Tag Archives: attra

Centuries worth of CO2 emissions could be stored underground, but at what cost?

Centuries worth of CO2 emissions could be stored underground, but at what cost?

Radoslaw Maciejewski / Shutterstock

We could store CO2 underground, though not in the London Underground.

We could liquefy and cram our carbon dioxide emissions into the ground for some 500 years before America’s geologic basins started to overflow with the stuff.

That’s according to a new assessment by federal scientists, who spent years scouring America for porous rocks thousands of feet beneath the ground that might be appropriate for carbon sequestration.

They studied 36 geologic basins that could be suitable and found that the best region for storing waste CO2 would be the Gulf Coast. From the Houston Chronicle:

Brenda Pierce, energy resources program coordinator for the U.S. Geological Survey, … said one reason the Gulf is attractive is its relative lack of fresh groundwater, since any area with fresh groundwater was eliminated as a potential storage site. In addition, only rock layers deep enough to keep carbon dioxide under sufficient pressure to remain liquid and to prevent it from escaping were considered a good fit.

But just because the storage space is available doesn’t mean that the approach would be feasible. Or safe.

The scientists say the 36 potential underground storage spots might be able to hold roughly 3,000 metric gigatons of liquefied CO2. For context, the U.S. releases between 5 and 6 metric gigatons of CO2 every year from power plants, vehicles, and other spots where fuel is burned to produce energy.

Two-thirds of the total storage potential was found to be in the Coastal Plains region, mostly along the Gulf Coast. The dark gray spots on this map show the areas that were assessed:

USGS

But most of America’s CO2 emissions come from coal-burning power plants that are located far from the Gulf. To get the CO2 from the power plants to the Gulf, it would need to be ferried through pipelines, and that would be a costly proposition. From Platts:

[T]he study clearly shows that the basins with the highest potential for carbon storage are away from the Southeast region, Mid-Atlantic and Ohio Valley, which accounts for 65% of the US’ coal-fired capacity, according to the US Energy Information Administration. This means that despite the US storage potential, infrastructure needs — including a number of new pipelines which need to be built to connect power plants, compression stations and these basins — could make geologic sequestration costly.

De Smog Blog points to even more financial hurdles:

According to a database maintained at MIT’s Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies program, there are currently six large scale CCS projects underway in the United States. Five of the six projects are still in the planning phase, with one project listed as under construction. The current projected price tag of these six projects is a whopping $16.7 billion.

That’s a lot to gamble on a risky technology that continues to struggle to prove it’s even possible to deploy on a global scale. And $16.7 billion is only the opening bet. A full scale deployment of CCS technology across the entire US would likely be in the hundreds of billions. Estimates run as high as $1.5 trillion a year to deploy and operate enough carbon capture and storage worldwide to significantly reduce carbon emissions from the fossil fuels we consume.

It’s also worth remembering that carbon sequestration can trigger earthquakes. Tremblers at CCS sites could not only cause physical damage around them, but release sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere, thereby making the whole effort futile.

And who knows what other problems might arise in the decades or centuries to come from stuffing all that liquefied CO2 into the ground.

Still, considering the massive threat posed by climate change, carbon sequestration is worth investigating. “The United States has the ability to store a lot of carbon dioxide,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. “If this proves to be economically viable — and that hasn’t been answered in this study — sequestration could help.”

That said, there would be no carbon dioxide emissions to store if we switched over to renewables.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Follow this link – 

Centuries worth of CO2 emissions could be stored underground, but at what cost?

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Centuries worth of CO2 emissions could be stored underground, but at what cost?

L.A. launches nation’s largest solar rooftop program

L.A. launches nation’s largest solar rooftop program

Shutterstock

Bits of a new solar power plant could go there. And there. And there and there and there and there and there.

The first small shoots of what will grow into a sprawling solar power plant have sprouted in Los Angeles.

L.A.’s Department of Water and Power is rolling out the country’s biggest urban rooftop program, which will pay residents for solar energy they produce in excess of their own needs. That will give residents a reason to install more solar capacity on their roofs than they can use in their homes.

On Wednesday, the first solar-generated watts produced under the Clean L.A. Solar program came from the rooftop of an apartment complex in North Hollywood. From the L.A. Times:

The goal of the effort, the brainchild of the Los Angeles Business Council, is to generate 150 megawatts of solar electricity, or enough to power about 30,000 homes. The council hopes to attract investments totaling $500 million from a growing list of companies that want to invest in L.A.’s push to go green by setting up large clusters of rooftop solar panels.

“It is really a no-brainer,” said Christian Wentzel, chief executive of Solar Provider Group, which installed the North Hollywood panels. Long-term contracts with the DWP cemented the Los Angeles company’s plans to invest $50 million in 17 projects to tap the region’s sun-drenched climate.

Four years in the making, Clean L.A. Solar serves as part of the city’s answer to the state mandate to generate 33% of electricity using renewable sources by 2020. DWP officials project the solar purchasing program will help L.A. reach 25% of the state mandated by 2016.

So if you start noticing Angelenos installing solar systems that are much bigger than they should need, don’t dismiss it as typical L.A. extravagance.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Cities

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit link: 

L.A. launches nation’s largest solar rooftop program

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, solar power, Sprout, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on L.A. launches nation’s largest solar rooftop program

Senate Zeroes In On Border Security Compromise

Mother Jones

The controversial border security amendment authored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), derided by Democrats as a “poison pill,” was voted down Thursday on the Senate floor. That leaves the door open for a less restrictive border security compromise brokered this week with the bipartisan Gang of Eight by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.). The measure would require doubling the number of border patrol agents to 40,000 and expanding a southern border fence to 700 miles at a cost of $30 billion.

After his amendment was tabled, Cornyn told Mother Jones that he wouldn’t decide whether to endorse the Corker-Hoeven compromise until he saw the full text. “They have helped focus attention on border security and why it’s so important to the bill, but I’m going to reserve any comments, obviously, until I have a chance to actually read it,” Cornyn said.

“How much more is it going to cost?” Cornyn later asked Hoeven on the floor. Hoeven, citing Tuesday’s Congressional Budget Office report on the immigration bill that projected a $197 billion federal deficit reduction over 10 years, said that would more than pay for the amendment’s $30 billion price tag. (Cornyn’s bill just called for a reallocation of $6.5 billion of border security funds already in the bill.) Others, like Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)—who introduced a multi-billion dollar proposal of his own that was rejected in committee—dismissed the Corker-Hoeven amendment as something that “will just throw money at the border.” (If recent history is any indication, Sessions is probably right.)

The Gang of Eight nevertheless believes that the Corker-Hoeven amendment will attract around 10 more conservative votes, but even if the Senate bill passes with the 70 votes the gang wants in order to pressure the House to pass a comprehensive companion bill, it’s not clear the lower chamber will move in that direction. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who chairs the judiciary committee, is opposed to a comprehensive bill; on Tuesday his committee began deliberations on a series of piecemeal bills on law enforcement issues. On Thursday, Goodlatte expressed skepticism about the Corker-Hoeven compromise, telling reporters that simply beefing up border security wouldn’t address issues such as immigrants who enter the country legally but stay after their visas expire. (Later, Corker said on the Senate floor that he hoped the House would add such a measure.)

“I think the House is a whole different animal,” Cornyn said, asked if he thought the successful passage of the Corker-Hoeven amendment might get a majority of House Republicans—the minimum level of support that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said it would take before he allowed a vote on comprehensive immigration reform—to take up the Senate bill. “They’re going to produce their own bill. It’s all about getting to conference committee,” where differences between the House and Senate bills would be resolved.

Link: 

Senate Zeroes In On Border Security Compromise

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Senate Zeroes In On Border Security Compromise

Your Compost Will Not Attract Vermin, Take Over Your Apartment or Produce Toxic Fumes

Photo: GPL

Environmentally conscientious New Yorkers will soon be able to compost their organic food scraps without walking 20 minutes to the nearest Green Market or tending to a bucket of worms to create their own homegrown soil. Last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he’s implementing a food composting program in the city. Like regular garbage and recyclables, the city will offer curbside pick-up of compostable food scraps such as banana peels, coffee grinds and wilted veggies.

Not everyone is on board, however. Some New Yorkers cite a fear of hypothetical vermin. The New York Post, for example, reports:

Skeptical city residents say Mayor Bloomberg’s new food-waste-recycling program is a great idea — if you’re a rat.

“Recycling, in general, takes a lot of effort,” said Geneva Jeanniton, 22, a hairstylist from East Flatbush, Brooklyn.

“People have to be willing to do it. We might not have room for compost inside. It’s difficult to make space for, and pests are definitely a concern.”

Of course, those organic scraps currently wind up in the garbage anyway. The New York Post doesn’t explain why they would be more likely to attract vermin stored on a separate container rather than in the trash bin. And while it’s true that following environmental regulations can be annoying, that’s not exactly a reason to discount them. Most would likely agree that the Clean Water and Air Acts, for example, were a good thing.

Space is another complaint that comes up, but compost advocates say it’s also a flimsy excuse. Even the most crowded New York apartment is garunteed to have space for a small bag of scraps, whether in the freezer, under a sink, in the back of a closet or on top of the shelves. Rebecca Louie, aka the Compostess, is a certified composter who helps New Yorkers deal with their greatest fears about composting (as in, producing their own compost rather than just putting their scraps out on the curb for the city to conveniently deal with). Most of people’s worries, she told Edible Magazine, are completely unfounded in reality:

“Whether you have a penthouse or a studio, I will find a space in your space where you can start doing this,” she says.

[She] calmly alleviates her clients’ fears about odors (save for the occasional “gentle onion breeze,” composting done right only produces perfumes of “beautiful earth”) and cockroaches (they can’t invade so long as the bin is properly sealed).

“Things can be done to prevent whatever people’s greatest fears are,” she says. “Like a personal trainer or accountant, I know that every client has his or her own schedule, set of needs, concerns and degree to which they want to engage with their compost system.”

Meanwhile, a research team raised eyebrows with results showing that a number of fungal species, including some that could be harmful to humans, turn up in compost made of rice, sugar cane and coffee, mixed with livestock poop. Of course, unless you’re mixing livestock poop in with your lunch, this study doesn’t really apply to NYC composters. That doesn’t stop some from worrying though. Here’s Inkfish:

Although the composts De Gannes studied weren’t quite what New Yorkers would be collecting in their kitchens—unless they’re keeping pet sheep too—some of the potentially dangerous fungi she found have also turned up in studies of all-plant compost.

Keeping a compost bucket in an enclosed space is “potentially risky,” Hickey and De Gannes wrote in an email. Fungal spores floating on the air can cause infections, especially in people with weakened immune systems. “Compost kept in an enclosed area like a small apartment would probably not have adequate ventilation.”

What Inkfish doesn’t mention is that these fungal samples were collected after the compost sat around for 82 days – a bit longer than the week or less that it will take the city to come collect your scraps.

So far, the thousands of people who already create their own compost in enclosed apartments do not seem to have fallen victim to a bout of eye and lung infections. And the residents of the cities of San Francisco and Portland, where compost pick up has long been offered by the city, haven’t complained much.

And if you’re really paranoid about fungus you’ve got some options. Simply freezing the scraps can alleviate any fears of fungal attack, and compost bins can also be installed alongside buildings’ garbage and recycling containers in the basement or on the curb, as they are on the West coast.

Plus, composting has some environmental benefits to consider: when organic matter decays in tightly packed, oxygen-poor landfills, it releases methane, a greenhouse gas around 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Every day, New York produces around 12,000 tons of organic waste. Is putting a bag of wilted lettuce into a compost pick-up bin next to your garbage really so much to ask?

More from Smithsonian.com:

Turning Fallen Leaves into Dinner Plates
Corn Plastic to the Rescue

From: 

Your Compost Will Not Attract Vermin, Take Over Your Apartment or Produce Toxic Fumes

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Your Compost Will Not Attract Vermin, Take Over Your Apartment or Produce Toxic Fumes

Can the Christian Right Persuade Republicans to Fix Obamacare?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A loyal reader just emailed to beg me to write about something other than NSA surveillance. I make no promises for the future, since I’m pretty caught up by the story, but perhaps a breather is in order. Luckily, Ann Kim and Ed Kilgore have served up a perfect little morsel to warm the heart of any liberal.

As you know, conservatives are doing everything they can to sabotage Obamacare. This includes court fights, refusal to expand Medicaid even though it’s practically free, declining to set up state exchanges, and, of course, the flat rejection of any tweaks to Obamacare from House Republicans. The problem is that any big law is likely to need small adjustments here and there to clarify things or fix small bugs, but Republicans don’t want to fix bugs. They want Obamacare to fail, so as far as they’re concerned, bugs are good things. But what happens if one of those bugs happens to impact a key part of the GOP base?

For the first time, a constituency group to whom the GOP normally pays close attention—religious institutions—is asking for a legislative “fix” of the Affordable Care Act to make it work as intended….Without the requested “fix,” as many as one million clergy members and church employees now enrolled in church-sponsored health plans could soon face the choice of leaving these plans (designed to meet their unique needs, such as the frequent reassignment of clergy across state lines) or losing access to the tax subsidies provided by the ACA to help lower-to-middle income Americans purchase insurance.

Observers generally agree that the exclusion of church health plans from eligibility for the exchanges, which occurred because they do not sell policies to the general public, was an oversight caused by staffers scrambling to draft bill language under tight deadlines. Because employees of religious institutions are usually paid modestly, many will qualify for subsidies made available on a sliding scale to families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. But the subsidies can only be used to purchase insurance from the exchanges.

Apparently this problem is starting to attract the attention of religious groups, including large, conservative denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, who don’t want their clergy to lose access to tax breaks just because of an unintentional drafting error. But can even the Christian Right persuade House Republicans to take a short break from their scorched-earth campaign against Obamacare? Stay tuned.

Source: 

Can the Christian Right Persuade Republicans to Fix Obamacare?

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Can the Christian Right Persuade Republicans to Fix Obamacare?

"Veep" Creator Armando Iannucci on Why He’d Never, Ever Allow Joe Biden on The Show

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Armando Iannucci, the acclaimed satirist and creator of the HBO comedy Veep, is a self-described longtime politics geek. When he was growing up in a Scottish-Italian household in Glasgow, he stayed up late to watch American election results—the first US presidential election he watched with a budding fascination was in 1976, when Carter trumped Ford. His childhood attraction to observing UK and US politics evidently carried over into adulthood. The 49-year-old writer/director has a number of well-regarded political satires under his belt, and he’s influenced such comic darlings as Sacha Baron Cohen, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Ricky Gervais.

Since the mid-1990s, Iannucci has been noted for a patented mold of rollicking commentary—a brand of comedy that takes mischievous deromanticization of political elites, and filters it through his rapid-fire sardonicism. (Prime examples are his work in British television including The Day Today and The Thick of It, and the latter’s brilliant 2009 spin-off film In the Loop.) Many of his scripts are famous for their blitzes of carefully constructed, linguistically acrobatic profanity that’s acidic enough to qualify as minor human rights abuses.

Continue Reading »

Credit: 

"Veep" Creator Armando Iannucci on Why He’d Never, Ever Allow Joe Biden on The Show

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Veep" Creator Armando Iannucci on Why He’d Never, Ever Allow Joe Biden on The Show

The Financialization of America (and the World)

Mother Jones

Bruce Bartlett writes today about the relentless financialization of the American economy and the danger it poses:

Ozgur Orhangazi of Roosevelt University has found that investment in the real sector of the economy falls when financialization rises….Adair Turner, formerly Britain’s top financial regulator, suggests that the financial sector’s gains have been more in the form of economic rents — basically something for nothing — than the return to greater economic value.

Another way that the financial sector leeches growth from other sectors is by attracting a rising share of the nation’s “best and brightest” workers, depriving other sectors like manufacturing of their skills.

The rising share of income going to financial assets also contributes to labor’s falling share….This phenomenon is a major cause of rising income inequality, which itself is an important reason for inadequate growth.

The dangers of runaway financialization are pretty well known and pretty well accepted. Given that, the key question you should ask is: Why? It’s not inevitable, after all. The finance industry doesn’t grow because some fundamental feature of the modern economy demands it. In fact, it’s really more mysterious than it seems. After all, we know why, say, the car industry grew during the 20th century: because more people wanted cars. Likewise, we know why the tech industry is growing now: because more people want to surf the net and play video games.

So why has finance grown? Because the world needs more finance? Up to a point, sure: availablility of capital is a key requirement for economic growth in a modern mixed economy. But we passed that point quite a while ago. Capital has been freely and easily available in America and most of the developed world for decades. So again: Why the continued growth? It doesn’t seem to be demand driven, so there must be some other reason. Anyone care to guess in comments? No prizes for the right answer, I’m afraid.

See the original post: 

The Financialization of America (and the World)

Posted in ATTRA, Brita, FF, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Financialization of America (and the World)

"The East": How Two Filmmakers’ Freegan Summer Road Trip Became a New Political Thriller Starring a "True Blood" Vampire

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The East
Fox Searchlight Pictures
116 minutes

The East, a new thriller directed by relative newcomer Zal Batmanglij, follows an eco-terrorist collective that finds elaborate ways to punish CEOs and pharmaceutical companies for committing “worldwide terrorism.” The eco-terrorists, who call themselves The East, are infiltrated by Sarah Moss (played by Brit Marling), a former fed who works as an undercover operative for a private intel firm that looks out for rich polluters. A morally conflicted Sarah quickly comes to sympathize with East members including Izzy (Ellen Page), and grows increasingly attracted to their ringleader Benji (Alexander Skarsgård, of True Blood vamp fame). Bullets fly, sex in the woods occurs, and alliances are tested.

This political thriller is technically based on a true story. But the real-world inspiration for the script didn’t involve any shoot-out or corporate espionage; it started with a rather unusual summer road trip.

Continue Reading »

View the original here – 

"The East": How Two Filmmakers’ Freegan Summer Road Trip Became a New Political Thriller Starring a "True Blood" Vampire

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "The East": How Two Filmmakers’ Freegan Summer Road Trip Became a New Political Thriller Starring a "True Blood" Vampire

Which States Use the Most Green Energy?

green4us

A wave of ALEC-backed bills could stall bringing more states up to snuff. California and Texas might be leading the nation’s rollout of solar and wind power, respectively, but Washington, where hydroelectric dams provide over 60 percent of the state’s energy, was the country’s biggest user of renewable power in 2011, according to new statistics released last week by the federal Energy Information Administration. Hydro continued to be the overwhelmingly dominant source of renewable power consumed nationwide, accounting for 67 percent of the total, followed by wind with 25 percent, geothermal with 4.5 percent, and solar with 3.5 percent. The new EIA data is the latest official snapshot of how states nationwide make use of renewable power, from industrial-scale generation to rooftop solar panels, and reveals an incredible gulf between leaders like Washington, California, and Oregon, and states like Rhode Island and Mississippi that use hardly any. The gap is partly explained by the relative size of states’ energy markets, but not entirely: Washington uses less power overall than New York, for example, but far outstrips it on renewables (the exact proportions won’t be available until EIA releases total state consumption figures later this month). Still, the actual availability of resources—how much sun shines or wind blows—is far less important than the marching orders passed down from statehouses to electric utilities, says Rhone Resch, head of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “Without some carrot or stick, there’s little reason to pick [renewables] up” in many states, he says; even given the quickly falling price of clean energy technology, natural gas made cheap by fracking is still an attractive option for many utilities. More than half of the 29 states that require utilities to purchase renewable power are currently considering legislation to pare back those mandates, in many cases pushed by (surprise, suprise) the American Legislative Exchange Council. “We’re opposed to these mandates, and 2013 will be the most active year ever in terms of efforts to repeal them,” ALEC energy task force director Todd Wynn recently told Bloomberg. But so far the tide seems to be turning against that campaign: This week the Minnesota legislature will consider two versions of a bill passed by the House and Senate that would require utilities to get 1-4 percent of their power from solar by 2025 (solar made up less than one percent of Minnesota’s renewable power in 2011); last month North Carolina, the same state that outlawed talking about sea level rise, surprised green energy advocates by voting down a proposal to ax the state’s renewable mandates, followed a few days later by a vote in Colorado to increase rural communities’ access to renewables. But challenges remain ahead in some of the very states that already rank relatively low for renewables consumption, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Ohio. Karin Wadsack, director of a Northern Arizona University-based project to monitor these legislative battles, says the time is now for states to start mixing in more clean energy. “If you have all these utilities sticking with gas, coal, and nuclear, then you create a situation where 20 years from now they aren’t prepared to deal with the increased climate risk,” she says. “Electricity is a huge piece of the climate puzzle, so [utilities] need to be learning what to do with renewables.” There’s always the option that Congress could set a renewables standard on the national level—a group of senators took a failed stab at one in 2010 only a few months after Republicans killed the infamous cap-and-trade bill. But don’t hold your breath, Wadsack says: “I don’t know that I would call it a pipe dream. But I wouldn’t see it happening in our current set of national priorities.”

See more here: 

Which States Use the Most Green Energy?

Related Posts

Can You Have Too Much Solar Energy?
Charts: The Smart Money is on Renewable Energy
Climate Desk Live: A Conversation With Climate Scientist Michael Mann
EXCLUSIVE: State Dept. Hid Contractor’s Ties to Keystone XL Pipeline Company
CHART: Withering Drought Still Plaguing Half of America

Share this:

Source: 

Which States Use the Most Green Energy?

Posted in ATTRA, Bunn, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Which States Use the Most Green Energy?

A Small Rant About the Meaning of Significant vs. "Significant"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jim Manzi has a long blog post today about the Oregon Medicaid study that got so much attention when it was released a couple of weeks ago. Along the way, I think he mischaracterizes my conclusions, but I’m going to skip that for now. Maybe I’ll get to it later. Instead, I want to make a very focused point about this paragraph of his:

When interpreting the physical health results of the Oregon Experiment, we either apply a cut-off of 95% significance to identify those effects which will treat as relevant for decision-making, or we do not. If we do apply this cut-off…then we should agree with the authors’ conclusion that the experiment “showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years.” If, on the other hand, we wish to consider non-statistically-significant effects, then we ought to conclude that the net effects were unattractive, mostly because coverage induced smoking, which more than offset the risk-adjusted physical health benefits provided by the incremental utilization of health services.

I agree that we should either use the traditional 95 percent confidence or we shouldn’t, and if we do we should use it for all of the results of the Oregon study. The arguments for and against a firm 95 percent cutoff can get a little tricky, but in this case I’m willing to accept the 95 percent cutoff, and I’m willing to use it consistently.

But here’s what I very much disagree with. Many of the results of the Oregon study failed to meet the 95 percent standard, and I think it’s wrong to describe this as showing that “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years.”

To be clear: it’s fine for the authors of the study to describe it that way. They’re writing for fellow professionals in an academic journal. But when you’re writing for a lay audience, it’s seriously misleading. Most lay readers will interpret “significant” in its ordinary English sense, not as a term of art used by statisticians, and therefore conclude that the study positively demonstrated that there were no results large enough to care about.

But that’s not what the study showed. A better way of putting it is that the study “drew no conclusions about the impact of Medicaid on measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years.” That’s it. No conclusions. If you’re going to insist on adhering to the 95 percent standard—which is fine with me—then that’s how you need to describe results that don’t meet it.

Next up is a discussion of why the study showed no statistically significant results. For now, I’ll just refer you back to this post. The short answer is: it was never in the cards. This study was almost foreordained not to find statistically significant results from the day it was conceived.

Link: 

A Small Rant About the Meaning of Significant vs. "Significant"

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on A Small Rant About the Meaning of Significant vs. "Significant"