Comments rsmith02 has made

  • Not just cash. Also staff to create and oversee programs, technical assistance and some issues that are simply not at the state level (embedded CO2 in imports, etc.) 10 states have their own cap and trade program for power plants (RGGI). Several midwestern states announced plans to create an economy wide cap and trade system. At least five states have mandatory economy-wide emissions laws and many more have greenhouse gas goals and plans. All of this would be more effective with a federal law as a backstop and with EPA-quality resoruces to help state agencies.On The real reason the climate bill is going to suck posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago 29 Responses
  • Matt, prior use claims would mean we'd have to compensate entities for essentially any form of environmental regulation which incurs costs. The Clean Air Act doesn't say that we should only reduce pollution so long as all polluters are made whole, and that if there isn't money to pay them they don't have to clean up. The atmosphere isn't the province of polluters- we share the sky. On whether ACES got the auction right, 80% of the revenue returns to the public *only* if you believe that the LDC allocation was done right and the state public utilities commissions will define consumer benefit in a way that actually returns value to ratepayers. They could possibly dump it into pet utility projects rather than rebates, for example.On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 1 month, 1 week ago 17 Responses
  • "Mr. Smith, My point is that it would be a lot harder to legislate a 100% auction if prices are expected to start out at about $15/ton (compared to $3/ton, which is where RGGI started). " Not really. RGGI states went to 100% auction before the first auction took place so there was no clear price. I think you're mistakenly thinking that auctioning allowances raises the cost to consumers. If you auctioned all allowances and rebated all the proceeds, consumers would gain or lose nothing (cap and dividend). If you invested it into not just rebates but also consumer energy efficiency (cap and invest), rates might be higher but total consumer energy costs would be lower and the CO2 price would be lower with less demand for permits. The most expensive way to go for consumers is handing out permits for free as it transfers wealth from consumers to corporate shareholders. See the distributional charts above. So high allowance prices are actually a reason to auction permits if you care about consumers.On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 1 month, 1 week ago 17 Responses
  • Mr. Johnson, the price of RGGI allowances is unrelated to the fact that they are auctioned off rather than handed to for-profit generators for free. The price reflects uncertainty about the program's future as ACES and the senate bill would suspend it until 2017, and the fact that the RGGI cap is inflated, especially with the recent decline in both electricity demand and natural gas prices which have seriously reduced power plant CO2 emissions. The low price reflects a low demand for allowances. At this point I think the best precedent from RGGI is the auction which has raised tens of millions of dollars that are now helping households and businesses cut their fossil fuel use. Read more from a top EPA official here: Hartford Courant, Former Connecticut DEP Chief Says State's Emission Auction Works http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-mccarthy1015.artoct15,0,3297819.storyOn Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 1 month, 1 week ago 17 Responses
  • "Since societies give deference to prior use claims – ie. electricity generators and industries that could previously emit for free – its reasonable that the companies would expect to be granted some allowances." Prior use is a ridiculous assertion that emitters have a right to pollute. As they do not own the atmosphere they have no such right and are entitled to no recourse. In the northeastern US, under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, states have auctioned closed to 100% of permits and reinvested the revenue in efficiency (and renewables) programs for consumers. I don't see why RGGI isn't a more direct precedent for a federal cap and trade system than the EU ETS precedent.On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 1 month, 1 week ago 17 Responses

  • It's not "mandatory."  Counseling to help face the end of life and for information to help choose one's options is a valid use of health care resources in my opinion.

    Anyway, what does this have to do with Van Jones and Green jobs?  Let's stick to the topic here.

    On Glenn Beck: Van Jones is a communist intent on, er, creating private sector jobs posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 31 Responses

  • Criminal record?  You mean like Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff?  Or like Rush Limbaugh and his drug abuse?

    "Jones was still a law student at Yale Law School at the time. While volunteering as a legal monitor during a peaceful protest following the Rodney King riots, Jones was arrested along with other legal monitors and some protesters. He and the other detainees were released no more than 4 hours after being illegally arrested and Jones was never convicted of a crime."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

    On Glenn Beck: Van Jones is a communist intent on, er, creating private sector jobs posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 31 Responses

  • What are the cost assumptions behind the nuclear estimates?  My understanding is that a lot of the costs are speculative at this time as reactors aren't being built.

    On Do you have any questions for McKinsey about their updated GHG cost curve? posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Response

  • Carbon tax- why?

    "The last time I checked, the RGGI standards were so lax they can't have any effect at all, except to provide PR cover for politicians."

    I'm not sure why in 2008 you're trashing a program put together between 2003-2005.  What was going on Federally then?  McCain-Lieberman?

    RGGI is 10 states from Maryland, not 8, and shows that when you make polluters pay for their emissions you generate revenue that can be reinvested in efficiency and clean energy programs- needed investments that cut carbon.

    What would you do with the carbon tax revenue?  

    The mechanism is simlar to cap and auction and the political problems more different- you have to argue about price rather than emissions reductions.  You still need to figure out how to reinvest the money.On Hill briefing tries to stir support for a carbon tax posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

  • This is not a memo- it is clearly satire

    At risk of being the straight man here, this is clearly and obviously satire.  There is plenty to criticize Summers about, but this just makes you look dense and humorless.

    Look up reductio ad absurdum, Jonathan Swift's modest proposal, or most episodes of the Colbert Report for other examples.On Summers receieves flack for his tactless pollution-control memo as VP of World Bank in 1991 posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

  • Not so cheap

    "Dirty-coal is cheap, and it will remain cheap for quite some time. "

    Not really.  This is what the whole NSR fight is about- old plants aren't cheap when they have to be upgraded and trigger clean air requirements.   That's what industry wants to get out of.  Sooner or later these 30-50 year old plants have to be rebuilt or retired.

    Carbon mandates can also add significant costs, especially if permits are auctioned and the plants aren't grandfathered in.

    Capital costs for new coal plants are prohibitive, and IGCC even more so.On Coal's position in the energy market is more precarious than is generally acknowledged posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 Responses

  • Truth in advertising

    Does falsely selling promises of environmental benefit (i.e. buying our credits will do anything about global warming) violate NAAG guidelines?

    www.naag.orgOn CCX sells rip-offsets posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 Responses

  • Hmm

    This link didn't work:
    http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21536/page1/

    If it's really sunlight+ water = fuel, that's great.  No need for a $10 billion+ nuke plant.On Nuke bites man posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

  • Thanks, nuke!

    Nuclear waste is our gift to future generations.  The more we give them the more responsible they will have to be in managing it, so I think of it as a way to build character in the yet-to-be-born.On Nuke bites man posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

  • good points

    I found that the .554tons CO2/MWh was ISO-NE marginal emissions rate a year or two back.

    "My math is necessarily based on today's numbers, and would reduce accordingly as we go forward.  But note that those reductions apply to all technologies across the board - after all, on a grid with more renewables, the marginal CO2 reduction of another renewable installation falls as well, at least on an average basis."

    Okay, I like that approach.  

    I think it argues for at least starting with a CA or WA-type CO2/MWh standard (they set it at 1100lbs/MWh but only for new generation or new long-term contracts) and having it decline over time.  

    I think that could work together with a cap and trade system (actual tonnage limit on CO2) and even with a RPS (forcing renewables into the mix to serve other societal objectivies- fuel diversity, etc).On How current GHG policy distorts capital allocation posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 Responses

  • Response to CHP

    Thanks Sean, very interesting comments.

    1.  "For other, more practical reasons, it is really hard to argue that even gas-fired CHP is ever a step backwards, but the larger point is that there is no reason to assume that CHP = gas."

    I'm concerned that CHP is also oil or dual fuel oil/gas.  You mention biomass/biogas, but will they scale up?  Hydrogen is at least producable from other energy sources.  It may not make sense for cars but is there a reason to use it instead of "plug-in" home heating?

    2.  The CT DEP is using .554tons CO2/MWh (1108lbs) but I can't remember if that's marginal or average CO2 emissions.  

    Now shouldn't that number go down as intermittent renewables are increasingly brought on line through regional RPS policies and other direct mandates and incentives?

    The bigger question is that if we're already close to the emissions rate for gas how will CHP get us towards the 80% by 2050 reductions we need to make?  It seems like CHP is mainly a strategy for conserving natural gas or knocking off inefficient marginal generators.On How current GHG policy distorts capital allocation posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 Responses

  • Won't CHP increase emissions?

    One question that I have is in regions where fossil fuels are already not the primary source of electricity whether natural gas-powered combined heat and power systems have a climate benefit.

    Nuclear power accounts for as much as 50% of the energy on the New England grid, which also uses lots of central station gas and which has increasing renewables mandates (20% by 2020, etc).  The result of this is that grid-average emissions are lower than that of directly combusing natural gas.

    Grid average- around .8lbs/KWh (and growing cleaner) vs 1 lb/KWh for nat. gas or 1.5lb/KWh for oil.

    So you get a drop in overall energy consumption (30%?) thanks to the efficient system that also uses waste heat but maybe small to no real reduction in GHGs (fact that grid is cleaner than gas cuts into the fact you're burning less gas)?

    Also, what is the renewable energy future for combined heat and power systems?  Hydrogen?  Will we have to bulldoze them like uncontrolled coal plants in a few decades?  What do we do with these buildings when all the gas is gone?On How current GHG policy distorts capital allocation posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 Responses

  • RGGI not so bad?

    RGGI makes power generators pay for their carbon emissions and the states have limited latitude as to how they can spend the money.  It does not go into legislative general funds as far as I'm aware.

    Most states are using it to deploy low-carbon technologies, primarily in the form of consumer energy efficiency programs and renewable energy subsidies.

    CT- 70% proceeds for efficiency, 20%+ for renewable energy
    DE- up to 65% efficiency
    ME- up to 100% efficiency
    MD- up to 100% efficiency
    MA- 80% for efficiency
    VT- 100% for efficiency

    You get the idea.On Economics of GHG reduction, part bazillion posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

  • offsets

    Some of the above commentary doesn't make sense to me.

    RGGI= 25MW or greater generation, period.  So far, RGGI only has a few categories of offsets and none are power sector-related, and I don't think that would be allowed.  

    RGGI's price is a little over $3/ton, so I doubt offsets will be terribly attractive anyway.

    I'm not sure if the state by state differences matter a lot as carbon is tradeable throughout the 10 state region.  A ton is a ton is a ton.  The important thing is that the system as a whole is overallocated as actual emissions are lower than expected.

    The best news is that almost all allowances are getting auctioned so whoever needs them gets to pay for the privilege. On Pulitzers await the enterprising journalist who digs into the RGGI efficiency story posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses

  • crystal is aluminum

    The crystal has Potassium Alum which is also known as POTASSIUM ALUMINIUM SULFATE

    Here's a MSDS:
    http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Aluminum_potassium_sulfat ...

    It looks like an irritant but nothing beyond that is listed.On Making a stink about green(ish) deodorants posted 1 year, 3 months ago 36 Responses

  • Funny

    " blocking consideration of needed legislation, because the vote might make Nancy Pelosi fly into a rage and disappear in a cloud of sulphurous smoke"

    Sulphurous smoke sounds like the Republican energy plan so I don't blame anyone for blocking it.  We need coastal drilling like our beaches need a coating of oil.On How much does it take to buy a protest on the floor of the House? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

  • Auction?

    Will allowances be auctioned and will revenue be used for efficiency or to mainstream clean tech?On Los Angeles utility starts to squawk as it stares down a $700 million carbon bill posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

  • Shallow or real?

    "While it's great to know that a large majority of Americans want to at least temporarily ban new coal plants, this reminds me of other environmental issues: broad support, but very shallow. "

    Environmentalism isn't synonymous with sacrifice, except to certain eco-machocists who think it is and then decry the state of the world when others, unsurprisingly, aren't eager to embrace deprivation.

    Using a clothes line isn't a sacrifice- it takes slightly longer but my towels come out smelling better.

    Using a CFL lightbulb isn't a sacrifice.

    Paying a few bucks a month so the power plants have scrubbers isn't a sacrifice- not being able to breathe is the sacrifice.

    Unplugging appliances isn't a sacrifice, just a habit.On Poll shows 86 percent of public wants a five-year halt on new coal plants posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

  • paleocon?

    What does nuclear winter (or power) have to do with the article?On The Freakonomists weigh in on the effects of warming posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

  • ACCCE

    Hmm.  David from ACCCE sounds very interested in new coal technologies.

    How is Futuregen coming?

    "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity's Web site. As you might have guessed, we are pro-coal and proud of it. Not only does coal keep America's lights on, it keeps everything else that needs electricity running"
    http://www.cleancoalusa.org/On Poll shows 86 percent of public wants a five-year halt on new coal plants posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

  • RGGI in CT

    The good news is that it looks like the auction stays intact- generators still must pay for each ton of their CO2 pollution.  The debate is really between "cap and dividend" and using auction money for consumer efficiency programs.  Only problem- state law doesn't provide for a rebate approach.

    Here's the release from the website of state environmental groups:

    Clean Water Action - Environment Connecticut- Environment Northeast

    Governor Rell Plays Politics With Global Warming
    Changes Demanded by Governor Hurt Consumers, Undermine Global Warming Pollution Cuts, Contradict State Law

    July 7, 2008

    Hartford - Environmental groups denounced Governor Rell's decision to attempt to alter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) global warming regulations which she had already submitted for final approval to the legislature's Regulation Review committee. RGGI is a regional agreement creating a cap and trade program for global warming pollution emitted from power plants in Connecticut and other Northeastern states. Implementing RGGI is a critical step towards achieving the mandatory global warming pollution cuts the Governor signed into law in June.

    Governor Rell's Comic "Relief" Proposal Harms Consumers
    Governor Rell's decision to try to alter the RGGI global warming regulations at the 11th hour threatens to delay Connecticut's participation in the cap and trade program to cut power plant emissions and divert funding away from programs that help consumers and businesses cut electric bills through efficiency and clean energy investments.  Increases in electricity rates are primarily driven by increases in the price of fossil fuels, so policies to reduce fossil fuel demand benefit both consumers and the environment.  

    "Every dollar diverted from efficiency programs under the governor's scheme ultimately costs consumers four dollars on their electricity bills. We estimate the "rate relief rebates" proposed by Governor Rell would save the average homeowner about $2.70 a year on their electric bill for every dollar that a ton of carbon exceeds the $5.00 threshold," stated Jessie Stratton, Director of Government Relations for ENE (Environment Northeast).

    Governor Threatens Funding for Consumer Energy Efficiency Programs
    As a result of soaring consumer demand for existing energy efficiency programs  CL&P faces a $20 million shortfall which has required them to institute a waiting list for the popular free Home Energy Solutions program and put business programs on hold for the year. The Governor's proposal would divert money away from these programs that cut electric bills for Connecticut's families.

    "It's ironic that under the guise of helping consumers, Governor Rell would be robbing popular consumer energy efficiency programs of much-needed funding.  I think we can do a lot more to help consumers than giving them a rebate that won't even pay for the stamp on their electric bill.  With electricity prices high we need solutions that solve the problem and get us off of fossil fuels, not political posturing," said Roger Smith, Campaign Director for Clean Water Action.

    The Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund's (ctsavesenergy.org) Home Energy Solutions program provides residential customers with free in-home energy assessments that include weatherization help, rebates on insulation and EnergyStar appliances, and free compact fluorescent lightbulbs. Revenues from the RGGI auction can make these programs available to more customers and save them far more than any potential rebate.

    "When the legislature required power generators to pay for their pollution there was a reason they directed the proceeds towards permanent lasting relief to consumers, rather than symbolic one-time rebates," Christopher Phelps, Program Director for Environment Connecticut.  "We need to invest in energy efficiency and clean energy to cut our electric bills and reduce global warming pollution."

    Governor Rell Ignores Law, Circumvents Process
    In a radical departure from ordinary procedures, at the 11th hour the governor issued a letter demanding that the Department of Environmental Protection rewrite their global warming regulation in a manner inconsistent with existing state law and submit it to the Regulation Review committee - possibly bypassing the normally required approval of the Attorney General.  Current law specifically mandates that revenue from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative be used for four purposes: energy efficiency programs, renewable energy investments, demand side management programs and the administrative cost of running the climate programs.

    "Governor Rell's DEP already issued global warming power plant regulations that are consistent with state law after holding public hearings and accepting public comments.  The Regulation Review committee should reject these last minute and illegal changes and adopt the regulations submitted by the Department of Environmental protection before political interference," said Smith.

    "The Governor's proposal takes money away from programs that cut consumers electric bills and give rebates barely worth the price of a cup of coffee to Connecticut's families. That's not rate relief, it's a bait-and-switch," said Phelps.  "The Governor should stop playing politics with global warming and support the regulations she originally submitted to cut global warming pollution while also investing in the energy efficiency and clean energy programs Connecticut needs to secure a clean, affordable energy future."

    ###

    For reference, the full text of Public Act 07-242 related to the Regional Greenhouse gas Initiative (Sec. 93):
    http://cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/PA/2007PA-00242-R00HB-07432-PA ...

    CT Energy Efficiency Fund: www.ctsavesenergy.org
    On Connecticut wants to hide carbon prices posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

  • settlement

    "How would the settlement be doled out? That's another sticky question."

    The settlement could just be pollution reductions.  That's what the Attorney Generals are seeking in a nuisance lawsuit against the US's biggest coal plant owners.On Suing energy companies for global warming damages posted 1 year, 6 months ago 10 Responses

  • more questions

    Hi Sean,
    Would you be willing to comment more on 1992 EPACT and FERC Order 888 and why utilities didn't build coal even though they could rate-base it?  Why did the coal boom only start up in the past few years.On Big increases coming in electric costs posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

  • Dereg question

    Sean on dereg:
    "Thus, much of the price increase that has happened in those states was the result of the fact that they were exposed to natural gas price volatility (which has nothing to do with electric dereg) rather than deregulation per se - and for the same reason, those states had higher prices before they ever deregulated"

    But isn't the exposure to natural gas prices the fault of the structure of dereg itself?  Under ISO New England, the last and most expensive generator called for power sets the price for every other generator.  As I understand it the spot market price also sets the backstop for what generators will bid in- the higher it goes, the higher contract prices go.

    Instead of paying the average cost of a power portfolio in the old cost of service regime  we end up paying spot market prices for gas and nuke and coal plants bid not at cost of production but high enough so that they'll get called to run.

    New England is heavy on paid for or largely paid for nukes.  Connecticut's kWh is about half nuclear but yet generation is about $.12/kWh and delivered residential rates are close to $.18/kWh.

    The good news about dereg is that it brought a lot of new, efficient gas generation on line and ancient oil fired units are now only used for capacity and should get retired as new peaking capacity is built.On Big increases coming in electric costs posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

  • Experimenty

    "Design a simple experiment to show that increased global temperatures are dependent on increased levels of CO2 generated by people."

    Remember this is a politics, not a science textbook (no cynics, they are not the same thing perhaps excepting Pat Michaels' advocacy science).

    There's actually a simple experiment using a ball-sized "model earth" taking place at Wesleyan University at the moment just very simply looking at CO2 with a constant energy input and seeing what temperatures do.  We'll see what it shows.On Student charges that textbook downplays climate change posted 1 year, 7 months ago 12 Responses

  • RGGI

    "Let's assume that carbon costs $7 per ton. This isn't an arbitrary figure -- it's the price cap baked into the carbon legislation coming online soon in the northeastern states.

    This isn't right.  At $7 more offsets are allowed into RGGi which should put downward pressure on the allowance price, but it isn't an actual cap.

    If you're looking for dimmable CFLs, 3 ways, floods, outdoor lights, etc go to

    http://www.energyfederation.org/consumer/default.phpOn Have you been naughty with your light bulbs? You need some good old command and control. posted 1 year, 9 months ago 33 Responses

  • Diesel construction equipment

    There is an ability to electrify heavy duty construction equipment which today runs on diesel.  I believe this is the direction Sweeden (one of those countries) is going in.  

    It takes care of the local pollution problem as well, which is a nice bonus.On Plug-in hybrids and electric cars: A core climate solution, nationally and globally posted 1 year, 10 months ago 10 Responses

  • Coal performance standard

    "It seems that there might be a related argument about what policies the environmental community should endorse, specifically whether "kill coal now" or "no coal that isn't IGCC" is the appropriate position.

    Although I hate coal, I favor the second position.  First of all, as a more moderate position, it is likely to be perceived as more reasonable, less fringe, and more palatable.  So it's more likely to be picked up and endorsed by a broader constituency."

    I would think that kill coal without sequestration is a better way to go.  IGCC without storage is not really an improvement over a normal modern coal plant from a carbon perspective and a huge step backwards from natural gas.  Emissions performance standards in California and Washington states are a fair way to level the playing field- we don't care what kind of plant you are but you have to emit less than 1100 lbs/MWH of carbon dioxide.

    CO2 from IGCC and pulverized coal can both likely be sequestered- the former costs more now and the latter costs more later.  From an air emissions standpoint IGCC is preferable, however.On There are some compelling reasons to focus on cleaning up rather than abandoning coal posted 2 years ago 14 Responses

  • Reject the plant

    "I wouldn't hold out too much hope that the environmental regulators would reject on economic grounds - not their mandate."

    No, they should reject it on environmental grounds for its massive CO2 pollution, probably in the range of 5 million tons a year.On Duke wins approval for a $3100/kW plant posted 2 years ago 26 Responses

  • On the margin

    I think this question of what's on the margin is really important and would like to see more discussion of this.

    On a given day would increased demand translate to dirtier or cleaner energy use?  Could plug-in owners be required to have time-of-use metering to encourage them to charge off peak?

    Generally coal is not on the margin (plants produces at fairly fixed capacity and can't easily be ramped up and down), but sources like natural gas are and can quickly be turned off and on.

    Whether a shift from oil to electricity would get new plants built is a question.  If plug-ins are charged off-peak, I can't see how power plants which are used to very high daily loads would be stressed by moderate increases at night.  You might just fire up some gas plants that would otherwise be idle.  Wind also tends to run at night and can't be ramped up and down like gas, so I'd think you'd see wind/coal/nukes powering plug-ins.  

    Does that seem right?On The debate on plug-ins begins posted 2 years ago 12 Responses

  • some data

    "I just wrote somewhere else that unplugging devices is a drop in the bucket in the big picture and that NOT USING products has a higher impact. I am surprised to find those high numbers here. I may have to revise my thinking."

    I have a Kill A watt device to measure energy consumption.  Devices like my cell phone charger and toothbrush consume about $.50/month in electricity.  My EnergyStar TV and stereo when off use about $3.50/month if left plugged in when off.  A computer and CRT monitor running 24/7 use about $11 in power per month.  A vending machine (basically a refrigerator) in my office building eats about $71 per month in electricity.

    Based on this I think you can conclude it's worth turning off devices like computers and TVs at the power strip as the amount of power they consume is significant, choose an EnergyStar refrigerator, and not worry too much about toothbrushes and the like.  On Umbra on power strips posted 2 years ago 13 Responses

  • This Email sounds like support?

    The way this fundraising appeal from ED is written it led me to believe they were supporting the bill and it's a great step forward:

    "Yesterday, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) introduced a comprehensive global warming bill that sets the stage for Senate action this fall.

    Help us seize the momentum and pass a strong bill to cap and reduce America's global warming pollution. Please make an urgent gift to support our Operation: Climate Vote campaign.

    The America Climate Security Act would establish a mandatory cap to dramatically reduce global warming pollution from the electric utility, oil and manufacturing industries, while at the same time protecting the economy and American consumers.

    It already has broad bipartisan support - furthering its potential to pass the Senate. Our job over the next few weeks is to protect and strengthen the bill - including, among other things, total emissions reductions - and work with members of Congress to pass it this year.

    Time is very short. Congress is planning to recess for the holidays in just a few weeks.

    Your gift enables us to keep the pressure on Congress.

    The timing couldn't be any more critical. Our supporters and staff have been working all year to make global warming legislation a reality.

    In October alone:
    50,000 online activists have sent emails to Congress.
    Hundreds more have called the House and Senate leadership to urge action.
    We've got on-the-ground organizers working in a dozen critical states.
    We've maintained constant contact with key legislative offices on Capitol Hill.
    Our work is paying off. With the introduction of the American Climate Security Act and with all the political momentum you've helped generate, we're closer than we've ever been to passing effective global warming legislation.

    We need your support to get a strong bill out of committee and onto the Senate floor before Congress leaves Washington. Please make a gift today.  

    Thank you for supporting our work. We'll keep you fully updated on the bill's progress in the coming weeks.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Cochran
    Environmental Defense Action Fund
    On Environmental Defense responds on Lieberman-Warner support posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

  • Taxes or emissions cuts?

    I don't see how taxation will achieve particular levels of emissions cuts.  

    The goal is emissions reductions- so do you set the tax at X level that roughly puts us on the desired emissions trajectory and is regularly tweaked to keep us on the right path?  Without that mechanism it seems that taxation levels may not work at all as intended as others wrote above that price elasticity re: carbon is only roughly understood.

    I'm also highly skeptical that trading carbon tax revenue for income tax revenue will enable us to meet our climate goals.  If we don't pour money into R&D, weatherization programs, new mass transit, etc, we may be left with people just paying the "tax" in the form of gasoline and home heating fuels as they have no other option and the market has failed them.On Big Green savages Dingell's carbon tax posted 2 years, 1 month ago 26 Responses

  • lawyers and wonks

    " I fully understand that having good people in office and maintaining pressure on them might after a decade or two start to reform the incredibly pro-development political, social, economic, and legal structures  that are in place, but in the meantime there's nothing that been as effective as simply suing the bastards and winning."

    That only works if you have the laws in place that somebody passed enabling you to sue.  Global warming, sprawl/zoning, etc- I doubt it.  

    My guess is that in your situation you're using the courts to enforce social change without a social support structure behind you to back it up (created through organizing).  This may be where the hysteria over "activist judges," comes from.  
    It sounds like you're stuck fighting the ugly "wise-use" land battles chronicled in books like "The War Against the Greens."  

    For organizers overcoming hatred in their communities and ultimately prevailing look to the civil rights movement and the labor movement-two of the inspirations for Green Corps, from the board members to readings for organizers.

    Roger Smith
    Green Corps 2002
    Clean Water Action CT  On How should the environmental movement spend its money? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

  • New article not that upsetting

    The above poster's website concludes:
    "What about accepting that the atmosphere is not ours to fill with greenhouse gases and then just agreeing not to fill it with greenhouse gases? Wouldn't that be a good idea? "

    Sure it's a good idea and a cap system is simply the mechanism to achieve this by creating scarcity by turning CO2 into finite property- permits.  

    There's nothing expressly stopping you from both doing "contraction and convergence" internationally and cap and trade to regulate US emissions.On Dingell endorses a cap-and-trade climate plan posted 2 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

  • Not impressed

    "2005?

    That's like the 1820's at the rate of progress in hydrogen generation technology."

    Are you even attempting to convince anyone of your point of view?  I'm not impressed with your comments on the Prius or hydrogen.  Try citing some sources to support your argument.On Prius easily beats Hummer in lifecycle energy use; 'Dust to Dust' report has no basis in fact posted 2 years, 3 months ago 15 Responses

  • Fact check

    Actually CT preceeded New York as it passed a GHG labeling law in 2006.  http://cfenv.org/air/cars/index.htmOn Test Drive posted 2 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

  • disagree in CT

    Having seen the report in question (NBC News) I have to respectfully disagree with Umbra and the NOAA rep as I do not believe what the NOAA scientist said was scientifically accurate.  NBC actually did a follow up piece on this which contradicted their earlier story and did not rule out the role of global warming.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16531081/

    The problem ...

    NOAA's website doesn't rule out a link (and their leadership has been very reluctant to even acknowledge the debate over global warming and El Nino/hurricaine strength)

    "What is the relationship between El Niño/La Niña and global warming?  The jury is still out on this. Are we likely to see more El Niño's because of global warming? Will they be more intense? These are questions facing the science community today. Research will help us separate the natural climate variability from any trends due to man's activities. If we cannot sort out what the natural variability does, then we cannot identify the "fingerprint" of global warming. We also need to look at the link between decadal changes in natural variability and global warming. At this time we cannot preclude the possibility of links but it is too early to say thereis a definite link."
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring...On Umbra on trusting scientists posted 2 years, 10 months ago 9 Responses

  • Why not mandate it?

    "That is, utility executives are not the kinds of people who want to go to the board and say "Let's not build a $2 billion nuke or coal plant and name it after me.  Instead, let's invest that same $2 billion in insulating houses and in reducing the demand for our product.""

    What is stopping us from mandating that utilities have to invest in cheaper efficiency first?  Rhode Island, Maine and California are going down this path.On Talking point: The environmentalist yes posted 3 years, 3 months ago 13 Responses

  • Drive clean

    My pleasure.  You're fortunate to live in CA and have all of these cleaner vehicle choices.  It will be a couple of years before we get these cars in Connecticut.

    Driveclean is a good website:
    http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/driveclean/vtype_clean...

    I hope Umbra reads this thread.On Umbra on car trade-ins posted 3 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

  • Another resource

    The EPA also has a Green cars guide.  It seems a bit less sophisticated than the other site.

    Here's my 2000 Civic (first result)
    http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-HONDA-Civic-00.htm

    Here's a new 2006 Civic Hybrid:
    http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-HONDA-CivicHybrid-06.h...On Umbra on car trade-ins posted 3 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

  • gross polluters

    Hi Renee,
    We're not trying to wound you.  I too care about these issues as I work on global warming and air quality, although my specialty isn't transportation.

    Emissions standards have gotten progressively stronger over the last decade, with the newer California standards being quite stringent.  Your 1988 car doesn't meet any of these modern standards.

    The form of pollution you looked at, global warming-causing carbon dioxide, is directly correlated to fuel economy.  Again, a Model T or '73 bug might have great global warming emissions because of good fuel economy, but that doesn't mean their overall environmental impact is reasonable, especially in a place like California with serious air quality problems.

    "Gross polluter" might be harsh, but here's what I found on the site I linked to above:
    http://www.ewg.org/sites/asthmaindex/rate/report_old.php?...

    "The 1988 Honda Civic emits 88 times more harmful volatile organic compounds that threaten the health of asthma sufferers than the 2000 Mercedes-Benz SL500 (the cleanest 1985-2000 small car).."

    88 times!  My 2000 Honda Civic is "only" 6 times worse according to the site based on Smog Check data.  Not good if you have a smog problem...

    I made some guesses about your car for the site above, feel free to correct it.

    Here's your car versus mine:
    http://www.ewg.org/sites/asthmaindex/rate/compareresults....

    I'd rather have a 2006 PZEV, but my car is reasonably low-polluting and I try not to drive it.On Umbra on car trade-ins posted 3 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

  • Good idea

    As a CT resident, this strikes me as a reasonable proposition.  Except the part about building a wind farm, as we don't have much wind potential.On Pombo's staff v. Connecticut posted 3 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

  • Drive them until they drop?

    "If you're getting a new car, it had better be pretty freaking efficient to warrant using that (extra) 4 tons of carbon."

    Even if that's true, is carbon dioxide the only pollutant we should be concerned about?  Health-harming, ozone-forming nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (from gasoline, not paint) and other pollutants are also important to me.  

    By your logic we should be driving Chevy Novas, the original Civics, VW Rabbits or other fuel-efficient cars, rebuilding them piece by piece (how much carbon is used to make replacement parts?) until they completely die.  In the meantime they will put out ridiculous amounts of air pollution.

    Here's my new car (2000 Civic) versus my old car (1989 Voyager).  You can use this site to check out other cars as well.
    http://www.ewg.org/sites/asthmaindex/rate/compareresults.php?milage_id=EWG018...
    On Umbra on car trade-ins posted 3 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

  • 18 years old is dirty

    "You have a great car already, from an environmental standpoint, so there's no need for me to encourage you to downsize or upgrade"

    How can an 18 year old gross polluter of a car be considered great?  It doesn't meet normal modern emissions standards let alone being better than a SULEV hybrid or a PZEV car. The worst cars on the road are like the little VW Beetles that are fuel efficient but horribly polluting.  You'd be better off on a Hummer.

    Upgrade to a newer Civic and we'll all breathe easier.On Umbra on car trade-ins posted 3 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

  • Facts wrong

    It's unfortunate Clean Water Action's field canvass was listed above with this caricature.  

    Activists we identify at the door (people who want to do more than give money) end up on my desk (I'm campaign staff, not canvass staff) and are personally invited to lobby their legislators at the state capitol, to come to a grassroots citizen meeting, or to otherwise take action.  At the door, potential supporters are asked to donate and also to write a letter which we pick up the same night.  This goes a long way towards helping citizens influence their political officials.  Giving money is also essential as it sustains the operation, but the real purpose of canvassing and membership building isn't raising money, but raising public awareness and building a political base.

    We don't canvass based on polls- we canvass to augment the organizing of our staff on issues like global warming and chemical pollution.

    www.cleanwateraction.org/ct/ On Why green-group canvassing operations need an overhaul posted 3 years, 6 months ago 28 Responses

  • Negative Net CO2 disbenefit

    I would be wary about touting the climate benefits of biodiesel, particularly biodiesel from soy.  While the biodiesel itself may be climate neutral (closed loop as others said above), this ignores the fossil fuel inputs used to grow, transport, and process the soy.

    Mark Delucchi at the University of California found that while biodiesel had a postive energy balance, it had a 100% negative net greenhouse gas emissions impact.  This means you'd be better off burning straight diesel.  Until this is sorted out I wouldn't make the global warming case for biodiesel or take the above USDA or DOE studies as the final word (DOE and Clean Cities has promoting alternative fuels as part of their mission- kind of like the old AEC and nuclear power plants).

    Read it for yourself:
     http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi/On Biodiesel: The slippery facts posted 3 years, 7 months ago 37 Responses