In the U.S., coal-fired power plants emit 48 tons of mercury each year.
Image: newscenter.lbl.gov
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
SAN FRANCISCO—Voters have turned back an effort to suspend California's efforts to tackle climate change, a wide-reaching program ranging from a cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gas emissions to energy efficiency standards for televisions.
In 2006 California passed a law—the Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32)—that pledged the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emission levels back to 1990 levels by 2020. That's reducing to 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted per year; current emissions in the state are roughly 525 million metric tons of greenhouse gases and have been projected to exceed 600 million metric tons by 2020 without such efforts.
The California Air Resources Board developed the program, a set of 70 measures, such as a low-carbon fuel standard, an increase in electricity generated from renewable resources to 33 percent, and a cap-and-trade program for 360 utilities, refineries and other emitting industries. The state released its more than 3,000-page rules for that greenhouse gas permit trading program on October 29. "If I'm under the cap, I make more and more money," explains policy analyst Tiffany Roberts of California's Legislative Analyst's Office. "If I'm over the cap, I pay more and more money."
The majority of the efforts are simple standards, however, such as a new limit on energy usage for televisions with more than 42-inch screens. "We're down from 450 watts per television to 125 to 200 watts per TV," says Thom Kelly, acting chief deputy director at the California Energy Commission. "We're estimating that we'll save about $700 million a year just in energy costs."
The low-carbon fuel standard orders providers to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuels by 10 percent by 2020 through efforts such as blending in biofuels that result in less greenhouse gases emitted when burned. That final rule is expected in early 2011, according to transportation expert Daniel Sperling of University of California, Davis, although the board is struggling to understand the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the land both directly and indirectly impacted by growing crops for biofuels. "It really is the single issue holding back the low-carbon fuel standards," he says. "We've got to figure it out."
"We have an obligation to the world to deliver clean, reliable, low-cost energy that is hopefully low carbon, too," adds chemical engineer David Rogers, general manager for climate change at Chevron, a California-based oil company that did not join efforts to suspend California's climate change initiative. "Maybe we can have the best of both worlds: a price on carbon to create an innovative environment for clean technology in California and keep businesses within state lines and not cause an adverse impact on consumers through radically higher prices for transportation fuels or electricity."
In large part, that may be because California hopes its efforts will quickly be followed by other states so that it is not the only state raising the cost of burning fossil fuels. Already, New Mexico will attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy use in the state by 2 percent per year, and 11 northeastern states have formed a regional cap-and-trade program.
That said, it does not appear to improve the prospects for climate change action at a national level. Republican gains in the U.S. Congress suggest climate change and energy will not be addressed in the next two years, and a voluntary national cap-and-trade market for companies, known as the Chicago Climate Exchange, will expire at the end of this year.
Then again, it took more than a decade for California's car regulations to be adopted at the national level. That remains the main thing the Obama administration has done to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationally, and it was done via executive order—a method that does not require the congressional ratification. "Washington screwed around and couldn't get it done," says Sperling, who is also a member of the California Air Resources Board that set up the climate change program. "We're going to be adopting [cap-and-trade] in two weeks."
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentApparently, the majority of Californians are more afraid of CO2 than living on the streets with 12% unemployment. Way to go, California. I would really like to know what percentage of college kids voted for this...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the citizens of California are smart enough to ignore the gloom and doom ranting of Republican chicken littles who are constantly whining that green initiatives will bring down the sky, while at the same time engaging in massive campaigns of borrowing and spending that collectively brought the American state to the brink of fiscal collapse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Republican plan has been to "starve the beast" of government through fiscal treason.
As Jeb Bush put it..
"We need to manufacture an <economic> crisis in order to assure that there is no alternative to a smaller government." - Jeb Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.
Three cheers for you, "vendicar9" and four cheers for California. I knew I remembered hearing Bush saying that, but I didn't know it was also written in a magazine. If possible, you should get that article and send it to the governor of California and SciAm should also publish it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Republicans tried to collapse this country into a third-world economy and keep us in war so the government would have absolute control over the people and keep us so far in debt that we will see "RED" for the next four hundred years. They also dumbed down the educational system so our scientists and engineers would not be smart enough to bring us out of the collapse and we would remain in the fossil age. Did you also notice that when Bush, Jr. took office gasoline was a $1.38 a gallon and when he left office it was $4.15 a gallon. That gave Junior a huge increase in his bank account since his family are oil barons. And now (R-Ohio)Boner, the new speaker of the House will continue the Bush agenda of death, destruction, poverty, and war to all except families who own oil wells or nuclear power plants.
Three cheers to you, California!!!
"Apparently, the majority of Californians are more afraid of CO2 than living on the streets with 12% unemployment. Way to go, California. I would really like to know what percentage of college kids voted for this..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the environment is a tad more important than the economy. 100 years from now no one is going to care in the slightest what the economy was like in 2010 but they will sure as hell care if the environment is destroyed due to the actions or inaction's of the current populous.
On one hand cap and trade at almost any level would make nuclear power - still banned in CA - much more cost effective than any other power source especially the GHG spewing natural gas that powers Ca now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand these halfwit attorneys cum politicians require that 33% of electricity will have to come from wind, solar and small hydro. These technologies have to be backed at 100% nameplate capacity with either incredibly expensive pumped hydro or fast spooling low efficiency gas plant that emits copious amounts of radioactive radon gas and more GHG's than the not so renewables saved.
Yet somehow, these moronic voters actually turned down legalizing the substance that their legislators use to come up with such idiot schemes and they themselves must use before voting.
I happen to be one of those "moronic" voters who turned back the attempt by some big oil companies to gut our clean energy law. They cynically tied it to unemployment hoping voters would connect clean energy with unemployment. Thankfully California voters were smart enough to see through the ruse. As a matter of fact clean energy is creating jobs for Californians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, California has several nuclear power plants and have you seen the value of Tesla stock lately. I was also very clear minded when I voted.
California will quickly meet its goals for limiting greenhouse emissions because businesses will flee the Golden State in droves. Albert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup Big Oil- now the 4 sisters love AB21. The higher the percentage of not so renewables, the more natural gas they sell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe out of state oil money was from refiners who don't sell natural gas.
This stupidity requiring an investment in a zero energy ultra expensive GHG spewing not so renewable structure will indeed bankrupt the state. Clean and green nuclear power starts at 10% the cost of not so renewables when storage and transmission costs are included. Everybody else will be paying one cent a kilowatt hour while CA is paying 50 cents.
Yes Ca has some very effective nuke plants but your dope smoking voters and attorney's cum politicians have made new builds illegal.
○ The initiative taken for the concern is very serious and need an attention of every one. This is the concern which exists in the society and needs to be eliminated from the society as soon as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[url=http://www.trainwithmeonline.com/programs.asp]Workout Routines[/url]
The initiative taken for the concern is very serious and need an attention of every one. This is the concern which exists in the society and needs to be eliminated from the society as soon as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.trainwithmeonline.com/programs.asp" rel="dofollow">Workout Routines</a>
"... businesses will flee the Golden State in droves." - Gotten Bull
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a result of the NeoConservative Economic policies of the last 30 years of Conservative American Misrule, California's high tech businesses have already outsourced themselves to the Pacific Rim where labour is cheaper and the citizens are smarter than Americans, and vastly smarter than Borrow and spend Conservatives.
California has been very badly damaged by the Conservative Traitors that have driven it into bankruptcy through their refusal to allow tax increases that would have reduced government borrowing and through their support for the Enronization of the California Economy.
When you vote for Republican Fascists, expect to get screwed by Republican Fascists.
"On one hand cap and trade at almost any level would make nuclear power - still banned in CA - much more cost effective than any other power source especially the GHG spewing natural gas that powers Ca now. " - Whomever
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI happen to like Nuclear Power.
So does Iran and North Korea.
Califonia shut up and declare bankruptcy already. It's the rock-bottom that you guys need to hit apparently if you are ever to wake up. 3,000 taxpayers flee that messed-up state for a reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalifonia shut up and declare bankruptcy already. It's the rock-bottom that you guys need to hit apparently if you are ever to wake up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3,000 taxpayers flee that messed-up state every week for a reason.
ok, so California, which runs very high taxes and regulations, has lost businesses. And you think thats because the businesses wanted taxes to be even higher. Further, you believe that California has a conservative government. Wow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd whats the pont on Iran and North Korea with their nuclear weapons programs exactly? Have you got the nerve to come right out and say your point?
I'd like to point out that the 11 NE states that have formed a regional cap and trade system (known as RGGI or the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) only regulate GHGs from the electric utility sector and does not cover transportation fuels. http://www.rggi.org/design/overview
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition, while Chevron did not put money into Prop 23, the CA ballot initiative that would suspend parts of the Global Warming Solutions Act, it did fund Prop 26, http://maplight.org/content/72369 which would increase regulatory hurdles for placing a price on carbon. http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environment/2010/10/18/prop-26-chevron-backed-anti-ab-32-initiative/