Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Reid cites other states that are turning away from coal
John G. Edwards, Ely News (Nevada)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Friday advanced a new argument in his campaign to block development of conventional coal-burning power plants in Nevada, citing reports that coal-fired plants are being canceled and curtailed in seven other states.
Click here for the Ely Times
“All these states are saying no to coal power plants that use inefficient and polluting technology,” Reid said in a statement. “Instead, they’re investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency because that makes so much more sense in the long run for the environment, consumers and their economies.”
The report comes as part of Reid’s promise to use all his power to stop coal-fired power plants under development in Nevada. He opposes coal power plants being developed by Sierra Pacific Resources of Reno, LS Power of East Brunswick, N.J.; and Sithe Global Power of Houston.
Top executives at Sierra Pacific, the parent company for Nevada Power Co. and Sierra Pacific Power Co., disagreed, citing statistics that indicate numerous coal-fired power plants are in late stages of development around the country.
(20 September 2007)
Reid’s campaign against coal-burning power plants is a key story that the media have overlooked. -BA
The 40-million-tonne challenge: Campbell’s about to sign us all up
Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
Forty million tonnes is 60 per cent of current emissions in British Columbia. It exceeds the output of the provincial oil and gas industry, all other industry and commercial transportation combined.
Alternatively, it is greater than the combined emissions from all forms of transportation, plus every workplace in B.C.
No wonder a grim joke making the rounds has the premier announcing that his action plan consists of 1) stop working and 2) stay home.
No wonder even B.C. Liberals are concerned about the mounting evidence that the premier determined his target with little analysis and less consultation.
Another way to judge the Campbell plan is by looking at the goals set by some of our neighbors.
(21 September 2007)
Contributor Bill Henderson writes:
A chilling column. Palmer implies that our premier didn’t know what he was signing in Schwarzenegger’s Western Climate Initiative. However the real story is the impossibility of making emission reductions of a scale needed. The examples are particular to British Columbia: the Canada Line is transit expansion; the Gateway Project is a mega-project building bridges and freeways south of Vancouver to facilitate trucks for container traffic and sprawl commuters.
British Columbia and the western states have growing economies, esp Asian trade – raw commodities in BC. Their emissions continue to rise. Without an end to business as usual we will go another decade fudging but not even slowing emission increase and we’re toast.
Critique: Greenspan on energy and climate change
(Original head: “Alan Greenspan is very overrated”)
Joseph Romm, Gristmill
Greenspan is no polymath, to go by the discussions of energy and climate in his instant bestseller, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. During his nuclear power love-fest, he writes (p. 453):
Nuclear power is not safe without a significant protective infrastructure. But then, neither is drinking water.
Wow! That’s an analogy I bet you never heard before. Greenspan is actually comparing drinking water infrastructure — which is needed mainly to protect the water from us (i.e. from human pollution) — with nuclear power’s infrastructure; which is needed to protect us from nuclear material, which (unlike water) is inherently dangerous. I guess this economic guru is the only person in the country who would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a reservoir.
Even more annoying (p. 446):
For example, after the initial surge in the fuel efficiencies of our light motor vehicles during the 1980s, reflecting the earlier run-up in oil prices, improvements slowed to a trickle.
Seriously? This statement sums up everything that is wrong with conservative economists. Greenspan hates government mandates like fuel economy standards, so they can’t be the reason why fuel efficiency surged (as the law required) and then stopped (since we haven’t toughened the law in two decades).
… [Greenspan] acknowledges that (p. 460):
To achieve the twin goals of enhanced national security and curtailed global warming, the growth rate of US petroleum consumption must flatten, and eventually consumption must decline outright. The big opportunity for displacement is on America’s highways …
So what is his answer? He has “come very reluctantly to taxes as an alternative way to accomplish what competitive markets could do.” He proposes “a gasoline tax of, say, $3 or more per gallon, phased in over five or 10 years with the resulting revenue used to lower income or other taxes” (p. 460).
Well, it has a certain intellectual consistency, if we ignore the political impossibility — which Greenspan does (p. 462):
I consider the argument that gasoline tax hikes are politically infeasible irrelevant. Sometimes the duty of political leadership is to convince constituencies that they are just plain wrong. Leaders who do not do that are followers.
(22 September 2007)
In Part 2, Joseph Romm criticizes Greenspan over his comments on global warming. Greenspan has also written and testified about oil supplies.
On an optimistic note, the very fact that libertarian economist Greenspan is even thinking about energy policy is a pleasant surprise. As Samuel Johnson said
[it’s] like a dog’s walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”
-BA
