Fossil Energy
Pollution Allowances at Work: Utilities slash S02 as new rule approaches
Published July 06, 2009 @ 07:20PM PT
U.S. utilities scrubbed down sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants by 24% between January and June, compared to the same period last year. Why? Because in 2010 a new air pollution regulation, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) comes into effect in the eastern United States, and the industry is getting ready to abide by a new SO2 allowance system.
Covering a briefing by Genscape (a firm that provides real-time power supply information to the North American and European energy markets), Reuters reporter Bruce Nichols writes that the reduction is "much more than would be expected due to the recession and lower electricity demand, the power industry data provider said in its quarterly review of energy trends."
It's an interesting example of how an allowances system that features early adoption incentives can effectively bring about a needed environmental improvement. In this case, it's limiting SO2, which contributes to smog and is the primary cause of acid rain. There is a similar incentive for greenhouse gas emissions caps in the clean energy and climate legislation before Congress.
(Just to be clear: Carbon dioxide can't be controlled using the technologies that remove SO2 or nitrogen oxide (NOX) from power plant emissions, so I'm not suggesting a parallel there.)
More on Genscape's data:
Second-quarter carbon dioxide emissions were down 10 percent in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative service area, where they can be monitored, mostly due to cool weather in the Northeast and the recession, Genscape said.
But the decline in SO2 is largely because of the new rules coming in 2010 and an allowance scheme that favors early implementation, the power data provider said. [[Emphasis mine.]]
"Most of the decline in sulfur emissions is not due to the recession or even to the switch from high-sulfur coal to lower sulfur grades and to gas," Genscape said, noting many plants have installed equipment to remove SO2 from emissions.
"It makes sense to start cutting emissions early if the equipment is in place since pre-CAIR vintage allowances will retain their full face value of a ton of SO2, while from 2010 onward, each permit will be worth only half a ton," Genscape said.
From Stephen Colbert to Steve Doocy: 7 Videos to Watch This Week
Published July 01, 2009 @ 05:55PM PT
1. The Colbert Report, May 7, 2009: Smokin' Pole - The Fight for Arctic Riches
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Smokin' Pole - The Fight for Arctic Riches | ||||
|
||||
Arctic nations rush to stake claims in polar territories, even though it clearly belongs to America -- Superman lives there.
2. Al Gore warns on latest climate trends
Al Gore presents updated slides from around the globe to make the case that worrying climate trends are even worse than scientists predicted, and to make clear his stance on "clean coal."
3. Bill McKibben: Fighting Climate Change in the Obama Era
Greenpeace UK has a chat over coffee with veteran US "environmental guru" Bill McKibben. McKibben has been agitating and organising to make governments take strong action on climate change for the past 20 years. Until there is a mass movement that both gives politicians the space to act, he believes, and forces them to do so, change will be halting.
4. Ray Zahab treks to the South Pole
Extreme runner Ray Zahab shares an enthusiastic account of his record-breaking trek on foot to the South Pole in January 2009 -- a 33-day sprint through the snow. Zahab broke the record for fastest unsupported trek across Antarctica, to raise awareness and money for kids' environmental education.
5. The American Denial of Global Warming
Why do some Americans still believe that there is "no solid" evidence of global warming, or that if warming is happening it can be attributed to natural variability? Or that scientists are still debating the point? Scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientific consensus and probes the history of organized campaigns designed to create public doubt and confusion about science. Via University of California
Television
6. The Daily Show, June 1, 2009: Bob Woodruff chats with Jon Stewart about global warming
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Bob Woodruff | ||||
|
||||
Experts say over the next hundred years the "perfect storm" of population growth, resource depletion and climate change could converge with catastrophic results. On the eve of the broadcast of ABC's "Earth 2100" special, Bob Woodruff lays out the worst-case scenario for the future of civilization, and how we can act now to set a different course.
7. Fox News reports global temperature decline falsehood as if it's true
Several Fox News figures have used a purportedly "suppressed" EPA document to advance the falsehood that, in Steve Doocy's words, "for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping." More at Media Matters for America.
Obama Admin. Approves California's Tailpipe Emissions Rule
Published June 30, 2009 @ 08:29PM PT
After five years of uncertainty, California has gotten the green light to set tougher standards for greenhouse gas pollution from automobiles than those set by the federal government.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced this afternoon that it would grant the "California waiver" to federal fuel economy standards. This clears the road for the Golden State to implement immediately a 2002 state law requiring new cars and trucks to raise fuel economy 40 percent, to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, by 2016.
President Obama wants the same standard nationwide by 2016, four years sooner than Congress mandated as part of a 2007 energy law.
"This decision puts the law and science first," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement. "After review of the scientific findings, and another comprehensive round of public engagement, I have decided this is the appropriate course under the law."
Jackson was very likely zinging her Bush-appointed predecessor, Stephen Johnson, for breaking with traditional interpretations of the use of the Clean Air Act, as well as the agency's history of granting the waiver, when he denied California the right to implement its law in 2008.
Jackson's approval of the waiver isn't surprising, but the impact is significant: it overturns one of the Bush administration major roadblocks for states in combatting global warming. Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Colombia, all intend to apply California's standard.
Writing in The New York Times "Wheels" blog, Jim Motavalli reports that automakers appear to have collectively shrugged their shoulders at the announcement:
“This issue was largely decided when the Obama administration announced a single national program,” said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “Last month’s agreement settled the question of who would set future fuel economy and greenhouse-gas standards.”
It's good news that the California waiver has been granted. Now the question is why a mere 35.5 mpg seven years from now is the goal. Technologies already exist on the global automobile market -- like Toyota's third-gen Prius hybrid -- that get 50 miles per gallon or more.
#ACES Wrap-up: Decoding the House Vote, Looking Ahead to the Senate
Published June 29, 2009 @ 11:44AM PT
Above: Right-wing "hit list": the eight House Republicans who voted for the energy-climate bill.
Via Glenn Thrush on Politico (who asks, "Ever wonder why the GOP is losing moderates?" No.)
The White House did something pretty unusual Friday evening. It retracted President Obama's prepared weekend statement on health care reform, already being circulated, and replaced it with a new message exhorting the Senate to get climate/energy legislation passed as well.
Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times reported the move this way: "President Obama was planning to talk [in his regular weekend address] about the urgent need for Congress to begin coalescing around health care legislation, saying, 'If we don’t act, things will get worse.' But the urgency for health care suddenly turned out to be not so urgent after all."
I think Zeleny gets this wrong. Health care reform and curbing global warming are equally urgent -- and this White House knows it.
After years of inaction on these and other crises, it's like the nation has been in a slow-moving car crash. Now it's in the emergency room. The doctors and nurses have to decide: Which life-threatening injury is more important, the punctured lung or the cracked skull? There's no way to choose, so they surround the patient and try to fix them all at the same time. At least until one demands more attention than the others.
So, to overextend the analogy: The passage of the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill on Friday moved global warming up on the critical injury list.
So President Obama took advantage the opportunity to apply his own uniquely powerful form of pressure where it would do the most good.
It looks like a canny decision, since, according to The National Journal, how a district voted in the November election -- that is, pure political calculation -- meant the most to a Democratic representative's yea or nay on the bill:
Of the 49 House Democrats who represent districts that McCain carried last year, fully 29 voted against the measure. By contrast, just 15 of the 207 Democrats from districts that Obama carried last year voted against the bill. (Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, whose district backed Obama, did not vote, meaning "Obama Democrats" ended up splitting 191-15.) Put another way, while 59 percent of the Democrats from districts that McCain carried voted no, just 7 percent of Democrats in Obama-majority districts opposed the White House on the vote.
Similarly, seven of the eight Republicans who supported the measure represent districts that backed Obama last November. (The list included Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who's considering a bid for the president's former Senate seat, and Mike Castle of Delaware, who may run for the seat vacated by Vice President Joe Biden.)
... [Of the Republican representatives,] 27 of the 34 Republicans from Obama-districts held with their party and voted against the legislation. [In California], only Mary Bono Mack from Palm Springs supported the bill. Meanwhile, Republicans from districts that McCain carried voted against the bill by 141-1, with Rep. Christopher Smith of New Jersey the only supporter. (Two other "McCain Republicans" did not vote.)
The degree of a district's reliance on coal-fired electricity also figured into how a representative voted, per the TNJ team. Of the 121 reps whose districts depend on coal for at least 40 percent of their energy, 30 voted against Waxman-Markey, "about one-in-four of the coal state Democrats ... compared to only a little over one-in-10 of everyone else."
Simply flipping that analyis offers up a more encouraging picture, though. As Brad Plumer at The New Republic writes:
It's actually noteworthy, though, to see how many coal-state Democrats voted for the bill. That's mostly because Henry Waxman and Rick Boucher bent over backward to make concessions for the coal industry—for instance, giving allowances away to local electric-distribution outfits so as to cushion the blow for ratepayers that get much of their power from burning coal. Environmental groups decried these measures, and there's certainly much to grumble about, but given that only a thimbleful of Republicans were going to vote for the bill, it's hard to see how any climate bill ever passes without concessions to coal-staters.
Obama to Senate on Climate, Energy: "We cannot be afraid of the future"
Published June 29, 2009 @ 08:32AM PT
Above: President Obama used the whole of his latest weekly address to laud the passage of the House climate and clean energy bill. This video by AP left off the final, forward-looking words of his statement:
Now my call to every Senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth. It’s just not true.
We have been talking about energy for decades. But there is no longer a disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security. It is. There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening. And there is no longer a question about whether the jobs and industries of the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy.
The question is, which country will create these jobs and these industries? I want that answer to be the United States of America. And I believe that the American people and the men and women they sent to Congress share that view. So I want to congratulate the House for passing this bill, and I want to urge the Senate to take this opportunity to come together and meet our obligations – to our constituents, to our children, to God’s creation, and to future generations.
Full transcript on whitehouse.gov.
Fatalistic Friday: World watches as House votes on clean energy, climate bill
Published June 26, 2009 @ 02:07PM PT
"Why do we allow the US to act like a failed state on climate change?": "It would be laughable anywhere else. But, so everyone says, the Waxman-Markey bill which is likely to be passed in Congress today or tomorrow, is the best we can expect – from America.
The cuts it proposes are much lower than those being pursued in the UK or in most other developed nations," says George Monbiot. Why? "You have only to read the comments that follow this article to find out. Thanks to the lobbying work of the coal and oil companies, and the vast army of thinktanks, PR consultants and astroturfers they have sponsored, thanks too to the domination of the airwaves by loony right shock jocks, the debate over issues like this has become so mad that any progress at all is little short of a miracle." (The Guardian)
Barack Obama urges Congress to back climate change Bill: "The Bill would require utilities, by 2020, to get 15 per cent of their electricity from renewable resources — solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass — and show annual energy savings of 5 per cent from efficiency measures. The EU plan calls for getting 20 per cent of all electricity from renewable resources by 2020." (The Times Online)
Political paralysis as clock ticks on climate change: ...President Obama faces fierce domestic opposition to all measures, however modest, that aim to rein in Americans’ high-energy lifestyles. Legislation known as the Waxman-Markey Bill is now before Congress. It’s so watered down that if it were a medicine, it might well be classified as homeopathic. And yet, after eight years of Bush era anti-science, the very fact that a climate Bill is even on the table is cause for celebration. It would be inconceivable for the world’s largest polluter to arrive in Copenhagen without having its own national policy on climate change in place." (The Irish Times)
EU: we want US climate bill to succeed: "The Europe Union wants a U.S. climate change bill to succeed so the United States can move swiftly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Friday..."We want the U.S. to go as far and as fast as they can on climate change," Barroso said. "We want Waxman-Markey to succeed. ... Rarely, perhaps, has U.S. domestic legislation been so carefully monitored internationally." (Associated Press)
China welcomes U.S. climate bill, says more needed: "China's top climate change official on Friday welcomed a U.S. climate change bill but said Washington needed to take stronger action to ensure success at year-end talks to settle a global framework on warming. Xie Zhenhua, a deputy chief of the National Development and Reform Commission who steers climate change policy, said the bill was a positive break with the stance taken by the Administration of former President George W. Bush. But he said the legislation still did not meet international expectations for U.S. action, or ensure a strong deal could be reached at U.N.-led talks in Copenhagen in December. "We think that we should give a positive evaluation to this bill...But in the area of tackling climate change, especially on the issue of cutting emissions, if they could take some more positive, effective measures it would give a bigger impetus to the year-end talks," he added. (Reuters)
-----
Image: The Earth on August 2, 2005, from NASA's Messenger spacecraft.
State your case on #ACES: Climate Pass or Climate Fail?
Published June 26, 2009 @ 08:51AM PT
Okay kids, get your ya-yas out: What's your opinion of the clean energy and climate change bill that's being debated in the House today?
Should it pass, or will it do more harm than good in stopping global warming? Will its' cap-and-trade provisions curb greenhouse gas emissions effectively, or have concessions to fossil energy and agriculture industry interests fatally weakened the legislation?
Note: As ever, courtesy toward fellow commenters is strongly encouraged. References to Nazis, or denials of the reality of global warming, will be deleted as troll posts.
-----
Image: View of the Sun from Baja California, during an eclipse on July 11, 1991. Source: NASA Earth Observatory
