10 Environmental Disasters worse than BP...

Most of which you've never heard of, or at least you've never considered them preventable, or disasters. This article was written by the former Secretary of the California EPA (in other words, the title isn't merely satire).

The point of the article...

"All of these disasters have common characteristics with the BP spill in the Gulf. They were caused by a desire to quickly convert natural resources to cash, spending the principle of future generations, not merely the interest. They all resulted in the loss of sustainable jobs, businesses, and worker productivity. And they were all preventable.

If we learn nothing from the BP economic tragedy-and, like those examples that overshadow it, it is far more an economic disaster than an environmental one-we should learn that the quarterly earnings report and the daily stock price have never been ways to measure a healthy economy. If the BP debacle inspires us to measure our progress in new, sustainable ways, it will change the way we treat our people and natural resources and therefore be the last such disaster of this kind.

Cap & Dividend

Who really owns the sky (and I don't mean "military airspace")? Who is entitled to clean air or a stable climate? That is the question that I keep asking myself when carbon-limiting proposals are being discussed.

The answer is that it's living beings who need the air, and non-living entities that don't. What disturbs me is that in most Cap & Trade proposals, millions of "credits" are given away to power companies and other industrials, more or less because "we've always polluted for free, and you'll kill our business if you make us pay to pollute". They NEED to pollute to keep on going profitably. They DON'T need the air to be clean, or the climate to be stable. I understand that they are looking out for their shareholders' financial interests, but what about their living interests?

If companies can't pollute for free, they need to raise their prices for consumers. And, the theory goes, this is terribly unfair to the poor, since energy and basic materials take up a greater portion of their income. So, charging companies for their pollution is bad for the poor (since it will take up a lot of their money), and also bad for the rich (since they own most of the companies). Therefore, the status quo reigns and pollution stays free, and we all pay for it when the environment is degraded.

There is a better solution that doesn't get nearly enough attention, and it's called "Cap & Dividend". With Cap & Dividend, there are NO giveaways of GHG credits. ALL credits are sold off by the government (causing prices to rise), BUT something VERY different happens with the auction revenue: it's returned to the American people.

That's right: nation-wide pollution reduction would lead to monthly dividends for everybody! Everyone gets the same payment, however, the more you consume (SUV drivers, frequent fliers) the more you ultimately pay into the fund, and the less you consume (everyone else), the less you pay. How the system affects your personal finances is entirely dependent on your own actions. Shouldn't that put a smile on the face of Tea Partiers everywhere?

Most if not all Cap & Dividend proposals also envision capping pollution as an INPUT, rather than an output, which is to say that measurements will be made at the mines and pipelines, rather than the smokestacks and tailpipes. This will not only level the playing field for all consumers, but also eliminate the need for the "army of accountants" to track emissions under most Cap & Trade proposals.

Furthermore, Cap & Dividend preserves the power of market forces, and does not force the government to "pick winners" for clean energy investment (carbon capture, nuclear, ethanol etc). It also eliminates the potential for fraudulent credit-trading schemes.

Here are some resources with more information about Cap & Dividend:

Overview from CapandDividend.org

An easy-to-read primer from Peter Barnes, citing liberal and conservative support for Cap & Dividend

British Columbia already has a comparable "carbon tax & tax cut" program that proved to be a decisively popular election issue in 2009

Full BC government report

U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Introduced a Cap & Dividend Act (H.R. 1862) in April 2009

Article on Rep. Van Hollen's bill.

Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the CLEAR Act (S. 2877) in December 2009, which focused on Cap & Dividend

Sen. Cantwell's CLEAR page, including a summary, a list of goals, a FAQ, an interview, and an editorial

A study from the University of Massachusetts shows that a majority of Americans in all 50 states would benefit financially from CLEAR (see page 6)

A Citizen's Guide to Carbon Capping by Peter Barnes

Interview with Peter Barnes

Interview with myself

Q: What's the point of enacting governmental regulations to reduce GHG pollution?

A: The point is to minimize the damage to biological and economic systems that will result from climate change.

Q: WHO, specifically, will be harmed?

A: It's hard to say exactly. Economic harm will affect everyone differently. You could say that poor people would be hurt the most, since they would be most susceptible to potential famines, flooding, or disease. Or you could say that the rich would be harmed more, since their investments would suffer. I guess that depends on whether you value life or money. On the biological side, there are some people who really value the natural wonders (reefs, rainforests, exotic wildlife) that exist on our planet, and some who don't. Overall, not everyone will be hurt equally, but everyone will be affected in some way.

Q: Anyone who won't be affected?

A: No, but the most well-suited to adapt are the "people" that we call corporations. They don't have to eat, they don't catch disease, they aren't attached to the places they live, and they don't get any enjoyment from Earth's natural wonders.

Q: Is climate change really a matter of weighing the interests of corporations vs people?
A: I hadn't thought of it that way before, but maybe. I guess that makes me twice as mad that in most Cap & Trade schemes, corporations will be granted millions of free permits to keep on polluting.

Cap and Trade

Hey Rob, I noticed you said you are against cap and trade on the message board? Why? Isn't it less restrictive then a command and control regulation that puts a firm cap on all emissions? Just curious why you are against it.

Jason

-----

Jay,

Thanks for asking. First of all, I am definitely NOT a climate change skeptic, nor do I think that global warming is "no big deal". I found it hilarious when I was at a Congressional hearing on renewable energy and one of the Republicans (I will edit this after I look up his name) essentially said, "global warming is a bunch of hooey. CO2 has been in far greater concentrations in our atmosphere in the past, and it was an exciting time for our planet". Yeah, and we had pterodactyls and pigeon-sized insects in the sky. Sounds lovely, let's do that again.

My objection to "cap and trade" is that I believe carbon dioxide/GHGs are far too big of an issue for cap and trade to be effective. It would be a trillion dollar industry with unlimited opportunities for fraud, and would require an army of accountants to verify reductions, manpower that would be better spent, oh, i don't know.... actually working to develop cleaner technology or improve efficiency?! Look at what Britain is doing all on its own.

CO2 and methane are naturally occurring compounds. Cap and trade worked very well in stopping acid rain, which was caused by nitrogen and sulfur compounds that occur in nature only in small quantities. It would be nice to start reducing emissions from the electric utilities sector, but is that really fair? I mean, you release methane every time you go to the bathroom, and methane is 22x more potent of a GHG than CO2, but no one is proposing to regulate your bathroom... and of course agriculture (ie cow, pig, chicken crap) is the same scenario. Furthermore, what if planetary warming causes the Arctic permafrost to melt, releasing millions more tons of methane from the frozen soil? That methane is all there, it's just (for now) captured under the ice. How will that work into all the budgets? Or how about a volcanic eruption?

Basically I just don't think it's practical-- the scale is far too large. Furthermore, we really DON'T know at what level GHG emissions are "OK", or what temperature rise. Is a 1 degree temperature rise "safe"? it will still bleach coral reefs. Is 2 degrees safe? It will still probably result in millions of additional cases of malaria each year. 3 degrees? 4? Most estimates say average temps will rise by 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century in a "do nothing" scenario. That will melt the ice caps, flood Manhattan, and God knows what else. Of course, Canada and Russia will benefit, since there will be new shipping routes! So who is going to set these limits and enforce them?

Anyway, what I'm in favor of is a simple carbon tax. Make renewables competitive by putting a clear and obvious tax on fossil fuels. If that's not politically feasible, there are other ways to provide incentives. The Bush administration actually had a good idea when they formed the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. It includes the US, Canada, Japan, China, South Korea, Australia, and India--- ie about 65% of the world's emissions, and virtually all of the emissions that are not subject to/participating in the Kyoto Protocol. The APP does not have mandatory limits, but encourages international technology sharing and best practices. One might argue that under Bush it was mostly fluff, but that's the approach I think we should be taking.

Since we really DON'T know where to set this "cap", and we will have a VERY difficult time enforcing it (especially on a global basis), I just don't think cap and trade is a practical strategy.

Introduction

Hi, I'm Robert Fox, 2nd-year graduate student in Sustainable Development at the University of Maryland, where I am specializing in Green Energy Policy. Previously I worked for 7 years as a consultant in the energy industry, mainly focusing on analysis of the fuel, power, and transmission markets for clients that run natural gas-fired power plants.

You've probably heard of "Red States" (politically more conservative) and "Blue States" (politically more liberal), with "Purple States" being those that hold the middle ground. The "Purple State Energy Plan" project will attempt to find progressive energy policies that can satisfy the political demands of both sides, so that we can more quickly get to work on updating our energy infrastructure for the 21st century. Why shoot for the middle ground? Well, simply because all sides (businesses, environmentalists, regulators, and other activists) have valid arguments, but we simply can NOT afford to wait until one of them convinces everyone else that their plan is the best.