U.S. Energy Requirements: Future Still Depends on Fossil Fuels

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.

U.S. CO2 Reductions: Expensive Way to Not Save the Planet

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.

George Will on Cap & Trade and an Interesting Study

From George Will's Washington Post column today:

"When New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called upon "young Americans" to "get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon," another columnist, Mark Steyn, responded: "If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade."

Then there is this: a peer reviewed study from the Journal of Geophysical Research. (NOTE: Peer review means that the article had to win approval before publication from a group of scientists that manage content in the journal).

Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.

The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

*    *     *

Now - does this "settle" the climate debate? Of course not. But it does show that, contrary to the fervent supporters of cap & trade, the debate on the fundamental science supporting the policy (is "climate change" man-made?) isn't settled either.

We should let that debate continue before we strap down the American economy with the cap & trade regime.

Cap & Trade: What you Get for the Money (or How much it costs to keep a thimble of water from the Ohio River)

Yesterday - we talked about the CJ article that a large number Kentuckians (LGE & KU customers) can expect to pay an additional 14-24% on their utility bills as a result of the global warming regulation passed by the House of Representatives.

While we haven't been able to find an updated report on just how much CO2 the Waxman-Markey bill is supposed to theoretically prevent from getting into earth's atmosphere, we're thinking that a report of the Lieberman-Warner legislation - the central 'global warming' legislation from last Congress - will serve as an instructive lesson in what Kentuckian's can expect they'll get for their money.

According to the Energy Information Administration (an agency of the federal Department of Energy) employing a “cap-and-trade” mechanism, Lieberman-Warner would have reduced carbon emissions from electric utilities by 678 million metric tons by 2020. That appears to be a big number until one considers that it amounts to less than ten percent of what total U.S. man-made emissions would have been without the legislation, is less than 1% of annual worldwide emissions (see volcanoes and livestock below) and is the equivalent of removing a handful of sand from the beach when compared to the 3,000 gigatons (3.0 x 10¹⁵) of carbon dioxide already in Earth’s atmosphere.

Forty percent of the world’s carbon dioxide is emitted from volcanic eruptions. According to the United Nations livestock are responsible for 18 percent of total of greenhouse gases – more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Gas prices will go up by 34 cents a gallon by 2030 and, according to the Energy Information Administration, “impacts on real consumption, a direct indicator of the economic welfare of American consumers, (is) 0.4 percent lower.”

So - LGE is happy that it will only costs their customers an additional $20 a month to do their part to avert environmental catastrophe. 

To LGE/KU Customers: what if you were told that you needed you to pay LGE $20 a month to keep them from pouring a thimble full of water into the Ohio River or else there might be horrific floods in the Ohio River Valley - what would you do? Don't worry - imagine they'd understand it when you laughed in their face.

Cap & Trade: The Costs

The Courier-Journal ran an article over the weekend that finally brought the issue of the "costs" associated with global warming regulation to the fore. The bottom line is that the Waxman-Markey "cap & trade" legislation that recently passed the House of Representatives will "increase by about $10.50 per month for a typical home in three years, and $18 a month by 2020" for the 'typical' home served by LGE and KU.

We're not sure what a 'typical' household is but let's consider the percentage increases included within the same article: 14% by 2012 and 24% by 2020. Now - lets assume that a customer is on the budget plan, which runs them $100 a month. We'd think that this represents a pretty large cross-section of LGE customers. The percentages suggest that  that  budget-plan customer's bill would increase by $14 by 2012 and $24 by 2020. Annually: $168 and $288 respectively. But, remember - these are only the costs that you will see on your utility bill. These costs will be hidden in the price of everything that requires energy to create - which means everything you buy.

And what will we get out of it? A 17 percent reduction in global warming gas emissions. And, of course that sounds like a lot for just a little. 

But a deeper look at the data suggests otherwise....