banner1

Home arrow Forum arrow Science Everything Earth Science Ecology and Environment Cutting 'Emissions'
Main Menu
Home
News
Links
Wiki
Search
Administrator
FAQ
Contact Us
Science Books
Register
Online Store
Science on the Web
Store - beta
Project Fork
Feature Sections
Encyclopedia Astronuc
ID Watch
Community Menu
Forum
Chat Room
Einstein@Home
Member Blogs
CB
CB User List
Login Form
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2008, 04:43:50 AM
Username: Password:
Login with username, password and session length

Password reminder
Newsflash
Everything Science Forum
November 23, 2008, 04:43:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cutting 'Emissions'  (Read 1158 times)
Sarah90
Special
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2928



« on: August 24, 2005, 08:41:27 AM »

9 States in Plan to Cut Emission

Published: August 24, 2005

"We're not going to solve the problem of global warming in the Northeastern states," said Dale S. Bryk, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council who has been watching the regional effort since it was proposed by Governor Pataki in a letter to the other governors in April 2003. "but we're showing that we have the American ingenuity to do this and we're setting a precedent in terms of the design of the program."

As outlined in the draft, the regional carbon dioxide control plan would set specific caps on emissions that would drop over time.

The hope is that by providing long-range incentives for the electric generating companies to comply, the program will make improvements more cost-effective.

Emissions would be capped at 150 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, a figure that is about equal to the average emissions in the highest three years between 2000 and 2004. Each of the nine states would have its own cap. New York's, at 65.6 million tons, would be the largest. Vermont's would be the smallest, with 1.35 million tons.

The caps would be enforced starting in 2009. By that time, restricting emissions to levels prevailing now would, in effect, require a reduction of emissions relative to power output, because electric generation is expected to increase between now and then. The 150 million-ton cap would be sustained through 2015, when reductions would be required, reaching 10 percent in 2020. The Kyoto protocol freezes emissions at the 1990 level and imposes a 7 percent reduction in 2012.

Environmentalists say there are too many variables involved to directly compare the two programs, but they are believed to achieve roughly the same kind of carbon reductions. However, some environmentalists are disappointed with the draft plan. They argue that much deeper cuts were achievable.

"Its good that they are going to be talking about actual reductions," said Robert J. Moore, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York. "However, the targets that are being contemplated, though a positive step, are somewhat less than ambitious."

Gavin J. Donohue, president of the Independent Power Producers of New York, said that meeting the proposed caps "would be very difficult" for electric generators in New York, especially now that the price of oil has soared.

Mr. Donohue, who once worked for Governor Pataki in the Department of Environmental Conservation, said that his principal concern was assuring that the limits will not put electric generators in New York and the other states at a competitive disadvantage with states that were not constrained.

The Bush administration's rejection of the Kyoto Protocols has caused deep divisions nationwide, with many local governments attempting to force the administration to taking action by passing their own carbon dioxide rules.

Earlier this year, for example, the mayors of more than 130 cities, including New York and Los Angeles, joined in a bipartisan coalition to fight global warming on a local level by agreeing to meet the emissions reductions contained in the international pact.

NY Times:  "One part of the proposal that is not yet final deals with the sale of emission allowances under a cap-and-trade system. Such systems allow generating companies that have not used all of their emission quotas to sell the right to emit more pollution to competitors. In this way, the total amount of pollution can be controlled, while the economic viability of the companies is protected.

When this system was used in Europe, the carbon dioxide allowances were given to the generating companies. The Northeastern states are considering withholding some allowances and selling them to the generating companies. "

What?  This is so old already!!!  Same here downunder! 

Pile of ...crapola !  ...so to speak.   (or am I reading this wrongly ?) ::)
mumble mumble... ... ...
Astronuc
Recalcitrant Heathen
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5781


Celestial Wanderer - Temporal Guardian


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2005, 09:38:41 AM »

I saw this, and it is a bit stupid.  Basically, they allow the innovative or green companies who use low emissions technology to sell their unused CO2 allowances to sell the allowances to companies which use older and much dirtier plants, so the dirty plants do not have to clean up.

It is stupid when you realize that the folks living down wind of those dirty plants have to breath that pollution.

I recently stood in a park about 3 miles from my house and to the southeast.  On that particular evening, the wind was relatively calm, with little turbulence.  I looked at the sky and noticed a line of brown clouds stretching from a narrow point on the western horizon (from a coal fired plant) to a broad plume on the eastern horizon.  Yes, that brown cloud was the emissions from the power plant - one of two of the dirtiest plants in the NE US.  Dynegy bought the plants from the local utility during the move toward deregulation of the electrical utility industry.

As for deregulation, there is essetially no competition - all suppliers cost about the same, and when you add access fees and taxes, there are not cost savings.  Of course, the managers and a minority of investors, and finance companies, made huge amounts of money making deals.  But the vast majority of folks do not realize the promised savings.

Furthermore, the pollution has not improved - but rather appears to have worsened.

Something is rotten, and it's not in Denmark.  >:(

 :koala
Astronuc
Recalcitrant Heathen
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5781


Celestial Wanderer - Temporal Guardian


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2005, 01:58:54 PM »

Cleaning Big Cities' Air "Not Rocket Science," Expert Says

John Roach
for National Geographic News, October 27, 2005

Quote
Hemmed in by mountains on three sides, the basin that houses Mexico City, Mexico, has some the dirtiest air in the world.

Pollutants spewed by power plants and tailpipes have nowhere to go. They stay within the city and compromise the health of thousands of people.

But it doesn't have to be this way, according to Mario Molina, a Nobel laureate in chemistry who is affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and the University of California, San Diego.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1027_051027_mexico_pollution.html

 :koala
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.149 seconds with 23 queries.

Valid XHTML 1.0!


Mambo is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.