SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Changing Climate Change
After a summer of relative quiet on the climate change front, last week saw a windstorm of activity. Following the bill passed by the U.S. House earlier this year, the U.S. Senate has now introduced a climate change bill. On the same day, the Environmental Protection Agency released a detailed proposal to regulate carbon dioxide and a number of other green house gases.
A big Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the east coast allowed public nuisance lawsuits to proceed against polluting utilities. And Nike just withdrew from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce board of directors because of the Chamber's position on climate change.
Meanwhile, Oregon Governor Ted Kulognoski has just returned from a National Governors' Summit which he co-hosted in Los Angeles. One of the big issues they discussed was how all levels of government should work together to curb green house gas emissions.
How could the climate change legislation in Congress and the proposed changes to the EPA rules affect you? Will increased regulation of carbon dioxide and other green house gases raise costs for your business? As a consumer of power, how much more are you willing to pay for electricity to help change climate change? How important is U.S. participation in the international global climate change treaty in Copenhagen?
GUESTS:
- Melisssa Powers: Assistant professor at Lewis & Clark Law School
- Reuben Plantico: Environmental policy director for Portland General Electric
- Ivo Trummer: Energy advisor to Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski
Tagged as: climate change · politics
Photo credit: woodleywonderworks / Creative Commons
-
"Lester Brown: Plan B 4.0
Ira talks about global sustainability with Lester Brown, head of the Earth Policy Institute."
Ira Flatow talked with him on last ScienceFriday. Brown said that Plan B 4.0 is available online for download of the entire book, I believe from the Earth Policy Institute website.
http://www.earthpolicy.org/
-
Since the theory of AGW lately has been shown to be based upon false premises, incomplete and manipulated data. I expect nothing good to come of the hopefully well intended and misguided manipulations of the politicians. AGW/CC has become a Feel Good issue designed to divert the public eye.
Clearly, we as a species need to stop defecating on our living room, yet I submit, “follow the money” be the first step today!
IF we as a nation were serious about reducing the carbon (et al) emissions we generate then it would be logical that we would turn to the largest energy user in the nation and we would immediately impose tight regulations upon all emissions. The United States Military is by far the largest user of Carbon based energy. There would be economic gain in the private sector if the military were simply ordered to be carbon neutral in 2 years. There would be no negative economic impact, if Congress fully funded such a project, rather there would be a huge boost to the currently depressed economy virtually nation wide, and the development of Carbon reduction technologies would accelerate thus in the long run reducing the eventual cost to the general public.
In my opinion what the politicians are doing now is misguided, and most often inappropriate. I have been recycling and living a low impact lifestyle for more then three decades. I can and will continue to largly ignore Carbon as a primary pollution issue as there are others that pose a far greater risk. I'd love to stay and talk but I have to go drive across the state. -
This is a very grass roots effort and comment. For over 2 years I have been trying to conserve energy and decrease carbon emissions by simply using a clothesline rather than my dryer. The Oregon Senate refused to vote on a bill that would allow this. Most subdivsions restrict or prohibit this method to conserve energy. I am concerned and frustrated that we are not doing enough fast enough to deal with our climate crisis. To not allow clotheslines relfects how resistant we are to change and how self interest groups continue to drive the status quo. I presently am being fined $20 every time I hang my clothes out to try. The absurdity ot this speaks for itself.
"The Clothesline Lady"
-
All this cap and trade planning is dandy, but has anyone considered where emissions will be, how those emissions will affect the region of emission, or the adverse affects of such emissions locally?
Cap and trade treats the entire world as one big soup bowl of gaseous emissions, as if this is OK. Is it? Where is the scientific basis for such an assumption? Where is the scientific basis for the assumption that an excess of emissions under cap and trade WON'T be injurious to the environment or release?
Yes, climate change is global but cap and trade can have negative effects where emissions are horrendous. Who has looked at the acid rain effects of excessive gas emissions under this proposal?
Gail Campbell, Eugene, Oregon
-
Dave and Emily -
I would be far more inclined to pony-up extra for "clean" sources of energy if utilities like PGE didn't pay enormous bonuses like the $4 million dollars they gave Peggy Fowler on retirement. How can they convince me that its expensive for them to develop these new green technologies when they are making excessive profits?
-
Two points:
1) Please ask you PGE guest about the Boardman coal-fired plant--which has effects globally and nationally. It is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the NW. It also creates air pollution problems for the Gorge. In their IRP, they want to keep it running until 2040.
2) Let's really talk about cost. It is estimated that cap and trade legislation will cost households about $100. That compared to the billions in damage that climate change will reap is nothing.
Nate Stice
Tigard, OR
-
Question for PGE:
PGE has been sending mixed messages recently concerning its coal-fired plant in Boardman. Is PGE committed to the continued operation of the Boardman coal-fired power plant through 2040, or, as it indicated in today's Oregonian, is it open to exploring closure earlier?
-
Why do PGE/Pacific Power customers have to pay an increased cost for "green" power, when the lionshare of energy produced in the NW is hydroelectric? To me it makes sense to increase the price to use traditional energies...like a sin tax?
-
Whenever Portland General offers to sell me "green" power, always at a higher rate, I suggest I will buy only their "dirty" power if they will sell that to me at a reduced rate. So far, PGE has not accepted my offer.
-
Additionally, Portland Mayor Sam Adams this week challenged PGE's proposed Integrated Resource Plan, writing in comments on the plan "I believe such a coal-dependent (resource plan) is a poor long-term resource strategy as carbon regulationand firm targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are implemented,"
-
PGE is in the process of upgrading the Bordman plant which will continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere at a very high rate.
Wouldn't the money spent on this upgrade be better spent on renewable energy sources?
-
First off, we need to recognize, that if we do not get this done, now, we will collectively face catastrophic consequences - consequences that would do far greater damage to our 'economy' than will making the changes necessary to avoid those consequences. The other important note is that the U.S., using 2005 as a benchmark, is still far short of what the European community is doing, using 1995 as a benchmark. We need to do more.
-
As other posters have commented, I find these discussions a bit sophomoric. If we really want to talk about the costs, we can't compare what energy costs have been to what they would be with environmental legislation. What we must compare is what the costs would be with environmental legislation vs. what they would be without environmental legislation - i.e. the costs associated with climate change.
-
Agreed. If some of the more drastic projections are borne out, kiss 'life as we know it' bye, bye, baby. Then, how important will cost be?
-
Oregonians need to be realistic about energy sources and meeting new energy demand.
In 1980, we banned nuclear power. The last legislative session we banned the use of new coal and banned the ability to enter into new contracts with coal generated power. Large scale hydro resources are either tapped out in the Pac NW or frowned upon because of salmon issues.
Our ability to provide baseload power is extremely limited. You can not provide baseload power from wind turbines and solar power.
-
I am looking forward to making some money off the coming carbon credit bubble. It has all the necessary elements to be a bubble just like the housing bubble.
-
Coal is reliable and affordable?
In what parallel universe?
Coal is hurting us by creating the global climate change problem, so it has turned out that it never was affordable and so the reliability was a fantasy also.
We cannot afford to continue burning fossil fuels, we need to stop and stop sooner than right now!
-
We need shift our frame of reference. It isn't "how much will you pay or will this cost?" We are already, and will continue to, pay for the negative impacts of climate change. Decreasing mtn. snowpacks will hurt PNW agriculture and reduce runoff for hydropower generation.
We each have the power to control our energy usage and we can buy from companies that use energy responsibly. Use the power of your purchasing to influence behavior!
Our energy bills are influenced by the rate for energy and our usage. You can control your usage and thus the amount of your bill. You won't have to pay more if you increase your efficiency. Is your home insulated? Have storm windows? Do you use CFL bulbs? There are many things I've done to increase my comfort and efficiency and reduce my bills. Try it; you'll be glad to be doing something good for your family, future generations and the planet!
-
Your PGE guest made a reference to "affordable and reliable" electricity. Affordable compared to what? Our personal health, our planet's health? Reliability goes with the word "convenience". It seems to me that it is time for us to do with a little less convenience, and the last thing we want electricity to be is "affordable."
Fossile fuel energy needs to be "dear" .
Easy for me to say I suppose because I can afford to pay higher prices. But partly that is because I have done extensive insulation of my home over the past 4 decades. I buy the more expense electricity, and am having PV cells added to my roof, and though my heat pump provides me with an air conditioning option, I use other means of keeping the house cool, and limit my use of heating and cooling to under 65 degrees and over 85.
-
Creating a legal "Right to Pollute" as "cap and trade" is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard of.
The owners and operators of coal based energy made an economic bet and it has turned out that they bet wrong. Now they want to socialize their losses and continue privatizing their profits. Their stockholders should be to pungle up the money to clean up their plants. They have to get their air pollutant sewage out of our atmosphere and the sooner the better.
And they have to spend their stockholder money to clean up the problems they have already created.
Consumers should not have to pay for problems they did not create, the stockholders of coal based energy should pay.
-
Climate Change is critically important to address by first reducing our consumption via conservation and efficiency. Simultaneously households and businesses need to start using passive and active renewable energy at some level, including passive design, on-site generation, and purchasing renewable energy through your utility or if that is not an option renewable energy offset can be purchased through a private provider.
The quickest way to do that would be for our government and business models to reflect full cost and life cycle economic analysis rather than comoditizing resources and pollution and we would quickly see how affordable renewable energy is. As one quick example, 39% of the fresh water in this country is used to cool thermal power plants. Pollution, droughts, and desertification continue to impact the availablitilty of fresh water. If we are to put a value on carbon then we also need to put a value on fresh water and other natural resources that are severely impacted by externalizing the costs of buring fossil fuels.
EcoSense
-
The cost of climate change is here and real. Science tells us that 350 ppm is the maximum level of carbon we can have in the atmosphere without catastrophic effects. We are over 380.
We are holding a rally in Oregon on OCT. 24 to spur our leaders on in taking action. See 350oregon.org
-
I subscribe to the Blue Sky program - and I recently install a 2.6 KV solar cell system. I'm concerned that we are searching for solutions that rely on large installations - need to consider promoting ditributed generation approaches. My questions are: As I understand it, Germany has a policy that the power companies are required to purchase power at retail rates from small (home owner) solar installations. That's produced numerous distributed systems. Why not in the US? Second, my system is producing carbon free power, and I get a report on the amount. It would make sense that I should be able to participate in "selling" carbon offsets.
Thanks
Dan McKenzie
Corvallis, OR
-
It seems everyone is speaking in terms of how much more expensive energy will be as a result of CO2 caps, offsets, other technolgies, etc. Yet we aren't talking about how much climate change will cost society in terms of damages, increased insurance costs, displaced industries (e.g. wine making), heath effects . . . the list goes on. Even Emily is using language that implies the cost factors come only with rising energy costs. What if rising energy costs were offest by lower costs in other sectors of our lives?
Jeff, NE Portland
-
If carbon dioxide is causing global warming, then I say good. The planet is too cold anyway. If the northern latitudes could support the growth of more crops and timber, then the planet could more easily feed and house the people. I see no serious danger in slightly elevated CO2 in the atmosphere. The beneficial effect is that it makes crops and trees grow more rapidly. Look over the globe and you will see that there are vast areas in Russia that could grow crops if the climate was a little warmer.
As for carbon sequestration, I think this is a dangerous thing to do. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and would stay close to the ground if a serious leak occurred. In very strong concentrations CO2 is toxic and will kill animal and human life. I remember watching a program on TV about volcanos and there was a large emission of CO2 from a volcanic eruption in Africa where it killed every animal and human in a large area. Accidents happen no matter how much planning and engineering goes into a project. Concentraing and sequestering CO2 in large reservoirs is highly dangerous to human life and represents a greater hazard than the status quo.
Mankind already has a very large carbon sequestering program that has been going on for a long time. It is relatively safe and is called the sustainable timber industry. How many tons of carbon have been sequstered in the timber that has been harvested and utilized in the last 100 years? Has anyone calculated that?
I think it is good that the current programs of wind energy and wave energy utilization are moving ahead. These programs seem to have little impact on the environment.
Electric cars will also reduce the production of CO2 from carbon rich gasoline. The batteries to make them practical have been invented and industry is tooling up for large scale production. I believe that most of us in USA, will be driving electric cars in 20 years.
There are also a number of flood control dams in this country that could utilize hydro power but currently do not. I say why not? Maybe they could not produce power in the summer months but in the winter there is a strong demand for electricity and it could be utilized.
-
If we really want to link the economy to the environment in a profoundly bold and equitable way, peg global currencies to a carbon standard. While this would represent an enormous change to the way everything in our lives is valued (and would be extremely difficult to implement), I believe it would begin to assign real value and costs to our world of goods and services. Those goods that possess larger carbon footprints would cost more...such as nonrenewable energy or mangos shipped in from South America in December. Difficult to implement but powerful in terms of assigning a real monetary and environmental cost to our goods and services.
-
Have you heard the calamities that are often associated as one of the effect of global change such as flooding? Climate change issue became the global concern. I have read some blogs that supports advocacy taking care of our mother earth to reduce the possibility of the effect of the climate change. Negligence on this issue can cost a lot of damage and devastation on some properties. It is worth to have payday cash advance to encourage group of people to came out with the best move to fight the problem brought by the climate change.
-
Education and choice are crucial in the population discussion. The knee jerk reaction is to reject an idea if it is not understood at an emotional level.
To gain more popularity with this issue, several key issues should be included:
1) Quality of life for the entire family should always be mentioned. Each child will receive more attention from the parents and each parent, mainly mothers, will have more time and quality in their personal lives.
2) It is essential to bring the churches along in this discussion. Only once did I hear a priest speak of the importance of caring for the earth in his Sunday homily. The idea of entitlement should be ridiculed. Churches are a critical component in guidance.
3) Perhaps the question each of us should ask ourselves is, “Why do I want to bring a child into this world?” Just to satisfy grandparents, our partner or for the attention of having an infant, etc. will not be deemed as popular or sound if education and discussion persist on a global basis. It is everyone’s responsibility to prepare to bring loved, wanted children into this world.
(Born and raised a Catholic, I’m aware of my church’s belief in the propagation of life. My open minded, brilliant mother and some outstanding priests in my life promoted the importance of the use of conscience and choice. Consequently, I have one son. One child allowed my husband and me to nurture and give time to our son as we raised him. We remain close and enjoy each other as a family today. Our son is an independent 33 year old who is productive and contributes to the world. ) This decision has left us feeling very fortunate in so many ways.
As people are more comfortable with this discussion, it will become more popular to do the responsible thing. By choice and education, people will choose to limit the size of their family.
Thank you for the discussion today. Continue to educate and encourage. It is a long, thankless road.
I hope my contribution has helped. Leslie
-
Comments are now closed.
On one hand I feel climate change legislation will not affect me because the legislation will be toothless and our leaders will not be willing or able to enforce it. Corporations, governments and individuals fight hard to retain the status quo when mounting evidence suggests we should change our destructive course with more alacrity.
On the other hand, if we become serious about climate change legislation then I expect it to affect timber and biomass energy stocks. Plum Creek Timber owns seven million acres of forest in the U.S. and we're trying to determine how much PCL could earn for "renting" forest for carbon sequestration. Can you imagine forests that make money by not being clear cut?
I expect gas prices to increase forever so I've started a game called "cycling for supper". I ride the bike to the store every other day to gather fresh food. Biking requires more thought, preparation and energy than habitually hopping into the car to make the same trip.
On my third hand I realize I can't wait for climate change legislation to impact me. I need to make changes in my life style that will be supportive of Earth's environment.