| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Steven Chu | ||||
| ||||
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Jon Stewart interviews Secretary of Energy
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE: EUROPE FEELS THE U.S. SNEEZE
By Matthew Berger - TerraViva EU - Wed. July 1, 2009
LONDON (IPS) - Governments and interest groups around the world followed the U.S. House of Representatives' vote Friday on the first U.S. policy to limit the country's greenhouse gas emissions. They were especially interested in Europe, where a system similar to the bill's cap-and-trade scheme already exists and where EU countries agreed last December to tough emissions targets.
The reaction among European groups has been as mixed as it has been among their U.S. counterparts, with the notable difference that those opposing the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or the Waxman-Markey bill, largely feel it does not go far enough.
Most of the 212 U.S. representatives that voted against it, on the other hand, felt it imposed excessive restrictions and costs.
The U.S. bill calls for a reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of 17 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels. The EU's '20-20-20' targets call for a 20 percent reduction over the same time, compared with 1990 levels.
The position taken by many in Europe is that anything is better than nothing, however. EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso was quoted by the Associated Press Friday as saying, "We want the U.S. to go as far and as fast as they can on climate change. We want Waxman-Markey to succeed."
The French daily Le Monde led its Sunday-Monday edition with the headline 'Climate: Barack Obama launches his green revolution', largely focusing on the change in policy since last year when, it says, "a law aiming to fight climate change would have been unthinkable."
This rejoicing that legislation addressing climate issues is on the table now after eight years of silence under the Bush Administration is not universal, however.
Leaders in Europe were following the Waxman-Markey bill very closely, said Martin Kaiser of Greenpeace International last week from Amsterdam. They are pleased legislation is on its way after nothing happening under former president George W. Bush, but are uncomfortable with the level of emissions targets at the moment, he said.
The cap-and-trade aspects of the bill have also been criticised in European environmental circles, where they have seen first-hand the successes and failures of their own Emissions Trading System (ETS).
The EU's system, agreed in 2005, distributed a set amount of allowances to industry, mainly in the energy sector. These were distributed for free initially, though the goal was to sell the carbon permits in auction by 2013. Many concessions, including the partial delay of this auctioning, were wrangled by industry as the EU tried to strengthen the ETS in order to bring it in line with the 20-20-20 targets last winter, and the story of U.S. legislation looks very similar.
Concessions to industry and opposition in the House led to the Waxman- Markey bill's original hopes being set aside in the name of simply getting something passed. Among the concessions included in the final draft, the bill would initially distribute 85 percent of allowances for free.
According to Meister, cap-and-trade programmes could work well, but only when they have 100 percent auctioning for all sectors, no offsetting, and earmarking of revenue to help the countries and industries that need the most help in adapting.
But the most interesting aspect for Europeans may be not the efficacy of the legislation in the U.S. but the way it affects international climate change discussions, as will take place at the G8 talks in Italy Jul. 8 to 10.
De Visscher, speaking for the European Commission, said the bill shows the U.S. is "ready for a climate change deal in Copenhagen at the end of this year."
There seems to be one consensus - U.S. domestic legislation has an international effect which can raise or lower the bar for everyone else.
The bill now moves to the U.S. Senate, where it is expected to face even more scrutiny and criticism than it did in the House. The debate will surely continue in Europe, as well. Read more in TerraViva EU
LONDON (IPS) - Governments and interest groups around the world followed the U.S. House of Representatives' vote Friday on the first U.S. policy to limit the country's greenhouse gas emissions. They were especially interested in Europe, where a system similar to the bill's cap-and-trade scheme already exists and where EU countries agreed last December to tough emissions targets.
The reaction among European groups has been as mixed as it has been among their U.S. counterparts, with the notable difference that those opposing the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or the Waxman-Markey bill, largely feel it does not go far enough.
Most of the 212 U.S. representatives that voted against it, on the other hand, felt it imposed excessive restrictions and costs.
"We are disappointed. The U.S. has a responsibility when it comes to climate change," Sonja Meister, climate change coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe told IPS Friday. Developed nations need to reduce emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020, she said, referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recommendation for the most ambitious government action.
The U.S. bill calls for a reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of 17 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels. The EU's '20-20-20' targets call for a 20 percent reduction over the same time, compared with 1990 levels.
The position taken by many in Europe is that anything is better than nothing, however. EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso was quoted by the Associated Press Friday as saying, "We want the U.S. to go as far and as fast as they can on climate change. We want Waxman-Markey to succeed."
On Monday, Lena de Visscher, the Commission's spokesperson for the environment office, told IPS, "We welcome the approval of the Waxman- Markey bill by the House. This is an important signal of Congress's desire for the U.S. to re-engage in the global debate on climate change."
The French daily Le Monde led its Sunday-Monday edition with the headline 'Climate: Barack Obama launches his green revolution', largely focusing on the change in policy since last year when, it says, "a law aiming to fight climate change would have been unthinkable."
This rejoicing that legislation addressing climate issues is on the table now after eight years of silence under the Bush Administration is not universal, however.
Leaders in Europe were following the Waxman-Markey bill very closely, said Martin Kaiser of Greenpeace International last week from Amsterdam. They are pleased legislation is on its way after nothing happening under former president George W. Bush, but are uncomfortable with the level of emissions targets at the moment, he said.
The cap-and-trade aspects of the bill have also been criticised in European environmental circles, where they have seen first-hand the successes and failures of their own Emissions Trading System (ETS).
The EU's system, agreed in 2005, distributed a set amount of allowances to industry, mainly in the energy sector. These were distributed for free initially, though the goal was to sell the carbon permits in auction by 2013. Many concessions, including the partial delay of this auctioning, were wrangled by industry as the EU tried to strengthen the ETS in order to bring it in line with the 20-20-20 targets last winter, and the story of U.S. legislation looks very similar.
Concessions to industry and opposition in the House led to the Waxman- Markey bill's original hopes being set aside in the name of simply getting something passed. Among the concessions included in the final draft, the bill would initially distribute 85 percent of allowances for free.
According to Meister, cap-and-trade programmes could work well, but only when they have 100 percent auctioning for all sectors, no offsetting, and earmarking of revenue to help the countries and industries that need the most help in adapting.
"Governments tend to over-rely on market-based solutions," she said. "Because of our experience in the EU, I'm skeptical that this could work, particularly because of the pressure that will come from industry and the loopholes that will develop over time as businesses adapt to the new restrictions."
But the most interesting aspect for Europeans may be not the efficacy of the legislation in the U.S. but the way it affects international climate change discussions, as will take place at the G8 talks in Italy Jul. 8 to 10.
De Visscher, speaking for the European Commission, said the bill shows the U.S. is "ready for a climate change deal in Copenhagen at the end of this year."
There seems to be one consensus - U.S. domestic legislation has an international effect which can raise or lower the bar for everyone else.
"It is really hard to push the EU to enact stronger targets if everyone else is much weaker," says Meister. "The EU says, 'Look, we have the strongest emissions targets.' But even those targets aren't in line with the science."
The bill now moves to the U.S. Senate, where it is expected to face even more scrutiny and criticism than it did in the House. The debate will surely continue in Europe, as well. Read more in TerraViva EU
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Limits on Emissions Have Wide Support
By Steven Mufson and Jennifer Agiesta - Washington Post Staff Writers - Thursday, June 25, 2009
Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.
But fewer Americans -- 52 percent -- support a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions similar to the one the House may vote on as early as tomorrow. That is slightly less support than cap and trade enjoyed in a late July 2008 poll. Forty-two percent of those surveyed this month oppose such a program.
The Washington Post-ABC News survey showed that support slipped slightly when people were asked whether they would be willing to pay higher prices in general or higher electricity bills in exchange for significant decreases in greenhouse gases. Although 62 percent of those surveyed said they would support regulation even if it raised the price of purchases and 56 percent would back cap and trade if it resulted in a $10 increase in utility costs, 44 percent said they would back a cap-and-trade system if it boosted monthly electricity bills by $25.
Cap and trade is a signature issue for President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership, and it is the centerpiece of the 1,201-page climate bill co-sponsored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hopes to bring the measure to the House floor for a vote tomorrow -- before a week-long recess for the Fourth of July holiday -- but a dispute with Republicans over annual spending bills could delay that plan.
Pelosi called the bill "a wonderful collaboration," and most environmental groups and a large number of companies endorsed it yesterday, despite last-minute concessions made to win the support of farm-state lawmakers led by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.).
Nonetheless, American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said yesterday in a statement that despite the changes, the group still opposes the "seriously flawed" climate legislation.
A cap-and-trade system sets a limit on the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases, then issues or auctions emission allowances that can be bought or sold by individuals, funds and companies. Over time, the cap is lowered to reduce the nation's emissions. Making emitters pay for carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, would provide incentives for developing renewable energy sources and new technologies to limit emissions from coal plants.
Debate over the cap-and-trade approach has focused on the cost to the average American. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that cap and trade would cost the average U.S. household $175 a year in 2020, but House Republicans have pushed the message that the legislation would cost many times that and drive millions of jobs offshore.
That message has failed to sway liberal and moderate Republicans, 60 percent of whom back a cap-and-trade program, but it appeals to the party's conservative base.
Tiffany Collins, 31, a part-time children's activity director at a church and a mother of four in Riverside, Calif., said she does not think greenhouse gases are causing climate change. She said she read a report on the Internet saying climate change was linked to changes in the sun's activity. But in any case, she does not support government intervention. "
One argument used by foes of climate legislation is that the United States should not take action unmatched by China and India, among the world's fastest-growing economies and sources of greenhouse gases. But the Post-ABC poll showed that six in 10 Americans favor U.S. action, even if other countries do less to confront climate change.
One of the sharpest dividing lines in attitudes toward climate legislation was age, with younger adults more receptive to cap and trade and federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Nearly two-thirds of those younger than 30 said they support cap and trade, and eight in 10 support federal limits on emissions. Among seniors, about four in 10 said they back a cap-and-trade proposal, and half favor federal intervention on emissions.
Sensitivity to increased prices is highest among those in households with incomes under $50,000. Nearly all of the drop-off in support for cap and trade or other greenhouse gas regulation comes among people who live in such households. Those in higher-income households were relatively unfazed by the increased costs.
The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone June 18 to 21 among a national random sample of 1,001 adults; results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.
Read more in the Washington Post
Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.
But fewer Americans -- 52 percent -- support a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions similar to the one the House may vote on as early as tomorrow. That is slightly less support than cap and trade enjoyed in a late July 2008 poll. Forty-two percent of those surveyed this month oppose such a program.
The Washington Post-ABC News survey showed that support slipped slightly when people were asked whether they would be willing to pay higher prices in general or higher electricity bills in exchange for significant decreases in greenhouse gases. Although 62 percent of those surveyed said they would support regulation even if it raised the price of purchases and 56 percent would back cap and trade if it resulted in a $10 increase in utility costs, 44 percent said they would back a cap-and-trade system if it boosted monthly electricity bills by $25.
"I think there hasn't been enough regulation," said Janet Opkyke, 60, a freelance book editor in northern Michigan. "Way back when deregulation started, I thought it was the wrong thing to do. I thought it was a license for greed. And I'm glad to see it swinging the other way." She added, "I think greenhouse gases are very harmful, and we have to do something about it."
Cap and trade is a signature issue for President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership, and it is the centerpiece of the 1,201-page climate bill co-sponsored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hopes to bring the measure to the House floor for a vote tomorrow -- before a week-long recess for the Fourth of July holiday -- but a dispute with Republicans over annual spending bills could delay that plan.
Pelosi called the bill "a wonderful collaboration," and most environmental groups and a large number of companies endorsed it yesterday, despite last-minute concessions made to win the support of farm-state lawmakers led by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.).
"These changes will not help the cause of making real reductions in greenhouse gases," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "And even some strong supporters of the Waxman-Markey legislation are now holding their noses, as if on the perimeter of a hog farm."
Nonetheless, American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said yesterday in a statement that despite the changes, the group still opposes the "seriously flawed" climate legislation.
A cap-and-trade system sets a limit on the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases, then issues or auctions emission allowances that can be bought or sold by individuals, funds and companies. Over time, the cap is lowered to reduce the nation's emissions. Making emitters pay for carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, would provide incentives for developing renewable energy sources and new technologies to limit emissions from coal plants.
Debate over the cap-and-trade approach has focused on the cost to the average American. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that cap and trade would cost the average U.S. household $175 a year in 2020, but House Republicans have pushed the message that the legislation would cost many times that and drive millions of jobs offshore.
That message has failed to sway liberal and moderate Republicans, 60 percent of whom back a cap-and-trade program, but it appeals to the party's conservative base.
Tiffany Collins, 31, a part-time children's activity director at a church and a mother of four in Riverside, Calif., said she does not think greenhouse gases are causing climate change. She said she read a report on the Internet saying climate change was linked to changes in the sun's activity. But in any case, she does not support government intervention. "
I'm opposed to the government overregulating just about everything. It costs us money, and they don't do a very good job of it," she said.
One argument used by foes of climate legislation is that the United States should not take action unmatched by China and India, among the world's fastest-growing economies and sources of greenhouse gases. But the Post-ABC poll showed that six in 10 Americans favor U.S. action, even if other countries do less to confront climate change.
One of the sharpest dividing lines in attitudes toward climate legislation was age, with younger adults more receptive to cap and trade and federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Nearly two-thirds of those younger than 30 said they support cap and trade, and eight in 10 support federal limits on emissions. Among seniors, about four in 10 said they back a cap-and-trade proposal, and half favor federal intervention on emissions.
Sensitivity to increased prices is highest among those in households with incomes under $50,000. Nearly all of the drop-off in support for cap and trade or other greenhouse gas regulation comes among people who live in such households. Those in higher-income households were relatively unfazed by the increased costs.
The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone June 18 to 21 among a national random sample of 1,001 adults; results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.
Read more in the Washington Post
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Senate Bill Targets Coal-Power Greenhouse Gases
by Elizabeth Shogren - NPR - All Things Considered - Nov. 3, 2007
This past week, a Senate subcommittee passed a bill that would be a major step toward controlling greenhouse gases. The legislation would target places like Maryland's Brandon Shores, a large coal-fired power plant that emits 10 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
Coal-fired power plants like Brandon Shores, located outside Baltimore, are the United States' biggest contributors to global warming. But they also supply about half of the country's electricity.
On a recent tour of the plant, Paul Allen, senior vice president of Constellation Energy — which owns Brandon Shores — discussed the plant's future.
"This power plant serves the electrical needs of perhaps a million customers. It's a very significant portion of the generation supply for the Baltimore metropolitan area," Allen said. Asked how long he expects the plant to operate, his response is optimistic. "Oh decades," he said.
That could mean Brandon Shores will also be pumping out carbon dioxide for decades. Right now, that doesn't cost the company anything. But that will change if one of the bills making their way through Congress becomes law.
The two measures would cover power plants, refineries and factories in a cap and trade system, in which they would need allowances for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit.
At first, the government would probably give Brandon Shores and other polluters some of those allowances. But over time, the company will have to buy them.
The price will be dynamic," Allen said. It could go up it could go down. But if we are serious about meeting the kind of targets that climatologists tell us need to be met, it's possible to think the price of carbon control could be pretty high."
Allen says Constellation will have no choice but to buy the allowances from other companies or the government.
"We recognize that ultimately this is going to be an additional cost of doing business."
Over time, as the cap gets tighter, that could lead to customers paying more expensive electricity bills.
Allen says Constellation can't just install a pollution control device for carbon dioxide, the way it's doing to strip out other pollutants like the ones that create smog and acid rain. The difference is that carbon dioxide is an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal.
Some engineers are working on ways to capture carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and then inject it underground. But Allen doesn't expect those technologies to be available any time soon.
Allen says the prospect of carbon dioxide regulation is already having a huge impact on his business. For instance, Constellation is planning to build new nuclear plants, mostly because they don't emit carbon dioxide.
"If you believe as we do, that carbon policy is both good and inevitable, and that it's going to have to be pretty significant to make a difference ecologically speaking," Allen said, "then you begin to believe that it has to be at the center of all your business planning — and for us, it is."
Economist Billy Pizer, from the Washington think tank Resources for the Future, says that Allen's statement reflects exactly the kind of thinking supporters of climate change policies are hoping to inspire by making it expensive to emit greenhouse gases.
"Suddenly this activity that had no consequence before has a consequence, a financial consequence," Pizer said.
"So, it's going to change the way people think. It's going to change the way they use the fuels they currently have and it's going to change the way people invest in research and development to try to find cleaner technologies."
Pizer says the hope is that over the long run, the changes will be enough to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that will protect the environment.
But in the mean time, measures like the one passed this week by a Senate subcommittee will have to work their way through the political process. The bill, America's Climate Security Act, was sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).
After being approved, 4-3, the bill moves on to the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is headed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
Hear audio and read more on NPR
This past week, a Senate subcommittee passed a bill that would be a major step toward controlling greenhouse gases. The legislation would target places like Maryland's Brandon Shores, a large coal-fired power plant that emits 10 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
Coal-fired power plants like Brandon Shores, located outside Baltimore, are the United States' biggest contributors to global warming. But they also supply about half of the country's electricity.
On a recent tour of the plant, Paul Allen, senior vice president of Constellation Energy — which owns Brandon Shores — discussed the plant's future.
"This power plant serves the electrical needs of perhaps a million customers. It's a very significant portion of the generation supply for the Baltimore metropolitan area," Allen said. Asked how long he expects the plant to operate, his response is optimistic. "Oh decades," he said.
That could mean Brandon Shores will also be pumping out carbon dioxide for decades. Right now, that doesn't cost the company anything. But that will change if one of the bills making their way through Congress becomes law.
The two measures would cover power plants, refineries and factories in a cap and trade system, in which they would need allowances for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit.
At first, the government would probably give Brandon Shores and other polluters some of those allowances. But over time, the company will have to buy them.
The price will be dynamic," Allen said. It could go up it could go down. But if we are serious about meeting the kind of targets that climatologists tell us need to be met, it's possible to think the price of carbon control could be pretty high."
Allen says Constellation will have no choice but to buy the allowances from other companies or the government.
"We recognize that ultimately this is going to be an additional cost of doing business."
Over time, as the cap gets tighter, that could lead to customers paying more expensive electricity bills.
Allen says Constellation can't just install a pollution control device for carbon dioxide, the way it's doing to strip out other pollutants like the ones that create smog and acid rain. The difference is that carbon dioxide is an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal.
Some engineers are working on ways to capture carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and then inject it underground. But Allen doesn't expect those technologies to be available any time soon.
Allen says the prospect of carbon dioxide regulation is already having a huge impact on his business. For instance, Constellation is planning to build new nuclear plants, mostly because they don't emit carbon dioxide.
"If you believe as we do, that carbon policy is both good and inevitable, and that it's going to have to be pretty significant to make a difference ecologically speaking," Allen said, "then you begin to believe that it has to be at the center of all your business planning — and for us, it is."
Economist Billy Pizer, from the Washington think tank Resources for the Future, says that Allen's statement reflects exactly the kind of thinking supporters of climate change policies are hoping to inspire by making it expensive to emit greenhouse gases.
"Suddenly this activity that had no consequence before has a consequence, a financial consequence," Pizer said.
"So, it's going to change the way people think. It's going to change the way they use the fuels they currently have and it's going to change the way people invest in research and development to try to find cleaner technologies."
Pizer says the hope is that over the long run, the changes will be enough to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that will protect the environment.
But in the mean time, measures like the one passed this week by a Senate subcommittee will have to work their way through the political process. The bill, America's Climate Security Act, was sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).
After being approved, 4-3, the bill moves on to the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is headed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
Hear audio and read more on NPR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
