Waxman-Markey Gives Nearly 5 Times More to Polluters than Clean Energy
By Teryn Norris & Jesse Jenkins
The landmark Waxman-Markey 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act was introduced in the House yesterday (May 15, download PDF here), and the Breakthrough Institute has performed a preliminary analysis of how it would invest over $1 trillion in cap and trade revenue between 2012-2025. Our key findings for this period include (all numbers are approximate -- download spreadsheet here):
- Polluting industries: 57.3% of allowances would be freely distributed to polluting industries, including 36.7% for the electricity sector, 12.3% for energy-intensive industries, 6.5% for local natural gas distribution companies, and 1.8% for oil refiners
- Direct consumer protection: 16.5% of allowances would be used for direct consumer protection , including 15% for low and moderate-income families and 1.5% to benefit users of home heating oil and propane
- Energy efficiency and clean energy technology: 12.2% of allowances would be used to fund energy efficiency and clean energy technology development and deployment
- Adaptation and technology transfer: 4.7% of allowances would be used for domestic and global climate adaptation and technology transfer
- Workforce development: 0.6% of allowances would be used to fund worker assistance and job training
- Deficit reduction and other: 8.6% of allowances would be used to fund deficit reduction and other public purposes
(click image to magnify)
How much money would these allocations translate into? That depends on the average price for each pollution allowance -- the EPA's initial price estimate was $13-17 per allowance, so we will assume an average price of $15 per allowance. The allocation would look like this:
Investment in clean energy technology development and deployment is broken out here (Note: the amount for clean energy technology within the "Renewable Energy and Efficiency" program is not specified):
Our analysis finds that Waxman-Markey would spend about $9 billion annually on a range of things that could generously be classified as technology innovation. By contrast, the legislation would give $32 billion to utilities, $9 billion to heavy industries, and $11 billion to low-income consumers annually.
Of course, these funding levels assume a price of $15 per allowance. Some analysts, including Joseph Romm of Climate Progress, expect the bill to maintain a low price of $5-10 per allowance for the first several years. If the price was $10 from 2012-2025, the average annual investment in all areas generously classified as energy innovation would be $6 billion. This table compares clean energy investments for $10 per ton vs. $15 per ton:
This $6 to $9 billion is far less than what Obama promised ($15 billion) and far less than the $30 billion that three dozen energy scientists and experts, including several Nobel laureates, called for in a sign-on letter during the fall of 2007. The large allowance giveaway to polluters also stands in contrast to Obama's previous calls for a 100% auction, which was included in his final budget proposal.
Read more: How Do Climate Bill's Clean Energy Investments Stack Up?
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
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.
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://cyc
It is not cap and trade revenue..i
What good is this 35% increase in utility bills going to get us?
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.
mioffe,
You make it seem so complicated. It is a little simpler than you think. The atmosphere is primarily made up of the following:
78% Nitrogen
20.9% Oxygen
0.93% Argon
0.04% Carbon Dioxide
etc.
These are pretty uniformly mixed worldwide to 100 thousand meters(328,000 ft). Most of the water vapor is below 10 thousand meters.
What makes carbon dioxide a significant driver in global warming is that it always here. Every day, rain or shine, carbon dioxide is absorbing thermal radiation and trapping it in the earth's atmosphere worldwide. It is transparent to visible radiation like nitrogen, oxygen and argon, but unlike them, carbon dioxide absorbs thermal radiation.
Unlike water vapor, carbon dioxide is present even at high altitudes. Very much like a 100,000 meter thick blueish thermal blanket. Thermal radiation reflecting or radiating off of the ground or clouds gets absorbed by the carbon dioxide present in the upper atmosphere. Unlike thermal absorption of thermal radiation by water vapor(clouds) which comes and goes, carbon dioxide is always there. You can count on it. It is always there, warming things up.
Regards,
Dear David James. We never have zero humidity in atmosphere. "These are pretty uniformly mixed worldwide to 100 thousand meters(328,000 ft). Most of the water vapor is below 10 thousand meters." You are right "Most of the water vapor is below 10 thousand meters." It will be always more ppm of water vapor than carbon dioxide over 10 km till 100 km.
Most computer modeling looks at water vapor as static element in air, when they trapped infrared radiation and heats the air.
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Molecular weight of water vapor is 18, nitrogen-28, oxigen-32, carbon dioxide-44. That means that water vapor is lighter than almost all others gases in the air.
It takes 339 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water, one kcal to heat one kg of water on 1º C.
It take 80 kcal of energy to melt one kg of ice, when its temperature will be 0º C.
In atmosphere we have water vapor, small droplet of fog, clouds and droplets of rain. If water vapor as GHG will trap infrared radiation that energy will evaporate droplets of fog etc., and cool the air lifting up lighter water vapor close to clouds and beyond, where heat can escape to space.
If you will look in dynamic water vapor actually cool the air.
Attitude to water vapor as static component misleads many scientists, Al Gore and our Government.
This is huge problem!
mioffe,
I have computer models of atmospheric absorption and transmission of radiation. These are just simple engineering models, but I can assure you that water vapor is not assumed to be constant, it is assumed to vary widely.
Typically it varies from a high of say 2% of the atmosphere at sea level to almost nothing at 10,000 meters (You know how air always seems quite dry at high altitudes). The expected profile varies widely with location, time of year, day and night, desert, mountains, oceans, etc.
Compared to water vapor, the global warming effects of carbon dioxide are approximately equal, but they are much simpler, which is makes it an effective control point for global warming.
Regards,
DavidJames: “I have computer models of atmospheric absorption and transmission of radiation. These are just simple engineering models, but I can assure you that water vapor is not assumed to be constant, it is assumed to vary widely.
Typically it varies from a high of say 2% of the atmosphere at sea level to almost nothing at 10,000 meters (You know how air always seems quite dry at high altitudes). The expected profile varies widely with location, time of year, day and night, desert, mountains, oceans, etc.
Compared to water vapor, the global warming effects of carbon dioxide are approximately equal, but they are much simpler, which is makes it an effective control point for global warming.”
Dear DavidJames “simple engineering models” can’t solve problems. If water vapor, water droplet, clouds actually cool the atmosphere we could increase their amount by evaporation. Trees are the best pumps of water, they use sun energy to evaporate water and save sun energy during 100 years.
We need in model integrate annual reflection of sun radiation, annual evaporation, annual effects of convection forces, wind etc. Even level of carbon dioxide is different in USA and Hawaii.
Why in summer Temperature in Hawaii 70-85 F, when in Texas 80-110F?
Make recommendation to Government by oversimplify task model is problem of our society it is crime without punishment.
Most computer modeling looks at water vapor as static element in air, when they trapped infrared radiation and heats the air.
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, more important, than carbon dioxide. Molecular weight of water vapor is 18, nitrogen-28, oxigen-32, carbon dioxide-44. That means that water vapor is lighter than almost all others gases in the air.
It takes 339 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water. It takes only one kcal to heat one kg of water on 1º C.
It take 80 kcal of energy to melt one kg of ice, when its temperature will be 0º C.
In atmosphere we have water vapor, small droplet of fog, clouds and droplets of rain. If water vapor as GHG will trap infrared radiation that energy will evaporate droplets of fog etc., and cool the air lifting up lighter water vapor close to clouds and beyond, where heat can escape to space.
If you will look in dynamic water vapor actually cool the air.
Attitude to water vapor as static component misleads many scientists, Al Gore and our Government.
This is huge problem!
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.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
