5
Bill may not transform energy economy
CO2 skywriting
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Washington is still digesting the Senate energy and climate bill that was released yesterday. What it's going to mean for manufacturers, power companies, nuclear plants, offshore drilling -- there's a little something in there for everybody. The ultimate goal, of course, is to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. Trick is, it's kinda hard to do that if we keep on using fossil fuels the way we are. So, does this legislation help get the United States off coal, oil, and natural gas?
Sarah Gardner reports now from the Marketplace Sustainability Desk.
Sarah Gardener: Tyson Slocum is director of Public Citizen's Energy Program. He says if you think this legislation will transform our energy economy, don't hold your breath.
Tyson Slocum: This is a bill that reflects a mantra of "don't rock the boat," don't upset large utilities or the coal industry. And if you need to accommodate those interests, you're not going to get an effective climate bill.
Slocum says Senate Democrats have made so many concessions to the fossil-fuel industry in order to garner support, they've essentially maintained the status quo. He says the bill expands offshore oil drilling, shells out $2 billion a year to Big Coal for so-called "clean-coal technology" and contains no federal mandate for a renewable electricity standard. That's where the government makes utilities get a certain percentage of their power from sources like wind and solar.
David Doniger at the Natural Resources Defense Council says yes, compromises have been made, but the bill does place a federal cap on carbon pollution for the first time ever.
David Doniger: That alone tilts investment very sharply in favor of cleaner fuels. It doesn't make sense to invest in old coal plant technology when you have to carry the costs of controlling the carbon pollution.
The bill also provides $54 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. Nuclear's a controversial power source, but one that supporters say still does help to shift the U.S. away from fossil fuels. Harvard's Robert Stavins:
Robert Stavins: If one is trying to address global climate change then surely part of the portfolio of action going forward is going to be nuclear power.
And Stavins says natural gas will be part of that transition because it's cleaner than oil or coal. But whether this bill lets carbon prices go high enough to make fossil fuels a turn off is another question.
I'm Sarah Gardner for Marketplace.
Regardless of how congress votes on the climate bill, hopefully it reflects the realities of the market. Taxing carbon emissions most likely won't spur a green economy. In fact it may do just the opposite if handled incorrectly, where small businesses and consumers are the ones paying for the actual cost. Carbon capture technologies is still perhaps far from a commercial reality. But sometimes innovation is spurred by a drastic need to accomplish something great. America developed fission and put man on the moon not because of a general process, but out of necessity.
Want to learn more about balanced energy for America? Visit www.consumerenergyalliance.org to get involved, discover CEA’s mission and sign up for our informative newsletter.
I am a fan of KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Why go through the hassle and cost of setting up a new market, defining exemptions, etc., when you can simply address the problem at its source. Tax the carbon as it is mined/produced from the ground, or when it is put up for sale on the open market. Anyone using that carbon downstream will feel the pinch.
And, I absolutely agree with @ H.S. , the TRUE cost of coal and oil are not figured into the price, and the environmental costs are being subsidized by tax payers. Let injured parties sue and get their day in court for all the damage that has been done, and then BP will send that cost down to consumers, and it will think twice about NOT having a responsible operation.
The best way to transform our energy policy will be to hold BP liable for the complete cost of the spill and it's impact on all that are affected. There will be those (especially the oil owned politicians) that will want to let BP off the hook and pass the cost onto the taxpayers and the affected peoples. (a hidden subsidy) They will argue that if we make BP pay, then those costs will be paid by consumers at the pump. These are the consumers that are already complaining that gas is near $3 a gallon again. Those that will expect the tax payers to pay are the same ones that argue the free market chooses oil, not clean alternatives. This time the free market should be left alone. Let us pay for the disaster at the pump. Let alternatives compete in a real free market. When we get tired of paying the price of the spill at the pump, we can choose ourselves to change our consumption by driving less and buying more efficient cars. We will be more interested in new car technologies like the Aptera.
This is yet another far-left scheme to solve a problem that doesn't exist by taking control of the economy. The climate is always changing; the Left's contention that there has been unprecedented warming for the last half-century primarily caused by human activity is just not supported by the evidence, and is probably fraudulent. Even the scientist at the center of the scandal that began last December (which this program *still* hasn't even mentioned, despite it being a far bigger story than either the Copenhagen conference or this bill) has admitted that there hasn't been any statistically significant warming for the past fifteen years.
