Force Change

McCain opposes ethanol subsidies but supports cleaner coal and nuclear subsidies

The concept of unintended consequences is one that we look at frequently on this blog, with ethanol, of course, being one of our biggest discussion topics.  Sen. McCain throughout his career and on the campaign trail has claimed that he is opposed to government mandating specific solutions, opting instead for market based answers.  He has directed much of this criticism towards Sen. Obama for his support for ethanol subsidies.  However, it is not clear that McCain is completely consistent in this approach, since he has recently been advocating subsidies for cleaner coal and nuclear power. 

Of course the most obvious criticism of McCain here is for hypocrisy.  However, the more interesting question is what role should our government play in promoting alternative energy and clean technology?  We generally believe that market based solutions like the proposed cap-and-trade system are most likely to produce the best result.  However, tax breaks and subsidies may also play an important role, as they have with solar and wind energy development.  The problem is when the government’s directives result in a “solution” that may not be the most efficient or practical (as may be the case with ethanol), and we then are faced with a series of undesirable and unintended consequences.  Of course it is easy to judge, in retrospect, which solution was good and which was bad. The hard, if not impossible, part is to do this prospectively, which probably cuts in favor of market based, instead of government mandated, solutions.

Photo credit.

Posted in Energy, General, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Politics | No Comments »

Factcheck.org is great resource for analyzing candidates’ green claims

In past presidential elections, it was often difficult for the public to be made aware of misleading statements made by the candidates.  The main check and balance was usually one’s opponent, who was often viewed by the public as equally biased.  However, the nonprofit website factcheck.org solves this problem by taking an analytical look at some of the candidates’ most egregious claims.  Given the important role the candidates’ position on the environment is going to play in this election, factcheck.org is a great resource, as it was last week in parsing through Sen. McCain’s recent claims regarding his green policies. 

Upon a closer analysis, factcheck.org found that McCain made a series of misleading and inaccurate statements regarding the environment and his green policies last week. 

Factcheck.org found that McCain: 

“…said that ending a moratorium on offshore oil drilling “would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.” But according to a government report, offshore oil wouldn’t have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030.
 

McCain tried to paint Obama as an opponent of nuclear power, yet Obama has said he is open to nuclear energy being part of the solution and has supported bills that contained nuclear subsidies.
 

He has soft-pedaled the “cap” portion of his cap-and-trade proposal for greenhouse gases, even denying that it would be a mandate. The cap is a mandatory limit, however, and McCain even says so on his Web site.
 

McCain’s new ad, running this week, rightly says that he bucked his party in supporting action on climate change years ago. But its images of windmills and solar panels are misleading in that he supports subsidies for nuclear power, which isn’t pictured, and opposes them for wind and solar energy.

McCain continues to say that a suspension of the federal gas tax will lower prices for consumers, though hundreds of economists say he is wrong.” 

Photo credit.

Posted in Energy, General, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Politics | No Comments »

IMF study says global economy can grow while curbing emissions.

The International Monetary Fund released a study [subscription required] examining the effects of drastic greenhouse gas reductions on the global economy. The study looked forward to the year 2040 and worked from the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions would need to be cut to levels 60% of that released in 2002.

The study concluded that while the global economy, in that time period, should more than double in size, the burden of reducing greenhouse gasses through, carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems, would cause the global economy to be only 2.6% smaller than it would otherwise. Therefore, according to the study, drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will still permit dramatic increases in the size of the global economy.

Naturally, the study noted that all countries in the world must abide by these cuts, in order to make them effective. As we all know, if China and India grow without concern for their own emissions, any reductions made elsewhere in the world would be more than canceled out. Hopefully this study will not only help convince developing countries that it is possible to have substantial economic growth while significantly reducing emissions, but it may also convince American leaders resistant to emission curbs that this is possible.

Posted in General, Governmental Regulations, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Industrial Development, Science and Innovation | No Comments »

Another look at McCain’s position on the environment.

The New Republic had a piece analyzing Senator McCain’s record on the environment and his likelihood of being a pro-environment president, if elected. While the article doesn’t make a strong conclusion in either direction, it does give an interesting history of McCain’s positions towards the environment and it is decidedly mixed.

While McCain has often played the role of contrarian, in promoting pro-environmental positions that were unpopular at the time and unlikely to pass, he seems to be much less committed to regulations that have a real chance of success. (Which may be why the League of Conservation Voters gave McCain a zero rating on his environmental voting record last year.)

In fact, McCain missed two votes in recent months that would have shifted tax breaks from oil companies to renewable energy companies and would have boosted incentives for energy efficiency. Both of these bills failed by a single vote.

Nonetheless, McCain, along with Senator Lieberman, did play a major role in putting the proposed national cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions to the forefront of national policy. Although their original bill did not pass, the initial push for it gathered enough support that it is now assumed that it is inevitable that it will pass the next time through the Congress, which could have a tremendous positive effect on the environment.

Photo credit.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Bush administration position on mercury pollution overruled.

On Friday a federal appellate court overturned a Bush administration plan to change the way mercury emissions from power plants are regulated.  Basically, the issue was about whether these emissions would be regulated under a cap-and-trade or a hard cap system.  Previously, the Clinton administration had found that mercury emissions were a “hazardous air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act which lead to mandatory caps on their release into the environment.  However, coal burning utilities (a major source of mercury pollution) lobbied the Bush administration to instead impose a cap-and-trade system, which they felt would allow them to more economically reduce emissions.

While cap-and-trade systems are very effective in reducing the release of greenhouse gases, which impact the environment on a global scale, the problem with mercury is that it effects the environment on a local level.  A cap-and-trade system for mercury emissions would allow energy companies to continue to release high levels of mercury at certain locations, as long as that amount was offset by a decrease in emissions at a different plant.  However, this would allow for concentrated levels of mercury to be released at local levels, which would present a serious health and environmental issue.  With the court’s ruling, the EPA will now be prevented from pursuing this policy.

Photo by Daniel Shea   

Posted in Energy, General, Politics | No Comments »

Is ethanol really that bad???

As was widely reported a commonly held piece of conventional wisdom was shattered by a study published in the magazine Science (unavailable without a subscription).  The study found that the production and use of corn-based ethanol actually results in a DOUBLING of CO2 emissions compared to that released by the burning of oil.  It had previously been claimed that replacing oil with ethanol would reduce greenhouse emissions by 20%.  If this study is accurate, not only are our attempts at converting to ethanol not helping but they are in fact substantially exacerbating the problem. 

The study asserts that it’s not the burning of ethanol itself that is the problem but rather the need to clear and convert massive amounts of natural forest and grasslands in order to grow the biofuel crops necessary to produce the ethanol.  A major problem is that for every bit of farmland that is designated for fuel production, an equal amount of previously unused land must be claimed in order to make-up for that loss in the food supply.

Further illustrating the inefficiency of ethanol the study notes that it currently costs $30 to purchase a tradable emission credit to offset the release of one ton of CO2, yet it costs $500 to avoid releasing one ton of CO2 through the use of corn-based ethanol.

(more…)

Posted in Energy, General, Science and Innovation | 2 Comments »