This article is primarily about the European system of trading greenhouse gas emissions. Which means that if your country produces more carbon dioxide, for example, than what has been set as an acceptable level, you can buy "allowances" from another country who produces less. The goal is to reduce to the overall emissions level throughout the region.
The reason I'm putting this on the blog is because of a quote near the beginning of the article saying that the governors in the NE United States would all prefer a national program but cannot afford to wait so they are taking action at a state level. In a way, I think its great that the Bush Administration is not doing anything and its forcing states into creating their own environmental protection policies. The United States is too big and diverse to try to solve all our domestic problems at a national level. It just cannot work that way. We should be thinking locally. Sustainability and a healthier society, socially, environmentally, and even economically is going to start within our smaller, regional communities.
Warming Trend Is Hatching a Business
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 28, 2006; D01
U.S. governors, impatient with federal inaction on global warming, are taking matters into their own hands. The result could add impetus to an emerging industry.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) yesterday signed legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions. And seven Northeastern states, which together emit as much greenhouse gas as Germany, have banded together to set rules that would cut their emissions by 10 percent by 2019. Other states may join them.
"There isn't an actor at the table who wouldn't prefer a national program, but we can't afford to wait," says Franz Litz, climate change coordinator at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
So the state leaders are modeling their efforts on the European Union, which has turned limits on greenhouse gas emissions into a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry.
Companies are already scrambling to take advantage of the E.U. system, which is an outgrowth of the global environmental accord known as the Kyoto Protocol. Arlington-based AES Corp. has dispatched teams to negotiate with Asian palm oil plantations over installing equipment to suck methane -- one of the most potent of a half-dozen greenhouse gases -- out of waste lagoons. The electric power company wants to convert it into energy and less harmful gases. In return, the firm would get credits it could use or sell in Europe.
The European system sets a cap for the continent's emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. Every company producing significant amounts of greenhouse gases is issued a designated number of "allowances." If power plants and factories spew out more than their quotas, they have to buy allowances from firms that spew less than their allotments. Polluting companies can also buy credits from firms that are cutting emissions in the developing world.
The result: Gases that were once worthless now have a commercial value every bit as solid as coal, pork bellies or Treasury bills -- only with this commodity, companies are paid for what they do not deliver. According to Point Carbon, a research firm, $12.6 billion of greenhouse gas emission rights, called European Union Allowances, were traded in the first half of this year. The value of all existing allowances exceeds $70 billion.
The Northeastern U.S. governors' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative plans to begin a similar type of carbon trading by 2009. Schwarzenegger, who appeared last month beside British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said that linking a West Coast plan to Europe's was one option.
The idea of creating a market for trading air pollution rights began in the United States. Legislation passed in 1990 and implemented in 1995 established an acid rain program, which capped sulfur dioxide emissions and let companies trade their assigned shares. Sulfur dioxide emissions fell 30 percent. Economists say such plans meet environmental goals efficiently, without choosing between technologies.
The United States insisted that other countries adopt a cap-and-trade approach for greenhouse gases in the Kyoto accord but then never signed on while Europe moved ahead. Back then, the United States agreed to reach a target 7 percent below 1990 emissions by 2012. Now, the country is churning out 16 percent more than it did in 1990 and 25 percent more than either China or the E.U.
"It is ironic that 10 years after Kyoto was signed, there is a vibrant market in Europe, an emerging market in the developing world, and the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines," says Véronique Bugnion, Point Carbon's research director.
No one is on the sidelines in Europe. Power generators now count greenhouse gases -- measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide -- as one of their costs. "It's going to change the way you make decisions about deploying capital," says Garth Edward, trading manager for environmental products at Royal Dutch Shell PLC, which has 25 installations in the E.U. system. Energy efficiency projects, he said, "are going to move up the ladder faster."
Stockholm-based Vattenfall, Europe's fourth-largest utility, is building a pilot zero-emissions coal-fired plant in Germany using sequestration, which injects carbon dioxide into the earth instead of releasing it into the air. Vattenfall chief executive Lars G. Josefsson says removing the carbon dioxide will cost more than $25 a metric ton, but he says, "If we're going to have a problem with carbon dioxide, this is a good investment."
While the E.U. carbon trading scheme has given birth to an industry, it has also created controversy over how quotas are assigned and who gets stuck paying the bills. In Germany, utilities raised electricity rates, treating carbon emissions as a cost to pass along. Four utilities made $3 billion to $5 billion in windfall profits, Bugnion says.
There are disputes between countries as well as within them. Britain and Germany are cutting their greenhouse emissions sharply, while Spain's are still growing. Sweden relies mostly on hydro- and nuclear power for electricity; Germany relies overwhelmingly on coal. Countries are currently drawing up new caps for 2008-2012.
Setting baselines for emissions has been tough. Quotas are based on a company's emissions over the five years before the program began. Firms have sought higher baselines to get more allowances. In most nations, utilities were squeezed while industrial firms were given more than enough.
The numbers didn't add up the way people expected. In May, the E.U. revealed that actual emissions were well below the quotas, suggesting that baseline levels were set too high. That shocked the carbon trading market. The price of a ton of carbon dioxide crashed, dropping by two thirds and erasing $36 billion of value. Prices crept back up but tumbled in recent days.
The credits bought in developing countries pose other challenges. So far, companies find it cheapest to cut the most potent greenhouse gases, mostly in the developing world. A ton of methane, common in landfills and farms, equals 21 tons of carbon dioxide; a ton of hydro-fluorocarbons, a refrigerant byproduct, is worth as much as 11,700 tons of carbon dioxide.
Independent firms and investors are getting into the act. Ecosecurities, whose chief executive Bruce Usher is a former Wall Street derivatives trader, has become a broker and developer of projects in 26 countries, ranging from one to capture methane at a Chinese landfill to small hydropower dams in Honduras.
A London firm called Climate Change Capital has raised $830 million to reduce greenhouse gases for credits to be sold in Europe. AES is putting $325 million into a joint venture to produce 50 million tons of credits by 2012.
These credits need the blessing of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a United Nations agency in Bonn. That process could get messy, and political. One criterion: "additionality," the buzzword for a project that wouldn't have happened without the credit system. That can be hard to figure out when high oil prices make conservation and alternative energy attractive. In July, the CDM rejected four projects, including two proposed by Ecosecurities, without saying why.
Not surprisingly, most credits are generated in countries with the worst environmental track records. China accounted for 62 percent of the CDM credits sold during the first half of this year. That raises a sensitive question: Should Europe be effectively subsidizing investments in pollution control that its economic competitor China hasn't bothered to make? Moreover, China is collecting a 65 percent tax on the sale of credits.
"Scientifically, it makes sense to take [greenhouse gases] out wherever you can do it most cheaply, but politically, it might be better to do it in your country," said AES chief executive Paul Hanrahan.
There is one functioning U.S. carbon market. On Earth Day 2005, Richard Sandor founded the Chicago Climate Exchange, but participation is voluntary. Member companies must trim 6 percent of their emissions by 2010. "The only ones who opt in know they'll meet the targets," says Point Carbon's Bugnion. Members include Ford Motor Co., DuPont Co., Motorola Inc., International Business Machines Corp., American Electric Power Inc. and half a dozen municipal governments.
Mandatory carbon trading may still be adopted in the United States. Cap-and-trade measures have been drafted by a handful of lawmakers. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) co-sponsored an earlier bill.
"This is a big global problem, and we have a deficit in global governance," says Vattenfall's Josefsson. "If we could solve this, it could be a model for global governance."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
California Sues Automakers
So, this is when I start using this blog to post articles and other reading material that I didnt write but that I dont want to forget. This particular article is hilarious and I would never have thought that something like this would be possible. I love it.
See You In Court - Just Don’t Drive There
Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit against leading U.S. and Japanese auto manufacturers, alleging their vehicles’ emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of California, and cost the state millions of dollars to address current and future effects.
“Global warming is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing,” said Lockyer. “Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis.”
Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint names as defendants: Chrysler Motors Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Honda North America, and Nissan North America. The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by greenhouse gases that their products emit. Lockyer filed the lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California.
The complaint alleges that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing “millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide,” a greenhouse gas that traps atmospheric heat and causes global warming. Under the law, a “public nuisance” is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property. The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants liable for damages, including future harm, caused by their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.
As stated in the complaint, the automakers produce vehicles that emit a combined 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year. Those emissions, the complaint alleges, currently account for nearly 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent in California. The defendants rank “among the world’s largest contributors to global warming and the adverse impacts on California,” according to the complaint.
“Global warming has already injured California, it environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens,” the complaint alleges. “California is responding to the ongoing impacts and the inevitable additional future impacts of global warming. The State is spending millions of dollars on planning, monitoring, and infrastructure changes to address a large spectrum of current and anticipated impacts, including reduced snow pack, coastal and beach erosion, increased ozone pollution, sea water intrusion into Delta drinking supplies, response to impacts on wildlife, including endangered species and fish, wildfire risks, and the long-term need to monitor on-going and inevitable impacts. California has already begun to address the decline in the snow pack and earlier melting of the snow pack in order to avert water shortages and flooding in the future.” Dealing with global warming’s harmful effects, the complaint adds, “will almost certainly cost millions more.”
Today’s filing comes as Lockyer fights the auto industry’s attempt to invalidate California’s landmark global warming regulations curbing tailpipe emissions. In their federal-court lawsuit, the automakers claim the regulations, adopted in 2005 through legislation sponsored by Assembly Member Fran Pavley, are pre-empted by federal law. Lockyer is defending the rules against the industry’s legal challenge.
Lockyer noted the Bush Administration’s inaction on global warming has forced California and other states to take action on their own. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a lawsuit filed by Lockyer, 11 other Attorneys General, two cities and major environmental groups challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Numerous parties have submitted amicus briefs supporting the states, including climate scientists, three former EPA Administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and environmental and religious groups.
In addition, Lockyer, along with nine other state Attorneys General, the District of Columbia and the City of New York, filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging the Bush Administration’s new fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks. That complaint alleges the rules fail to address the effects on the environment and global warming.
California is particularly vulnerable to global warming impacts. According to a report recently submitted by the Climate Action Team to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, the consequences of climate change in California will be “severe.”
“We are seeing the harmful impacts of global warming today, and if we continue with ‘business as usual,’ we can expect to see more and larger impacts in the future,” said Lockyer. “As a coastal state, an agricultural state, and a state that relies on its Sierra snow pack, California has an enormous stake in acting now to combat global warming.”
http://ag.ca.gov
I took this article from the CarbonFree weekly newsletter.
See You In Court - Just Don’t Drive There
Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit against leading U.S. and Japanese auto manufacturers, alleging their vehicles’ emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of California, and cost the state millions of dollars to address current and future effects.
“Global warming is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing,” said Lockyer. “Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis.”
Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint names as defendants: Chrysler Motors Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Honda North America, and Nissan North America. The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by greenhouse gases that their products emit. Lockyer filed the lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California.
The complaint alleges that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing “millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide,” a greenhouse gas that traps atmospheric heat and causes global warming. Under the law, a “public nuisance” is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property. The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants liable for damages, including future harm, caused by their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.
As stated in the complaint, the automakers produce vehicles that emit a combined 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year. Those emissions, the complaint alleges, currently account for nearly 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent in California. The defendants rank “among the world’s largest contributors to global warming and the adverse impacts on California,” according to the complaint.
“Global warming has already injured California, it environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens,” the complaint alleges. “California is responding to the ongoing impacts and the inevitable additional future impacts of global warming. The State is spending millions of dollars on planning, monitoring, and infrastructure changes to address a large spectrum of current and anticipated impacts, including reduced snow pack, coastal and beach erosion, increased ozone pollution, sea water intrusion into Delta drinking supplies, response to impacts on wildlife, including endangered species and fish, wildfire risks, and the long-term need to monitor on-going and inevitable impacts. California has already begun to address the decline in the snow pack and earlier melting of the snow pack in order to avert water shortages and flooding in the future.” Dealing with global warming’s harmful effects, the complaint adds, “will almost certainly cost millions more.”
Today’s filing comes as Lockyer fights the auto industry’s attempt to invalidate California’s landmark global warming regulations curbing tailpipe emissions. In their federal-court lawsuit, the automakers claim the regulations, adopted in 2005 through legislation sponsored by Assembly Member Fran Pavley, are pre-empted by federal law. Lockyer is defending the rules against the industry’s legal challenge.
Lockyer noted the Bush Administration’s inaction on global warming has forced California and other states to take action on their own. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a lawsuit filed by Lockyer, 11 other Attorneys General, two cities and major environmental groups challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Numerous parties have submitted amicus briefs supporting the states, including climate scientists, three former EPA Administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and environmental and religious groups.
In addition, Lockyer, along with nine other state Attorneys General, the District of Columbia and the City of New York, filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging the Bush Administration’s new fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks. That complaint alleges the rules fail to address the effects on the environment and global warming.
California is particularly vulnerable to global warming impacts. According to a report recently submitted by the Climate Action Team to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, the consequences of climate change in California will be “severe.”
“We are seeing the harmful impacts of global warming today, and if we continue with ‘business as usual,’ we can expect to see more and larger impacts in the future,” said Lockyer. “As a coastal state, an agricultural state, and a state that relies on its Sierra snow pack, California has an enormous stake in acting now to combat global warming.”
http://ag.ca.gov
I took this article from the CarbonFree weekly newsletter.
Friday, September 15, 2006
international roaming
my phone bill was a little bit too high this month. and actually i hadnt paid for last month yet either so it was actually about 2.5 times as high as normal. i couldnt figure out why so i called customer service and he is like "the additional charges are for calls placed outside of the country". and all i could say to that was "oohhhhh" as i realized that yeah i wasnt using the cingular network when i was placing calls in canada last month. i was roaming!! it didnt even occur to me at the time that those calls would cost more. i just thought "yeah we live in a global community nowadays. everything is connected. it makes sense that i can use my cell phone here for the same rate". nope. not true.
so i paid about $20 for about 25 minutes worth of phone calls. so i didnt complain when he told me that. i guess it makes sense. not much i can do about it. just hand over the cash. or press the button online and transfer the funds. there you go cingular wireless. enjoy it.
you know what, i'm starting a fast tomorrow and so far today i've been like "i shouldnt eat too much cuz, you know, i sort of have to ease into it right?" no i dont think so anymore. i need to have a last meal. a really really tasty one. wow my willpower is so strong. i'm gonna do so well on this fast. anyway i also have a bunch of chard, parsley, kale, olives, avocados, blackberries, and a peach. which is another reason i shouldnt go out to eat tonight. plus i just wasted $20 extra on international roaming. but since when does what i should do make a difference? and why is this mexican music playing really loudly outside right now? thats never happened before. where is it coming from? and do they have burritos there?
so i paid about $20 for about 25 minutes worth of phone calls. so i didnt complain when he told me that. i guess it makes sense. not much i can do about it. just hand over the cash. or press the button online and transfer the funds. there you go cingular wireless. enjoy it.
you know what, i'm starting a fast tomorrow and so far today i've been like "i shouldnt eat too much cuz, you know, i sort of have to ease into it right?" no i dont think so anymore. i need to have a last meal. a really really tasty one. wow my willpower is so strong. i'm gonna do so well on this fast. anyway i also have a bunch of chard, parsley, kale, olives, avocados, blackberries, and a peach. which is another reason i shouldnt go out to eat tonight. plus i just wasted $20 extra on international roaming. but since when does what i should do make a difference? and why is this mexican music playing really loudly outside right now? thats never happened before. where is it coming from? and do they have burritos there?
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
hours
i want to be up all the time. why do i have to sleep? imagine if i could stay up for 24 hours every day! i could constantly be bouncing from one activity to the next and at 1 in the morning it would be seven hours until i had to go to work and that would be a long time from now. i dont want to go to bed but i feel like i have to or else tomorrow wont be any fun, i'll just be tired. although the tiredness usually goes away after an hour or so.
but getting out of bed is such a drag. just like going to bed totally sucks. i'm so pleased with myself lately btw. just wanna mention that. seriously though, imagine staying awake for 24 hours every day. do you think you'd get tired? i bet you think that. right now i think never sleeping would be excellent. absolutely never sleeping.
my bathroom has smelled like fucking mildew or some nasty shit for like months. i dont know how to get rid of it. i've cleaned it like crazy. i've gone in there sniffing and smelling into all the corners and i've determined its coming from the pipes connected to my sink. at least it seems that way. but i took that shit apart earlier and cleaned it out and it still fuckin smells. i've had it. if it doesnt go away in a day i may need to call in professional help. anyway..
but getting out of bed is such a drag. just like going to bed totally sucks. i'm so pleased with myself lately btw. just wanna mention that. seriously though, imagine staying awake for 24 hours every day. do you think you'd get tired? i bet you think that. right now i think never sleeping would be excellent. absolutely never sleeping.
my bathroom has smelled like fucking mildew or some nasty shit for like months. i dont know how to get rid of it. i've cleaned it like crazy. i've gone in there sniffing and smelling into all the corners and i've determined its coming from the pipes connected to my sink. at least it seems that way. but i took that shit apart earlier and cleaned it out and it still fuckin smells. i've had it. if it doesnt go away in a day i may need to call in professional help. anyway..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
