The full report from Florida's Action Team on Energy and Climate Change that we mentioned yesterday is now available. Its release was celebrated today by both business and environmental leaders in the state.
The 608-page report outlines 50 specific policy recommendations that the state should enact in order to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If all of these actions are taken, the state could reduce emissions 64 percent and save $28 billion by 2025, according to the Action Team's report. The recommendations include diversifying the state's energy supply (adding solar, wind, nuclear, and cogeneration sources), reducing energy demand (through efficiency), implementing a cap-and-trade system, and taking measures to reduce emissions in the transportation, land use, agriculture, forestry, and waste management sectors. It also outlines adaptation strategies to address the effects of climate change that are already underway.
This morning, the state Department of Environmental Protection hosted a conference call with several of Action Team members, highlighting how their plan will benefit the state. Armando Olivera, president and CEO of Florida Power & Light and a member of the action team, highlighted the economic benefits this will have for state industries.
"From the business perspective, we're setting the stage for Florida to take a leadership role, creating energy policies that really create incentives and market mechanisms to lead the way in the development of clean and renewable technologies," said Olivera. "As with any technologies, the first movers have an advantage. The recommendations of the Action Team will really help create an environment for new, clean technologies to be developed and to grow."
He also noted the economic benefits for businesses that are already in the state, including savings through efficiency, reducing the cost of reliance on fossil fuels, and generally improving the stability of the state's economy. And by putting a price on carbon now, businesses can better plan for the future, he added.
"Over time it gives businesses a very predictable cost signal," said Olivera. "Right now we're not factoring in any cost for carbon ... and there is a cost with that."
Debbie Harrison, Director of the Florida Program of the World Wildlife Fund, pointed to the need to act in order to protect the state's coastline, and thus, the tourism industry.
"Clearly, Florida has much to lose if the recommendations of this team are not implemented. Florida being a peninsular state, with 1,200 miles of coastline, it's experiencing already rising sea levels, warming ocean temperatures. We have already lost 30 percent of the coral reefs in Florida due to global warming and we're continuing to see sea levels rise -- as much as 9 inches in less than a century in Key West."
The team members pointed out that their final report far exceeds the emissions that the governor first called for in creating the team via executive order in July 2007. And, as the executive summary points out, they'd be a net gain for the state's economy.
"These recommendations, if implemented, would result in greenhouse gas emission reductions that would surpass the Governor's 2017 and 2025 emission reduction targets by 11 percent and 34 percent, respectively," says the executive summary. "Additionally, while some of the recommendations result in an overall societal cost to implement, many were identified to have an overall societal cost-savings."
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
Barcelona outcome: White House strategy is plea for more time
Comments
View as Threaded
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:50 am
16 Oct 2008
FL's cities' water managers recently began a year long planning process for the eventuality of many of their cities being under water
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/may/14/water-managers-dis ...
Ironically, or perhaps deliberately, the meeting was in Sebring, midway up the state, and the place that used to be the southern tip of FL when sea level was last at its highest.
Entities south of Sebring:
Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Lake Okeechobee, The Keys, Sanibel Island, The Everglades, the Florida Panther, x number of people....
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:23 am
16 Oct 2008
Are the ports to help businessmen export the biofuels to Europe (along with the subsidy American taxpayers donated), which sorta nullifies the energy independence argument?
Will the crop displacement effects of the biofuels be worse for global warming?
All that work and money for no net gain to society or the world (only for the politicians and businesses supporting them).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 4:17 am
18 Oct 2008
compensating Joe Homeowner (sorry) generously for clean power generated (and not used) on his home or business will offset fossil fuel use, massive, wasteful infrastructure buildouts, large-scale eminent domain, millions of acres of ecosystem destruction, and re-entrenchment of Big Energy monopolies in a renewable energy era. it will allow ratepayers/taxpayers to BENEFIT from doing the right thing by producing clean, harmless power on their properties and conserving electricity.
FITs for point of use renewables have proven to be exponentially more effective at creating conservation savings than both net metering and hiking prices, they empower the PEOPLE, they stimulate the economy (systems pay off in ~7 years of 20 year contracts), improve slumping property values, and create thousands of local skilled labor jobs, while feeding high-value "peaker power" to the grid and preventing blackouts, without raising electricity rates noticeably.
the ONLY people opposed to FITs are Big Energy shills and investors, like Bright Source investor, NRDC's Robt. Kennedy, Jr., who has been very outspoken in favor of wilderness-killing Big Solar projects, like the ones he stands to profit from, and has refused to help get FITs to help people like you and me. the CPUC has constantly railed against allowing people to produce renewable energy themselves. why? because it's "base" is the bribe-wielding utilities, not the ratepayers. strange, eh?
i've said it constantly for 2 years now: there is NO NEED TO KILL OUR WILDERNESS FOR CLEAN POWER, nor to pathetically tether ourselves to Big Energy any longer. We need FIT's, smart metering, better storage tech, and increased investment in LOCAL, POINT OF USE RENEWABLES AND CONSERVATION. let's leave our ecosystems alone, to function as they are designed to function, ok?
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink