Comments kwhilden has made

  • David,

    I'm glad you caught on to the brilliance of the Waxman-Markey bill which combines Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) with Carbon Cap-and-Trade. One of the major problems in the carbon regulation debate (and in carbon market design) is an 'arms-length' treatment of EERE, which is by far the most cost-effective carbon reduction available. By my calculations, from any EERE project, the value of saved energy is 10x more valuable than the value of the saved carbon. The EERE goals in the bill are very ambitious, which will ensure that the overall cost to society is minimized while making the polluters immediately reduce emissions.

    I disagree with the standard "offsets are bad" opinion that is promulgated here. Offsets expand the reach of the Carbon Cap, because they generate carbon reductions not required inside the cap. This is good. Also, offsets lower the overall cost of the carbon cap... by up to  50-75%.

    There are some problems with offsets that need to be fixed, such as the transparency, speed, effectiveness, and cost of the evaluation/verification cycle. It is the extreme difficulty in which offsets are verified that generates the majority of mistrust by the general public. If it can be proven more transparently that offsets generate *real* carbon reductions, then they absolutely help solve the carbon problem, while reducing overall costs. Is there anything wrong with that?


    Kevin Whilden

     

     

     

     

    On Energy portions of Waxman/Markey compensate (in part) for carbon weaknesses posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

  • Most recent science is more positive

    In 2007, two very positive papers on iron fertilization came out. Boyd (Nature) and Buesseler (Science) demonstrated that phytoplankton blooms can cause significant carbon export to the deep ocean. It's interesting to note that the most recent paper cited by SOLAS came from 2005. Iron fertilization is a "hot" topic in oceanography these days, so expect a rapid increase in the state of knowledge about the process. SOLAS does mention that this is necessary.

    Another interesting paper came out in Science last week, which demonstrated that mineral dust from melting icebergs has significant biologic benefits on the local food chain. Apparently, mineral dust lands on ice as it forms high on the Antarctic continent. When that ice eventually melts as an iceberg, this dust is released and stimulates the local plankton because of the beneficial effects of iron.  The krill eat the plankton, and also increase in numbers, which feeds everything that eats krill (fish, baleen whales). The paper noticed an increased population of birds around the bergs, which eat the fish. This is discussed in Time magazine this week:
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647451, ...

    According to this study, it sure seems like natural iron fertilization has positive effects on the food chain in the antarctic, and I think that humans could figure out beneficial ways to stimulate it as a way to solve global warming. It's not the only solution, but it sure seems like a natural one that can be applied in parallel with energy efficiency and renewable energy.
    On Smacking down a bad idea posted 2 years, 4 months ago 5 Responses