« September 16, 2007 - September 22, 2007 | Main | October 7, 2007 - October 13, 2007 »
October 4, 2007
A Modest Proposal
As my Climate Change and Energy class was talking on Tuesday, I floated a modest proposal.
Cap and trade CO2 emissions at existing power plants and other industrial consumers of fossil fuels to meet the 80% decrease from 1990 level by 2050 goal, but also put in place a little command and control regulation. With respect to new coal-fired (and I suppose natural gas) plants, impose a uniform, national technology-based performance standard under the Clean Air Act requiring new plant carbon dioxide emissions to be equal to or less than the emissions from IGCC with carbon sequestration and storage [i.e. roughly zero]. To assure a level playing field, impose a ban on licensing of any new nuclear power plant unless and until there are fully permitted, environmentally safe locations for permanent storage of all nuclear waste produced from existing plants and the plant to be licensed. This would assure that every new power plant built be roughly carbon neutral and more environmentally benign.
While arguably burdensome NSPS and NSR requirements for new power plants previously created strong incentives for utilities and others to continue to use old plants, retool them, and game applicability thresholds set on modification/reconstruction, those incentives would be substantially reduced if existing plants faced a relatively steep CO2 phase-down requirement.
So what's wrong with a little command & control? It would certainly create strong incentives for the power industry to install IGCC or develop alternative technologies, and hasten the establishment of CSS technology and sites. From what I read, it is technically feasible to require IGCC and CSS. We have plentiful coal resources. We could share any clean coal and nuclear waste storage technological developments fostered by these requirements with other countries which undoubtedly will be using more coal and nuclear.
And....the cost per ton of carbon dioxide emissions avoided is likely to be much less than that achieved through ethanol, biodiesel, and hybrid transportation technologies. So start here now! Besides, if we can get clean electricity, then the electric car may rise from the dead and the production of hydrogen for transportation may become economically feasible.
What do you think???
October 4, 2007 in Agriculture, Air Quality, Climate Change, Economics, Energy, Governance/Management, Law, Legislation, Sustainability, US | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
What would Americans say about the best leadership on climate change
According to the Washington Post poll [ Poll ], Mr. Bush now enjoys his lowest level of support in the last five years. Although his current rating of 33-64 has been matched -- earlier there were more strong supporters and fewer strong opponents. Americans are not impressed with Congress and regard it as not accomplishing much, but they tend to blame Bush and the Republicans, not the Democrats. Americans regard the Democrats as better able to handle the war, health care, the economy, and the deficit than the Republicans. [On a related note, the WSJ reports that even Republicans are starting to doubt the benefits of free trade to the US economy].
At the same time, Clinton (Hilary that is) is in ascendance. For Democrats, she is increasingly regarded as the strongest leader, more honest and trustworthy, and most inspiring candidate as well as most likely to be elected and best representing core Democratic values .
So, where's Hilary on climate change? [I was going to add "and other environmental issues" but frankly this is not only the most crucial environmental issue, it is a good bellweather of how a candidate will address other issues].
While Clinton's climate change position is not particularly daring (she favors renewable energy, clean coal / carbon sequestration, and the McCain-Lieberman bill), I am fond of her for her willingness to give Michael Crichton a hard time when he was called last Congress as a climate change science witness (I guess he was the best that Inhofe could do). See reports below.
<>But even if Bill is the albatross around Hilary's neck in some respects, his work on climate change suggests that she will be a far stronger leader on climate change than her current position statements suggest. As Bryan Walsh's article in Time on Saturday indicated, Bill's Global Climate Initiative, launched in August 2006, has brought business and philanthropy together to fund local efforts to reduce energy use and carbon emissions. As Walsh noted:
While UN action on climate change remains stalled by the deadlock between the developed and the developing world, Clinton has proved remarkably successful in fostering real engagement and investment on global warming across national lines. "Clinton just really gets it (EMPHASIS ADDED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROF)," says Ted Nordhaus, co-author of the new environmental politics book Break Through.The success of the Clinton Initiative is emblematic of how people who care about climate change in America have chosen to approach the problem in the near total absence of action from Washington. Lobbying has shifted to the corporate world, where large companies like Wal-Mart have implemented energy efficiency polices far more aggressive than anything coming from the government. High-profile celebrities like Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio have made green cool for consumers. And hardly a day goes by without news of a leap forward on solar, wind or hybrid cars, thanks to private investment — again, in the absence of significant government spending. Time - Walsh article
Campaign website on Clinton's climate change position:
America is ready for energy independence. Hillary is ready to lead the charge.
The choices we make about energy touch nearly every aspect of our lives. Our economy, our national security, our health, and the future of our planet are all at stake as we make a choice between energy independence and dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Hillary has championed policies that encourage development of alternative energy technologies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. She has proposed an Apollo Project-like program dedicated to achieving energy independence.
Hillary recognizes that global climate change is one of the most pressing moral issues of our time. She supports policies to reduce carbon emissions and other pollution that contribute to global warming.
In the White House, Hillary will lead the charge to stop global warming by investing in clean energy technologies, establishing a national market-based program to reduce global warming pollution, increasing our fuel efficiency, and restoring the United States' rightful place as a leader in international efforts to address the problem of climate change.
Hillary introduced a plan to Congress to create a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development, and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels, and more.
We can create the fund without raising taxes by giving oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy themselves or pay into the fund. She would also eliminate oil companies' tax breaks and make sure they pay their fair share for drilling on public lands.
Senate website:
Climate Change
The scientific consensus on climate change is increasingly clear: unless we act to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the planet will continue to warm over the next century, with widespread and potentially devastating effects. These potential effects include more frequent extreme weather events, and the wider spread of diseases such as West Nile, Eastern Equine Encephalitis, and malaria.
Potential impacts in New York include coastal flooding due to rising sea levels in communities on Long Island, warming in the Adirondacks, where tourism and a way of life depend on cold and snow in the winter, and damage to New York’s agriculture industry.
Given the scientific evidence that we have and the potential consequences of continued warming, I strongly believe this nation needs to take sensible first steps to slow and ultimately reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to climate change. To that end, I support investment in renewable energy, carbon sequestration, and the flexible, market-based the emissions reduction approach in the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 proposed by Senators Lieberman and McCain. I also support funding for research and development of carbon sequestration technologies as well as advanced clean coal technologies.
Clinton's response to Crichton's testimony
Hillary Clinton was the first to try to cut him down to size. "His
views on climate change are at odds with the vast majority of climate
scientists; it also appears in a work of fiction," the senator for New
York said dismissively. "I think that the topic of this hearing is very
important but organised in a way to muddy sound science rather than
clarify it," she added, before thanking the other four witnesses who
attended, but not Crichton.
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer joined in. "We are here to talk about sound science - a worthy and important subject. We are not here to talk about plays, novels, art or music - although as a member for California I do appreciate the focus on the arts."
"A lot of people are being maligned here, I take great offence at that, they are not here and they are being maligned," she said, asking if she could put on record a letter from one of the aforementioned maligned scientists.
October 4, 2007 in Climate Change, Economics, Energy, Governance/Management, Legislation, South America, US | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
President Bush on Climate Change: He Still Doesn't Get It
I listened as casual acquaintances approached me last week and made fun on Bush's "leadership" on climate change: voluntary measures, soft "aspirational" goals, and R&D money for technology. Yawn..... And Rice has the audacity to say that the US is ready to assume world leadership on climate change....what universe does she live in???
Here's the world view from Worldwatch:
Reflections on Climate Week and The Path Forward
By Janet L. Sawin
Policies that Promote Solutions, Not Problems
Experience has demonstrated that voluntary measures and “aspirational” goals do not work; mandatory and binding commitments will be required to reduce emissions in time to avoid warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius and catastrophic climate change. It is critical to establish short- and long-term limits on global emissions and national caps that put the world on the path toward 50-percent reductions by mid-century.
The technologies required for starting down this path are available now. Renewable energy and energy efficiency options are ready to be scaled up today and can meet rising needs for energy services while reducing global emissions.[1] [3] Although research and development funding for advanced technologies is important and can help in the longer-term, it is even more critical to establish frameworks and policies that promote solutions that can begin immediately to reduce the world’s emissions. Key among these are mandatory emissions targets that help to create markets by putting a price on carbon.
The climate problem will not be solved one smokestack at a time. Rather, the challenge is to create a new energy system that will not only protect the climate but will be economically superior to the one in place today. The European Union is already moving ahead in this direction, with significant commitments for emissions reductions and parallel increases in renewable energy and efficiency. What’s driving this shift? EU leaders see it not only as necessary for reducing the threat of climate change, but also as “an investment in [Europe’s] economic future.”[2] [3] If saving the climate becomes a race for who dominates one of the fastest growing sectors of the 21st-century economy, recalcitrance and delay will no longer be viewed by climate negotiators as the keys to “success.”
A Climate of Progress?
Many of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters are already taking key steps to address climate change. For example:
<><><>In early 2007, all 27 members of the European Union agreed to a legally binding target to reduce their combined emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels [4] by 2020. Aiming to set the pace for the rest of the world to follow, they committed to a 30 percent reduction if other major emitters joined them. The EU also agreed early this year that any new fossil energy plants from 2020 onward must meet a net-zero carbon standard, and increased renewable energy targets to 20 percent of total energy [5] by 2020.[3] [5]
Although it is currently far short [6] of achieving its Kyoto Protocol target, Japan is now determined to meet its reduction commitment [7] by harnessing advanced technologies and traditional social systems. The country has launched a national campaign, with the government taking the lead, calling on all businesses and households to do their part.
<>Despite the government’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Australia has committed to meeting national targets [8] under the treaty. Due in great part to rising popular pressure to address climate change, Prime Minister John Howard has announced that Australia will implement a domestic emissions cap-and-trade system [9] by 2012.
China, too, is starting to recognize the need to slow its rapidly rising GHG emissions and address climate change. After two years of preparation, the government unveiled its first national plan on climate change in June, introducing guidelines and goals for improving energy productivity and significantly increasing its share of energy derived from renewable sources. This is the first plan of its kind made by any developing country and represents a major step forward; however, much remains to be done.
Because its primary concern is economic growth, the government of India has thus far resisted any commitment to slow or reduce emissions growth. But the political climate in India is beginning to change, and there is a rising call for leadership on the issue. Perhaps in response to such developments, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said [10] in June that unless people change their lifestyles “our future will be in peril,” and he has since called for a national action plan [11] on climate change.
<>
The world’s top emitters have the ability to put the global energy system on a new track and to drive forward the technology that can benefit the world as a whole. Some of them have already begun this transition. A global agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [12] (UNFCCC) is needed, but consensus on a joint plan of action among all players in this smaller group of nations could provide the leadership required in both North and South to make broader progress possible. It’s too bad that the world missed an opportunity last week to start down this road.
Endnotes
1 [12] See, for example, http://www.ases.org/climatechange/ [13]. 2 [13] European Commission Opening Statement (Speaking Notes), Major Economies’ Meeting, Washington, D.C., 27 September 2007. 3 [13] John Ashton, UK Special Representative for Climate Change, presentation at United Nations Foundation, 25 September 2007.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5385
Links:
[1] http://www.un.org/climatechange/2007highlevel/
[2] http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/27/news/moon.php
[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070928-2.html
[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/21/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
[5] http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49805
[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/24/japan.climatechange
[7] http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/abespeech/2007/05/24speech_e.html
[8] http://www.dfat.gov.au/environment/climate/
[9] http://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/emissions/index.cfm
[10] http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=87714
[11] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India_to_chart_strategy_on_climate_change/articleshow/2189781.cms
[12] http://unfccc.int/2860.php
[13] http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
October 4, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink | TrackBack
