Dr. James Hansen, the NASA scientist known for sounding an early alarm about climate change, will join student protesters at a “sleep out” in Boston this weekend.

The students, from Boston-area and other Massachusetts colleges, have been sleeping out on Boston Common and at various campuses to push the state to pass a law committing to clean energy. Their target goal: Have Massachusetts pledge to be using 100 percent clean energy by 2020.

They’ve asked Gov. Deval Patrick, already known for signing the Global Warming Solutions Act, to again put the state at the forefront of combatting climate change by introducing clean energy  legislation before the legislature adjourns later this month. The students have won a meeting with the governor on Nov. 17.

The sleep outs began two weeks ago, with the overnight campouts followed by lobbying with legislators on Monday mornings. Four Last week, police ticketed the campers for trespassing, student leaders said.

This weekend the group expects at least 100 student activists to meet with Dr. Hansen (whose Phd is in Physics from the University of Iowa) at a 4 p.m. Sunday rally, followed by the camp out. Dr. Hansen is scheduled to hold a press conference at 9:30 a.m. Monday morning (Nov. 9).

In June, Dr. Hansen, along with actress and environmental activists Daryl Hannah, was arrested for civil disobedience for blocking a road at a coal plant protest in West Virginia. The pair, along with several local residents, were protesting mountaintop removal.

Known for his testimony to Congress in 1988, alerting leaders to the dangers of greenhouse gases, Hansen has said that the world needs to move away from burning coal to create electricity.

The student sleep out was inspired by the idea that protesters would not rely on the “dirty energy” heating their homes and dorms until lawmakers pledged to move in a new direction.

It could be colder in Boston this time of year. With overnight lows in the upper 40s, it’s not the worst or best condition for sleeping outside.

"Sleepers" gather in Boston

Still, that’s what dozens of college students and environmental activists across the state have decided to do to make a point about clean energy and press Gov. Deval Patrick to promote a bill that would power Massachusetts with 100 percent clean energy by 2020.

The students, organized through the student-led Leadership Campaign, began their “sleep out” protest this past weekend with about 70 students and community members sleeping out in Boston Common.

Participants came from Harvard and Boston Universities; from Clark University and Worcester Polytechnic Institute and even from Westfield State College and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst in the western part of the state. Community members came from all over the state and included ordained clergy, according to organizers.

The plan: To sleep outdoors instead of in dormitories and houses powered by “dirty electricity”, until a plan is in place to power homes with clean electricity. Monday morning, after the first sleep in, students lobbied legislators at the Statehouse.

How long will the students shiver in the night? They’ll be back every Sunday night in Boston Common, and on other campuses students will continue to sleep out through the week,  until early December, if necessary. The activists want Patrick to introduce and pass a bill before Dec. 7, when global climate negotiations begin in Copenhagen. (Find out more about sleeping out on their website.)

“Massachusetts has already led on this issue,” said protest coordinator Craig Altemose. “When the science said 450 parts per million [of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was the safe upper limit], the Legislature passed a bill putting the Commonwealth on track with this target.

“But now the science says 350 is the highest safe level.  We’re now at 390, so we know that the Legislature and the Governor will again step forward and lead us to a clean energy future with accurate science-based targets.”

What the students and activists are asking for is realistic, says Dan Abrams, a spokesman for the Leadership Campaign.

Tents in Boston

“…There have been numerous reports that state that we can get a very high percentage of our energy in Massachusetts from wind and solar alone.  I have read a report that says we can get around 60% of our energy from wind alone. I also have heard of a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that says we can get 92% of our energy from wind and solar (and that doesn’t include off shore wind or energy conservation),” Abrams said.

But moving to clean energy is not really a choice dictated by how easy or not it will be to shift the infrastructure and electricity generation, he said.

“The science has clearly stated the world needs to cap the carbon in our atmosphere at 350ppm and we must do whatever it takes to get us below that number; 10 years is how long we are giving our government because it’s very scientifically possible to get to this goal much sooner but it is the politics that take a little bit longer.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Not convinced that climate change matters? The Union of Concerned Scientists has concluded that if Americans adopt that stance, they’ll be gambling not just with their lungs, but with their pocketbooks.

The UCS surveyed 60 studies to better examine the anticipated financial toll of global warming if we fail to “dramatically curb emissions.” The nonprofit released the findings today in a report called “Climate Change in the United States: The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction”.

It found that rising sea levels, intense hurricanes, flooding, impaired public health and strained energy and water resources would all add up to one monumental price tag.

“By late this century, the Midwest could be inundated with more torrential rainstorms costs tens of billions of dollars [in crop and property damage]. California, Washington and Oregon could be hit with an additional billion dollars in property damage from wildfires every year. The Northeast and Northwest, meanwhile, could lost most of their snowpack, which would kill the ski industry,” said Lexi Shultz, deputy director of the Climate Program at UCS.

But wait, there’s good news: The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration says that developing clean energy and taking steps to slow global warming emissions would be affordable. The EIA says that the cost of fighting global warming would only cost each American household about $10 a month in increases in their energy bills by 2020.

The UCS wants us to stack that price tag of about $120 a year against the staggering costs of inaction. If climate change continues unchecked, with temperatures climbing by 7 to 11 degrees by 2100, the UCS report projects that:

• The federal government could end up spending billions fighting wildfires (which would increase by as much as 53 percent in 2100) considering the feds spent $200 million fighting just three wildfires last year in California.

• California would also suffer from heat-related public health issues and associated costs of billions to mitigate the human effects of ground-level ozone, which would worsen under climate change.

• The loss of snowpack would make many recreation areas in the Northeast and the Northwest unsuitable for skiing and snowmobiling, costing, conservatively, a loss of $405 million in annual skiing revenues.

• Reduced snow melt in all of the nation’s mountainous regions could affect water flow in streams and ultimately cost farmers, such as those in New Mexico where the loss of water from reduced snowmelt could cost $21 million a year by 2080.

• Shrinking snowpack would have huge impact in Oregon and Washington on many industries. Losses to the coldwater fishing (angling) industry could ultimately cost about $1 billion annually.

• In the Northeast, sugar maples would lose habitat, meaning annual loss of $5 to $12 million just to that industry.

• Sea level rise all along the East Coast would require seawalls. Possible cost in the Northeast: Up to $1.2 billion, and more in the Southeast

• In the Southeast, where a projected rise of 18 inches is anticipated in sea levels, the beach recreation industry could incur $11 billion in cumulative damages by 2080.

• Georgia alone could lose 5,000 tourism jobs.

• Florida could be especially hard hit, experiencing residential real estate losses of as much as $60 billion a year by 2100, due to sea level rises. The tourism industry could be slapped with more than $175 billion in annual losses due to beach erosion. Property damage from hurricanes could top $100 billion annually by 2100.

• In the Midwest, flooding and heavy downpours predicted by a collaboration of 13 federal agencies, could cause billions of dollars of crop damage and exacerbate erosion, raising the price of food production. Looking at just one state, Illinois, the annual costs to agriculture could reach $9.3 billion.

• Alaska, where warming is occurring disproportionately faster than in other states, would suffer continued damage to infrastructure as the permafrost melts, costing up to $6 billion just by 2030.

As for those who might ask whether these projections are alarmist, a spokesman for the UCS notes that the report was based on “mainstream” studies and that scientists, if anything, tend to err on the of conservatism.

“Most climate scientists acknowledge that current methods of predicting the consequences of climate change may underestimate the real impact and costs of climate change. More carbon dioxide is staying in the atmosphere as the ocean absorbs less and less over time. At the same time, ice sheets appear to be melting more rapidly than scientist have expected,” said Aaron Huertas, press secretary for the UCS, which is based in Massachusetts.

“…If these costs seem large it’s only because our dependence on the relatively stable climate of the past century or so is immense,” Huertas said. “Every home, every crop, every road — our entire civilization — has been built for today’s climate. A rapid shift in our climate will mean major disruptions for our way of life.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

We’ve been told that the switch to green energy will cost us a lot or a little, depending on who’s putting out the information.

Now, the Natural Resources Defense Council is telling us that switching to clean energy, as supported in the pending American Clean Energy and Security Act in Congress, would save us money on our electricity bills — at least by 2020.

It does make intuitive sense. Green, local(ish) energy harvested directly from the wind, solar and geothermal powers already in abundant supply in various U.S. locations – minus expensive wars to nail down rights to the world’s last drops of oil – should come at a fair price, at some point.

The NRDC’s model projects “modest” savings per household over “business-as-usual” — ranging from a few states where there’s no savings predicted up to savings of $8 or even $11 a month, with the average being $5.99 a month. (See the map above — click to view it larger.)

We’re sure this is a respectable analysis. Still, we have to say, who really knows? There are so many variables. Who will control these new energy sources? What will their front end costs be, and how much will they want to extract from consumers? Will we build sensible new buildings to help keep costs in line (efficient buildings can help ease peak demand; net zero buildings can even feed the grid)? Will the population projections (which the NRDC used for this model) remain stable? How hot will it get out there?

What if there are missteps? Remember the frenzy over biofuel from corn?

We do appreciate that the NRDC has stepped in with what appears to be a rational assessment of where we might end up in 2020, cost-wise, especially with others trumpeting less analytical assessments, stoking fears about the costs of change.

The NRDC’s view is simpatico with the EPA’s, which projects American will save some seven percent on household energy costs by 2020.

The bottomline: We hope so.

The skies are getting cleaner thanks to efforts made by Continental Airlines in partnership with Boeing, GE Aviation/CFM International, and Honeywell’s UOP. In early January of this year, Continental Airlines conducted the first biofuel demonstration flight by a commercial carrier in North American. Wednesday, Continental Airlines said it was “very pleased” in announcing its analysis of the flight.

The 90-minute test flight, taking off from, and then returning to, Houston, successfully completed many necessary flight operations. Engine 1 operated on 100 percent jet fuel, while Engine 2 of the Boeing 737-800 operated on a blend of 50 percent jet fuel and 50 percent biofuel. The biofuel was made from a combination of algae and jatropha plants, which do not impact food harvests, water resources or contribute to deforestation.

While reducing the amount of traditional jet fuel used was an accomplishment because it potentially reduces dependency on crude oil — the use of biofuel provided an even greater benefit in lessening air pollution.

“Overall life cycle greenhouse gas emissions related to using a biofuel like the one used on our demonstration flight are estimated to be reduced by 60 percent to 80 percent as compared to traditional jet fuel,” said Susannah Thurston, Corporate Communications Manager at Continental

“We are very pleased with the findings of the demonstration flight,” Thurston said Thursday.

As far as when travelers can expect biofuels to be used on commercial flights, Susan Gross with UOP Communications expects it to be another three years. UOP expects to receive the licensing rights at the end of this summer. It will then take an approximate two-and-a-half years until the fuel is produced in commercial quantities and widely used.

In regards to the cost of biofuel in comparison to traditional jet fuel, Susan Gross says “at this time, we are unable to predict the actual cost.” There are two large factors when computing the cost of the biofuel, 85% is directly related to the cost of the products used and 15% is the cost of refining the fuel. The refining cost will stay the same. For example, the two alternatives used in the Continental demonstration flight, algae oil and jatropha plants, are more expensive than crude oil at this time. UOP hopes that with increasing demand for alternative fuels, more plants will be harvested and the prices will be comparable.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Solazyme Inc., a Bay Area algal fuel company, has won the San Francisco Business Times’ Bay Area Green Business Award for Renewable Energy  Fuels.

The awards, presented June 11, recognize the Bay Area’s clean technology companies. A panel of area experts judged more than 200 nominations in 14 categories. Judging took three months.

“The San Francisco Bay Area is the heart of Green Technology innovation, we are proud to be selected for this honor, recognizing the work we’ve done in bringing renewable oil production and algal fuel to commercialization,” said Jonathan Wolfson, chief executive officer of Solazyme, in a statement. “This award further demonstrates the importance of our technology and research and recognizes our position in the industry during this critical time for our environment and for energy security.”

For more information about Solazyme, which was founded in 2003 with headquarters in South San Francisco, see this story on Green Right Now. The companies microbial conversion process converts algae into an oil that can replace fossil petroleum or plant oils in a range of products, serving as biofuels and also as components of household cleaning supplies, cosmetics and foods (it’s edible).

There’s a new wind whirly-gig on the block. You may not recognize him. Unlike those tall towers with outstretched airplane-style propellers, this new guy has a compact stance, a whole new look. Arms tucked in, he whirs more slowly and congregates with just a few others to power a building at time.

This wind power generator, called a vertical axis wind turbine, can be puzzling. Looking at one, it’s difficult to fathom how it works, though it simply uses a different aerodynamic concept than its propeller cousins, catching up winds that come from different directions bouncing along closer to the ground. The idea has actually been around for at least 2,000 years “but it’s just never been made to work very well,” says Michael Hess, CEO of Mariah Power.

Hess and company say they’re changing that. Using technology and metals (lightweight aluminum and steel) that weren’t available to the ancients who first tried the design, and correcting issues that afflicted more recent incarnations,  they’re taking the vertical axis to a new level of efficiency, says Hess, whose Reno, Nevada-based company is one of a handful of vertical wind turbine manufacturers.

“People had made them out of plastic and fiberglass before but that made them wear out, so we use metal (and) we solve the problems of stress and rust…,” he said. “We have to have a very straight pole, for instance, otherwise you have vibrations and movement. It’s straight within 1/16 of an inch over 20 feet.”

The result is Mariah’s “Windspire” – a spare-looking whizzy that stands just 30 feet tall and is only four feet across, making it readily available for single-site use by homes, small businesses and commercial buildings.

It doesn’t produce power at the same rate as those towering edifices on the prairie, because it operates differently and doesn’t ply the faster winds at higher altitudes. But given sufficient ground-level winds, each one can cover about 20 to 30 percent of a home’s energy needs. Specifically, the 1.2 kilowatt Windspire will produce approximately 2000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year in 12 mph average winds, according to the manufacturer. (The annual consumption of the average American home is about 8,700 kw.)

And it does this for a realistic price. A standard Windspire is $6,500 – or about $4,550 after a federal tax credit for 30 percent of the cost.

Or even less, if your state also offers a clean energy tax incentive that can be used for small wind on top of the federal credit.

There are about 200 Windspires on the ground or set to be installed in residential, commercial and university settings, says Hess. Some, like the one installed at the NC Solar Center of NC State in Raleigh, are demonstration projects.

Others are empowering homes and small facilities in scattered locations across the country.

Geothermal and solar energy projects will be getting a financial boost from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

President Obama announced that more than $467 million will be devoted to speeding the development of these technologies, which will support green jobs and provide low-carbon energy for decades.

“We have a choice. We can remain the world’s leading importer of oil, or we can become the world’s leading exporter of clean energy,” said President Obama in an Energy Department news release on Wednesday. “We can hand over the jobs of the future to our competitors, or we can confront what they have already recognized as the great opportunity of our time: the nation that leads the world in creating new sources of clean energy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy. That’s the nation I want America to be.”

Added Energy Secretary Steven Chu:  “These technologies represent two pieces of a broad energy portfolio that will help us aggressively fight climate change and renew our position as a global leader in clean energy jobs.”

The Recovery Act will support:

• $350 million for geothermal development in four areas: geothermal demonstration projects; Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) research and development; innovative exploration techniques; and a National Geothermal Data System, Resource Assessment and Classification System. These projects are designed to increase the use of geothermal heat, which, unlike wind and solar, can provide a continuous source of energy, helping electricity providers maintain their “base load,” or minimum requirments. Some of the demonstration projects will tap geothermal power from oil and natural gas fields; exploration will include projects in areas not typically associated with high geothermal potential.
• $117.6 million to “accelerate widespread commercialization of clean solar energy” by partnering with governments, universities and private sector projects to advance solar voltaic solar power and large solar concentrator capabilities.

For more information, see the U.S. Department of Energy’s Recovery And Reinvestment Act page on Funding Opportunities.

Comments are flying faster than bats heading for a wind turbine in D.C. as all the “stakeholders” queue up to make their case for or against the Waxman-Markey climate legislation being debated next week.

First, our favorite — and this is a real giggle — from U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, the fast-fossilizing Republican from the Dallas area. He’s suggested that Congress not “cap” industrial emissions per se and that it “exclude carbon dioxide from a list of federal pollutants,” according to a McClatchy-Tribune news service report.

Right. Great answer to carbon pollution.

Next up, from a different perspective, our friends in wind power generation. They’re in a panic that Congress, with its perennial tendency to compromise until neither side is happy, will wantonly dilute the W-M bill requirements. Specifically, they’re concerned about the chipping away at the renewable electricity standard or RES, which designates that the country should using a certain percentage of clean energy by a certain year.

Talk was that the RES would be set at 25 percent by 2025– clean, simple. It was what U.S. Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Edward J. Markey and President Obama wanted, that 25 percent of U.S. power would come from wind, solar, geothermal and other low-carbon sources, and it would happen by 2025.

But a new draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act now makes that 20 percent by 2020. Doesn’t sound so bad.

But wait, here come the loopholes: Only 15 percent of the electricity would have to come from renewables, the other five could come from “energy efficiency measures”.

A further loophole would allow a governor to reduce the clean energy component to 12 percent for his or her state (this could help “low wind” states), as long as he/she could account for the other 8 percent with “energy efficiency measures” (adding up to 20, see?).

All this slippage is in response to concerns that electricity consumers would suffer increases in their bills at the higher RES. And one argument that does make sense is that not all states are created equal. It will take some innovation to bring solar and wind to places where solar and wind power are not easy solutions, say a non-windy Northern locale.

Still, one can’t help but notice that the D.C. mishmasher has made the new proposed RES more complicated and opens the door for “clean coal,” that quixotic elixir that’s supposed to make coal viably clean but which nobody can afford (that ought to make electricity cheaper) to malinger. Not to mention the potential that some places could stay tethered too long to dirty power sources under the influence of powerful lobbyists, while substituting energy conservation measures (that we should be taking anyway) for real change.

Of more urgent note: The group of U.S. wind executives say diluting the RES would deflate the newbie U.S. clean energy industry, where wind companies are playing catch-up to European firms as well as competing with countries like China.

Yes, they’re playing the job card. But perhaps someone should.

“We are concerned that the significantly lower renewable targets currently being discussed, as compared to proposals from President Obama, Chairman Bingaman and Chairman Markey, will severely blunt the signal for companies like ours that manufacture turbines and components to invest billions of dollars to expand production and our workforces in the U.S.,” said the letter. It was signed by the future wannabe titans of the industry –GE Energy, Vestas Americas, Gamesa, NRG Systems, REPower USA, Broadwind Energy, TPI Composites, PPG Industries, Clipper Windpower and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

The AWEA calculates that the wind industry now employees about 85,000 Americans (did I say voters?), counting manufacturing, construction and operations.

A weak RES — talk about taking the wind out of our sails.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Global wind power installations grew by 29 percent in 2008, exceeding past performance and bringing the world’s commercial wind power capacity to 120,798 megawatts.

Wind now produces 1.5 percent of the world’s electricity with 80 countries using commercial wind power, according to an analysis by the Worldwatch Institute released this week.

The U.S. claimed much of that growth, with more than 42 percent of the power capacity added in 2008. The U.S. was the leader in new installations (passing Germany), and also became the world leader in cumulative wind power capacity with 25,170 megawatts of capacity at the end of 2008, according to Worldwatch.

Natural gas still added capacity faster than wind; despite wind’s surging growth trajectory.

Elsewhere in the world, wind strengthened its position in several key population centers, according to Worldwatch:

• Wind became Europe’s leading source of new electric capacity with 8,877 megawatts added, outpacing new natural gas and coal facilities. Wind power now accounts for 8 percent of the European Union’s power capacity. Europe ended the year with 65,946 megawatts of capacity.

• Germany leads the region in new installations, and despite a slowdown in production in 2008, still expects to generate 31 percent of the nation’s power from wind by 2030. It ranks second in the world in total wind capacity with 23,903 megawatts, just behind the U.S.

• Spain was fourth worldwide in new installations in 2008, and ranks third after the United States and Germany for cumulative wind power capacity with 16,740 megawatts.

• Asia accounted for nearly one-third of the global wind capacity added in 2008, with China passing its 2010 wind power target of 10,000 megawatts and ending 2008 with 12,200 megawatts in place. China ranks 4th in the world for total capacity.

• India ranked third in wind capacity additions for 2008 with 1,800 megawatts of new wind added and now ranks 5th for total capacity worldwide.

• Nearly 400,000 people are employed in the wind industry across the world, a number that could temporarily decline because of the economic downturn, according to Worldwatch, which also predicts that lower construction costs could lead to a long-term boom in wind.

“We’ve seen rapid and consistent global growth in the wind sector over the past decade, with an increasing number of countries turning to wind as a source of power,” said the report’s author, senior researcher Janet Sawin. “If these trends continue as expected, wind energy will play an integral role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Wind energy officials, manufacturers and providers have gathered in the Windy City this week for WINDPOWER 2009, a conference expected to draw some 18,000 people.

Kicking it off on Tuesday, four governors from the Midwest along with the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission appeared at a news conference.

The presence of so much executive clout demonstrated just how important wind has become, rising from a small player on the energy scene merely a few years ago to becoming a leader in the movement for low-carbon, job-creating clean energy solutions.

Wind sounds so wonderful — it’s squeaky clean, straightforward, local. And in Texas, Iowa, Minnesota and handful of other places where it’s already whirling away, it is making a difference. Consumers in these states, and beyond, have expanding access to clean energy programs through their electricity providers because of wind farms.

Wind and environmental advocates say that the U.S. should set a goal of obtaining 25 percent of its energy from clean renewable sources, like wind and solar power, by 2025. Many states have set goals that move in that direction.

But getting from A to B won’t be easy. As wind expands across the U.S. Midwest  and on the coasts – all the places where the wind blows strongly – sending that energy to population centers will confront obstacles.

The state governors at the conference are clearing some of the roadblocks to generating and using more wind power. They’re helping retrofit manufacturing plants to make the tools available; visiting European countries to learn how wind works and supporting community colleges as they set up wind-tech classes to train the workforce that will be needed.

But this is the low-hanging fruit, and the governors know that they will need help from Washington. To a person, they emphasized the need for Congressional support to get wind aloft and most critically, to unify the grid system and create the “Smart Grid” needed to carry clean energy efficiently to consumers.

“We need good strong wise policy at the state and national level,” said Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. The others, Jennifer Granholm from Michigan, Chet Culver of Iowa, Ted Strickland of Ohio, agreed.

Without strong federal guidance and money, America could reach and reach and still miss the mark.

And what of this Smart Grid, this massive technological marvel that must be built before we can have affordable clean energy?

The idea is that a digital, modernized electricity delivery system could cut out inefficiencies on “both the supply and demand sides of the meter” as Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the FERC, explained. It would accommodate new sources of power, adjust for inefficiencies and help smooth out demand/supply issues. (Remember both wind and solar follow natural patterns and don’t necessarily peak when everyone in your neighborhood wants to run the dishwasher and the dryer at the same time.)

The first full day of hearings on that proposed law known as Waxman-Markey, which would promote clean energy, foster green jobs and set up a system to curb greenhouse gas emissions, began — fittingly — on Earth Day.

But how do we make sense of this sweeping piece of legislation that affects everything from the air you breathe to the refrigerator you use? You could watch the hearings on C-Span over the next few weeks. (If you are unemployed, have all day long to plop in front of the tube and can remain alert for extended periods while people discuss abstractions like “carbon allowances” and “international offsets” this might be for you!)

Or you could read the bill. It is 648 pages. But as we learned from the recent stimulus escapades, even people in Congress don’t read these things.

So let’s stick to the executive summary of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It is five pages long. For serious climate watchers, politicos, green collar workers and would-be Earth advocates, scanning this document is not a bad idea.

Fortunately we’re not the only ones trying to find ways to make this incredibly complex matter digestible. The EPA is on the job. The agency that would regulate and guide many of the directives in Waxman-Markey, should it pass, has put out an analysis of how it would help grow the economy and boost personal income while transforming the U.S. energy landscape and curtailing carbon emissions. (Though we’re back up to nine pages on this one.)

The EPA review — done at the request of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) — looked mainly at how emissions reductions and cap-and-trade guidelines would affect the economy (Title III in the Act.). It found that the W-M bill would:

• Make it more economical to invest in energy efficient manufacturing, housing and transportation, which would reduce energy consumption, delaying until mid-century the consumption levels we’d otherwise reach by 2015.

• Grow renewable energy; push forward new technology for coal production, bringing coal carbon capture and storage online in 2015.

• Its cap-and-trade provisions would result in carbon costs of about $13-$17 per metric ton in 2015, rising to $17-$22 by 2020 – propelling the development of cleaner alternatives.

• More clean energy would offset the need for increased petroleum use (a major security issue), keeping it nearly static through 2050. (Which tells you a bit about where the opposition to W-M will come from.)

The EPA report says a lot more. But it’s as thick as Ulysses. It needs deciphering. The Natural Resources Defense Council is trying, having asked its chief economist to analyze the EPA’s analysis (only in Washington).

Laurie Johnson, chief economist for the NRDC, looked at what the EPA was (trying) to say about household income under Waxman-Markey and found that:

• Households will become 18-19 percent richer between 2010 and 2020, and 36-40 percent by 2030. By contrast, the investment of the average household in the bill would only be $98 to $140 a year.

Takeaway: The Congressional prescription for global warming and our ailing economy won’t cost us too much net-net, and could even make us better off. If all goes well.

Take it with a grain of salt. And stay tuned.

(The NRDC has other decipherers. See David Doniger’s blog “First Read” of the Waxman-Markey Energy and Climate Discussion Draft. This excellent piece breaks the Act down into its significant parts.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media