Capitol Voice ©

 

CAPITOL VOICE

FOR INCLUSION IN A COMPREHENSIVE CLIMATE CHANGE BILL

 

 

Capitol Voice supports policies that will create a sustainable economy, addressing the climate crisis with energy efficiency and renewable energies. Eliminating subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power will level the playing field for the introduction of cleaner technologies. We are optimistic that these changes can revitalize our economy, opening up new sectors of jobs, industry, and commerce. Renewable energy and energy efficiency offer our country the cheapest, cleanest, and fairest means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

 

TWO DEGREES MATTERS: Tom Gross

The Copenhagen Accord sets a goal to limit global warming to “below” two (2) degrees Celsius. Scientific studies by the IPCC have shown that there is a direct connection of the goal of below 2 degrees to a goal of GHG (greenhouse gas) concentration in the atmosphere of less than 450ppm by 2040. Further studies have shown that reductions of global emissions of GHG must be undertaken with a goal to limit total emissions released before 2040 to less than 1,000 Teragrams. It is an unacceptable solution to allow this total emission limit to be approached too rapidly, as that would force impossibly rapid reduction requirements in the near future. Therefore, it is imperative that significant yearly reduction goals be set as soon as possible so that the path to a carbon neutral energy future does not disrupt the economy, and can, in fact, lay a path for positive growth of the economy through development of new technologies and clean industries.

Why is the limit set to “below” 2 degrees? First, because it seems possible to achieve with commitment and international cooperation. Second, because the implications of an Earth with greater temperature increase are well known to be costly and unacceptable to present and future generations of humans living on the Earth. The study below cites the implications for the United States’ economy of greater climate change, and would by itself justify the US taking aggressive action. The impacts of climate change include effects on water scarcity and quality, the Arctic and Antarctic, warming and acidification of the world’s oceans, sea level rise and coastal impacts, extreme weather events, public health, forests and wildfires, wildlife and endangered species, and national security. The effects throughout the world, and especially to developing countries ill prepared to manage the problems, would be greater still and further justify working to prevent temperature change of more than 2 degrees.

EMISSION REDUCTION BASELINES OF 1990 OR 2005, not only semantics Tom Gross

In response to the Copenhagen Accord, countries were requested to make statements of their reduction responses. Actual reductions in emissions from 1990 – 2007 are listed here:

http://maps.unfccc.int/di/map/

The USA has increased emissions by 15.79% while, for instance, the EU has reduced emissions by 11.35%. Thus, we can see that a 17% reduction from current emissions by the USA will move the USA to about 1% reduction relative to 1990, while a 10% reduction by the EU would give a 21% reduction relative to 1990. Without debating the political costs or negotiating strategy of the USA, it can be seen that by using a reference to 2005 while the rest of the negotiating parties (COP) are using 1990, is creating the false impression of greater reductions than are actually being put on the table. This might be good for domestic political reasons, but the COP is not fooled and the USA appears to be uncooperative in the negotiations, by adopting this transparent subterfuge. We recommend that the USA conform to COP practices and begin to report their emission reduction plans in the common units, and thus signal a willingness to transparently participate in real emission reductions, agreed to by the greatest number of countries.

WHY A CARBON TAX: Barbara Tucker

Since Sweden re-instituted their carbon tax, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) have been reduced by nine (9) percent and economic growth has surged by 48%.

FACT: Based on experience, a carbon tax sends a clear signal that the polluter pays.

FACT: A carbon tax:

- is simple to levy and does not involve derivative markets;

- is fast as the structure is already in place;

- covers all polluters, including the transportation sector – an area precluded

under cap-and-trade;

- places a clear price on emissions, cap-and-trade can exacerbate the volatility

of energy prices as the price of the allowances fluctuate;

- raises money that can be used for renewable R&D or can be returned, in part,

to the citizens while cap-and-trade can be easily bargained away.

The use of a carbon tax clearly avoids the unfavorable track record established by a derivatives market, including profiteering, the resale of expired permits, and tax avoidance.

And, most businesses prefer the stability and predictability of a carbon tax.

Further, if the “T” word is offensive, let’s call it a carbon “gift” - a gift to our environment . . .and our legacies.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY: Jim Christiansen

SITUATION: From 2975 through 2005, the amount of energy needed to produce a dollar of GDP in the US dropped by 46%. This was due to efforts to increase energy efficiency. In recent years, the amount of energy needed to produce a dollar of GDP has decreased by 2.5% each year. We can greatly reduce our energy needs by continuing and accelerating our efforts to increase our energy efficiency. While programs like LEED and ENERGY STAR are a good start, we must go well beyond. Experts have identified three areas, in particular:

- More energy efficient buildings, including

co-generation;

more energy-efficient building codes;

better air conditioning standards;

- More energy efficient vehicles.

WHAT A CLIMATE CHANGE BILL SHOULD INCLUDE:

Buildings, Industrial Processes, Training

- create a Scientific Commission to develop and implement a strategy for increasing energy efficiency nationwide, to be appointed by the National Academy of Science with cooperation of the Department of Energy and including non-partisan experts. This Commission would focus on the following tasks:

Transition to more energy efficient building, identifying areas within existing supply of buildings where the largest and most cost-effective efficiency gains are possible;

Develop programs of loan guarantees, government loans, or tax subsidies to support retrofitting existing buildings, as identified previously;

Develop energy-efficiency codes for new construction, with 5-year transition (including co-generation, better insulation and HVAC standards); and enforce these codes for government buildings; and

Support co-generation where appropriate in new and existing buildings.

Transition to more energy-efficient industrial processes:

Identify industrial processes where accelerated efficiency increases are possible;

Develop programs of loan guarantees, government loans, or tax subsidies to support investment in targeted areas.

Recommend new guidelines for training of engineers and architects to support energy savings.

FEED-IN TARIFFS: Diana Powers

Feed-in tariffs have been proven effective to promote the rapid deployment of renewable energy. The government should support the efforts of the states to design strategies to adapt feed-in tariffs to their local economies.

HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS: Barbara Tucker

Energy Effiiency: At 47 – 65% electrical efficiency, large stationary fuel cells are one of the most efficient ways to use domestic natural gas and renewable fuel resources, such as biogas. By comparison, U.S. central generation fossil plants average 33% electrical efficiency. When utilizing waste heat, fuel cells achieve 80% efficiency.

 

Cutting emissions: Large stationary fuel cells produce power electrochemically (no combustion) resulting in efficient and ultra-clean operations with emission levels below the most stringent California criteria emissions standards. Additionally, this efficiency means dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Using clean natural gas: Because stationary fuel cells can turn natural gas into electrical power more cleanly and efficiently than any other generator of similar size, fuel cells can contribute to the use of natural gas as a bridge fuel from traditional polluting power generation to a more renewable future. In fact, wide deployment of highly-efficient fuel cells can significantly stretch the U.S. estimated 100-year supply of natural gas.

FUNDING FOR NIF: (nuclear fusion): Barbara Tucker

QUESTION: What kind of energy is radioactively safe, environmentally sound and benign?

ANSWER: Thermonuclear fusion.

Any comprehensive climate control legislation must address and provide continued funding for the NIF (National Ignition Facility) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, near San Francisco. During its March 2010 “simcam” (simulation campaign), one of the facilities’ teams achieved ignition in two-out-of three tests . . . a critical breakthrough in achieving laser fusion. Nuclear fusion could eventually revolutionize our energy future and funding must be continued.

THE PRESENT SITUATION WITH NUCLEAR FISSION: Diana Powers

Capitol Voice recommends that the government refrain from adopting any policies that subsidize or encourage investment in new nuclear reactors. The nuclear industry has been presenting nuclear power as a means to address climate change. While these reactors do not produce carbon dioxide (CO2) after the construction period, they still present distinctive and overwhelming difficulties:

- the problem of nuclear waste has NOT been solved anywhere in the world, despite the “marketing” initiatives of some foreign governments;

- nuclear energy is the MOST expensive of all CO2-free sources of energy. Such costs mean that the ratepayers and taxpayers will spend hundred of billions, perhaps even trillions of dollars more than other low-CO2 alternatives. While the nuclear industry is demanding a pre-emptive bailout through loan guarantees, this is unacceptable for the already debt-saddled American public. Wall Street won’t touch nuclear investments, and the US government should heed their warnings;

- a large nuclear investment would absorb the funds needed by newer, cleaner technologies, postponing a real solution to climate change;

- nuclear reactors are risky, long-term ventures, fraught with delays and cancellations. The deployment of nuclear energy thus delays even beginning to solve the climate crisis for at least 20 years;

- nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons are too closely related for comfort or peace. In the interest of non-proliferation, the US should model that climate change may be effectively addressed without resort to nuclear power;

- nuclear reactors are slow to run on or off, making them too inflexible to work well with variable renewables; and

- as all countries scramble to install nuclear power, uranium resources could become as contentious as oil is today.

RES/RPS – RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD: Barbara Tucker

A renewable electricity standard, or RES/RPS, requires public utilities to slowly increase the amount of renewable energy resources in their electricity supply, directed toward an indicated target amount. Renewables include, but are not limited to, solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy, or geothermal. Renewable developers are thus able to maintain competitiveness and today, some 30 states provide for a renewable portfolio standard.

Capitol Voice highly endorses and encourages the use of these renewable electricity standards in all future state and federal legislation.

THE SMART GRID: Diana Powers

Capitol Voice supports the government’s initiatives to install a smart grid and smart metering in order to increase the efficiency, security, and reliability of electricity supply. The smart grid will also allow variable renewable energies to balance each other as we approach the time when renewable energies will achieve and then exceed thirty (30) percent of supply.

In the short run, the government, through the Department of Energy, should support microgrid projects since these may well become the building blocks of larger grids. These projects have the advantages of regulatory simplicity, effective use of locally-produced renewables, as well as reducing the need for new, expensive transmission lines.

URBAN MASS TRANSIT: Barbara Tucker

A “must” in any comprehensive climate change package. And, particularly since it has been routinely documented that the highest vehicle travel per capita rests with the United States.

Urban mass transit studies have repeatedly shown that shared mobility is best-suited for dense urban areas and is the most cost-effective way to improve transportation flow, support efficient land-use patterns and reduce smog and other pollutants. Further, such systems afford increased access to services, activities, shopping, work, medical and more (with a savings of at least 25 cents/mile). These services are also a daily necessity for the elderly, handicapped, or those without other means of transportation.

“Smart growth” benefits include reduced development and public service costs, user cost savings, improved housing options and community cohesion. And . . . greenspace and wildlife habitat preservation, reduced air and water pollution, and reduced reliance on foreign oil and gas. Finally the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal cited the following favorable components of their public transport service:

- economic benefits of $937 million;

- almost 13,000 jobs;

- a 45% return on investment for the provincial and federal governments;

- household savings of almost $600 million in travel expenses thereby generating increased purchasing power. (source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute)

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY: Jim Christiansen

SITUATION: Our vehicle park includes millions of “gas guzzlers” built or designed when the oil price was $10/barrel. With oil prices varying from $60 to $150/barrel over the last two years, we must drastically increase the fuel economy of our vehicle fleet. President Obama’s recent move to increase fuel efficiency standards are a good start, but additional actions are necessary. New power train technologies (battery-electric, hybrid-electric, plug-in hybrid, fuel cells) are coming into production, and should be encouraged.

WHAT A CLIMATE CHANGE BILL SHOULD INCLUDE:

- continue tightening of vehicle fuel efficiency standards (CAFÉ), with targets for wells-to-wheels energy efficiency and carbon emissions;

- require that federal vehicle fleets be made up of fuel-efficient, new technology vehicles;

- establish long-term, secured funding for basic research on vehicle fuel efficiency, including battery and fuel cell technology.

 

For additional information in designated fields: you may contact:

Jim Christiansen

Tom Gross

Diana Powers

Barbara Tucker