I don't believe that some people really understand that the plan is not to change our economic engine, it is to control it. Well meaning educated people can not get their mind around the fact that this has very little to do with environmentalism or protecting the planet, it is about control, plain and simple.
from Bridges
Obama’s Climate Policy: A Work in Progress
....But what has gone largely unmentioned thus far in the emerging debate over cap and trade is the fact that the Obama Administration's goal of reducing US emissions by 14 percent from their 2005 values by 2020 (to about 5.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year) is almost certainly unachievable without compromising economic growth. Policy makers, to be sure, won't trade emissions reductions for economic growth. Thus, with cap and trade, the Obama Administration runs the risk of establishing an enormously complex new program that does many things - but appreciably reducing emissions will not be among them.
Here is the reason, and emissions math is not complicated: According to the US Energy Information Agency (EIA), in 2007 the US generated nearly 6 gigatons of US carbon dioxide emissions from three fossil fuels: coal, natural gas, and petroleum. Each of these fuels, plus renewables and nuclear power, contributed to the total national energy consumption, which in 2007 was 101.4 "quads" (a quadrillion British Thermal Units). The EIA projects that the US will need 108.6 quads of energy in 2020.
To supply this much energy in 2020, while meeting a target of 14 percent reduction in emissions, is highly unlikely. Consider that the target could be reached if coal consumption were reduced by about 42 percent, being replaced by renewables plus nuclear energy. But this would imply more than a doubling of the supply of renewable plus nuclear energy. Due to the challenges faced in establishing new nuclear plants, this alone seems impossible to achieve in the next 10 years. However, scaling up renewables may be even more daunting. If we assume that the nuclear power supply doubles between now and 2020, wind and solar would have to increase their role in supply 80-fold over current values to make up the difference. The Obama Administration's goal of doubling wind, solar, and biofuels production in three years may indeed be a worthwhile policy - but it is not compatible with a goal of displacing sufficient coal to reach the 2020 target.
What about reducing energy use? To meet the 2020 target through efficiency gains, energy consumption would have to be about 85.5 quads in 2020, or about equal to 1992 values when the US economy was 35 percent smaller. This represents a reduction of about 2 quads per year in US energy use over the next decade. Assuming that policy makers and citizens want economic growth to resume, this is a Herculean task....
Obama’s Climate Policy: A Work in Progress
....But what has gone largely unmentioned thus far in the emerging debate over cap and trade is the fact that the Obama Administration's goal of reducing US emissions by 14 percent from their 2005 values by 2020 (to about 5.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year) is almost certainly unachievable without compromising economic growth. Policy makers, to be sure, won't trade emissions reductions for economic growth. Thus, with cap and trade, the Obama Administration runs the risk of establishing an enormously complex new program that does many things - but appreciably reducing emissions will not be among them.
Here is the reason, and emissions math is not complicated: According to the US Energy Information Agency (EIA), in 2007 the US generated nearly 6 gigatons of US carbon dioxide emissions from three fossil fuels: coal, natural gas, and petroleum. Each of these fuels, plus renewables and nuclear power, contributed to the total national energy consumption, which in 2007 was 101.4 "quads" (a quadrillion British Thermal Units). The EIA projects that the US will need 108.6 quads of energy in 2020.
To supply this much energy in 2020, while meeting a target of 14 percent reduction in emissions, is highly unlikely. Consider that the target could be reached if coal consumption were reduced by about 42 percent, being replaced by renewables plus nuclear energy. But this would imply more than a doubling of the supply of renewable plus nuclear energy. Due to the challenges faced in establishing new nuclear plants, this alone seems impossible to achieve in the next 10 years. However, scaling up renewables may be even more daunting. If we assume that the nuclear power supply doubles between now and 2020, wind and solar would have to increase their role in supply 80-fold over current values to make up the difference. The Obama Administration's goal of doubling wind, solar, and biofuels production in three years may indeed be a worthwhile policy - but it is not compatible with a goal of displacing sufficient coal to reach the 2020 target.
What about reducing energy use? To meet the 2020 target through efficiency gains, energy consumption would have to be about 85.5 quads in 2020, or about equal to 1992 values when the US economy was 35 percent smaller. This represents a reduction of about 2 quads per year in US energy use over the next decade. Assuming that policy makers and citizens want economic growth to resume, this is a Herculean task....
No comments:
Post a Comment