Nine Midwestern governors have signed an agreement to work together to conserve energy consumption and limit greenhouse gases. The pact came today in Milwaukee, at a regional summit on energy and climate change.
The agreement calls for focusing on capping carbon, renewable energy and increasing production of bio-fuels. Although the Midwest has 22 percent of the U.S. population, it produces 27 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
That’s partly because the region relies on coal for electricity more than other parts of the country. Seventy-one percent of the Midwest’s power comes from coal-fired plants, compared to a national average of 49 percent.
Also, keep you eyes open for a three westerner governor to appear on television asking congress to act now on capping carbon. Two republicans and a democrat see the threat and the economic opportunity of a cap and trade system.
Across this great nation of our Mayors, Township trustees, County Commissioners, State Legislators have recognized the serious danger of climate change to their communities and constituents. It is now time for the members of the United State Senate who serve on the Environment public works committee to hear that call of their fellow legislators back home. The call is very simple. Vote YES on Lieberman-Warner and give us the national tools to help us CAP, TRADE, and GROW.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am and is filed under Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Politics/Government . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Meanwhile new Bush Administration Furnace Standards do nothing.
Minimum AFUE (efficiency) for gas furnaces raised from 78% to 80% in 2015.
Minimum AFUE for oil furnaces raised from 78% to 82% in 2015.
Most furnaces already exceed these standards, many (about 1/3rd) are 90+% AFUE.
A lost opportunity !
Over the life of these new furnaces how much imported oil and natural gas (US is *NOT* self sufficient in NG, so any savings will come out of imports) will be burned versus a more pro-American, pro-Environment, pro-Economy standard of 80% NG/82% oil AFUE in 2008, 90% AFUE in July 2009 and AFUE of 93% (or 94%) in July 2010 ?
From a national economic POV, national security POV and environmental POV, this policy decision is an absolute disaster !
Perhaps a reformed Republican Party after 2008 can do better. It will be hard to do worse !
Alan
November 27th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Alan,
Republicans believe in free markets and thank goodness Bush believes at least a little in free markets. Real conservatives aren’t going to impose a restraint on free markets like furnace standards. If they did, they might as well be Democrats. To say this is a disaster from a national economic point of view is to misapprehend economics. People should be able to decide for themselves what furnaces they want to buy isn’t of having Washington tell them. Since when have the Republicans become the national energy nannies? Republicans know better than that.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Jim,
Cap and trade does not help the economy, it only hurts the economy. There may be some new jobs in certain sectors, but those gains will be canceled out with the losses in all of the sectors that use energy. Cap and trade will drive up prices and make the rest of the energy-intensive industries leave America for China and the third world. I think that is unacceptable.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Daniel,
The United States of America does not get oil from the free market. We pay a VAST number of “other costs” to get our oil (and natural gas to a lesser degree).
The thousands of brain injured Iraq veterans that will require a lifetime of care are one cost. The moral weight of starting a war that has already driven 4 million civilians from their homes and will likely kill 1 million innocent civilians before it’s end, and the “no comment” about a Saudi rape victim getting 200 lashes. (What if she had been Iranian ?)
All told, the costs to the US Treasury to control Middle East oil will exceed $1 trillion. And the indirect costs will be greater.
Add smaller costs that society (but not oil users) pay for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The USA will have to sell off it’s assets to feed our addiction to oil (CitiBank sold 5% to Abu Dhabi yesterday, two weeks ago they bought 5% of AMD (#2 to Intel). Expect more as those green pieces of paper in your wallet continue to lose value.
Global Warming will one day COST far more than the price of oil and gas at the pump and meter.
The “market price” of oil does not cover a third of all the costs involved.
If you and other Republicans want to repeal appliance standards, then do so HONESTLY. Pass a law in Congress with a majority vote in both houses. Until you do so, appliance standards should not be repealed by incompetence. GWB has a duty to set appliance standards according to the intentions of Congress. He has failed miserably !
Hopefully the next President will not be so incompetent or evade his or her duty under law.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Alan:
How about if Congress votes on appliance standards in the first place?? Where in the Constitution is the executive branch given any power to legislate, or the Congress any power to delegate it powers?? Further, where in the Constitution is the federal government given any power to set such standards?
Daniel is absolutely correct. Furthermore,the price difference between a 90% efficient furnace and the old 78 or 80% furnaces is such that the cost cannot be recouped in fuel savings over the expected life time of the furnace. Also, all the fancy computers, sensors, and ignitors are all possible points of failure, and they do fail often, making these units less reliable and more expensive to maintain.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
the price difference between a 90% efficient furnace and the old 78 or 80% furnaces is such that the cost cannot be recouped in fuel savings over the expected life time of the furnace.
Since 1/3rd of furnaces sold have AFUE of 90% or better, your claim is doubtful. Are that many buyers hood winked ?
But you say “cost” in your calculation above.
Do you count the cost of lifetime support for thousands of brain damaged Iraqi veterans in your “cost” ?
Do you include the Global Warming costs for centuries to come (that long for the CO2 to disappear) in your “cost” ?
Do you count the trillions spent by the US Dept. of Defense to protect our oil and growing LNG shipments in your “cost” ?
Do you count the failure of the US dollar due to a massive and growing balance of payments deficit (and the possible failure of our economy with collapse of the US $) in your “cost” ?
Best Hopes for Stopping the Subsidies (see above) for Oil & Gas Users,
Alan
A good Republican (I like Ike) would have a “pay as you go” gas tax for the Iraq War. “User pays” & fiscal responsibility used to be a good Republican values.
They are still my values, along with competence and honesty in government, a moderate & restrained foreign policy, which is why I am no longer a Republican. George W Bush cured me.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
George W Bush cured me from being Republican too!
I very much like your ideas. You provided facts to the ideas I have had for a long time. The trouble is, there is not the political will to be proactive. This issue could be implemented in an orderly way but I fear that only a catastrophe will initiate any action. Then the gov’t will throw a bunch of money at the problem - to their big-business buddies.
I have noticed quite a bit of support for energy independence and especially green, sustainable energy from individuals. I think that each one of us needs to talk up these issues but most of all, act locally to implement what we can for ourselves - such as passive solar heating and electricity. The person who objects to high efficiency furnaces could install solar or other sustainable heating and keep the inefficient furnace as backup.
Jim