Cap and Trade Calculations

  • Economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what (Photo courtesy of aoc.gov)

President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:

Transcript

President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:

Under some of the cap and trade plans, oil and gas companies would have to buy pollution permits.

But these companies want them for free.

They say if they’re forced to pay, they’ll have to pass the cost onto you and me.

But economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what.

That’s because things like coal, oil, and natural gas will be restriced.

And they say that’s what drives prices up.

Chad Stone is the Chief Economist for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

He says if pollution permits are bought at an auction, the money can be passed onto you and me. But it’s different if they’re just given away for free.

“If you don’t auction, you don’t have any revenue and consumers only get a hit to their budgets.”

Stone says if the pollution permits are auctioned, you could be getting a check in the mail or a tax credit to help you pay for higher energy bills.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Co2 “Upstream” Battle

There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:

Transcript

There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:


Back in March, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing
on how the auto industry could help fight global warming. All the
bigwigs in the U.S. auto industry were there: the heads of Ford,
General Motors and Chrysler, the North American president of Toyota and
the head of the United Auto Workers.


At the hearing, all of them agreed they would support a cap on CO2
emissions from vehicles, but they had a sort of caveat:


“We believe that there’s a lot of merit to it. And we believe if it’s
upstream…”


“For Cap and Trade, I think the further upstream you go, the more
efficient you’re going to be.”


“I’d just echo the upstream part.”


“The upstream as I stated earlier and the rest is absolutely critical.”


That was Ron Gettlefinger of the UAW, Jim Press of Toyota, Alan Mulally
of Ford, and Tom Lasorda of Chrysler.


So what do they mean by “upstream”? Here’s Ford spokesman Mike Moran:


“Lower carbon fuels, so that it’s just not what comes out of the
tailpipe, but you’re moving upstream and including the fuels that would
be included in the equation in the transportation sector.”


Basically the idea is, if you have less carbon in the fuel, you’ll pump
less carbon dioxide into the air.


But car companies really can’t take the carbon out of fuel. That’s
really more of a job for the oil industry. So are auto executives just
passing the buck?


David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says yeah, they’re
dodging the issue:


“The auto companies are basically finding more creative ways to say,
‘No,’ they won’t do anything to improve their products.”


Auto executives would say they’re already working to improve their
products, with millions of ethanol-capable vehicles on the road, and a
growing number of gas-electric hybrids. And many in the auto industry feel that they’ve been singled out for
regulation in the past.


The carmakers main lobbying group, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers says that for the past 30 years, the auto industry has
been the only industry subject to carbon dioxide regulations. Though
most people try to avoid saying so in public, there is clearly some
tension between the auto industry and the oil industry.


Louis Burke is with Conoco Phillips. He says his company is willing to
do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the oil company just
came out in favor of setting up mandatory federal rules. Those include a
possible system that caps carbon dioxide emissions, and allows
companies to trade carbon credits as if they were commodities:


“You can cap and trade at some point down within the value chain,
whether it’s all the way upstream, or whether it’s pretty far downstream. You
can also apply a carbon tax throughout the whole value chain. The whole
idea is it’s gotta be transparent, it can’t penalize any one group.”


So upstream, downstream, the point is something needs to be done.


David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says everyone can
do a little more:


“Everyone has to do their part. That means car companies have to
produce vehicles to get more miles to the gallon. Oil companies need to
have lower carbon fuels and yes, even consumers need to find ways to
drive less.”


It’s still not clear what exactly what approach Congress will take
toward cutting auto emissions, but while leaders in Washington try to
settle on a plan, local and state officials across the country are
coming up with their own plans.


California and 10 other states have their own plans to regulate
tailpipe emissions. Those plans are being challenged in court by the
auto industry. And California has also gone forward with the nation’s first low carbon
standard for fuels.


That “upstream” plan has the support of both auto and oil companies.


For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.

Related Links

Mercury Report to Undercut Epa Trading Program?

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules to cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Critics called the rules weak. Now, a different federal agency may have data supporting their claims. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules to cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Critics called the rules weak. Now, a different federal agency may have data supporting their claims. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration examined where mercury pollution in Lake Michigan is coming from. The data haven’t been publicly released yet, but sources say Midwestern power plants are the biggest culprits.


If true, that could undercut the EPA’s new mercury trading program. That lets dirty power plants buy the right to pollute from cleaner ones. Howard Learner’s with the Environmental Law and Policy Center. He says the program’s wrong because it treats all mercury pollution equally.


“When it comes to mercury pollution, a trading regime essentially doesn’t work very well, because you have concentrated localized hot spots in which the pollution is highly toxic to the people who live in those communities.”


Several state governments are fighting the EPA’s trading program in federal court. They’d like NOAA’s data, but the states and public will have to wait until the EPA reviews it.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

States Sue Epa Over New Mercury Rules

  • Some states are worried that the EPA's new mercury regulations won't protect children and pregnant women from mercury emissions from smokestacks. (Photo by Kenn Kiser)

Several states are filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its recently announced rules for reducing mercury pollution. The states allege the EPA’s rules do not adequately protect children and pregnant mothers from mercury contamination. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Several states are filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for its recently announced rules for reducing mercury
pollution. The states allege the EPA’s rules do not adequately protect
children and pregnant mothers from mercury contamination. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Nine states joined in the suit, claiming the EPA’s new cap-and-trade program
would lead to mercury hotspots. Instead of making all coal-burning plants
reduce mercury emissions, the plan will allow some plants to continue to
pollute by buying credits from plants that reduce emissions below the EPA’s
targets.


Peter Harvey is the Attorney General for New Jersey. He’s the lead
plaintiff in the suit.


“There are going to be areas of the country that have a lot more air
pollution, which means those residents are at a greater danger of ingesting
mercury, either through the air or through seafood products.”


Harvey says the Bush Administration’s plan does not meet the requirements of
the Clean Air Act. The U.S. EPA has defended the plan in the past, saying
lowers overall mercury emissions by half within 15 years without forcing
companies to add expensive pollution prevention equipment at every plant.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Mercury Rule’s Impact on Great Lakes Fish

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a new rule to reduce mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. But it might mean higher concentrations of mercury in fish in some inland lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protections Agency has a new rule to reduce mercury
emissions from coal-burning power plants. But it might mean higher
concentrations of mercury in fish in some inland lakes. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The Bush administration’s EPA rule will use a cap and trade program to
reduce mercury. That means that overall mercury emissions will go down
over time, but some dirtier power plants can buy the rights to emit higher
levels of mercury. That could cause mercury hot spots. Higher levels of
mercury in nearby lakes would work up the food chain and concentrate
in fish. Mercury can cause neurological damage, especially to young
children. The toxin also can be passed on to fetuses.


Canadian studies last year already have shown higher levels of mercury in
people who regularly eat Great Lakes fish. The problem is expected to
become more severe in mercury hotspots.


Historically, walleye has had more mercury than some other types of fish in
the Great Lakes, but other large fish such trout and salmon, can also have
higher levels of mercury in their flesh.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Study: Mercury Restrictions Help Local Wildlife

A recent study seems to indicate that wildlife recover from mercury contamination pretty quickly once emissions restrictions are in place. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A recent study seems to indicate that wildlife recover from mercury contamination pretty
quickly once emissions restrictions are in place. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester Graham reports:


The study reveals nearby mercury pollution can end up in local fish and wildlife. It’s
been thought that emissions from incinerators and coal-fired power plants spewed
mercury into the atmosphere where it settled out far away from the source.


In this study, published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
University of Florida scientists determined that mercury in local wading birds rose and
fell with emission levels from nearby sources. Tom Atkeson coordinates the mercury
program at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.


“Where we were able to make emissions reductions, we’ve been fortunate enough to see
declines in deposition and then very rapid responses in the aquatic system, lower levels of
mercury in fish and wildlife.”


Environmentalists say this means the Bush proposed cap and trade program for reducing
mercury emissions could lead to local mercury “hot spots” across the nation.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links