A cynic might note that the state new-found royalty payments could be shared with neighboring states to discourage any veto legislation.

As I have previously written, the American Power Act is primarily an energy bill, providing something for every special interest.  The bill increases funding for nuclear power plants, natural gas, off-shore oil and gas production and provides $2 billion per year for the development of clean coal technologies.  The act places a “hard” minimum and maximum price, indexed for inflation, on carbon emissions.  However,  carbon emission controls are only applied to the transportation, utility and heavy manufacturing sectors, exempting such sectors as agriculture, chemical/refining industries, buildings and other major carbon sources.  Only the largest polluters, those who produce more that 25,000 tons of carbon emissions, will be regulated under the act.  In other words, the emissions of only 7,500 factories and power plants will be covered by the Act.

The Act does provide for 2/3rds of all allowance auction proceeds “not dedicated to reducing our nation’s deficit” to be returned to the consumer.  The funds will be returned to local electricity and natural gas distributing companies to be used “exclusively for the benefit of ratepayers”.  For heating oil and propane consumers, the funds would be returned to state governments who would be responsible for ensuring that they are used to for the exclusive benefit on heating oil and propane consumers. The funds would be used to either reduce rates, or provide a direct rebate. 

The cap and trade carbon emission targets of the American Power Act are somewhat less than other proposed legislation in the early years, but does approach the 17% of 2005 by 2050 standard.

In addition to the American Power Act, Senators Cantwell and Collins have introduced their Carbon Limits and Energy America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act.  In contrast to the massive American Power Act, the 39-page CLEAR act is a straight-forward cap and dividend proposal.  CLEAR prohibits financial speculation in “carbon derivatives” and restricts resale of allowances.  In sharp contrast to the American Power Act, the boondoggle of emission offsets do not exist under CLEAR. 

As a cap and dividend bill, CLEAR would rebate 75% of the emission auction funds directly to every legal resident of the United states, in the form of a direct monthly payment.  All residents would receive an equal amount, and the payments would be exempt from Federal income tax.   Thus most of any increase in energy cost would be directly returned to the citizens, not to special interest groups.

CLEAR has strong provisions to ensure the competiveness of American business in the international market, and provides a fair, uniform approach to emission control.  It establishes a target carbon emission levels of 70% in 2025 and 17% in 2050, again using 2005 as the reference year.

CLEAR does not attempt to resolve all problems, rather it directly, clearly and fairly provides for the regulation of carbon emissions.  And it does so in far more effective manner than the American Power Act, and at a much lower cost to Americans.  Contact you senators and request their support for CLEAR.

The January 29th announcement establishes the targets required by the October 5, 2009 Executive Order 13514 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, energy and Economic Performance) mandated that Federal Agencies submit a 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target within 90 days; and, increase energy efficiency, reduce petroleum consumption, conserve water, reduce waste and increase recycling.

The announcement does not include any emission reductions by federal contractors and suppliers, or resulting from employee commuting as called for by the executive order.

The full text of the White House announcement is:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 29, 2010

President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target for Federal Operations

 

Target to Drive Energy Cost Reductions in Federal Operations, Creating Clean Energy Jobs

WASHINGTON, DC – President Barack Obama today announced that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020.  Reducing and reporting GHG pollution, as called for in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building the clean energy economy.  Actions taken under this Executive Order will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries.

As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone.  Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.  This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama.  “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Federal Departments and Agencies will achieve greenhouse gas pollution reductions by measuring their current energy and fuel use, becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal.  Examples of agency actions that are underway are available on the White House Council on Environmental Quality website and can be found at www.whitehouse.gov/ceq.

On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, setting measureable environmental performance goals for Federal Agencies.  Each Federal Agency was required to submit a 2020 GHG pollution reduction target from its estimated 2008 baseline to the White House Council on Environmental Quality and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget by January 4, 2010.  The Federal target announced today is the aggregate of 35 Federal Agency self-reported targets.

Greenhouse gas emissions serve as a useful metric to measure the effectiveness of agency energy and fuel efficiency efforts as well as renewable energy investments. Agencies are already taking actions that will contribute towards achieving their targets, such as installing solar arrays at military installations, tapping landfills for renewable energy, putting energy management systems in Federal buildings, and replacing older vehicles with more fuel efficient hybrid models.

As a next step, the Office of Management and Budget will validate and score each agency’s sustainability plan, assuring a long-term return on investment to the American taxpayer. To ensure accountability, annual progress will be measured and reported online to the public.

(The United States, responsible for 36% of the baseline 1990 emissions, is the only developed nation which has failed to sign the Protocol.)  The nations of the world are now gathered in Copenhagen with the goal of fashioning a climate change agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.  It is thus timely to review the progress since the last world meeting.

Since Kyoto: 

• Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion and the manufacture of cement have increased by 32%
• The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased 6.5%
• Global ice masses have melted far more rapidly than predicted, with Greenland losing over 1.5 trillion tons of ice
• Arctic sea ice, especially “old” ice is disappearing at record rates.  This past summer history was made when commercial shipping was able to cross the Arctic from Asia to Europe via the fabled Northeastern passage, without the aid of ice breakers. 
• Sea levels have risen over 1.5 inches
• Global temperatures continue to rise with the past 12 years showing 0.5^oC increase over the 12 years preceding Kyoto.  10 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years.
• Methane emissions from melting permafrost are increasing at an alarming rate
• Weather patterns have become more volatile and violent, with increasing typhoons and flooding  in the southern hemisphere, major drought in Africa, Australia and the Western US, with an accompanying increase of record-setting wildfires.
• Over 40 million acres of pine forests, predominately lodgepole pine, have been killed by the mountain pine beetle, whose population is no longer controlled by low winter temperatures. In British Columbia alone, the amount of carbon dioxide released by decaying pine trees is five times greater than the annual emissions of the entire Canadian transportation sector.
• Polar bears have been declared an endangered species due to loss of Arctic ice, in the N. American west warming temperatures are forcing mountain dwelling Pikas to the mountain tops, leaving them no place to retreat.  Amphibians, insects, other wildlife and plants are under stress from changing climate.
• The oceans are becoming more acidic, resulting in the death of vital corals and other invertebrates; while fish are shifting migration patterns and locations, in response to temperature shifts.
• Perhaps, most ominously, the earths lands and oceans are losing their ability to act as carbon dioxide “sinks”  removing about 4% less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they did 12 years ago.

Progress is indeed hard to find, in contrast the news appears to be primarily negative with greenhouse gas emissions increasing and climate change  accelerating faster than all but the most dire predictions of 12 years ago.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Both tables below are from the Wikipedia at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol.  While not specifically related to progress since Kyoto, the tables can provide some useful insights as 1990 is the accepted, standard baseline year for calculating emission changes. 

Below is a list of the change in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2007 for some countries that are part of the Climate Change Convention as reported by the United Nations. (National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990-2007". UN FCCC. 2009. pp. 16-17.)   “LULUCF” = Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry.

Below is a table of the changes in greenhouse gas emissions of some countries. Global Carbon Project.

To understand the reality, first consider an individual tree.  This tree, like all plants utilizes solar energy to combine water and carbon dioxide, resulting in the production of carbohydrates (sugars).  We call the combination of chemical reactions involved in the process "photosynthesis".   Photosynthesis requires the presence of the green pigment chlorophyll, and thus occurs predominately in the leaves, or needles, of trees: and of course, only during the daylight hours.  Like all living organisms the tree requires energy for life processes, which it obtains by oxidizing some of the carbohydrates manufactured by photosynthesis.   This process of "respiration" is chemically the reverse of photosynthesis, occurs throughout the life of the tree, and results in the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. (http://arewetoast.com/energy-biology-chemistry-and-physics.html)

Plants typically manufacture far more carbohydrate than is utilized during respiration; some of which is stored in the living cells, while most is converted into cellulose which provides the rigid structure (wood) of the tree, both above ground and below ground (roots).  Growth of the tree represents the accumulation of carbohydrates and typically occurs more rapidly in young trees  and then slows as the tree matures.  Throughout the life of the tree, foliage is shed and decays, and the smaller roots die and decay as the root system expands.  Eventually the tree dies, and also decays.  The process of decay, conducted by fungi and other micro-organisms is again the process of oxidation, breaking down the accumulated carbohydrates and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Thus when the tree is completely decayed we have a balance, the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere during photosynthesis is eventually returned to the atmosphere by the oxidative processes of respiration and decay.  The net result is zero, no carbon dioxide permanently removed from the atmosphere and none added.  The tree has been a CO₂ reservoir, accumulating and storing CO₂ during its lifetime, and then returning CO₂to the atmosphere as it respires,and ultimately decays.

If we view a forest as simply a collection of trees we can better relate to the forest as a reservoir.  A young forest will typically consist of a number of young, rapidly growing trees, with their growth made possible by the accumulation of carbohydrates manufactured using atmospheric CO₂.  A forester calls this stage a period of high "productivity".  However, as the forest ages, or becomes mature, growth will slow and individual trees will start to die and return their accumulated CO₂ to the atmosphere.  Eventually the forest will essentially come into equilibrium with its environment and over time maintain a relatively constant amount of accumulated carbohydrate per unit of area (i.e., "standing crop" or "biomass").  Like a reservoir, or lake,  with the amount of water flowing in equal to the amount of outflow, the amount of CO₂ removed from the atmosphere by the forest remains equal to the amount of CO₂ returned to the atmosphere. Just as the amount of water in a reservoir may vary between seasons, or from year to year, the accumulated CO₂ (biomass) of the forest may vary by season and from year to year, but in both cases, over time the net accumulation is zero.

There is no doubt that our forest reservoir can hold a vast amount of carbon, with catastrophic events such as fire, disease, or pests resulting in the return of significant amount of CO₂ to the atmosphere.  For example, the Mountain Pine Beetle is currently devastating the lodgepole pines in western North America.  According to the CBC (http://tinyurl.com/yguojjr) the Canadian Forest Service estimates that by 2013 the damaged forest will release almost one billion megatonnes of CO₂(eq) into the atmosphere, an amount equal to the total 5-year emissions from Canada's transportation sector.  Likewise, deforestation by humans causes the release of vast amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere, and is indeed one of the major sources of CO₂ emissions on a global basis.  Deforestation is analogous to emptying the reservoir into the atmosphere.  Given enough time the reservoir may refill to its original capacity, however it will most likely take centuries for a stable ecosystem to return.

When balanced over the globe, and over time, the analogy of forests as CO₂ reservoirs, not steadily accumulating  sponges, holds true. Thus any claim that forests can be used to offset CO₂ emissions should be viewed with skepticism.

The Nano has achieved a certified fuel efficiency of 23.6 km/liter (55.5 mpg) which is claimed to be the highest for any gasoline-powered car in India and about 12% more efficient than a typical motorcycle.  Carbon Dioxide emissions are a low, at 101 gm/km, as are Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, particulates and hydrocarbons.

As previously discussed the Nano will undoubtedly be a commercial success in a country where automobile ownership is growing rapidly but yet only 1 out every 1,000 adults currently own and auto.  The Nano is affordable and a major step-up from the ever present motor scooters found currently jamming the nations roadways.  Tata is claiming a “stupendous response to the Nano and hopes to increase production up to a level of 1 million units a year in India.  However, it must be noted that Tata also has a $2 billion load due this summer for its recent purchase of Land Rover and Jaguar, which may slow new factory construction.

Tata will have a European model of the Nano available by 2011 and is reported to be considering exporting the Nano to the United States.

Initially the Nano was trumpeted as a safer alternative to the motor bikes which serve as a primary source of transportation in India, often overloaded with several passengers and baggage.  But, will the Nano be a replacement for the family motor bike, or an additional family vehicle and thus increasing transportation emissions per family?

Even though the Nano is only 3.1 m (10.2 ft) in length it is still considerably larger than a typical motor bike and will occupy significantly more space on India’s already crowded roadways.  Will the addition of large numbers of Nano’s result in increased traffic congestion and traffic “jams”,  resulting in a significant overall increase in transportation CO₂ emissions, and thus negate the advantages of a fuel efficient automobile?

Will the Nano be a benefit or an environmental disaster?