As someone who is concerned about the environment, this is great news. I've seen some absurd twisting of this bit of news by certain media outlets this morning. Some are claiming that "9 states have turned their back on Bush to support emissions caps". That is absolutely irresponsible journalism. Our elected leaders overwhelmingly rejected (bipartisan support) Kyoto because it made zero economic sense for America. Our large coal-based generation fleet would be extremely costly to control CO2 emissions. We could not have a reasonable national-level law to force all states to comply with that. We have to do it state by state to avoid the big states with huge coal plants producing all their power. Today's news is a very positive step forward in cleaning up the environment. http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/050825greenhouse.shtml Coalition agrees to cap emissions by power plants Thursday, August 25, 2005 Associated Press ©Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. CARBON DIOXIDE CONTROLS As outlined in the draft, the regional carbon dioxide control plan would set caps on emissions that would drop over time. Emissions would be capped at 150 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, about equal to the average emissions in the highest three years between 2000 and 2004. Each of the nine states would have its own cap. New York's, at 65.6 million tons, would be the largest. Vermont's would be the smallest, with 1.35 million tons, the Times said. The limits would be enforced starting in 2009. The 150 million-ton cap would be maintained through 2015, when cuts would be required, reaching 10 percent in 2020. ALBANY, N.Y. — Officials in Maine and eight other states in the Northeast have reached a preliminary agreement on an initiative led by New York Gov. George Pataki to freeze power plant emissions at current levels and reduce them by 10 percent by 2020, according to a report published Wednesday. The New York Times cited a confidential draft proposal in its report. Such an agreement would be the first of its kind in the nation and come after the Bush administration decided not to regulate the gases that contribute to global warming and rejected joining more than 150 other nations on the Kyoto anti-emissions treaty. Pataki, a Republican who is eyeing a 2008 presidential run, has opposed the Bush administration's actions and said states should go their own way to cut greenhouse gas emissions if the U.S. government won't act. Pataki aides did not dispute details cited in the Times report, but said not every state had signed off on every element yet. Pataki said there had been "a tremendous amount of progress" on the proposal, but both he and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney cautioned that there was still work to be done before the deal could be finished. Once a final agreement is reached by negotiators, it would be subject to approval by the legislatures of the nine states. The regional initiative would create a market-driven system to control carbon dioxide emissions from more than 600 electric generators in the nine states. Utilities that came in under their targets for emission reductions could sell their excess emissions capacity credits to other utilities. The Times said the emission controls could result in higher energy prices, possibly offset by subsidies and support for the development of new technology that would be paid for with the proceeds from the sale of emission allowances. The states in the coalition are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. The states have been trying to reduce power plant emissions in their own region and elsewhere for more than a decade. California, Washington and Oregon have begun exploring a regional agreement of their own.
Unfortunately the 9 states will uncap the greenhouse gasses over the 41 states that are not apart of the agreement.
??? They were not capped anyway, were they? The article does mention that the west coast is trying to create an agreement of their own. I think it sucks to do it state-by-state because you're putting those states at a mild competitive disadvantage (so there is disincentive to do it), but its certainly a good start. If enough states do it, maybe it will lead to a national policy.
I think you have to do it state by state. Each state has a different mix of generation sources (coal, natural gas, fuel oil, hydro, nuke, etc), and it is far more expensive to control CO2 in states that have large coal fleets. In fact the technology to control CO2 is not even proven yet and far from financially viable. The real disadvantage would come when you slapped down regulations equally on each state - the coal-heavy states would get crushed.
bigtexxx, You are concerned about the environment? I'm glad to hear that: I wish more republicans felt the same way.
Gotta agree with bigtexxx here. According to EPA (unless it's out to dupe me), coal burning in US is a lot more cleaner than other parts of the world, say, China. The emissions resulted from coal burning (in US) have largely (if not exclusively) been reduced to CO2 and H2O. If you are considering other deleterious pollutants such as NOx and SO2, CO2 is almost godly sent. So for coal rich states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia, permitting them some leeway for the CO2 emission from their coal burning facilities seems to be a sound policy, at least for now till the foreseeable future.
No, there is still plenty of NOx and SO2 emitted by coal burning power plants in the US. Of course these plants are much, much cleaner than the ones in developing countries like China or India, since I believe they are almost unregulated in terms of emissions over there. I think what the EPA is saying is that it is possible (but hugely expensive...) to almost completely eliminate NOx and SO2 by the use of things like low-NOx burners or scrubbers, both of which can be retro-fitted to existing coal plants.
I agree with that - but I think the opposite encourages the big coal producing states to put no regulations at all, because the big business in those states would win out. I think the best way is the emission-credits plan, where pollution is essentially frozen at current levels with credits. Each year, slightly fewer credits would be given out - and these credits can go on the free market. So a company that invests early in lower-emissions technologies could then profit by selling those credits to other high-polluters. High-polluters would pay a small price - which would be dependent on how many companies reduce their emissions. If no one does, the prices would be higher (encouraging more companies to reduce emissions). If more companies do that, more credits go for sale, lowering the price. Over time, you can reduce emissions while also rewarding those who try to develop those new technologies.
Yeah me too, i have to say i was a bit surprised bigtexxx had concernes about the environment, i didn't not expect that. But i'm glad you have them Seems like we agree on something
It can't be state by state for that very reason. State governments protect their own interests first. They have to. So the worse polluting states would be reluctant to reduce. They'll protect their economies ahead of all else. The only way to make meaningful reductions is through a National commitment. That way the regions that will suffer the most under such a policy, can get compensated in some other way. Otherwise, they get crushed. And why would they voluntarily do that?
I was skeptical about the pollution credit trading programs at first but it does seem very promising. If I recall Kyota sets up the structure for an international pollution trading program that already has gotten a lot of interest and some have complained that since the US withdrew out of Kyoto its cutting the US out from a very lucrative market of pollution credits trading as a way of reducing pollution.
Here's the source I was referring to: Let's be clear that I understand this USGS paper was issued in 2000, i.e., under Clinton-Gore administration, so there is no "Gale Noron/Christine Todd Whitman screwing environment conspiracy." You said "there is still plenty of NOx and SO2 emitted by coal burning power plants in the US." bigtexxx, I regard you as one of "insiders" from energy industry on this BBS. Is there something here that our government is hiding from us on the "cleaness" of coal burning in US?
