The Futility of a Carbon Tax

(I'm posting the following in an attempt to use this blog to expound on my concerns about the current attempts to tax carbon as a way to limit climate change)

The Futility of a Carbon Tax

The current worldwide attempt to limit anthropogenic (man-made) “green house gases,” (AGHG), primarily CO2, is essentially the result of popular acceptance of what I call “climate change alarmists” (CGA) concerns.  However, many well-respected climatologists, who I call “climate change realists” (CGR), doubt the global temperature sensitivity to AGHG emission.  (While I have no claim to be a “climatologist” I side with the CGRs.)

The CGA’s believe the 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial levels to ~400 parts per million (ppm) is the reason “eleven of the past 12 years are the warmest since reliable records began around 1850”.  CGR’s, far from being “deniers,” believe climates have been changing for millions of years, the latest examples being the medieval warming period during the mid 1000’s followed by the “little ice age” in the mid 1800’s.  That the recent warmer temperatures are simply the continuation of the natural recovery; much of which occurred well before the increased AGHG.  (This “CGR” also questions how increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% could make such a difference)

The CGA’s seminal justification for global temperature sensitivity to AGHG emissions was an August 2007 Scientific American article; “The Physical Science behind Climate Change” described as “The Undeniable Case for Global Warming”.   (The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Annual Assessment Report (AR4) reflected this analysis) 

The authors used computer models with “forcing functions” to reflect the effects of natural and man-made drivers, positive or negative, on global temperatures.  The natural drivers included changes in solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. The primary AGHG drivers were carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons. 

The authors’ concluded the only way their computer models would concur with measured temperatures was to increase the “forcing function” of the AGHG drivers.  As a result, forcing functions for AGHG increases were concluded to be 10 times those for solar energy.  It was this purported sensitivity that led to efforts to drastically reduce AGHG.  Even that sensitivity varied between computer models to the point where a doubling of atmospheric CO2 resulted in predicted global temperature increases ranging from 1.5 to 11.5 deg C. 

(This “CGR” questions what caused the far more drastic climate changes over the millennia and the lack of any “forcing function” from El Niño which was particularly strong in 1997-1998 (and more recently in 2014-2015) in their computer models.)

The other CGA rationale for AGHG as a cause for global warming was the claim ice core data showed global temperatures increased with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.  That some feed back mechanism with relatively small increases in CO2 (e.g. increased H20 vapor, a far stronger green house gas) resulted in significant global temperature increases. 

While there is some debate as to whether global temperatures increased before or after CO2, global temperatures later dropped while CO2 levels remained elevated long after temperatures had dropped.  This would “suggest” (at least to this CGR) that increasing atmospheric CO2 was the result of increasing global temperatures rather than the cause.  A likely scenario being increasing global temperatures increased the amount of CO2 emitted from the ocean and that reduced temperatures caused atmospheric CO2 levels to eventually drop from lower emissions. 

The last issue is what can Washington State do about reducing global AGHG emissions.  The reality is China’s planned increases (per IPCC agreement) between now and 2030, when they promised to stop increasing CO2, will dwarf all the purported cuts by other countries.  That whatever our state can do to reduce them won’t move total emissions by the width of a hard-lead pencil line.    

Again, I write this with no claim to be a “climatologist” but only to use this blog to expose this “CGR's” reasons why it’s premature to embark on the governor’s plan for taxing CO2 emissions or some sort of cap and trade approach to reduce climate change. 

The Absurdity of Electrifying Transportation

As the previous post indicated, my decision to file as a candidate for governor (and pay the requisite $1718.98 filing fee), while primarily to attract viewers to this blog about Sound Transit and WSDOT failure to deal with the areas transportation problem, was also to “question” the efficacy of limiting CO2 emissions to reduce “climate change” and “renewable energy” to meet future energy needs.

This post, in response to a May 16th Opinion page, “Climate change demands an electrifying solution,” is the first attempt.    The “Special to the editor” was submitted by Spencer Reeder, one of the “panel of experts” in the recent Seattle Times Livewire forum about “the high cost of climate change”.   He opines, “we must electrify the transportation system on a grand scale” to “prevent the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in such quantity as to disrupt the Earth’s energy balance”.     

Electric powered transportation would apparently reduce the anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 emissions in this country by 25%.   It’s not clear how that reduction would affect total CO2 emissions.   However, since anthropogenic emissions make up only about 3% of all CO2 emissions, the reduction for electrifying this country’s transportation on the “Earth’s energy balance” would seem to be “minimal”.   

Presumably  “electrifying transportation” requires replacing gasoline tanks with batteries (or some other storage device) for vehicles not tethered to some power lines.   Unfortunately batteries lack the ability to store the energy and power of gasoline.  Gasoline can store approximately 12,900 watt hours of energy per kilogram (Wh/Kg) and100,000 watts of power (W/Kg).  

The most promising batteries, Nickel Metal Hydride (NMH), are projected to have only 120 Wh/Kg of energy and 220 W/Kg of power  (lithium-ion batteries are similar).  While electric motors are more efficient than gasoline engines in converting energy into motive force, battery-powered-vehicle range will be severely limited or the vehicle weight substantially increased by added batteries.

The other rather “dubious” assertion is the city has “an ample supply of near carbon free electricity”.    According to “Washington Energy Facts”, while more than 70% of the states electricity is supplied by hydroelectric power, fossil fuels still provide nearly 18%, nuclear 6.3%, and 5% from non-hydroelectric “renewable sources”.  The state also exports substantial amounts of hydroelectric and wind turbine generated electricity to California and other areas. 

Current legislation purportedly calls for increasing renewable power, likely from wind turbines to 20%, presumably to replace fossil fuels.   Thus providing an “ample supply of near carbon free electricity” either requires slashing the amount sent to other states or adding even more wind turbine power.  (Its unlikely the other option, more dams or nuclear power plants will be considered.)   However, increasing dependence on wind turbines is fraught with the problems of storing the energy needed to accommodate the times when the wind doesn’t blow.  (The "Achilles Heel" of  the entire renewable energy "movement" is, at least currently, the inability to store energy for use when the "wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine".)  Even worse, our state’s problem pales in comparison to the rest of the countries ability to provide the needed carbon-free energy.  

The bottom line is electrifying the transportation system as the way to reduce climate change relies on three “dubious” assumptions.  The first is sufficient “carbon free” electricity can be achieved with renewable wind and solar power to replace gasoline or diesel fuel as the energy source for the country’s transportation system.  Second, that batteries can be developed to provide the needed range without adding excessive weight.  And third, that the resultant reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions will end the “disruption of the Earth’s energy balance from CO2”.  It reminds me of one of my favorite Peanuts cartoons where Snoopy opines, “Birds have been known to fly to the moon and back”.

Candidate's Statement

(As promised today I filed as a candidate for governor and submitted the following for “Voters Pamphlet”.   As with my 4 previous candidacies, I did so with no expectation (or desire) of being elected, but as my way to “make a difference” by attracting attention to this blog.  My hope is voters will be receptive to posts dealing with the failure of the Sound Transit light rail extensions to deal with Seattle area congestion and the insanity of WSDOT plans to spend hundreds of millions for widespread use of HOT lanes to reduce statewide congestion.  Both need to be "redirected".  I also intend to delve into the efficacy of limiting CO2 emissions as the way to limit "climate change" and attempts to use "renewable energy" to meet the area's energy needs.

Candidate’s Statement

My candidacy is an attempt to emulate the little girl in the Hans Christian Anderson fable telling the villagers the “King has no clothes”.   That contrary to what the “weavers” (Sound Transit and WSDOT) and the “wise men” (the media, city councils, many legislators, and others) tell the “villagers” (the rest of us) light rail is no “magic carpet”. That, unlike BART, the Seattle tunnel limits light rail capacity to the point where none of the Prop 1 extensions will have the capacity needed to significantly reduce the area’s congestion.

It’s the culmination of an effort that began more than 7 years ago to expose the fantasy in the Sound Transit/WSDOT East Link 2008 DEIS.  It’s evolved into critiques of all of Sound Transit's Prop 1 light rail extensions and their failure to address the area’s congestion problems.  The ST3 vote this fall for projects that don’t begin until 2023 “suggests” Sound Transit needs the funds for Prop 1 despite claims to the contrary.  Rejecting ST3 may force Sound Transit to “reconsider” the extensions.  My goal is to convince the “villagers” to do just that.

I urge voters from throughout the state who care about congestion to visit my blog http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com.  Since its inception the more than 300 posts have attracted more than 34,000 page views without a single serious rebuttal.  The posts opine not only about the ST/WSDOT “weavers” but the “wise men” who, if not cheering them on, have quietly acquiesced.   

They provide details as to why the current Prop 1 extensions won’t work and how for a fraction of the time and money BRT could provide public transit that allows far more commuters to leave their cars near where they “live” rather than where they “work”, reducing congestion for everyone.

Education,

BS (1961), MS (1962), Engineering, Iowa State University

Experience

My appreciation of the benefits from public transit was fostered by commuting primarily by bus during my last 15 years at Boeing.  After retiring I traveled extensively throughout UK and Europe where I experienced how transit works in London and all the major cities in Europe.  Last year I “experienced” subways in New York and Toronto.  Unfortunately Sound Transit refuses to recognize the limits imposed on light rail by the Seattle tunnel prevent the Prop 1 extensions from ever having the capacity needed to replicate those transit systems.

Mutual Benefits of Sound Transit/WSDOT "Cooperation"

Sound Transit and the WSDOT began “cooperating” some 20 years ago when ST was formed primarily to create light rail for public transit.  The need for east side tax revenue to pay for light rail in Seattle likely “contributed” to the ST decision to also propose light rail for I-90 cross-lake transit. Their joint East Link DEIS in 2008 provided the basis for asking east side voters to approve increased sales tax for cross-lake light rail as part of the Prop 1 extensions.   

However, any rationale review of the DEIS would quickly conclude the “cooperation” resulted in a fatally flawed approach to dealing with cross-lake transit.   The ST/WSDOT duo managed to spend several years looking at transit options without ever apparently considering inbound and outbound bus rapid transit (BRT) on the I-90 Bridge center roadway.  Something they could easily have done once they added their long-promised fourth lanes to the outer roadways for non-transit HOV.  Both the added lanes and BRT could have been initiated 10 years ago dwarfing light rail capacity at a fraction of the cost.  There would have been no East Link with BRT. 

Instead their DEIS “no-build” alternative to light rail was to maintain the existing reversible “peak direction” HOV configuration, an obvious looser to two-way light rail.  They sold light rail to voters with claim East Link “would have a peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 to 24,000 people per hour, equivalent to between 6-10 freeway lanes of traffic”.   They recently conceded East Link would be limited to one 4-car train every 8 minutes.  Assuming each 74-seat car can reasonably accommodate 150 riders gives a capacity of 4500 riders per hour in each direction, far below their “up to” levels.  Rather than providing the promised 60% increase, East Link will have less than half current peak transit capacity.

Their DEIS also claimed the added fourth lanes on the outer roadways would provide “Travel times across I-90 for vehicles and trucks would also improve or remain similar with East Link”.   WSDOT lawyers used similar claims to convince a federal judge in the Freeman case the 4^th lanes added to the outer roadways would make up for the loss of the two center roadway HOV lanes, allowing light rail to be installed there.  Yet the documents they cited stipulated the center roadway was still needed for vehicles. 

The two have “cooperated” in delaying the fourth lanes that would have benefited cross-lake commuters from both sides of the lake.   Not only has the delay forced cross-lake commuters to endure years of increased congestion, it has also precluded any chances of initiating BRT on center roadway.  Even worse, the delays likely mean WSDOT will not require ST demonstrate the outer roadways can accommodate all the cross-lake vehicles by temporarily closing center roadway before they do so “permanently” next year.   Cross-lake commuting will change forever with I-90 center roadway closure. 

One likely change will be thousands of cross-lake commuters will decide to pay tolls to use the 520 Bridge rather than endure the increased I-90 congestion.   The increased toll revenue from former I-90 commuters is just one of the WSDOT benefits from the “cooperation”.   They also benefit from ST failure to consider BRT on SR-520 to a T/C near the University Link stadium station.  The connection between BRT on SR-520 with the University Link would have provided fast reliable transit for thousands of commuters from both sides of the lake.  However, it would also have reduced the  WSDOT’s bridge toll revenue.  

ST purportedly didn’t include the needed T/C because of a “dubious” UW claim locating a T/C at an existing UW station parking lot would “detract” from the University.  Whether its part of their “cooperation” with WSDOT or simply another blunder, the lack of a UW T/C is a setback to an effective transit system for the area. 

In conclusion, both ST and WSDOT have benefitted from the “cooperation”.  While there may have never been any direct quid pro quo their apparent “cooperation” has been to the detriment of the area's commuters.  The ST3 funding proposal this fall adds countless billions to the cost but does little to reduce the congestion.

East Link "Ground Breaking" No Cause For Celebration

The April 29^th Bellevue Reporter front-page article heralding the East Link light rail extension “breaking ground” as a “cause for celebration” may be “premature”.    According to the paper, the Bellevue tunnel construction currently underway, will be followed by work on most of the other portions later this year with work along 112^th Ave beginning by mid-2017.   

It’s not clear why the early start since East Link is not scheduled to begin service until 2023.  Especially since Sound Transit has apparently yet to come up with a satisfactory design for installing light rail tracks on the I-90 Bridge.  That’s the conclusion one would get from the latest update from Ron Lewis, East Link Project Manager, in the March 24^th Sound Transit board minutes.

East Link Extension Briefing

In the I-90 corridor the system design is at 90% and civil design is advancing to 90%.  The independent review team (IRT) identified 23 issues as part of the preliminary engineering. Twenty-two issues have been closed and the staff is working to close the final issue.  The contractor is working on constructability reviews and a construction schedule is under development. 

The IRT report Lewis was presumably referring to was documented in the “I-90 Homer Hadley Floating Bridge Independent Review Team Light Rail Train Impacts, Final Report, Sept 2008”.  It included the following conclusion regarding the bridge design:

One issue deals with a required design element (LRT Expansion Joint Tract Bridge) has no history of use on floating bridges, and therefore requires careful study and testing in the early stages of the project.  Since many of the issues require additional study, analysis, and design the IRT recommends that an independent review or peer review panel be organized to provide oversight throughout the LRT East Link design process.

The fact that Sound Transit has still not completed “preliminary engineering” on an issue identified nearly 8 years ago as requiring early “careful study and testing” can only charitably be classified as “misplaced priorities”.   Even more telling, Lewis’s comments are essentially the same as what he told the Bellevue City Council at a February 9^th presentation last year. 

Yet Sound Transit waited until August to sign another $20 million contract to complete the design they’d already spent $38 million on earlier.  The Aug 16^th Seattle Times article about the new contract quoted a WSDOT official telling the board:

“we have not indentified any fatal flaws that would prevent light rail from being installed on this corridor”

The fact that nearly 9 months later they still apparently haven’t completed the design suggests the flaws if not “fatal” are surely “serious”.  Thus, unless Sound Transit is considering an East Link without the “Link” their decision to begin spending hundreds of millions installing light rail tracks on the east side 7 years before they’re needed is hardly a reason to celebrate.   

Even if Sound Transit manages to arrive at an acceptable bridge design the “ground breaking ceremony” is more an attempt to generate east side support for their ST3 funding this fall rather than a cause for eastsiders to "celebrate".  They’ve still been unable to come up with a viable plan to accommodate those who use the South Bellevue P&R despite the fact they’ve delayed the closure beyond their original March date.  They’ll likely go ahead later this year (after fall vote?) despite their MOU with Bellevue to provide a plan to accommodate affected commuters three months before doing so.  As a result transit commuters will need an “early bird gets the worm” approach to parking at the remaining P&R lots, leaving many without access to transit.    Hardly a cause for transit commuter celebration! 

Next year cross-lake commuters are also not likely to “celebrate” Sound Transit’s closure of the I-90 Bridge center roadway. Their delay in completing the 4^th lanes on the outer roadways has made it impossible to demonstrate the modified outer roadways could accommodate all the vehicles prior to the closure.  The fact Sound Transit chose to ask voters to approve ST3 funds later this year “may” reflect concern those encountering the congestion might be less inclined to support ST3 in 2017.  

The editorial page in the April 29^th edition also included a Commentary by Sound Transit Board Chairman, Dow Constantine, and board member and former Bellevue mayor, Claudia Balducci.  They urge “residents to speak up about transit” opining the “ground-breaking” ceremony provides an “exiting glimpse of the future of transportation in our region” with East Link “providing high capacity light rail that whisks commuters over, under and around some of the worst traffic in the U.S”. 

Their “vision” of East Link’s benefits for eastside commuters is depicted in the East Link Extension website video.  The narrative details how East Link will provide a three or four car train running every eight to ten minutes that,  according to the video, transforms the current cross-lake congestion into a wide open commute for everyone.  The reality is a four-car train every eight minutes hardly qualifies as “high capacity transit”.  Assuming each of the four 74-seat cars can accommodate an average of 150 riders the total capacity is 4500 riders per hour, a fraction of the 16,000-riders they claim for light rail capacity, and far short of what’s needed to reduce congestion   The video is sheer fantasy!

Their original projection for 50,000 riders by 2030 assumed 40,000 were obtained by terminating all the cross-lake buses at South Bellevue and Mercer Island light rail stations.  They subsequently abandoned plans to use Mercer Island station to transfer.  It’s not clear how many if any bus riders they’ll transfer to and from light rail at the South Bellevue station.  Again, the limited capacity means East Link, at least during peak commute, can’t meet current transit demand, let alone future growth requirements. 

While Dow Constantine rightfully claims, “light rail is reliable, fast, and on time”, East Link’s limited capacity means the vast majority of eastside commuters won’t be able to use it during peak commute.  The end result will be the billions and years spent on East Link will  increase not decrease travel times for most of cross-lake commuters.  Hardly anything to “celebrate” or “speak up” about!      

The real absurdity is the duo's claim “the board has proposed these investments because no other option can add the kind of capacity we need”.   Anyone with a modicum of transportation knowledge recognizes that BRT capacity could dwarf light rail in far less time and at a fraction of the cost.  While East Link would be limited by the Seattle tunnel to 4-car trains every 8 minutes the only BRT limitation would be the number of parking spaces available, the number of buses, and the need to restrict a lane of traffic to buses and +3 riders.   Even Sound Transit has belatedly recognized BRT capacity advantages for I-405.  However, even there, they fail to recognize the need to provide the thousands of parking spaces needed to make use of the capacity. 

Again, Sound Transit’s breaking ground ceremony for East Link is hardly a “cause for celebration”.   All the pronouncements about work starting on all the sections is more an attempt to make East Link a fait accompli than a need to meet a 2023 completion date.  Even worse ST3 will do nothing to ease the congestion thousands face every day on their commutes into and out of Seattle and Bellevue.   That East Link construction on the I-90 Bridge will add to the congestion on the bridge and that East Link completion will result in a light rail line that the vast majority won’t be able to use.

The Constantine and Balducci proposals do nothing to reduce that congestion.  The link to downtown Redmond was something voters were promised from Prop 1.  Their promise of a separate light rail line between Issaquah and Bellevue, with a 2041 completion date, is practically laughable as a reason for eastside residents to pay hundreds if not thousands annually for the next 25 years.

In conclusion the “ground breaking” and editorial Commentary are likely just the start of a several month effort to convince eastside residents to approve ST3 funding this fall. Again, ST3 provides nothing for eastside residents to “celebrate or speak up about” (at least favorably).  A large eastside “no” vote would jeopardize ST3 approval and likely even end East Link’s status as a fait accompli.  

That would be a “cause for celebration” for the entire east side.