reduce pedestrian deaths, we have the tools to do so, it’s just a matter of what our priorities are.

This commentary first appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal.

Original Analysis: Climate Change Could Cost Ohio Municipalities Nearly $6B Annually by 2050

COLUMBUS – Local governments across Ohio will need to increase municipal spending by as much as $5.9 billion annually by midcentury in order to adapt to the challenges of a worsening climate crisis, according to a new study released today by the Ohio Environmental Council, Power A Clean Future Ohio, and Scioto Analysis. 

The report, The Bill is Coming Due: Calculating the Financial Cost of Climate Change to Ohio’s Local Governments, provides a conservative estimate of the additional costs that municipalities — including specific estimates for Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Cuyahoga Falls, Dayton, Lima, Marietta, Marion, Oberlin, Piqua, Toledo, Wadsworth, Youngstown — can expect to incur due to climate change. 

“We know municipalities across Ohio, including some of those in the report, are taking action to lower their carbon emissions and secure healthier environments for their residents,” said Joe Flarida, Executive Director of Power a Clean Future Ohio.“But we also know climate change is having real environmental and financial impacts on these communities today.”

The report provides estimates for how much municipalities will have to additionally spend on 10 specific impacts related to climate change, including:

• Air conditioning installation for schools ($1.4 million to $6.8 million)

• Electrical costs ($5.4 million to $79 million)

• Cool roofing ($0 to $4.6 million)

• Cooling centers ($52 million to $590 million)

• Road repair ($170 million to $1 billion)

• Drinking water treatment ($580 million to $2.2 billion)

• Storm recovery ($35 million to $78 million)

• Power line maintenance ($140,000 to $18 million)

• Stormwater management ($140 million to $150 million)

• Elevating roads to avoid flooding ($860 million to $1.7 billion)

Another 40 impacts are identified but not included in the overall estimate.

According to the report, communities across Ohio have been coping with increasing temperatures, flooding, erosion, and climate-related extreme weather events for years. These climate damages are projected to only intensify in approaching decades, generating new costs associated with climate-driven disaster recovery and adaptation, and creating a major strain on already overstretched taxpayers and cash-strapped local governments.

“Obviously Ohio cities cannot afford to wait to take action on climate,” said Toledo City Council Member Nick Komives. “Toledoans are already experiencing the harmful impacts of global warming and we must do all we can to mitigate further pressure on the pocketbooks of our residents. It’s not just good policy, it’s the right thing to do for us all.” 

“The city of Cincinnati needs to take a proactive position and work to address climate challenges, in particular those challenges faced by our disenfranchised populations,” said Cincinnati City Council Member Meeka Owens. “This report is one important resource that can serve as a guide for budgetary decision making. This is also a tool that can be used to educate the public about the effects of climate change. And while some may not understand or care about the impacts to the environment, the financial burden is a metric taxpayers are all too familiar with.”

“The price tag for adapting to our changing climate and protecting communities from the climate crisis is staggering for cities like Youngstown,” said Youngstown City Council Member Lauren McNally. “Our local budgets are already under pressure, and it’s not fair that the bill keeps falling on residents least responsible for creating this mess.”

The report concludes with policy options for local policymakers tasked with securing funding to cover these costs, including: raising taxes, requesting additional funds from the federal government, or exploring legal and other avenues to hold climate polluters financially accountable for existing costs and ongoing damages. 

“There is no time to waste. The costs to address real-time climate impacts and prepare for even more dangerous future impacts continue to grow,” said Nolan Rutschilling, Managing Director of Energy Policy for the Ohio Environmental Council. “This is an all-hands-on-deck moment requiring action by local, state, and federal leaders.”

Click here to access the report: https://bit.ly/OHclimatecosts

Click here to access a recording of the press conference: https://bit.ly/OHclimatecosts-pressbriefing

###

Media Inquiries: ebacha<at>theoec.org

The Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) is the state’s most comprehensive and effective environmental advocate for a healthier, more sustainable Ohio. The OEC develops and ensures the implementation of forward-thinking, science-based, pragmatic solutions to secure healthy air, land, and water for all who call Ohio home.

Power A Clean Future Ohio (PCFO) is a nonpartisan coalition that works with local leaders to develop and implement proven climate solutions. PCFO is committed to reducing carbon emissions throughout Ohio in big and small ways that make sense for each local community. Ohio’s economy, health and future depend on a new approach to clean energy and climate change.  

Scioto Analysis provides policymakers and policy influencers with evidence-based analysis of pressing public problems. By making clear the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity impacts of public policies, Scioto Analysis gives decision makers the information they need to craft policy that improves lives.