NOVEMBER 2018

A Monthly Update from the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee

The Chairman’s CornerSenator Scott E. Hutchinson

The JLCC Newsletter

@PA_JLCC PA Joint Legislative Conservation Committee pa_jlcc Joint Legislative Conservation Committee

Blight is a widespread issue that spans our Commonwealth, harming the economic growth of communities, the health of

citizens and the environment.

According to PA Act 385 of 1945, the Urban Redevelopment Law, blighted properties can be defined as the following: “Any vacant or unimproved lot or parcel of ground in a predominantly built-up-neighborhood, which by reason of neglect or lack of maintenance has become a place for accumulation of trash and debris, or a haven for rodents or other vermin; Any dwelling which because it is dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin-infested or lacking in the facilities and equipment required by the housing code of the municipality, has been designated by the department responsible for enforcement of the code as unfit for human habitation; [and] Any structure which is a fire hazard, or is otherwise dangerous to the safety of persons or property.”

The cause of blight cannot be attributed to one factor, as many different circumstances lead to this problem. In the southwestern part of Pennsylvania, steel was once a booming industry that bolstered the economy, however, with its collapse, left many buildings and

homes abandoned for decades when residents sought job opportunities elsewhere. In northeastern Pennsylvania, towns that were once a major hub for coal production experienced a drastic downturn over the years, resulting in economic hardships and blight.

Abandoned properties and lots are not only an eyesore, but they also hurt opportunities for economic investments, increase rates of crime and reduce property values. Another major factor is the exorbitant financial costs to local governments who are responsible for trying to enforce codes and laws designed to curb this problem.

Research has shown that from an environmental standpoint, blighted

properties serve as a primary hotspot for rubbish and garbage to accumulate. The environmental contamination that occurs with waste that piles up over time on these blighted properties – from old electronics to Styrofoam cups – has the potential to turn into makeshift landfills that are breeding grounds for harmful toxins that are released into the air, soil and groundwater we use. For example, electronic waste and fluorescent light bulbs that are improperly disposed of onto abandoned lots give off toxins such as arsenic and mercury which pose detrimental health effects to humans and living organisms. Mold, asbestos and lead from uninhabitable structures that are not properly remediated as a result of natural disasters or abandoned foreclosures are also major concerns

Continued on page 8

In ThIs IssueThe Chairman’s Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Notes from the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Research Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3• Forests Need Time to Provide Environmental Benefits• The U.S. has Risen to 27th Place in a Recent Environmental Ranking• Why is Water Quality Policy so Cost-Inefficient?• People Want to Use Less Straws on their Own Terms

This Month in Conservation History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recap of Committee Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

November 2018Volume 19, Number 11

2 T h e J l c c N e w s l e T T e r

When the new 2019 cars are rolled onto the dealership showroom floors the buying public will see electric cars, hybrid cars, natural gas powered cars, diesel cars and on the horizon they may someday see self-driving cars. But, they’ll be hard-pressed to find a clutch pedal or a stick shift.

Available in nearly half of new models in the U.S. two decades ago, the manual transmission is going the way of the push-button AM radios, analogue display and full-size spare tire, with stick availability falling to about a quarter this year.

Once standard equipment on all motor vehicles, preferred for its dependability, fuel efficiency and sporty characteristics, the four-on-the-floor manual transmission and the three-on-the-tree (column-mounted transmission shifter) are disappearing from major car manufacturers’ line-ups – and subsequently from dealer showrooms.

The manual transmission is on the endangered species list. Every year, fewer and fewer cars are offered with a clutch and a shifter. For example, in 2006, 47 percent of new models offered in the U.S. were available with both automatic and manual transmissions, according to a study by Edmunds.com. By 2011, that number had dropped to 37 percent. This

year the number has fallen to just 20 percent and continues to drop.

For decades, almost all automakers offered almost all their vehicles with a choice of automatic or manual drivetrains. The stick shift had so long been the standard that a manual transmission was known in the industry as a “standard transmission.” It might be time to start calling automatics “standard” transmissions.

Many auto enthusiasts and bargain hunters preferred them because cars with three pedals on the floor tended to perform better, get better gas mileage and cost less to buy – sometimes up to a $1,000 cheaper.

Are manual transmissions going extinct?

But as automakers perfected the automatic transmission and learned to make it less expensive and more dependable, drivers became accustomed to the relative ease of leaving the shifting to the car.

Today, anyone can move the lever from P to D. Certain manufacturers tend to charge the same price for their vehicles regardless of which type of transmission buyers choose. Automatics gradually became the preferred option,

and automakers began offering manual in fewer vehicles, saving them money because they no longer had to make two drivetrains.

Among the reasons for the drop in demand: Cars equipped with the modern, more sophisticated automatic transmissions now get better gas mileage than the manuals; fewer young people are driving

– relying on public transportation or ride-sharing services and fewer are able to operate manual transmissions.

Supporters of stick shifts tend to feel as though a manual transmission engages drivers in ways that an automatic one simply cannot. Some may argue that given all the modern world’s distractions, a manual transmission keeps drivers constantly engaged in the driving process, and therefore more focused on the road.

So, the only legitimate reason for driving a stick shift these days is that you find it fun – which is an acceptable reason. But there’s no longer a financial or environmental reason for doing so.

But while manual transmissions may be on its way out, the automatic transmission should not get too comfortable. In fact, its days could be numbered too. That’s because electric vehicles, which environmentalists believe could eventually overtake gasoline powered cars, don’t have transmissions at all.

Notes from the Director Tony Guerrieri, Executive Director

N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 8 3

Research Briefs

Reforestation Efforts for Long-Term GoalsColeen Engvall, Research AnalystReforestation efforts are a vital part of many environmental and economic plans for the future. They cool and clean cities, sequester carbon, slow floodwaters and, as Pennsylvania knows, are a valuable commodity. In the past, the environmental benefits of trees were not weighed against their worth as lumber or fuel and were cleared en masse as a result. Thankfully, that mindset is changing in America and many timber harvesting companies incorporate sustainable practices, including reforestation.

Leighton Reid, a researcher from the Missouri Botanical Garden, and collaborating scientists analyzed what happens to these secondary forests after they’ve been planted.

Forests take a long time to regenerate from the ground up. What some people don’t realize is that they take even longer to begin offering many of their most critical environmental benefits. For example, one impetus for replanting a harvested forest is to replace habitats for endangered species. However, a forest ecosystem is more than just trees. The establishment of a healthy balance of smaller flora and fauna is not instantaneous and coaxing a species into an area that was recently disturbed can be difficult. In fact, in tropical forests, it can take 50 to 100 years to fully regain biodiversity.

With these extended timeframes in mind, the researchers looked at aerial

photographs of Costa Rica, going back over seventy years to 1947. The photographs document a landscape that was actively being restored with conservation in mind as Costa Rica had committed to under the Bonn Challenge, as opposed to a forest being planted with the intent to harvest it again in the future.

After analyzing the progression of these replanting efforts from beginning to modern day, the researchers released their findings. The study is entitled The Ephemerality of Secondary Forests in Southern Costa Rica.

Restoring forests has long been a staple of remediation

efforts. However, new research shows that many secondary forests are not surviving to full maturity.

Their research revealed that half of the 1,750 secondary forests were being recleared within 20 years and these numbers continued to rise as years went by. After the full timeframe of the study was completed, over 80 percent had been cleared. The researchers calculated that secondary forests were being cleared each year at a rate between two and three percent in southern Costa Rica. These results could raise concerns for the conservation plans centering on reforestation since, as was stated above, 20 years is not long enough for a forest to recover and begin providing the environmental benefits being sought.

Using data from previous research, they concluded that a 20 year old secondary forest will have regained less than 80 percent of key animal populations and less than 40 percent of the original forest’s carbon stocks.

As an additional point of interest, certain forests were more likely to be recleared than others. Size and proximity to water changed the value of the land for industries likely to remove trees, such as agriculture or surface mining. For example, forests with rivers flowing through them is less valuable for development due to Costa Rica’s mandatory riparian area regulations.

If regulation is demanding reforestation in order to reap environmental benefits, this study shows that the current metrics are not a sufficient way to measure reforestation’s contributions. Secondary forests must either be protected from future development or they should not be calculated into long-term environmental goals.

The full study is available to subscribers at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0555-7.

Each month, the Committee’s staff researches and prepares a number of “briefs” on several topics relevant to the Committee’s mission. Very often these briefs include references to reports and further research on the topics so that readers may pursue issues on their own. Please note that the information and opinions expressed in the Research Brief articles do not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, nor those of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

4 T h e J l c c N e w s l e T T e r

2018 Environmental Performance Index: U .S . 27th Out Of 180Tony Guerrieri, Executive DirectorThere is a well-recognized set of criteria to gauge the economic health of a nation such as gross domestic product. Any search for information on a country will likely have its GDP listed just below population. There has always been a need for an equivalent metric that can be used to measure the overall environmental health of a nation. One of the most well-established and recognized is the Environmental Performance Index.

The EPI is a joint effort of the Yale University Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University. The index evaluates on a nation-by-nation basis for how countries protect ecosystems and human health.

According to the EPI, of the 180 countries that were included, it ranks countries on 24 individual metrics of environmental performance. These 24 individual metrics are then aggregated into a hierarchy that begins with 10 major environmental issues categories: Air Quality, Water and Sanitation, Heavy Metals, Biodiversity and Habitat, Forests, Fisheries, Climate and Energy, Air Pollution, Water Resources, and Agriculture. These issue categories are then divided into two policy

objectives: environmental health and ecosystem vitality. These two are then combined to give an overall EPI score.

These metrics provide a gauge at a national scale of how close countries are to established environmental policy goals. The EPI scorecard highlights leaders and laggards in environmental performance, gives insight on best practices and provides guidance for countries that aspire to be leaders in sustainability.

The United States has improved its

environmental protection score over the last 10 years by doing more to promote

biodiversity and by improving its air quality.

In general, high scorers exhibit long-standing commitments to protecting public health, preserving natural resources and decoupling greenhouse gas emissions from economic activity. Low scores on the EPI are indicative of the need for national sustainability efforts on a number of fronts, especially cleaning up air quality, protecting biodiversity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Switzerland leads the world in sustainability with an impressive EPI score of 87.42. Switzerland’s top ranking reflects strong performance across most

issues, especially air quality and climate protection. France (83.95), Denmark (81.60), Malta (80.90) and Sweden (80.51) round out the top five countries.

The bottom half of the rankings is largely filled with the countries of Africa and Central and South Asia. At the bottom of the rankings are Nepal (31.44), India (30.57), the Democratic Republic of the Congo

(30.41), Bangladesh (29.56) and Burundi (27.43).

Where does the United States stand? It ranked 27th overall in the EPI with a score of 71.19. This ranking puts the United States near the back of the industrialized nations, behind France (2nd), the United Kingdom (6th), Germany (13th), Italy (16th), Japan (20th) and Canada (25th).

The U.S. had a mixed performance, with strong scores on some issues, such as water (in drinking water, it ranks first alongside nine other countries) and sanitation issues. The U.S. also fared well in air quality, specifically cutting down on particulate pollution. However, we did poorly in others areas, including deforestation and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to the rankings, the EPI highlights the most pressing environmental issues facing individual nations, and the world as a whole. According to the report, the global community is generally improving on a number of issues, such as health outcomes related to drinking water and sanitation and protection of marine ecosystems.

According to the EPI report, many nations still suffer from poor air quality, most notably in India, China and Pakistan.

Now in its twentieth year, the biennial report is produced by a team at Yale and Columbia Universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum. The report, 2018 Environmental Performance Index, is available at: https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 8 5

Costs and Results of Water Quality ImprovementsColeen Engvall, Research AnalystWhile America still suffers from scattered water quality crises, the overall health and protection of the nation’s waterways have come a long way. It wasn’t that long ago that rivers near cities were able to catch fire due to the trash and oily sludge that filled them. Certainly disasters such as the water crisis in Flint, Michigan should remind us to remain vigilant, however the water quality of the nation’s rivers, lakes and coasts have still made remarkable progress.

One major factor of these improvements was the groundswell of environmental awareness that took hold of the country in the 1960s, leading to many new standards and regulations. Among these was the federal Clean Water Act of 1972.

In an effort to better understand this monumental act and the other voluntary measures to remidate the country’s waters, researchers from the University of California at Berkley and other collaborating universities conducted a study on the act’s cost effectiveness.

Their results can be found in their article, The Low but Uncertain Measured Benefits of US Water Quality Policy, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

The water quality improvements themselves are not on trial, as the authors point to raw data collected on waterways across the country, dating back to the 70s that shows the progress made. There are less harmful materials such as heavy metals and biological waste, and effluent from point-source pollutors is monitored, regulated and documented. There are also less water-related illnesses and deaths.

However, an enormous amount of money has been spent to achieve this. From grants to municipalities to improve wastewater discharge to employing

inspectors to measure factory effluent, billions of dollars have gone towards this monumental cleanup effort. When all investments, including private, are taken into account, the amount spent since 1960 exceeds $1.9 trillion dollars.

The researchers then compared the costs borne by both public and private water protection efforts to the benefits reaped – both monetary and non-monetary. They analysed several economic studies that used established metrics to assign value to water cleanup efforts - metrics that are accepted by both governmental and private research.

Overall, the researchers were surprised to see the level of cost inefficiency that these studies calculated.

New research suggests that water quality policy

is not returning on investments, even more so than other environmental programs. Is this due to incomplete metrics or

inefficiency in execution?While environmental programs do not tend to score highly in general due to their communal nature, water quality enforcement seemed especially cost-inefficient. In fact, while other environmental programs such as air pollution regulations are still costly, their benefits, both non-monetary and monetary, outweigh their costs. Using these metrics, water quality programs failed to return even half of the value invested in them.

However, the researchers ultimately questioned the metrics and their ability to capture all the benefits of

environmental restoration. For example, the current metrics do not factor human health and the savings associated with clean water. This is because all public water systems in the U.S. treat water before distribution.

While this is true in theory, in reality we see cases like Michigan where human error and negligence allowed environmental contaminants to make it into homes.

Additionally, many quality of life improvements are difficult to measure. While the study captured more concrete examples such as rising property values near rivers, or the gas spent to drive to a lake, the list of benefits for living near clean water or having access to pristine outdoor environments extends beyond gas savings or real estate prices.

The authors note that they are not advocating for the act or its mission to be abandoned. Especially since water quality was polled as one of Americans’ greatest environmental concerns.

Instead, they hoped that the policies and individual programs be evaluated to increase cost effectiveness and that metrics be investigated further to provide a complete picture.

The full study is available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/10/03/1802870115.full.pdf.

6 T h e J l c c N e w s l e T T e r

Americans Support Reducing Plastic Straw Use, Less Sure Of BanTony Guerrieri, Executive DirectorAmid a growing backlash against plastic straws, most Americans would rather see businesses limit straws than have the government get involved, according to a poll by market research firm Ipsos and BuzzFeed News.

This past year has seen a major surge in plastic straw bans, from Seattle’s ban to corporate chains like Starbucks, Marriott and Ikea announcing phase outs. Most recently, California stepped closer to being the first state to restrict straw use, with state lawmakers approving a bill mandating dine-in restaurants to only hand out straws if asked. But the movement’s success has also met criticism from the plastic industry, libertarians and people with disabilities who need bendy straws to drink. It’s spurred a debate about how many straws are actually used every day and created a market for metal straws.

The results seem to confirm some popular assumptions: that most people – 96 percent of respondents – have used plastic straws, that 78 percent have heard of the recent straw ban campaigns and that most are open to some form of cutting back.

Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat support businesses using biodegradable straws and nearly as many – 75 percent – supported businesses providing plastic straws only when customers request them. According to the study, on this point, there was no significant difference between people who self-identified as Republicans, Democrats or Independents.

Despite movements to reduce plastic straw

use, most people favor voluntary reductions

rather than outright bans.However, there was less support – and a partisan split – on government intervention. While 48 percent of respondents said they supported a local ban, there was more support from Democrats (56 percent) and Independents (48 percent) than Republicans (41 percent).

Recently, several sources have estimated that people in the U.S. use over 500 million straws a day. The Ipsos survey came up with a different figure. Respondents were asked to write in how many plastic straws, if any, they used in the past week. Most people had used at least one straw, and the average was 2.8 straws. This translates to people in the U.S. using roughly 130 million plastic

straws a day.

When a turtle researcher posted a graphic video on YouTube of a plastic straw being pulled out of a turtle’s bloody nose in August 2015, it went viral. Many activist credit that video with raising people’s consciousness of the environmental impact of plastic. Perhaps attesting to the video’s popularity, 72 percent of survey-takers

agreed with the statement “plastic straws are harmful to wildlife.”

Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents said they agreed with the statement that “plastic straws are major contributors to pollution.” Additionally, people with disabilities have been critical of plastic straw ban initiatives. Roughly 71 percent of survey respondents said they agreed that “plastic straws are an important tool for people with special needs.”

The anti-straw movement has spurred mass interest in metal and paper straws. The survey results show most Americans have tried at least one plastic straw alternative; 59 percent have tried paper straws, 27 percent have tried rubber or silicone straws and 26 percent have tried metal straws.

And many people seem to be saying no to plastic. About 41 percent of respondents said they have already cut back their plastic straw use due to attention to the issue – and the numbers were similar for both sides of the political spectrum.

The new poll, taken online by roughly 2,000 adults across the U.S., is the first national survey to address the straw mania. The results of the Ipsos/BuzzFeed survey are available at: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-08/ipsos_buzzfeed_news_straw_poll_topline_082418.pdf.

N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 8 7

Recap of Committee Events See what we’ve been up to around the Commonwealth

Earlier this month, the Committee held an Environmental Issues Forum to learn more about the processes and technologies behind turning waste into renewable energy.

Janice Kelsey of Solar CITIES, Inc. and Dan Spracklin of SoMax BioEnergy, provided members and the public with information about how their organizations work to convert waste into renewable energy resources such as biogas and bioenergy.

During the forum they discussed the variety of uses for hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) such as converting food waste into fresh local produce, as well as the global impact these technologies have on communities with limited resources.

Watch the forum at: https://pasen.wistia.com/medias/5kbzilz419.

Thank you to Janice and Dan for highlighting this waste-to-energy initiative with the Committee!

50 Years AgoOn November 20, 1968, the Farmington Mine Disaster took place in Farmington, West Virginia. The coal mining accident took place when an explosion occurred in the Consolidation Coal Co.’s No. 9 Mine where ninety-nine miners were working underground at the time. Twenty-one miners were able to escape from underground, while the other seventy-eight were killed. Unfortunately, nineteen of the miners’ bodies were never recovered from the mine.

The initial explosion triggered several other blasts and fires. In order to manage and contain the flames, the mine was temporarily sealed with concrete ten days following the explosion, and then permanently closed on November 1, 1978. Families of the miners who perished in the disaster spent years trying to seek answers about what caused the explosion, leading them to seek legal actions which are still being pursued today.

While the exact cause of the explosion remains inexplicable, a memo was disclosed which suggested that an alarm on a ventilation fan which is used to clear out explosive gas was disabled, therefore never alerting the miners to evacuate when the incident occurred.

The Farmington Mine Disaster paved the way for Congress to pass the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 in order to enhance the protection of coal miners through firmer safety standards and health measures.

@PA_JLCC PA Joint Legislative Conservation Committee pa_jlcc Joint Legislative Conservation Committee

This Month in Conservation History A look back at the evolution of environmental stewardship

8 T h e J l c c N e w s l e T T e r

for the health of humans and the environment.

When refuse enters our waterways, this not only contaminates the water we drink and use for recreational purposes, but it also harms animals and aquatic life. Contaminated soil poses a threat to the growth and vitality of plants, as well as farmland that is used to produce crops for our consumption.

Fires are also easily started on dilapidated properties where illegal dumping of trash occurs which can threaten lives, property and natural ecosystems. They also cost local governments and taxpayers significant amounts of money both during the containment process and afterwards.

In 2010, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia released a report on vacant land management which indicated that during that time, Philadelphia spent over $20 million annually to upkeep vacant properties. These costs included waste clean-up efforts, police presence, fire protection and pest control.

Tackling the issue of blight is not an overnight task, as the number of blighted properties varies from county-to-county, city-to-city. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, Pennsylvania is plagued with approximately 300,000 blighted properties, with 80,000-100,000 of those properties located in Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania has been at the forefront of tackling the issue of blight through public-private partnerships among local, state and federal entities across counties that have proven successful in their efforts.

Pennsylvania’s Statewide Blight Task Force, which was established in 2007, is a bipartisan group of legislators

and state and local government organizations committed to providing solutions to redevelop blighted neighborhoods and communities across the state. With the assistance of the task force, a number of bills were signed into law this year which aim to eliminate blight in communities. Two recent examples include expediting the foreclosure process for properties that have been left abandoned or vacant, and permitting redevelopment authorities to have the same duties as land banks in order for them to actively participate in anti-blight projects.

The Department also provides resources to local municipalities looking to revitalize their communities through grant opportunities and programs such as the Community Development Block Grant and the Neighborhood Assistance Program. Over the last couple of years, more than $80 million of state funding has been granted to the city of Erie for a variety of projects, including anti-blight and the creation of more green space.

The department also worked with the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania to create an online portal for local governments to reference with information on how to efficiently use blighted and unused properties.

Finding sustainable solutions to revitalize communities that are plagued by blight paves the way for new endeavors that will benefit communities and the residents who live there now and in the future. Whether it is turning an abandoned building into a new business that helps to create local jobs, erecting a playground for children at the site of a demolished property, or beautification projects such as planting trees and flowers on vacant lots, these initiatives all serve the same purpose: helping our communities thrive.

Joint Legislative Conservation

Committee

Contact Information

Phone : 717.787.7570

Website : jcc .legis .state .pa .us

Location:Room 408

Finance BuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120

Mailing Address:Joint Legislative

Conservation CommitteePA House of Representatives

P.O. Box 202254Harrisburg, PA 17120-2254

The Chairman’s Cornercontinued from page 1