Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
Obama considers nuclear power and offshore drilling, backs off from cap and trade.
In his State of the Union address on Wednesday, President Obama tried to drum up support from Republicans and conservative Democrats for comprehensive energy legislation that has been languishing in the Senate since September. In his speech, Obama stressed the need to create clean energy jobs and compete with China in the development of new energy technologies, and backed off from his prior emphasis on capping carbon dioxide emissions and setting up a market-based approach for controlling such pollution.
Energy and climate legislation seemed to have momentum last year, after the federal stimulus was enacted in February and designated billions of dollars to support clean energy. Indeed, the House passed an energy bill in June that, among other things, would set renewable energy requirements and establish a cap and trade program to limit carbon emissions in an effort to drive investment in cleaner sources of electricity. But the Senate version of the bill stalled as legislators turned their focus to health-care legislation. And this month, prospects for energy legislation dimmed further with the election of Scott Brown, a Republican from Massachusetts who spoke out against a cap on carbon emissions during his campaign.
In recent weeks, the energy bill's supporters have been scrambling to revise the bill to attract wider bipartisan support. And in his address, the president emphasized policies that have strong Republican support, including "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants." He also raised the possibility of "opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development," something many Democrats have strongly opposed.
Obama did not mention a cap and trade program to limit carbon dioxide emissions--like the one included in the House bill--that would establish a system to "trade" pollution allowances, even though he's previously cited the need for such a market-based program. Instead of pushing for cap and trade, he spoke more generally about a "comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."
If Congress does revive its debate around energy legislation, it will likely focus on the best methods to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. Incentives could include government mandates for the use of renewable energy, tax breaks and subsidies to promote certain technologies (such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles). But economists warn that some of these incentives will prove far more expensive than the market-based cap and trade system. Under such a system, major carbon-dioxide emitters such as utilities could meet emissions caps in the cheapest way possible, including buying emissions permits from others or adopting new technologies. A renewable energy requirement, however, could be more expensive because it could dictate the use of a particular type of technology.
Although a version of the Senate energy bill, called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, passed a Senate committee in November, most experts say it's being taken back to the drawing board to draw wider support.
Economists and utilities say the draft legislation could help avoid costly regulations.
Cap & Trade vs other GHG reduction mechanisms
President Obama is dealing with a complex array of available GHG reduction mechanisms, while hoping to stimulate domestic industry, and avoid hurting the economy. Some of these mechanisms are not mutually compatible. For instance, if utilities are mandated to generate energy using renewables, it will reduce their participation in the GHG permits market, since they will be required to achieve reductions without permits. Nor will they have permits to sell from the mandated reductions. This could undermine the cap & trade approach. The economic analyses I've seen show that the best outcome would occur if the permitting system were used as widely as possible.
Cap & trade is theoretically the best way to accomplish GHG reduction since it sends a market signal to reduce GHGs at the lowest possible (system-wide marginal) cost. It also brings environmental costs into the economic equation. Perhaps we should either go all out for cap & trade or drop the entire idea and use the other mechanisms.
Whichever system is used, requirements to include environmental costs within product prices should be applied consistently, regardless of where the product is made. To do otherwise will give producers an incentive to move offshore.
Re: Cap & Trade vs other GHG reduction mechanisms
the problem with your statement is that you begin with faulty assumptions. you comment on the "best" way to reduce GHG, despite the fact that there remains no compelling reason to reduce them. clean energy is good, for a wide variety of reasons, but allowing the discussion and decision-making process to be dominated by a mythology that has never had any proof is poor policy. when that mythology is as discredited as this one, it is that much worse policy.
Why not cut subsidies for fossil fuels and introduce a carbon tax? Cap-and-trade will fail by accounting errors, like it has in Europe. Obama can ease its adoption by explaining that the monetary burden will fall primarily on high-polluting industries, most of whom rely on outdated technology and are making record profits anyway. America as a whole will benefit from the clean-tech innovation that will come to fill those economic niches. Are the fossil energy dinosaurs (interest groups, revolving door politicians, corporate financiers) so entrenched in the federal government that it's not even conceivable?! A tax would set selective pressure to filter out pollution and reward clean tech innovation. Tax revenue may then be used to free up land rights and build a national supergrid. The grid could then be opened to all energy sources equally (including residential and private wind and solar installations). Decentralize energy production and I guarantee electricity and fuel from renewable sources will be produced cheaper than oil from offshore drills (which will take 10 years to get online in any case) and electricity from coal (which only stands to get rarer and thus, more expensive). Tons of new jobs will be created. Plus we could license our advances around the world. As it stands now, the American people are letting old energy companies stack the deck in their favor, squeezing record revenues out of dwindling geologic resources. Let's have some charismatic leadership to demand freedom for the rest of our energy options, be they chemical, mechanical, electric, quantum or through sensible engineering and monitoring (i.e. negawatts). Call me naive. I dare you.
While I think introducing any new taxes in such an economic condition is foolish, at least a tax would be an honest approach. Do not forget, however, that any tax on energy will raise the cost of living by nearly the same percentage, as energy is required for nearly all products and services. As I've often asked, do you expect an especially large pay increase this year to offset that cost of living increase?
naive would be an understatement of immense proportion. you completely miss the impact on the economy, standards of living, secondary effects on other industries, and a host of other factors. you need to look a little more carefully at the issues. the statement claiming that the financial burden will fall mostly on polluting industries is notably naive by itself. do you really believe that a tax on them does not equal a tax on all of us?
Obama seeks compromise... compromising the planet that is
There are many problems that Obama, or any energy expert should be able to communicate to the Republican party.
On Nuclear: I agree that we should consider nuclear power, but the cost of disposing the waste should also be charged on the energy companies. We always have this socialism for the rich where the New Orleans Insurance companies make money in good time, and the government (tax payer) picks up the tab when disaster strikes. The same goes for the financial industry, capitalism for profits, and socialism for losses. If the government deals with the cost of disposing of the nuclear waist, the energy companies will make a big profit and the government has to clean up the mess they leave behind.
off-shore oil drilling: Destroys the environment too close to communities that depend on turism, and environmentalist don't like it. I would allow the area to be surveyed, but use whatever is discovered as part of the national strategic reserve. After all, it is cheaper to do that, than to pay some company to extract the oil, and then pay another one to put the oil back underground, then pay another one to get the salt out of the oil. With these idea, we would wait until it is absolutely necessary to destroy the natural resources in order to survive.
cap and trade: most articles I've read agree that the cap and trade legislation lost most of its teeth, it would be like putting on a belt, but having it so loose the pants fall off. So the fact that it is not passing may only emphases either or both of these: the Democrats can't pass legislation, or the political system is broken (why 60 senators to pass legislation ? and why the loser party does not understand it is normal for the bill to lean to the liking of the opposite party ? )
Re: Obama seeks compromise... compromising the planet that is
The cost of nuclear waste disposal is already put on the energy companies. About $32 billion has been collected, $8 billion of which has been spent on Yucca mountain.
The reason there's no Cap&Trade Bill
Here's the reason I think that we don't have a Cap&Trade Bill and probably won't have a Cap&Trade Bill for a while.
As silly as this sounds, it's about how many people will die due to the emission of greenhouse gases vs. how many will die because of higher energy costs?
I've yet to see any estimates of how many people will be saved by adopting a GHG Cap&Trade. For example, for a given Cap&Trade bill, how many human lives will be saved because of the Cap&Trade bill? It's not clear to me that capping concentrations of CO2 at 450 ppm or 550 ppm will save lives compared to a concentration at 350 ppm. It sounds a little morose, but more people die in the winter than in the summer.
And if electricity prices are higher, then there's a chance that even more people will die in both the summer and winter. (Heating takes energy, cooling takes energy, health care takes energy, healthy food takes energy, etc...)
Before I could be convinced to support any Cap&Trade legislation, it'd like to see that there is a "net" savings of human lives.
And if there is a net saving of lives, then scientists need to convey that information to the ~7 billion people on this planet so that we can collectively make a choice (via our politicians) on the optimal concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.
America has even more oil and natural gas than previously known www.naruc.org/News/default.cfm?pr=183. Peak Oil is getting farther away. Meanwhile, the NARUC report shows not removing the drilling moratoria means a loss of over $2 trillion to our GDP.
CO2 never was the problem. Soot and aerosols cause most of the icefield and glacier melting that that problem is getting worse as we shift jobs to India and China, which burn dirty coal and "cow dung". Increasing CO2 on the other means crops and all plants grow faster.
Obama doesn't really want nuclear power. He's trying to split the coalition formed against him by throwing crumbs to conservatives.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
lasertekk
146 Comments
hypocritical conflicts and special interests
"building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants."
OK, who's going to step up here and show some personal responsibility in dealing with the waste, instead of pushing the problem to yet-unborn generations? Someone, anyone?
He also raised the possibility of "opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,"
Wasn't the point to get off of all oil, as quickly as possible, both foreign and domestic? Hmm. That Supreme Court decision on corporate lobbying sure worked quick. Who got payed off?
Reply
spad12
58 Comments
Re: hypocritical conflicts and special interests
What to do with nuclear waste is a political issue, not a technical one. Someone really needs to give our legislators a crash course in nuclear physics and radiation science in order for them to make an informed decision and not make ridiculous technical demands.
As for oil. There are many many many products out there that use oil and oil byproducts for things other than energy. In addition to that it will still take a lot of time for a nation the size of the US to completely change its transportation infrastructure. In the mean time, oil prices are only going to go up and the lack of domestic production pose serious national security risks. Using domestic oil resources to carry us through the rest of the oil age and through the infrastructure swap is an incredibly good way to create new jobs, lower oil prices, better the economy as a whole, and increase national security all at the same time.
Reply
rvandell
22 Comments
Re: hypocritical conflicts and special interests
I agree about political v.s. technical. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were human screwups with old technology for the most part. Particle bed reactors of today are far more evolved and managable. The fuel even has a timer like a Thanksgiving turkey and a "meltdown" can only happen while you apply power to make it go. A power outage means it simply stops getting hot.
The bigest problem we face, is having all the mindshare pointed in so many different directions, we will never solve any one problem and move on to the next.
The sun sets, wind "doesn't" when you want it to, water falls from the sky on its own schedule, and we were "green" when we lived in caves. We moved out, and need to get over it, reach for the stars, and not just sit on our butts watching the passing of the ages while quoting poetry.
Reply
deannagay
6 Comments
Re: hypocritical conflicts and special interests
You seem to be suggesting that clean renewable energy represents a return to pre-technological days, and nothing is further from the truth. Advances in technology are exactly what will move us forward, if people will only get over the perspective of can't, won't, don't, and the idea that we must cling to old power supply structures. From hydrogen cell infrastructure to plasma torch power plants, industrial sized batteries which will solve the difficulties with intermittent power supply represented by wind and solar, and on and on over a broad range of new technologies, we have the opportunity to remake our civilization and preserve our planet in the process. It is already being done in other countries. We need to push forward into the future, and stop complaining that it can't be done.
Reply
kstauff
130 Comments
Re: hypocritical conflicts and special interests
Speaking of stepping up, how about having our federal government step up and handle it as they promised in 1982? They taxed nuclear energy and spent 13 billion dollars to develop Yucca Mountain, only to close it as one of the first acts of the Obama administration. You seem poorly informed on this matter.
Reply