Go hug a tree. You just might live longer.

edgewater willow tree
edgewater willow tree

The iconic willow tree at Edgewater Park (courtesy of Francis Angelone).

Once upon a time, Cleveland was the Forest City. When Moses Cleaveland arrived to survey Connecticut’s Western Reserve in 1796, the area was heavily forested. It was said that a squirrel could travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River without ever touching the ground.

These days, only the moniker remains. We still have Forest City Enterprises, Forest City Brewery, Forest City Portage, etc. The trees? Not so much.

According to Cuyahoga County’s Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, just 19.2% of the city remains forested. Nearly all of the trees that existed during Cleaveland’s trip to the city that (largely) bears his name are gone today. In 1946, city officials identified 150 trees that likely existed in 1796. When the city updated this inventory in 1975, just 92 remained; of these, only 15 still had the plaques that were installed in 1946.

cuyahoga county tree canopy by community

The existing tree canopy, by community, in Cuyahoga County (courtesy of Cuyahoga County Planning Commission).

Only two of Cuyahoga County’s 59 communities have less tree cover than Cleveland, and the city lags behind comparable cities, including Cincinnati (38%) and Pittsburgh (40%). According to projections, unless Cleveland reverses this trend, its tree canopy will fall to just 14% by 2040. This would represent a loss of 97 acres of urban forest annually over the next 25 years.

When you consider some of Cleveland’s pressing challenges – a 56% child poverty rate, violent crime, population loss – the number of trees within city limits may not seem like a big deal. But we cannot consider the city’s environmental challenges as distinct from its general urban challenges; they are intrinsically connected. Our tremendous urban struggles exacerbate our environmental issues, including tree cover, and these environmental issues subsequently compound these broader issues.

Cleveland’s trees are terrific

When I think about trees, my mind immediately goes to that strangely catchy 1970s commercial from the National Arbor Day Foundation:

And it’s true, trees are terrific. In fact, they’re freaking incredible. But, as the singing cardinal in that commercial indicates, sometimes we take for granted the best things ever planted.

For many Clevelanders, trees may seem like more of a hassle than they’re worth. They produce tons of leaves, fruit, and sap that coats lawns and clogs gutters. They can damage sidewalks. Their roots may get into water and sewer pipes. They may fall in a storm and damage your property or that of a neighbor.

But the costs of trees only outweigh their benefits when we fail to account properly for the latter. Fortunately, the City of Cleveland and a number of partner organizations have placed  a price tag on the myriad benefits that our trees provide in The Cleveland Tree Plan (PDF), which was released last October.

Utilizing the U.S. Forest Service’s i-Tree model, the document estimates that the city’s trees provide more than $28 million in ecosystem services each year. Cleveland’s trees intercept 1.8 billion gallons of rainwater, which helps to mitigate our ongoing challenges with flash flooding. The trees shade homes, lowering energy costs by $3.5 million each year, as well as increase property values by $4.5 million. They also play an important role in mitigating climate change, as they remove 42,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.

In the plan’s appendices (PDF), which you have to be a massive nerd like me to read, the Tree Plan actually lays out these ecosystem services by neighborhood. As the table below shows, there is a clear overlap between the extent of a neighborhood’s tree canopy and a host of other issues, including energy costs, asthma rates, and property values. The correlation between a neighborhood’s tree canopy and its urban heat island risk, for instance, is extremely strong (0.7609) and statistically significant (p < 0.0001).

cleveland tree benefits by neighborhood

The tree canopy and related statistics in each of Cleveland’s neighborhoods (courtesy of City of Cleveland).

Trees and mortality rates

On its surface, all of this makes sense. It’s fairly obviously that trees filter out air pollution, mitigate stormwater runoff, store carbon, beautify neighborhoods, and shade homes. But trees can do so much more, including extend your lifespan.

A recent study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives examines the relationship between “greenness,” a measure of vegetation cover (including trees) and mortality rates among a cohort of female nurses in the U.S. The researchers, led by up Dr. Peter James from the Harvard School of Public Health, utilized satellite images to measure the amount of vegetation within 250 and 1,250 meters of each woman’s residence. The 250-meter diameter represented the vegetation directly accessible from each woman’s home, while the 1,250-meter buffer accounted for vegetation within a 10- to 15-minute walk.

The authors considered four main pathways through which exposure to vegetation can affect mortality rates: physical activity, air pollution, social engagement, and mental health. They also controlled for a range of potentially confounding factors, including race/ethnicity, smoking status, socioeconomic status, region, and whether the person lived in a urban area.

According to James et al., higher levels of “greenness” significantly lowered mortality rates among the women in the study cohort.

Analyses showed a consistent relationship between higher greenness and decreased mortality that was robust to adjustment for individual- and area-level covariates. In fully adjusted models, those living in the highest quintile of cumulative average greenness in the 250m area around their home had a 12% lower rate of mortality compared to those in the lowest quintile. Results were consistent for the 1,250m radius, although the relationship was slightly attenuated.

Greater exposure to vegetation significantly reduced mortality rates from cancer, respiratory disease, and kidney disease by 13%, 35%, and 41%, respectively. Of the four pathways studied, the effects were greatest for mental health and social engagement, though “greenness” also reduced mortality related to fine particulate matter and a lack of physical activity.

Based on their research, James et al. conclude,

[T]hese findings suggest that green vegetation has a protective effect, and that policies to increase vegetation in both urban and rural areas may provide opportunities for physical activity, reduce harmful exposures, increase social engagement, and improve mental health. While the recognized benefits of planting vegetation include reducing wastewater loads, sequestering carbon, and mitigating the effects of climate change, evidence of an association between vegetation and lower mortality rates suggests a potential co-benefit to improve health, presenting planners, landscape architects, and policy-makers with an actionable tool to grow healthier places.

Clearly, city officials should work to expand urban tree canopies in order to mitigate the myriad social, environmental, and health issues that plague cities like Cleveland. Fortunately, Cleveland has taken the first step on this road with the release and adoption of its tree plan. Hopefully we can work together to expand the city’s tree canopy in order to tap into the numerous benefits that trees provide.

Maybe the next time you look out your window at your tree lawn, you will see the tree standing there in a different light. It’s time we appreciate and better care for our trees in Cleveland. They just might extend your life.

Watch: Find out why rivers change their courses in 3 minutes

cuyahoga river 1917 straighten
cuyahoga river 1917 straighten

A 1917 plan from the federal government to straighten the crooked Cuyahoga River (courtesy of Cleveland State University).

Rivers. They’re pretty amazing things. They provide humans with water for drinking, irrigation, and sanitation. They give us fish and other aquatic animals for food. They can be harnessed to power grind our grain, run our looms, and even power our cities. Their seasonal floods can bring rich silt to our fields or destruction and devastation to our lives. Sometimes, with just a little bit of help, they can even catch on fire. It’s no mistake that the first major human civilizations – Egypt, Mohenjo-Daro, Sumeria – developed along the banks of the world’s great rivers.

But rivers are much more than servants of (wo)man. They are dynamic ecosystems rich with biodiversity that shape and are shaped by the world around them. Any entity that can literally carve the Grand Canyon is pretty damn powerful.

And so rivers change. They top their banks, meander downstream, shift their paths. Sometimes, rivers even stop, turn around, and travel in the opposite direction. Rivers are not the static, shaped bodies that we encounter, but living, breathing systems.

It’s exactly this dynamism that humans don’t seem to like. We don’t like things that are beyond our control. We like to make things knowable, predictable, manageable. So we applied the logic of urban planning to one of the most complex systems in the world. We filled in urban rivers and sent them through channels and culverts. We built artificial banks out of concrete and steel to keep rivers contained. We constructed elaborate systems of dykes, dams, canals, and sluice gates so that we could regulate the seasonal pulses of the Mississippi and the Nile. We even dreamed up cockamamie schemes to make crooked rivers straight. These efforts to regulate rivers have created their own severe side effects – riverbank erosion, declining biodiversity, reduced silt delivery, sedimentation, and altered flood risks. We’re only beginning to face up to these unintended consequences.

So we know that, left to their own devices, rivers will constantly change. But have you ever wondered how and why? Well, wonder no more, thanks to this new video from Minute Earth. If you have three minutes to spare, you can learn a lot about fluid dynamics, fractals, and how muskrats decorate their dens.

(h/t Mental Floss UK)

How Afghanistan is quickly becoming a resource conflict

mineral resource map afghanistan
mineral resource map afghanistan

Map of estimated mineral reserves in Afghanistan, produced by the US Geological Survey in 2007. This map, along with another one focused on ferrous materials, have been used to project that the country has $1-3 trillion in available mineral reserves (courtesy of New Security Beat).

Why don’t people who don’t know I exist (and wouldn’t care if they did) follow advice that they had no way of knowing I’d even written?

Back in the winter/spring of 2012, I took a course on post-war peacebuilding with Dr. Charles Call, an expert who has worked with both the United Nations and US governments and penned Why Peace Fails: The Causes and Prevention of Civil War Recurrence.

In the course, Dr. Call broke the class into groups, each of which studied and analyzed a recent civil war and the subsequent international peacebuilding effort. Naturally, I ended up focusing on Afghanistan, because duh. For our final project, each group had to assess the risks of civil war recurrence for its respective country and identify the potential triggers that could foment such unrest. Being the only environmental policy student in a class full of peace and conflict resolution researchers, I was particularly concerned with the way that environmental issues may undermine Afghanistan’s extremely fragile peace (if one is willing to say that the country is actually “post-conflict”).

In the paper, I focused, in particular, on two main issues:

  1. The Afghan government’s emphasis upon harnessing the country’s water resources to expand irrigated agriculture and develop hydroelectric power could exacerbate localized conflicts over shared water resources and undermine the potential for regional cooperation, without which there remains little chance for true peace and stability within the country.
  2. That the focus on Afghanistan’s much ballyhooed mineral reserves could undermine peacebuilding initiatives, help finance rebel groups, and drive additional grievances against an already desperately weak government. To this point, I wrote:

While minerals represent a major potential source of revenue, [the Afghan government] needs to remain mindful of the risks. High-value minerals have contributed to civil conflicts around the world. The case of Papua New Guinea is of particular concern. The Australian colonial government and the national government of PNG touted the Panguna mine in Bougainville as a vital source of employment and revenue. However, the mine quickly became a major fault line due to land seizures, environmental degradation, and uneven distribution of profits. Locals used these grievances to launch a ten-year civil conflict that killed 20,000 people. As a country with limited experience with large-scale mining and serious problems with governance and corruption, encouraging major investments by multinational firms is risky. [Kabul] must tread lightly in this area. Weak land tenure and administration systems create further risks for localized conflicts within the country. Efforts to override customary land tenure systems and seize property for mining may spark violence or generate additional support for the insurgency…

While Afghan mineral reserves are potentially worth more than $1.3 trillion, this number considerably overstates their true value. Due to the lack of physical and institutional infrastructure required to facilitate extraction, the net present value is unlikely to exceed $120 billion. Relying on extractive industries also carries serious potential risks, as noted earlier. The amount of money changing hands will likely foster additional corruption. In exchange for granting the Aynak copper mine to Chinese company MCC, the former Minister of Mines took $30 million in bribes. MoM also left MCC responsible for acquiring land. Without paying close attention to these issues, Afghanistan’s mineral reserves could become another focal point for conflict.

Fast forward to the present. In 2013, persistent attacks from insurgents led to MCC significantly scaling back its investment at Aynak. According to the South China Morning Post,

With copper prices falling and the Chinese economy slowing, and security in Afghanistan deteriorating, the company has yet to begin production on the site and, according to mining industry and other sources, no longer wants to abide by the terms of the contract it signed in 2007.

The company wanted to renege on building a railway, power plant and processing factory, as stipulated in its deal to mine at Mes Aynak, site of one of the world’s biggest copper deposits, the sources said.

MCC also wanted to renege on paying the remainder of a bonus worth US$808 million to the Kabul government, having already paid US$133 million, one source close to Kabul’s ministry of mines said. It also wanted to cut the royalty payments, currently set at 19.5 per cent, about double the worldwide average.

And, as Al Jazeera America reported in June, the central government’s overwhelming desire to mine, baby, mine endangers a treasure trove of thousand-year old Buddhist artifacts. This episode represents just the latest episode in a decades-long assault on the country’s social and cultural history.

One of the legendary Buddhas of Bamiyan, prior to their destruction by the Taliban in March 2000 courtesy of

One of the legendary Buddhas of Bamiyan, prior to their destruction by the Taliban in March 2000 (courtesy of Helena Wangefelt Ström).

Moreover, just last week Foreign Policy published a piece titled “Does Afghanistan’s New Mining Law Benefit Its Mafias?” The piece drew attention to these concerns that the poor management of the country’s mineral resources and the rush to extract minerals – both by the Karzai government and its Western allies – may be endangering the long-term security and development of the country:

This battle for control [over resources] “may consign the country to a prolonged war,” Javed Noorani, formerly of IWA and an expert on the resources sector, told me recently.

With the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops scheduled for December 31, and a drastic drawdown in external development aid, Noorani believes Afghanistan is transitioning not from war to peace, but “from military conflict to resources conflict.” “The Taliban are not spectators to the sector but finance their war from revenues from the sector,” he said. He believes illegal mining will allow non-state groups like the Taliban to consolidate and emerge to threaten the governments of Afghanistan and its neighbors, telling me that: “Their footprints are already here.”

Who could have foreseen such a potential calamity? Oh, right.

It’s not as though this outcome is particularly surprising; scholars and NGOs have been warning about the potential for resources to drive ongoing conflict in Afghanistan for years. Back in 2004, Jonathan Goodhand discussed the role that minerals had played in financing both the mujahideen groups during the Afghan civil war in the book War Economies in a Regional Context: Challenges of Transformation.

While most Western actors have focused on opium, the fact remains that both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance relied on illicitly exploited resources, particularly emeralds and granite, to finance their war efforts. Resource conflict is hardly new to Afghanistan; taking such an ahistorical approach to peacebuilding was destined to fail from the start. I guess the one irony in this whole debacle is the fact that western military and political leaders have used the presence of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth to justify both an ongoing counterinsurgency operation and the rapid withdrawal of forces.

If there’s one thing that I learned from my time working on the Environmental Law Institute/UN Environment Programme environmental peacebuilding initiative, it is that natural resources can be a blessing, but they often end up as a curse for post-conflict developing states. In such settings, transparency and accountability of resource extraction is paramount. Just because the US and NATO allies are withdrawing military forces (rightfully) from Afghanistan does not mean these countries do not have an obligation to push Kabul to adhere to international principles on proper natural resource management. As a party to the Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative, the country has already recognized its obligations.

It’s time for officials in Kabul, Washington, and other Western capitals to step up on this front; the consequences of inaction are too significant to ignore.

Major questions remain over ‘FrackGate’ scandal after Kasich’s reversal

john kasich

This piece was written by Brian Kunkemoeller of the Sierra Club Ohio Chapter and cross-posted from Ecowatch

john kasich

Governor Kasich may have come out against fracking in Ohio’s state parks, but his actions have done little to qualm concerns about the state of environmental oversight in the state (courtesy of The Toledo Blade).

Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich reversed his position on fracking public lands in response to public outcry about the events surrounding recently released information about the state’s collusion with the oil and gas industry to conduct a shady pro-fracking PR campaign. Last week, Gov. Kasich announced that he is opposed to drilling in state parks, but the biggest concerns are still unanswered as a cloud of controversy still lingers.

“FrackGate”

In 2011, we watched as a state legislature seemingly smitten by the industry passed legislation opening public lands to fracking with handshakes and applause, despite polls showing that 70 percent of Ohioans were opposed. Ohio Sierra Club members and others had risen to the occasion by writing letters and giving testimony, but the Governor signed the bill into law, which at that time seemed to seal the fate for Ohio’s public lands.

In 2012, the Ohio Sierra Club filed the first of many open records requests to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) looking for e-mails between the agency and the industry and how the language of the public lands fracking bill was written. The agency didn’t respond, forcing our first lawsuit (and not our last) simply to obtain public records from the ODNR. One of the things we discovered in those e-mails was that the Ohio Oil and Gas Association had been one of a select few invited to make edits to the legislation as the bill was making its way into state law.

Late last year, amid silence from the administration on the status of opening public lands to horizontal fracking, Ohio Sierra Club filed another public request under Ohio records law. It was this request that yielded the now-famous collusion document as well as the e-mail invite from the Governor’s office that named several targets, including Robert F. Hagan (D-Youngstown), in what the state representative has since coined “frackgate.”

Stories about this will be written and re-written, as the depth of this story is only beginning to be seen. How far down the rabbit-hole the state administration has gone will always be a topic of speculation. Unless, of course, there is an investigation.

Ohio’s PR agenda

There is no question that ODNR is actively silencing and opposing Ohioans concerned about fracking. This is the same agency who recently ignored repeated requests by the citizens of Athens and county commissioners alike who were simply asking for a public hearing about proposed fracking waste disposal wells. The ODNR met citizens in Portage County with armed guards and dogs, giving a brief lecture about the history of oil and gas in Ohio and refusing to answer questions about the wells in question.

Most disturbing, citizens in Darke County (hometown of Director James Zehringer) held expert panel events about fracking, only to have handouts made by ODNR staff discrediting their information delivered to and distributed by the County Commissioners office. Ohio Rep. Jim Buchy (R-Greenville) even made a website that features videos of the ODNR staff discrediting the citizens’ concerns alongside Energy In Depth—the industry’s new pet PR firm.

How are public funds being used for these purposes? How much state officials’ staff time is being used to do PR, and by whom? What is the agency’s relationship with Halliburton, America’s Natural Gas Association and JobsOhio? When did the ODNR start working with Energy In Depth and what is their relationship?

Where does our state regulatory agency end, and the fracking industry they regulate begin?

State Reps. Hagan and Nickie J. Antonio (D-Lakewood) submitted a letter to Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder requesting legislative hearings and an investigation in to the ODNR’s agenda. If House Speaker Batchelder denies these requests, Ohioans will be forced to draw their own conclusions about whether or not the oil and gas industry has infiltrated the public process.

In fact, if there is no investigation, the public has every right to draw some very serious conclusions.

Kasich’s conundrum

The governor made stunning comments when he announced his reversal. First, that he didn’t believe that the “regulatory framework was mature enough” for fracking in parks. Second, this is why he never appointed the five-member Oil and Gas Leasing Commission before the deadline to approve public lands leases. (About that public lands leasing commission—the nominations were made by the Ohio Oil and Gas Association themselves during an e-mail exchange with the ODNR)

These are two very interesting statements.

One: if the regulatory framework is in fact not mature enough, then he apparently perceives that fracking isn’t safe enough for our public lands. The obvious question is: if it’s not safe enough for our public lands, is it safe enough for our communities? Does the governor agree that the ODNR seems incapable of regulating fracking and knows all too well about their sweetheart relationship with industry? Here’s the take from Sierra Club President David Scott:

“It seems Governor Kasich is coming to his senses after being caught up in the ongoing ‘FrackGate’ scandal. The governor now admits that the ‘regulatory structure’ is not ‘mature’ enough to allow fracking in Ohio’s parks. We agree. But the Sierra Club and our 2.4 million members and supporters understand that what is too dangerous for our parks is too dangerous for other public lands or our backyards. And everyone will agree that public officials shouldn’t be colluding with the oil and gas industry to force fracking down our throats.”

Two: is this actually about the severance tax? A Columbus Dispatch article earlier this week quotes Tom Stewart vice president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, “We would never compromise our position on the severance tax to get concessions on state land.” So, what Stewart is saying is that he’s not going to sue the governor for not making the appointments he wanted for the Ohio Oil and Gas leasing commission because he would rather pass a tax bill that the Ohio Oil and Gas Association admittedly wrote.

This is the real crux of the governor’s position. It explains why he’s holding off on making appointments to the leasing commission. It also explains why he left himself an out when he said he “holds the right to revisit” his opposition to fracking public lands. He’s using Ohio’s public lands as a bargaining chip.

Yes, it’s indeed a dubious business to dance with the fracking industry. Disclaimer: severance taxes on extractive industries aren’t necessarily a good thing.

So, what’s all of this severance tax business about anyway? Well, it’s actually really important and it’s become a very serious problem for the governor, though no one seems to be talking about how FrackGate and the severance tax are very much connected (except for Tim Kovach).

While already fighting an uphill battle to show job growth from fracking is anywhere near par with projections—Kasich is being outright stifled in his efforts to draw even a modest tax on the industry and follow through on his promises for Ohioans to actually benefit from fracking. Disaster struck for Kasich when Speaker of the House William Batchelder soundly defeated the Governor’s severance tax proposal that would have lowered income taxes for Ohioans and at least partially resolved significant questions about Ohio’s budget. All of that despite the fact that the Governor’s bill would have kept Ohio’s fracking tax among the lowest in the nation.

Batchelder immediately came back with Ohio Oil and Gas Association’s own Trojan horse severance tax, that marginally increased the tax from 2 percent to 2.25 percent, but grants other tax subsidies which the Ohio Legislative Service Commission shows would amount to an $8.5 million dollar loss for the General Revenue Fund [annually], including a $1.1 million dollar loss to the School District Property Tax Replacement Fund. If passed, Ohioans would lose out on any actual benefit from fracking, period. Kasich is being just plain out-dueled by his radical counterparts in the statehouse and their friends at the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.

Oddly, the governor might be in a ripe position to fight back. A moratorium on drilling and a full investigation of ODNR’s relationship with industry would certainly get their attention.

One thing is for certain—FrackGate has Ohio on notice, and the people are watching.

6 takeaways from the ODNR fracking memo scandal

fracking well
fracking well

A fracking well looms large above eastern Ohio’s rolling hills (courtesy of Inhabitat).

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has found itself in hot water after the Ohio Sierra Club obtained a document that showed the agency planned to actively promote oil and gas drilling in Ohio’s state parks. The memo details ODNR’s plans to actively counter opposition from environmental groups, which it labels as “eco-left pressure groups” and “skilled propagandists,” by collaborating with industry allies and like-minded third parties, including the Ohio Oil and Gas Alliance, Halliburton, and the US Chamber of Congress.

I don’t feel like spending an entire post responding to the document; there are plenty of stories about it already. Plunderbund has an excellent piece on the scandal, which is well worth reading in full:

While the document displays a startling collusion between the fossil fuel industry and the agency that’s supposed to regulate it, one should expect little more from the Kasich administration and its allies in the Statehouse. The Ohio GOP has devolved into little more than a mouthpiece for the industry at this point.

Just last month, Tony Stewart, the president of the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, told the Dispatch that it “came up with the methodology” behind HB 375, the GOP bill to rewrite Ohio’s tax laws for the industry. The bill, which makes Gov. Kasich’s original proposal look downright progressive, guarantees that Ohio would continue to give away its natural resources for pennies on the dollar.

Despite the inherent risks associated with fracking, the Ohio GOP seems far more interested in colluding with the industry that protecting the health and well-being of its constituents and the environment of our state. The state has bent over backwards to import fracking wastewater from Pennsylvania – trucking in more than 100 million gallons in 2011 alone – despite the fact that injection wells have caused more than 100 earthquakes near Youngstown. ODNR also allows fracking companies to dispose their waste, which can contain the radioactive element radium, in municipal dumps; the Ohio Environmental Council has labeled this practice “dump and glow.”

I just have a few additional thoughts to share on this story:

  1. This story does not reflect well on John Kasich, who has consistently tried to position himself as a “compassionate conservative” and seems to fancy himself a Republican leader in the model of Ronald Reagan. Having your administration actually develop a list that demonizes environmental groups and Democratic State Senators as “adversaries” who are attempting to “create public panic” and must be taken down comes off as a hell of a lot more Nixonian than Reaganesque.
  2. Memo to Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols, part 1: If you are trying to distance yourself from a politically damaging story by claiming that the Governor’s office was unaware of what ODNR was up to, maybe it’s a bad idea to call the environmentalists who raised this issue “extremist groups.” It’s tough to distance yourself from a document by parroting its language and implicitly endorsing it.
  3. Memo to Rob Nichols, part 2: Oh, and you’re probably going to need to do a better job explaining why 8 members of the administration were invited to a meeting to discuss the strategy that exact same day that the document was drafted. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation.
  4. If the Ohio GOP honestly believes that moderate environmental groups like the Ohio Environmental Council and NRDC are “extremists” and “propagandists,” they really need to get their heads checked. I guess when you’re that far to the right, all center-left environmentalists look like “enviro-socialist rent seekers,” to quote Senator Bill Seitz.
  5. I have my doubts that administration is only pushing drilling in state parks “to ensure a balance between wise use and protection of our natural resources for the benefit of all,” as the memo claims. It’s hard to believe that the same elected officials who are going out of their way to keep Ohio’s oil and gas severance taxes substantially lower than any other drilling state – willingly forgoing at least $800 million in tax revenues – are pushing fracking because “it will provide millions of dollars to restore deteriorating park and forest infrastructure.” It’s all about better bathrooms, folks.
  6. Lastly, it’s laughable that ODNR lists friends of parks/forests groups and communities who live near state parks/forests as “allied audiences” who would share the same goals as the administration. As I’ve noted in the past, the people who bear the greatest burden from natural resource extraction are those communities sitting on the front lines. Yet, despite the fact that fracking has damaged at least 360,000 acres of land nationally since 2005 (including more than 1,600 in Ohio), neither Governor Kasich’s bill nor HB 375 specifically sets aside a single dollar from severance taxes on the industry for affected communities. I’m just a tad bit skeptical that a group of lawmakers who ignore perhaps the single most important tenet of good natural resource governance is going to oversee fracking in a way that will cause no “disturbance” to our common, public heritage as Ohioans.

The restoration of wetlands is a major victory for the Great Lakes

9 mile wetland restored
9 mile wetland restored

Restoration of the Nine Mile Wetland in the Euclid Creek watershed (Source: Cuyahoga Soil & Water Conservation District)

Cross posted from Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.

Given the spate of bad news for the Great Lakes recently – from declining lake levels to toxic algal blooms to microplastic pollution to the threat of an Asian carp invasion – it may be hard for people to find any good news on the health of these vital bodies of water.

Fear not. The US Fish and Wildlife Service conducts a census of the nation’s wetlands every five years, and the latest report includes great news for the Great Lakes region – total wetland extent in the region expanded by 13,600 acres. As Sarah Goodyear wrote at Next City:

[S]ome 13,610 acres of coastal wetlands were added to the eight-state Great Lakes region between from 2004 and 2009. Given that the total wetlands acreage in the Great Lakes watershed is 8.5 million, that may not seem like a lot. Plus, some of that acreage comes from receding water that has exposed land. But it nevertheless represents a positive trend that stands in contrast to the rest of the country. During the study period, 360,720 acres of such wetlands disappeared across the nation at large.

History of wetlands destruction

The recent effort to conserve wetlands has reversed a centuries-long trend. When Europeans reached North America in the early 1600s, approximately 221 million acres of wetlands covered much of what would become the United States. Due to rapid clearing of these ecosystems to make room for settlements and provide timber for the expanding country, Americans cleared 118 million acres (53.4% of the total wetland area) by the early 1980s.

Unfortunately, Ohio stood at the forefront of wetland destruction. From the 1780s to the 1980s, the state lost 90% of its total wetlands, trailing only California’s 91% loss. This number includes the astonishing destruction of the Black Swamp, which once spanned much of the northwestern corner of the state. In just 25 years (approximately 1860-1885), a wetland that covered an area roughly the size of Connecticut completely disappeared.

This wave of wetland degradation and destruction has its roots in our consistent tendency to undervalue the important services wetlands provide. As The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History notes, early settlers in the Western Reserve (present day Cleveland) viewed their initial settlement along the Cuyahoga River as “a miasmic, disease-ridden swamp.” This view of wetlands was eventually codified into law; from 1849-1860, Congress passed a series of Swamp Land Acts, which gave 15 states control over all wetlands in their territories – a total of 64.9 million acres – for reclamation projects.

Benefits of wetlands conservation

As time has passed and more research has been done, however, it is increasingly clear that wetlands are among the most important ecosystems on Earth.

Wetlands provide a myriad of benefits. They serve as crucial refuges for fish species; research suggests wetlands can have fish populations that are 4-10 times more abundant [PDF] than other ecosystems. They also improve water quality. The degradation of coastal wetlands significantly compromises the quality of water in the surrounding areas, creating $16 billion in losses from pollution every year. Additionally, wetlands act as important buffers against coastal storms and floods. The conservation of the wetlands along the Charles River near Boston prevents $40 million in flood-related costs annually. Overall, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assessed the economic value of the world’s wetlands [PDF] at $17 trillion.

Clearly, the addition of 13,600 acres of wetlands to the Great Lakes region represents a major victory, particularly in light of their continued destruction worldwide. Since the 1980s, for instance, human activities have destroyed 35% of remaining mangroves, a form of tropical coastal wetlands.

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Much of the success in this are stems from the work of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), a federal initiative that President Obama established in 2009. The GLRI has provided more than $1 billion to enhance the Great Lakes region over the last five years. These funds have and continue to go to protecting wetlands throughout the area, including the restoration of wetlands along the Euclid Creek.

Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc. recognizes the important services that our wetlands provide, particularly the role they play protecting the quality and quantity of our water resources. We celebrate the expansion of coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes region in recent years and support ongoing efforts to strengthen our coastal ecosystems through programs like GLRI, and we remain committed to educating people on the vital role that wetlands play in keeping our Great Lakes great.

How oil will make Syria’s civil war even deadlier

syrian oil field worker
syrian oil field worker

Many Syrians now work in the oil fields of Deir el Zour in order to make a living (courtesy of McClatchy).

The New York Times published an article yesterday that likely raised some eyebrows.

Islamist rebels and extremist groups have seized control of most of Syria’s oil and gas resources, a rare generator of cash in the country’s war-battered economy, and are now using the proceeds to underwrite their fights against one another as well as President Bashar al-Assad, American officials say.

While the oil and gas fields are in serious decline, control of them has bolstered the fortunes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, and the Nusra Front, both of which are offshoots of Al Qaeda. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is even selling fuel to the Assad government, lending weight to allegations by opposition leaders that it is secretly working with Damascus to weaken the other rebel groups and discourage international support for their cause.

Needless to say, this is a disconcerting series of events. But the fact that does not make it surprising.

To date, there has been a lot of ink spilled on how natural resources and/or climate change may have contributed to the ongoing civil war. The Center for Climate and Security, probably the best source of information on this subject, has assembled a collection of  more than three dozen such articles. There appears to be a solid case that the combination of an historic drought (likely driven by climate change) and incredibly poor water resource management by the al-Assad regime may have helped sparked the crisis. (It would obviously be excessively reductive and deterministic to claim that climate change caused the conflict, but it likely contributed to it. Anyways, I digress.)

But helping drive the onset of violent conflict constitutes just one of the three major ways that we know natural resources contribute to conflict. Natural resources can help finance ongoing conflict and create incentives for leaders to spoil peace efforts in order to continue profiting from resource rents.

These two connections appear to be quite common facets of modern conflict. We know, for instance, that Charles Taylor funded violence in Liberia by exploiting the illegal timber trade and that both parties in the Angolan civil war financed their war efforts by selling diamonds. Moreover, the ready availability of revenues from opium production in Afghanistan and diamonds in Sierra Leone have provided incentives for warlords and rebel leaders to avoid brokering peace and to finance resumed conflict.

nr wars

This chart lists 18 recent civil conflicts which involved natural resources (courtesy of UNEP).

In fact, according to the UN Environment Programme, natural resources have helped to fuel some 40% of all civil conflicts since 1960. Given these realities, it is wholly unsurprising – though no less disconcerting – that rebel groups like ISIS and the Nusra Front have turned to oil reserves in the areas under their control.

There was one new and disturbing piece of information buried in the article, though.

A second American official said that while Mr. Assad’s government is growing ever more desperate for oil, [ISIS] is becoming increasingly independent of wealthy donors in the Persian Gulf and other funding sources. As the group has gained control of more territory, it has been able to sustain its operations through a combination of oil revenues, border tolls, extortion and granary sales, the official said.

As ISIS continues to stuff its war chest with oil rents, it no longer depends as heavily upon its Persian Gulf benefactors. This outcome risks to further exacerbate the brutal nature of the conflict, as ISIS finds itself free of any restrictions that may have previously been attached to its funding (granted, it’s unlikely that these groups would be concerned about the dictates of donors, but they may have, at least, had to deal with practical restrictions due to a lack of resources).

Beardsley & McQuinn previously explored the relationship between rebel group behavior and funding sources (paywall). They compared two rebel groups – the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) in Indonesia and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka.

They found that GAM had to rely heavily upon the local population to raise revenues and recruit fighters. This process required GAM to expend a considerable amount of effort and resources; Beardsley & McQuinn note that the relatively meager funds it raised and small number of fighters in its ranks meant that GAM used low return on investment (ROI) methods to finance its rebellion. Accordingly, the group needed to remain attentive to the needs of the Acehnese people, which drove its leaders to the bargaining table after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami devastated the region.

LTTE, in contrast, was able to procure funding and recruits much more readily. The group financed its war effort through a combination of extorting payments, controlling business enterprises, and garnering donations from Tamils abroad. These tactics had a much higher ROI and did not require LTTE to consider the needs of the people in conflict-affected areas. As a result, the group was much more willing to engage in violent attacks that either directly harmed Tamils or that garnered retribution on Tamils in return. Additionally, the group saw little incentive in brokering peace after the tsunami, as it had more to gain from ongoing conflict than from international aid flows. The Sri Lankan civil war only ended in 2009 after Colombo brutally suppressed LTTE controlled areas.

So while it should come as no surprise that Syrian rebels, including al Qaeda-linked groups, would turn to oil resources for funding, it should raise red flags. The Syrian civil war isn’t going to end anytime soon, regardless of what happens in Geneva, and this new report suggests that things are only going to get much, much worse long before they improve.

Ohio’s oil & gas industry literally wrote HB 375

state rep. matt huffman

State Representative Matt Huffman (R-Lima) is the main sponsor of HB 375 (courtesy of Ohio House GOP).

As a follow-up to my piece on the horrors of HB 375, Ohio Republicans’ plan to alter the state’s severance tax on the oil & gas industry, I came across an article from The Columbus Dispatch on the potential impact of the bill to tax revenues in the state:

The state tax commissioner says the impact on Ohio taxpayers of a tax plan for the state’s burgeoning oil and gas industry — sold as a way to reduce Ohioans’ taxes — cannot be predicted.

“The bill has some significant components that would have unpredictable impacts on state revenues,” Tax Commissioner Joe Testa told The Dispatch. “Specifically, the net-proceeds model it’s based on gives us no way of knowing what net figure these taxpayers will be declaring.”

Testa joins the nonpartisan budget analysis arm of the legislature in declaring the financial impact of the severance tax in House Bill 375 difficult to ascertain. Money would go for drilling oversight, capping of orphan wells and a minor annual income-tax cut.

“It allows for credits to be taken against other taxes for severance tax paid,” he said. “That approach is a lot like the old corporate franchise tax that Ohio wisely did away with because there were too many loopholes.”

Buried at the bottom of the article, however, is a single clause in the last sentence of the piece that, while not surprising in the least, is definitely illuminating. Tom Stewart, the president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association noted that

oil and gas interests came up with the methodology used in the legislation.

In other words, the industry wrote the language on what may be the most important piece of legislation regulating their profits in Ohio over the last 40 years.

We already knew that HB 375 amounted to little more than a massive giveaway to Ohio’s oil & gas industry. Now we have proof, straight from the horse’s mouth.

Ohio can’t afford the GOP’s massive giveaway to the oil & gas industry

fracking well ohio
fracking well ohio

A hydraulic fracturing well looms large over the Ohio countryside (courtesy of Ideastream).

In March 2012, the Ohio House of Representatives introduced HB 487, a bill which included changes to the way that Ohio taxes oil and gas extraction in the state. Ohio’s current system of regulating oil and gas production was implemented in 1972. Almost everything about the energy sector in the United States has changed drastically in the last 40-plus years; I wish I could say these regulations were included.

Ohio’s existing severance tax

Ernst & Young analyzed Ohio’s existing severance tax and Governor Kasich’s proposed changes (PDF) in 2012. E&Y compared Ohio’s tax policy to that of seven other oil and gas producing states. Of the eight states, Ohio has by far the lowest effective tax rate (ETR). The state’s combined ETR of 1.8% is 80% lower than the average in the seven other states. Based on a 2011 analysis from Policy Matters Ohio, this tax rate has cost the state millions in foregone tax revenues. From 2001-2010, the  value of the oil and natural gas extracted within the state was $8.38 billion. But Ohio collected a mere $26,017,858 in taxes – equal to 0.31% of the market value. That’s not at typo. Using these numbers, Policy Matters projected the amount of severance taxes that Ohio would collect from shale gas production from 2012-2015, compared to five surrounding states. Of the $10.77 billion in estimated value, Ohio will capture just $39.8 million in taxes. Compare this number to West Virginia and Michigan, whose 5% tax would bring in $538.4 million.

The Kasich proposal

Clearly, Ohio’s current severance tax sucks. Governor Kasich’s plan was supposedly introduced to rectify this issue. The proposal would have doubled severance taxes on oil from conventional, vertical wells to $0.20 per barrel and altered the tax on natural gas from vertical wells to the lessor of 1% of the market value of the gas or $0.03 per thousand cubic feet (mcf). It would have also priced oil and gas from horizontal wells, which is produced using the controversial hydraulic fracturing method, separately. This oil would have been taxed at 1.5% of the market value for one year, then at 4% for the lifetime of the well. Natural gas from fracking wells would have been taxed at 1% across the board. E&Y’s analysis found that this proposal would have increased the effective severance tax rate from just 1.8% to 2.7% overall; however, Ohio would still have the lowest tax rate in the region. Under Kasich’s proposal, Ohio’s ETR for an average oil/gas well would be just 40% lower. What a relief.

Ohio Republicans strike back, introduce HB 375

And yet, Ohio Republicans balked at Kasich’s plan. During budget deliberations, the plan was completely stripped out of the bill. Recently, Ohio Republicans finally offered up their alternative to Kasich’s proposal. State Rep. Matt Hoffman (R-Lima) introduced HB 375 on December 5. Shockingly, the bill has overwhelming support from the oil & gas industry.

Thomas Stewart, head of the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, issued a statement saying the bill “includes a sensible modification of the severance tax based on actual well economics.”I’m not sure what energy economics textbook Mr. Stewart is reading from, but suffice it to say he’s just a tad off the mark. Headwaters Economics issued a report in 2012 that included a list of 12 recommendations for crafting fiscal policies for the oil and gas sector. HB 375 goes against every single recommendation. So let’s compare the bill to just three of these recommendations.

1. Maintain a high effective tax rate

Headwaters argues that it is essential for states to keep a high ETR on their mineral deposits, because it provides additional resources to mitigate the impacts of drilling and allows them to invest in long-term economic development.

kevin bacon dancing

Even 1980s Kevin Bacon knows that the oil & gas industry isn’t footloose (courtesy of People Magazine).

Contrary to fear-mongering from industry reps and the Ohio GOP, the oil & gas industry is not going to flee the state and give up concessions just because the state increases slightly its pathetically low severance tax. As Headwaters notes, Montana had an ETR of 4.6% for oil and gas in 2011. Neighboring North Dakota, in contrast, keeps its rate at 9.9%. Despite this, North Dakota has seen significantly more drilling activity, and Montana’s poorly-designed tax policy cost the state $60 million in foregone tax receipts in 2010 alone.

The minerals sector is not directly comparable to other economic activities, like the service sector. Oil and gas producers migrate to where the oil and gas deposits are, not where taxes are lowest. The industry is not, in economics parlance, particularly footloose. If it were, then Texas and Alaska, where tax rates are 8.2% and 25%, respectively, would not be leading producers. There is simply no valid evidence to suggest that slightly higher severance tax rates will keep companies from drilling here.

Yet, HB 375 institutes tax rates even lower than Kasich’s proposal. It would lower the tax on conventional gas from $0.025 per mcf to $0.015 per mcf. It also repeals the regulatory cost recovery assessment fee passed in 2010 to offset the costs of land reclamation. And, for horizontal wells, it introduces a severance tax of 1% of the value of net proceeds from oil/gas sales for 20 months; this tax then increases to 2%.

2.Remove “holiday” incentives

Several states have production tax “holidays” during the early days of oil and gas production. The logic behind these tax holidays is based on the fact that, for conventional wells, there is a lengthy gap between the drilling phase and the production phase (when the oil/gas is actually flowing). This gap can be upwards of two years for vertical wells.

But this model does not apply to horizontal wells. The drilling phase for a horizontal well is compressed, and the production phase typically jump starts thereafter. The majority of oil/gas from horizontal wells is extracted during the the first two years, after which production drops precipitously – by more than 60% in just one year in most cases.

shale gas production cycle

This image from the EIA charts the production cycles of shale wells across five different shale plays.

By providing a five-year tax holiday, HB 375 effectively ensures that Ohio will forfeit the overwhelming majority of tax revenues from its oil and gas deposits. By the time that the tax rate increased to 2% in year six, it’s entirely likely that drillers may have simply moved onto the next well.

3. Guarantee adequate local share in revenue collections

A central tenet of good oil/gas policy is to guarantee that the benefits of the fuels are adequately shared with communities on the front lines of extraction. As I’ve written before, the US isn’t somehow immune to the impacts of the natural resource curse. Far from it. One can find evidence of the resource curse from horrifically high mortality rates (PDF) in Appalachia to skyrocketing crime rates in North Dakota to groundwater pollution from fracking in multiple states to increased damage to infrastructure in Texas.

HB 375 does nothing to support front line communities. Ohio’s past two biennial budgets have taken a toll on local governments. Ohio Republicans balanced the state budget by holding onto tax revenues that should have been returned to local governments. The 2014-2015 budget reduces the amount of money local governments will receive by $1.4 billion. HB 375 simply exacerbates the issue further. Under the proposal, the funds raised would go to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to cover the costs regulating the industry, remediating abandoned wells, and conducting geological surveys for the industry. Any additional funds would go to reduce personal income taxes. This policy would disproportionately benefit the wealthy and leave those directly affected by drilling on the outside looking in.

HB 375: Great for the industry, terrible for Ohio

All told, Policy Matters Ohio found that HB 375 would cost the state $620-800 million over the next decade, compared to the Kasich proposal (which is far from ideal policy). The bill amounts to little more than a giant handout to the oil & gas industry. Ohio’s current oil/gas severance tax is a 40-year old relic of terrible policymaking. It would be a challenge to make a policy that’s worse.

Somehow, Ohio Republicans have crafted a bill so terrible that it gives existing law a run for its money. If you were looking to develop a policy that took the full advantage of our natural resource endowment and benefited ordinary Ohioans, you could hardly do worse than HB 375. But, on the other hand, if your goal was to benefit the wealthy, well-connected, and your political benefactors, you would be pressed to outdo HB 375.

This bill is egregiously bad policy. Naturally, I expect it will be on Kasich’s desk by the spring.

The resource curse is coming to town

The discovery of oil deposits has, in many ways, been a curse for Nigeria's Ogoniland province, which has been plagued by environmental degradation and civil conflict (courtesy of Reuters).

The discovery of oil deposits has, in many ways, been a curse for Nigeria’s Ogoniland region, which has been plagued by environmental degradation and civil conflict (courtesy of Reuters).

Oil and natural gas from shale will be a “game changer” for Ohio, one that “has given fresh life to energy development,” according to Jack Gerard, the president & CEO of the American Petroleum Institute. The Plain Dealer has matter-of-factly stated that the boom in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in states like Ohio is “expected to create thousands of jobs and add billions to the state’s economy.”

That expanded oil and gas production will generate myriad economic benefits is largely taken for granted in most circles. For the most part, opponents of fracking for oil and gas have focused almost exclusively on the potential environmental consequences, such as water and air pollution, radioactivity, and an increased risk of earthquakes.

But a new study from Headwaters Economics has thrown some cold water on this conventional wisdom. What if, instead of bringing socioeconomic development to energy-rich areas, oil and gas production could actually make these communities worse off?

The natural resource curse

This concept, the so-called “natural resource curse,” has long been studied in international relations and environmental circles. Several studies have demonstrated a strong connection between natural resource abundance and stymied economic growth on an international level, particularly in the developing world. In a 1995 paper, Sachs & Warner concluded that reliance on natural resource dependence can decrease economic growth by around 1% per year.

natural resource dependence and growth rates

This figure, from Sachs & Warner (2001), charts the relationship between natural resource dependence and economic growth rates from 1970-1989. As it suggests, those countries whose economies depend heavily on natural resource exports had lower real growth rates during this period, and vice versa.

There are several reasons (PDF) why natural resource wealth and dependence could harm socioeconomic development. I will outline three below.

First, a boom in natural resource extraction can increase price levels throughout the economy (PDF), raising a country’s exchange rate. As a result, resource wealthy states tend to have higher costs for export goods, reducing their competitiveness on global markets.

Secondly, higher real wages can create an incentive for individuals to forgo employment in other areas to pursue opportunities in the extractives industries. This reliance upon extractives can crowd out investment in manufacturing, limiting the ability of the industry to become more efficient over time. These outcomes can harm innovation and entrepreneurship (PDF), which may create long-lasting ramifications for the economy.

Thirdly, resource-dependent countries are highly susceptible to rent-seeking behavior and the pathologies that can come along with it, such as political violence, up to and including civil conflict. As de Soysa and Binningsbø (paywall) put it:

Resource rents apparently create factional political states, where rent capture allows politicians to survive by dispensing rents, rather than making hard choices about reform. Political survival dictates profligacy and waste, rather than providing public goods.

Rather than investing in important public goods, leaders of resource-rich states can simply make direct payments to important elites or buy off potential challengers. Resource revenues also tend to accrue to state, rather than staying in source communities. As a result, while some actors will benefit from extraction, the communities on the ground tend to suffer the effects without reaping the rewards.

The lure or resource rents can also drive groups to try to capture control of the state. As a result, a plethora of studies have shown that states dependent on natural resources experience higher rates of internal political violence (paywall) and a greater risk of experiencing civil war.

six western states oil and gas income levels

The study explores the effects of oil and gas development on socioeconomic development in six states from 1980-2011 (courtesy of Headwaters Economics).

The resource curse comes to the United States

But while the negative consequences of resource dependence are well-known for the developing world, the same cannot be said for the Untied States. In order to investigate the long-term impacts of using oil & gas extraction as an economic development policy, Headwaters analyzed the effects of an early 1980s oil boom in six Western states: Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The study explored the long-term impacts of the boom on social and economic development from 1980-2011, analyzing data from 207 counties in the states.

While many observers consider the oil and gas boom to be a positive development in the West – the curren oil boom in the Bakken shale has helped lower North Dakota’s unemployment rate to just over 3% – Headwaters’ findings challenge this perception. Rather than contributed to sustained, positive outcomes, these counties actually experienced many of the same consequences of the resource curse that I outlined earlier.

First, the authors found that the counties most dependent on oil and gas extraction actually had lower levels of per capita income during this period. These counties saw per capita income levels decrease by $7,000, on average. One reason for this outcome may be that boom towns typically see the cost of living skyrocket in the short-term, which can raise prices and offset income gains. In Fort McMurray, the heart of Alberta’s tar sands industry, for instance, the population has tripled in recent decades. The formerly rural area, which is now bursting at the seams, has the highest housing prices in Alberta, and is deficient in 70 of 72 quality-of-life indicators.

Secondly, the study suggests that the resource sector can have a crowding out effect. The lure of the extractives industries, which have lower education requirements, tends to lower the percentage of adults with a college education. Those counties that were most heavily invested in oil and gas had, on average, 2.5% fewer college-educated adults than the rest of the sample counties. And the environmental consequences of resource extraction are well known.

Thirdly, the authors note that “the longer a county has been specialized on oil and gas, the higher the county’s crime rate.” This outcome would seem to reflect the fact that natural resource dependence leads to rent-seeking behavior and increased levels of violence. Most oil and gas boom towns are chock full of young men. The flood of young men into the Bakken shale (where they outnumber women by nearly 2-1 in some areas) has driven up crime rates by as much as one-third in Montana and North Dakota. Many women have reported being sexual harassed and feeling increasingly threatened due to the changing demographics.

The study fails to examine the environmental and public health impacts of resource dependence. However, other studies have shown that coal-mining communities in Appalachia have significantly higher adult and child mortality rates (PDF) than other communities in the region.

While the authors of the Headwaters study are careful to point out its limitations – causality cannot be proven and the results are unique to the sample areas – it does provide a cautionary tale to officials who are hoping to cash in on their region’s natural resource endowments.

Oil and gas extraction can be a way to jump start a stagnant economy in the short-term, as the study suggests. But states need to ensure that they are taxing resource extraction appropriately and investing these tax revenues in public goods for the communities on the front lines. Though bending over backwards for the oil and gas industries – as Ohio’s Republican lawmakers appear all too eager to do – may benefit some well-connected individuals, many more in these communities will suffer in both the short- and long-term.

Oil and gas deposits can be important endowments, but they don’t constitute a real development strategy. States need to think twice before putting all their eggs in one basket.