From the Washington Post:
Why? I am not looking for Bush-bashing here. I can’t imagine Bush is so evil as to arbitrarily choose this course of action based solely on Republican stereotypes. I am also hoping to avoid posts equating CO2 reduction advocates with Chicken Little. Forget too about the reversal of a campaign pledge, that is another debate.
Can someone out there give a rational argument for why this is a good thing for the nation / world?
I choose to reply to this thread because it seems less inflammatory than the other one currently in great debates.
I think this is one of many campaign promises that Mr. Bush is going to break. The reason? Money talks. Power producers have been heavily lobbying the president and congress to lower clean air requirements.
During the campaign, Bush tried to put himself across as environmentally conscious candidate. He promised to consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant. He told us that he was concerned about global warming and that science agreed that carbon dioxide is the major contributor.
Just last week, the new head of the EPA Christy Whitman expressed her concerns about global warming and promised that Mr. Bush was working on the issue.
Guess he was. Now he is telling us that he doesn’t agree with the science. He would rather believe the power producers rather than the scientific bodies that he used to believe in.
As they say, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
I imagine that this is the beginning salvo against the environmental gains we have managed to win in the last 20 or 30 years. This administration appears to be very sympathetic to business interests at the expense of our environment and eventually our children and grandchildren.
How sad…
Oh, and let’s not forget the little fact that California’s power supply is severely stressed, and any stricter controls would probably put millions upon millions of American’s in the dark…
Yeah, you forgot about that for a second, didn’t you…
Spoof, I didn’t forget about Cali at all. I am thinking more about the permanent damage to the environment that will be done by CO2, causing problems for the entire world, not just little old Cali. I think Bush is the one in the dark.
First off, what we are really talking about is coal. Since in the US oil is used to generate only a tiny fraction of our electricity overall.
Second…I love the reporter quoting the unnamed, anonymous “coal and oil industry officials” who are supposed to hold such power over Bush.
Third…I don’t recall too many environmentalists in general hailing anything Bush proposed w.r.t. the environment. So I would like to see some cites of mainstream environmental groups “hailing” Bush on his early support of CO[sub]2[/sub] reduction.
One of the primary ways that coal power plants were planning on reducing CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions was by operating gas plants on-site more, by using gas co-firing, and by using gas reburn.
SPOOFE is correct in a roundabout way about the pressures of California. With current gas prices so incredibly high, and the system in the Southwest under so much strain, there is some question as to what impact switching even 5% of our coal energy production to gas would have right now. Recent reports presented to Congress have warned about doing anything to disturb the natural gas supply in the West and South until about 2003 or so.
Another somewhat related issue is biomass combustion, or in the case of existing coal plants, biomass co-firing. However, although biomass co-firing will reduce the effective CO[sub]2[/sub] emitted to the environment, it can also increase emissions of NO[sub]x[/sub], CO, and ozone. Power plants wanted some relaxation of the regulations for these in return for reducing CO[sub]2[/sub], but I don’t think many politicians really want to roll back emissions restrictions on these items. Thus, many plants would be forced to have capital upgrades of emissions control components to handle these additional emissions.
And finally, one can also reduce CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions at coal power plants by simply generating less. Given the power situation in the West, I don’t think Californians would care for that option.
So…really, Bush should IMO do more to remove some other regulatory obstacles for biomass combustion, which has a direct reduction in overall CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions. But moving more electrical generation from coal to natural gas right now is not a good idea until the situation stabilizes in the West, no matter what people say in sound bites on TV.
Carbon dioxide a pollutant?!?!?! Isn’t it #4 on the ingredient list for AIR?
I just want to state for the record that I am shocked – shocked – that our environmentally conscious president would so quickly overturn a campaign pledge. I mean, it’s not like this ever could have been predicted.
Good thing he’s brought integrity back to the White House…
It occurs to me that the easiest solution to curtail CO2 production is simple energy conservation. Often talked about but seldom put into action.
Fer instance, household lighting probably makes up 5-10% of our domestic energy consumption. What would be the effect of the U.S. government replacing all incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs and taxing the heck out of incandescent bulbs.
Folks are slow to make the change because of the high initial cost of fluorescent over incandescent. If we are going to spend tax money on energy problems, why not start with conservation. The ultimate result would be less consumption leading to a reduction in CO2 emissions.
If the great bulb give-away is effective we could continue by replacing all electric water heaters with new energy efficient ones.
Yes, energy conservation is the best way. And people often talk about it when energy prices go up. But as soon as they go back down again, energy conservation is mostly forgotten. As just one example, you can look at the trends in the auto industry. When gas got expensive, people started looking for fuel efficient cars. When it got cheaper, we had the SUV boom. Now people with gas-guzzlers aren’t so thrilled when they go to fill up the tank…
Just to deal with the straw man of the Californian power situation. The screw up is based on the fact that the power distributors have to buy their power wholesale on the market, but are locked into distribution contracts that have fixed prices; the law expressly forbids them to hedge their purchasing via derivaties (like they do in Europe) and so they are up the creek, buying at (expensive) market rates but contractually obliged to sell cheap. CO2 emissions have nothing to with distributors and wouldn’t affect any part of the Californian power shortage one way or the other.
I seem to recall an article in the NY Times Sunday Magazine about a year ago by a scientist who was one of the first to warn us about global warming. As I remember it, he said that certain other gasses might be much more significant, so he recommended that we fight global warming by reducing those partiular gasses, rather than CO2.
Does anyone remember that article or anything similar? Can anyone post a link?
If this decision is mainly to try and patch up the current Energy problems in the West of the US, wouldn’t any of the following options made more sense:
[List=1]
[li]Charge the power producers for the extra emissions (and invest this money in emission control projects.[/li][li]Trade emission relief for lower cost power in the West.[/li][li]Introduce a graduated emission control program. Then impose penalties for failure to make adequate provisions to comply.[/li][li]Reduce some of the legal costs involved in power production in exchange for the emissions relief.[/li][/list=1]
Now item number 3 above has been tried before it’s just that various governments around the world have a habit of never following through. This creates a situation where the power companies do not want to spend money on plant upgrades, especially when they have failed to plan for these expenses, but society as a whole would benefit from them. Obviously the government needs to either create a profit motive for the companies to get with the program, or start doing this planning for them.
It is my belief that this ultimately becomes a problem of enabling bad practice. The power companies have no reason to invest in long term emission control projects if they can rely on the government backing down when push comes to shove.
As for ‘real solutions’. I personally prefer hydro electrical systems, but remember unlike Sim City real dams have a limited life before they need to be replaced. The current nuclear technology has a few issues that most people do not want on their back doors. Other than these, all of the other options require research before there is any hope of turning them into truly viable large scale alternatives, so can we please start working on it now.
So, you are saying that the demand on natural gas, and thus the price of natural gas, and the limited supply to California, all have nothing to do with potential problems? Seriously?
Yes, a good point that I try to make here sometimes that gets poo-poo’ed by some quite a bit (glares around the room). I have participated in many energy audits, and know that the US is an incredibly wasteful country w.r.t. energy. Myself included, as I posted an example of how much electricity I used for unnescessary things in my house.
Conservation can, and will work. It won’t solve the problem, but it will give us a lot more breathing room.
Methane ends up being a far greater contributor per pound to the greenhouse effect than CO[sub]2[/sub] does. Thus, many argue for collecting and burning all the methane we can, since the CO[sub]2[/sub] resulting from its combustion has a lower effect than just letting the methane escape. The problem is much of this atmospheric methane comes from sources that are difficult if not impossible to control - such as animal digestion, bacteria in the soil, and biomass.
Good points Britt. Another thing I will throw in is the incredibly stupid way that the EPA set up SO[sub]2[/sub] regulations for newer generating plants. This is something I deal with on nearly a weekly basis, so I know a bit about this one.
The EPA set up regulations such that many of these plants have a “minimum removal efficiency” for SO[sub]2[/sub]. Thus, if a plant has a raw coal sulfur that would yield an SO[sub]2[/sub] value of 2.50 lbm/MBtu, then a plant in Arizona must scrub, or remove, 90% of this - or remove 2.25 lbm/MBtu. Thus, they emit 0.25 lbm/MBtu.
So what if the plant tries to buy very low-sulfur PRB coal, which can have SO[sub]2[/sub] loadings of as low as 0.5 lbm/MBtu? Well, tough shit, says the EPA - you still have to scrub 90% - or down to 0.05 lbm/MBtu. Unfortunately, in real life, scrubbers do not work in a way to reduce the sulfur by that much. At that low of a level, 80% is much more likely. Thus, the plant would emit about 0.1 lbm/MBtu of SO[sub]2[/sub].
So what does the plant do? If they burn the high-sulfur coal, they emit more SO[sub]2[/sub], but meet EPA regs. If they burn the low sulfur coal, they emit less SO[sub]2[/sub], but not only have the EPA fining them, but have environmental groups coming out proclaiming in ads how “Power Plant X cannot even meet the loose standards of SO[sub]2[/sub]”.
Thus, they burn the high-sulfur coal, and emit more sulfur. Everyone loses. Whee!
Oh, come on! Can’t we have a little patience? After all, the man is only trying to give America the best government that money can buy.
***“I’m also honored to be here with the speaker of the House—just happens to be from the state of Illinois. I’d like to describe the speaker as a trustworthy man. He’s the kind of fellow who says when he gives you his word he means it. Sometimes that doesn’t happen all the time in the political process.” —GWB, Chicago, March 6, 2001 ***
Screwtape said:
You’re right. I’m sure there will be many more promises he breaks.
On a particularly ironic note: Weekly magazines are always a week behind. Just after the announcement that Bush was breaking his promise, I read an article in U.S. News & World Report about how he was pissing off conservatives by pressing ahead with CO2 reductions. Then I read the most recent issue of Nature, where they had an article about how Bush actually looks to be taking the whole CO2 thing seriously, and how this bodes well for America (remember, that journal is British). Oh, the irony…
The article that you are talking about is by James Hansen et al. (Hansen is indeed the “father of global warming”.) It can be found at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/18/9875 It is important to note, however, that Hansen’s view is considerably more nuanced than what you said (and how it has been widely translated in the media). In particular, he is not arguing against worrying about CO2, but rather that attention must also be given to these other gases which he believes might be more important. (I.e., he thinks a better route to go might be to make modest cuts in our CO2 output and more dramatic cuts in some of these other greenhouse gases.) The misinterpretations of his original article caused Hansen to take the very unusual step of writing an “open letter” last October. The text of that can be obtained at http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let25.html
A further point is that Hansen’s paper is quite recent and I don’t think his alternative scenario for reducing climate forcings has been generally accepted as of yet.
As a further discussion of the Hansen article, here are a few points from a review by Union of Concerned Scientists:
If you are into recent historical perspectives on science, you might notice that the misuse of Hansen’s work by those who do not believe in the importance of addressing global warming is quite parallel to the use of the work of Stephen Jay Gould et al. on punctuated equilibrium by those who do not believe in evolutionary theory.