greenrightnow.com » cap-and-trade

Poll shows more Americans believe climate action will boost the economy

BKessler — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:49:54 +0000

Green Right Now Reports

As the Copenhagen climate talks moved into high gear on Tuesday, preparing for the heads of state to join the talks, the AP released a poll showing that more Americans believe action on climate change will help the U.S. economy than hinder it.

The Associated Press-Stanford University Poll found that 40 percent of Americans said that action to slow global warming would create jobs, and 46 percent said it would “boost the economy.”

Less than one-third of respondents felt that controlling climate change would hurt the economy.

Republicans opposed to a national climate bill have argued that curbing global warming will be expensive, raise energy costs and hurt the U.S. economy. A delegation of these climate action opponents plans to visit the Copenhagen Climate Conference in Denmark this week.

The AP’s story about the poll quoted one responder as saying that the Republicans “are wrong.” Under climate action, Americans will shift to new jobs, the Seattle man said.

Another man, from Connecticut, told the AP that he saw a green revolution as promising jobs for those in need of work.

“I don’t know if anybody has looked around lately, but the economy is dead,” said Jake Berglund, a home-improvement contractor from Portland, Conn. “We are in a sinking ship, and Obama has bought us enough life rafts to keep on going. But we need to figure out how to build a new boat when we are still on the water.”

But while those polled were mostly in favor of green jobs, they were not as enthusiastic about a carbon cap-and-trade market, if it meant their energy bills would be higher.

A majority of those polled, 59 percent, said they would not support a cap-and-trade system if it meant they would have to pay $10 extra a month for electricity.

Let’s call it pollution reduction, plain talk from Senator Kerry

BKessler — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:07:10 +0000

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

So often politicians obscure their message with caveats, euphemisms and wonky references to elaborately named legislation.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) took the conversation a different direction yesterday when speaking to student activists assembled for an online teleconference Tuesday night sponsored by Consequence09.org.

He appealed for clarity on cap-and-trade, suggesting that “cap-and-trade” is needless jargon, a “crazy name that everyone hates” and has acquired too much baggage.

We need to heave the insider-speak, he said, and call cap-and-trade what it really is: “Pollution reduction.”

This point has been made before. But perhaps if it were made by leaders like Kerry, and more often, it could get a foothold.

It is not obfuscation or over-simplification or a smarmy political move to say that what cap-and-trade manifestos are all about is controlling carbon emissions, that is, reducing pollution.

Sure, the devils in the details. By whatever name you call it, the new plan will zing polluters and reward those who do better. There will still be a lot of questions that need answering under the new “pollution reduction” program: How a big a price will polluters pay? Which greenhouse gases will be included? How long will companies have to get their act together before penalties are in full force? How big of a reward will the clean energy mavericks receive? How long will the rewards endure? These are critical details.

But in terms of winning people over, honestly, to the concept, and crawling out of the conversational tar pit where this whole cap-and-trade debate seems to have become mired, Kerry’s idea sounds like a good syntactical move. We need to focus on the core of what we want to accomplish, and most Americans, polls show, want a cleaner, more secure future — one that includes pollution reduction.

In fact, the latest poll out, one by CNN, reported just this week that 6 in 10 Americans support “cap-and-trade legislation” (though other polls have shown that far less than a majority understand cap-and-trade).

If Congress follows that same pattern, Americans could have a climate action bill — or energy security bill, but let’s not discuss those labels right now — later this year.

Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) are sponsoring the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act which has been characterized as a strong bill aimed at curbing climate change and helping America achieve energy independence. But many Republicans have reservations.

Kerry urged those listening to the teleconference to reach out to their senators now, especially those Republicans and fence-sitting Democrats, to let them know they want a clean energy, climate change bill with real, um, pollution reduction targets.

“All of you can have a huge impact on how this works,” he said. “If people in the grassroots will gin up the emails and gin up the phone calls…to calm political fears that they (undecided politicians) are somehow stepping out and cutting across the currents.”

Poll finds that a majority of Americans support climate change regulation

BKessler — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:00:52 +0000

From Green Right Now Reports:

A majority of Americans – about 75 percent – support regulating greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and manufacturing that would reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But only a bare majority – 52 percent – support a cap-and-trade approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 42 percent oppose such a program, which is the type of approach taken in the Waxman-Markey climate legislation expected to be voted on in the US House of Representations, possibly Friday.

Support for controls on emissions wavered even more as those polled were asked whether they’d pay higher electricity prices to help bring about reduced greenhouse gases.

Only 44 percent said they would back a cap-and-trade system if it meant monthly electricity bills would be $25 higher. Support was stronger, at 56 percent, if the proposed monthly electricity increase was just $10 a month, according to the randomized poll of 1,001 adults.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that regulating greenhouse gases would cost the typical household about $175 a year in 2020, when the shift to clean energy and emissions controls would be in high gear.

But opponents of the pending climate legislation, especially conservative Republicans, argue that costs will be much higher.

The poll found that people living in households making less than $50,000 a year were the most concerned about the costs of the climate regulation.

Young people were the most supportive of federal regulation to control climate-related emissions (about 60 percent said they supported cap-and-trade) and senior citizens the least supportive (about 40 percent said they favored cap-and-trade).

Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach to controlling GHG emissions. It sets caps on the amount of pollution companies are allowed and lets them bid for extra credits if they go over their emissions allowance or sell credits if they keep under pollution limits. Limits for everyone are lowered over time to reduce carbon emissions.

Share
|

Making sense of Waxman-Markey

BKessler — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:44:11 +0000

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

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.)

No math needed: A look at global warming by the numbers

Laura May — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:52:59 +0000

By Laura Elizabeth May
Green Right Now

One degree Fahrenheit.

On average, that’s how much the Earth’s temperature has increased over the past century, according to a report by the EPA. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that during the 21st century the global temperature will increase by 2-6° C.

To the average person, one degree might not seem like a problem. But to scientists studying the climate, it is cause for concern. At this rate of warming, climate changes would occur faster than any of the climate changes over the past 10,000 years.

The warming of a few degrees would lead to more frequent droughts and heat waves; it can also cause an increase in rainfall and change the strength of storms. While some areas of land might benefit from the increased rainfall, others will be devastated by lack of rain.

Lately, some scientists have revised their projections on when global warming will spell the end of the Arctic ice cap. Now, some feel that the ice could be gone within five years, which could trigger a “tipping point” with the oceans warming and rising, and the Earth’s ability to reflect sunlight greatly impaired. In a recent Newsweek interview, Department of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu defined “tipping point” as the point where “no matter what humans do, it’s out of our control.”

Some scientists suggest that the rise in ocean temperatures has led to the increased intensity of hurricanes. There is no way to definitively prove that this is directly related to the rise in global temperatures. However, in 2005 the Science journal released a study regarding hurricane strength and the connection to global warming. The study showed as the storms were becoming more intense, the global temperature was also increasing. The study is quick to point out that Hurricane Katrina and other damaging hurricanes can not be blamed on global warming. However, there appears to be a connection emerging.

Steelworkers, environmentalists call for carbon cap

BKessler — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:08:21 +0000

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

Get ready for a new ad campaign pushing for a carbon cap. This one, though, comes not from policy wonks in D.C., but is a direct appeal from the steel belt. And it will yank at your heart strings.

The United Steelworkers and the Blue Green Alliance, in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund, have assembled four video spots featuring steel workers appealing for a carbon cap. Yes you heard that right.

The cap, these workers say, will free their industries to pursue clean energy and thereby put people back to work, this time making wind turbines, which require a lot of steel, as well as solar panels.

It’s certainly true that wind is fueling huge job growth. The latest figures from the American Wind Energy Association report that the field now employs some 85,000 Americans.

As for the carbon cap and the sticky question of how to place a price on carbon emissions — through cap and trade, which critics argue is complex and unwieldy, or through a carbon tax, which could be so unpopular as to be untenable — look for much continued debate as lawmakers inch closer to taking action. Global warming legislation has a history of freezing up Congress.

These new ads, however, argue that we can’t afford a stalmate — individually or collectively.

Here’s one of the spots. There are three others on You Tube.

Braddock Mayor John Fetterman, by the way, is a Harvard-educated native of the area.

The TV spots and print ads will run in “swing” states, including Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, New Hampshire, Virginia and in Washington D.C.

For a discussion on the debate over cap-and-trade vs. a carbon tax, see the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Can cap and dividend fight global warming?

KGO — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:50:03 +0000

By Ken Miguel
KGO-San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — By 2011, California is expected to begin trading carbon credits on an open market. It is a potentially valuable commodity that even Congress wants a slice of. But what if they gave you cash instead?

Scientists increasingly say our planet is heating up largely because of carbon dioxide emissions.

Watch Now

University of Houston to train carbon trading experts

BKessler — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:10:15 +0000

By Julie Bonnin

The U.S. energy policy may be in flux and economic uncertainty at an all time high but a “cap and trade” policy on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is likely to be a major initiative not long after the upcoming presidential election.

While emissions offset trading is active in Europe and Asia, and some voluntary trading has begun in the U.S., American energy corporations are anticipating tougher emission reduction regulations and a corresponding need for traders, lawyers and other business people to work within the system as it evolves.

Thus far no one’s come out with “Carbon Trading for Dummies.” But the University of Houston, through a joint program of the C. T. Bauer College of Business and UH Law Center, will offer what is thought to be the country’s first comprehensive carbon trading course in spring of 2009.

The school expects to have about 50 business and law graduate students in the class, but has fielded a number of inquiries from traders and energy executives outside the school. Since the school disclosed its plans to offer the class, and before it announced it would only be open to UH graduate students, it received at least 50 calls from people from around the country who wanted to sit in, says Dr. Praveen Kumar, Executive Director of UH-Bauer’s Global Energy Management Institute.

“As far as I know, this is the only course of its kind, looking at the trading, legal, market design, and policy aspects of carbon trading,” Kumar said. “I know of no other university where the law school and the business school are joining forces to deal with this very important and complex issue. There may be private executive training companies that have specialized offerings related to carbon trading—but they will not have the scope of our course.”

Going, going, gone for first carbon credits

John DeFore — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:15:29 +0000

By John DeFore

The first-ever RGGI auction, which we reported on last week, has concluded, and now begins the long process of seeing how it works.

Critics are skeptical, saying the emissions caps were set too high and therefore led to allowance prices that were too low. GOOD Blog contributor Ben Jervey calls it a “doomed-to-failure program (or, at least, doomed-to-very modest success)” while allowing that it “will prove invaluable, mostly for the lessons learned from what goes wrong.”

But RGGI members, who never claimed they’d fix the world immediately, are taking a brighter view: The six states involved in the first round raised $38.5 million from the auction, money RGGI says they’ll invest in “energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, and programs to benefit energy consumers.” That’s something by itself, even if it takes time for the cap-and-trade plan to have much impact on emissions.

The going rate for a single allowance, once the gavel fell, came to $3.07 per ton of emissions. All twelve million-plus of the allowances put up for sale were sold, not just to power-plant operators but also to financial and environmental organizations.

Fifty-nine buyers took part in the auction, presenting a demand (close to 52 million allowances) that was four times as much as the available supply. Maryland, putting the most allowances up for sale, took home a hefty $16.4 million. According to Deputy Director of Communications Dawn Stolzfus, the state passed a law this year to determine exactly how that money will be spent (even if the categories are broad) — allocating, for instance, 10.5% to “clean energy & climate change programs, outreach & education.”

The next RGGI auction is December 17, and they’ll be held on a quarterly basis for the next three years.

NE regional greenhouse gas initiative begins

John DeFore — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:31:40 +0000

By John DeFore

This week, for the first time in the United States, an auction was held allowing power plants to bid against each other for the right to spew carbon dioxide into the air.

The goal, of course, is to reduce atmospheric carbon by finding the best way of putting a price tag on it for polluters. Ten Eastern states — Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont — have formed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (or RGGI, pronounced “Reggie”) to coordinate their efforts by placing mandatory overall caps on emissions levels, then auctioning off allowances for CO2 emissions that can be traded between companies. As a result, companies will have a financial incentive to clean up their own act as quickly as possible.

Other regions of the country, from the state of Florida to a Western Climate Initiative, are either studying or actively planning similar cap-and-trade programs; this one is the result of five years of research and planning and is partly inspired by earlier efforts to tackle acid rain. According to Thursday’s press release, “Under RGGI, the ten participating states will stabilize power sector carbon emissions at their capped level, and then reduce the cap by 10 percent at a rate of 2.5 percent each year between 2015 and 2018.”

A ten percent reduction over ten years, of course, is a far cry from what most activists would like to see. But it’s a more substantial measure than any being taken on a nation-wide level, and the states promise to invest the funds raised in “energy efficiency programs, renewable energy stimulus efforts and other programs to benefit consumers. As a result, RGGI will deliver economic and environmental benefits and improve energy security through reduced use of fossil fuels.”

Six of the participating states offered allowances yesterday, selling credits for over 12 million tons of carbon emissions. Other states will sell their credits in future auctions, the next of which takes place in December.