Green power: Will it help you avoid carbon taxes?
May 13, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: Special Report, Technology, Waste & Pollution
It’s not pie-in-the-sky, warm and fuzzy feelings that are creating demand for green power created by renewable energy sources. It’s cold, hard economic reality. 
Energy prices will jump once the feds regulate greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2). So how do you counter this? Many companies are betting on green power from renewable energy sources.
They’re already making the switch to renewable energy suppliers to get a competitive edge to avoid or at least temper the carbon taxes the feds will assess on electricity powered by fossil fuels, especially from coal-fired power plants. And, the companies jumping on the green power bandwagon aren’t the big industrialists.
The top 50 green energy purchasers include big names like Intel Corp., PepsiCo, Kohl’s Department Stores, Wal-Mart Stores, Dannon, Sony, Motorola, Dell, Inc., Whole Foods Market, Johnson & Johnson, the U.S. Air Force, Cisco Systems and the city of Houston. Some have already switched to 100% green power.
EPA’s list of the top purchasers of green power is here.
They’re part of 1,000 companies that have joined EPA’s Green Power Partnership.
Green partners are currently purchasing more than 16 billion kilowatts of green power a year, and they’re getting credit for helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions for their switch to renewable power sources. So far, they can lay claim to collectively reducing the equivalent of the carbon dioxide emissions generated by coal-fired power plants to power 1.5 million American homes.
Companies can meet EPA’s green power purchase requirements using any combination of:
- purchasing renewable energy certificates
- generating their own on-site alternative energy, and
- using green power supplied by electric utilities.
Green power sources include:
- wind
- solar
- geothermal
- biomass
- biogas, and
- low-impact hydropower.
These sources are gaining market share because they create less air pollution than conventional coal-fired power plants and don’t contribute to climate change because they don’t create GHG emissions.
To find green power suppliers and the price differences for green power, click here for a link to EPA’s Web page that lists participating energy companies.
Tags: geothermal, green power, greenhouse gases, renewable energy, solar, wind
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
May 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am
MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming
FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the ‘urban heat island effect’ i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, ‘false high’ ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.
2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die
FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn’t reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.
3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind’s help.
4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!
5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal ‘Science’ in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What’s more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.
6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet
FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.
7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through ‘global warming’
FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.
8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.
FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are ‘just another tax’ on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.
9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say ‘global warming’ is real and that we must do something now.
FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the ’spin’ that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.
10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind’s activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said “the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Amen.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Sweet!
lets all go out and buy the biggest gas guzzling vehicles ever made and drive them everywhere and leave them running all day, and go ahead and leave everything in your house on all day (TV’s, Radio, lights…) . Throw away anything that saves energy, like those stupid lightbulbs. Stop recycling, throw everything away, actually just throw it in the street! Don’t worry about that power bill, choose convenience over conservation! Then we all can be fat lazy stupid consumers. After all, the world is here for us to consume!!! Oh ya, make sure you all have at least 10 kids, don’t worry the world will be fine.
Thanks for all your wonderful facts above “Loud Mouth American”, I agree with you, I’m gonna go straight home and burn a stack of rubber tires and science books, just for you!
May 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Hmmmm, That’s odd Mark, I thought the article was on CO2, and “it’s” so called contribution to GHG. And yet, you’ve tried to lump everything else into it. I was simply disproving the farce that CO2 has anything to do with global climate change. And by the way Mark, this is real science and not some made up garbage to make a buck, so no need to burn your science books, maybe you should read them more.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Brilliant Mark!
However, I don’t believe saying “don’t believe the hype” is saying the same as “lets not give a crap”. I think we can find a happy medium between not letting the big wigs scare us, and taking care of our planet.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY….
I just thought I’d look at some of the statements that are being made by “Loud American”. I only had to look at the first concerning “urban heat islands”. So I did a quick search and found the other side of the story…and please notice that most of the statements are cited by reports, etc.
I just can’t get over how people on the internet will cite “facts” that come from who knows what “expert” and rant and rave about how his side of the story is the only one that is based on facts, and that the other side is government incompetency or some conspiracy. Its always laughable to me. Anyway here is some information about how “NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect”. It should color your impression of “Loud American”‘s FACT vs MYTH posting.
The skeptic argument…There has been a great deal of controversy about the accuracy of the temperature data, mainly the bias of temperature data due to urban heat island effect. This controversy has lead many to focus on rural temperature stations. In recent weeks, researchers have been visiting these temperature stations. What they noticed was that there are serious problems with the quality of these temperature stations. They noticed that many of these temperature stations were located next to concrete buildings, near hot exhausts of air conditioning units, attached to metal towers and poles, surrounded by driveways and above gravel.
What the science says…
While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.
When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001).
They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg – a park within the city). The point is they’re aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records.
This confirms a peer review study by the NCDC (Peterson 2003) that did statistical analysis of urban and rural temperature anomalies and concluded “Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures… Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.”
Another more recent study (Parker 2006) plotted 50 year records of temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights. He concluded “temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development”.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Exactly, as your last sentence states “not a consequence of urban development”. And mankind’s urban sprawl has little to no effect on the change. But again, you can’t tax mother nature.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Hey Loud, You prove my point again by taking a small part of a statement and think that it supports your view. The complete statement says that “the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development”. Which would substantially go against your earlier statement “this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the ‘urban heat island effect’ i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…”
Like I say, its laughable how the minds of these “internet experts” work.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
And I would add that we ARE taxing mother nature…taxing nature’s ability to provide breathable air, drinkable water, sustainable resources, etc. etc. etc.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
There are too many observable changes to deny there is global warming but I’m not convinced that man is responsible. It does, however, seem like a convenient way for governments to levy more taxes. Anyone who thinks that man does not negatively impact this planet is in denial. Even if we are not the cause of global warming; surely, going green is a good thing. We must become better stewards of Earth because its resources are finite……….
May 14th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
This is directed at Mark, Becky, and especially Mr./Ms. Quiet American,
As for the Quiet American, you can stay quiet as Al Gore is loud enough for both of you.
I checked out one of the statements of the Loud American and found it to be more than substantiated. The Oregon Petition now has over 31,000 scientist signers, including over 9,000 with PhD’s. Here is the actual petition statement that is being signed, followed by a summary of the signers’ credentials. There’s much more information available on this petition at the following website: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Qualifications of Signers
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I can only say that there are definately two sides of the fence on this one. I would encourage anyone reading this to do their own investigation as to the truth. On that note I would also encourage you all to visit http://www.ilovecarbondioxide.com. Or you can listen to the “ying” of my “yang”, the Quiet American.
May 15th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Both sides of this issue will turn “green” when their electric bill increases by 60% due to carbon legislation. I’m not sure that I can afford that! I don’t think most people realize this will be the outcome.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:42 am
31,000 signatures on a petition doesn’t prove anything. All it proves is that many people who claim to be scientists (nobody ever falsifies their credentials do they?) do not believe in global warming. One million or ten million could be wrong and 1 single scientist could be right. Also, don’t listen to me, I’m not a scientist. But the ONE thing that Loud American said that you can take to the bank is this “I would encourage anyone reading this to do their own investigation as to the truth.”
But don’t come on some chat page and feed me some kind of pseudo-facts and expect me to swallow it. Because I’m way to intelligent for that and I hope some of the other readers here are also. And I’ll be quiet when the conspiracy theory gang does the same.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
You’re taking this too seriously Quiet American. You’re too (not “to”) intelligent to be acting this way.
You’re not necessarily expected to agree; rather, give your own thoughts and opinions based on what you know/feel/read.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Read what Simon Butler has to say about our government turning facist and then tell me I’m taking things too seriously. That’s what I’m talking about. It’s time someone stands up and tells them they are full of it. And thanks for the spell check.
http://www.hrrecruitingalert.com/4-ways-obama-could-change-your-recruiting-plans/
May 15th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Thanks, Ag, as I agree that Quiet American is taking this so seriously that he’s almost shouting through his laptop. And he’s right, 31,000 scientists (by the way–that was verified) might be wrong, and one might be right. That sort of thing has happened all through history prior to great discoveries. Remember Science’s flat world, with a lack of gravity? So maybe the truth is somewhere in between the paranoia and rabidness of the Kyoto/Gore movement, and the Oregon Petition group. I am very agreeable to conserving and preserving the resources of our earth, but there is a point where the cost to conserve it becomes ridiculous. The earth would be much better off if the U. S. sent its billions to be spent (under Kyoto) for pollution reduction efforts here that improves us from 95% to 98%–instead to China to allow them to go from 50% to 80% (these numbers were just a relative example for impact as I don’t want to take the time to look them up, it could be worse than this in China as they had to shut their factories down for two weeks prior to the Olympics so the athletes could breathe fairly normal air. I do know my wife went to college in the early 70′s in the L. A. area and didn’t see the mountains for the first three years, until the smog finally cleared enough one day. For the past couple of decades it has been much better there — so we have improved a lot, and we can go further, but to spend inordinate amounts of money to get those last minute amounts of carbon, etc. out of our smokestacks and exhausts would be much better spent in the developing nations where we could get several times the bang for our buck).
And the funny thing about the “Man Causes Global Warming” movement is that they claim to have the vast majority of scientists behind them, so maybe that 31,000 is really instead that lone person who can actually see through the mist of the Global Warming machine’s hysteria and words. I don’t want to equate this with politics, but where there are people, there are always political purposes. And although I also abhor fascism, which is on one side of the spectrum, the potential for that other side of the spectrum that is now in power (to some degree, although it’s fringes, where the craziness dwells, are still not very happy with Obama — thank God for that), to also take over in a totalitarian fashion, to foist their “wonderful” ideas on all of us, can be just as terrible as the worst fascists ever dreamed about. There are always people on both fringes that want to control everyone else, because they know the “truth”, and the only way for them to fully experience their truth is to make sure we all follow them like automatons.
So no, I don’t really know who is right, but I do know that Time Magazine had a cover and article in the mid-70′s decrying the coming global ice age (which is now very poorly explained away by the hot people), and that this world has survived through sunspot storms and ice ages and asteroids and many things much more powerful than man, but then again, maybe we are all little “gods” who can actually control the climate.
Finally, I would love to be looking back at this 50 years from now to see how silly all of this may be, from both sides of this argument. But I guess we meant well.