Greenhouse Gas Regulations: Drama, Rebellion, and Quiet Progress (episode I)

Last week I had the opportunity to travel to a conference on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulations.  I learned a lot, and I will share some of the more interesting tidbits here over several posts.  For starters, I will not waste your time laying out too much of the background science, arguing about whether or not GHG's are accumulating in the atmosphere, or whether this is having an effect on the planet.  They are, it is.  Concentrations of CO2 have reached 400 ppm, the highest level in hundreds of thousands of years.  Even if humans stop emitting all CO2 today, we have already made significant, long lasting changes in our atmosphere, in the Earth's natural cycles.  The planet has warmed, it will warm further, and the consequences of this are far-reaching.  Comment if you like to argue these points if need be, but this isn't about what you might choose to believe--it is about science, facts.

I'm going to assume that if you are reading this you're already know at least a little about this topic, so I may skip over some of the most basic elements.  This piece is an overall introduction, and I'll also write several more specific posts.  California has some of the most progressive laws in the country regulating GHGs.  AB32 (CA Global Warming Solutions Act, 2006) and SB375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, 2008) are the two primary laws in CA that address the issues.  The brief summary is that these laws are designed to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and they do so by targeting many of the different sources of GHG emissions.

In California, the vast majority of GHGs are generated by 3 primary sources: the transportation sector (primarily cars & trucks), industry, and the electrical generation.  Further, although there are several different GHGs, the primary concern centers on CO2 emissions, as they account for most of the GHGs.  By regulating these three areas, California can do a lot of curb CO2 emissions.

California has therefore created a "cap and trade" system that limits the amount of CO2 various industries, electrical generators, etc. can emit per year.  The goal is first to "cap" the total amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.  Then, set a dollar value as to what a ton of CO2 is worth to an emitter. Emitting CO2 is tied to economic activity--the production of electricity, goods, services.  Therefore, anyone electing to emit CO2 can price this into their economic model. By allowing would-be emitters to buy/trade these CO2 credits on an open market, cleaner/more efficient companies can elect to sell their credits to another company that is struggling to comply with the restrictions.

These restrictions get progressively tighter with time, forcing companies to adopt new cleaner technologies, pay more for the right to pollute, or ultimately go out of business if they cannot adapt.  You can imagine that a power utility would turn away from coal, or even natural gas, in favor of cleaner sources of energy such as wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc.  Cities can contribute as well, by redesigning streets to improve traffic flow, building more public transit, siting goods and services in retail hubs that may be walking distance from high density housing or public transportation, etc.

In the next few days I'll go deeper into the laws California has put in place to try and mitigate this harm as much as it can.  Of course California is only one state, and California cannot solve this problem on its own.  However California can help lead the nation, the world, in solving this problem.

A Catalyst for Action

In 2002, I had the honor of attending the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa.  This UN Conference brought the world together 10 years later to follow up on the historic 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.  Without getting into too many details here, many considered the WSSD a disappointment--a missed opportunity to make meaningful progress on a host of important environmental issues.  The global community kicked the can down the road.

Twelve years later, the world has gathered again--this time in New York City. Yes, there are still some people making excuses, claiming that Climate Change is not real, that humans cannot possibly be responsible for changing the temperature, weather, climate of the entire planet.  These Climate Deniers are a small but very vocal group that still have tremendous political influence in the United States.  Fortunately, the rest of the world is not listening.  Countries from Germany to China have realized: 1) the science speaks for itself, 2) this is happening now, and 3) we've already missed the chance to mitigate some harm.  We'd better act NOW or else the harm will be a whole lot worse.  Some clever people have also realized there's money to be made in new technology, and this doesn't need to be a "jobs vs. the environment" debate.  

So, what are some news organizations most worried about?  Whether or not a football player committed a crime (pick one), whether President Obama was disrespectful with his latte-salute, or whether one of the Kardashians or Jenners or whomever they are did X (pick anything).

Dear readers, this is all just one big distraction from things that really matter.  We are facing real problems, and we're (humans) the cause of these problems.  Today in Oklahoma, some guy cut off a woman's head apparently due to misguided religious beliefs.  Wildfires burning near Lake Tahoe were started by an arsonist.  ISIS and the Taliban are committing genocide and creating havoc in the Middle East while Putin is still making a mess in Ukraine.  Perhaps most alarming is that ebola could actually turn into a global pandemic--in large part due to misinformation, lack of education, superstitions...and the fact that the global community is pretty much failing to fund any sort of meaningful response.  

Really?  Really?!?  I look at my little boy sleeping peacefully as I write this.  I wonder what world we're going to leave him?  I am afraid it won't be nearly as nice as the world I was born into, and I hate that we as a country, as a species, can't figure out that we're wasting precious time on nonsense.

So, if you've taken the time to read this far, I ask you please--do this one thing.  Make the world slightly better with your time here.  I don't care what it is.  Add beauty through art or music.  Waste less.  Be kinder.  Invent something that makes things better.  Learn something new, and share it.  Help underprivileged kids.  Just. Do. Something. Good.

And me?  I'm about to start really educating myself much more thoroughly on Green House Gas emissions, renewable energy, and some related topics so I can take a more active role in this area.  I will also be sharing these new insights in my blog.  (Of course, if I happen to get involved in a dog-bite case, I may still talk about that too...)  Twelve years ago I flew all the way to South Africa to try and make things a little bit better.  I think now it is time to finally make good on that promise.  

Something New

Six months--how they go by in a flash! Well, I may have taken a break from blogging, but the world is still moving. Happily, today's news indicates we're moving a step forward into the 21st century. The EPA just released NEW proposed rules for carbon limits for NEW power plants. This is good news. These rules would make it extremely difficult to get a new coal-fired plant approved, due to the amount of CO2 released from the burning of coal. Natural gas facilities, and of course renewables (wind, solar, etc) would have a much easier time passing the standards. The new rule caps CO2 emissions at 1100 lbs of CO2 emitted for each megawatt hour of electricity produced.

Why pick on coal? Simply put: coal is responsible for more CO2 emissions than other sources. In 2012, coal fired plants accounted for 18% of the energy consumed nationwide, but were responsible for 31% of energy related carbon emissions.

Anyone who watches television has seen ads for "clean coal technology." (Also known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or CCS). Unfortunately, CCS is an idea that hasn't really left the drawing board--yet. The problem with capturing and storing CO2 on a large scale is that it is currently unfeasible for two major reasons. First, from a logistical standpoint we lack the infrastructure to capture, transport, and store, significant amounts of CO2. Further, the energy required to do so negates most of the energy generated in the first place. It makes little economic sense.

Could that change in the future? Certainly. A few new coal-fired plants are being built in the U.S. and Canada that may be able to capitalize on technological advances. Interestingly the coal industry that promotes clean coal technology is fighting the new EPA rules--because even the coal industry cannot say if these new plants will actually be successful.

The EPA is doing what it can to limit the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and it is going after one of the biggest sources of CO2 with these new regulations. The next step will be tightening the regulations on existing power plants, especially the handful of oldest, dirtiest plants that are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of the CO2 emitted in the US.