By: Haley Tamberi
In 2005 the Kyoto Protocol came into effect. The main outcome of this agreement overall is to lower greenhouse gases by 5 percent compared to the estimated level in 1990. The rules of the Kyoto agreement permit carbon trading from country to country. Following the cap and trade theory, which has in the past proved success with acid rain and sulfur dioxide levels. If a country is under the capped limit the extra credits can be sold to another country that is overproducing. Determining the fixed amount a country is allowed to obtain is determined mainly on the emission rates for that individual country prior to 1990. 126 countries have honored this protocol leaving only 4 industrialized countries left to join. US is one of those countries and does not embrace this act then global business competition will impact several US companies. There is an estimate that the greenhouse emissions market will reach $100 billion by 2010. Economically this proposal provides an incentive for companies and countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and benefit. However, many environmentalists believe it is wrong to allow anyone the right to pollute and don’t feel that this tactic will not result in any success. They also argue that countries may be able to ignore the new limits. Carbon trading could lead to more open market trading than actual emission controls. There is a huge debate on whether this the adequate approach to deal with greenhouse gas emission globally. What are your thoughts?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
“Obama Energy Policy- First 300 Days” Panel Lecture at CU
By: Lisa Elliott
Recently I attended a lecture of panelists in various environmental and energy fields, where they analyzed Obama’s energy policy thus far into his presidential term. They each gave a mini 5 minute lecture about various topics related to parts of energy policy and then graded Obama and the administration on a traditional academic letter grading scale. Obviously a good policy analysis can’t be done in five minutes but I though the grading scale was an interesting way of doing it and they brought up some interesting facts relating to our energy policy. Here is a summary of main points of a few of the speakers:
Speaker: Lisa Dilling, assistant professor of environmental studies at CU, center for science and technology policy research.
Topic: Science Policy
Obama Grade: A-
Lisa Dilling spoke about science policy. She quoted Obama as saying he was going to restore science back to its rightful place, and that the days of science would go back to ideology. She noted that he had already set change form the last administration by funding science research and development programs and agencies focusing on climate change.
Speaker: Joe Feller, professor of law at Arizona State specializing in environment, water issues, and private property
Topic: What the administration has actually done with fossil fuels
Obama Grade: C
Joe Feller noted that it’s only been six to seven months so there is a very small track record to analyze. He also noted that the current administration is constrained by legislative enactments. He said that slowing the consumption of fossil fuels hasn’t helped. The three major areas are coal, oil and oil shale. Thus far into the current administration:
1.Coal production has not slowed, permits and applications to mine are continued to be passed. New expansion in the Powder River basin has been passed.
2.Oil and Gas leasing on public lands and off shore has continued at pace with the old administration. 2.4 million acres of new leasing in-land and 53 million acres in the Gulf off sore. The only leases that have been withdrawn are in very scenic areas like national parks.
3.The new administration has continued to pursue oil shale, and has not slowed the exploration for oil shale. However the oil shale industry itself is very slow moving so progress has been delayed some
Speaker: Paul Komer, professor at CU in environmental studies. Renewable energy policy expert, Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Topic: Renewable
Obama Grade: Administration A-, Congress B-
Paul Komer spoke about the funding and legislation of renewables.
Funding: He noted that the administration has a lot of money to spend on renewables and has spent a lot of it quickly. He pointed out that it’s hard to spend a lot of money well and do it quickly. He encouraged more analysis before just spending loads of money.
Legislation: Many states have requirements that certain amounts of energy come from renewable. 25 states have this policy. The administration supports an option that requires all states to have a requirement. If the bill passes through congress there will be more incentive for renewable energy.
Recently I attended a lecture of panelists in various environmental and energy fields, where they analyzed Obama’s energy policy thus far into his presidential term. They each gave a mini 5 minute lecture about various topics related to parts of energy policy and then graded Obama and the administration on a traditional academic letter grading scale. Obviously a good policy analysis can’t be done in five minutes but I though the grading scale was an interesting way of doing it and they brought up some interesting facts relating to our energy policy. Here is a summary of main points of a few of the speakers:
Speaker: Lisa Dilling, assistant professor of environmental studies at CU, center for science and technology policy research.
Topic: Science Policy
Obama Grade: A-
Lisa Dilling spoke about science policy. She quoted Obama as saying he was going to restore science back to its rightful place, and that the days of science would go back to ideology. She noted that he had already set change form the last administration by funding science research and development programs and agencies focusing on climate change.
Speaker: Joe Feller, professor of law at Arizona State specializing in environment, water issues, and private property
Topic: What the administration has actually done with fossil fuels
Obama Grade: C
Joe Feller noted that it’s only been six to seven months so there is a very small track record to analyze. He also noted that the current administration is constrained by legislative enactments. He said that slowing the consumption of fossil fuels hasn’t helped. The three major areas are coal, oil and oil shale. Thus far into the current administration:
1.Coal production has not slowed, permits and applications to mine are continued to be passed. New expansion in the Powder River basin has been passed.
2.Oil and Gas leasing on public lands and off shore has continued at pace with the old administration. 2.4 million acres of new leasing in-land and 53 million acres in the Gulf off sore. The only leases that have been withdrawn are in very scenic areas like national parks.
3.The new administration has continued to pursue oil shale, and has not slowed the exploration for oil shale. However the oil shale industry itself is very slow moving so progress has been delayed some
Speaker: Paul Komer, professor at CU in environmental studies. Renewable energy policy expert, Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Topic: Renewable
Obama Grade: Administration A-, Congress B-
Paul Komer spoke about the funding and legislation of renewables.
Funding: He noted that the administration has a lot of money to spend on renewables and has spent a lot of it quickly. He pointed out that it’s hard to spend a lot of money well and do it quickly. He encouraged more analysis before just spending loads of money.
Legislation: Many states have requirements that certain amounts of energy come from renewable. 25 states have this policy. The administration supports an option that requires all states to have a requirement. If the bill passes through congress there will be more incentive for renewable energy.
For all you musically-inclined nerds out there...
TMBG releases the following video on YouTube. I'm dedicating this post to my dad, who spent the '91 recession learning CAD when no work was coming in.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Peruvian Amazon Community Forestry
Community forestry programs like the one reported here by the Peruvian Times, a good online English-language newspaper that reports on Peru-related affairs, often receive great press initially, but then don't pan out as well as initial reports suggest. The article reports that community-held lands will be divided into smaller lots, then managed systematically.
It's not clear if the "division" of the community preserve reported in the article will involve granting private property rights to individual citizens or if the division into lots is just part of a management plan in which the land will remain community-owned and managed--this is a key issue, as are the details of the management system. I've seen situations in which the division of community lands have generated both good and bad outcomes, and I've also seen situations in which the communal management has been both successful and unsuccessful.
The important thing is the details around how decisions about land use are made, who makes the decisions, who is entrusted with enforcement, and how the profits from land management are allocated. If the same people who pay the costs receive the benefits, then things are much more likely work out. If, however, the people who pay the costs of enforcement don't receive the benefits, they simply won't hold up their end of the bargain.
One problem in Peru is that central government authorities often receive the benefits of (costly) actions (such as enforcement) which are palmed off on local authorities. If the local authorities don't receive the benefits of enforcement, however, they're unlikely to be motivated to bear the costs. The same is true in the opposite situation--if the locals accrue the benefits of local forestry but the national government is supposed to enforce the rules, it's unlikely that they'll be motivated to do so.
It's not clear if the "division" of the community preserve reported in the article will involve granting private property rights to individual citizens or if the division into lots is just part of a management plan in which the land will remain community-owned and managed--this is a key issue, as are the details of the management system. I've seen situations in which the division of community lands have generated both good and bad outcomes, and I've also seen situations in which the communal management has been both successful and unsuccessful.
The important thing is the details around how decisions about land use are made, who makes the decisions, who is entrusted with enforcement, and how the profits from land management are allocated. If the same people who pay the costs receive the benefits, then things are much more likely work out. If, however, the people who pay the costs of enforcement don't receive the benefits, they simply won't hold up their end of the bargain.
One problem in Peru is that central government authorities often receive the benefits of (costly) actions (such as enforcement) which are palmed off on local authorities. If the local authorities don't receive the benefits of enforcement, however, they're unlikely to be motivated to bear the costs. The same is true in the opposite situation--if the locals accrue the benefits of local forestry but the national government is supposed to enforce the rules, it's unlikely that they'll be motivated to do so.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Chinese High Speed Trains
by: Victoria Breeze
China is developing high speed trains that can go on both high-speed and normal track lines. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8246600.stm). I’ve been to China and been on every train from the bullet train in Shanghai to the slower-than-slow, overcrowded, stops at every chicken farm train in central China. Thus I’m all for the expansive, and expensive, developments in train lines that China has in the next few years. However, as we all know China has major environmental problems. So I was wondering, how environmentally friendly all these new trains will be. For that matter, how environmentally friendly are China’s trains now? From what I can tell, thanks to Wikipedia, most Chinese trains that run today are electricity based. At this point almost 80% of China’s power is provided by coal. More trains imply more power required and at this point that power will come from coal. A huge policy issue in China is how to reduce environmental problems (i.e. dependence on coal) while still supporting a massive country constantly modernizing and expanding. I think China’s train developments highlight this: an ever growing population of migrant workers means new train lines are needed. At the same time, new train lines require an abundance of new energy which will most likely be provided by coal. Problematic? Yes. However, I believe the train example also presents a solution. As long as China can replace coal as the source of energy (with something more sustainable –wind, water, etc) new train lines can continue to be built without threatening the environment or China’s development. Two points I’d like to ask the readers about, broadening from this train example. One: Do you think China’s development can be paired with sustainability? Two: should America invest more in trains since they have the potential to run on clean energy (and just make fun traveling)?
China is developing high speed trains that can go on both high-speed and normal track lines. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8246600.stm). I’ve been to China and been on every train from the bullet train in Shanghai to the slower-than-slow, overcrowded, stops at every chicken farm train in central China. Thus I’m all for the expansive, and expensive, developments in train lines that China has in the next few years. However, as we all know China has major environmental problems. So I was wondering, how environmentally friendly all these new trains will be. For that matter, how environmentally friendly are China’s trains now? From what I can tell, thanks to Wikipedia, most Chinese trains that run today are electricity based. At this point almost 80% of China’s power is provided by coal. More trains imply more power required and at this point that power will come from coal. A huge policy issue in China is how to reduce environmental problems (i.e. dependence on coal) while still supporting a massive country constantly modernizing and expanding. I think China’s train developments highlight this: an ever growing population of migrant workers means new train lines are needed. At the same time, new train lines require an abundance of new energy which will most likely be provided by coal. Problematic? Yes. However, I believe the train example also presents a solution. As long as China can replace coal as the source of energy (with something more sustainable –wind, water, etc) new train lines can continue to be built without threatening the environment or China’s development. Two points I’d like to ask the readers about, broadening from this train example. One: Do you think China’s development can be paired with sustainability? Two: should America invest more in trains since they have the potential to run on clean energy (and just make fun traveling)?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Upcoming Bolivian Election
The economist has a pretty good summary of the standings of the upcoming Bolivian presidential election--something hard to find in English--here.
Coal Ash Regulations: Not so Clean
By: Sarah Gardiner
Delicious, nothing quite like the fresh taste of a glass of water coupled with some coal ash. Residents of Uniontown, Alabama are now the proud claimers to this tainted water. Shaila Dewan exposes the heinous allocation of this coal ash waste in her article, “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash”. In this case coal ash is transported 350 miles and over state lines. Interestingly, Uniontown is a very poor community, and 70% African-American. These landfills are often put in poor counties because on the surface they bring in revenue, and create jobs. However, as evident with the Arrowhead Landfill spill, there are many external costs to this seemingly simple, economy boosting revenue.
The local environmental management has lax regulations on this hazardous waste, and gives out coal permits generously. The EPA has yet to even label the coal ash as hazardous waste. When a spill does occur at one of the landfills the citizen’s of the community health is at risk as it escapes into the local environment. Coal ash contains toxins like arsenic, and lead, which can then contaminate the water. These landfills pop up in mostly downtrodden communities, and also predominately African-American communities. Is it possible that these specific fly ash issues are evidence of environmental racism? And also, when will the EPA look into the recognition of this obviously hazardous material?
Dewain, Sheila. “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash”. New York Times: 30 August 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30ash.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=clash%20in%20alabama%20over%20tennessee%20coal%20ash&st=cse.
Delicious, nothing quite like the fresh taste of a glass of water coupled with some coal ash. Residents of Uniontown, Alabama are now the proud claimers to this tainted water. Shaila Dewan exposes the heinous allocation of this coal ash waste in her article, “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash”. In this case coal ash is transported 350 miles and over state lines. Interestingly, Uniontown is a very poor community, and 70% African-American. These landfills are often put in poor counties because on the surface they bring in revenue, and create jobs. However, as evident with the Arrowhead Landfill spill, there are many external costs to this seemingly simple, economy boosting revenue.
The local environmental management has lax regulations on this hazardous waste, and gives out coal permits generously. The EPA has yet to even label the coal ash as hazardous waste. When a spill does occur at one of the landfills the citizen’s of the community health is at risk as it escapes into the local environment. Coal ash contains toxins like arsenic, and lead, which can then contaminate the water. These landfills pop up in mostly downtrodden communities, and also predominately African-American communities. Is it possible that these specific fly ash issues are evidence of environmental racism? And also, when will the EPA look into the recognition of this obviously hazardous material?
Dewain, Sheila. “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash”. New York Times: 30 August 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30ash.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=clash%20in%20alabama%20over%20tennessee%20coal%20ash&st=cse.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
A concern about Senate Bill 09-108: Pay more to save more?
By: David McKinley
Earlier this summer a new bill was passed known as the FASTER bill that would help the state increase revenue for road projects and other areas that need funding. The very basics of how this bill affects the citizens is that when someone registers a vehicle late, you will owe 25 dollars a month every month after the grace period of one month. This is all fine and good right? This seems fair if you are late on paying your registration.
There is however a problem with this, an area that has been overlooked. I have a motorcycle that was just a dirt bike that was converted to be street legal, and I once had it on the road as a means of fuel efficient transportation, until I purchased a real street motorcycle. The time came where I wanted this vehicle on the road once again, as I had transferred the registration and my license plate to the later bike, and I was told I needed to pay a 100 dollar late fee. I was unsure what I was late for, as this was not a full time road vehicle, though unfortunately it turns out that there were no concessions made for vehicles of this sort.
If I was the only one with this problem I would let it go, however I am aware of others who had this same event happen. Wouldn’t this bill do the right thing by not making it harder for fuel efficient vehicles to get on the road, especially with this economy, the concern over oil, and the environmental impact of CO2?
Earlier this summer a new bill was passed known as the FASTER bill that would help the state increase revenue for road projects and other areas that need funding. The very basics of how this bill affects the citizens is that when someone registers a vehicle late, you will owe 25 dollars a month every month after the grace period of one month. This is all fine and good right? This seems fair if you are late on paying your registration.
There is however a problem with this, an area that has been overlooked. I have a motorcycle that was just a dirt bike that was converted to be street legal, and I once had it on the road as a means of fuel efficient transportation, until I purchased a real street motorcycle. The time came where I wanted this vehicle on the road once again, as I had transferred the registration and my license plate to the later bike, and I was told I needed to pay a 100 dollar late fee. I was unsure what I was late for, as this was not a full time road vehicle, though unfortunately it turns out that there were no concessions made for vehicles of this sort.
If I was the only one with this problem I would let it go, however I am aware of others who had this same event happen. Wouldn’t this bill do the right thing by not making it harder for fuel efficient vehicles to get on the road, especially with this economy, the concern over oil, and the environmental impact of CO2?
Automobiles in the World’s Most Populous Country
By: Lukas Eddy
It’s common knowledge that as China’s population and economy continue to expand, pollution and environmental degradation are only getting worse. One of the bigger aspects of this issue is the growing percentage of Chinese owning cars. The government knows the implications of more carbon-emitting and resource-depleting machines, and has taken several methods to combat it, such as increasing public transportation infrastructures and improving fuel economy standards. But how effective are they?
An article I read (http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/08/18/1) mentioned that more cars means more suburban sprawl. It even claimed Beijing was setting itself up to be the next Los Angeles! Now it’s looking that not only will China continue adding thousands of cars to its streets daily, but people will be driving significantly more due to the introduction of suburbs. Public transportation is always an option, but people will still have to use it for longer distances from the suburbs.
Ultimately, the only solution I can see is dramatically increasing fuel efficiency, thus making cars only available to the rich. This is a prime example of the individual preference vs. collective outcomes: the Chinese consumer would benefit far more from owning a car than he would suffer from the pollution caused by that car.
Should cars be affordable and dirty, or expensive but clean? How this policy might work in the US? Just how big of a luxury should the automobile be considered?
It’s common knowledge that as China’s population and economy continue to expand, pollution and environmental degradation are only getting worse. One of the bigger aspects of this issue is the growing percentage of Chinese owning cars. The government knows the implications of more carbon-emitting and resource-depleting machines, and has taken several methods to combat it, such as increasing public transportation infrastructures and improving fuel economy standards. But how effective are they?
An article I read (http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/08/18/1) mentioned that more cars means more suburban sprawl. It even claimed Beijing was setting itself up to be the next Los Angeles! Now it’s looking that not only will China continue adding thousands of cars to its streets daily, but people will be driving significantly more due to the introduction of suburbs. Public transportation is always an option, but people will still have to use it for longer distances from the suburbs.
Ultimately, the only solution I can see is dramatically increasing fuel efficiency, thus making cars only available to the rich. This is a prime example of the individual preference vs. collective outcomes: the Chinese consumer would benefit far more from owning a car than he would suffer from the pollution caused by that car.
Should cars be affordable and dirty, or expensive but clean? How this policy might work in the US? Just how big of a luxury should the automobile be considered?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Renewable Energy Tax Credits
By: Beth Adams
Somehow we (meaning the U.S. specifically in this context) need to be investing more time and energy into research and development for renewable energy technology. Obviously people need financial incentive in order for enough of them to do the right thing. It is no longer debated (to my knowledge) that we need to be utilizing more renewable sources for our energy needs, but it seems to me that enough resources are being allocated to achieve that goal. Does everyone agree? Doesn’t the government need to do more to ensure that we are harnessing other energy sources available to us? Whether one looks at the energy problem with concerns for national security or environmental reasons, many of the same solutions could be used to ease either concern.
I read about a tax credit that was to be included in Obama’s February 2009 economic stimulus package that would give a tax credit incentive to companies that added a renewable energy fund to their 401 (k) plans offered to employees. This seems like an excellent idea to get more resources to where they are needed. The plan is estimated to cost the government $7 to $8 billion, but it is estimated that it will generate $60 to $100 billion in renewable energy investment in addition to creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Any thoughts or reservations? Does anyone know of anything similar that the government is doing?
Somehow we (meaning the U.S. specifically in this context) need to be investing more time and energy into research and development for renewable energy technology. Obviously people need financial incentive in order for enough of them to do the right thing. It is no longer debated (to my knowledge) that we need to be utilizing more renewable sources for our energy needs, but it seems to me that enough resources are being allocated to achieve that goal. Does everyone agree? Doesn’t the government need to do more to ensure that we are harnessing other energy sources available to us? Whether one looks at the energy problem with concerns for national security or environmental reasons, many of the same solutions could be used to ease either concern.
I read about a tax credit that was to be included in Obama’s February 2009 economic stimulus package that would give a tax credit incentive to companies that added a renewable energy fund to their 401 (k) plans offered to employees. This seems like an excellent idea to get more resources to where they are needed. The plan is estimated to cost the government $7 to $8 billion, but it is estimated that it will generate $60 to $100 billion in renewable energy investment in addition to creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Any thoughts or reservations? Does anyone know of anything similar that the government is doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)