Posted on 02/17/2007 11:52:16 PM PST by neverdem
But if you have carbon markets, why do you need subsidies?
Living in a carbon constrained world looks inevitable. Congress will be voting on a number of proposals to set limits on the emission of greenhouse gases later this year. So industrialists see the policy handwriting on the wall and are now rushing to help shape the emerging greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions regulatory scheme.
In January the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, consisting of 10 big companies including DuPont, Alcoa, General Electric and Duke Energy, issued a "blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate protection." Also in January, the Electric Power Supply Association, the lobby group that represents the competitive power suppliers that account for 40 percent of the generating capacity of the U.S., acknowledged that "regulatory and legislative processes are moving forward seriously and with speed." The EPSA declared it "supports enactment of comprehensive, mandatory federal legislation to require steps to minimize the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment." And last week, the broader electricity lobby group, the Edison Electric Institute, came out in favor of "federal action or legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that ...involves all sectors of the economy, and all sources of GHG." Even the environmental lobbyists' favorite climate change whipping boy, Exxon Mobil, seems to be coming around to the idea that the Feds should act to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Industry wants the Feds to establish a nation-wide and industry-wide cap-and-trade market in greenhouse gas emissions, especially a market for carbon dioxide emissions. The proposals all also call for substantial federal subsidies for research and development of new low- and no-carbon energy technologies. All acknowledge that there are no currently available "silver bullet" energy technologies to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Any reductions in GHG emissions will have to be accomplished with a mix of increased energy efficiency in buildings and appliances, expanded nuclear power generation, a switch to hybrid vehicles, more energy from renewable sources, and, here's the big one, some kind of cost-effective technology to bury carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.
The sort of carbon trading scheme that these industry groups are proposing involve markets in which carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters are issued emission permits and then allowed to trade them. Over time, the Feds would screw down the number of permits to eventually reach some acceptable level of carbon dioxide emissions. The idea is trading a declining number of emissions permits will enable industries to figure out among themselves which ones can most efficiently reduce their emissions at the lowest cost.
So how much can we really expect to cut emissions if such a scheme is enacted? The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) issued a new report on Thursday that in effect looked at what implementing all of the recent proposals might achieve by way of reductions in the 25 years for the power generation industry. Specifically the report looked at what it would take to reduce emissions below what they were in 1990 by 2030. As a baseline keep in mind that had the U.S. adopted the Kyoto Protocol we would have committed to reducing our overall emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Even more ambitiously, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership called on Congress to require mandatory emission reductions of between 10 and 30 percent by end of the 15 years. The EPRI assessment is sobering.
The 2005 Energy Outlook report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that total U.S. electricity generation is now 3836 terawatt hours. Today, burning coal produces over 51 percent of our electricity; natural gas, 17 percent; nuclear, 20 percent; hydropower, 6.7 percent; and other renewables, just 1.6 percent. In the EIA baseline case, electricity generation rises to 5400 terawatt hours by 2030 with electricity from coal rising to nearly 60 percent of production and with renewables accounting to just 3 percent of generation.
The EPRI case study also projects demand of about 5400 terawatt hours in 2030. However, EPRI projects that coal-fired generation will account for about 54 percent of power production, of which 14 percent will be generated by plants that bury their carbon dioxide emissions by pumping them into underground reservoirs. Nuclear rises to 25 percent of production, and generation from non-hydro renewables increases to 6.7 percent. To achieve GHG cuts back to 1990 levels, the EPRI report assumes that 50 new nuclear plants will be built (EIA assumes just 10); that 10 percent of new vehicle sales in 2017 will be plug-in hybrids that can travel 30 miles without burning gasoline and that their market share will climb by 2 percent per year thereafter. In addition, coal plant energy generation efficiency will improve from around 33 percent today to over 50 percent by 2030. Finally, the report assumes that demand for electric power will drop from 1.5 percent per year to 1.1 percent per year because the Feds will impose higher energy efficiency standards on buildings and appliances.
Of course, the EPRI report is looking at the prospects for emission reductions in just the power industry. Steeper cuts might be possible for other industries which could allow us to meet the more the bolder national goals proposed by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership companies. Still, the EPRI study makes it clear what cutting greenhouse gases will require by way of new technologies and investment.Very strangely, the EPRI analysis does not assume any specific price for carbon emissions.
Besides calling for mandatory emissions limits, the Climate Action Partnership and other industry groups are seeking federal research largesse. Specifically they are asking for joint public/private sector cost sharing, higher subsidies for energy technology research, and financial incentives to use low-carbon technologies, including loan guarantees, investment tax credits, and procurement standards. In the past, federal bureaucrats have proven themselves pretty incompetent in dispensing energy research pork barrel. Just recall the Synfuels debacle and the billions wasted on hydrogen car research. Setting up a carbon market or imposing a carbon tax will boost the price of high-carbon fuels. Facing higher energy prices will provide plenty of motivation for companies to develop and deploy new energy technologies and for consumers to buy more efficient cars, appliances, and homes. No federal fairy-godmother dispensing corporate welfare required.
Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent.
Ping
ping
Cow~Fart~~~Pffffffffftttt~~~fffffffttttt !!!...;0)bump
And bebunked good!
Beeber alert. :^)
If Global Warming is so bad and our emissions cause it, why give credits? Just regulate all the industry and transportation away... don't let the emissions continue. Or are they after the money and don't want to kill the golden goose? (do I really need a sarcasm tag here?)
Lugar Farm is first in Indiana to provide carbon sequestration offsets on the Chicago Climate Exchange
Thursday, May 18, 2006
U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar’s Marion County farm is the first in Indiana to participate in the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Audio comments from the press conference are available at http://src.senate.gov/lugar/radio/ and via telephone at 1-800-545-1267; press 407 for the Lugar mailbox.
“I am pleased to announce that the Lugar Stock Farm has enrolled as an offset provider in the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Lugar Stock Farm is an active corn, soybean, and hardwood tree farm in Marion County, Indiana. Our farm will be the first in Indiana to enroll in this important exchange. I am hopeful that farmers in Indiana and elsewhere will investigate the possibility of enrolling in the exchange. This not only will encourage the practice of sequestering carbon, it will provide an additional source of farm income to those who qualify,” said Lugar.
...“As a Hoosier farmer, I seek ways to ensure the economic productivity of our farming operation. I utilize risk management tools such as federal crop insurance and commodity markets, and I seek ways to add value to the products grown on our land. Nearly 20 years ago, I began converting about 200 of the 604 acres on our farm to hardwood trees. As these majestic trees grow, they absorb and store carbon from the air around Indianapolis. Increasingly, the global community is recognizing the potential perils of climate change. The ability of farmers and others to remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it through methods such as tree farming and no-till planting are an important part of the solution,” Lugar said.
..“The Lugar Stock Farm has entered into a binding contract with the Chicago Climate Exchange to provide offset carbon credits, or carbon that entities may want to use to mitigate or offset the amount of greenhouse gasses they may produce. Based on our management practices, tree age, tree density, and other factors, the Chicago Climate Exchange estimates that our farm will capture about 3,400 metric tons of carbon in these trees. Instead of selling these offset credits directly to specific generators of carbon, the Chicago Climate Exchange operates as a market discovery mechanism similar to corn and soybean markets where willing buyers and sellers transact business based on commodity prices. The Lugar Stock Farm maintains legal ownership of these offset credits until a market decision is made to sell them on the exchange. Yesterday, carbon credits were trading at $3.50 per metric ton. Additionally, our farm is responsible for reporting any loss of trees, or the addition of trees, to ensure that carbon is being stored. Similar situations now involve U.S. livestock operations and no-till farmers,” continued Lugar.
Heres the address for the whole statement.
http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=255829
Amen. A true "environmentalist" who genuinely believed "it may already be too late to save the planet", would say "freeze and/or reduce hydocarbon emission levels in all countries around the globe, regardless of their state of industrial development". Only a Marxist Socialist would say, "freeze and reduce hydrocarbon levels in 'developed' (capitalist) countries, but by all means allow the 'undeveloped' (and socialist/communist) countries to pollute all they wish until that magical day when 'economic parity' is realized".
shameless beyond belief
It is sad to see the blatant fraud Global Warming scam treated as if our lives must conform to it. There is no "it" to conform to, in the sense that there is no policy, action, or set of guidelines that will or can ever make any difference. Climate change is the norm for the earth, and blaming CO2 is a charade at best.
much worse than Sam Donaldson's
subsidy goat ranch
shameless beyond belief.
selling out for...
3400 X $3.75 = $12,750
what a man
GW Ping
Might as well let the balkanization begin and divide it up into 5 or 6 smaller and easier to manage nations.
Freepers have knee-jerk reactions to anything reported about any European nation. Where are the knee-jerk responses for our own state of affairs? When a Euro nation involves itself in the carbon trading scheme- they are doomed. When the US does it...? We will rationalise it of course. We always do. They're wrong because they're them and we're right for doing the same stupid thing because we're us.
The US should know better than to get involved in this. That makes us worse, stupider and more doomed.
Of course bussing kids all over creation every morning needs to come to an immediate end.
3400 X $3.75 = $12,750
By being in at the inception of this market, in fact creating it, he has truly secured his family for generations. Its a shame the rest of us are not allowed such inside deals.
The economists at Wharton estimate this will cost every American family an additional $2,000 per year in taxes and increased consumer costs.
Here's a synopisis of the British model to give you an idea of the fascist scam about to be foisted on you -
Citizens in Great Britain may soon be hit by a blitz of top secret green taxes to combat the socialist bogeyman called global warming, reports the Daily Mail.
Under this proposal, the government would grab billions of pounds of extra revenue by not telling motorists when gas prices go down. So everytime petro prices drop, the tax on petro would automatically rise. So rather than drivers seeing that extra savings in their pocket, the government would keep the price high and grab the extra money for itself.
Then there’s talk of raising the annual road tax from a maximum of £210 to £5,000 in order to “combat car use and ownership.”
And a “pay per mile” tax could be added.
Next, Brits could see a washing machine tax, a dishwasher tax, a dryer tax, a lightbulb tax and an air travel tax.
Finally, the Tories plan to install “spies” in dustbins to impose a “rubbish tax” on households that throw away non-recyclable refuse.
The grand total of new taxes for a family of four would be an additional £1,163 per year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.