Relief now that Copenhagen flopped? Don’t count on it
December 23, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: Special Report
Have U.S. companies dodged a bullet now that the Copenhagen climate action summit ended without any mandatory agreements? Is it time to forget about going green?
Hardly.
The green push continues unabated, though you’d hardly know that if you read the environmental blogs or if you listen to the lamentations of companies salivating at the commissions they’ll make in the emission trading game.
As Richard Gledhill, head of carbon markets at PricewaterhouseCoopers, told the Wall Street Journal, “It’s very frustrating at this stage that we haven’t got a more-comprehensive agreement.”
But for most companies, the big dud that was Copenhagen merely means EPA and states, not Congress, are in charge of the U.S. effort to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They’re not waiting around for Congress to come up with a cap-and-trade bill.
California’s leading the way. On its own, it’s going to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Oregon and Washington are planning similar actions to create the GHG emission inventories that will set emission benchmarks to measure reductions from. All three are members of the Western Climate Change Initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions. The Midwest has the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and in the East, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
And, while the Senate debates cap-and-trade legislation, EPA will be calling the shots to reduce GHG emissions and force companies to reduce their carbon footprints.
EPA’s regulatory action is already underway. On New Year’s Day, facilities with large levels of direct carbon dioxide emissions — more than 25,000 metric tons a year — have to keep records of their 2010 GHG emissions. They start filing these GHG emission release reports with EPA in 2011.
In the spring, EPA will issue final Clean Air Act permitting rules, the so-called tailoring rule, to force facilities to reduce GHG releases when they build new facilities or modify existing plants.
This is in addition to EPA adopting GHG tailpipe emission standards for new cars and trucks.
One consolation: The U.S. retained its right to adopt border tariffs on imports from China and India if those countries fail to take concerted action to reduce their GHG emission levels.
Has the action (or lack of it) in Copenhagen had any effect on your company’s green plans? Share what’s going on in your area.
Tags: border tarriffs, cap-and-trade, EPA tailoring rule, GHG reporting
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
December 27th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
We should be conserving natural resources and looking for efficient ways to use energy in all facits of life, but there should not be a group, or group of companies, or government or Al gore types that profit from any form of control of reduced CO2 emmisions. Profiting from control or trading is simply theft. The large comanies that are promoting their products, (solar, wind, etc) are simply using fear tactics as part of their marketing scheme. When you read both sides of the arguments you realize that no one knows ! it’s all speculation, and to change everything about the way we do life right now based on speculation will only benift a few. Suggest to those few – that they donate everything they make from this insanity to some organization that feeds the poor or creates housing for the homeless and lets see how much enthusiam they have for ” saving the planet” when they can’t profit from it.
Once again we need people with good common sense at the center of this issue.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I fully agree with Steve’s response, but would add that trying to get “common sense” out of government sets up an automatic oxymoron similar to “military intelligence”. Government doesn’t function with common sense and the global warming/cap and trade issues provide proof positive. All of this is singularly focused on CONTROL and whether it comes from Cap and Trade specifically, or through new and more onerous regulations from EPA, will make little difference. The bottom line will not change because regardless of the control mechanism, it will result in more cost to business and the trickle down of these costs to the consumer.
We do need to protect the environment and conserve our natural resources by finding more efficient ways to generate electricity and power our transportation, but it requires a comprehensive plan that takes into consideration ALL forms of power generation and all methods of conservation. To focus on only wind and solar for example, without considering the appropriate use of nuclear and fossil fuels is nothing short of moving all your marbles from one bag to another and hoping it works. On the other hand, when government has clearly demonstrated they have “lost their marbles” as is indicative of the last few years, maybe there’s little chance to get the marbles back into the realm of common sense without a complete change in the legislative and executive branches.
How fast can we get to November 2010 and November 2012?
December 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I totally agree with Steve Gilbertson’s response. The Al Gore and so-called mainstream scientists are manipulating some of the data to show global warming where there is none, and or to show when there is global warming signs that it is due to humans rather than to natural causes. It reminds me of the e coli beach warnings we have from time to time in Minnesota lakes, almost entirely caused by ducks, geese, seagulls, and other wildlife — yet commonly attibuted to humans. There is a lot of false information, and much of the mainstream media has joined the bandwagon rather than seek out the truth. According to Al Gore, we should have done something several years ago and it is now too late — Of course, with his version of junk/distorted science, I suspect we can do very little a few more years and find out it had no adverse effect. I would also like to see us get China and India to reach our levels of emissions (per vehicle, per utility plant megawatt, etc.) before we spend very big dollars going way lower than where they are.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Stop a second.
Let’s look at the fact that this does not have to be a business burden, but could be a business opportunity – to jump out ahead of the pack and make money, win market share, make smarter and more infomed decision for business (with a longer term view), and set a better path.
Also, if climate change is false and we reduce our CO2 through cap and trade or cap and auction or whatever method, we are fine (no harm no foul). If climate change is true and we do nothing, we are toast. So, in the option of hope for the best but prepare for the worst, let’s get moving. In the option of making lemonade with lemons, let’s look for the benefits in this very real present and future discussion and start getting busy.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Opposition to “Cap and Trade” and to other government mandated regulations is that they will not be an “opportunity”. We have taken the steps necessary to enter “green” markets, institute enviro-friendly initiatives and conserve energy. We have an on going company effort to reduce and/or replace fossil fuel generated electricity. All of these are a result of decisions based on common sense and not on current or possible government regulations. Unfortunately, the revenue growth and cost reduction will pale in comparison for example, to the potential of two or three hundred percent increase in electricity that may result from such things as “Cap and Trade”.
No one at the federal or state levels in government approaches problem solving with any kind of common sense. Instead, it’s the age old governmental methodology based on “controlling”. On the surface this control seems to solve the problem, but inherently adds more burden on business and consumers all under the guise of improving quality of life for everyone.
We have no time for ideaological decision making that goes only up to “making the world a better place”, or setting a “better path” for humanity. Financial well being drives the world and when it is substantially reduced by costs that make a decent life non achievable for the majority of human beings, than we have lost any chance for progress (and an opportunity of finding a glass of “lemonade”!)
January 12th, 2010 at 6:01 am
[...] However, West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) wasn’t ready to end the rhetoric. He told the conference that he opposes cap-and-trade as well as upcoming EPA plans to regulate GHG emissions from power plants when a final rule is released this spring. [...]