This one has been around a while, but I thought it would be worth another post since the coal companies have brought out the “clean coal” greenwashing again because of the Climate Bill:
Archive for the ‘Climate Change’ Category
Video: The Awesome Power of the Word Clean
July 23rd, 2009
Lost Coal Jobs Mean Lives Saved, Congratulate the Unemployed for Saving Lives
July 23rd, 2009In a recent House session, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) expressed her objections to the the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Climate Bill). Her main objection is that by 2020, Wyoming would lose up to “15,000 high paying jobs” that can’t be replaced by green energy jobs if the bill were passed, as the nation moves away from coal fired power plants. That’s an average of about 1500 jobs a year lost, and she apparently believes that the jobs in her district are more important than the health and lives of the rest of the country.
If the bill passes, Wyoming jobs would be particularly hit hard because there are a disproportionately large number of jobs dependent upon coal. Coal mines in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana produce more coal than any other area of the country, even the entire Appalachian region. Compared to the rest of the country, Wyoming does not have to burn as much coal because it is not a population center, and that means health effects from emissions are disproportionately low.
In the rest of the country from power plant emissions *every year*, there are more than 23,000 deaths, 21,000 hospital admissions, 26,000 emergency room visits for asthma, 38,000 heart attacks, 16,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 554,000 asthma attacks, and 3,186,000 lost work days (Source: Harvard Environmental Management, pdf p23).
I have not heard Rep. Lummis speak about responsibility, but I did hear Steven Leer, Chairman and CEO of Arch Coal speak about their mining operations in the Powder River Basin. It was clear that the people that mine coal, but do not burn it, completely abdicate themselves of any responsibility for coal fired power plant emissions. We cannot let the deliberate distortion of the truth and intentional omissions continue to cause problems for the rest of us.
Rep. Lummis wants you to feel bad for the 1500+ workers and their families that will lose their jobs each year because of the Climate bill. Apparently, she does not want you to feel bad for the 23,000+ people that die every year, or their families, because she feels it’s not the mining that’s responsible.
Cap and Trade is the Carrot, Carbon Tax is the Stick
July 20th, 2009The last post about Cap and Trade got some comments on various sites asking if it’s a tax, then why not just impose a Carbon Tax? I agree that a Carbon Tax is a better approach than Cap and Trade. Unfortunately, messaging and political image can be more important than effectiveness when evaluating legislation. Calling anything a tax is a surefire way of killing legislation. No politician wants to be responsible for increasing taxes, they would rather be seen supporting capitalism and ”letting the free market” solve the problem.
One of the major problems with Cap and Trade is that baselines need to be established, which are usually through political processes, not scientific processes. With so much political support for coal and oil production, there is not much that can stop politicians from pushing for overly generous baseline emissions. As the dirtiest emitters implement the cheapest fixes and drop below their artificially high baselines, they can sell their carbon credits for additional profit. There is financial incentive to reduce emissions, but as the technology to reduce emissions gets more expensive than earned credits, the incentive goes away completely.
When a Carbon Tax is in place, there is always a financial incentive to reduce emissions, with no opportunity to profit from being a polluter. Similarly, the incentives go away when the technology gets more expensive than emitting. An additional argument against a Carbon Tax is that the money goes into the hands of the government, rather than the market. I’m not a fan of government efficiency, but if legislation is structured properly, then it can go directly to environmental programs. When the Superfund was first established, the tax on controlled chemicals went directly into the Superfund until legislation expired. After it expired, taxes (and stimulus money) went to the cleanup.
With taxes on bad practices in place, which are directly paid by the ones emitting, the bill can still be passed onto consumers. However, they have the choice to reduce consumption or opt for other alternatives, and directly reduce what they pay. Without programs in place to tax bad practices, the same consumers are forced to pay through taxes and have no way to opt out.
I’m no fan of big government, but there are areas where the free market cannot succeed and government needs to step in. Carbon emissions, and general pollution, are areas where the financial impact is spread over thousands or millions of people, rather than the people responsible for the problems. Cap and Trade is the carrot because you get paid for doing good. Carbon Tax is the stick because you pay for doing bad. In this case, I believe the stick would be more effective than the carrot. However, if politicians continue to be too cowardly to implement a Carbon Tax, Cap and Trade is better than nothing at all.
So What if Cap and Trade is a Tax? Let the ones responsible for damage pay for it.
July 20th, 2009
There has at least been some progress from political conservatives wite regards to climate change. Politicians now (reluctantly) agree that it’s happening, but do not yet publicly agree that it’s man made. I’d like to seriously pose a question to skeptics: so what if we’re wrong?
As a “thought exercise,” let’s examine what would happen if humans are not actually causing climate change, but our actions were based on the assumption that we are responsible, or a “false positive.” If we eliminate climate change from the list of harmful effects of burning fossil fuels, then we still have a long and serious list:
Burning Coal
Mining Coal
- Methane Emissions from Coal Beds (ignore because of our assumptions)
- Water Quality Issues like toxic chemical runoff
- Natural Habitat Destruction (mountain top removal and deforestation)
Oil Production
- Groundwater Contamination during drilling
- Refinery Emissions
- Habitat Destruction
- Pollution from Shipping
- Toxic Pools from Refining Tar Sands
Oil Consumption
- Local Air Quality Issues like Smog
- Acid Rain
- Major Price Fluctuations Disrupting the Economy
. . . . and MANY more.
Measures to curb the use of fossil fuels are worth taking, even without the climate change implications. Opponents of proposed climate change legislation argue that if passed, it would cause the price of energy to skyrocket. I do not believe that to be the case when taking into account other initiatives. The price per unit will go up, but other factors like energy efficiency initiatives, subsidies and resulting decreased consumption will offset a lot of the costs to consumers.
While Cap and Trade does have its drawbacks, it serves to shift the actual costs to the producers. Cap and Trade is a tax on energy, but again I say “so what?” I am already taxed for energy, just indirectly. Air quality issues alone cause asthma, hospitalizations, lost work days, and even death. Since we do not have universal health care (discussion I will avoid), our taxes are covering treatment. Since the expiration of the initial Superfund legislation, cleanup is paid for by tax dollars.
There are already hidden taxes. It’s now time for the ones causing the problems to actually pay them.
Why IPCC Estimates Were Too Conservative
July 9th, 2009There have been a lot of articles posted recently saying that the original Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that said we could expect a global average temperature rise of 5 degrees C were wrong. They were wrong because they were too conservative. What were not understood when the first report was written were the feedback loops associated with increasing temperatures. Some examples of feedback loops where there was not enough data available were melting permafrost, ocean evaporation and cloud cover, as well as glaciers melting.
Melting glaciers are typically noted for their impact on rising sea levels. What isn’t frequently stated is their reflectivity, or the fact that white reflects much more light than dark colors. As anyone with a dark colored car knows from parking in the sun, the more sunlight absorbed, the warmer the environment. When glaciers melt, they expose land or water, which are both darker in comparison. As the Arctic and Antarctic get warmer, more ice melts, removing the planet’s natural cooling mechanisms, in turn making it warmer.
In addition to the lost reflectivity, melting glaciers over land also expose and melt permafrost. Melting permafrost releases methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Again, as these regions get warmer, they release gases that make the planet even warmer. Fortunately, there are some effects that work in the other direction, like cloud cover.
As oceans get warmer, more water evaporates. As evaporation increases, cloud cover increases, and clouds also reflect light back into space. When the original 5 degree C warming estimates were released, these effects were known, but the extent they came into play was not. Estimates now say that continuing on our current path of emissions will lead to a global average temperature increase of up to 9 degrees C.
Multiply Any Number by a Billion and You Get a Large Number
July 7th, 2009The goal of many developing nations is to bring the standard of living up to that of the United States and other developed nations. The down side about bringing the standard of living up is that energy consumption and CO2 emissions also increase to nearly the same per capita. The US is not the top per capita CO2 emitter, but remember that any amount multiplied by a few billion is going to be a large number.
Even if the US does succeed at reducing emissions to near 1990 levels, emissions from the developing nations of the world will still be on the upswing. If major countries like China, India and Brazil do not take preventative measures as they grow, we’re in for some trouble. While they have the right to improve the standard of living, they at least have the opportunity to learn from mistakes of the past and develop with clean energy.
I like to think of myself as a realist, rather than a pessimist, but I don’t see it happening any time soon. An unfortunate recurring theme in free markets is that cheap usually beats out free.