Is School Choice Bad for the Environment?
By Nick Loris
No, it’s not a joke. It’s the finding from a new paper published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. The argument is school choice leads to more driving which results in more vehicle emissions. The abstract says, “that eliminating district-wide school choice (i.e., returning to a system with neighborhood schools only) would have significant impacts on transport modes and emissions” and the findings “underscore the need to critically evaluate transportation-related environmental and health impacts of currently proposed changes in school policy.”
George Mason economist Don Boudreaux appropriately responds in an open letter to the authors:
Why stop with education? Perhaps another future study can be on the environmental impact of supermarket choice. After all, with people free to drive wherever they wish to buy groceries, it’s almost certainly the case that too many of us drive hither and yon unnecessarily, wasting our time and fouling the air. I’ll bet that your research will show that restricting each American to shopping only at that supermarket nearest to his or her home will reduce vehicular emissions and, hence, help the environment.
Indeed, the possibilities suggested by your research are infinite. No telling how much filth is spit into our environment everyday by people needlessly driving to churches, restaurants, shopping malls, gyms, physicians’ offices, night clubs – even friends’ homes – when they could easily go to (and, hence, should forcibly be restricted to) churches, restaurants, etc. – and even to the homes of friends – who are located closer to their where they live.”
Although it sounds implausible and probably is, environmental policies designed to restrict consumer choice already exist or members of our government are proposing them. Our government is picking off individual freedoms and slowly but surely reducing consumer choice. Vehicle regulations to increase fuel efficiency make cars smaller and less safe. The phase-out of incandescent light bulb will commence in 2012. There are some who want to ban bottled water because it creates too much waste and uses too much energy.
And if there are serious concerns about vehicle emissions, we should measure the inconsequential effects additional driving would have on health and global warming against the benefits of school choice. Having choice is an invaluable benefit of being an American and the more the government attempts to restrict it, the less it will be taken for granted.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Convert the buses to grease engines and fuel them with the run-off from the greasy filth we're pumping into our nation's youth.
Low cost , safe emissions, pimply children . Everyone wins!
Oh, and YES we should be getting rid of bottled water , but that's a debate for another time.
The GMU professor isn't speculating about the conclusions of the paper; he's saying, "What makes driving to school so unique?"
Secondly, reducing emissions isn't going to make any difference when it comes to climate change . To think it will is pure arrogance. Yes, we should tax or internalize negative externalities like black carbon, etc, but this is CO2 - something that climatogists obviously know little about.
what you can do and can't do!
If the Family Research Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, and the Baptist Press, oh and lets not leave out the Catholic League could pool all of their directives they could produce a manual. And then they could create a panel of people, kinda like a police force, to make sure we all do those things or face, maybe hanging we would be the perfect country. Maybe we could look to Iran as an example. When are these organizations going to be recognized as what they are and be taxed like anyother business?
The authors of this inane study, should they still feel this is a good idea, should be made to send their children to a local school in Detroit's inner city, or one in Baltimore or Chicago or in anyone of a dozen other cities . Then, after their children have been at their new school for a couple of months, come back and tell me again why school choice is bad for the enviroment. Idiots.
So their calculations are off? Does it actually use more fuel to send children to a small number of public schools then it does to send them to a wide array of private schools?
We can debate what should be done with regards to public / private schools under this data, or we can dispute the data itself.
We cannot wish away the physical world... if a large number of small private schools costs more energy and generates more pollution then a small number of public schools then we have to deal with that fact, and not plug our ears and go LALALALALA.
Who cares if their calculations are correct. The point they were making is that people drive too far to take their kids to non-local schools . If that is their premise, and you buy that, then as the George Mason Prof said, why stop at traveling to school ?
Let's place a 5 mile limit on everyone, after all, that is all the farther you need to drive. So what if your work is more than that, I am sure the local Stop n Rob is hiring. After all, it is for the enviroment, right? You are willing to sacrifice for the enviroment, right? Put your money where your mouth is.
The global warm, oops, climate change morons, if they really believed in the cause, should lead by example. You know, turn in their cars , shut down their airplanes, shut off 90% of their homes, stop taking a shower every day. When enviromorons start leading by example, starting with the largest hypocrit, Al Gore, then I may start to take them semi-seriously. Until then, it is a bunch of BS.
"Who cares if their calculations are correct."
So you do agree that sending children to a large number of small schools costs more energy (and generates more pollution) then sending them to a smaller number of large schools?
When dealing with research there are two main areas for discussion... is the data valid, and what do we do with the data.
"If that is their premise, and you buy that, then as the George Mason Prof said, why stop at traveling to school ?"
The GM professor was not involved in the study, so I fail to see how his statements speak for the intentions of those involved in the study... rather it is the straw man exaggerations of some random third party.
"Until then, it is a bunch of BS."
Wow, you really don't understand even the most basic elements of reducing emissions do you?
Come on Book, don't play games. My point, and I can't type any slower, so try to keep up, was that, if the study is correct, and if you agree with the study that we drive our kids to too many schools too far way, thereby contributing to global warming , why would you stop at driving your kids to school ? Of all the driving we do in this country, driving our kids to school is the least of our problems. Again, if you believe this study, Book, put your money where your mouth is. Do you ride your bike to work ? No, then surely you must walk, that's it. No? You don't drive, do you and please tell me you don't drive a car or, God forbid, an SUV. But even if you did, you only drive a couple of miles to work, right? No, then you are a hypocrite, just like everyone else who buys into this global climate warming change BS and bitches about everyone elses driving habits yet does nothing about their own.
"My point, and I can't type any slower, so try to keep up, was that, if the study is correct, and if you agree with the study that we drive our kids to too many schools too far way, thereby contributing to global warming , why would you stop at driving your kids to school ?"
How can you disagree with the study if you agree that it is factually correct? The abstract does not say 'we should do eliminate school choice '... rather it says the following
{We find that eliminating district-wide school choice (i.e., returning to a system with neighborhood schools only) would have significant impacts on transport modes and emissions, whereas in many cases proposed shifts in school choice and bus-provision policies would have only modest impacts. Policies such as school choice and school siting may conflict with the goal of increasing rates of active (i.e., nonmotorized) school commuting. Policies that curtail bus usage may reduce bus emissions but yield even larger increases in private-vehicle emissions. Our findings underscore the need to critically evaluate transportation -related environmental and health impacts of currently proposed changes in school policy.}
from: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021 /es902932n
I don't see any bit in there about eliminating school choice, just that proposed shifts in school policy would have a modest impact and that there is a "need to critically evaluate transportation-related environmental and health impacts of current proposed changes in school policy".
Again I ask, what are the factual errors in this study?
Your statement is akin to saying that if a study showed that mentally challenged children required four times the educational funding that the study was saying we should not educate the mentally challenged.
"No, then you are a hypocrite, just like everyone else who buys into this global climate warming change BS and bitches about everyone elses driving habits yet does nothing about their own. "
Nice straw man, it burns so warmly on this cold January morning!
Supporting the Science behind Global Climate Change does not mean the immediate end to the use of CO2 emitting technologies. It is about shifting towards low / no emition technologies and practices. It does not mean not driving a car it means looking for ways to minimize the use of a car.
I will, for the sake of attempting to dialouge with you, stipulate only for the purposes of this dialouge, that the study is correct and I accept the findings. You still won't answer my question. Why stop with the affects from transporting school children ? Why not look at the larger, more negatively impactful driving habits of those who commute to work in the family car? Why, if CO2 emitting vehicles are such a problem and lead to so much warming of our climate as to be the bain of Al Gore's existance, did the authors not look at an event, commuting, that is far more harmful?
Could the answer be, and this is now my own thoughts, be due to the fact that global warming , which you seem to support Book, and please correct me if I am wrong , is BS? Hyperbole? Man-made horse pucky? False?
And, finally, again, if you truly support GW, please tell us all how you are sacrificing, for the good of us all, in an attempt to save the planet, your driving needs? Have you sold your car outright? Has Al Gore sold his plane? Have you shuttered half your home to use less energy so that AG can heat his mansion to a nice warm and toasty 73 degress F? I await with baited breath..
And by the way, you can't continue to have school choice if you revert to a system of neighborhood schools as the only choice. Your own post lists that as a potential option. So, yeah, the study, if not outright calling for the elimination of school choice, initmated that option as one that would be highly considered.