Regular gasoline prices dropped from $3.92 per gallon in mid April 2012 down to $3.54 in mid April 2013.  We use 8.4 million barrels of refined gasoline per day (1.13 gallons per capita per day, or $4/day at the pump).  The BLS estimates family gasoline consumption at $2,655 per year or $51.05 per week in 2011.  CNN estimates family consumption at $4,416 in the same period.  AAA estimates the average American will spend $2,100 on gas in 2013. While $51 per week is a noticeable burden, consumers who commute further than average will suffer a higher cost.  A 30-mile (one-way) commute can add $42 per week to the family’s other transport costs and a 70-mile commute can add $100 per week.  Commuting costs are not usually tax-deductible.

Gasoline is loaded with taxes.  In April 2012, federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon applies in all states.  On top of that are state taxes, e.g. 69.6 cents per gallon in New York, 41.9 cents in Maryland, and 26.4 cents in Alaska.  Some counties pile other gas taxes on top of federal and state taxes.

Regardless of party affiliation, voters oppose increasing these taxes.  Gallup tested the proposal of a 20 cent per gallon tax to fund infrastructure and mass-transit projects.  66% of surveyed voters opposed the proposal, including opposition from 55% of Democrats and 72% of lower middle income households (those households with annual income between $24,000 and $60,000).

Despite widespread opposition from voters, Maryland plans to institute a 20 cent per gallon tax increase.  That will raise Maryland gasoline taxes to 61.9 cents per gallon (17.5% of retail price), putting it just slightly behind New York, California, Hawaii, Connecticut and Illinois.  Some politicians won’t take advice from voters.

Alan Daley is a retired businessman who lives in Florida and who writes for The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research

For example, Mass Transit spending goes from a whopping $12.455 billion in fiscal 2013, then just $2.3 to $2.7 billion over the next 10 years.  Spending was budgeted at just $2.2 billion in fiscal 2012 – revealing a towering spike of spending in 2013.  Some lucky voters were the beneficiaries of that largesse, but many of us still have no access to local mass transit.  In 2012 the House Ways and Means Committee made clear that instead of splitting gasoline taxes between mass transit and highways, gasoline taxes were to be used for highway projects.  It appears the budget takes this seriously.

The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program was to spend $975 million in 2013 and is proposed to spend $1,697 million in 2014, $1,274 million in 2015, $429 million in 2016, then just a mere $7 million each year until 2023.    Some of this is explained by Fisker, an advanced electric car maker who borrowed $192 million but is now insolvent.  Ford, Nissan and Tesla also borrowed from this DOE program, but the DOE is no longer actively considering proposals – as confirmed in the budget

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy was slated for $5.2 billion in 2012, then $1.9 billion in 2013, and $1.4 billion for 2014, then about $1B each year until 2013.  This reflects the White House’s intention to scrap subsidies for fossil fuels, but continue modest support for clean energy.

Innovative technology loan guarantees (a discretionary program for energy supply projects) are being ramped down from $617 million in 2012 to zero in 2017.

Somewhere in the numbers and carefully groomed prose is the Solyndra debacle.  It appears the proposed budget acknowledges in dollars, if not in words, that consumers are not wild about stylish “green” projects.

Alan Daley is a retired businessman who lives in Florida and who writes for The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research

In the US, we consumed 19 million barrels of petroleum each day (m bbl/day) in 2010, and we produced 9.7 m bbl/day (28% higher than in 2005).  Of the 8.1 m bbl/day we imported in October 2012, 4.0 m bbl/day came from Canada and Mexico – reliable North American sources.    Of the remaining 4.1 m bbl/day we import, a total of 3.4 m bbl/day come from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, Algeria, and Kuwait – countries in an unstable region or with overt  hostility to US interests, especially Venezuela.  The 4.1 m bbl/day is what we need to develop domestically for reasonable self-sufficiency.

The neighborhood containing Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait is dominated by an instability superstar – Iran (primarily Shiite), which has threatened to eradicate Israel, choke the main oil shipping route at the Strait of Hormuz, and has a gunfight- and ambassador killing-animus toward Saudi Arabia (mainly Sunni).  Nuclear equipped Pakistan is ready to help Saudi Arabia, if asked.  Saudi Arabia wants its own nuclear weapons, especially if Iran develops some.  Saudi Arabia has domestic terrorists opposing the Royal family, and some of the princelings fund terrorists who attack non-Sunnis.  Iran is blatantly re-colonizing Iraq.  Israel, Gaza, Jordan, and Lebanon stand ready for another sectarian war.  The Middle East is too insecure and unreliable to rely on for any significant portion of our crude oil imports.  Our efforts in propping up potentates and smoothing ruffled sectarian feathers is a huge cost – and it shows up as military graves and higher taxes instead of explicitly higher gas prices at the pump.

So before EPA regulators reflexively strike an enviro-stylish pose on “fracking,” they should favor a pose that helps consumers.  They have the opportunity to explain in plain language how their regulations favor the American consumer, how a vote favoring crude oil self-sufficiency will reduce our dependence on disruption-prone regions and funders of our enemies, reduce the need to intervene militarily, and create a “stimulus” by keeping $100 billion a year in US families’ pockets instead of contributing it to OPEC’s $1 trillion in annual revenues.  That would be a welcome fresh start by an important agency.

Alan Daley is a retired businessman living in Florida and following public policy from a consumer’s perspective.

In October, ACI released a paper titled, “The Monopolization of Forest Certification: Do Disparate Standards Increase Consumer Costs and Undermine Sustainability?”  We found that consumers pay a premium (in the range of 15-20% more) for products bearing the seal of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which is a certification program that is promoted by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).  It is also promoted by many environmental groups who have pushed government and businesses to adapt it as the sole standard while excluding all other credible standards.  However, paying more does not necessarily ensure a superior sustainable product.  This is because FSC’s behavior around the world and its varying standards can mislead consumers into thinking they are purchasing sustainable products, when in fact they are buying something that was harvested in Russia and Brazil, where there are lower standards.  As we wrote:

“Distortions caused by differences in FSC’s standards cause confusion among consumers. Since the FSC standards are stricter in the US, this certification process imposes a disproportionately higher costs on US firms, which results in less production and higher consumer prices. … Additionally, even after paying these price premiums, there is no clear indication that consumers who purchase FSC-certified products contribute to a more sustainable environment or the preservation of greater amounts of forestland.”

Consumers and the businesses who sell to them are better served by knowing the facts about forest certification.  Recognizing there is more work to be done to give them a more complete landscape of the impact of forest certification, we are releasing a white paper titled ”Comparing Forest Certification Standards in the U.S., Part I: How Are They Being Implemented Today?” authored by Brooks Mendell, Ph. D and Amanda Lang, forestry experts at Forisk Consulting.  The paper examines the on-the-ground-implementation of three prominent standards in the U.S.: FSC, American Tree Farm System (ATFS), and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), and it clearly notes the importance of knowing the facts about various certification programs:

“Customers of forest certification should recognize how programs actually operate and question specific claims related to forest management. All three forest certification programs in the U.S. symbolize responsible forest management; however, adherence to a given certification program does not necessarily confirm specific forest management practices or restrictions.”

It also goes on to shed light on FSC’s varying standards and quotes one FSC auditor in saying:

“The way that foresters interpret plantations in the South is not the way FSC defines plantations. FSC has narrowed its definition of plantation: basically, the only plantation in the South would be a Eucalyptus plantation.”

The consumer implication of this comment and other examples of the variation of the on-the-ground implementation of FSC’s standards is significant: When consumers buy an FSC-certified product, they have no way of knowing if it came from an area where the varying standards are stricter versus weaker.  Why pay 15-20% more for a “sustainable” product that may not actually be better for the environment?

Interestingly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its revised “Green Guides” last month to help ensure markets make accurate claims about their products’ environmental benefits.  Ideally, this will increase the scrutiny over claims on which certification programs are best suited to increase the amount of sustainable forestland.  In recent comments to the FTC, FSC acknowledged consumers are willing to pay 5-10% more for an environmentally superior product.  However, this information we released today confirms that FSC certification does not guarantee a premium product.

We continue to believe that recognizing all credible forest certification standards – rather than an FSC-only approach – is the best approach for consumers, the environment, and the U.S. economy and will be releasing more research on this topic in the coming months.

When underground water near the surface is depleted, sink holes can develop.   Sinkholes occur naturally although they may be hastened by unusually aggressive pumping of underground water.  State laws can compound the community’s problem by encouraging lawyers to troll for potential sinkhole claimants, passing cash award and litigation costs onto insurance companies and in turn onto the rest of the community – in effect increasing sinkhole costs by 50%.

The main groundwater challenges before us are twofold:  we need to balance withdrawal and replacement; and we need to control contamination.   Ideally we would assign the burden of corrective measures onto those who cause the problem.  

Man-made contamination of surface and groundwater by industry is sometimes monitored and corrected by agencies such as the EPA.  Reasonable standards for effluent water quality and for enforcement of remedies should become widespread.  Residential wastewater contamination should be monitored and corrected with equal vigor to that exerted on industry.  There seems to be widespread public support for actions that crack down on water “pollution.”  If motivation is needed it should be as consequential costs levied on the problem causers.  Those costs should not be absorbed into the public purse as another “entitlement.” 

The more difficult problem pertains to balancing the withdrawal and replacement of groundwater (at least equal in purity).  Perhaps the goal should include both groundwater and surface water, although surface water is subject to very substantial evaporation losses diffusing the benefits into rain and snow elsewhere.  Making agricultural water use more efficient is a likely candidate for improvements.   Perhaps we need to make a more careful study of Pembrooke Pines’ sewage infusion ideas.  Perhaps there really is a way to capture and “mine” the fresh water from an iceberg.   Perhaps deepening lakes would cut back on percentage evaporation losses.   Perhaps there is a cost-efficient infrastructure for agricultural, industrial, and landscape uses of “gray water.”  Perhaps ideas like Coca Cola’s “the water project” can be expanded.  Doubtless, other creative ideas are worth exploring.

We probably don’t yet have technologies that alleviate our need for massive quantities of fresh water, so we don’t have the freedom to ignore these challenges.  The US has the technical talent to address these challenges and we have some time for the solutions to bear fruit.  What we don’t need are single-issue harpies who hijack our attention into their blame game.

Alan Daley is a retired businessman living in Florida who follows public policy from a consumer’s perspective. 

Surface water in streams, rivers, and lakes supplies the other half of water we use.  Surface water and ground water interact in several ways.  Groundwater usually seeps into streams to supplement flowing surface water, and surface water often trickles down to the water table top of groundwater.  When water is pumped from groundwater, three things happen: the water table lowers, stream flows are reduced or eliminated, and in coastal areas, saline groundwater can move inland.

Aquifers are massive groundwater storage formations composed of permeable rock and materials such as sand or gravel.  The Ogallala aquifer serves eight western states (CO, KS, NE, NM, OK, SD and WY).  Other aquifers include the Edwards (in TX), the Floridian (in parts of AL, FL, GA and SC) and the Great Artesian Basin (in Australia).  The crops that aquifers support supply food for many across the world. Drawing from the aquifer makes possible the gigantic circular sprinkler patterns visible from airline flights.

The Ogallala contains mostly ancient water and today’s replenishment into the Ogallala is at half the rate of withdrawal.  Rain and snow are the main replenishment sources and they can take years to settle into the aquifer.  Today’s water “mining” (extraction minus replenishment) is 5.5 centimeters per year of which 94% is used for irrigation. The Ogallala will be exhausted in less than 100 years.   

Aquifer water comes in varying grades of purity.  Saltwater can infiltrate making it brackish (as is the Floridian aquifer).  Some aquifers contain contaminants that are even more noxious.  The main man-made contamination sources are: bacteria from septic tanks, oils from underground storage tanks, and chemicals from residential and commercial landfills.  Other industries can contaminate surface and underground water, most notably the pesticides and fertilizers used in agriculture.  Careless handling of wastewater can contaminate groundwater.  Discarded consumer and animal drugs also end up in groundwater.  Some contaminants in groundwater can be difficult or prohibitively expensive to remove making that ground water unusable.   

Gas and crude oil “fracking” injects a water and chemical cocktail underground.  When fracking concludes, the cocktail is pumped up into holding ponds or tanks.  No doubt traces of the cocktail remain underground and might trickle toward the aquifer, but the EPA seems to monitor this closely. 

In Aquifer Depletion:  Part 2, Pragmatic Approaches, suggestions are offered on how to address depletion and contamination.

Alan Daley is a retired businessman living in Florida who follows public policy from a consumer’s perspective

The source of the confusion deals with an ongoing heated debate over forest certification programs, dubbed the wood wars. Forest certification takes place when landowners meet the established benchmarks of one of several organizations, thereby earning the right to put that organization’s eco-label on its products. There are more than 50 certification programs in the world, with the US most reliant on standards set by the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).

With North America accounting for 40 percent of the world’s certified lands, the US is a leader in forest certification — but there is some bad news. The US’ edge in responsible forestry management is being forced to the sidelines by government actions and environmental activists that are working to establish one international standard, FSC, as the only legitimate standard in the US. Because over 90 percent of the world’s FSC-certified land is found in foreign countries, if the US adopts a monopoly standard, three-quarters of our nation’s certified lands could be excluded from the market. That exclusion could mean a significant reduction in domestic production, the loss of American jobs, and sending US dollars overseas.

The proper role for government and how it deals with forest certification lags behind the realities of the marketplace.   A study released this week by The American Consumer Institute quantifies some of the costs of these government procurement policies have on businesses, consumers and the environment.

The study found several troubling consequences of this de facto monopoly that undermine the very sustainability goals of these certification programs. The study noted that the FSC program did not have consistent standards at all; instead they used benchmarks and requirements that differ from country to country. No surprise, under the FSC program, the US landowners face the strictest FSC standards in the world, while in more environmentally risky countries, such as Russia, landowners are allowed to game the system.

What does this mean for consumers? These added certification costs are passed on to US producers and ultimately American consumers of timber products in the price range of 15 percent to 20 percent. The study estimates that if an FSC standard becomes a controlling requirement for American forests, consumer welfare would drop by an estimated $10 billion for wood products and $24 billion for paper products each year.

Moreover, an FSC-only approach may incentivize the procurement of timber in environmentally risky locations, given the organization’s disparity in standards across the world. Furthermore, importing additional foreign wood increases both environmental and transportation costs. It may also encourage consumers to substitute away from wood products to less environmentally-friendly materials, including metals, plastics and concrete. This does not mean FSC has no environmental benefit, or that it is not a sound choice for some landowners and businesses, but it does mean that consumers are being misled by a system that promotes so-called environmentally superior products without the basis to support these claims or additional costs.

The imposition of a single standard through procurement requirements – such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rating system used many government agencies – creates significant costs without ensuring corresponding environmental benefits. It is irresponsible to allow the government to promote a monopoly on forest certification that will drive losses of tens of billions of dollars in domestic wood and paper markets, and the reduction of employment and tax revenues in local communities that follow – all in the name of sustainability that the policies do not ensure.

In order for consumers to be confident that “you get what you pay for” holds true for wood and paper products in the “green” market, an approach that levels the playing field for forest certification programs is needed. Such an approach is not only pro-consumer, but it is also pro-American jobs and pro-environment.

By Steve Pociask, Published in Real Clear Policy on October 1, 2012

The ACI report titled – The Monopolization of Forest Certification: Do Disparate Standards Increase Consumer Costs and Undermine Sustainability? – reveals the consequences of a reliance on an FSC-only approach, with a vast majority of US certified timber coming from other certification programs. Consumers would face price increases of 15 to 20 percent, domestic wood and paper markets could face tens of billions of dollars in losses, and the laudable environmental and sustainability goals the programs were established to achieve would be undermined by a certification monopoly.

This report is released the same week as the US Green Building Council opens the public comment period on its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system which recognizes FSC as the one single standard for procurement requirements.

“Misguided policies and organized pressure from environmental activists to elevate one forest certification program over all others are creating confusion in the marketplace. As a result, consumer costs are increasing by as much as 20 percent for some green products that may not be superior. It also puts US foresters at a competitive disadvantage, despite the fact that 40 percent of the world’s certified forests are located in North America,” said Steve Pociask, president of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research and one of the authors of the study.

Key report findings include:

• FSC certification seems to be significantly more costly than other standards, thereby raising producer costs and consumer prices in the range of 15% to 20%, without ensuring corresponding superior environmental benefits, as well as upsetting the balance between sustainability and economic viability;
• The FSC standard in the US is stricter, and therefore more costly, than standards applied overseas, thereby disadvantaging many U.S. producers and raising retail prices for American consumers; and
• If an FSC standard becomes a regulatory requirement for U.S. forests (through edict or non-market pressures from outside groups), consumer welfare losses would occur in a number of markets, including an annual loss of approximately $10 billion for wood products and $24 billion for paper products markets.

The report was authored by the President of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research Steve Pociask and Joseph P. Fuhr, Jr., a professor of economics at Widener University and a senior fellow for the Institute. The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research is a 501(c )(3) nonprofit educational and research institute. For more information, visit www.theamericanconsumer.org.