The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

The Real Story of Cap and Trade

Stephen Lacey, Podcast Editor
January 04, 2010  |  45 Comments

In the wake of the Copenhagen talks and the passage of a climate bill in the U.S. House last year, the debate over cap and trade will likely intensify as we move 2010.

Unfortunately, the debate in the halls of Congress, on the blogosphere and on the television talk shows is often tainted by bad information and oversimplified characterizations of the policy. So, in the midst of this ever-growing (and sometimes deafening conversation), we decided to dig into the real story of cap and trade ourselves.

Oscar Wilde once said: “People know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

In this podcast, we'll examine the societal, environmental and financial value of putting a price on carbon.

Join us as we take an hour long journey into the world of carbon cap and trade and explore the history, effectiveness, and cost of the program. Given the inevitable complexity of such a program, we'll also ask if it's the right policy to put in place as we create a carbon-constrained, clean-energy future.

Seth Kaplan, vice president for climate advocacy at the Conservation Law Foundation, describes the history of cap and trade as it rapidly evolved from an academic proposal to an international policy for limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Phil Adams, president and chief operating officer of World Energy Solutions, talks about the differences between the primary and secondary carbon trading markets. He'll also talk about how his company's carbon exchange, the World Green Exchange, works as a driver for those markets.

Tim Healy, CEO and chairman of EnerNOC, tells us how he's built a business around using less energy, not more. He'll also talk about the company's new CarbonTrak software and how it can help businesses realize the financial value in reducing emissions.

Milo Sjardin, head of U.S. carbon markets for New Energy Finance, compares the size and scope of the EU and U.S. carbon trading programs.

Erin Craig, CEO of TerraPass, describes the make-up of the “pure” voluntary market in the U.S. and how it may blend together with a compliance market in the future.

Michelle Chan, senior policy analyst with Friends of the Earth, warns about the potential downside risk in creating new derivative markets based on carbon. She talks about how investors could be creating “subprime carbon,” as they devise new financial products based upon bad offset projects.

And Peter Fusaro, chairman and founder of Global Change Associates, talks about how carbon markets will be regulated in the U.S. He'll also discuss how Americans can learn from the European experience with cap and trade.

Our music this week came from Stefan Girardet, off his new album, “Are We Here Yet.”

Inside Renewable Energy is a weekly audio news program featuring stories and interviews on all the latest developments in the renewable energy industries.

45 Comments

Register To Comment
Mcx Tips
Mcx Tips
October 21, 2010
The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill. Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the 'devils in the details' in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from what's really required to tackle the climate crisis.
Tom Wilson
Tom Wilson
January 17, 2010
Since carbon offsets have been brought up, I thought I'd bring up my lingering technology question- why is there limited money being invested into developing artificial carbon sinks? I've read about preliminary designs by a few start ups, but given the circumstances, I would think there would be a lot more $$$ developing the technology.
ANONYMOUS
January 15, 2010
There is another source of human caused global warming that will not be covered under cap and trade.....nuclear weapons testing . The cia tracks these events. How much heat is released and where does it go?? I will agree that climate change is caused by human activity. If you agree it is not all about carbon emissions. Don't forget people breath out 4% CO2.
Stephen Lacey
Stephen Lacey
January 15, 2010
Thanks, Bill. I walk a very interesting line when covering subjects in the podcast. On one hand, I'm speaking mostly to a business audience that understands the markets and technologies well. On the other hand, I want to open the topics up to people who don't understand them as intimately....I try to straddle both sides, but usually I come down on the business side, as that is our primary audience.

I am, however, trying to put together more coverage pieces like this. I have gotten a good response from listeners, and I want to continue to develop more comprehensive, documentary-style pieces that explain topics in a more dynamic way....It's a lot of work for one person! But I hope to deliver more of what you're asking for.

Keep on listening, and I'll keep on trying to make it better and better...Thanks for the comments!
Stephen Lacey
Stephen Lacey
January 14, 2010
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the comments. Those popping noises you heard were actually the interviewee tapping on the table that the microphone was on. It wasn't really something I could take out. I got him to stop knocking the table, but not until a third of the interview was done :)

Also, your comment about introducing the person later in the podcast is a good one. I'll certainly pay closer attention to that when the show gets so long! The person you are referring to is Seth Kaplan of the Conservation Law Foundation. He's a great interview -- I will certainly have him on more shows in the future.

I appreciate your thoughts! All the best....

Stephen
Jim Prall
Jim Prall
January 14, 2010
Actually the discussion of CRA's estimates is at 53:00 - still can't pick out which interviewee is speaking, and would love to know who that was (and hear more interviews with him in the future!)

- Jim Prall
Toronto, Canada
Jim Prall
Jim Prall
January 14, 2010
Yeesh, no matter what the original topic, web comment threads are certain to start off with "there is no evidence..." - well, rubbish! If you think there is no evidence, you are working really hard not to find it, or you have your own special, personal definition of "evidence" - at which point we've fallen through the looking-glass and we're talking to the Mad Hatter or the Red Queen...

Getting back to Stephen's excellent podcast: I listen every week and they're a highlight of my week. Stephen knows the field across many aspects as very few do. This week I especially liked the comments in the last several minutes (starting around 49:00) about how CRA (and Fox) are grossly overstating the likely costs of implementing cap & trade - but I couldn't place which interviewee that was. I'd like to read more of his thoughts - can you pick out which one this was?

Stephen - could you work into your scripts to say the name of each interviewee at least the first time they come in, and maybe again later if it's been a while since they were introduced and there are many interviewees? Mike Tidwell does this almost obsessively in his "World On Fire" podcast at http://www.worldonfirepodcast.org/
Also the interviews around 49:00 and 51:00 had some low bass popping - listening on large headphones, I first thought someone was tromping around upstairs. Maybe you should get a "pop guard" for your new mic that you got for Christmas? :-)
I don't know if there's a way to remove the pops in software...
Anyway, great work! Best wishes for a great 2010 and keep up the good fight.
ANONYMOUS
January 13, 2010
I'm curious about the glaciers melting around the world. If we had a mini-iceage until the late 1800's, which lasted 2-400 years depending on who studied it, naturally we would have an unusual build up of glaciers in that period, right??? Who is to say, that the glaciers today aren't more typical. I know they have taken ice cores of Antarica's ice and Greenlands ice which were thousands of years old, but don't you think that being near the poles and over land, that these would be more stable and thus older than say those in Glacier National Park or Mount Kilamonjaro in Africa. Did anyone core some lower latitude glaciers before they melted to see how old they were before they melted???
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
January 13, 2010
Fred - thanks for the link (skepticalscience), but it is only one side of the equation and they still insist that the planet is warming - which is still debatable. These studies and reports are all one-sided, of course, none are listed that suggest other opinions. This is natural - if you are trying to prove a point you won't quote studies that contradict your opinion. The science is not settled on either subject.

As for the CIA making preparations... the President believes that global warming is real, so it follows that he would try to be prepared - the CIA wouldn't be acting independently. Just as he has plans for meteors striking the earth or a domestic uprising or any other real or perceived threat, contingency plans are generated.

As for cap-and-trade, it is just a bad policy. To artificially raise prices on fossil fuels to support renewables is bad for the national economy and individuals/families. The free market system must be allowed to bring the technology to parity with fossil fuels. It is a lot like welfare - if people learn to live off the government, getting something for nothing, they lose the incentive to better themselves and become complacent. If the government keeps prices for renewables artificially low, the incentive to research and improve is lost.
Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza
Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza
January 13, 2010
Stephen, I believe you said in the beginning of your podcast that this wasn't about global warming, but about the mechanics of cap and trade. On that level, I'm in awe of the information you provide here. You bring it to a personal level while explaining complex financial models and environmental issues. Bravo. Also love the entertaining sound bites. Bravo again.

As to all of the climate skeptics here, here's a great annotated website that shows all of the skeptic claims and answers them all with annotated, peer reviewed science.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

In addition, I'd also like to point out that the CIA, who also is spending time and resources to prepare for the security effects of global warming. I really don't think our premier spy agency would be worrying about global warming over terrorism if they didn't truly consider it a threat to this country.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html

Again, Stephen, excellent, excellent reporting here and thank you so much for doing my cap and trade homework for me. :)
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
January 12, 2010
There is, and we should...
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
January 12, 2010
My point is that we do not KNOW what effect, if any, our GHGs have on the environment. To accept, absolutely, that it is bad is not unlike believing the earth is flat. We simply don't have the evidence of that.

As for your "1-2 billion" population number - that's a little extreme, isn't it? You don't give God much credit for building a planet...
John Dye
John Dye
January 12, 2010
Paul -- goodness gracious, the thought of 3-5 times the current global population striving for a U.S. standard of living is a nightmare scenario. You could argue it any number of ways, but I think about 1-2 billion is a reasonable carrying capacity for our planet -- unless we introduce radically transformative lifestyle efficiencies (e.g., everyone a vegetarian, all homes equipped with solar panels & premium insulation, etc.). We are probably about to crest the traditional population curve -- a crash may be coming as soon as this century.

Of course fluctuations in the sun's output affect global climate. But we have no control over that. We DO have control over our GHG emissions, so that is where we should focus our attention.

I'm underestimating the power of nature? That is too ironic. Those who failed to prepare for Katrina, or think that we had nothing to do with it, are the ones who fit that description. Maybe you can explain to us how "the power of nature" handles our vast carbon output? To date, a great deal has been absorbed by the ocean. But rapid and devastating ocean acidification has alerted us that the tipping point has been reached.

I am in no rush to implement global cap and trade -- I have serious concerns about verifiability, as well as the "bubble" effect (and I don't want the taint of the financial sector infecting legitimate environmental legislation). But all this arm waving about negative economic impacts is blind hysteria. Time and time again we have seen how sensible incentives promote innovation and market opportunties (e.g., acid rain, CFCs). And I do think we should be in a tremendous hurry to do all we can to mitigate and ultimate cease GHG emissions. If we don't, the "power of nature" will likely find ways to do it for us -- ways that we certainly won't appreciate.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
January 12, 2010
John - you underestimate the power of nature. I would suggest that the planet was designed to accomodate 3-5 times the existing population. If this is the case, the effect of the current level of humanity is within the planets capability.
On a side topic - perhaps you can tell me if the sun has any effect on the temperature of the earth, and if it changes. No other global warming/climate change believer has been able to explain why this is not considered in the hockey-stick graphs...
John Dye
John Dye
January 12, 2010
When environmentally responsible persons try to introduce incentives for others to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices, neo-cons say it's a vast conspiracy to seize power and redistribute wealth. When power-mad fascists ram through unconstitutional legislation and wage an illegal and immoral war in the Middle East, neo-cons say it will keep us safe from terrorism.

Of course, the neo-cons are horribly wrong on both counts.

I simply don't understand how anyone can believe that pumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere on a daily basis cannot have a dangerous impact on the global climate. That kind of "thinking" must stem from an ignorant cornucopian delusion that the Earth's resources are inexhaustible. Just ask fishermen around the world how "inexhaustible" our fish stocks are. There are so many examples of humanity's hubris leading to environmental devastation, and then that devastation having harsh consequences on humanity.

That seems to be the missing link for those who deny GW: they fail (or refuse) to see how the collective actions of billions of humans will have adverse impacts on all of us.

Regressives need to accept the uncomfortable truth that we cannot go back to a simpler, less populated world. The pressures placed on our limited resources by burgeoning human population necessitates novel solutions. Clinging to old ideas that may have been appealing in bygone days will only make it more difficult to implement necessary incentives to promote environmentally responsible conduct.
Edward Wilhelm
Edward Wilhelm
January 12, 2010
My take on this article is that human population is causing global warming. If there were a historical balance there between birthrate and death rate....no problems.
But obviously population for whatever reason is gone wild. Cap=put a lid on global population total at say1billion total . Trade = turn some living people(carbon based units) into carbon by burying them, sequestration to decrease global warming. Wait reverse that to Trade and Cap.
This world is thinking backwards...the earths poles have flipped.
Deny this? Clean , free energy is totally possible.
Matthew Weldon
Matthew Weldon
January 11, 2010
How about replacing complicated and easily gamed Cap & Trade with simpler carbon tax? It is reputed to be more efficient and effective by many economists. It doesn't require government officials to guess right and pick winning alternative technologies or mitigation projects. It could be made palatable to many in two easy steps:

1) Eliminate corporate taxes
2) Replace with carbon taxes

Generally beneficial to replace punishing production tax with consumption tax. If rate is chosen to be tax neutral in net effect, no once can complain about a new tax burden to the economy. The wealthy consume more power than the poor, so it is inherently more 'progressive'. it creates market incentives that all can understand and to which to respond.

Bonus: Some of our silly trade war practices could then be justified. We could add a carbon footprint tax on incoming goods, based on how aggressive or not the trade partner is in their climate change goals. Big advantage to US and Europe as the most energy efficient economies. What would otherwise get the US in trouble with the WTO could then be justified in the name of saving the world.

Direct carbon taxation has been classified a 'non-starter'. It is if no one starts.

Of course simplification is not a goal. Without tax favors to dole out - what is a politician to do with him/herself?
Wesley Sugai
Wesley Sugai
January 11, 2010
Yes fireofenergy....there is a conspiracy involving fraudulent data as I mentioned above. So if Steve Hawkings believes in AGW may be he can convince me with real data. Yes real data. As yet I see none. If Hawkings has something to say about MOND theory of relativity, dark energy/matter, or the new modification of the theory of gravity, I'll listen. However, when it comes to AGW. I consider him no different from your position and intellect. We all have our areas of expertise and when we go beyond this area and expect to have the same level of competence, well, thats when we get into trouble. So far the AGW proponents seem to be so swooned by the religiosity of global warming that science and real data just seem to get in the way.
Wesley Sugai
Wesley Sugai
January 10, 2010
If you enjoy paying taxes to your government, please, feel free to pay mine too...last year I paid out 55% of my income in taxes. After write offs and taxes, my corp. paid over a quarter million. Obama made more money off of me than ME!
Wesley Sugai
Wesley Sugai
January 10, 2010
Interesting comments. I agree Paul with you. I'm in Hawaii and do not feel the ferocity of this years winter associated probably with the prolonged solar minimum. So far though...I'm hoping we're coming out of this quiet period as we've had a few more sunspots (sunspot 1040 being the latest), and maybe the earth can start warming up again. Yes, its the sun that controls the weather and temp of the earth....but yes mankind can pollute the heck out of our environment too.

Unfortunately many pro-cap and trade/tax posters expose their significant naivete of this subject.

Over 23 years, a cap-and-trade plan would slash $9.4 trillion from GDP and kill 2.5 million jobs. It would hike gasoline prices by 58%, or $1.40 a gallon. Home electricity rates would soar 90%.

All told, cap-and-trade could cost families an added $1,761 a year in taxes. And no, that's not an estimate cooked up by anti-cap-and-trade activists. That's the White House's own estimate for the costs, which it tried to hush up. Taxpayers will have to pony up as much as $200 billion a year in new taxes, the equivalent of raising everyone's taxes by roughly 15%.

"Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1% of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation," said a confidential White House memo, written late last year and obtained recently by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Sam Harriman
Sam Harriman
January 8, 2010
Thanks a lot Stephen, for opening up this discussion. And everyone for your comments.

I haven't figured out how to chop wood and carry water yet without the help of an axe, so I'm saving up for the grinder. And, "like an escape tunnel in prison" sometimes you gotta start from scratch. I wonder who bought the computer Ron Hill is using
ANONYMOUS
January 8, 2010
I agree in theory.
In practical, it will just modify how subsidies flow and not to a healthy subsidies-free market. Add on top of that human greed. We still can spell enron ...
want to make carbon less attractive ? tax it ... simple and transparent. And the governement needs money. I don't really like it, but at least I know where the money is coming from and where it is going.
Mark Simpson
Mark Simpson
January 8, 2010
I see cap and trade as an extremely efficient means of encouraging competition in electricity markets. I like cheap power as much as anyone, but cheap power which emits high levels of pollution is subsidizing polluting companies, by not making them pay the price for the effects of their pollution. This subsidy is paid by anyone who does not benefit from the cheap power. There is a "missing market" for external pollution, and this must be accounted for by some type of government regulation. If you are not for cap and trade, then you are by default voting for continuing to subsidize polluting companies; or possibly hoping for some less efficient non-market based alternative method of regulation. I prefer the market based solution; and as Stephen sited it worked well in efficiently minimizing the acid rain problem in the US.
ANONYMOUS
January 8, 2010
I don't know enough or I am not smart enough to conclude that the earth is warming as a result of mankind.
But I know that the earth needs to be preserved for next generations (the next "earth" being a few billions light years away if there is one).
The earth is not a toy. There is no post-damage bail out option.
Therefore, I had rather keep the earth's destiny away from greedy traders at least until it is proven that we can get rid off the natural human greed.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
January 8, 2010
It's all about control, Wesley. The Dems want control of the energy supply in the US, including the ability to raise revenues by adding taxes to the prices, just like they want control of healthcare, employment with Card Check, and immigration 'reform' (by selling legal status to illegal invaders for $500).

Only a control freak or a mental midget would sacrifice the worlds number one economy in the name of a flawed theory.

And to those who still want to believe that climate change exists, and still want to believe that there is global warming, and still want to believe that it is caused by human activity: show me data of the activity of the sun over the last 10,000 years. If there is to be any "proof" or conclusion to be drawn, ALL factors must be considered, including the single largest effect on the temperature of the planet, the sun.
Wesley Sugai
Wesley Sugai
January 7, 2010
The hockey-stick graph was produced in 1999 by Mann using these manipulated tree ring data. The graph supposedly proved air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Mann et al. had to make the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.

McIntyre, who with fellow Canadian researcher Ross McKitrick exposed the hockey-stick fraud, says the evidence from only one Siberian tree, known as YAD061, seemed to show a hockey-stick pattern.

There's just too much suspected fraud and the "science" is still NOT SETTLED, so why put in place an economic devastating tax based on this?
Wesley Sugai
Wesley Sugai
January 7, 2010
I'm a AGW skeptic like many posters here. The C&T bill will increase your electrical bill by 90%(+) and your gasoline by 50%(+). Thats why I'm investing in SunPower's PV system, having installed the 1st of 3 ($22k each) systems. I also have SolarHart water heater as well as SolaTube passive lighting systems installed in my home that also has a rain catchment system. Total investment will be in the $100k range. I am very well aware of green investments and will do well whether or not the Waxman Markey bill passes.

Unfortunately, many of my family, friends, and colleagues will not be able to weather this onslaught of taxes.

And as many skeptics have posted, all this based on a false premise of AGW due to man's CO2 output. We put out 27 billion tons/yr (Scientific America) in to an atmosphere that already has 3,600 billion tons of CO2...or 0.75% of all C02 is man made. Up to 90% of green house gas effects is due to water vapor and clouds. The other 10% is due to CH4, 03, S02, N0x, SF6, flurocarbons, and a few others....and C02 ...all 3,600 billion tons accounts only for 2-3% of that 10%. And man accounts for 0.75% of all C02....??

And the "hockey stick" graph based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula in Russia is based on cherry picked data based on only 12 trees.

Siberia has played a pivotal role in this outright fraud. In 1995, a paper by the CRU's Keith Briffa asserted the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. It relied on tree ring data from trees on Siberia's Yamal Peninsula.

Here too data were carefully selected. Those from just 12 trees from 252 cores in the Yamal data set were used. A larger set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages. They weren't used.
bob freeston
bob freeston
January 7, 2010
THE REALITY IN WASHINGTON IS THE HOUSE BILL GIVES 85% OF THE CREDITS TO THE COAL BOYS FOR FREE. VERY LITTLE MOVES BEYOND THAT TIL 2020. THAT WILL REPEAT THE FAILURE OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM. CAP AND TRADE IS RIPE FOR GAMING. DUBIOUS TREE PLANTING SCHEMES AND PAYMENTS FOR NOT CUTTING TREES ETC. THE FINANCIAL WIZARDS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY CREATING FEE PRODUCING INSTRUMENTS TO MAKE THE MARKET OPAQUE. A TAX NEUTRAL, TAX SHIFT ON TO CARBON AND OFF INCOME WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE. THERE IS CONSERVATIVE SUPPORT FOR THIS--SEE A. LAFFER & B. STEIN. SUPPORT FOR RENEWABLES AND EFFICIENCY COULD BE PART OF THE PACKAGE. IT WOULD PROVIDE MORE CLARITY THAN CAP & TRADE.
Ray Riedel
Ray Riedel
January 6, 2010
"AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide."

That statement shows a combination of sound science and prejudice.

Water vapor will greatly amplify warming -fact. It can amplify a warming trend no matter what causes the warming trend -including solar cycles or solar flares.

That warming was "caused by" increased levels of carbon dioxide is not proven. Nor is it proven that increased atmospheric CO2 is caused by man.

That carbon dioxide contributes to warming the earth -proven. Many things contribute to warming, and to cooling, the earth. To claim that CO2 is causing the temperature of the earth to increase is speculation neglecting many other effects.

What is often provided as proof of carbon dioxide "causing" global warming looks more like a reversal of cause and effect. The famous graphs showing a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global warming show:
1. CO2 increase LAGS warming temperatures.
2. The earth cycles through warm periods and ice ages without the input of man.

I attended a lecture by a "scientist" -she has a phd in horticulture, where natural causes of CO2 were shown to be orders of magnitude higher than man-made CO2, but it's not a problem because its balanced. The problem is that man-made CO2 isn't balanced -therefore it increases the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. So how do we know natural CO2 is balanced? I was told it's been proven. (Remember the famous graph that shows big swings in CO2 over the last 450,000 years -contradiction?)

Recently an article reported Canada's forests were creating more CO2 than they used. So does that disprove the belief that natural CO2 is in balance? Of course not. The reported conclusion: "Man-made global warming" was causing the forest to output more CO2.

I remember in 1979 we were told the previous three decades were the coldest in recorded history. Man-made pollution was causing a new ice-age. Check out NY Times "Ice age".
Brooke H
Brooke H
January 6, 2010
To Tom-Chandler, I'd say that acceptance of GW theory does not at all necessarily go hand-in-hand with support for cap-and-trade policy, though I absolutely agree with you that, no matter where you stand on either of those issues, support for renewable energy is a no-brainer and a commonsense endeavor.

Regarding the podcast more directly, though, it seemed that the actual level of support for a carbon tax, as opposed to a cap-and-trade system, among people and organizations aiming to combat environmental degradation was glossed over. Joining Al Gore in his support of this more direct way to "put a price on pollution" is U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, among others. I think that how we address climate change ought still to be discussed, even though the bills in the U.S. House and Senate both take a cap-and-trade approach.

While I appreciate the reasoning behind the closing sentiment of the podcast that the 'how' question is distracting from the larger question of the goal, I continue to believe that discussion about the best way to make a real difference is of paramount importance, so that we don't fall into complacency with an environmental policy that may be so only in name.

And for those people interested in pursuing renewable energy, whatever the outcome of international negotiations and Senate votes, I encourage you to find the ways you can flex your own power.

Brooke H.
Renewable Power Solutions
San Jose, CA
http://rps-solar.com/blog
Tom Chandler
Tom Chandler
January 6, 2010
"RON HILL, YOU ARE AN EGOIST."

I hope you take that as a compliment Ron, I know I would.

After reading the above posts, I have to say I am heartened to hear that not everyone here has been suckered in by the Global Warming fear-mongers. Why some people think that buying into GW and Cap & Trade is a prerequisite for supporting renewable energy is beyond me. Working to improve renewable energy is common sense.....GW and Cap & Trade is self-destructive nonsense.
Walter Daniels
Walter Daniels
January 6, 2010
Whether GW is real as claimed, is a minor point. The power to _tax_ is the power to destroy. If you wish to have the "dead hand of Government," controlling your life in all aspects, gp for C&T. If you wish to make your own choices of of employment/business, home heating method, and energy prices, "vote" against it. Better to pass regulations/laws that encourage RE, and stop the "because that's the way we always did it," thinking. IOW, stop seeing CO2 as a "waste" and see it as a potential resource.
If it is a _resource_, you look for ways to make money with it. When that happens, the problem will be solved to the satisfaction of all but the "Luddite" environmental fringe. by them, I mean the ones who want to return us to pre-1900 population levels. How else can we have the "pristine" levels of GHG's, etc., that they want so desperately? Or, at least so goes their thinking.
John Acord
John Acord
January 6, 2010
The revenues generated from any cap and trade scheme must be dedicated to the expansion of alternative energy programs and not used to fund projects that do not directly benefit the consumers and taxpayers who will ultimately support these schemes. It will be much easier to muster the poilitical capital to transform energy uses when these funds are directly allocated to enhancing commercial and residential energy efficiencies in North America and Europe. There is little doubt that people will support these programs when they see reduced energy bills, less dependence on imported fossil fuels, a cleaner environment. The revenues from cap and trade can be used as rebates and incentives to promote installation of solar and other alternative energy sources. The climate change debate can rage forward as we convert to 21st Century energy technologies.
ANONYMOUS
January 6, 2010
The Real Story on Cap and Trade - What's in it for ME




Massachusetts
Martha Coakley mum on National Grid donations
She's not shocked?
By Christine McConville
Wednesday, January 6, 2010




Outraged Bay Staters are calling on Massachusetts' attorney general to probe links between a utility's big rate-hike approval and subsequent donations by company executives to Gov. Deval Patrick's re-election campaign.
"These National Grid political donations may very well turn into higher electric prices on the backs of homeowners throughout Massachusetts," said Audra Parker of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. The group is the chief critic of Cape Wind, the controversial offshore wind energy project that Patrick supports.
The Herald reported yesterday that on the same day in December Patrick's utility commissioners approved a $44 million rate hike for National Grid, and the utility agreed to consider purchasing power from Cape Wind. A week later, the governor attended a party at the offices of National Grid's federal lobbyist, netting nearly $7,000 from people with ties to the utility.

National Grid's decision to consider purchasing the power from Cape Wind gave the plan a significant boost. Amid reports that wind-generated energy could cost users three to four times more than conventional energy, Cape Wind developers could secure more financing by showing there is a buyer for their power.
Attorney General Martha Coakley's position requires her to ensure that residents get reliable energy at the lowest possible cost. Through a spokesman, Coakley declined comment yesterday.
Patrick's campaign has denied any connection between the events. National Grid says the timing is "coincidental."
Patrick got a similar fund-raising boost from Cape Wind itself, back in 2006 when he was running for governor. Just months after coming out in favor of the project, he collected $2,000 in donations from Cape Wind President Jim Gordon and his wife.
"You would th
Natasha Long
Natasha Long
January 6, 2010
Firstly: Come on people, don't feed the trolls. Even I managed not to rise to MoRon! Okay just that one.

Secondly, while I haven't listened to the podcast (I'm at work) and therefore haven't heard all the arguments, I disagree with Cap and Trade. The biggest emitters always get the biggest quota of allowances to emit *and* the option to buy emissions from the lowest emitters, therefore they will continue to emit at the current rate, or increase emissions if they feel it necessary, for quite some time. This does not reduce the overall global emissions sufficiently, or quickly enough.

Secondly, the commoditisation of carbon is as bad an idea as the commoditisation of wheat or any other natural resource that HUMANITY NEEDS TO SURVIVE!! Sorry for shouting, but how do people forget that? We need to eat to survive, we emit carbon as part of our survival. Therefore, the commoditisation of food or carbon emissions is putting a price on human life. At what point did that become acceptable? If you have children, look at them. At what price would you say "Go on then, shoot them."? If no price is enough then the commoditisation of necessary resources is wrong.

We all emit CO2 - we are all responsible and we all need to CUT our emissions. Buying and selling the right to emit is buying and selling the right to live.

A carbon tax and legislation are fairer ways to cut emissions. It shouldn't be too difficult to average out the annual total CO2 emitted per head. This should be the limit and beyond that people are taxed. This way, developing countries can increase their emissions to an upper limit, while developed countries are forced to cut. And for a carbon tax to be considered fair, companies who make a profit from their activities should pay more than individuals whose emissions are due to just living.
Guy Mercer
Guy Mercer
January 6, 2010
Most seem to agree that if we are to have an environment that is suitable for our diverse bio resources energy must become clean and emissions minimised.
The problems of water, energy and food appear to be massive but the biggest challenges are not really technical but those of economics and the will to work together. There are many ways in which renewble energy can meet the world power rquirements.
On that thought no amount of improvements in the production of the above will be sufficient unless the world's population stabilises.
For most of the world, with limited / no benefits: Reproduction is the only means of providing for old age. The only acceptable method by which fundamental behaviour can be changed in the long term is with incentive.
Since money is only useful if it circulates:
It may be in all our interest for our politicians to set up a worldwide benefit system, which is contractually linked to a combination of limited reproduction and internationally acceptable behaviour. For example it may be possible to alter attitudes to mitigate abuse of women and children and reduce the drug trade.
Maybe a small tax on carbon trading paid by the carbon user could help fund such a world wide system, while the economy changes to one based on values for sustainability.
Rick Smith
Rick Smith
January 5, 2010
Global warming is directly related to ocean warming. Ocean warming is directly realted to subsea volcanos and vents along thousands of miles of spreading centers and subduction zones linked to plate tectonics. Therefore we do not see a correllation between carbon dioxide and global temperatures. World governments should fund some real science into ocean warming.
Jerry Caldwell
Jerry Caldwell
January 5, 2010
http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/
Tim Carlson
Tim Carlson
January 5, 2010
I have a friend that is in a top position in the Canadian government. He was involved at the highest levels when the Koyto accord was put together. He told me that it's all about economic equalization. Cap and Trade (carbon credits) would be an easy way to establish a new form of "currency" and mandate redistribution of wealth. When you see the blind rush to make this happen, it's hard to argue against that possibile motivation.
Mike Miller
Mike Miller
January 5, 2010
How do you global warming alarmists explain the past peaks and valleys of CO2 levels over the last milliniums? Why has the earth been cooling over the last decade if increasing CO2 causes warming? Could it be the solar output? In a few years when the solar storms have peaked again and there is warming weather trends you will have forgotten how cold it was the previous years. I don't ever recall hearing how the earth's past warm trends, when there was no ice on the earth, was destroying the earth. However, when the earth was a giant ice cube 600 millions years ago, we know that life was quite difficult.

You radical wacko's just can't understand that climate changes all on it's own. Always has and always will, with or without human activity. Even if man does contribute to global warming, you can't understand that nature will correct itself and is much more powerful than anything man can do. You seem hell bent on trying to maintain the earth as it is now. Since alot of you are Mother Earth worshippers, you should be happy to let nature deal with man by letting it reduce the population back down to a billion people.

You also refuse to accept the idea that the biggest advocates of global warming are the people who profit by it. This Cap and Trade will make many billionaires while taxing the middle class once again and also will benefit the third world countries at the expense of the West.

I'm all for clean energy but it doesn't have to come at he expense of the world's economy. There obviously are alot of profiteers out there with the attitude of George Soros. Make as much money as you can without any regards to the rest of the world.
Donald Bristow-Carrcio
Donald Bristow-Carrcio
January 5, 2010
@ Ron Hill, why are you so interested in a renewable energy site? The agent provocateurs are lined up at all the pro environment web sites to make "noise" and change the subject.
Joel Fairstein
Joel Fairstein
January 5, 2010
Ron, assuming your objection is rational, I'd like to give you a proof demonstrating man-made global warming.

1. Water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and fluorocarbons in the atmosphere hold terrestrial heat. This is known as the greenhouse effect, discovered in 1824, and is indisputable.
2. When you increase greenhouse gasses, the heat "blanket" is increased, preventing solar heat from escaping. Terrestrial temperatures go up. This is a similar effect to piling on additional blankets on a cold winter's night.
3. Burning fossil fuels by man releases more CO2 into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, there is a direct correlation between CO2 released by man and global temperatures.

For a scholarly discussion on the topic with climate models and over 100 reference sources, I recommend the Wikepedia article, "Global Warming."
a b
a b
January 5, 2010
RON HILL, YOU ARE AN EGOIST.


http://jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196

December 15, 2009

NASA Outlines Recent Breakthroughs in Greenhouse Gas Research

WASHINGTON – Researchers studying carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas and a key driver of global climate change, now have a new tool at their disposal: daily global measurements of carbon dioxide in a key part of our atmosphere. The data are courtesy of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft.

………….

In another major finding, scientists using AIRS data have removed most of the uncertainty about the role of water vapor in atmospheric models. The data are the strongest observational evidence to date for how water vapor responds to a warming climate.

"AIRS temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced as carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated -- in fact, more than doubled -- by water vapor," said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Dessler explained that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as feedbacks. Water vapor is a particularly important feedback. As the climate warms, the atmosphere becomes more humid. Since water is a greenhouse gas, it serves as a powerful positive feedback to the climate system, amplifying the initial warming. AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data with models and re-analyses are in excellent agreement.

"The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth's climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth's climate system,"
Andrew Streit
Andrew Streit
January 5, 2010
There are currently 6 billion plus humans on the planet. For all of human history there has been a fairly static population of less than 1 billion. With the advent of coal powered electricity we have been able to decrease disease, increase food production and quality of life for over a third of the world. Coal is fossilized carbon that took millions of years to sequester. We are re-introducing this carbon into the earth cycle at an astonishing rate. In less than a century we have gone from carbon neutral to massively injecting carbon previously trapped back into the atmosphere. A single power plant will burn 10,000 tons of coal a day, A DAY! Now you tell me are we impacting our climate?! Even if you still refuse to acknowledge the obvious what do propose we do for energy, which is the bedrock of prosperity once we have used all the fossil fuel?? For so many reasons we need to tackle this imminent threat but not least of all becase we can, and I challenge all thinking people to make an effort to contribute.
Ronald Hill
Ronald Hill
January 5, 2010
Why no discussion of the core problem: there is no scientific proof that man created any global warming and there is NO correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperatures.

Yet you and everyone else with an ax to grind (or a bank account to fill) talks as though it's "settled science" when there is none. There is a direct correlation between solar irradiance and global temperatures. WISE UP.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stephen Lacey

Stephen Lacey

I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, where I contributed stories and hosted the Inside Renewable Energy Podcast. Keep...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 2
    The Importance of Understanding our Renewable Energy Worldview: Why Fossil Fuels are our Friends

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • AEG Power Solutions
  • SolarReviews
  • Canadian Clean Energy Conferences
  • Schneider Electric
  • Brightergy
  • HydroWorld.com
  • Renewable Energy World Asia
  • Rolls Battery Engineering
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information