A 'Path to Clean Energy' follow-up from Chip Ashley

After giving a great presentation on the 'Path to Clean Energy' at our July 6 General Meeting, Chip Ashley (Energy, Global Warming, Air Quality and Population Committee Chair of the Tehipite Chapter of the Sierra Club) sent us a follow-up note, addressing a few of questions our group asked as our lively conversation burned up the 'meeting clock.' Here is Chip's note:

I want to thank everyone for participating, especially for asking such great questions. It was an inspiration to me--really made me think! So I'd like to share a few thoughts since I've had a chance to "sleep on it."

First, Paul's question about which of the climate bills to urge our Congressional reps to support: At this time, I think Waxman-Markey is best. Actually, in consideration of the astronomical problem of climate change, all of the bills are far too weak. However, I agree with what several people said: We have to get something passed as a starting point. So, that being the case, I think W-M is best, and these are my reasons:

Unlike Kerry-Lieberman, W-M contains no incentives for off-shore drilling and indeed is fairly hard on the oil industry in terms of regulation. Also, W-M is less encouraging to nuclear technology than K-L, and the nuclear technology it does promote--Thorium-fueled--is much safer than the conventional U-235, U-238 technology currently used in all U.S. nuclear facilities. (By the way, I should say here that neither I nor the Sierra Club believes nuclear generation is necessary. The electric utilities have been fear-mongering that we absolutely must have nuclear to replace coal and gas base-load generation; but the electrical engineers and physicists I have discussed the issue with believe we will soon be able to meet all our needs with renewables only, with no nuclear--particularly with the implementation of all the available energy efficiency we are not currently taking advantage of.)

W-M could be improved by bringing in some of the provisions in Cantwell-Collins regarding carbon shares trading. C-C restricts trading to the 7,000-8,000 actual companies regulated under the cap and trade part of the bill. I may be wrong, but I believe neither W-M nor K-L have such restrictions. Also, C-C may be better in terms of how the auction works. C-C is 100% of shares auctioned, with 75% of proceeds going back to consumers to offset higher energy costs. W-M would allocate about 50% of the shares free to industry at the start of the program, but the number of free shares would be reduced later. As Robert Stavins of Harvard's Belfer Institute has argued at the following link, it may be debatable whether free allocation or 100% auction is preferable:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/?tag=waxman-markey-legislation

On first look, 100% would seem preferable. However, when companies must compete for a limited number of carbon shares, the shares would soon achieve a value in the marketplace. Remember that each share permits the production of one ton of greenhouse gas (GHG--CO2 equivalent).

In answer to Bob Merrill's question about auctioning, in all three bills a committee would assess the value of carbon and establish a minimum bid in much the same way as an auctioneer starts bidding with a minimum bid. W-M and K-L both contain assessments of the relative value of shares to the coal, oil, and natural gas industries, in which coal receives an assessment in terms of amount of GHG produced per kilowatt hour of about $0.0004 per kilowatt hour (kWh), oil about $0.0003/kWh, and natural gas about $0.0002/kWh. Thus, to produce the same amount of power, it would be twice as expensive for coal to buy shares as for natural gas. Renewables, which produce no GHG (except in terms of back-up natural gas and maintenance vehicles, etc.) but cost more to build and maintain, would not have to buy shares and thus would be able to compete in the marketplace with cheaper coal, oil, and natural gas and would, if all goes according to plan, eventually replace the non-renewable GHG producers.

All three bills are much more than cap and trade bills, they contain many provisions to encourage energy efficiency, including inexpensive loans and other incentives. There are may provisions to fund research on vehicles, engines, and fuels. There are many provisions to encourage green jobs and to prepare the work force to fill those green jobs.

A couple of final points:

When discussing climate change at the office water cooler with a climate change denier, remember to remind him/her of the facts: Atmospheric GHG has increased 25% since 1958 when Keeling first started measuring it. GHG retains solar and other heat in the atmosphere. Increase atmospheric CO2 has also increased the acidity of the oceans by about 30%, which of course changes the marine ecosystem dramatically.

Also remember what Paul said about what George Lakoff says about framing your message. As I understand it Lakoff says you have to understand the frame through which your audience sees the world in order to frame your message in a way that will be most effective. The problem is that climate change deniers may not see the world in terms of facts--which sadly blows my fact-based argument out of the water. These folks often see the world in terms of authority and in terms of faith in either religion or personality. So I don't have a plan that will be effective on these irrational authority-based folks. I'll give it some thought. In the meantime, please do all you can to persuade the fact-based reality people to get to the polls and vote for reason-based candidates.

How do you persuade a person who believes the economy is more important than climate change--in other words, a Meg Whitman voter and Proposition 23 voter? I like to take them for a ride in my little spaceship. First, we go out to the Moon and look back at blue Earth and note that it might soon be turning brown due to our addiction to our reckless addiction to fossil fuels. Then we get back in the spaceship and go on out to Pluto and look back at Earth again and discuss what a tiny flyspeck it is in the immense cosmos and how unimportant the world economy is in the face of the inexorable physical and chemical laws that govern this vast infinitude. Finally, we discuss how we do not get to vote for these inexorable laws. Even our high and mighty political representatives do not get a vote. We don't get a vote, but nevertheless these laws determine our lives here on our still beautiful little planet, which Voltaire called a "tas de boue," or "little mud pile" in Micromegas. Climate change is one example of how these inexorable physical laws that we don't get to vote on govern our lives. We cannot tell the universe what to do, so we had better learn to live according to its laws. If we don't, we will become part of the sixth extinction on this planet, which got along fine without us Homo sapiens (Home stultans?) for about 4 billion years. It may be better off without us unless we learn to live less arrogantly and within our means.

If anyone wants to read the bills, they are available on the Thomas database at the Library of Congress at the following web site. You can search using the bill numbers: H.R. 2454 (W-M), S. 1733 (K-L), and S. 2877 (C-C). Be sure to click "bill number" in the window just below "Enter Search":

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=BSS&c=111

If you have any questions, please send them.

-- Chip Ashley
    wattsvalleypreservation@gmail.com