The Lean, Green Scene

Cap-and-trade is not the only solution. Most economists prefer a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade system. Why? Here is a short list of some of the reasons a carbon tax might be preferable:

1. Cap-and-trade is simply a tax in another guise. Whether the marketplace or policymakers - in the case of taxes - set the price for GHG emissions, that price is still an additional cost imposed on the emitters and, potentially, passed on to consumers.
2. The infrastructure for a tax already exists and would be easier to implement and enforce.
3. Taxes exert constant pressure to move to energy sources that would not incur the tax. Under cap-and-trade, once an emitter gets under the cap, there is no motivation to continue to cut emissions.
4. Markets are subject to manipulation, sometimes wild speculation and bubbles.
5. Cap-and-trade systems are more complicated and, therefore, are more likely to be undermined by political favoritism.

All pretty good reasons for a carbon tax, right? So why isn’t a carbon tax on the table? Why isn’t it a legitimate part of the discussion?

It’s simple. A tax is still a tax and Congress hates taxes. Don’t you?

What is cap-and-trade?

At its core, a cap-and-trade system is simple.  Policymakers get together and set a cap on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions they’re going to allow over the course of a year. Then they issue a number of allowances equal to the cap. Emitters, investors and others, then, trade these allowances on the open market, establishing a price for emitting greenhouse gases.

Anyone who emits GHGs would be required to purchase allowances equal to the amount of GHGs they emit or be subject to a penalty.

For instance, according to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, the US emitted the equivalent (Why equivalent? More on this later.) of about 7300 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2007. A cap might call for a 10% reduction from 2007 levels. If we issue allowances equal to a metric ton of carbon dioxide, 6570 allowances would be issued and traded.

Pretty simple, huh? At least until the politicians, policymakers, special-interest groups and everyone with an axe to grind gets involved.

President-elect Obama has a plan. In fact, one of the most striking thing about the incoming administration is how clearly they have laid out their policy plans.  They have a stated policy plan for almost every important issues confronting the US, today - homeland security, Iraq, the economy, health care, etc. They’re all laid out and available for review at change.gov.

Their energy and environmental policy is clearly laid out under the Obama-Biden Plan. The Obama-Biden Plan will “invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions of new jobs.”

The incoming administration plans to:

• Invest $150 billion over the next ten years
• Put 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015
• Ensure 10% of our electricity is generated from renewable sources of energy by 2012 and 20% by 2025
• Implement a cap-and-trade program aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050

The Obama-Biden Plan can be read in its entirety here.

The adoption of an economy-wide cap-and-trade program is an objective of the Obama administration. Over the next few days we’ll examine what a cap-and-trade program is and the pros and cons of such a program.

New York and nine other states have started a regional carbon trading program called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Just call me Reggie. You can read all about it here:

http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0925081.html

If things keep going like this all the states will be banded in together in a cap-and-trade program before Congress does anything about it.

Author’s note:  Sorry, it’s been a while. I’m finishing up my Master’s and this last semester is pretty busy. I have to remember I can “cheat” while blogging occasionally and just point my visitors in the direction of a good story. So bear with me if I cheat, occasionally. : )

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the most likely culprits responsible for trapping and reflecting the earth’s heat (Remember our diagram.), causing the gradual rise in the earth’s mean temperature throughout the twentieth century and continuing through the present. Much of the discussion about GHGs tend to focus on carbon and carbon dioxide. There are practical and scientific reasons for this, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that carbon dioxide isn’t the only gas responsible for heating up the planet.

The table below lists the estimates of GHG emissions in the US for the year 2006. Carbon dioxide is by far the most predominant pollutant, but five other gases contribute to the problem: Methane (CH4); Nitrous Oxide (N2O); Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Total GHGs Emissions Estimates for 2006 (Source: EIA:  Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report)

For the last eight years the United States government hasn’t exactly been leading the vanguard in the battle against global warming. They’ve hemmed and hawed, dragged their feet and pretended to be looking away as the rest of the world acted. Right now, 180 countries have signed and agreed to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, while America stands outside in the cold – or the heat, in this case. Only now, more than nine years after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, has Congress taken up the climate change debate with the Lieberman-Warner legislation. It failed to win significant support, though, came rather sheepishly to the floor, and died with barely a whimper. Now, nothing’s going to happen until the next president enters office.

While the federal government dithers, though, the states are doing something. According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) 25 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Renewable portfolio standards require a certain percentage of a state’s electricity be generated from renewable sources of energy, such as wind or solar energy.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, Colorado has had great success with their RPS. Originally, the RPS required 10 percent of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy.

“[T]he state’s largest utility fought the proposal, warning that any shift from coal and natural gas would be costly, uncertain and unwise.

Then a funny thing happened. The ballot initiative passed, and Xcel Energy met the requirement eight years ahead of schedule. And at the government’s urging, its executives quickly agreed to double the target, to 20 percent.”

Colorado’s initiative has been very successful. Two aging coal plants are now slated to be retired and high-tech jobs, directly related to the renewable industry, have been added to the state’s economy.

Colorado has proven renewable portfolio standards work and renewable energy can be a significant contributor to our energy needs.

The entire article is here. The Washington Post requires registration, but it’s free.

The IPCC site has a great illustation of the greenhouse effect. A scaled down copy of the illustration is above.  Click on it and you can go green geeky at the IPCC site.

• 342 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of solar radiation received by the Earth’s atmosphere
• 77 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of solar radiation reflected back by the atmosphere, clouds, and aerosol
• 67 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere
• 30 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of solar radiation reflected back by the Earth’s surface
• 168 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth

The solar radiation absorbed by the Earth and the atmosphere actually causes a greater amount of heat to be radiated back into the atmosphere, so don’t look for the numbers below to add up with the numbers above.

• 390 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount surface heat radiated back by the Earth
• 78 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of latent heat radiated back by the Earth
• 24 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of thermal heat radiated back by the Earth
• 168 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of heat radiated back by the Earth’s atmosphere
• 235 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of heat that is radiated back out into space
• 324 Watts per meter squared - Average yearly amount of heat radiated back (Greenhouse heat)

(Source:  Climate Change 2001:  Working Group I:  The Scientific Basis)

The Sun shines.

Sending its own special brand of shortwave radiation, sometimes called sunlight,

to the Earth.

Some of this sunlight is reflected by the atmosphere.

Some of it is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Some of it is reflected by the Earth.

Some of it is absorbed by the Earth.

The shortwave radiation, sunlight, absorbed by the Earth is radiated back as longwave radiation, sometimes known as heat.

Some of this heat slips through the atmosphere out into space.

More than half of it is reflected by the atmosphere and re-absorbed by the Earth.

That’s the Greenhouse Effect.

(Next time, we’ll break this down By the Numbers.)

Not everywhere in Japan is as crowded as Tokyo.

(Shrine at Lake Toya on the island of Hokkaido in Japan. Photo taken by Jesper Rautell Balle. Reused under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2.)

First post to Green Places category. If you have pictures of green places, post them to this category. - Ron