Even in the face of the debate on global warming, we can't escape that fact that our economy is built upon fossil fuels. Certainly we are wise enough not to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Interesting data from the Congressional Budget Office:

"In the absence of any change in policy, CBO projects that in 2020 total U.S. emissions will be about 7,580 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents; emissions by entities that would be covered under the two cap-and-trade programs would account for about 6,550 million tons, more than 85 percent of total U.S. emissions....total emissions of the covered entities in (2020) would be about 5,830 million tons, 720 million tons (or 11 percent) below the amount anticipated under current law. (That percentage would increase to about 53 percent by 2050.)"

 

Translation: under the current iteration of the Waxman-Markey bill, CO2 output by the United States would be reduced by 11% of United States "man-made" sources (power plants, industry, cars, trucks, etc).  Sounds like some real progress?

Well, according to the Energy Information Administration (an agency within the federal Department of Energy) world-wide "man-made" emissions are anticipated to be 35.4 BILLION TONS. So - the reduction in U.S. C02 works out to be ... 2% of "man made" worldwide emissions. Hence why opponents of "cap and trade" say that it is meaningless to burden the American economy with the costs associated with the regulatory regime if developing nations (e.g. China & India) are not going to join in.

Then there's this whole issue of carbon contributions from "other" sources (livestock, volcanic activity) that contributes nearly half of all annual contributions. Throw those in there and the U.S. reductions will be less than 1% of worldwide emissions.

The costs, however, the American people will remain the same. Hence why we've said its like paying thousands of dollars over our lifetimes to keep a thimble full of water from being poured into the Ohio River. That's insane.

One of the more unique and interesting ideas from the 2009 Regular Session was SB 138, sponsored by Tom Jensen, co-sponsored by Robert Stivers. Both are seen as the energy experts in the state Senate majority.

SB 138 basically would have empowered the Finance Cabinet to allow for energy development on state-owned lands. For example, if there is a natural gas deposit or petroleum deposit under a state park and the development of that resource would not damage “the scenic, aesthetic or environmental quality of the land” then those resources could be developed and the state agency that has authority over that property could receive a royalty payment.

While some extreme environmentalists may find the concept offensive, the majority that understand how responsibly resources are developed these days (e.g. directional drilling) should be able to agree that it makes sense to tap these resources to enhance the state’s fiscal condition through non-traditional revenue sources while also harnessing our nation’s domestic energy supplies.

It is telling that 1) the bill passed 36-0 in the state Senate and 2) HFA 1 was sponsored by Representative Robin Webb – who is well known in Frankfort as someone that seeks to strike the proper balance between energy development, environmental stewardship and fiscal responsibility. HFA 1 would have built in some additional safeguards to help protect certain properties (like a particularly sensitive state nature preserve) but the basic concept would have remained intact.

SB 138 didn’t make it to a vote in the House but we can expect that it will be re-introduced in 2010.

It deserves the legislature’s support.