N.J. may penalize utilities that pollute (attacking global warming)

New Jersey's lawmakers are poised to impose new pollution penalties on power companies -- the first step in determining who pays for contributing to global warming and who profits from preventing it. By year's end, the Legislature is expected to approve a plan requiring the companies to pay for the greenhouse gases they produce, a charge that could amount to $70 million or more each year. The system is designed to give companies an incentive to cut emissions. But in the short run, at least, the price of polluting is likely to be passed on to consumers. And that could test New Jersey politicians' newfound commitment to fighting climate change.

"We think that it's very important to avoid climate change sticker shock," said Rick Thigpen, a vice president at Public Service Electric and Gas, the state's biggest generator of both electricity and heat-trapping emissions. "If this is seen as just raising electric prices, then there's going to be a major potential backlash." Environmental and business groups predict some bill will make it out of the Legislature's lame-duck session this fall. But negotiations have only just begun over some of the key details, from how much utilities have to pay to who divvies up the millions that could be raised for state coffers. The legislation would authorize regulators to impose a so-called cap and trade system on utilities that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. New Jersey, New York and eight other states agreed to the plan two years ago, ordering electric companies to cut greenhouse pollution 10 percent by 2021.

Those are the kinds of pollutants that are trapping heat in the planet's atmosphere, setting the stage for increased flooding, worsening droughts and other potentially devastating changes to the climate. On Saturday, an international scientific panel issued yet another warning on the subject, saying the evidence for warming was "unequivocal." New Jersey's plan would put a cap on carbon emissions statewide, starting at 23 million tons a year and ratcheting downward over the coming years. The state would give "allowances" to companies, one per ton of greenhouse gas. Businesses that find a way to lower emissions could sell allowances to those needing more. In theory, the market finds the best way to cut pollution. But how free should that market be? Governor Corzine and environmental groups say the state should auction off all allowances to the highest bidder, rather than give utilities some or all of them for free. With bidding expected to start at $2 or $3 a ton in the early years, the process could raise up to $69 million annually for energy conservation, subsidies for solar power and other clean-energy projects and assistance to low-income customers hit with higher electric bills.

A full auction, proponents say, would avoid the mistakes of the European Union's two-year-old carbon trading market, which gave away credits for free. Electric rates still soared, even for utilities that had extra allowances. "If you give the allowances for free to generators, they're still going to charge customers more anyway," said Dale Bryk, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York. "We should be using that money to reduce energy costs for consumers." PSE&G isn't opposed to a 100 percent auction, said Thigpen, the company vice president. But the utility and business lobbyists in Trenton are pushing for concessions that they say would cushion the blow to power producers. Some allowances could be sold at a reduced price, they say; others could be held back from the auction and released in the case of price spikes. PSE&G wants to see the state take more steps to ensure that customers don't simply shift to Pennsylvania utilities not covered by the greenhouse limits, Thigpen added.

The state Business and Industry Association, meanwhile, would like to see some companies exempted from the camp, such as small businesses or large companies that produce their own power and heat onsite. The association's also worried that the legislation leaves specifics of the process to state environmental regulators, said Assistant Vice President Sarah Bluhm. "There are no checks and balances," she said. "When you're talking about potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, that's worrisome." Environmental groups are pushing in the other direction, trying to limit any exemptions or other loopholes. Matt Elliott, a clean energy advocate for Trenton-based Environment New Jersey, said he worries about letting companies claim credit for tree-planting and other projects whose ecological benefits are hard to measure.

"The utilities are trying to make sure the Legislature doesn't do this in as strong a way as possible," he said. "This is the Legislature's first moment to prove themselves and show that they're serious about their commitment, that they're willing to tackle global warming in the toughest way possible." Everybody agrees they'd prefer a nationwide cap-and-trade system that put businesses across the country on a level playing field. But if that happens, some say, New Jersey's early entry into the field could help companies here who learn how to profit off clean energy and other carbon cutting measures. "If we invest in this process the right way, we have the potential to stimulate a whole new sector of the economy," said Adam Zellner, a deputy environmental commissioner in New Jersey. "This will open up whole new doors for the state."

How it works

What is cap and trade? A system designed to let the free market find global warming solutions. The state would cap greenhouse emissions from power plants and then sell or give away credits, one for each ton of emissions. Companies that find a way to cut pollution could sell credits to those that can't get below the cap. Who's involved? New Jersey is part of a 10-state compact of Northeastern states that's promised to cut power company emissions 10 percent. New York, Maryland, Delaware and the six New England states are also on board. What's at stake? It could cost companies $70 million a year to buy the credits. That will mean higher bills for customers. But the state would devote the revenues to solar and wind projects, energy conservation and other measures that could cut bills in the long run. Why utilities? They're one of the major generators of greenhouse pollution, though experts say bigger cuts will be needed from vehicles and other sources to really solve the problem.

Climate panel says the time to act is now

The Earth's temperature is rising dramatically, and if current practices continue, "abrupt or irreversible" effects will be felt globally, according to landmark report on climate change released Saturday. The report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Saturday in Spain, offers a decisive and detailed forecast for the planet, outlining catastrophic events on every continent, and offering blueprints for policy that could avert them. "This report gives policymakers a lot more information to guide them in making those difficult decisions," said Alan Robock, a professor of environmental science at Rutgers University who contributed to a draft of Saturday's report and to earlier reports by the IPCC.

"This report tells us pretty clearly how much more climate change we can withstand. ... It tells us the consequences," he said. As early as 2020, the report concludes, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's mega-cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and more severe heat waves and greater competition for water. The water-fringed state of New Jersey would also notice the effects of rising temperatures and a corresponding rise in sea level, Robock said.

"Locally, there will be stronger hurricanes in the future," Robock said. "Things like Katrina will happen more often and some of them will hit New Jersey." "The sea level is rising, and it will rise much faster in the future," Robock said. "That means that there will be less of New Jersey and that also means that interests along the coast, like fishing and tourism, will be strongly affected." Newark Airport is "one of the lowest points in New Jersey," he said.

The report concludes with "very high confidence" that human behavior is a leading contributor to the warming trend. And it concludes that altering human activity -- promptly -- could limit that process, though not eliminate it completely. "The panel's latest report on climate change underscores the need for a bold, aggressive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said in statement.

"The science is settled," Lautenberg said. "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to address this problem head-on and to do so immediately." The report, which distills three previous reports into less-technical concepts and policy outlines, is significant because it was adopted by consensus of thousands of scientists, making it more difficult to dispute the underlying scientific conclusions, The report does not commit governments to a specific course of action, but provides a common scientific baseline for political talks. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the report says. The report offers broad policy remedies as well as the constraints policymakers might have in implementing them. Among the policy suggestions: a tax on carbon emissions, a switch to nuclear and gas-fired power stations, financial incentives to increase forest coverage and greater use of fuel-efficient vehicles and electrical appliances.

Robock said many of the efforts needed to stabilize greenhouse gases do not require new technology -- just some difficult political decisions by the world's leaders on what they are willing to forgo. "The question is: Are the policymakers willing to make decisions that may reduce certain profits for certain companies in the short run?" Robock said. The most comprehensive efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions would cost the world's economies 0.12 percent of their average annual growth through 2050, the report estimates. World policymakers are set to meet next month in Bali, Indonesia, and will use the report as a starting point to negotiate a replacement for the expiring Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The United States refused to ratify that document. This article includes material from The Associated Press.

A picture of warming's effects

Some key findings in the report issued Saturday by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

• Global warming is "unequivocal." Temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Eleven of the last 12 years are among the warmest since 1850. Sea levels have gone up by an average seven-hundredths of an inch per year since 1961.
• About 20 to 30 percent of all plant and animal species face the risk of extinction if temperatures increase by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. If the thermometer rises by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit, 40 to 70 percent of species could disappear.
• Human activity is largely responsible for warming. Global emissions of greenhouse gases grew 70 percent from 1970 to 2004. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far higher than the natural range over the last 650,000 years.
• Climate change will affect poor countries most, but will be felt everywhere. By 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water.
• Extreme weather conditions will be more common. Tropical storms will be more frequent and intense. Heat waves and heavy rains will raise the risk of wildfires and the spread of diseases in some areas. Elsewhere, drought will degrade cropland and spoil the quality of water sources. Rising sea levels will increase flooding and salination of fresh water and threaten coastal cities.
• Even if greenhouse gases are stabilized, the Earth will keep warming and sea levels rising. More pollution could bring "abrupt and irreversible" changes, such as the loss of ice sheets in the poles, and a corresponding rise in sea levels by several yards. -- The Associated Press

Jeff Chandler said: "How do they know the sea is rising? How do they know the land isn’t sinking?"

Your's is a valid point. I have read one article about apparent changes in sea level where the subsidence of the mainland was considerable and had to be measured independently.

Very recent measurements can use satelites equipped with radar or lasers to get pretty precise measurements, I believe. But even those systems have limitations which are probably measured in inches, not fractions of an inch.

But since the article claims and average of .07 inches per year since 1961, there would have to be some data somewhere that seems to support that. Unless they just plain made it up.

Recent small corrections to US temperature data has resulted in having to revise statements such that the hottest years on record are now mostly in the 1930s and not recently.

Since the people responsible for correcting this data have so far refused to release all the raw data along with the detailed corrections proposed for it, it becomes pretty obvious that such people are engaged in scientific fraud.

Unsubstantiated claims about sea level are probably equally suspect.

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.

FReepmail me to get on or off