More on the CLEAR Act

I hope you'll find ways to celebrate Earth Day in your community.  In Santa Fe, here is a listing of fun possibilities (scroll down; they're on the left).  Feel free to post other events in any community in comments to this post.  Here are some interesting comments on the CLEAR Act, which I posted about last week, and comparisons to other national legislation to reduce greenhouse gases:  What people are saying about the CLEAR Act; World Resources Institute Analysis of the CLEAR Act and Other Climate and Energy Proposals; The Economist Endorses the CLEAR Act.  I'm intrigued with the idea of capping greenhouse gas emissions, auctioning off permits for the right to emit a steadily decreasing amount of carbon dioxide, and dividing up the proceeds among the American public (with 25% going to further emissions reductions and to help those most affected adjust to the disruptions of climate change). What do you think?  I'm going to start putting these blog posts on the Green Line, the Santa Fe New Mexican's green living website, as well as here.  If you know of other places on the web I can post, let me know, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

The CLEAR Act

In December, Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the CLEAR Act, another promising bill to reduce climate change.  CLEAR stands for Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal. Its approach is called cap-and-dividend.  Under this bill:

• the Department of Energy would auction carbon shares (1 share = a permit to emit a ton of CO2), to U.S. companies that import and produce fossil fuels
• 75% of the auction proceeds would be divided evenly among U.S. consumers each month
• 25% would go to a fund (the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund) to pay for additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions, low‐carbon energy investment, climate change adaptation, and regional economic adjustments
• The number of permits sold each year would decrease to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050 
• The permit price would be determined by bidding on permits but regulated to be within a certain range to reduce the economic damage caused by too much price volatility 
• Only producers and importers would be required to purchase permits and allowed to bid

The apparent advantages of this bill, pointed out by Mike Sandler at the Huffington Post, are that 100% of permits are auctioned, no offsets are allowed (offsets let an emitter buy shares in a project that reduces CO2 rather than reducing the emitter's CO2 production), and no one but producers and importers can bid on permits (no speculators, investment firms, etc.). In other bills, such as ACES (Waxman-Markey, which passed the House last year), many permits were given away for free, offsets were allowed, and third parties could buy and sell permits.

What do you think of this bill?  Post your comments, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Vets and others speak out on climate legislation

Here's the promised video by VoteVets.org outlining the link between oil dependence and war, which John  Kerry put up on the Huffington Post blog and commented on.  Here's an outline of new climate and energy legislation introduced by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman to mirror the legislation passed by the House last June. And here's an open letter by a Grist blogger David Roberts to these Senators on what sounds like a sensible approach to getting this climate legislation passed.  Please let your Senators know what you think here.  I'll be gone next week visiting my extended family (yes, I bought offsets).  Let us know what you think of these pieces, and what you think we should be doing to fight climate change, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Block the Dirty Air Act

President Obama last May proposed improving gas mileage standards for cars and decreasing their greenhouse gas emissions.  The EPA rule that would accomplish this is set to go into effect April 1, but Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska has proposed a bill that would block it.  The Senate could vote within days on her dirty air act.  Please click here to sign a petition urging your Senator to vote no on this act and all legislation that attempts to block or freeze enforcement of Clean Air Act limits on greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change. According to Environment New Mexico, the EPA rule would save twice as much oil as we import from the Persian Gulf in a year and reduce global warming pollution by 900 million metric tons, the amount emitted by 194 coal-burning power plants.  Next week:  a video from vets urging passage of clean energy climate legislation.  Let me know your thoughts and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Alternatives to nuclear power for slowing climate change

Despite a big push for nuclear power in the US and elsewhere as an answer to the woes of climate change, there remain serious issues that make it a solution of last resort, unless and until these issues can be addressed.  The reason nuclear is brought up is that wind and solar, though very good potential sources of energy, have the problem of being intermittent, and nuclear power plants have almost continuous operation with no greenhouse gas emissions.  The current electric power system requires about 35-40% of the power, termed baseload, to be provided by a steadily available source of energy, mostly burning coal in the US.  This book and website, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, outlines how to reduce greenhouse gases and provide baseload without the use of nuclear energy.

The US can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gases, not to mention energy costs, from conservation measures.  Geothermal energy, from hot rock and water below the Earth's surface, is a source of steady power, has a long track record, doesn't generate greenhouse gases, and is being rapidly developed.  It's also becoming more economical with tax incentives and stimulus money.  Although geothermal plants have a high up-front cost, the cost of energy generated from them is less than for coal, as outlined in this Scientific American piece.  Other potential solutions to the problem of solar and wind being intermittent include using hydrogen fuel cells to store the energy these sources generate, and pumping water uphill when solar and wind are available and generating power by sending it downhill when they aren't.

Nuclear power still has all the issues that it had in the 1970's and early 1980's:  no long-term solution to the problem of waste, very large cost of building plants, and safety issues with operating the plants and  mining uranium.  Also, though nuclear plants don't generate CO2 during operation, mining and processing uranium with current methods does generate greenhouse gases.  Some sources point to fast neutron reactors, which potentially solve the problem of waste by producing more fuel from depleted fuel, as the wave of the future.  However this article points to serious problems with these reactors which have resulted in the closure of most of them since their introduction in the 1950's.

With the track record of geothermal, new methods of storing energy from solar and wind, conservation, and new sources of energy being developed, I think we should be very cautious about pursuing a technology which has the potential to release significant amounts of radioactivity for millenia.  What do you think?
Stay cool,
Bonney

Do We Need Nuclear Power to Reduce Climate Change?

In researching this question, I ran across an interesting website, ProCon.org.  Their goal is to "provide resources for critical thinking and to educate without bias. We do not express opinions on our research projects."  On this issue, at least, I think they've succeeded. Here's their piece, "Is expanding nuclear energy production necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?" Let me know what you think, and next week, I'll let you know what I think!
Stay cool,
Bonney

Here's the comments I submitted to the Environmental Improvement Board regarding proposed regulation of greenhouse gases.  You can submit comments through the end of the hearing on Monday, or attend the hearing and present your comments in person.  See last week's blog post for details.

Re: Docket number EIB  08-19 (R)

I have read the proposed regulations and support the proposal to set a science based cap on greenhouse gas emissions at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. As a former Environment Department employee, I find the proposed regulations to be fair and enforceable. Setting these regulations will provide a more predictable environment for business than the current lack of regulation in which we are left to wonder what form regulation will take. As a scientist and writer studying climate change for the last year and a half, I've concluded, along with a large majority of scientists studying the issue, that climate change is one of the most severe environmental problems facing the species of planet Earth, including humans.

New Mexico has the chance to join California and Massachusetts in passing regulations that create a favorable environment for investment in renewable energy, spurring a green economic recovery, and to to have a large influence on what form Federal regulations will take. I encourage the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt these regulations. As reported by Ceres, a national network of investors and public interest groups, the world's largest investors released a statement in January 2010 calling on governments to adopt climate change policy that will create a stable investment environment. "Given that Copenhagen was a missed opportunity to create one fully functional international carbon market, it is more important than ever that individual governments implement regional and domestic policy change to stimulate the creation of a low carbon economy,” said Peter Dunsombe, chairman of the IIGCC, a network of European investors.

I call on the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt these regulations.

Speak Out for a Greenhouse Gas Cap in New Mexico

New Energy Economy, a Santa Fe-based nonprofit that sees New Mexico's unique opportunity to shape climate change policy in the US, has partnered with the NM Law Center, an nonprofit with a long history of legal action protecting New Mexico's environment and people, to petition the Environmental Improvement Board to reduce greenhouse gases in the state. We are ranked 2nd in the nation for solar potential and 12th for wind.  Investors are calling on governments to regulate greenhouse gases and energy efficiency to create a stable environment for low-carbon energy investments.  The EIB will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 1, 2010 beginning at 10 a.m. at the State Personnel Office Auditorium, Willie Ortiz Building, 2600 Cerrillos Rd. in Santa Fe on these proposed regulations (Note this is a CHANGE of location).  There are three ways you can make your voice heard:  Go to the public hearing and speak in favor of these regulations, which will apply to any source emitting more than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases a year;  submit a written comment by the end of the hearing (see the fifth paragraph of this notice); or sign the New Energy Economy's petition in favor of the new regs.  There are currently no national caps on greenhouse gases, although federal regulations require sources emitting over 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases to report their emissions.  See this post on federal legislation.  We need to take every reasonable action on every possible front to reduce greenhouse gases in light of the seriousness of climate change.  Thanks for all your actions!  Share them here, and
Stay cool,
Bonney