<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Excellent National Wildlife Federation summary and “Toolbox Assessment” of Waxman-Markey]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by ngapsis http://www.grist.org/article/excellent-national-wildlife-federation-summary-and-toolbox-assessment-of-wa/ Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:56:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/excellent-national-wildlife-federation-summary-and-toolbox-assessment-of-wa/1 "76% of ACES’ allowances from 2012-2030 are used for clean, green and fair climate solutions that serve the public interest…About 40% of allowances are auctioned federally or by states in 2012, growing to about 80% by 2030."

uhh, what? if electric utilities and merchant coal get 35% of the allowances AND natural gas gets 9%, how can 76% been given to clean, green, fair climate solutions (35+9=44; 100-44=56%)? also, 4.1% of allowances are allocated for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. CCS is a half-assed means of  greewashing dirty, inefficient coal. 

go here, read who/what get the allowances for yourself:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090515/allowanceallocation.pdf

 

 

]]> "76% of ACES’ allowances from 2012-2030 are used for clean, green and fair climate solutions that serve the public interest…About 40% of allowances are auctioned federally or by states in 2012, growing to about 80% by 2030."

uhh, what? if electric utilities and merchant coal get 35% of the allowances AND natural gas gets 9%, how can 76% been given to clean, green, fair climate solutions (35+9=44; 100-44=56%)? also, 4.1% of allowances are allocated for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. CCS is a half-assed means of  greewashing dirty, inefficient coal. 

go here, read who/what get the allowances for yourself:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090515/allowanceallocation.pdf

 

 

]]> Comment #2 by ngapsis http://www.grist.org/article/excellent-national-wildlife-federation-summary-and-toolbox-assessment-of-wa/ Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:33:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/excellent-national-wildlife-federation-summary-and-toolbox-assessment-of-wa/2 Title I, Subtitle A, Sec. 610, which details COMBINED EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARDs, details how Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) are given to utilities and companies "based on the proportion of the electricity that is attributable to the renewable energy resource or other qualifying energy resource…" (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:406).

what exactly are the "other qualifying energy resources"? landfil gas, wastewater treatment gas, coal mine methane, and other qualified waste-to-energy resources. if you can use these, which already occur, for  generating energy, awesome.

but what are "other qualified waste to energy resources"?  the bill defines it as "energy from the combustion of municipal solid waste or construction, demolition, or disaster debris, or from the gasification or pyrolization of such waste or debris and the combustion of the resulting gas at the same facility…"(http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:313).

so, burning trash is a renewable source of energy now? yeah, it's abundant, but burning it is definitely NOT helping to lower emissions. i may be knit picking parts out of this bill but this is obviously a concession to trash incineration. this bill still needs work .  

 

 

]]> Title I, Subtitle A, Sec. 610, which details COMBINED EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARDs, details how Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) are given to utilities and companies "based on the proportion of the electricity that is attributable to the renewable energy resource or other qualifying energy resource…" (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:406).

what exactly are the "other qualifying energy resources"? landfil gas, wastewater treatment gas, coal mine methane, and other qualified waste-to-energy resources. if you can use these, which already occur, for  generating energy, awesome.

but what are "other qualified waste to energy resources"?  the bill defines it as "energy from the combustion of municipal solid waste or construction, demolition, or disaster debris, or from the gasification or pyrolization of such waste or debris and the combustion of the resulting gas at the same facility…"(http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:313).

so, burning trash is a renewable source of energy now? yeah, it's abundant, but burning it is definitely NOT helping to lower emissions. i may be knit picking parts out of this bill but this is obviously a concession to trash incineration. this bill still needs work .  

 

 

]]> Comment #3 by ShellyT http://www.grist.org/article/excellent-national-wildlife-federation-summary-and-toolbox-assessment-of-wa/ Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:18:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/excellent-national-wildlife-federation-summary-and-toolbox-assessment-of-wa/3 "National Wildlife Federation (NWF) believes that passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act is one of the most important legislative efforts of our time. The legislation combines a clean energy plan, an energy efficiency plan, and a global warming plan that will create millions of new clean energy jobs,"

That paragraph is a big tip-off that reducing emissions to try to stop climate change is not the purpose of this bill. What we need is a bill that has reducing emissions as its main purpose.  This all-encompassing approach just leads to everything being watered down. I think this bill should be opposed unless it is greatly strengthened in numerous ways and unless it will meet the goals set by science in reducing emissions.  We are in a climate crisis and this is a much too lazy approach for a crisis.

"ACES reduces global warming pollution significantly. ACES is a ‘fork in the road’ that puts the U.S. on a new pathway of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The pollution reductions in ACES by the year 2020 are equivalent to eliminating the pollution from 500 million cars—half the number of vehicles expected in the world in 2020 (see p. 8)."

 

Not according to what I have read!   ACES probably won't reduce any emissions pollution until 2027 due to offsets  and extra offsets and allowances.  And what difference will some moderate pollution reductions by 2020 make if they are not enough to stop tipping points?  After that, it's all over, folks.  Steven Chu thinks we are headed for 550 ppm and if this bill doesn't address that seriously, and it doesn't, then it's not enough. This bill has become a joke.

We need a tax on carbon ASAP and dividends to every American citizen from the big polluters.  How is that complicated?  We need a much more serious approach to this like closing down coal plants as soon as possible, a plan for that, not some ridiculous dreamy pursuit of CCS.  CCS won't work.  We need money for research and development for solar panels and batteries, not some  carbon trading market.

It's like politicians don't even know what climate change is, or don't care.  Do they want civilization to survive, or not?  I think members of Congress must have the keys to some self-sufficient biodome somewhere where they can survive climate change while the rest of us fry.  Who doubts that?  We're expendable!  "Give 'em a  nice little cap and trade bill so they think we're doing something .... "


If we take this bill to Copenhagen, the world is not going to be happy with us.  We need to do a lot better than this.  Congress, wake up! We're on to you!


]]> "National Wildlife Federation (NWF) believes that passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act is one of the most important legislative efforts of our time. The legislation combines a clean energy plan, an energy efficiency plan, and a global warming plan that will create millions of new clean energy jobs,"

That paragraph is a big tip-off that reducing emissions to try to stop climate change is not the purpose of this bill. What we need is a bill that has reducing emissions as its main purpose.  This all-encompassing approach just leads to everything being watered down. I think this bill should be opposed unless it is greatly strengthened in numerous ways and unless it will meet the goals set by science in reducing emissions.  We are in a climate crisis and this is a much too lazy approach for a crisis.

"ACES reduces global warming pollution significantly. ACES is a ‘fork in the road’ that puts the U.S. on a new pathway of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The pollution reductions in ACES by the year 2020 are equivalent to eliminating the pollution from 500 million cars—half the number of vehicles expected in the world in 2020 (see p. 8)."

 

Not according to what I have read!   ACES probably won't reduce any emissions pollution until 2027 due to offsets  and extra offsets and allowances.  And what difference will some moderate pollution reductions by 2020 make if they are not enough to stop tipping points?  After that, it's all over, folks.  Steven Chu thinks we are headed for 550 ppm and if this bill doesn't address that seriously, and it doesn't, then it's not enough. This bill has become a joke.

We need a tax on carbon ASAP and dividends to every American citizen from the big polluters.  How is that complicated?  We need a much more serious approach to this like closing down coal plants as soon as possible, a plan for that, not some ridiculous dreamy pursuit of CCS.  CCS won't work.  We need money for research and development for solar panels and batteries, not some  carbon trading market.

It's like politicians don't even know what climate change is, or don't care.  Do they want civilization to survive, or not?  I think members of Congress must have the keys to some self-sufficient biodome somewhere where they can survive climate change while the rest of us fry.  Who doubts that?  We're expendable!  "Give 'em a  nice little cap and trade bill so they think we're doing something .... "


If we take this bill to Copenhagen, the world is not going to be happy with us.  We need to do a lot better than this.  Congress, wake up! We're on to you!


]]>