Solutions to the Draft Waxman Bill Expose Design Flaw in U.S. ETS
The Waxman and Markey Climate Change bill has to be finalized by 25th of May on Memorial Day 2009. The House is considering climate change legislation authored by a key subcommittee chairman, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). President Obama has said this is, "a rare opportunity to rise above parochial concerns to enact a bill with a profound national impact".
The Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft provides for an economy wide cap & trade program: The cap reduces greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Offsets, (project based reductions) are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) per year or 30% per cent of U.S emission reduction, split evenly between domestic and international offsets. Domestic offsets does not include Green Buildings offsets. There are provisions for emissions reductions from reduced deforestation through allowance set-asides.
Waxman does not yet have support from House Republicans or moderate Democrats like Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) who are opposing the bill. Opposition concerns whether to give away or auction the permits to manufacturers, utilities, and other industrial sectors in a U.S Cap and Trade Emissions Trading scheme. The U.S is coming up against the same opposition from industry and parochial interests that the Europeans came up against, when they decided to give away the majority of permits in the early years of the European Emissions Trading scheme (EU-ETS). The U.S was originally highly critical of the Europeans for going down this path. Al Gore has gone on the front foot calling for unity from the Democrats on Climate Change against the resistance of some Democrats wanting to protect local industry. Similar to the results of the EU-ETS, we found with the Carbonflow carbon game emission reductions were achieved even with giving away the permits in the first period. So, whatever the House decides on auctioning versus giving away permits, that should not block the Draft bill's passage through the house.
Some believe that Speaker Pelosi will make the House vote on a version of the Markey bill with 254 House Democrats, but important House Democrats like Mr. Dingell may make a similar case as House Republicans, that the bill should be opposed because of the higher energy costs for consumers.
The approach taken by the Waxman-Markey bill does not alleviate the problem whereby household consumers will pay higher energy costs because the regulatory approach to energy efficiency and renewable energy is insufficient. Under the bill energy efficiency and renewable energy is proposed to be achieved through regulation by establishing a renewable electricity standard, a low carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency programs and standards for buildings, lighting, appliances and additionally further standards for vehicles, stationery sources and fuels.
According to Donald Simon, an attorney for Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, BOMA International, The Real Estate Roundtable, U.S. Green Building Council and the California Business Properties Association, regulation does not achieve the result intended as, "Building codes typically affect only new construction, because existing buildings are "grandfathered" and new code requirements apply only to substantial renovations, which is hugely problematic. Existing buildings account for the vast majority of real estate sector GHG emissions. Government incentives are helpful but inadequate and unreliable because they do not achieve sufficient market penetration and rely on limited government funding that can disappear in lean budget years".
Simon goes on to say that, "in the world of Climate Change regulation, there are two major classifications of GHG emission sources - direct and indirect. Direct sources release GHGs directly into the air, like power plants and other smoke stack industries. Indirect sources are activities that consume what the direct sources produce, like buildings that consume electricity produced by power plants. The conventional wisdom among regulators globally is that market-based programs, like cap and trade, should be restricted to direct industrial sources, because there are fewer of them and they are already heavily regulated. This generally forecloses the possibility for green building projects to generate carbon credits, despite their cost-effectiveness. As a result, a valuable incentive for voluntary GHG reductions is lost, the low-hanging fruit of increasing energy efficiency in buildings goes unpicked, and industrial (direct) sources are required to shoulder a greater share of required GHG reductions, all of which increase the societal cost for addressing Climate Change and make it less politically feasible to accomplish".
Not only do Cap and Trade Green Building carbon credits provide a much larger funding source that could partially finance energy efficiency improvements if buildings are allowed to participate, they also actually benefit poorer communities by upgrading the existing building stock with energy efficient and renewable energy technologies at a much more accelerated rate as the private sector is incentivised from the price of carbon to go out and do projects on a large scale, providing whole districts and building owners with clean technologies funded by the credits. Regulatory approaches just take too long to retrofit the existing building stock and leave people stranded with high energy bills.
House moderate Democrats and Republicans correctly say ordinary people will incur higher costs of energy over-time because most people will not have had their homes and small businesses upgraded with clean technologies and they know the subsidies to poorer communities for energy costs will be short-lived and once removed all Americans will be left with higher energy costs. A householder or small business faced with a doubling of energy costs from USD 100 - USD 200 a quarter would probably just pay as there is not enough incentive to go out and retrofit the house nor do they have the trades expertise to do it.
The better outcome is that Green Building Carbon Credits are allowed and business, construction companies, project developers, engineers, architects do energy efficiency and renewable energy building projects using the funds from the credits and create the Green jobs President Obama is talking about.
In short, proposed subsidies to less well off Americans waste money that should be going into making all American homes energy efficient and creating green jobs.
Policy-makers can encourage voluntary reductions by structuring carbon markets in a way that allows parties to convert their GHG reductions into carbon credits that they can sell to regulated sources to offset their emissions. Under the current plan the U.S would be in the anomalous situation of accepting international carbon offsets from energy efficiency and renewable energy but not accepting it domestically. This makes no sense. Domestic Green building offsets would allow regulated industries an alternative way to comply with regulatory obligations by letting them choose between reducing their own emissions or purchasing Green Building offsets from others who were able to reduce theirs at lower cost. This reduces the overall cost of Climate Change regulation by letting the free market exploit lowest cost GHG reductions.
Green Building carbon credits would be more transparent as they would have to be independently validated and verified, and open to public scrutiny, whereas money going to government agencies for programs may well end up being used on things other than greenhouse gas reductions projects. Even the double-counting issue can be managed as companies like Carbonflow, multi-party software designers for the carbon industry can easily retire end use building credits back to the Cap.
I believe however, if the house was not to get too hung up over auctioning or giving away permits in the first phases and secondly, to introduce Green Building Carbon Credits, it could solve all the problems that beset the Draft Waxman-Markey bill before the House on Memorial Day.
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
Carbon credits will be marketed up and sold to consumers as part of the cost of the product or service. The population will end up paying polluters to pollute and nothing will be done to reduce pollution except that the population will be colder, hotter, and hungrier as they are forced to use less energy and eat less. The farmer will pay more for his fuel and pass the cost on to the processing plants and stores who will also pay more for the energy that they use. You will pay for all of this additional energy cost in the products that you buy. Gasoline costs will increase substantially and your freedom to move about will be limited. Your barber, dentist, doctor and florist will all have to increase their prices. Your utility bill will double and if you were just getting by before, you won't be. Single moms, pensioners, and the poor will not be able to keep their heat on in the winter and their medication costs will grow out of reach.
The capital that an already suffering economy needs to recover will be stripped from it by this tax on everything. We do not have to destroy the economy to clean up the environment. http://bit.ly/4R5Pd
While I wish 85% of the carbon allowances weren't given away, "The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" might well be our best chance at reducing our greenhouse gas emissions while building our base of renewable electricity generating capacity. While I agree that including green building credits would go a long way toward diminishing our wasteful energy consumption, the bill does include provisions for commercial and residential efficiency gains.
This bill could go a long way toward convincing politicians and voters of the cost effectiveness of wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar alternatives to coal, provided we don't squander our limited resources on expensive boondoggles like nuclear and "clean" coal.
This may be our best shot to save billions in wasted energy dollars and pollution abatement costs, and to invigorate our economy with lasting renewable energy sector jobs. Tell your representatives to support it.
(read more: http://cyclopsvue.blogspot.com/search/label/Energy)
President Obama and Henery Waxman barely get it and none of the Rethuglicans have a clue with regard to climate change. This bill should include a nation grid interconnect rule commensurate with the 2008 Freeing the Grid Report and full retail rates or feed in tariffs for residences and businesses who supply excess capacity into the grid through solar and wind production. Coupled to the current investment and production tax credits available, alternative energy production would soar. Revenue from the carbon credits should only be used for energy conservation and energy efficiency.
Maybe,
But how does Goldman Sachs make money off that?
Obama gets it very well. He was in on the beginning of the creation of CCX emissions trading scheme while he sat at the Joyce Foundation, which funded it.
BTW, I hear less of the Pew Center For Climate Change plugs on NPR lately. My "bad" luck, or did it wane due to loss of Lehman Bros. money?
There's NO global warming, CO2 is NOT toxic to humans, and the climate is ALWAYS changing, no matter what we do! Our main threat right now is not global warming but Obama's global warming/cap and trade scam.
To increase their power and wealth at our expense, Obama and his billionaire fraudulent friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, etc.) have been busy brainwashing us with the man-made global warming scam.
GE, for example, has bombarded us with daily propaganda -- through its NBC networks, that includes MSNBC and CNBC -- to make us swallow the scam. Why? Because they stand to make BILLIONS from the scam at our expense. Not only GE is the largest wind turbine generator maker, but it may benefit as the sole “secondary market” trader of the cap and trade credits.
Those brainwashed and ready to destroy the economy to "prevent global warming" remind us of primitive humans who believed that killing and sacrificing other humans would ensure them good weather. Human beings can and should protect their environment, but they don't have the power to control climate!
Thanks for your well researched and knowledgeable commentary. It's about time someone put the climate change crisis to its rightful end. Now that I have cleared that up, I have some beachfront property for sale. I am sure your kids and grandchildren will be able to enjoy it from their boat. Since when has technological innovation destroyed our economy. I can recall the auto companies from the late 70's all of the way up until last week where they were saying they couldn't meet the CAFE standards. Not a single one of your arguements makes a lick of sense. Either we get ahead of the energy efficiency and alternative energy curve, or we will get crushed from abroad.
Now that you have established the fact that your clamoring is based on fear rather than fact, we can move on to 20th century technology. This is no longer about climate change, it is about being able to compete and export our technology abroad while cutting our trade deficit and preserving the beachfront property for your kids and their kids. If you are counting on Fixed News to keep you informed, then you will be left in the dust.
Hey at least his grandchildren will still be able to afford beachfront property and a boat..
We pray that honest Democrats and Republicans are able to save us from Obama's criminal global warming/cap and trade scam.
Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.
More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/
Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." http://www.petitionproject.org
Wow such fear mongering....
So your linking a blog from Canada to back your statement?
Fear mongering and opinion blogs do not an argument make.
Where are the honey bees? When they disappear we have 4 years until our species dies of starvation.
President Obama has said this is, "a rare opportunity to rise above parochial concerns to enact a bill with a profound national impact".
He didn't define the impact, but I will. Energy costs increasing as much as 40%. Costs of every item we currently purchase going up. Companies moving their production to other countries. Additional job losses. Not an iota of recogizable change in our climate.
The president is right, it's going to be profound.
Politicians keep watering down laws to facilitate the fossil fuel industry while the only thing coming down our watersheds is toxic pollution. Appalachia is being bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America, Wise County, VA can't stand anymore of the prosperty.
http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138
Al Gore Lied in his Sci-Fi Horror Comedy known as An inconvenient Truth.
Anyone wishing to learn the truth about global warming should view the Monckton section of my website:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html
Reading Joanne Nova's Skeptic's Handbook would also be a good idea. It may be downloaded from the books/links section of my site. The handbook is a free download.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LinksBooks.html
Nova's handbook should be given to the parents of every child having trouble sleeping thanks to Al Gore's nonsense!!!
Dear DashRIPRockIII, all your sources oppose Al Gore using the same CO2 as Al Gore.
What if it is not only carbon dioxide?
In this case as Republican, as Democrat-all Senators, our Government going in wrong direction.
It is not only carbon dioxide or other GHG.
It is winds and their direction, which send hot air to cloud level.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space.
It is huge convection forces.
It is cloud formation.
It oceans streams.
It is properties of water and ice.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. Mankind activities changed not only carbon dioxide, which is not main player in Nature, but only tilling of land changed reflection, convection forces, evaporation and cloud formation.
Claiming only carbon dioxide will direct our activities in wrong direction
We need to use all natural properties to reduce effect of global warming especially cooling effects of water vapor, water droplet, water, and ice.
We need to stop unscientific politic
Democrats think like Al Gore. Al Gore is not scientist. He is good writer and made good point from everything, what his friends-scientists explain to him. All of them have right on their opinion. I am, as reader has right to disagree with them.
Al Gore has huge popularity in the world maybe because of election 2,000. He author of Earth in the balance, 1992, An inconvenient truth, 2,006, co-author of movie. He has support in mass media in the world and more dangerous in my opinion, supports from Government of USA.
I think that he is wrong and implementation of his ideas will bring huge damage for world economy, His good intention could bring huge damage to nature.
Al Gore explains global warming by increasing amount of carbon dioxide, which trapped infrared radiation, and heat the air. This heat evaporated additional amount of water vapors which also greenhouse gas and trapped infrared radiation, which additionally heat the air.
Republicans opposing Al Gore, calculate how much carbon dioxide produce by mankind activity and Nature. They found that our activities are only small percentage against Nature activities.
What if it is not only carbon dioxide?
In this case as Republican, as Democrat-all Senators, our Government going in wrong direction. We need to stop unscientific politic, as you wish.
So...in your opinion, we should just let the pollution poison us all further?
CO2 levels have been rising, the climate is changing. Those are facts.
Arctic sea ice is a measurable indicator of that. Sea ice recently measured at 1.7 meters, instead of the usual 3 meters thick.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=alfIKQH7DyQM&refer=home
Your desire to paint Al Gore as a bad guy has blinded you to the reality, that the climate is changing, and that will effect our lives significantly.
As you said. Take the politics out of science!
Yes, it would be nice if we could take the politics out of science.
On that note, the Catlin survey that you reference was a pure publicity stunt, not a scientific expedition. All of their equipment failed due to the cold (leaving them only with a hand drill and a tape measure), and they only made it halfway to the North Pole, not because of melting, but because of extreme cold and blizzards.
In a dramatic touch of irony, at the same time these Catlin jokers were blundering about on the ice, a German scientific expedition flew an aircraft with a sophisticated ice thickness sensor and covered a much broader pattern in the area. Much more accurate, and much less drama.
The result? The German team found ice to be thicker then expected, ranging from 2.5 to 4 meters thick for the 1st-year ice:
http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/ende_pam_arcmip/?cHash=ff957775e4
I agree we have to cut CO2 levels but it will be done with a balanced and realistic energy plan. Nuclear will play a larger role for many years to come until the wind and solar can be brought on line in a massive scale. The problem is so many environmental orgs are not realistic and the public will not support a policy that is not based on some common sense. Coal will play a role for years to come as will natural gas.
By the way, CO2 is not a pollutant-the levels have changed dramatically throughout the geologoc history of the world. Technology will be our savior with this problem. Efficiency and new ways of generating such as energy beamed as microwaves from orbit, Fusion(it always is projected to be 50 yrs off) and Tidal generators.
The Congress of the United States does not have the integrity, independence or backbone to do the right thing, here. Those people are, with the rarest exceptions, bought and paid for by big corporations, including the fossil fuel and energy corporations and the utilities. This bill is already so watered down that it is nothing but a sham, and it will be further diluted, if it is approved in any form.
Unless the masses are mobilized, and I'm talking about a sustained campaign aimed at the Capitol, a sustained, aggressive campaign to bring about genuine attitude change, it will never happen. Those people would, quite literally, sit back and allow the Earth's atmosphere to become uninhabitable, to further their own interests.
Assuming that President Obama is genuinely interested in making real progress to halt or meaningfully slow human induced climate change, and I no longer make that assumption, he must motivate the public as I've described above, for only this president could do it. Otherwise, it will not occur. The so called environmental organizations are too splintered, disorganized and self centered to effect the coordinated effort neccessary to sufficiently influence the Congress.
If it is to work, the President must act and act aggressively, using his so called "bully pulpit" to start and lead an environmental movement, the likes of which the world has never seen. Nothing less will do.
It sounds like you are ready to give Obama the power to destroy our economy with his global-warming/cap and trade hoax because we will not willingly accept the hoax that will destroy our future and the future of our children! You don't deserve to live in the United States. You deserve to live in Cuba or North Korea!
It will only hurt the profit margins of the offending corporation, not the economy.
That is the biggest problem here! These corporations are trying to maximize profits no matter what the cost, if they can fire a few workers cut a few benefits, pour tons of particulate matter and poison gas into the air, it's OK< they help the economy!
They could have spent the money to put in scrubbers and filters in the late 90's, but then their buddy Bush rode into town on his white Cadillac, and dismantled the EPA , telling his corprate buds to just keep on, then he raised the particulate limits!
But everybody got rich, well OK 1% of America got rich.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
