Special: The externality question of coal-to-diesel
In the field of economics, there is a term rarely understood by those outside of academia or policy debates. Its lack of comprehension is probably not by accident, for, if it were understood, the public would cause an uproar. Regarding the proposed Coal to Diesel plant in Dale, though, the concept is critical for the public to grasp, to comprehend, and to consider the implications of it relating to the factory, regardless of the stance of the individual.
To begin, one must understand a related but often misinterpreted concept within economics: cost. When we hustle down to Holiday Foods, we very closely consider cost, but when it comes to the air we breathe, we consider it free. In economics, a cost is anything paid by a consumer or a producer for a product or the means to produce that product to be sold on a market. In the US, this is relatively straightforward: if I own a piece of property and want a lawnmower, I simply drive to the store and purchase it, given that I have the money for the purchase. Without much fuss, I obtain my item and continue home to finish my work. The complications of cost in a market occur when something additional happens, something outside of the consumer-producer relationship. One of these is the externality.
An externality involves a cost that is neither paid by the consumer nor the producer directly but which is paid by some third party at their own expense, though not often with their consent. To complicate the story further, the party is oftentimes unaware of the cause of the cost, mostly because it comes from an entity with which they do not engage. Sometimes the producer or consumer of this additional cost is unaware as well. Let’s break this down with an example.
If I build a new business near Walmart in Jasper that creates the need for an additional stop light, my business inadvertently creates slower traffic and wait time. Though I did not intend this originally, my business has created a cost that neither myself nor my clients (although in this case, it may actually be some of them, though not nearly all of them considering it is workers leaving Jasper) have paid for in our operations. Of course, the cost in this scenario is simple: it’s time, a minute at most. Most people are okay with waiting a few seconds at a stop light or a stop sign if it guarantees them safety when crossing the road. For many, this externality is simple and doesn’t require solving, although it is a tiny nuisance that creates a benefit: safety when crossing the road. This demonstrates how externalities can unintentionally create both positive and negative events. So how does all of this relate to Coal to Diesel?
It’s simple, really. Mr. Merle’s factory will produce a new fossil fuel to be sold on markets, which satisfies a demand, in the process creating jobs and paying for coal miners, contractors, and so on. Unlike a traditional market, though, the prices don’t stop there. Why? Because of the pollutants that the factory produces–think of the 2.2 million tons of CO2 emissions per year, the wastewater drained to Evansville, and the toxic emissions–there will be some who do not directly benefit, such as nearly everyone indirectly related to the business, who will be forced to pay those costs, regardless of their desire for the factory. (More here?) Thus begins the work of dismantling externalities because it forces us to ask the question: Is it right for someone who does not benefit from this plant to have to pay the costs directly related to its operation, even though they never see the benefit of it?
This is a moral question, not an economic one, although it can have economic solutions, most of which are absent in Mr. Merle’s plant. First, his plant is incorporated in Delaware. Why Delaware when he lives in Connecticut and the company operates in Indiana? Delaware essentially does not tax corporations that register there but operate outside of the state. Also, in Connecticut, he doesn’t have to breathe the air. Why Indiana? Because it is “good for business” as Merle says, neatly quoting the new Senator. Why is Indiana seen as “good for business” but only for certain types of business? Due to a lack of regulation and monitoring. Why this lack of regulation? Well, we could continue forever, but it essentially boils down to the health of the community and externalities, which brings us back around.
In a market-based system, there are a number of ways one could approach solving externalities. These already exist in some form within the state of Indiana and within the US, although in many places they do not consider the whole problem. If they did, coal in many states would prove less competitive, especially when stacked up against the full price of operation of its opponents, such as wind and solar and even nuclear. The point here is that Indiana does regulate air, water, and other systems, but differently than other states and countries, which is why it is so “business friendly.” This has public consequences, though. To address this with market solutions, the government and the public could require pollution permits, charging businesses fees for polluting the the water and air, charged at a per-ton rate. A carbon tax could be implemented to do something similar, which would incentivize companies to not pollute, as they would be charged by each ton of carbon. Another way to pay for the externality could be through higher corporate taxes, though Merle’s plant will likely not pay any state income taxes so this could be challenging. If any of these are successfully implemented, the benefits could then be given back to the community to pay for the damaged lungs, poisoned water, and babies with developmental disabilities that are all a result of toxic pollutants and environmental degradation. In doing this, it would redirect the cost from a third party to the party either buying or selling the product, in this case, diesel fuel.
However, this assertion that a business (or indirectly, the consumer) should pay for the full cost of operation when there are negative consequences is seen as a farcical joke, laughed off as easily as the reality of a changing climate. So in reality, not only will the business not pay for the externality, but it will also exacerbate the extractivist business model. Extractivism defines a system that allows a company outside of a region to extract the full value of the resource of a geographical area while usually causing damage to the region in the process without returning to it the value which it harvested from its resources. This is evident not only in Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and India historically, but it was also a defining feature of Appalachia for half a century, too, in the form of the company town. This coal to diesel plant seeks to do something similar, farming Indiana’s coal reserves for a few hundred jobs and one business chartered in Delaware, all while not paying for the externalities present in the operation of the facility.
Not only does this exploration and understanding of externalities force us into moral and ethical questions, but it also allows us to confront, with vigor, the idea of additional pollutants to an area of the country that already suffers from some of the worst pollution in the US. If Duke Energy’s Gibson Power Plant, the third largest coal-fired plant in the world, is not charged per-ton of pollution, why would we expect Riverview to pay for its pollution? Merle has already stated that he “will operate fully within IDEM limits” though this falls short. Sadly, Gibson also operates within these guidelines, and it is not only one of the largest contributors in the US to a changing climate but also releases tons of toxic chemicals and pollution. If this plant falls under these regulations and the result of those regulations is still a decrease in the quality of life, we might bid well to reconsider the IDEM’s standards. Indeed, they do not fully consider external costs, amounting in my opinion to something environmentalist Rob Nixon calls slow violence: “violence that occurs gradually and out of sight; a delayed destruction often dispersed across time and space.” It is violence because it kills and disables; it is destructive because the damage is done to the community, slowly, even invisibly in the air you breathe.
It is this destructive devaluing of life that has wrought some serious damage to the area, myself not immune. My father mined coal for over 25 years and is disabled because of it. His mother died of lung cancer having never smoked a day in her life. Hundreds of others have similar or worse stories. Calculating the operational cost in terms of human life and wellbeing challenges us to consider the price tag we place on human relationships and happiness, a battle I will let the reader resolve.
Notwithstanding, none of this considers the larger externality: the social cost of carbon. The social cost of carbon is a cost calculated yearly by an offshoot of the EPA that determines the impact of carbon emissions on the entirety of the US economy. It factors into the equation the cost of adding carbon to the atmosphere and the negative externality of inadvertently warming the Earth in the process, thus creating additional costs for farmers, workers, and citizens whose jobs depend on aspects of the climate remaining stable, such as precipitation and temperature. Conservatively estimated, the Environmental Defense Fund places its value at 40 dollars per ton of carbon. If you flew across the Atlantic and back, that would be an additional 80 dollars for your flight.
Factoring in the cost of carbon and pollution not only to the Earth but to those downwind and downstream, it is critical that we examine this proposed plant with scrutiny and weigh the costs and benefits. For a region that already suffers from a lack of environmental justice, this added cost would be expensive and unnecessary, not to mention unjust. If Mr. Merle can provide evidence of paying for not only the social cost of carbon but also the externalities of the production, perhaps we can come to the table. But for a business that utilizes a state without income taxes and another with lax regulation for its business, we shouldn’t expect a positive reply. A few well-paying jobs at the expense of the community’s health and wellbeing–a cost that we cannot even begin to define in dollars–is something that Southern Indiana should not be willing to pay. Hoosiers deserve the justice that is owed to them, and another polluting plant that produces negative externalities for the majority should not be built, especially if there is no reasoned attempt to address the external costs to society. Instead, let us come together as a community and build a resilient energy system not wholly dependent on the degradation of human life and extractivism for its existence. To do otherwise would be a further injustice.
-Ethan C Smith, Formerly of Ferdinand
Thanks for this letter, explaining some of the economic issues surrounding this plant. Externalities should be included in the cost of the product for sure. Of course, there are other economic issues involved as well-like who is going to pay for the construction of this plant, a one of a kind facility that is likely to require massive government subsidies which will still fall short of the overall cost of construction, let alone operation of the plant. And locally, who is going to pay for the needed extras safety protection? Is that going to be Dale citizens or the Carter Twp. FD?
Also, the upgrades and maintenance of roads and other infrastructure which I am confident Merle will expect the county and state to fund.
And then comes the real bottom line. with oil prices running between $55 and $80 per barrel, who will be willing to pay a premium for diesel fuel just for the privilege of getting the fuel f rom coal instead of crude oil? These too, are questions that need Merle’s thoughtful answers that will apparently never be forthcoming since the questions were not eve3n asked by the Dale Town Board or Tom Utter and the LEDC.
Mr. Smith, you have some errors in your example. “The State of Indiana does not regulate it’s air, water and “other systems” different than other states.” Indiana follows the EPA guidelines. Now some states may have more stringent requirements but none can regulate below those requirements. Those requirements are set by the elected government body as recommended by real scientists not environmental alarmists. Of course environmental alarmists can influence the elected officials at the ballot box but those elected officials cannot override the Federal EPA guidelines and go below those guidelines.
Of course you mention the consequences of the pollution caused by others yet you quickly moved by the simple everyday pollution’s caused by others in the community. For instance the neighbor whose car pollutes the air or the neighbor who burns his/her trash outside. What about the neighbor who uses their fire pit or fireplace? How about all of the people who have their trash hauled to a landfill and those items may eventually seep into the ground water? Perhaps the farmer who sprays pesticides or manure on the field and have those chemicals reach our nostrils? What is the economic impact by those citizens?
Who is more regulated and monitored? Riverview Energy or the average citizen? I would say that Riverview will be more closely monitored.
Mr. Blair worked hard to eliminate coal use with Vectren. They shifted to natural gas with his influence. Did Mr. Blair tell the citizens that this change would raise their electric bills? I can’t find an article where he was quoted saying it. Mr. Blair new the cost of conversion was going to be expensive. Now he rails against the high cost of utilities in SW Indiana. Utility costs are the highest in the state. There were poor and elderly people who couldn’t afford those types of increases but damn the torpedo and full steam ahead from the coal haters.
Environmental alarmists have been killing jobs all over America. Jobs that would have benefited the local citizens. Instead those jobs and the lack of environmental controls went to China, Mexico and Asia. I guess those countries were far enough upwind for them to care about their health. American environmental alarmists have done more to pollute the planet than any other environmentalists. Why because they forced those goods and services to be manufactured in a country with very little environmental regulations. If you want to see it, just look at the below link. Click on the link for the Americas and then click on the link for Asia. We buy almost a trillion dollars in goods made in China. Zoom in and look at the air quality they endure. If we would have made those goods here in America under the strict guidelines of the EPA, the world would be a cleaner place. All Mr. Smith and Mr Blair have done is advocated for a cleaner America at the expense of the rest of the world. For 30 years Mr. Blair has been trying to kill jobs in America and sending our carbon foot print to China. That is the economic impact of their environmental position they chose to ignore. Environmental bias, as long as it’s not in my back yard.
https://aqicn.org/map/world/
Real science shows that SW Indiana has some of the cleanest air and water in the United States before these changes. The environmental impact of Riverview Energy will be minuscule compared to the benefit. Here is real science. The average daily particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter from 2016 to 2018 is.
Dale 8.4
Evansville 9.0
Indianapolis 9.9
Sure on a hot summer day it might jump up to a moderate or unhealthy for sensitive groups but we haven’t had an unhealthy air quality day since 2006.
2.5 micro-grams per meter of particles in a 24 hour period over 35 is considered unhealthy. See page 8 of the link below. What they never tell you is what is an acceptable level? Perhaps they don’t want you to know that number because it gives their narrative context to gauge against.
https://www3.epa.gov/airnow/aqi_brochure_02_14.pdf
Mr. Blair is paid to sound the alarm and I just find it hypocritical that when Vectren switched to natural gas he was OK with that. Riverview Energy shows up and are using the same natural gas as its energy source and he is all in an uproar. Remember Mr. Blair, Riverview is not burning coal, it’s liquefying it.
Riverview might get some tax incentives and they may not, but I’m sure Indiana, Spencer County and Dale will be on he winning size of the economic pie. Of course your attempt to use the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Elizabeth Warren method of math to kill this project is way off course.
Your first paragraph says how you and Mr. Blair feel about the average citizen in SW Indiana.
“there is a term rarely understood by those outside of academia or policy debates. Its lack of comprehension is probably not by accident,”
You think the average citizen is to stupid to understand, so you have to lead them to your conclusion. Well I prefer a different academic influence… real science not the BS your shoveling.
Daryl Hensley, Jasper IN.
As usual, Mr Hensley just cannot get his facts straight.
First, I receive zero compensation for he work that I have done over the last thirty-seven years, except for two years from 2003-2005 when I did receive a whopping $30,000/yr. under a grant.
Second, if you had investigated the subject at all, you would see that Valley Watch has been the only SW Indiana organizations that has intervened against nearly every Vectren rate increase in the last decade and has publicly opposed every rate increase for forty years now.
Last, yu are probably right that the air was much cleaner in SW Indiana before the EPA and the Clean Air Acts came into existence. That was also the time when Petersburg, Gibson, Rockport and ABBrown did not exist. Of course the air was cleaner when those plants were no putting millions of tons of pollution into our regional air.
Hi Mr. Hensley,
Thank you for your reply. I have a couple points to address that John did not already address.
First, academic jargon is useful and my first paragraph is only to enlighten the reader to a concept that is critical within economics and their lives: externalities. It guides the reader into asking a non-partisan question: should a business be required to pay the full costs of operation if it were to exist? There is nothing “inaccessible” or “elitist” about learning a term. Economics is a required course in high school. The reason it does not come up in everyday peoples’ lives is fine, but if we are talking about externalities, we should know what we are talking about, which is what this is.
Which brings me to my second point: we are talking about something that does not exist yet. Should we regulate Gibson differently than Riverview? Yes, but one of those things is a thought and one of those is solid infrastructure that provides jobs to people. So of course we will use different methodologies. Neither of which is alarmism, despite the fact they both discuss similar problems.
Third, it is easy to throw around politicians names, so let me throw around a few. Massive deregulation of companies throughout the mid-70s through the 80s causes everything you are discussing above, even though you cite it as because of alarmism. Let’s dissect this argument. First, you claim alarmism caused companies to move abroad. If we buy that argument, was it not the same environmentalists that helped form the EPA under a conservative president in the 70s? Every single piece of legislation that has passed since is because of the EPA. This, then, creates an incentive for a company to look elsewhere because it increases costs of production due to new regulatory bodies. When the rest of the government deregulates while the EPA regulates, this creates an incentive to move abroad for those producing pollution, which our government does not hinder. Thus your conclusion that alarmism caused companies to move abroad is a farce. Companies move abroad because 1) they can and 2) there is an incentive to do so. What was the incentive in this case? Textbook simple, if you understood economics. Its the very deregulation you blame on alarmists. Costs of operation due to lack of worker/environmental protections incentivize companies to move abroad, the very opposite of what you claim. The very existence of the EPA helps do this, not hinder it, ironically. Many “alarmists” know this already, and it is why they are trying to also fight alongside other politicians to prevent corporations from moving to Andorra and operating without paying minimum wages in Bangladesh and poisoning the Ganges. It is all connected, as an environmentalist would already know. If you seriously believe in a globalized world that production would only take place in America and that somehow under the EPA that would be sufficient, you are wrong. Are the 1.5 billion Chinese suddenly going to demand no goods themselves? Could the US produce more goods than China currently with a significantly smaller carbon footprint so that the Chinese could have their same standard of living? I’ll let you stew on that one. Blaming their lack of air quality only on our demand is a stretch. If the US intervened to prevent them from passing clean air rules, I’d agree with you, but this has not been the case anywhere except where countries have tried to nationalize oil or other goods. In those cases, we just instigated coups and we’re back to square one. Not to mention that consumer demand is something we could regulate as well, shifting production back to the US, but again that would raise prices on your goods, so it is an incentive to operate abroad. All of this of course is to say that the pollution would exist either way and is simply “there” and not “here” which matters not to the biosphere.
Lastly, to put blame on the individual is a classic tactic which needs to be discussed. Any individual’s carbon footprint is statistically meaningless. It’s the billions of carbon footprints warming the planet, not mine alone. To go further, even if the particulate matter numbers you post are correct, how do they measure in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Vermont? In our world it is not as if waste goes “away” and is not breathed by someone. Either way, it is still an externality, even if it doesn’t happen to land in “your” back yard. Furthermore, 2.2 million tons of CO2 per year is the output of the refinery. I would have to fly across the Atlantic and back 1 million times next year to meet this output as an individual. So, yes, should we be mindful of our fossil fuel use, such as burning trash and so on? Of course. But my little car alone does not destroy the planet; rather, it is the system itself, which is exactly why we regulate Gibson differently that Riverview. Riverview does not yet exist, so we can talk about its impacts in an objective way. But if we want to talk also about alarmists killing jobs, then let’s do that. Sure, have some regulations killed jobs? Absolutely. My dad’s own coal job was lost because of the Clean Power Plan. But the true downside? That your republican colleagues did not pass additional funding to help my dad find another job. So of course its not just about shutting something down, that’s ridiculous. It’s about finding the best way forward for all of us, coal miners and coal executives included.
Mr. Smith we live in a greedy materialistic world. Access to american capital is desired by every country in the world. Tariffs have shown that counties would come to the table if their cheaper goods are on a tariff list. A carbon tax on polluting countries like China, India and others would force them to clean up their environment. Of course we would have to become more self sufficient or we end up in a tariff war or a carbon tax war. The price for outsourcing our pollution is the fault of corporations, governments and yes the consumer. The medicine will not taste good but a cure to clean up our global environment needs to start. You are correct, we can’t globally legislate our way out of it. The Paris Accord was such a pill, The problem is, you couldn’t trust many of the countries to comply.
Your trip across the planet may not equal the CO2 emissions at Riverview Energy but on a US scale, transportation of individuals and the goods we consume, plus the electricity for our homes and the places those goods are stored make up 56% of all CO2 emissions. So yes our individual carbon footprints add up. If you look at the manufacturing of goods and services,for consumers, 100% of the CO2 is individually consumer driven.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100USI5.pdf
The EPA guidelines are put in place to protect all Americans from each other’s carbon footprint. It isn’t the vehicle that matters, it’s the output of carbon that matters. If CO2 2.5 particulates on a daily average are higher than 12 micrograms in a given geographical area, the EPA will require changes to CO2 emitters or will disallow a permit for new construction to be denied.
Dale’s daily average over the last 3 years has been 8.4 micrograms. Evansville is 9 and Indianapolis is 9.9. Of course, you will see spikes in any given 24-hour period but those spikes are factored into the numbers above. 35 micrograms in a 24-hour period is considered unhealthy. Spencer county hasn’t had an unhealthy air quality day since 2006. In fact, the county hasn’t had but a handful of moderate AQI days in any given year. 100 on the AQI chart equals 35 micrograms of CO2 2.5 particulates.
http://idem.tx.sutron.com/cgi-bin/aqi_rpt.pl
The National Institute of Health uses the AQI numbers to warn the public about the various types and levels of pollution. So does other medical institutions. The AQI is widely accepted among medical professions. Of course you have some who could care less and call for even stricter guidelines but accepting the majority of medical professionals is fair. The EPA and Medical teams worked to come up with a number and legally we must work within those guidelines.
https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2011/07/bad-air-day
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/smog-and-pollution-what-do-air-quality-alerts-actually-mean/
45% of human made CO2 is consumed by plant life every year. This makes RIverview Energy in SW indiana an ideal location. Our crops need CO2 and RIverview needs a location that not only has crops but a massive coal supply to liquefy. Americans will need an abundance of diesel fuel now and in the future (until affordable electrical semi-truck transportation is available)
“For decades, ground-based observatories have been measuring CO2, and those measurements have been steadily climbing. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide now averages more than 400 parts per million, year-round”The human fingerprint in any given year is relatively small.” “Human emissions within the past year may add only something like three parts per million to that total”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89117/satellite-detects-human-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2
I applaud Mr. Merle’s choice of SW Indiana. Why? because he could build anywhere on the planet and his diesel fuel would get consumed. He chose the ideal location. Lots of coal to liquefy and lots of plant life to feed and putting his company under the guidelines of the US EPA and IDEM. More importantly he is taking all the financial risk. This isn’t a power plant this is a private venture.
Daryl Hensley, Jasper
In addition, a few tidbits about your PM numbers. It’s not that they’re not “true” it is rather that they don’t tell the whole story, and in this case, the whole story matters quite a lot. Not only are monitoring stations placed predominantly around urban centers, there exist a number which are intermittent. If you can give me the times of day those numbers come from, I’d believe you, otherwise data from the downtime of coal production isn’t much use to me, since it simply tells me irrelevant information. The ability to monitor only when convenient must be nice for business. Additionally, you mention numbers only at 2.5 micrometers. The very same source you gave me mentions anything between 2.5 and 10 is deadly. What are those numbers? Where can I find them? I bet they’re a little higher. In fact, many of those might be higher due to any number of reasons, but none of these negate the fact that if no air monitor exists to capture the PM then it would still be irrelevant, especially since the 2.5 to 10 micrometer measurement also won’t be accurate. Also, the pamphlet tells you which numbers are dangerous…so you answer your own rebuttal. You are a master cherry picker.
To further elaborate, I am not mocking folks in Southern Indiana, nor do I consider them stupid. My own father is an illiterate former coal miner, but he is not an idiot or stupid. But by the way you cherry pick my sentence–omitting the clause which describes exactly the opposite of your claim–you intend to attack me and not my argument. Not only is that two logical fallacies wrapped in one, it is simply false regardless of the “truth” of your fallacies. Southern Indiana Hoosiers are not stupid, and I do not intend to think they are. However, the true reason why we don’t know what externalities are is because we are not taught to think about the world through them, which is simply the reason that I highlight them. Words have power, Mr. Hensley. Once again, this leads to my ultimate question: can a business operate ethically without paying its full cost of operation when the costs of operation are the negative impacts upon others? Especially, that is, a business that doesn’t even exist yet.That is an ethical question anyone can begin to debate, not just smart people. Either way, Hoosiers are smart. They know they want the best for themselves and their families. Besides, my whole family is there and I care about them.
And it is even more critical that one man’s private venture be not at the detriment of the entire community, which it clearly will be for more reasons than one.
Once again, it’s not that everything you’re saying is false, just completely unrelated to the context at hand. You can tax carbon in China all you want, but there is still not only an incentive to work there but that cost comes directly back to you as the consumer. And clearly consumer-driven and consumer-focused are astronomically different ideas. Of course consumer demand drives fossil fuel consumption around the world; this is the very problem we are discussing. But 1 person burning trash in Southern Indiana, driving a car, and flying has a statistically insignificant contributing factor to this overall system. This does not mean that consumers as a whole are irrelevant. Those are literally two different points about two different pieces of data that you discussed. You keep switching your mind. Are you saying it is the system or the individual? I can clearly argue it’s the system. This is why it is integral to join globally. Sure, you can tax China. But you can also simultaneously de-carbonize your own economy, allowing the remaining carbon budget for developing countries to use to get their economies strong enough to enable themselves to use fossil fuel free systems. Taxing those who are now doing the bad will do nothing to the previous centuries of atmospheric buildup, most of which they were not responsible for, we were.
Also, increased CO2 for crops is good. Once again, out of context and only to a certain degree. If it were only CO2 added to soil, this would be fine, but it is combining the CO2 in the atmosphere, inadvertently raising the temperature and precipitation levels as well, which is something crops have a much harder time adapting to. This is why people burn fields because it has an increase in carbon storage of the soil, thus adding to crop growth. In addition, a little extra carbon for you might be good, but the farmers on the Ganges might not believe so when their rainy season comes two weeks early or late.
Of course PPM has been climbing for a while, we left an Ice Age 10,000 years ago and probably have at least a couple thousand years left of warming, as per the previous 660 thousand, if we happen to stay in relatively the same format. It’s been since the Pliocene that the Earth hovered around 400ppm. Once again, human emissions of the “past year.” One year’s emissions do not cause global warming; it is the collection of emissions from human industrialization that do this. This is the same fallacy as before with an individual versus the collective. You even rebutt your own argument with your point, as it literally says: in any given year. Any given year. Not all years combined since the industrial revolution. Those are completely two different points. Another logical fallacy due to cherry picking.
Cherry picking, just like how the data clearly shows PM in the atmosphere in Dale being low, but once again this is due to insufficient data. If the monitors are turned off during peak hours, or even if they are turned off during lower hours, this is insufficient data. Numerous sources have told me in depth how these monitors work, and regardless of the data it gives us, it is insufficient, for numerous reasons. Give me a monitor in Dale that runs year round and I will believe you. But sadly, only Indianapolis deserves that right. Citing only Evansville as your rebuttal isn’t entirely clear to me, as the wind from Gibson blows toward Spencer on most days, as would the emissions from this factory. Once again, cherry picking data. This of course does not even get into where or not the monitors are also monitoring other pollutants not registered as FPM. Not to mention moments when the FPM cannot be measured directly downwind because they are thrust higher into the atmosphere. There is a clear difference between believing the data as it exists and asking how we came up with that data and whether or not it is correct. I am arguing that insufficient data does not mean the data is incorrect but that it is not worthwhile using because to do so would be to simply cherry pick. If we are going to use the data as it relates to actual policy debates, we should ask if it has been produced in such a way was to be useful. In this case, it has not.
For example, if I decide to look at Knox, Davies, and Martin counties, I would see no apparently close air monitors. Odd, considering
Regarding the fuel of choice, most of it will get exported, rather than consumed here in the states. So this demand you speak of does not exist. It could some day, which is why John Blair has repeatedly asked the legitimacy of building this here and now rather than some time in the future when we might actually need it.
Just because you list sources does not mean you know how to thoroughly vet them for evidence. You can make any article–as you have clearly done with mine–say just about anything you want. Context is utterly important, as you have made clear.
Mr. Smith, I can disagree with much that you have stated but I have to at least push back on one major point.
“And it is even more critical that one man’s private venture be not at the detriment of the entire community, which it clearly will be for more reasons than one.”
Mr. Merle didn’t just show up, buy the land and force his way into Spencer county. Mr. Merle was looking for a home for Riverview Energy and Spencer county wanted to know more about his facility. Lincolnland Economic Development Corporation listened to his proposal and then sought input from the duly elected officials in Spencer county. The duly elected leaders of the citizens of the city of Dale expressed an interest in hosting Riverview Energy.
Seven landowners expressed an interest and reached a memorandum of agreement option with Riverview Energy.
In April of 2018, land was rezoned and annexed in to the city of Dale by the duly elected officials of that town to potentially host Riverview Energy.
On November 21st the duly elected county commissioners of Spencer county voted to approve the air permit for Riverview Energy.
On Dec. 5th a meeting was held in which one person commented “Is that what you want?” asked Blair. “You want to destroy the heath of your neighbors and friends to have one guy in Greenwich, Connecticut become a billionaire? Is that what you want?”
IDEM reviewed the permit application and stated “IDEM, after a review of the permit application, said that the emissions the plant would release do not exceed any legal limits. In its notice of period for public comment issued last month, the agency said that “no significant impacts are expected from the proposed facility.” Now we wait for IDEM’s response.
But to say this is one man’s venture is flat out disingenuous. The property owners are partners in selling their land. The city of Dale, population of 1500+, and its duly elected officials, voted unanimously to approve this project. The duly elected county commissioners, of the citizens of Spencer county, population 20,000+, voted to approve the permit. Those votes mean something to those reviewing the permit for Riverview Energy. This is not one man’s venture, this is community leaders partnering with Riverview Energy. This is state leaders partnering with Riverview Energy. All of those leaders who voted yes, have looked at the permit and have taken ownership of their vote to support Riverview Energy.
Mr. Merle is not a one-man venture. He has the support of thousands of people in the community. He has done nothing wrong. He has completely complied with the laws of Indiana. To have environmental alarmists attack his character when in fact they have misrepresented the facts on so many occasions is what should be called into question.
Again, the science shows that Spencer county is one of the cleanest counties in America for air quality. The United State and North America is the cleanest hemisphere on the planet. Liberal leaning groups like the American Lung Association, the World Health Organization says so and the left leaning US EPA says so. You can disagree with their position but you can’t ignore the science.
Your goal Mr. Smith isn’t to get to the truth, your goal is to sow doubt. BTW I don’t post the links for you, I know you could care less. I post them for the 18,000 subscribers to the DCFP so they can read and come to their own conclusions.
Daryl Hensley, Jasper IN
Mr. Hensley, you are a master of cherry picking, and Southern Indiana Hoosiers will pick up on it. But unlike what you have done, I will not attack you, I will attack your argument.
First, you claim “More importantly he is taking all the financial risk. This isn’t a power plant this is a private venture.” Then you go on to state later “But to say this is one man’s venture is flat out disingenuous.” Then you claim even later “Mr. Merle is not a one-man venture.” I’ll let the reader decide.
No one is debating the legality or legitimacy of an electoral system, the legality or legitimacy of a private venture in a capitalist society, or the process through which the plant has gone already. In fact, the environmentalists are proud of this being a more democratic process. You use a term like environmental alarmism to get a certain reaction from a group of people to label another group of people as the out group so that you can disregard anything they say, slandering them with cherry picked words instead of discussing the argument at hand. Back to the argument at hand, your evidence supporting your reversal of position is strong and I do not agree with any of it. But once again, it is not relevant to the concerns that I bring up. Furthermore, even so, it does not first take into consideration that simultaneously large groups have protested the plant but have a lack of power in terms of elected officials. Secondly, we can discuss the response of IDEM through the previous lenses I have provided, as well as discussing what “significant” means. Third, any good-hearted person working to increase economic activity in a region would be a fool to, at face value, turn down a 2.5 billion dollar investment in the community. No one is debating that. What they are debating is whether or not that is a good choice, who is making that choice, who should be making that choice, and if it is the right choice. My entire argument simply points out the externalities of the operation, a point Mr. Merle and you and many others will avoid addressing. Fourth, your John Blair quote, which I don’t even believe to be real, is painstakingly cherry picked to deliver just the message you want, a master of oratory and rhetoric. John Blair knows that this plant would also enhance the lives of other people, he is not an idiot. What he is asking in that question, even if quoted directly, is not whether this will benefit some people, even a couple hundred people, but what the trade off in terms of health is for the rest of us not involved in the plant. That, my friend, is the definition of an external cost. Once again, this is especially true for something that doesn’t exist. Besides, any 2.5 billion dollar investment would create jobs. At what cost to the rest of us, our homes, our families, and our cousins downwind? To re-frame, no one is questioning the legality and legitimacy of the process. They are questioning the process. And furthermore, they want to know the costs, the true costs, all of them.
No one is claiming that the FPM numbers aren’t “real” as in some Orwellian dystopia. We are claiming they are insufficient data. If Spencer county was clean before the EPA and before any of the factories were built then of course they’d want to keep things the same. Using only one intermittent air monitor does the trick. This is not some conspiracy. In science, the use of your tool dictates how you can interpret the data. If I measure the data (temperature) from my thermometer every single day but only at noon, I get different data than if I measure it every hour or every other hour. This difference in data obviously plays a huge role. The same exact principle applies here. No one is arguing the existence of something, rather they are arguing the legitimacy of it, a much harder question to answer. That’s why when discussing the Earth’s biosphere warming we take data from every available source across the planet, then peer review it all and then eventually come to a conclusion complete with projections.
You can pretend to believe in science and post links for the public, and that is noble. But your claims based on your links are completely false, as I have pointed out. Literally the same snippets you provided above rebut your own argument, especially if the reader reads the complete texts. Just because you cite something doesn’t mean you can examine it for evidence. My only intention is the truth, as well as highlighting something often left as silence. Examining externalities is a real issue. Even if the EPA guidelines are strict and “legal” why is there still illness at higher rates? Why is Indiana ranked so low in terms of quality of life and air quality and infant mortality? Sure, a scientist would not say that it is one cause, but there is certainly something Indiana has at a much higher rate than many places in the US. To point this out is not alarmism as you speak, it is seeking justice and truth.
Another flawed point is your logical fallacy of relating how since other places have it better than us, we should just shut up and carry on. Not only is this a logical fallacy, but claiming that since America and our hemisphere is so clean that none of this matters at all. Frankly, there is one biosphere and it does not care if carbon comes from China or Angola. Secondly, pollution from anywhere in the world, given the right circumstances, can cause complications for other places. Once again, you have not addressed my point regarding other places downwind of this plant. Just because it is not just “your” backyard doesn’t mean it isn’t someone else’s. Economically speaking, that is still a cost but because we have no way of tracking who poisoned someone’s air, it is much easier to let go. Sure, we don’t have to deal with the Bhopal disaster every day in our back yards and we should be grateful, but those Indians did not get justice either, still don’t. But just because air pollution and water pollution are slow moving does not mean that is not as cost–a terrible one at times–on the community that should be discussed, especially–and I repeat, especially–if the plant has not even been constructed except in the minds of those unwilling to pay for its externalities.
Lastly, in economics externalities are not even remotely considered a crazy leftist or Marxist ideology. Externalities are a mainstream concept with international impact, as well as local. They are the very reason we formed the EPA in the first place.
Mr. Hensley, my goal here is truth. My ultimate goal is justice. But to get there, we need to avoid fallacies and embrace nuance, which one could call reasonable doubt. It is not that I do not care for links, but when one uses them they require certain skills, cherry picking excluded. The reader can surely reach their own conclusion.
This will be my last post as the thread is getting long and this horse is almost dead.
You talk about downwind of the Riverview Energy facility. I believe IDEM addressed that there is not a significant concern with the emissions from Riverview Energy.
The winds here tend to be predominately from the SW in the summer and the NW in the winter. What you might not know is upwind from Dale Indiana are two facilities from their SW, that emit 5.2 million metric tons of CO2 a year. Alcoa and F.B. Culley power plant. Even with these two facilites emitting 5.2 million metric tons of CO2 a year, the Dale monitoring station is at 8.4 PM 2.5 average over the last 3 years. Both of these facilities are just 10 miles NW from the KY city of Owensboro and their PM 2.5 average for the year of 2018 is 8.55.
Pollution is so low in SW Indiana, IDEM is comfortable with monitoring a 24 hour period every third day. Owensboro is in a different state and they monitored 276 days in 2018 and still averaged 8.55 PM 2.5. However that doesn’t mean that the city of Evansville or Dale or Jasper can’t set up their own monitoring stations on a 24/7 365 day a year period. Many locations in California do. I can only assume that the city officials in Evansville feel very confident that the current monitoring is sufficient.
Mr. Merle is not alone in this venture but he is sure bearing the lions share of the financial risk.
Here is the link to your buddy John’s quote. https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/spencer-county-residents-speak-out-about-proposed-coal-to-diesel-refinery/1642023071
Mr. Hesley, thank you for engaging. I have some concluding thoughts as well.
First, I want to highlight how you have refused to refute my claims as staked in the article, such as whether or not Mr. Merle will pay for the social cost of carbon such that it contributes to a changing climate. Along with this, you have toyed with but not confronted whether you believe Mr. Merle’s nonexistent enterprise should pay for any additional externalities, such as pollution, which is what the article is about. Included in this is water quality, which you conveniently did not pick to support your argument, despite the fact that the factory will pull from and drain into the Ohio River.
Conveniently you use and reuse the same trope that you have posted on every single anti-Coal-to-diesel article posted on the Free Press. You say that it is science and therefore cannot be refuted. Well, consider this a peer review.
To begin, your above numbers are correct, or nearly correct, as the reader can clearly see in my excel spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14_Ft5cqXUJJcqJ-wNFdl4nhFArupfh0VR48ObachRWE/edit?usp=sharing .
A few percentage points between our data show that the average FPM over a three year period falls roughly in line with each other, approximately 8.3 or 8.4, depending on how you round. The scientist you are, you find these numbers and post them on the internet, complete with numbers from a few other sources and quote them as science. Unfortunately, this is not how science works. Let me explain further.
Your claim that states that Dale has not had an “unhealthy” quality day since 2006 is not entirely true, but is rather a cherry picked comment formulated to make you sound more correct than you are. If you look closely at the following link, which you posted above you can see why: http://idem.tx.sutron.com/cgi-bin/aqi_rpt.pl. In this, you can see the AQI is defined as being Moderate in days that have a 2.5 FPM measure of at least 12.1. Glancing back at my spreadsheet, you can see Dale has on average just a tad under 1/5 recorded days at this level. Yes, this level is not above 35 which calls for seriously unhealthy levels, but not even Bangkok is at that level constantly, as you can see here: https://aqicn.org/city/bangkok/ . It is considered one of the most unhealthy cities to live in at the current moment, with a massive air crisis. 1/5 of Hoosier days are like this, at least according to your data. The EPA considers operating above 35 to be hazardous and would shut down a factory, we should point out.
Which brings me to a further point, which I argued above, the legitimacy of using such a data set. Once again, it is not that using something like this is not okay, that is not what anyone is challenging you on. Clearly the IDEM and others, including high level liberal researchers as you mention, are using these numbers. But to the question at hand–whether or not a coal to diesel refinery should be built in Dale–they are not entirely sufficient. Why are they not sufficient? Well, let’s look at how the state collects data.
You claim above that the state “feels confident” enough to “only” measure every three days. This is doubly flawed, first for your implication and secondly for the statement. Not only is a person’s assumption not scientific, it is not accurate in this situation, as the state only monitors in so much that it is required to and can afford to, with most three day monitors being cheaper than continuous ones. The state monitors in three fashions: daily, once in three, and once in six. If you check out the numbers on my spreadsheet, though, you will notice the second flaw: the fact that the average number of days with actual measurements in the last three years is on average 103 a year. That’s less than 1/3 or as I might put it more concisely, 28.1% of the time. Even the monitor listed for Evansville Buena Vista as continuous still only gives measurements every three days, thus furthering my point. Once again, this is not because the state “feels” a certain way. It is that that is the minimum requirement, which they have met. And to do so higher would be to cost them more.
All of this information, by the way, is obtained here: http://idem.tx.sutron.com/cgi-bin/noncontinuous_yearly_summary.pl , the same website you are using above. I used it to calculate all of my numbers, too.
So, taking some of this information together, we can distill it a bit. But first, a metaphor. If I measure my caloric intake once every three days and my max and min diverge from the mean by quantities of 1/4 to 3.5 times, I might every three days ingest an average of 2000 calories, even though some days I consume 6500 and others I consume 500. Either way, my average is 2000, so I must be healthy. Averages only give you a piece of information, not the whole story, as you can clearly see demonstrated, which brings me to my next point.
Scientists use the data they have at hand, yes, but they also use data that is appropriate for measuring and analyzing the task at hand. If we already know that Spencer county and Indiana have much higher rates of diseases as a result of pollution and so on, we can conclude that just simply averaging some data from a chart only gives us…..data from a chart. It can inform our approach, but it does not dictate our approach. Science does not ask if 1/5 of days being moderate is just, but that it simply exists. When you claim that its 8.4 every day, you are stating a fact, but your implication is that that is acceptable. That is a moral question, not a scientific one, even if you used a scientific data point to prove it.
Furthermore, even using the very data you give me, I can not only prove that 1/5 days is moderate or above, I can combine it with other data, such as this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740125/ . Which states that increases in 5-10 FPM particles can cause rates of cancer up to 15% more and numerous other effects that I won’t elaborate on here. That, my friend, is an externality. Will Mr. Merle’s operating cost include those health costs? I think not. But there are a few more things to address here.
To claim that the IDEM is allowing this to pass and therefore it must be okay is also insufficient and incomplete data, not to mention a weak logical fallacy. Of course they would allow the plant, you say, and I agree, mostly. Because they are using the same data as us and coming to a different conclusion. Well, let’s look at the permits. In this permit: (content unavailable) we have f we have a trove of additional data.
First, on page 60, it is explicit that the plant exceeds its 24 hour SIL value level for PM2.5’s. Not cherry picking here, it addresses this further down where it says these need to addressed. If you keep reading, you will see how they do this, which is to claim that because the particulate matter in the proximate region is intense, they needed to expand it out to include the larger region. After analyzing the region, which includes the very data we are discussing, they concluded it would not have significant impact. Depends on how you define significant impact. Will it suddenly bring the region, which is monitored every three days above the standard of 35 PM2.5s? Of course not. But this is based on the data provided by monitoring sites, which is already limited. Of course it won’t go above that because we have incomplete data with which to make our decision to begin with. It is data, but it is not the whole data. It also clearly shows in the chart below on 61 how it will raise the annual by .3, at least according to models. Once again, depends if you think this is significant. The EPA only does if the daily annual average falls above 35, which is essentially toxic. Below 12 is good. 1/5 of the days being 12 or above, though? As long as they’re not 35, it’s acceptable. Once again, if you read the health impacts above or on any number of sources, you may disagree.
So let’s spend some time on why the data are flawed, just to recap. Not only do our measurements each year conveniently end on October 28, leaving the rest of the year up in the sky, they also skip over large portions of months, not to mention days. As you mentioned before, winds blow into Dale from the SW over the summer. Conveniently, the average, according to our data set, is actually higher in the summer, though we have less data points to prove this. A few of these are because the system’s shut off from temperature. Many are because the system just simply stopped functioning. In addition, there are other flaws with the data, some of which neither you nor I know the answer to. Let’s start with what we know.
First, on page 47 of this document we will begin: https://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/files/monitoring_network_review_2019.pdf . Monitoring stations are based on population of the areas, not necessarily regions which will have higher concentrations of bad air, as is clearly stated in the paragraph titled “Monitoring Requirements.” Based on this population, the state is required to operate a certain number of monitors, which Indiana clearly meets below in the chart. Of these required, half must be continuous, though as you can see clearly in this map : https://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/pages/monitoring_data/pm25.html all continuous monitors are placed in urban areas, of which Dale is not one. Conveniently, the only continuously operating one located downwind of this factory and many others in Southern Indiana is New Albany, which I clearly mapped in my spreadsheet above. Once again, just like Evansville it would not give me daily results, though it did have more points mapped. Conveniently again, it is currently closed for repairs. It’s data also are more complete, though, being year round and complete with a backup monitor, which the document above discusses as a requirement. Even here, though, we don’t have complete data, as it is still limited to three days or more. In addition it has listed 18 days at moderate or above, which relates to all of the negativity I mentioned earlier.
To conclude, no one is debating your data, at least not its existence. I even added the numbers myself. But an average only tells you one piece of additional data. You did not even seem to count the number of days above moderate levels, which is probably even more important than the average. But overall we can see that the data is useful, quite useful indeed, and we are very glad that the EPA measure this stuff, as it helps us all. But how many days do we have above 12 that are not monitored? If the monitors are operated only every three days and even then shut off, we cannot know. That’s all the Southern Indiana Hoosiers want is to know. They are not disavowing data. But you must ask what purpose that data serves, too. But, once again, you seem to cling to this one data point in every message, not taking into consideration the bigger picture of the flaws of how that data is collected, which is why we call it insufficient. It is not wrong, just insufficient to prove your point, though it makes a strong case. Not strong enough, they are arguing.
Lastly, great job finding Mr. Blair’s quote in a written piece that is literally cherry picked quotes.
Oh, and one more bit. Mr. Merle can take on all the financial risk he wants because that’s all I was asking him to do: tell me how he will pay for the externalities his plant produces. I’m afraid that’s a cost he’s not willing to discuss.