“After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.” [view the whole statement at
http://worldcitizen.net/green/2009/12/08/epa-greenhouse-gases-threaten-public-health-and-the-environment/]

The timing of this announcement at the opening of the Copenhagen Climate Conference makes for an interesting political study. The Copenhagen Climate Conference will require Congress to authorize any agreement on behalf of the United States. Quite a few observers have noted that the lobbyist and special interest groups will prevent any substantial change in policy.

The Executive Branch may have just circumvented Congress through the EPA. Now, the Environmental Protection Agency can pass regulations that could be far more dramatic than the “cap-and-trade” proposals.

A glimpse of things to come might be found in the second sentence of their release, “EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.” The EPA already has proposed massive reductions in green house gases for light-duty vehicles. It is possible that the EPA could step-up the MPG regulations required by automakers or even go so far as to ban CO2 emissions.

The EPA’s 2009 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report may give additional insight as to what industries are first in line for new regulations:
Energy
Industrial Processes
Solvent and Other Product Use
Agriculture
Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry
Waste

“Missions such as this one are critical to understanding the impacts of greenhouse gases and particulates,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The data collected are also essential to help verify if policies to reduce these heat trapping pollutants are having their intended effect.”

Fred Moore and Ryan Spackman, researchers from NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), took off early Saturday with five NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) instruments on a modified Gulfstream aircraft. Their roller-coaster tour of the planet will take them from pole to pole, dipping and climbing repeatedly between altitudes of 1,000 feet and 47,000 feet. ESRL and CIRES, a joint institute of the University of Colorado and NOAA, are located in Boulder, Colo.

Their flights, planned to continue through December, are part of the HIPPO Mission, a multiagency, multiyear effort to paint a three-dimensional portrait of the atmosphere. HIPPO, for HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations of Greenhouse Gases, is funded and operated jointly by the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and NOAA. HIAPER – the High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform – is the NSF’s Gulfstream V aircraft.

Steve Wofsy of Harvard University is leading HIPPO with a team of scientists from NOAA, NCAR, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, University of Miami, and Princeton University.

“While we have ground-based stations that measure carbon dioxide at specific locations, HIPPO is giving us a view of how carbon dioxide is distributed globally at different altitudes and during different seasons,” said Jim Elkins, Ph.D., a NOAA ESRL atmospheric physicist. The team is pleased with the success of the first phase of HIPPO flights last January, which gathered data in cross-sections of the atmosphere from pole to pole, he said.

Information gathered during these flights will be critical for both climate modelers seeking to understand Earth’s future and policymakers who rely on accurate science for decision-making. This research and decades of greenhouse gas monitoring are part of NOAA’s suite of climate services.

Three more sets of flights are planned over the next two years to fill in additional data during different seasons and from areas where few previous measurements have been made. HIPPO’s second phase will cover the central and eastern Pacific, departing from Colorado with stops in Alaska, Hawaii, Rarotonga of the Cook Islands, New Zealand, Australia, and the Solomon Islands. A fly-over of the NOAA American Samoa observatory is also planned.

NOAA scientists have been monitoring greenhouse gases through a ground-based, global network for nearly 40 years. As these gases move up through different layers of the atmosphere, they may persist for a time or be altered or destroyed in the upper atmosphere. The HIPPO Mission flights will give scientists a clearer picture of the distribution of greenhouse gases throughout the atmosphere.

NOAA scientists designed five instruments for analyzing air samples onboard HIPPO flights. They have the ability to detect and measure more than 30 major and minor greenhouse gases as well as water vapor, ozone, and soot particles.

“We are providing flight planning and weather support, measurements of all greenhouse gases and some carbon isotopes, and in-flight measurement of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases and black carbon,” Elkins said.

Eric Hintsa of CIRES and Elkins will be flying on subsequent legs of HIPPO phase II. Other scientists involved in leadership, flight planning and overall coordination on the ground are Steven Montzka, David Fahey, Ru-shan Gao, and Karen Rosenlof of NOAA, and Geoff Dutton, Molly Heller, Ben Miller, J. David Nance, Eric Ray, Joshua Schwarz, Colm Sweeney, Jack Higgs, and Sonja Wolter of CIRES.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

Read The American Clean Energy Report

In the absence of new policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, calamitous global warming appears much more likely now than it did six years ago, according to comprehensive climate modeling by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change uses a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes and runs it 400 times, making slight changes to both the climate responses and the economic growth projections. The result is a probabilistic assessment of climate outcomes.

A similar study in 2003 found that a global temperature increase of 2.4°C by 2100 was the most likely outcome, but the newly updated study raised that to 5.2°C, with a 90% probability that the temperature increase would fall between 3.5°C and 7.4°C. In contrast, most climate scientists recommend that global temperature increases be maintained below 2°C. The scientists also examined the outcomes for greenhouse gas control measures that would stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 550 parts per million (an equivalent of 675 parts per million when all greenhouse gases are accounted for), and found a median warming level of 2.3°C, with a 20% chance of keeping global warming below 2°C.

According to the MIT researchers, the new study differs from the older study in several ways. First, it draws on improved economic modeling and newer data that shows less chance of lower greenhouse gas emissions. It also accounts for the effects of volcanoes, which masked some warming in the 20th century; for soot, which causes warming; and for a lower removal of carbon dioxide by the oceans. Yet the model does not include potential positive feedbacks, such as the emission of methane by melting permafrost, which would make the outcomes even more drastic. See the MIT press release, the study, and an in-depth description of the scenarios and outcomes examines in the study.

“Hogs love corn, and it is their major food. One of the old ways of harvesting corn was to hog it, that is to let hogs in a field of ripe corn to help themselves.” — J. B. Calvert, University Of Denver

It takes about nine bushels of corn to bring a hog to market.
A cow eats 25 pounds of corn a day.
For every pound of beef you avoid, you also save 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of water.
A bushel of corn weighs 56 pounds. One bushel of corn converts to about 5.6 pounds of retail beef, 13 pounds of retail pork, 28 pounds of catfish, or 32 pounds of chicken.

Eating ocean bred fish is not a good solution, either. Not only does commercial fishing contribute to global warming, overfishing has caused severe damage to our ecosystem. Besides, pollution has made many fish toxic for humans to eat.

“Certain carnivorous fish such as shark, barracuda, gar and grouper can concentrate heavy metals such as mercury in their flesh. This can be very harmful to humans.” — U.S. Army Medical Department, Office of the Surgeon General

“Do not eat Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish because they contain high levels of mercury.” “Another commonly eaten fish, albacore (“white”) tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna.” — 2004 EPA and FDA Advice For: Women Who Might Become Pregnant, Women Who are Pregnant, Nursing Mothers, Young Children,
Global Warming and Eating Meat
Greenhouse Gases Emitted by Humans to Produce Meat
Operating farm equipment, such as tractors, irrigation pumps, grain elevators and climate control of animal shelters emits a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Fertilizer is also a major contributor to global warming. The transportation of meat to market is another factor adding to the problem. Cold storage refrigeration has had multiple negative impacts on the environment. Freon is thought to be the main cause of the ozone hole (see The Ozone Know Zone.) The energy needed to keep meat from spoiling is also significant.

In 2008, an average cow took 284 gallons of oil to bring to market. Holy cow!

Greenhouse Gases Emitted by Livestock
If that’s not enough to give you indigestion, consider the gas that comes out of a pig. I’m not talking about a human that burps, and you call a pig. I mean animal flatulence. Sheep and hogs give off a lot of gas. Cows spend much of there lives burping. New Zealand and other countries have imposed taxes on animal flatulence. Holy crap!

No. I haven’t even started talking crap, yet. Here’s the poop on crap. Chicken sh#*! Chicken manure produces a crap load of methane. Methane is a leading greenhouse gas.

“Animal manure is a source of methane gas produced through anaerobic digestion. A variety of policy instruments could be used to implement this greenhouse gas mitigation program.” — Manure Management, Climate Change What You Can Do, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

All kidding aside, we have a serious problem. Meat is an important part of a human’s diet. However, eating less meat and changing the way we produce meat could do a lot of good for the environment.

(Washington, D.C. – May 5, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing its strategy for increasing the supply of renewable fuels, poised to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022, as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

“As we work towards energy independence, using more homegrown biofuels reduces our vulnerability to oil price spikes that everyone feels at the pump,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “Energy independence also puts billions of dollars back into our economy, creates green jobs, and protects the planet from climate change in the bargain.”

Increasing renewable fuels will reduce dependence of foreign oil by more than 297 million barrels a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 160 million tons a year when fully phased in by 2022. EISA will establish four categories of renewable fuels.

The new categories include:

* cellulosic biofuels;
* biomass-based diesel;
* advanced biofuels; and
* total renewable fuel.

In 2022, the proposal would require:

* 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels;
* 15 billion gallons annually of conventional biofuels;
* 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels; and
* 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel.

To achieve the volume requirements, each year EPA calculates a percentage-based standard that refiners, importers and blenders of gasoline and diesel must ensure is used in transportation fuel. For the first time, some renewable fuels must achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to the gasoline and diesel fuels they displace. Refiners must meet the requirements to receive credit toward meeting the new standards.

The thresholds for new categories would be 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions for renewable fuels produced from new facilities, 50 percent less for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuels, and 60 percent less for cellulosic biofuels.

EPA also will conduct peer-reviews on the lifecycle analysis of the four renewable fuel categories. Lifecycle refers to the greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the fuels.

The 60-day comment period on this proposal will begin upon publication in the Federal Register. During the comment period EPA will hold a public workshop on lifecycle analysis to assure full understanding of the analyses conducted, the issues addressed and the options that are discussed.

Cooperatives Oppose Full Auction of Allowances Under Carbon Cap-and-Trade

Under a “Cap and Trade” approach to reducing greenhouse gases, Congress must decide how to distribute emissions allowances. Congress can choose to freely allocate allowances to the regulated community or others; it can auction all allowances to the highest bidder; or it can adopt a hybrid approach of allocating some allowances freely and auctioning the remainder.

President Obama’s FY2010 budget proposes to auction 100% of all emission allowances under a cap-and-trade climate change program that has yet to be developed.

* Consumer-owned electric cooperatives strongly oppose a 100% auction of emission allowances and urge Congress to minimize the economic impacts of climate change legislation on consumers.

Auctioning Raises Costs to Rural Electric Cooperative Consumers

Unfortunately, auctioning all allowances only serves as a backdoor, variable tax on electric cooperative consumers to raise revenue for the government. Even worse, the level of the tax would be determined by Wall Street and large multi-national energy companies who would likely be the highest bidders in any auction. Cooperatives would likely be price takers under an auction. If the government needs to raise revenue to fund important national priorities, those taxes should be set by the government and collected by the IRS, not set by Wall Street and collected by utilities.

Further, auctioning allowances is not necessary to achieve the environmental objective of a cap-and-trade plan – namely to achieve significant, long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Those reductions are achieved by the cap established in the legislation. An auction of allowances will not result in any further reductions of CO2 emissions. It won’t reduce emissions, it will only raise revenue.

Additionally, one of the main reasons given by advocates, including President Obama’s budget, for auctioning allowances to the highest bidder is to avoid giving industries “windfall profits.” However, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit, consumer-owned utilities that provide electricity to our members. As not-for-profit entities, it is by definition impossible for cooperatives to receive “windfall profits.”

Since cooperatives provide electricity on an at-cost basis, any additional costs borne by cooperatives gets passed directly through to our member-consumers. Conversely, any costs avoided save on our consumers’ monthly electric bills.

In the case of cooperatives, the most straightforward, efficient method of minimizing higher costs to our member-consumers is to freely allocate allowances to cooperatives. Co-op consumers will still face higher costs resulting from efforts to reduce emissions, and those costs will grow over time as the emissions cap declines. However, consumers can be protected from unnecessary higher costs that would result if co-ops have to bid on allowances against other for-profit entities.

Avoid the “Enronization” of any Auction

Some proposals contain explicit language allowing any entity to bid on allowances in an auction. Under this structure, rural electric cooperatives not only would be competing for allowances with large investor-owned utilities, manufacturing giants, and multi-national oil companies, but also deep-pocketed financial firms.

Investment houses and other brokers have a role to play in ensuring a liquid market, but should not be enticed to buy allowances at the auction, hold them to drive up prices, and then sell them purely to make a profit. Those profits would come directly from the pockets of consumers and would not provide any CO2 reductions.

Greenhouse gas emission allowances should not be treated as just another commodity like pork bellies. Much like how Enron manipulated the electricity markets in California in 2000, such a structure could drive up prices, promote extraordinary market volatility, and threaten the economic and energy security of the country without providing any additional environmental benefits.

* NRECA strongly urges Congress to restrict the use of allowances to only those entities which have a regulatory compliance obligation under the legislation, and clearly define the role of non-regulated actors in ensuring a liquid market.

The President said, “Because our future depends on our ability to break free from oil that’s controlled by foreign dictators, we need to make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. That’s why we’ll be working with Congress on legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy.

And to support this effort, we’ll invest $15 billion a year for 10 years to develop technologies like wind power and solar power, and to build more efficient cars and trucks right here in America. It’s an investment that will put people back to work, make our nation more secure, and help us meet our obligation as good stewards of the Earth we all inhabit.”

Duke Energy Corp. and BlackRock Inc. backed the President’s push for a market-based cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Edison Electric Institute also supports the President’s plan. Recently, Edison reported their objectives:
“Our issues are at the center of the debates over economic policy, energy strategy, national security and the environment,” Kuhn said. “We are excited by the challenge and optimistic that we – by continuing to work with all of the stakeholders and policymakers involved – can help form the right framework to transform the way our industry works and the way the nation addresses its energy future.”

Kuhn said the electric industry’s success will rest upon aggressive action in four key areas: Energy efficiency, smart grid and advanced electricity transmission technology, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and advanced, low- and carbon-free electric generating technologies.

On the other hand, those with concerns for the environmen were disappointed that the President did not mention the need for increasing nuclear power.