Polar Bear Beware

Posted on | May 8, 2009 | Comments Off

Washington — The Obama administration let stand a Bush regulation that limits protection of the polar bear from human induced climate change. The polar bear was declared endangered under the Endangered Species Act over a year ago because global warming is destroying its habitat.

The White House said, “The Endangered Species Act is not the appropriate tool for us to deal with what is a global issue, and that is the issue of global warming.”

Will they change their minds when humans are declared an endangered species due to global warming?

See “EPA: Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health”

Increase In Renewable Fuels

Posted on | May 6, 2009 | Comments Off

EPA Lays out a Plan for the Nation’s Increase in Renewable fuels

(Washington, D.C. – May 5, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing its strategy for increasing the supply of renewable fuels, poised to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022, as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

“As we work towards energy independence, using more homegrown biofuels reduces our vulnerability to oil price spikes that everyone feels at the pump,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “Energy independence also puts billions of dollars back into our economy, creates green jobs, and protects the planet from climate change in the bargain.”

Increasing renewable fuels will reduce dependence of foreign oil by more than 297 million barrels a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 160 million tons a year when fully phased in by 2022. EISA will establish four categories of renewable fuels.

The new categories include:

* cellulosic biofuels;
* biomass-based diesel;
* advanced biofuels; and
* total renewable fuel.

In 2022, the proposal would require:

* 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels;
* 15 billion gallons annually of conventional biofuels;
* 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels; and
* 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel.

To achieve the volume requirements, each year EPA calculates a percentage-based standard that refiners, importers and blenders of gasoline and diesel must ensure is used in transportation fuel. For the first time, some renewable fuels must achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to the gasoline and diesel fuels they displace. Refiners must meet the requirements to receive credit toward meeting the new standards.

The thresholds for new categories would be 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions for renewable fuels produced from new facilities, 50 percent less for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuels, and 60 percent less for cellulosic biofuels.

EPA also will conduct peer-reviews on the lifecycle analysis of the four renewable fuel categories. Lifecycle refers to the greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the fuels.

The 60-day comment period on this proposal will begin upon publication in the Federal Register. During the comment period EPA will hold a public workshop on lifecycle analysis to assure full understanding of the analyses conducted, the issues addressed and the options that are discussed.

Needed: Urgent Climate Change Action

Posted on | April 27, 2009 | 1 Comment

Prince Charles told Italian lawmakers, “The world is struggling with the consequences of the economic crisis in which we find ourselves (but) any of the difficulties we face today will be as nothing when the full horror of global warming unfolds.”

At the same time, the Asian Development Bank released this report:
Southeast Asia Faces Soaring Economic Costs If Climate Change Action Delayed – New Study

MANILA, PHILIPPINES – Southeast Asia, one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to climate change, faces a poorer future unless global warming is controlled, says a new Asian Development Bank (ADB) study, titled The Economics of Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review.

Using reviews of previous studies, impact assessment models and extensive consultations with national and regional climate change experts, the study examines climate change challenges facing Southeast Asian nations, both now and in the future.

The study finds that the benefits to the region of taking early action against climate change far outweigh the costs.

If the world continues with business as usual, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam could experience combined damages equivalent to more than 6% of their countries’ gross domestic products every year by the end of this century, dwarfing the costs of the current financial crisis.

Rice production will dramatically decline because of climate change, threatening food security. Rising sea levels will force the relocation of millions living in coastal communities and islands, and more people will die from thermal stress, malaria, dengue and other diseases.

“Climate change seriously threatens Southeast Asia’s families, food supplies and financial prosperity, and regrettably the worst is yet to come,” says Ursula Schaefer-Preuss, Vice-President for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development.

“With the world mired in the current financial crisis, climate change risks being pushed down the policy agenda,” she adds. “If Southeast Asian nations delay action on climate change, their economies and people will ultimately suffer.”

The report argues that Southeast Asian nations should address the dual threats of climate change and the global financial crisis by introducing green stimulus programs – as part of larger stimulus packages – that can simultaneously strengthen economies, create jobs, reduce poverty, protect vulnerable communities and lower emissions.

There are a series of cost-effective measures that can help countries protect themselves from the worst effects of climate change, including improving water management, enhancing irrigation systems, introducing new crop varieties, safeguarding forests and supporting the construction of protective sea walls.

The study also notes there are “win-win” mitigation options in the energy sector – particularly more efficient power plants, more energy-efficient lighting, appliances and industrial equipment, and cleaner transportation – that could allow Southeast Asian nations to mitigate carbon emissions up to 40% by 2020 at a negative net cost.

“Countries have everything to gain and nothing to lose by investing in these low-cost and no-cost adaptation and mitigation measures,” says Ms. Schaefer-Preuss.

The forestry sector is the largest contributor to Southeast Asia’s greenhouse gas emissions, and has the greatest potential to reduce the region’s emissions through reduced deforestation, the planting of new forests and improved forest management.

Southeast Asia also has the highest technical potential to sequester carbon in the agriculture sector of any region of the world.

All four countries have adopted wide-ranging measures to counter the harsh impacts of climate change, but the study says they could do more to tap the broad array of global and regional initiatives that offer funding, technology and other support for countering climate threats.

At the same time, many climate challenges could be more effectively countered through closer regional cooperation, particularly in the areas of water basin management, shared marine ecosystems, extreme weather events and the containment of infectious diseases.

Since the negative impacts of climate change will continue to worsen, the study finds that only global action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions can effectively address the root causes of the current climate crisis.

Energy Cooperatives Oppose Obama

Posted on | April 23, 2009 | 1 Comment

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) is opposed to the President’s Cap-And-Trade auction plan. Their position statement:

Cooperatives Oppose Full Auction of Allowances Under Carbon Cap-and-Trade

Under a “Cap and Trade” approach to reducing greenhouse gases, Congress must decide how to distribute emissions allowances. Congress can choose to freely allocate allowances to the regulated community or others; it can auction all allowances to the highest bidder; or it can adopt a hybrid approach of allocating some allowances freely and auctioning the remainder.

President Obama’s FY2010 budget proposes to auction 100% of all emission allowances under a cap-and-trade climate change program that has yet to be developed.

* Consumer-owned electric cooperatives strongly oppose a 100% auction of emission allowances and urge Congress to minimize the economic impacts of climate change legislation on consumers.

Auctioning Raises Costs to Rural Electric Cooperative Consumers

Unfortunately, auctioning all allowances only serves as a backdoor, variable tax on electric cooperative consumers to raise revenue for the government. Even worse, the level of the tax would be determined by Wall Street and large multi-national energy companies who would likely be the highest bidders in any auction. Cooperatives would likely be price takers under an auction. If the government needs to raise revenue to fund important national priorities, those taxes should be set by the government and collected by the IRS, not set by Wall Street and collected by utilities.

Further, auctioning allowances is not necessary to achieve the environmental objective of a cap-and-trade plan – namely to achieve significant, long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Those reductions are achieved by the cap established in the legislation. An auction of allowances will not result in any further reductions of CO2 emissions. It won’t reduce emissions, it will only raise revenue.

Additionally, one of the main reasons given by advocates, including President Obama’s budget, for auctioning allowances to the highest bidder is to avoid giving industries “windfall profits.” However, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit, consumer-owned utilities that provide electricity to our members. As not-for-profit entities, it is by definition impossible for cooperatives to receive “windfall profits.”

Since cooperatives provide electricity on an at-cost basis, any additional costs borne by cooperatives gets passed directly through to our member-consumers. Conversely, any costs avoided save on our consumers’ monthly electric bills.

In the case of cooperatives, the most straightforward, efficient method of minimizing higher costs to our member-consumers is to freely allocate allowances to cooperatives. Co-op consumers will still face higher costs resulting from efforts to reduce emissions, and those costs will grow over time as the emissions cap declines. However, consumers can be protected from unnecessary higher costs that would result if co-ops have to bid on allowances against other for-profit entities.

Avoid the “Enronization” of any Auction

Some proposals contain explicit language allowing any entity to bid on allowances in an auction. Under this structure, rural electric cooperatives not only would be competing for allowances with large investor-owned utilities, manufacturing giants, and multi-national oil companies, but also deep-pocketed financial firms.

Investment houses and other brokers have a role to play in ensuring a liquid market, but should not be enticed to buy allowances at the auction, hold them to drive up prices, and then sell them purely to make a profit. Those profits would come directly from the pockets of consumers and would not provide any CO2 reductions.

Greenhouse gas emission allowances should not be treated as just another commodity like pork bellies. Much like how Enron manipulated the electricity markets in California in 2000, such a structure could drive up prices, promote extraordinary market volatility, and threaten the economic and energy security of the country without providing any additional environmental benefits.

* NRECA strongly urges Congress to restrict the use of allowances to only those entities which have a regulatory compliance obligation under the legislation, and clearly define the role of non-regulated actors in ensuring a liquid market.