Britain will see rapid growth both in wind power and in new gas-fired power stations – needed when the wind is not blowing.
That will make the country more dependent on imported gas, from Russia and elsewhere, more exposed to volatile commodity prices, and less able to cut the CO2 emissions produced by burning fossil fuels.
Instead, the CBI wants more help for investment in new nuclear reactors and “clean coal” power stations that can capture and store emissions.
It’s too bad that CBI doesn’t yet understand that, if CO2 emissions are all it’s worried about, then coal is already “clean.”
A new study commissioned by the California Small Business Association projects the following impacts from California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006:
On average, the annual costs resulting from the implementation of AB 32 to small businesses are likely to result in loss of more than $182.6 billion in gross state output, the equivalent of more than 1.1 million jobs, nearly $76.8 billion in labor income, and nearly $5.8 billion in indirect business taxes…
The total AB 32 cost of $182.649 billion in lost output is one and a half times the total budget for the state of California. Given that the total gross state output of $1.8 trillion for California in 2008, the total lost output from AB 32 costs to small businesses is almost 10%. Accordingly, the total cost of AB 32 is $49,691 per small business in California.
These costs could be coming to a state near you courtesy of Waxman-Markey.
Now that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is looking at increasing corporate disclosure requirements concerning the much-dreaded global warming, the insurance industry is ironically rethinking the wisdom of its own disclosure rules that were just passed this spring, according to a report in ClimateWire.
According to the report,
There’s debate, however, about whether insurers are seeing their risks increase from climate change. Their emissions are low compared to electric utilities and other industrial emitters. And many of the large insurance companies have been dealing with fluctuating weather for centuries, said Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group.
“The reality is, insurers have been aware of climate risk before most people talking about it today were born,” he said. “There is no evidence today, last year, a decade ago, a century ago — ever — that variability and volatility in climate is something that should lead to greater oversight of insurance companies.“
The insurance industry is raising concerns that companies facing likely greenhouse gas (GHG) limits will file claims against years-old insurance policies to pay for compliance costs by arguing their liability stems from releases that occurred during the coverage term, before policies excluded pollution coverage.
With climate compliance costs projected to be in the hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars, policyholders are going to seek third parties such as insurers to pay those costs, one informed source says. “The costs that you are going to talk about are going to be enormous,” the source says.
If the insurance industry had only followed Robert Hartwig’s advice to start with…
But unless ACC means that the “work” that the bill “needs” is its utter destruction, then no correction is warranted.
There is no upside to making energy more expensive and handing over control of our economy to Marxist-socialist greens. Even if ACC succeeded in its effort to enact a Waxman-Markey lite, such a bill would still establish a mechanism for the future ratcheting-down of its provisions.
ACC’s claim of “neutrality” on Waxman-Markey is embarrassing. It doesn’t know what side its on? It doesn’t care?
To its ever-lasting infamy, Sweden claimed neutrality during World War II. Is that the sort of legacy the chemical industry wants?
Yes, NASA’s James Hansen is the ultra-global warming alarmist. Yes, he has called for war crimes trials for global warming “deniers.” But right now, Hansen should be a our best friend.
It now seems that if Hansen had his way, he’d put Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey on trial along with the other “deniers.”
Sure, our reasoning differs from Hansen’s — we think Waxman-Markey is a junk science-fueled Marxist-socialist political power grab sugar-coated with a corporate welfare honey pot, while Hansen believes that Waxman-Markey is too little, too late in terms of stopping the dreaded global warming — but we do have the same goal for now.
If Hansen gets his way and Waxman-Markey is made more stringent, then the big businesses that have so far enabled the bill will withdraw their support. Without their support, Waxman-Markey is dead.
Yes, we would like Waxman-Markey to fail for the right reasons, but if it fails for the wrong reasons, that also works.
Eileen Claussen, head of the green Pew Center on Global Climate Change, told ClimateWire that she wished Hansen would stay out of the politics business.
What is he thinking? Who does he think will vote for [a more stringent clampdown on greenhouse gas emissions]?
Apparently Hansen’s meddling in politics was OK as long as the greens found him useful. Now, he’s just a thorn in their side.
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar [i.e. John Holdren] once advocated a shocking approach to the “population crisis” feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a “Planetary Regime” with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.
Baltimore Gas & Electric is leading the way to electricity rationing, courtesy of President Obama.
The utility announced to day that it filed with local regulators an application to install 2 million so-called “smart meters” in the homes of its residential customers.
Smart meters allow local utilities to control electricity use in your home.
Using a $200 million Department of Energy grant — part of the $787 billion Obama Stimulus package enacted earlier in the year — BG&E plans to charge customers for the balance of the costs.
BG&E claims that benefits to consumers (about $5 per month) will amount to about three times the cost of the meters.
Not only is this benefit trivial, it’s pretty phony. It comes from you using less electricity or using electricity at less convenient times — things you can already do without the meter. What’s the benefit from doing less or being inconvenienced?
We don’t know about you, but we’re not interested in selling our freedom to use electricity as we choose — especially for a lousy $5/month.
Also, consider that, since smart meters allow two-way communication, each meter represents a node from which a hacker can gain entry to the grid and wreak havoc.
Waxman-Markey’s emissions reductions goals will be more difficult to meet than previously thought, warned the electric utility industry in a July 6 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV).
Edison Electric Institute chief Tom Kuhn wrote,
“H.R. 2454 would require a reduction of GHG emissions of 3 percent below 2005 levels by 2012–only three years from now. In reality, accounting for growth in electricity demand since 2005, the 2012 requirement is closer to a 10 percent reduction in projected GHG emissions. Achieving this near-term reduction would impose an abrupt and significant price increase on electricity consumers. The House bill also would require a very aggressive 17 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels by 2020. Again, we support a more reasonable and achievable 2020 target that will help cushion the cost impact on our consumers.”
So does EEI oppose Waxman-Markey? Amazingly, the answer is no. Instead EEI suggests: (1) price collars,
“We also strongly support inclusion of a price ‘collar,’ consisting of both a floor and a ceiling on emissions allowance prices, in climate legislation. This critical consumer protection measure would help limit economic harm to energy consumers, U.S. workers, and the economy, while discouraging market manipulation and encouraging technological development.”
(2) more free carbon allowances,
“Under H.R. 2454, allowances would sharply decline from 35 percent to zero over a five-year period from 2025 to 2029. Such a swift phase-out will lead to abruptly higher energy prices for consumers. Instead, we recommend a longer phase-out period of at least 15 years to help protect consumers from sudden energy price shocks.”
and (3) greater ability to participate in the fraudulent carbon offsets market,
“In addition, a number of improvements are needed in the offsets provisions. In the early years, offsets will be one of the few tools utilities will have for meeting targets. Quantitative restrictions, such as the 20 percent discount for international offsets, should be eliminated both to bolster the supply and to lower the price of domestic and international offsets. Moreover, a number of severe qualitative restrictions should be either eliminated or eased in order to assure a full and affordable supply of offsets.”
Like the American Chemistry Council’s Cal Dooley, EEI’s Tom Kuhn is ready to sell-out America to get a deal that he naively thinks will work for his industry.
EEI's Tom Kuhn: Trying to buff the Waxman-Markey turd into a popsicle.
Chicago-based utility Exelon Corp. expects that Waxman-Markey will boost its profits by $1.1 billion (39 percent), according to a report in Restructuring Today (July 13).
Because of its nuclear fleet, the largest in the U.S., Exelon will have plenty of carbon credits to sell to other emitters.
Exelon is trying to exploit its potential Waxman-Markey boon in its efforts to acquire Princeton, NJ-based NRG Energy, which is expected to spend $1.3-2.3 billion to reduce its carbon emissions under Waxman-Markey and which opposes the takeover.
In a letter to NRG shareholders, Exelon said:
We are offering you securities in a company… whose value rises rather than declines as carbon is priced into the marketplace…
Ironically, both Exelon and NRG are members of USCAP, the industry-environmentalist coalition lobbying for greenhouse gas regulation.
So not only will Waxman-Markey cut into fossil fuel-based NRG’s profits, it may very well mean the end of the company.
It makes you wonder what NRG CEO David Crane was thinking when he joined USCAP. If he thought that it’s better-to-be-at-the-table-than-on-the-menu, he was wrong since now he has two problems (carbon regulation and takeover) instead of one or even none.
BTW, if you want to see which regions of the country will be paying more for electricity thanks to David Crane’s bad judgment, click here for a list of NRG’s generation facilities in Texas, the Northeast, South and Southern California.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia has overturned last year’s decision by Fulton County Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore to invalidate the permit issued for the $2 billion, 1,200 mega-watt Longleaf power plant, reports Carbon Control News.
So-called “clean energy” projects no longer need to be operational and produce income to get taxpayer subsidies.
The Departments of Energy and Treasury announced yesterday that $3 billion worth of stimulus funds will be paid directly to clean energy developers in exchange for foregoing future tax credits, according to a report in Restructuring Today (July 10).
Now how did that Steve Miller Band song go? Oh yeah…
