A final ramble.....

A few weeks ago as I scoured the internet to find new topics regarding U.S. Environmental Regulations, I realized the search was pretty futile. With the presidential election coming up and a new administration guaranteed to be in place next year (unless Cheney invokes some new super vice-presidential power), nothing is happening of going to happen.

First of all, the other nations of the world are done with President Bush regarding environmental issues (all others as well). It became evident in the new U.N. led global warming talks and the emissions talks we led in Hawaii that our current agenda doesn't suit anyone, and they mine a well wait for the next president. In fact, the agenda created in Bangkok for future talks was partially built around this timetable so the U.S. can help the cause instead of wasting time with a lame duck administration.

I also wonder how things can get done domestically when 3 key members of our senate aren't doing shit but campaigning. Do you think Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are working on new bills to pass through the senate? No. They are creating lofty agendas that aren't nearly feasible. Obama is the worst with this.

Obama can talk, I'll give him that, but should we believe a word that comes out of his mouth? He has been a senator for one term, and has been campaigning for most of it. Then he comes with these messages of change that make me crazy. How the hell does this guy know how to work within the government let alone be in charge of it? He says he is going to get universal health care and fix the economy and save the environment and it seems a lot of people are convinced he is. The only problem is more experinced politicians have been doing the same thing for decades and havn't had success. I wonder what his special quality is that "can change politics like usual" as he always claims. Rousing speeches don't create legislation and break down centurys of tradition.

Anyway, I digress. Whoever becomes President next is a better environmental President than George Bush. The momentum of support for environmental issues is at an all time high and any politician worth a damn should be able to ride it for some change. How we get there will be the key.

All three candidates support emission trading, but no infrastructure is in place to do so. We do not even have a record of who pollutes what. Will the candidates (here's looking at you McCain) be able to resist powerful lobbyists and require reductions worth a damn or will we end up with a bloated number of credits where its cheaper to pay for excess pollution rather than curb it?

I am just worried words like "foreign oil dependency", "carbon reduction", "renewable energy", and the other "green"(which is becoming grossly cliche) are becoming words without meaning. Are our politicians, the people who represent us in our great democracy, really coming up with solutions or is all this talk just people saying what we want to hear. When Bush says we need technology to pave the way to a better environment, is there actual work being done or is he just hoping one of those god-hating, dirty hippy scientists he hates makes a new invention to save the world? Where are the actual plans people? I can sit here and promise you solar energy will reduce emissions by X percent, but that doesn't change the fact I have no idea on how to do that.

Personally, I think Hillary is the best person for the job. She is smart, experienced, would have an incredibly influential first-husband and gets things done. It infuriates me that so much judgement about how a candidate will perform as leader of the most powerful nation in the world is based on how good a speech you can give. Please tell me why else Obama has come from nowhere to the possible democrativ nominee. It wasn't his work in the senate. He just seemed to become good at his job overnight.

If he does win, I won't be horrible upset, there is a chance he will do well. He has that window after he gets elected to use his momentum to get a lot of things done, a la President Kennedy. If he has smart people around him and can be steadfast about what he things is right, a powerful speech and a few smiles could get a lot done. However, if things don't get done right away or there are no marketable improvements, the Republican machine will be sure to break him down into a silly idealist, a la Gerald Ford perhaps? I'm too young for accurate portrayals of old presidents.

Change is in the air (along with a staggering amount of carbon emissions), and just the post-Bush high should be enough for some serious improvements. Who knows, maybe that was his plan all along. Get the American people and the rest of the world so down on the United States government that when he leaves, the goodwill felt by all will be enough to curb the recession. Sort of like the celebration seen in the Wizard of Oz after Dorothy crushed the wicked witch, but with a global economy.

I have learned a tremendous amount about what is being done throughout the world to halt global warming in writing this blog. What I particularly like is that learning about acutal legislation means the technology is ready here and now. Politicians (most) don't rely on theoretical scenarios and possibilities, their changes need to be realistic. The changes they talk about are the ones we will actually feel, and I believe I have a better understanding about what is to come (environmentally speaking) than most.

Its been real.

Shane

What's wrong with nuclear power?

I was watching a couple of people on the news debate the building of new nuclear power plants and I realized I really don't know anything about the topic. This week I have decided to explore the subject and give a rundown of the pros and con's of nuclear power.

The United States currently uses 104 nuclear power plants that account for 15%-20% of our electricity supply. In 1979, Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in Pennsylvania had a partial meltdown that scared the public into basically abandoning any new nuclear power plants. There were no reported deaths or serious injuries but the shock was enough to kill the industry. The last plant came on line in 1996 but not many before that were opened.

Now nuclear power may be back on the agenda. The Bush administration is very fond of nuclear power and is making progress towards opening new plants. Suprisingly, some environmentalists are pro nuclear power as well. This is because nuclear power is realatively clean in regards to greenhouse gas emissions.

Nuclear power is an alternative to dirty coal power, and in comparison nuclear power emits almost no greenhouse gasses. The benefit is obvious, but it does not make it a clear cut debate. There are many drawbacks to nuclear energy that critics say outweigh their emission reduction possibilities.

The biggest drawback is fear of meltdown like the one seen in Chernobyl, Ukraine. This has been the only deadly meltdown in nuclear history but remains the poster child for why nuclear energy is too risky. The meltdown spewed a plume of radioactive material across the Soviet Union and into Western Europe and hundreds of thousands of people had to be relocated away from the radiactivity. The World Health organization says 56 people died directly from the incident but thousands more were affected by the fallout. High rates of cancer are prevalent among the people in close proximity.

Still, experts say that this type of meltdown could not happen to US reactors because we use a different kind that is incapable of the same result. I couldn't tell you the difference, I'm not a nuclear scientist.

Another problem is storing the radioactive waste. Currently, the Bush administration has planned to bury waste in old underground nuclear testing facilities deep under mountains in Nevada. Nevada doesn't want this but Bush overruled them. It is still in legal limbo however and no storing has been done yet.

It is also very expensive. New plants cost arond $8 billion dollars according to plans for new French nuclear power plants. In the long run experts say it becomes much more expensive that coal fired plants.

Mining the uranium needed is also expensive and bad for the environment.

In researching this topic I found that both sides have good points it comes down to what is the most important.

Hear McCain talk nuclear energy:

Hear Obama talk nuclear energy:

Hear Hilary Clinton talk about nuclear energy:

Post Kyoto Talks in Bangkok Update...

The talks in Bangkok are over and it is time to see what got done. The talks were held to create an agenda of further talks, ending with a finished agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol by the end of 2009. As you can imagine, talks were contentious as 163 nations tried to agree on an agenda. However, the talks were deemed as a success by many and a schedule is now in place for the future talks. The plan outlines what issues are to be discussed at which meeting and ends with a proposal being finished in Copenhagen at the end of 2009.

The new agreement designates three rounds of talks this year, which each talk focusing on a key issue. The key elements of a new agreement are shared long-term vision and enhanced action on mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance. Here are how the meetings will go:

• Bonn, Germany in June - This meeting will focus on how to advance climate change through the use of finance and technology. Notably, how and where the money is coming from and how we can best use new low-emissions technologies. A focus is also put on spreading these new technologies to developing countries to speed up the process.



• Ghana in August - A little more broad than the Germany meeting, but I'm sure it will develop over time. This meeting is on "enhancing action on mitigation", which I understand means looking closely at big salient issues. One issue cited is deforestion in developing countries that account for around 20% of global emissions.



• Poznan, Poland in December - The last meeting of 2008 seems to be set to be the most comprehensive meeings of the three. It will focus on various risks the plan might encounter, technology (couldn't find specifics) and other key elements for long-term plans. This includes setting a target for the reduction of greenhouse gasses.

That is what was officially done. I have scoured the stories from domestic and international news agency's and compiled a quick rundown of what went down during the four days to reach this point. Here it is:

• Japan and the United States piss people off - Japan, who is struggling to meet their Kyoto targets, the U.S. and some other developed countries are demanding that developing countires, especially "advanced ones" like China and India, commit to emission reduction targets as well. At the Bali conference it was decided that just developed countries need to commit to specific emissions reduction targets and developing countries only must "take action".

I am assuming we are worried about China and India specifically and would propably concede to other small developing countries not doing specific target reductions. We feel we should not have a distinct economic disadvantage against these powerhouses, especially with the global market slightly faltering. Japan also argues that they have been a leader in energy efficiency for a long time and it is harder for them to go further. O ya, and its bad for the environment.

The developing countries are arguing that they can't industrialize and curb emissions at the same time. They also accuse the most powerful countries of slacking on agreements to help them with money and advanced technologies that could ease the burden. I also read an good quote somewhere that said something like, "We(developing nations) should not have to pay for the hundreds of years of emissions the powerhouses have put out. They caused this problem." Not a direct quote but you see the message.

The delegates all decided to hold off on the global treaty drafting until after are November elections. Countries are holding their breaths to see if the new administrations will actually change. It is also contingent on if and when a program in the U.S. is created. The U.S. is obviously going to let domestic legislation guide how they deal with global warming and the world knows this. They can only hope we pass a bill (like the ones discussed below) so we have actual substance to base international agreements on.

I think the U.S. should try and isolate China and India from the rest of the "developing countries". We could support no commitment to emissions cuts from most developing countries and faciliatate a transfer of technology and funds to help them out. We call on their responsibility as players in the new global economy to reduce emissions when it is time. With some support from other countries and the major ones that already feel us on the issue maybe we can pressure China and India to make concessions on the subject. I don't know if they should or not, but that is a guess on how to get it done.

Also, we want developing countries to decide what they are going to do to reduce emissions before we decide what we are going to do. Of course, they want the exact opposite.

Finally, developing countries are very upset about more powerful countries failing to act on their promises of financial and technological aid to help their emerging industries get clean. This was mentioned in many different stories but I could not find a reference to the specific agreement they were speaking of. More to come as things advance. Here are some various articles about the talks:

• Post talk article on problems to come
• Pessimistic article on the problems of the talks
• A Xinhua (China) take on the talks. (suprisingly they dont seem at fault)
• Quick story on targets waiting for the new administration
• Article on Green groups being mad
• A nice neutral story from Canada
• AP story on Japan's issue with the talks
• Story about emissions trading being on the rise with the talks as context

Here is the U.N. press briefing to open the talks:

Here is the U.N. press briefings to close the talks:

International Eco-Legislation Goin'-ons

For the past couple months I have been almost solely covering the United States. These next weeks I will go over a couple environmental happenings from around the world. The U.S. is not considered the most enlightened or progressive of countries regarding eco-legislation and I think its good to know what some other countries are doing to deal with the issues. We* are all in this together (we* does not include the United States)

Post-Kyoto Protocol talks begin:

Last December a huge international gathering in Bali (article) decided that a new plan to replace the Kyoto Protocol must be done by the end of 2009. This would allow countries to prepare ahead of time for when the Kyoto treaty expires in 2012.

Those talks led to the conference happening today in Bankok, Thailand. These talks are meant to map out a timeline and plan to prepare and ratify a treaty at the end of 2009. Generalities will be discussed, but specific plans will be left to future talks. The United Nations thinks all countries should reduce emissions by half the 1990 levels by 2050. The European Union calls for cuts around 25-40% and the United States refuses to sign on to a specific timeframe and number. We are open and willing to reduce emissions but believe we should adjust over time and not be binded to an agreement.

The U.S. pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol back in 2001 because President Bush said it was hurting out economy. He did not believe the U.S. should have to make cuts that hinder our economy while developing nations like China and India (in-depth article, Australian report) continue to increase their pollution.

They argue they need the huge energy requirements to combat poverty and industrialize their country. We argue we can't be at that disadvantage in the global economy. Big companies might move out of the United States to countries that are cheaper and have more relaxed pollution restrictions.

Many critics rag on Bush because he is environmentally irresponsible, and he is. But in this instance he has a point. The current presidential candidates talk a big game about wanting to agressively curb emissions (see my earlier posts) and enter international agreements, but lets see what happens when all the major industrial players start feeling the pressure. I would be willing to bet we still won't enter the next agreement unless India and China make concessions on emission cuts and we don't have to settle on such a specific long term goal.

India and China were happy to get on board with the Kyoto agreement cause they didn't have to really do anything. The serious emission cuts were only geared towards industrialized countries. In these next rounds of talks, they still refuse to be held to any caps even if countries such as the U.S., Germany, Japan and the U.K. accept them, even though they continue to generate tons of greenhouse gases at a torrid pace. This is even as China is set to surpass the U.S. in emitted CO2 in 2017. India is not far behind.

The U.S. strategy seems to focuse on developing clean technologies and implementing them over time without being held to a cap. Things could change by the year and feel that flexible goals are more feasible. They argue setting a goal that far in advance is a rough science and not wise.

This is all contingent on the global economy as well. If a possible U.S. recession seriously upsets the global market I'm sure developing and many industrial nations will say to hell with pushing for a better environment, lets get the economy on track. Some argue a green revolution would actually push the global economy.

The U.S. will just be taking notes at this point. No point in getting involved until the new administration comes into power in 2009. Here are a few articles covering the opening of the talks in Thailand:

• Good introduction to the talks
• A little more in-depth
• Reporting service for environmental negotiations (including Bangkok talks)

Great video of how different countries are approaching change and the Bali conference:

Different representatives at the Bali conference talk about their plans and reservations (turn up the volume):

Al Gore's speech at the Bali conference after he won his Nobel Peace Price (he really throws the U.S. under the bus):

Cap and Trade Emissions

Each of th presidential candidates still left favors a cap and trade system for emission reductions in the U.S. The European Union adopted a cap and trade system back in 2005 but it is currently failing after starting off strong. Today I will look at how the European system works and why it is failing. Then I will look at the differences in the strategies our political candidates offer.

The European system cover the largest polluters in the 27 member states and regulates roughly half of all emissions. Each of the member states then comes of with their own "cap", and decide how many "credits" to issue each polluter. The cap is the total amount of emissions a country is allowed. This figure is determined by the Kyoto protocol and the EU decides each individual country's share. Developing economies such as Greece and Spain are still allowed to increase their emissions while powerhouses like Germany and England take a lot of the burden.

The credits each represent 1 ton of CO2 and each company is issued a set amount based on their assigned limit. This limit slowly declines over time. At the end of each year, companies must verify their emissions (something the United States does not have a system for) and have the required amount of credits to match this total. Every ton over is a 100 Euro fine to the government for 2008.

Companies are free to buy and sell their credits in an open market. Like all true markets the price of a credit is determined by supply and demand. Companies that are under their cap can sell their excess credits to companies over the cap. In theory, companies are driven to lower their emissions for financial incentives and the dirtiest polluters are forced to lower their emissions of take a hit. Initially the program was working and a credit peaked at just over 30 Euros a piece. It soon crashed to just a few Euros as companies began to realize their was a major glut of credits and caps were set too high. Another problem is the trouble in accurately measuring emissions for so many polluters. This is basically left up to the installation itself and you could only assume they will be generous in their estimates. (EU review on first round of cap and trade system)

The United States seems destined for a cap and trade system, albeit slightly different than the European model. Im basing this on what the candidates have stated their plans are. The first step in this is creating a cap and getting a system in place to measure emissions. Unfortunately esteemed Commander in Chief George Bush's new budget cut all $3.4 million planned to create such a registry (see my post below), so we are speaking in hypotheticals until hop along George is out of office.

Our candidates (more) want a cap and trade system where all or the vast majority of credits are auctioned off to companies. The government would set an industry-wide cap and companies would decide how many credits they want. The price would be determined by demand and the revenue generated could be used for new environmental programs (or Super-nukes). While a good idea, here is what I think will happen:

An overall cap will be set that will not lower emission requirements enough due to pressure for various industries. Still, companies will slightly panic when it comes time to buy credits because they never had to deal with an emissions cap. Companies will overestimate what they need and the price will spike upwards. The government wins initially but soon the market will start to drop as companies settle down. By the end of the first cycle credit prices will be rock bottom.

This will be a make or break moment for the system. If the government still gives into industry influence for another year and makes the cap too light, credit prices will be dirt cheap from the start and the system will do little to curb emissions. If the government learns from the previous year and further decreases the cap, companies will be forced to overcompensate once again and a lot of revenue will be generated. Will a McCain or Obama or Clinton withstand pressure from the industry lobby? Will we have ANY carbon measurment program in place? Is this for real? Stay tuned.

European Union production explaing their cap and trade system:

McCain talks cap and trade system and climate change:

Obama talks cap and trade:

Hillary Clinton talks her cap and trade (audio only):

Bill S 2191...Need I say more?

When congress reconvences after their Memorial Day break, they will be debating America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (full text). The bill is meant to help curb Greenhouse emissions in a few different ways but has some tough opposition. Before we get into the debate, here is a basic summary of the bill:

• Requires the EPA to create a registry of Greenhouse Gas Emission. In other words, they must actually document how much Greenhouse gasses companies are emitting.
• Create an emission cap that steadily declines over time
• Set up a market cap and trade system for emission credits
• Create a Carbon Market Efficiency Board that will study the market and step in if it is harming the economy
• Calls for $500 billion through 2030 in low and zero carbon technology
• $350 billion through 2030 to help low and medium income families reduce their carbon footprint
• Create various new funds in the treasury for research, worker training and energy assistance
• Make tougher energy standards for appliances and new buildings
• Create new petroleum efficiency standards according to Bush administration recommendations.
• Obviously that previous bullet point was a lie
• Begin studies on the effectiveness and feasibility of carbon sequestering programs and technologies. Carbon sequestering is putting CO2 back into the Earth where it came from. Cutting down forests, farming, burning oil and a plethora of other activities release all this CO2 into the atmosphere which causes global warming. The balance is all off and we need to trap CO2 back into the Earth where it belongs.
• Starting within five years, reduce power plants and oil refinery emmissions by 2% each consecutive year.
• $150 billion through 2030 to protect animals, bodies of water and other natural resources
• $40 billion through 2030 to train and create new "green" jobs
• Allows the president to waive the requirements in a state of national emergency (something tells me if Bush would still be in power a powerful sneeze would probably dictate an emergency and end the bill)

If that isn't enough for you, here are some links for further exploration:

• Full bill text
• National Wildlife Federation's assesment of the act with pros and cons.
• A good blog that follows changes in the bill and other bills as well
• Washington Post article summing up the bills introduction
• GovTrack.us coverage of the bill. A great site to study all legislative happenings, dry but informative.
• Article talking about some politicians issues with the bill
• Article summarizing remainging presidential candidate's positions
• Article about the high cost to the American public
• Very informative New York Times article talking about new energy legislation in general
• Extremely informative article saying both sides of the debate are wrong and it will cause more harm than good.
• Article showing 7 carbon bills you should know

The main issue that politicians(mostly republicans and Alan Greenspan) have with the bill is the effect it will take on our economy. They argue that the EPA's cost analysis is flawed and assumes that the advancement of clean technology will be much faster than it really will be. They are saying energy prices will rise, industries will suffer and our economy will stagnate in general with all the new requirements.

The cost on the economy is tough to quantify because it is based on assumptions and studies that could easily be wrong. Even the most brilliant economic forecasters can't tell what out situation will be in 20 years let along a few years. Technological advancement does not occur just because time passes. We need funding and innovation, neither of which may come if our economy continues to falter. I believe this bill is a good start but we need to accept that fact that things will change over time and our government's ability to adjust accordingly in a short amount of time is key. Lets wait and see........

Video explaining differences between cap and trade emission systemm (popular in us) vs. a straight carbon tax:

Carbon Sequestering Video:

U.S. Budget 2009 - Environmentally friendly?

Our esteemed President and Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, gave his 2009 budget proposal back in February. Not suprising to some (nobody), there were many environment-related budget cuts. Unfortunately, these cuts weren't enough to trim the budget below the 3 trillion dollar mark, the first time in our nation's history. By the end of 2009 we are looking at 10 trillion dollars of debt. It seems only yesterday we had a large surplus and President Clinton was proposing his plan to pay off our debt. How far we've come.

The Environmental Protection Agency's budget has been slashed by $330 million to a total of $7.14 billion to lead things off. Here is a brief synopsis of the rest of the cuts:

• A $33 million (3.4%) cut in the EPA's Clean Air and Global Climate Change. This is the stated #1 goal of the EPA. 
• Cuts all $3.4 million to creating an economy-wide registry of carbon-emissions (measure). The measure passed in 2007 and is the first step to creating emissions caps for the economy. All three presidential candidates remaining call for some version of a cap and trade emission system but its impossible if we don't know who is emitting what!!! (Article)
• $4 million (8.3%) cut from the Energy STAR program. This program sets an efficiency standard for appliances if they want to carry their logo and also promotes energy saving ways of life. Other Clean Air and Global Climate Change cuts here
• $16 million cut for Global climate change research. 
• $5 million cut to clean up San Francisco Bay
• Cut $31 million in state grants to cut air pollution'
• $104 million (67%) cut to The Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is used to fund purchases of parks and wildlife refuges. 
• Former Fish and Wildlife Service director, Jamie Clark:"This budget, which emphasizes continued pursuit of damaging, unsustainable energy sources, while failing to adequately address the needs of public lands and wildlife increasingly threatened by global warming, once again shows that this administration remains determined to neglect our children's future and our nation's natural heritage." Article
  
• 27% cut in Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. However, does increase the budget for coal and nuclear energy

George Bush does a lot of shitty shit to the environment. Here are some links detailing even more of the cuts:

• New York Times article summarizing the budget proposal
• Briefing of other environment and energy cuts
• Good report on other programs cut. Another
• Release from Hillary Clinton ripping apart the budget
• A VERY good summary of the different sections of the budget by NPR
• Summary of the requests for the Department of Energy. Including new nuclear power plants and weapons!

I thinks you get the point by now. More money for war and weapons, less for social programs. Story of the administration

News story covering the budget

Bush's Nuclear Plan:

An angry man talks about the cuts