skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Beginning in 2013, a major component of AB 32, California's climate change legislation, will commence: cap-and-trade regulations. California will lead the United States in the initiation of cap-and-trade policies and much of the country will be watching as to whether it proves to be a viable approach to stemming carbon emissions.
Cap-and-trade has it proponents, and at first blush it does seem to look good on paper. But it has its detractors, too - from businesses opposed to more government regulations to environmental groups opposed to the idea of polluters buying their way out of trouble. (Nature does not take into account a polluter's ability to pay for its own mess and then simply mitigates the negative impacts accordingly.)
One encouraging note is that, whether or not the cap-and-trade provisions of AB32 succeed and continue or fail and are discarded, the legislated overall reduction in carbon and greenhouse gas emissions will continue. At least that is what the politicians are currently saying.
Reported in the Los Angeles Times, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "Today's adoption of a cap-and-trade program is a major milestone for California's continued leadership on reducing the world's greenhouse gases. As I said both when we signed the legislation in 2006, and when we fought to protect it last year when Texas oil companies attempted to overturn it with Proposition 23, the most critical phase in the fight against climate change is diligently, aggressively, and correctly implementing this law."
Elaine Hirsch, writer and affiliate with MastersDegree.net, a clearing house for online degree programs, has contributed the following guest post on the subject of California's cap-and-trade program. In it, she examines how cap-and-trade hopes to find an economic motivator to address an environmental issue.
Why Cap-and-Trade in California Should be Given a Chance
Scientists , policymakers, and academics have intensely argued about the validity of climate change since the late 20th century. With over seven billion humans inhabiting the Earth, the negative externalities of consuming energy and polluting the atmosphere are becoming increasingly pertinent problems. Regardless of arguments over climate change or increasing energy prices, it doesn't take a master's degree in climate science to realize that the amount of energy consumed is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Either consumption needs to be capped from excessive use or alternative resources must be found. California recently announced that it's pioneering a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, which will help exacerbate both problems mentioned above.
Benefits of Cap-and-Trade
Starting in 2013, California's Air Resources Board will dole out carbon credits to carbon emitters in the state. Companies can use all of their credits on emissions or buy/sell credits to others. The idea behind this system is that California will be able to control how much total emissions businesses will be able to produce as a whole, allowing the state to reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. Furthermore, policymakers expect this system to become a $10 billion market by 2016. Essentially, California would be creating a market out of thin air while cleaning the state's air quality.
Although a cap-and-trade system is ultimately dictated by the state government, it retains a market approach which will please many businesspeople. Theoretically, allowing parties to dictate the costs of negative externalities is the most efficient way to find a true cost for a good. Since valuing the price of carbon is a little-researched topic, allowing businesses to essentially bid on the price will be a simple way to value the substance.
In addition to financial benefits, capping the amount of carbon emissions would act as an incentive for companies to innovate alternative energy methods. Say, if the price of a carbon credit would be too expensive for start-up companies, these companies would increase the demand for alternative energy forms such as solar, wind or nuclear. This demand would help fund initiatives for energy companies to seek cheaper alternative energy sources, creating a sustainable future for the state (and the world!).
Far From a Solution
With that said, cap-and-trade is nothing close to a panacea for our energy woes. A classic argument opposing cap-and-trade stems from disdain towards government interventions in the marketplace. Removing government intervention from markets theoretically allow businesses to most efficiently allocate their capital. Imposing the extra costs of buying carbon credits would drive up business costs and create inefficiencies for businesses.
For less free-market adherents, an alternative proposition would be a carbon tax in lieu of a cap-and-trade model. Although it would set no hard limit for how much emissions are released into the atmosphere, the state will gain tax revenue and create an incentive for businesses to find alternative energy sources to relieve taxes.
Obviously, non-believers of climate change will also be against a cap-and-trade policy. Both economists and policymakers admit that cap-and-trade would create business inefficiencies and dead-weight-losses, which will be a central focus during a time of stagnant economic growth and dismal unemployment numbers.
Hopefully, this article has illuminated many of the tangible and ideological arguments for and against a cap-and-trade system. With the cost of pollution being a hard commodity to value, implementing a cap-and-trade system in California is a great way to test how the system would work in a real-world setting. California is a large state with a vibrant economy and prominent businesses, which provides a solid framework for such a social experiment. The upside of this project would lead to less carbon emissions, higher tax revenues, and innovations in energy ideas. The downside would be an increase in government control in private enterprise and further economic stagnation. Finally, if the experiment were to fail, the costs of reversing the policy would be much less than if the United States were to reverse policy on a national level. Regardless, the entire country will be watching this social experiment, so it may be wise for both proponents and opponents to wait for the results before citing arguments based solely on economic and/or scientific models.
Elaine Hirsch, MastersDegree.net
Read more about cap-and-trade in the Los Angeles Times.
And you can read more in FastCompany.com.
California took a solid step today in dealing with reducing the state's carbon footprint with the state Air Resources Board voting 9-1 in favor of adopting new regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from fuel.
The regulation requires producers, refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuel by 10% over the next decade. And it launches the state on an ambitious path toward ratcheting down its overall heat-trapping emissions by 80% by mid-century — a level that scientists deem necessary to avoid drastic global climate disruption.
This is a first for any U.S. state and could set the standard worldwide. Regulations like this promote the development of alternative fuels, nudging the major energy companies to invest in greener alternatives like cellulosic ethanol made from trash, as opposed to the popular corn ethanol that is, in many ways, no better than petroleum-based fuels.
The regulation also is a positive step for entrepreneurs who are looking for new opportunities in alternative fuels. California will soon have its first cellulosic ethanol plant in Southern California's upper desert. The facility will process 170 tons of garbage a day to produce 3.7 million gallons of ethanol a year. Estimated cost per gallon: about $2, according to Arnold Klann of BlueFire Ethanol Fuels."California's low-carbon fuel standard is going to set the standard for the U.S. and, I expect, the standard globally," said Graeme S.S. Sweeney, a Shell executive vice president. "There will be a series of commercial-sized plants in the next five years. There will be different technologies. It will be good to see competition."
And that coming from one of the major energy/oil companies! I've always said that for energy companies to fully embrace a paradigm shift to alternative fuels, they will need to see the commercial advantage in it. Apparently, they are getting the message . . . and planet Earth should be the better for it.
A lot of interesting discussions have come out of the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This one was reported in Science News and concerned the carbon footprint of aquaculture operations.
I am one of those who is a firm believer in aquaculture as a method to meet seafood demands without decimating wild populations, but it is in its infancy and is experiencing all of the growing pains associated with a new technological enterprise. According to the AAAS panel, in the growing/feeding process there are greenhouse gas emissions associated with the type of food used (in addition to harvesting/catching and shipping methods). Monitoring aquaculture operations in several countries, it was determined that when certain types of plant-based meal are introduced, there is a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions. However, not all plant-based meal produces positive results; wheat gluten or palm oil produced higher gas levels.
However, there are others hard at work at other possible beneficial substitutes. Reported in the Coloradoan, a Fort Collins brewery is developing a technique in which a portion of it's brewery waste products can be converted into a fish meal substitute. (Not sure if you end up with drunken fish, though!) The significance of finding a replacement for fish meal is due to the declining populations of anchovies and sardines. These "feeder fish" not only support the fish meal trade but are important prey items for larger fish, all the way up to tuna and dolphins (not to mention its value to low-income human populations).
There are those who say that fish raised on fish meal, as opposed to plant meal, tastes better. This may be due to the different oils found in each. According to the Fish Site, a Brazilian soybean processor is developing a technique for extracting oil from algae which would be high in omega-3 fatty acids, similar to fish meal. An acre of algae can produce up to 42,000 gallons of oil compared to only 210 gallons from an acre of soybean. The company is also looking into methods for capturing the CO2 emissions given off by the processing plant and directing it to the algae which uses it in photosynthesis.
With industrial open water fishing continuing to deplete fish populations worldwide, each stride to improve the efficiency and environmental impact of aquaculture is a great step forward.
Many thanks to Seaweb.org for the heads up on these news items.
When we consider the impact of global warming and climate change on the land, air, and sea, we often think of the combined CO2 emissions generated by different nations and their various commercial and/or public sources. But do you know what ranks as the 6th highest producer of carbon dioxide, just behind the 5 nations with the largest combined output of all sources?
Global shipping.
That's right. Right near the top of the list of major CO2 polluters. And it continues unregulated by any U.S. or Kyoto Protocol limitations. Why? Well, for one, it's a bit removed from the public spotlight, cruising the seas as it were, underneath the radar of public awareness. And for another, the shipping industry is both a fragmented and powerful commercial force that requires major international intervention to bring it under control.
What is there to regulate? Engine types, fuels, proper operational maintenance, emission standards - in many ways, what we do (or should be doing) regarding auto or factory pollution can be applied to shipping.
If we in the United States can get the EPA on board, this can be a major first step not only for the U.S. but for the world as it can set a new standard, particularly if the United States seriously considers getting back in lock step with the rest of the industrialized or developing world and considers aligning itself with the Kyoto Protocol or its possible future manifestations.
To that end, Earth Justice, Oceana, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Biological Diversity have petitioned the EPA and, due to a lack of response by the EPA, are preparing to take legal action. To learn more about this issue, click here.
After having had the opportunity to travel through a portion of the Northwest Passage, above the Arctic Circle, documenting evidence of climate change for the marine research organization InMER, 
I became more interested in what is happening to this region and the implications. There are some serious issues beyond what is most often portrayed in the news: the threatened polar bear.
In the recent issue of SeaWeb's Marine Science Review #290: Climate and Climate Change, several articles and abstracts outline studies made regarding the effects of rising temperatures 
on the permafrost that forms the primary ground cover in the region. Permafrost is, in essence, a frozen soil layer. The upper or active portion of the layer supports flora with shallow root structures - different types of moss and lichen abound and bushes or trees do not grow there.
But also trapped in that frozen layer is a considerable amount of organic carbon and methane and as the temperature increases, those potential greenhouse gases can be released. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, it makes the permafrost a ticking time bomb.
The SeaWeb review sited two articles: "Vulnerability of permafrost carbon to climate change: Implications for the global carbon cycle" (BioScience 58[8], 2008) and "Soil microbial respiration in arctic soil does not acclimate to temperature" (Ecology Letters 11[10], 2008). Really exciting, attention-grabbing titles, I know, and they're very heavy on the academic/scientific gobbledygook but what it boils down to is that with even a slight increase in temperature, the permafrost experiences an increase in soil decomposition that releases the trapped organic carbon and methane. And there is a considerable amount held in that frozen soil.
It's another example of the "cascade effect" where one change - an increase in temperature - causes a myriad of other changes, with some of these changes feeding back into the original issue and exacerbating the problem.
The polar bear can generate well-deserved public sympathy and hopefully provide impetus to address the problem of climate change. But it's a multi-faceted problem with potential land mines right under our feet.
Many of you who read this blog are already concerned and committed marine conservationists and so you are familiar with issues regarding greenhouse gas output and the effect it has on our climate. Here's some more disconcerting news . . .
Yesterday, international researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released new numbers indicating that the level of carbon emissions/greenhouse gases is increasing ahead of projected levels. It was anticipated that levels might decrease due to the economic downturn's impact on energy use over the past few years. Unfortunately, data shows that carbon dioxide output rose 3% from 2006 to 2007.
"Things are happening very, very fast," Professor Corrine Le Quere, University of Anglia, told the Associated Press. "It's scary." "We should be worried - really worried," Richard Moss, World Wildlife Fund, told the Washington Post. "This is happening in the context of trying to reduce emissions."
The new data also shows that the forest and oceans, which absorb carbon dioxide, are having less impact. The rising level of emissions is exceeding the ability of these ecosystems to take in carbon dioxide - they are simply being overloaded. The trees and oceans can't do it all; they can't save us from ourselves.
China is currently the largest polluter, with the U.S. in second. Developing countries like India and Indonesia are rapidly increasing their emissions as these nations develop more energy-intensive industries. New data continues to come in and with it the situation continues to become more dire. We need to take more decisive action - all of us, consumers, industry, and governments.
Here's a start: the Ocean Conservancy has a form you can fill out online and send a message to your government officials. Just a first step but we all have to start somewhere.
Beginning in 2013, a major component of AB 32, California's climate change legislation, will commence: cap-and-trade regulations. California will lead the United States in the initiation of cap-and-trade policies and much of the country will be watching as to whether it proves to be a viable approach to stemming carbon emissions.
