Global Warming Legislation: What Matters?
Joe Lockhart posted A Climate of Opportunity earlier today. In it, he praises the Lieberman-Warner American Climate Security Act (more accurately known as the Coal Subsidy Act) and calls on Democratic Party politicians to unify behind it, asserting that: "Lieberman-Warner presents a smart and effective means to fight climate change." Well, this assertion is at odds with core basic principles. There are three base principles for any global warming legislation:
- Scientific standards
- Polluters Pay
- Societal equity
Lieberman-Warner fails on all three ... as we are about to discuss.
Stepping back for a moment ...
Energy and Global Warming are complex, multifaceted, deep subjects. They are beyond the ability of any single person to totally master. And, a great challenge to those focused on them is seeking how to communicate, in a meaningful way, to those who don't have the ability to dedicate huge chunks of time to learning about the issues.
When it comes to Global Warming, ever more of the Globe is aware. As some say, Katrina opened the door, Al Gore strode purposefully throught it, and now people realize that we need to do "something". But, defining that something becomes the next and, perhaps, even harder challenge.
Part of that "something" must include Global Warming/Climate Change legislation. But not just any old legislation should do, we must have meaningful legislation that meets core principles.
Okay. Principles. Global Warming legislation. Why not try the following:
- Meets or exceeds scientific standards for avoiding catastrophic climate change. Science should not cede to political realities.
- Polluters pay to pollute. Polluting the air that your children and mine breathe is not a right. Thus, under a Cap and Trade program, 100% of permits should be auctioned.
- Action now. The crisis is on us, delays in beginning the process only dig the hole deeper and make it more difficult to handle the challenges we face.
- Promote social equity and justice. Global Warming legislation will impact everyone, in all facets of life. This can be done in a way that worsens economic divisions or in ways to improve the social equity (between citizens today, and between today's citizens and tomorrow's). To date, it is the poor and least powerful whose "NIMBY" (not in my backyard) voices are least heard with much of the nation's pollution centered in disadvantaged areas. When divving up the gains to be had from dealing with global warming, those voices should not be drown out yet again.
- Strengthen the economy through, for example, green jobs, energy efficiency, creating new industries, reducing imports, and fostering exports. Shift from paying for fuel to paying for labor.
- Promote US leadership for concerted global action. The US has created the largest portion of the built-up greenhouse gas emissions. It is the world's largest economy. We can strengthen that economy through tackling global warming seriously. But, as well, we can help create the conditions for the entire globe to take action through our own action.
To me, these seem be a reasonable set of principles.
And, when considering them, it is clear that the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act fails to meet them. It:
- Fails to meet scientific standards to give even a 50% chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change, calling for 65% reductions in emissions by 2050 when 80% is, truly, an absolute base level.
- Polluters only partially pay, as 40% of emission permits through 2032 are given away principally to serial polluters.
- A cap is in place in 2012, four years out (there are reasons), with nothing mandated in terms of actions to reduce emissions before then.
- The giving away of pollution permits will lead to windfall profits, profits that will come from the pockets of "average" Americans. This will hurt, not help, social equity.
- Economic impact that is, at best, uneven in terms of the overall economy. The legislation does not give enough focus to "green" technologies, with a strong emphasis on technologies to keep the coal industry afloat (especially development resources of $100s billions for Carbon Capture & Sequestration). Thus, not providing for new industry leadership by the US.
- As its goals fall short of what other nations have already and what science says is required, if this would be US leadership, would it be leadership backwards?
Thus, despite Joe Lockhart's and Barbara Boxer's enthusiasm, Lieberman-Warner is not the bill the nation (or the globe) requires. Thus, we return to: Fix-or-Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill.
Related:
Joe Lockhart: A Climate of Opportunity for Democrats
Striving to be Energy Smart to Energize America.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you for the column and the article. One thing I would like to strongly recommend, as a soil scientist, is further and faster development of switchgrass for use as a biofuel. Switchgrass has several advantages over corn as a crop of choice here:
1. Switchgrass converts more energy more efficiently than corn.
2. Switchgrass will improve soil over years, causing it accumulate rich organic matter near the surface.
3. Switchgrass will effectively cause more soil moisture to be retained at the surface reducing soil erosion due to wind.
I'd like to expound a little more on why #3 is very important. Within the state of Nebraska there are many sandy soils prone to erosion by wind. Sand does not retain moisture the way the loamy soils do. Although plants can grow in sand where there is some precipitation and some ground cover, when precipitation becomes reduced (such as during climate change events) the sand soils will lose their soil water very rapidly. Ground cover becomes vulnerable, and evaporation further increases leaving plants helpless in barren dry hot sand. In short, Nebraska is very vulnerable to desertification. We need to protect this precious agricultural state, and switchgrass seems to be the answer.
I just read Joe Lockhart's column, and my response to you is just the same. If you haven't read Bill Richardson's book, Leading By Example, you should read is as soon as possible. The way to fix CO2 emissions is to pair it with other issues:
1. energy independence
2. national security
3. national and global economy
It takes no compromise. An Apollo program on wind and solar energy development is a complete solution to all of these problems at once.
See A. Siegel's Profile
Well aware of Leading By Example, Apollo Alliance, Green For All, etc ... All better paths than what we see from the current White House (by far). You might want to look at Energize America www.ea2020.orgg).
Thanks the website. I'll be looking for more from Energize America in the future.
See A. Siegel's Profile
In essence, I agree with your post. Leading By Example is worth reading. Apollo Alliance would be light years ahead of where we are right now. You might want to check out Energize America.
Data from Britains Climate Reserach unit show the following. Global average temperature for 2007 was cooler than 2001,2002,2003 2004, 2005 and 2006. Average temperature for the first quater of 2008 was cooler than any yearly average temperature since 1996. Since then CO2 rose 6%. There is little connection between anthropogenic CO2 and global temperatures. Warming peaked in 1998. Sea surface temperatures have been falling since 2003. Spencer (2008) has shown conclusively that the feedback factors used in the IPCC temperature CO2 sensitivity equations are wrong and have resulted in a substantial exageration of the temperature effects of CO2.
Solar studies sugest a real possibilty that the sun could enter a period of reduced activity resulting on earth in a cooling period for the next 20 - 40 years similar to the Dalton minimum of 1787 - 1843. Cooling of this magnitude would be very damaging to food production. 15 -20% of the increase in crop production in the 2Oth century was due simply to the increase in CO2. C02 is the essential plant food not a pollutant,
If the oceans continue to cool they will absorb more CO2 . CO2 levels will drop and plant productivity fall. If this scenario unfolds Governments should be encouraging more CO2 emmisions not less. The biofuels policy nonsense has already caused food riots in various countries, Our political nitwits and their green supporters are now planning another disaster with their batty carbon cap and trade schemes which will only make matters worse if the
See A. Siegel's Profile
Sorry, Spencer has not conclusively shown ...
Sigh ... how many times will false flags be raised. Playing whack-a-mole is neither enjoyable or highly productive.
"Warming peaked in 1998" is simply one of the latest false flags, and horribly so. Already cited are several refutations. Try this one: http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/new-gw-denialists-deceptive-lie-on-global-temperatures/
Re CO2, want to talk about implications for CO2 on acidification of the oceans and implications of that acidification for ocean life?
Etc ...
Sigh ... You are almost certainly not interested in true and truthful discussion, but on finding ways to take the truth out of truthiness.
Where specifically is Spencer wrong?
I agree 1998 was an unusually hot year . To say that El Nino and El Nina years are unusual really only renames the fact that they are warm or cold without any explanation of the root causes.
The moving average curve turned over in 2003.Sea surface temperatures have declined since. SStis a better guide to the overall trend than land temperatures which are inherently more variable and noisy.
I'm a geolgist . The evidence for solar control over past climate is overwhelming. C02 changes generally follow and do not lead temperature changes. To think that the pitifully small 0.12 % anthropogenic CO2 contribution to GHG will overwhelm solar influence is anthropomorphism and magical thinking carried to absurd ends. Go to the solar cycle 24 web site for posts on solar science and the relationship between solar activity and climate.
The rise in food prices is largely caused by the rush to biofuels. If the possible solar activity decline actually develops with late frosts and shorter growing seasons we will really be in serious trouble with the growing population. I think that it is essential that we understand climate change so that we can be prepared to adapt but that we need to be sure we know what is happening before rushing to take counterproductive actions based on erroneous predictions.
Meanwhile check the daily sunspot count- the longer Solar Cycle 24 is delayed the more likely it is that the cooling scenario will develop.
Al Gore would say that you are one of those that doesn't believe that we walked on the moon . . . is that true?
There are many shortcomings to the L-W Bill on Climate Change.
Your suggestion on one of them is to move to a 100 percent auction of "allowances" in a Cap-and-Trade(CT) program.
This IS an improvement over many of the proposals out there.
They are all a bunch of politicized crap.
The only rational solution is a Carbon Tax. Period.
A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) found that a Carbon Tax is the most efficient means of both reducing GG emissions as well as raising the social capital needed to fund the switch away from GG-producing energy sources.
We can raise the most money the fastest and we can reduce GG emissions faster and cheaper with a Carbon Tax, rather than any cap-and-trade scheme.
We should abandon all talk of a carbon CT program right now.
Neither Boxer nor my favorite Senator Sanders from Vermont have seen fit to engage the reality in the CBO study.
Without a solid funding source for alternative technology, and without THE MOST EFFICENT means of reducing GG emissions, we are looking to the financial services world for our global pollution solutions. Look around. PUHLEEEZ !
Allowances Futures.
Allowances Derivatives.
Allwances Hedges.
If that's what you want, stick with cap-and-trade.
We will ALL be paying for alleviating the potential threats caused by climate change.
Why would we NOT pursue the best means available to us in seeking those solutions?
CARBON TAX NOW !
See A. Siegel's Profile
For me, I see a balance between a Carbon Fee and a Cap/Auction/Trade.
A Carbon Fee (better word than tax) provides some guarantee as to financial revenue, but provides less certainty as to carbon pollution levels.
A Cap/Auction/Trade provides more certainty as to upper bound levels but provides little incentive for doing significantly better than that (to accelerate reductions, which I think is possible) and unevenness/uncertainty as to revenue streams (for R&D, aiding deployment of energy efficiency & clean power, adaptation work, etc ...).
Thus, I tend to think that there is value for a mix of the two approaches.
And, in terms of Cap & Trade, perhaps the most powerful argument is that it marries up to what is already happening in Europe, enabling greater ease of synchronization of efforts between the world's greatest economies.
Already cited, but some of my thoughts at: http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/global-warming-impact-an-agenda-item-for-2008-and-beyond/
Thanks for the note, and for the link.
Permit me to disagree.
The Carbon tax is a superior vehicle for achieving the CC goals that we all agree are important.
Your rationale for combining the Carbon tax and the C&T is that the tax is more efficent for capital formation, but you question its ability to achieve the goals.
By mixing these options, you will obfuscate the effectiveness of either.
Having all of everything is really the energy industry's strategy.
I repeat, the CBO study came to the oposite conclusion.
The Carbon Tax is more efficient vehicle as a means of reducing GG emissions.
The Carbon Tax will get you to whatever goals are set more quickly.
Period.
And the reasons are simple. Certainty and flexibility.
Think about it.
Once you set the goals, you need two things for success.
You need money.
And, you need technology.
(Forgetting political will for the moment).
If we set goals, and then allow the tradiing of allowances, they might end up in the hedge fund/derivative fallout for the simple reason that somebody is betting that we will NOT meet our objectives, and the allowances will run up in value.
Who wants our tax money, or our ratepayer money, to do that?
There is no value for the mix of approaches.
There is a desperate need for an honest debate of the value of the options before us.
Carbon Tax Now !
Sen. Boxer is usually pretty competent on Climate issues, how does she justify her recommendation on this legislation?
As to "what matters", would this legislation do anything toward developing and installing alternative-energy (green) industries?
See A. Siegel's Profile
My read on Boxer: she has worked so long, so hard, that she is desperate for "success". My impression is that she (and others) are looking backwards at how tough the environment was for discussing/dealing with Global Warming, rather than realizing the rising tide of changing US opinion and understanding of the issue. For thoughts, see (for example): http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/boxing-our-way-to-disaster/
Tax the sun for all those damaging solar flares. It's all about the money anyway.
you forget it authorizes foreign trading of offsets prior to any negotiated enforcable treaty being signed. All you have to do is cap 1 of 5 sectors and it grants the EPA admiistrator the authority tomake the call.
Call me old fashioned but how we trade carbon offsets needs to be governed by treaty law and enforcable under treaty that sets national caps not sector caps. Otherwise the promise of a green economy will be shallower than a mud puddle and governed by regulation subject to administrative fiat by the party in power.
Rumsfeld cheney not teach these demodolts anything.
HuffPost's Pick
You must force the members of your species that you have chosen to govern to make the changes necessary for humanity to survive. Your actions must move beyond baby steps, and must do so immediately. There is no issue more important for your people, in this, a year when you choose another to govern, than your species laying waste to its world, the only world you have, to exist on. You worry about jobs yet you can create them to heal your world. You worry about health care as if it will be there waiting for you when all begins to collapse around you. You complain about the price of fossil fuels you power your lives with, yet you allow the grip that greed has on your existence to further harm your world. Your species is at the threshold of the most important and critical time in your existence. Do not squander the immediate, critical choices that need to be made. Your very existence depends on you and you alone. The universe is watching.
The most informed member of my species with a thorough plan to see us through is Bill Richardson. His book, Leading By Example, left no doubt. We can hope that Obama might choose Richardson to his cabinet and let him lead on the issue. Otherwise, we are just dreaming. Lester Brown is also very good, but he's not in politics. Al Gore is not as versed in energy, and probably would not accept the role. David Freeman is knowledgeable, but he isn't at that stage in his career to lead us through this.
Siegel is right on the mark. These are absolutely the standards we must push for.
It's remarkable how vocal the small minority of naysayers are. The national science academies of every industrial nation have unanimously stated that human caused global warming is an urgent problem. The editor-in-chief of Science magazine said that “a consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science.” And the world’s most comprehensive assessment, the IPCC report, written by over 4,000 world experts warns of grave consequences with 90% certainty. Even CEOs of Alcoa, Dupont, GE, Wal-Mart, Lehman Brothers to name a few not only agree but believe action will help the economy.
If a doctor had this kind of certainty about a patient’s disease and benefits of action but didn’t act, they would be convicted for malpractice.
If a doctor just a few years ago said you had a stomach ulcer and needed powerful antacids and mind-altering drugs and extensive therapy for stress but wouldn't give any credance to crackpot notions of ulcers being largely caused by infection of heliobaxter pyloris, would you have sued for malpractice? I submit that the CO2 climate connection while widely accepted by all kinds of scientist does not mean the the connection is in fact the way it really is. And ulcers, by the way had been extensively researched for many years and all that research confirmed that stress was the cause, but the idea of bacterial infection as the cause was not accepted despite evidence accepted by a small minority of researchers who saw clear evidence that h. pyloris was the primary cause.
My point is that consensus is not and should not be the sole reason to accept something that's been researched as facts when other knowledgeable researchers have solid evidence, even if not widely accepted by the majority who form the consensus.
And I do like Al Gore, just wish he'd marshall his considerable powers of persuasion to mobilize a worldwide effort to confront all pollution which I think is a far more realistic cause for concern and not generate the level of alarm on this single issue of CO2 and climate change.
See A. Siegel's Profile
Oh, the Galileo argument. Just because the data supports the theory. Just because every major scientific organization says Global Warming is real. Just because the temperature charts are going up and ice is melting and oceans are acidifying and plants are migrating and growing seasons changing and ... Just because there is the off possibility that so many people who spend their lives studying the climate are so utterly wrong, we should ignore CO2?
And, CO2 isn't "it". And, by confronting CO2 we confront many other of those pollution challenges you point to. Mercury in the water? Human component mainly from coal-fired electricity. Gasoline/Diesel fumes contributing to health problems? Well, reducing Co2 also reduces the other pollutants. Etc ...
The idea that government, that screws up everything it tries to "fix", is going to try and control the climate is laughable. It also makes me want to cry, because I know that my taxes will go up and more regulations will be shoved down our throats and government will expand even larger than it already is..................all over a hoax.
When will all you do-gooder liberals realize that we can't change or control the climate?
Truth be told, I believe you already know this, but you need another excuse to control as much of peoples lives as you can through government.
Don't change the climate..........adapt to it.
HuffPost's Pick
You are right that we must adapt to the environment, as all plant and animal species have had to do for millions of years or face extinction. But your apparent ignorance of, or tolerance for, the fact that man continues to spew life-threatening GHGs into the atmosphere is what is laughable.
If liberals are 'do-gooders', does that make conservatives like you 'do-worsers'? What A Siegel and other informed folks do 'know', is that our continued GHG emissions threaten our planet and that the US has failed miserably to provide strategic leadership on this critical issue.
"The crisis is on us, delays in beginning the process only dig the hole deeper and make it more difficult to handle the challenges we face."
Tell that to Minnesota, no global warming here, wish there was though. 2-4 feet of snow in April, -40 degree days in January. Doesn't sound like much has changed here.
See A. Siegel's Profile
Might I suggest that you spend some time (even a few minutes) to understand the difference between weather and climate.
And, despite that frosty times you might feel in your neighborhood, the globe is toasting ...
And, if you want to play a game of 'it is unusually cold' this winter, well try reading two things before playing that game:
http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/new-gw-denialists-deceptive-lie-on-global-temperatures/
http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/17/noaa-the-second-warmest-march-on-record/
"Polluters pay to pollute. Polluting the air that your children and mine breathe is not a right. Thus, under a Cap and Trade program, 100% of permits should be auctioned."
That's a great idea but who do you think really pays? Do the companies eat this extra cost or do they pass it along to everyone else?
I'll let you guess.
See A. Siegel's Profile
The point, however, is that we are polluters (all of us) via those companies. And, what happens via that is that we (as individual consumers) will become incentivized to act differently. Companies, to be competitive, will be incentivized to act differently. And, the 'clean' technologies (whether energy efficiency or renewable energy) will be competitively advantaged to help move pollution down on an even faster track.
Now, the more serious question ... which you did not ask, is what to do with those revenues? I would give back about 50% to all US citizens, who are residing on US soil. Thus, those who pollute at a little more than half the US average (green cards & otherwise don't benefit) make a 'profit'. Use the other half to accelerate deployment of energy efficiency & renewable energy to speed the lowering of the pollution footprint while fostering ever more green jobs in the society & strengthening the economy.
PS: By giving 40% of pollution permits away, what do you think will happen, that companies would magically pass along savings to customers? In fact, the experience with past Cap & Trade is that the give-away permits lead to windfall profits for some businesses and that this lead to a higher cost process for the achieved pollution reduction.
"I would give back about 50% to all US citizens"
Then I would vote for you, unfotunatly the Government isn't a big fan of giving things back.
Well tell your bud David Monsma and your friends at NRDC, Friends of the Earth and Sierra Club to start acting like the environmentalists that pretend to be and stop supporting this type of crap.
Their misguided support of cap and trade policies does nothing to help the environment.
BTW hold them accountable for their lame ass support of ethanol which is adversely impacting the production and cost of food grains.
Ethanol what a stupid waste - it takes lots of energy to produce and that energy all comes from using petro or nuclear power ethanol and folks are starving in developing nations while corn production for ethanol increases
"Their misguided support of cap and trade policies does nothing to help the environment."
There will be two complete carbon credit collapses. One, in the market, which must occur.
Next, the collapse of credibility of the Big Environmental NGO money engines for having signed on and promoted this farce. Worse (for the blogosphere) it will enable the Rush Limbaugh listeners to claim validation for their whole range of reflexive pollution-loving positions.
I don't believe in Global Warming at all, I think it's just another way for the government to get their hands on some more cash for a bogus reason.
I do think that we need to do everything we can to cleanup the environment and work towards cleaner fuels but not at the expense of our economy. Ethanol was a stupid decision we invested billions in.
Just think about it for a second, the government is now going to regulate what type of light bulbs you can buy . . . if it wasn't so sad it would kind of funny.
A cap and trade scheme is the antithesis of "social justice" if one includes jobs in that phrase. The scheme incentivizes closing down factories and plants in order to earn carbon credits either to terminate production or ship the jobs overseas. Bye bye Ford Motors for one.
Indeed, doling out free carbon credits to "serial polluters" who wish to remain in business can preserve jobs.
Either way, the traders will make a mint.
You do know that carbon credits are a joke right?
I should start selling "fat credits" meaning that you can eat as many cheeseburgers as you want and you can pay me to not eat any just to balance it out.
"You do know that carbon credits are a joke right?"
I don't quite know how to take that. On one level I would respond, yes, of course, I thought my comment wasn't that dense. But on another level I sense you mean carbon credits don't exist or such. There, my friend, you are very wrong. Their trade is working to enrich Chinese and impoverish Europeans. I hear of all places New Zealand is taking the biggest de-industrialization hit. Not very funny, actually.
J.
Please see my dialogue earlier in this post with A. Siegel.
Unfortunately, many of the largest the environmental groups bought into the free-market solutions to solve the crises we face.
The trading market in carbon emissions allowances is just the latest and is destined to be a farce.
It is avoidable if people like A. think about it long enough.
It is interesting that the C&Ters have come around to the 100 percent auction option, because that is the same certainty that would be achieved with a carbon tax.
Now they claim without any proof or facts that if you market those allowances, this will somehow bring us to GG reductions in a more timely manner.
The way I look at it, it's our money they are playing with.
I do not mind paying the price for saving the planet.
But I want the most cost-effective means we can use to get there.
Involving the future hedge fund derivative market in allowance credits to run the show is a recipe for the greatest cost and the least GG reductions.
Hopefully, after this post, Mr. Siegel will begin to come around.
If you want timely and cost-effective solutions to our environmental problems, have the political courage to use the taxpayer-government relationship, and leave the friggin financial services sector to bankrupt its own self.
Thanks for listening.
Several issues:
1. Science has been corrupted by politics. Any time you have a politician speaking about science, you should immediately worry. Government funds have corrupted scientific discussion and debate. What "scientific" standards do you use?
2. China, India, Brazil. So cripple the USA and do nothing about China, India, Brazil. China has surpassed the USA in energy. China burns 40% of the worlds coal.
3. Nuclear energy. If global warming is real and requires immediate action, why no discussion on nuclear.
4. Malthusians - have co-opted the environmental movement. Their objective is to reduce the populations of developing countries.
I say an add on HuffPost today that ripped McCain for endorsing "dangerous nuclear power" so I think from the left's perspective that one is out of bounds.
China, India & Brazil would love for the US to restrict the economy like you said, more for them.
BTW, I hear people talk about "green jobs" WTF are they and is this just a normal job with a catch phrase that liberals gobble up?
"Green jobs" has nothing to do with liberal or conservative viewpoints, at least in theory. In practice, many politicians on both sides of the aisle are beholden to the likes of Exxon-Mobil.
See A. Siegel's Profile
Your posts are both unproductive and intellectually dishonest.
Wow, one of 1000s of posts on HuffPost attacked nuclear power (and you can find more) means, somehow, that everyone who reads and writes here is against nuclear. Want a realistic path toward the elimination of coal from the electrical generation system in the next 20-25 years? Check out: http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/eliminating-coal-from-the-electricity-equation/ An outline, not perfect, but plausible.
And, your comment about "green jobs": Green Jobs is a term developed to try to capture the employment opportunities moving toward a sustainable future. Green Jobs can be blue and/or white collar. They can be steel workers building wind turbines, construction workers installing insulation for energy efficient buildings, it can be renewable energy, etc ... Study after study, real experience after real experience show quite clearly that households, businesses, communities, the nation can make serious green by Going Green. Forget your denial of reality when it comes to Global Warming, perhaps you want to seize on the economic value for seizing leadership positions in the 21st green economy.
Finally, you are an advocate of "environment" versus the "economy". This is a shallow and entirely misleading frame. What is the environment? It is the place(s) you, I, our children breath, work, play, sleep, live our lives. It is not some abstract 'out there'. The "economy" operates and functions within the "environment". Foul our own nests, ruin the environment and you ruin what? The economy.
See A. Siegel's Profile
"Cripple the USA" ... We can, as McKinsey (a business consulting firm) has shown, achieve necessary reductions at a positive benefit to the economy. "Negawatts" (energy efficiency) can be achieve at lower cost than adding new power. Reducing coal-fired electricity pollution has that interesting little benefit of improving health, etc ...
Re China / India / Et al, we should capture foreign polluters within the process. I have written about concepts for doing this elsewhere. See, for example, http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/global-warming-impact-an-agenda-item-for-2008-and-beyond/
3. Did you see anything here 'against' nuclear power from me? This short piece does not get into solution sets. Want an outline how, at a net profit to the economy, we could elimate coal in the coming few decades, see: http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/eliminating-coal-from-the-electricity-equation/ Why don't you check there to see whether there is nuclear in the equation.
If you want to read about politics corrupting science, you should read Chris Mooney.
OK, I give up.
Another nuclear powered environmentalist.
A little on the numbers.
There are about 120 nuclear plants today.
So a fifty percent increase in 20 years means about sixty new plants.
With plans for the FIRST of any new plants now estimated to be eight years away, that would leave 59 to be built over 12 years, or an average of roughly five new nuclear plants per year beginning in approximately 2015 or so.
Everone knows we have lost the nuclear "edge".
We have no engineering and no construction experience with nuclear power for a generation and a half.
So, who is going to design and build these nuclear plants?
That's a pretty steep learning curve to jump into.
In case you haven't paid any attention, the European effort to rejuvenate its nuclear industry is faltering on the inability of the design builders to get even one plant done right.
Your no-coal scenario is marked primarily by a transition from liquid-fueled to nuclear-powered automobiles.
Nice touch.
Not to mention, where is the nuclear waste going to go?
Not to mention - the global problem of nuclear weapons proliferation associated with an expanding nuclear industry.
Yours sounds a lot like the EPRI scenario.
But, they're the electric utility industry.
With friends of the environment like yourself, A., who needs enemies?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
