White Lightning Axiom: Redux

This is how it should be done. The states decide what to do and the Federal government sets the standards. Those who prefer to put in the extra effort are rewarded with funding, those do do not, need none.

Notes:After years of assailing the U.S. for refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, E.U. leaders admit they will miss their own Kyoto guidelines, and have actually increased greenhouse emissions by 1.1 percent.

Report Card:
Changes in greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries, 1990-2003.

Over all among these countries there was a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions of 5.9 per cent, from 18.4 billion tonnes CO² equivalent in 1990 to 17.3 billion tonnes CO² equivalent in 2003.

Country Per cent
Spain +41.7
Monaco +37.8
Portugal +36.7
Greece +25.8
Ireland +25.6
Canada +24.2
Australia +23.3
New Zealand +22.5
Finland +21.5
Austria +16.5
United States +13.3
Japan +12.8
Italy +11.5
Norway +9.3
Denmark +6.8
Liechtenstein +5.3
Netherlands +1.5
Belgium +1.3
Switzerland -0.4
European Union -1.4
Slovenia -1.9
France -1.9
Sweden -2.3
Croatia -6.0
Iceland -8.2
Britain -13.0
Luxembourg -16.1
Germany -18.2
Czech Republic -24.2
Slovakia -28.3
Hungary -31.9
Poland -34.4
Russian Federation -38.5
Belarus -44.4
Romania -46.1
Ukraine -46.2
Bulgaria -50.0
Estonia -50.8
Latvia -58.5
Lithuania -66.2

SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS

N.J. and Del. are among the group aiming to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Pa. is taking an observatory role.
<...>
While much of the world faults the United States for not joining a plan to tackle global warming, up to nine Eastern states - including New Jersey and Delaware but not Pennsylvania - are poised this week to take action by themselves.

The states would freeze emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants starting in 2009, and then reduce them by 10 percent between 2015 and 2020. Details of the plan, which would have to be adopted separately by each state, are to be announced as soon as Thursday.

The states project that annual home electric bills could rise by more than $30 a year mainly as the result of power plants switching to more expensive, but cleaner-burning, natural gas. They also have rosier estimates that assume greater spending on energy efficiency and predict that electric bills might actually decline.

Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping "greenhouse gas." Nearly all climate scientists [ed. not even close, but let's continue] believe that emissions from smokestacks, cars and trucks are causing a slow but steady rise in average global temperatures - leading to rising sea levels, stronger hurricanes and the loss of habitat for some plants and animals.
<...>
The states include the six New England states, New York, New Jersey and Delaware, although last week it was unclear whether the governors of Rhode Island and Massachusetts would pull out.

The plan would have more heft with the inclusion of Pennsylvania, a major electricity producer whose emissions are nearly equal to those of the other nine states combined.

But the Rendell administration has opted to be involved in the plan only as an observer.
<..>
But a larger reason is that the strategy of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is not comprehensive, he said.

The plan does not address emissions of other greenhouse gases such as methane, which, while less plentiful than carbon dioxide, has a far greater ability to trap the sun's heat. The plan also does not restrict pollution from cars and trucks.[ed. because it could not pass and has no authority or teeth]

"While we respect what the RGGI states are trying to do... we disagree as to approach," Desmond said. "The RGGI states are focusing on a single greenhouse gas from a single class of industry: carbon dioxide from power plants only."

Cars and trucks account for more carbon-dioxide emissions than power plants in the Eastern states.

In New Jersey, for example, transportation accounted for about 69 million tons of the gas in 2001. Electricity generation produced about 21 million tons, according to federal statistics.

The plan would not require reductions at all power plants, but would instead accomplish the goal through the trading of pollution "allowances."[ed. bad, bad, bad. This creation of an artificial points market will stifle any progress here. It's one of the main problems with the Kyoto program]

Some plant owners might choose to reduce pollution more than required, and could then sell the extra allowances to other plants where cutting emissions did not make economic sense. A similar approach has worked well in a federal program to reduce acid rain.

[ed. Pay attention here ... this is the crux]
A big uncertainty is the cost of natural gas, which in the near future will be the main way of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. A gas-fired plant emits about half the amount of the average coal-burning plant of similar size.

But natural gas prices have soared recently.

Some cost projections assume the price will average $7.50 per million British thermal units (BTUs) during the program. The spot price for natural gas has recently been above $14 per million BTUs, though it is expected to decline.

The nine states "are going to be shooting themselves in the foot economically and driving even more of their manufacturing base overseas," said Douglas L. Biden, president of the Harrisburg-based Electric Power Generation Association.

Another concern is "leakage" - the notion that Eastern utilities would import more coal-generated power from non-participating states, thereby negating some of the reductions.[ed. Free market always finds a cheaper way. Evolution with dollars]

The states are considering various regulatory approaches to limit leakage. They also propose that some proceeds from selling the initial pollution allowances be used for the public benefit, perhaps in the form of customer rebates or investment in cleaner technologies. Ideally, that investment would be made in member states.

The thing that gets me is that it is NOT the co2 we should be worried about. Excessive co2 will promote excessive plant growth. Balance will eventually be restored. Nothing like the biomass for co2->oxygen conversion exists for methane though. Most importantly here ... what is the emission level of a nuclear power plant?

Technorati Tags: Kyoto | Politics