The top American energy and commerce officials called in speeches here on Wednesday for China to do more to address global warming, contending that the country was particularly vulnerable to a changing climateEnergy Secretary Steven Chu warned in a speech at Tsinghua University, China’s top science university, that if humans did not reverse the rising pace of their emissions of greenhouse gases, more people would be displaced by rising sea levels in China than in any other country, even Bangladesh.
If China’s emissions of global warming gases keep growing at the pace of the last 30 years, the country will emit more such gases in the next three decades than the United States has in its entire history, said Mr. Chu, a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics.
While Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Obama administration officials have mentioned China’s contribution to global warming during visits here this year, the remarks by Mr. Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke were by far the strongest public criticisms yet, and the clearest demands that China take action.
Mr. Locke said in a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce that China shared a special responsibility with the United States to address global warming. China passed the United States two years ago as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and together the two countries account for 42 percent of emissions caused by humans.
“Fifty years from now, we do not want the world to lay the blame for environmental catastrophe at the feet of China,” Mr. Locke said.
Mr. Chu and Mr. Locke, who are both of Chinese heritage, called for the United States and China to work together to develop new technologies to generate clean energy and to improve energy efficiency.
After meeting Wednesday afternoon with senior Chinese officials, they announced that each country would put up $15 million for a joint research center on clean energy, with headquarters in each country at locations not yet decided.
They are to meet again with Chinese officials on Thursday.
Xinhua, China’s official news agency, from which the other news media in China tend to take their cue, carried a long article on the two cabinet secretaries’ speeches and a shorter one on the creation of the joint research center.
But while the long article included a quotation from Mr. Locke in which he acknowledged that the United States had been emitting greenhouse gases for 150 years, neither Xinhua article included any mention of China’s role or of the American criticisms of that role.
The longer article made only a passing mention that China and the United States were the top two emitters, but did not say that China had surpassed the United States in that regard. Chinese officials issued no response to any of the secretaries’ remarks.
In separate interviews, Mr. Chu and Mr. Locke also said they wanted China to show respect for American intellectual property and to remove trade barriers to American energy technologies.
As China seeks to develop and shelter its own energy industries, its growing trade restrictions are a potentially serious obstacle to such cooperation, a factor underlined by the signing of a General Electric contract that Mr. Locke attended in Beijing.
G.E. signed a contract with the Pucheng Clean Energy Chemical Company to license G.E.’s technology for turning coal into a gas for use in a Chinese chemical factory.
The Chinese government prefers technology licensing agreements, in which Western companies transfer technology to Chinese factories, to buying finished goods from factories abroad.
The chemical factory licensing agreement is also a small transaction, estimated at $20 million, compared with the construction of a $375 million power plant China recently started on the outskirts of Tianjin, 90 miles from Beijing, that will turn coal into a gas before burning it.
G.E. executives spent more than a decade trying to win a contract to build such a power plant in China, sharing extensive technical information with Chinese power engineers on how they would go about it.
But at a ceremony in Tianjin on July 6, Chinese officials announced that they were ready to build the 250-megawatt power plant themselves and that they would no longer need to buy Western technology.
Jack Wen, the president of G.E.’s China energy division, welcomed the Pucheng contract and said his company was interested in working with China to build a similar power plant even bigger than the one now under construction in Tianjin.
Chinese officials have strenuously opposed binding limits on emissions of greenhouse gases by developing countries, most recently at the Group of 8 meeting in Italy last week. They have emphasized that industrialized countries are responsible for most of the emissions already in the atmosphere, and that emissions per person remain higher in rich countries than in developing ones.
Mr. Chu acknowledged these points by presenting charts showing that Chinese emissions per person were still roughly a quarter of American emissions per person and showing that the United States had put three times the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as China since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. He also acknowledged that China had more stringent automotive fuel economy standards than the United States.
But Mr. Chu and Mr. Locke were clearly trying to hone counterarguments, based mainly on the dangers to China and the world if Chinese emissions continued to rise quickly.
“We’re not talking about their giving up prosperity; we’re talking about their using energy in a more efficient way,” Mr. Chu said in an interview.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Study Details How U.S. Could Cut 28% of Greenhouse Gases
The United States could shave as much as 28 percent off the amount of greenhouse gases it emits at fairly modest cost and with only small technology innovations, according to a new report.A large share of the reductions could come from steps that would more than pay for themselves in lower energy bills for industries and individual consumers, the report said, adding that people should take those steps out of good sense regardless of how worried they might be about climate change. But that is unlikely to happen under present circumstances, said the authors, who are energy experts at McKinsey & Company, the consulting firm.
The report said the country was brimming with “negative cost opportunities” — potential changes in the lighting, heating and cooling of buildings, for example, that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels even as they save money. “These types of savings have been around for 20 years,” said Jack Stephenson, a director of the study. But he said they still face tremendous barriers.
Among them is that equipment is often paid for by a landlord or a builder and chosen for its low initial cost. The cost of electricity or other fuels to operate the equipment is borne by a tenant or home buyer. That means the landlord or builder has no incentive to spend more upfront for efficient equipment, even though doing so would save a lot of money in the long run.
Another problem, the report said, is that consumers often pay no attention to energy use in choosing gear. Computers, for instance, can be manufactured to use less power, but with most users oblivious to energy efficiency when they are shopping for a computer, manufacturers perceive no competitive edge in spending the extra money on efficiency.
“What the report calls out is the fact that the potential is so substantial for energy efficiency,” said Ken Ostrowski, a leader of the report team. “Not that we will do it, but the potential is just staggering here in the U.S. There is a lot of inertia, and a lot of barriers.”
The country can do the job with “tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies,” the study found, but doing the work “will require strong, coordinated, economywide action that begins in the near future.”
The report focused on describing the problem, rather than on advocating fixes. But it did mention some possible solutions. Rules for utilities could be rewritten so they make as much money in promoting conservation as in selling electricity, the study said.
The task might also require emissions limits and other government mandates, as well as incentives like tax breaks to promote efficient buildings, cars and appliances, the study said. The McKinsey report said “lifestyle changes” by Americans could play a role in improved efficiency, even though they were not a major factor in the potential gains the report cited.
“A broad public education program around wasteful energy consumption could be mounted,” the report said. Modeled on the “Keep America Beautiful” campaign of the 1960s, it could promote reduction in “carbon littering” by increasing people’s awareness of the problem.
In contrast to improved efficiency, measures like capturing carbon dioxide from coal power plants and storing it would be relatively costly, and they account for less than 10 percent of the potential to cut emissions, the study said. The potential contributions from new nuclear plants and renewable energy supplies from wind or solar sources are also relatively modest, the report said.
The study, released yesterday in Washington, was conducted by McKinsey & Company for DTE Energy (the parent company of Detroit Edison), Environmental Defense, Honeywell, National Grid, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Gas & Electric and Shell.
Its release comes a week before a United Nations climate conference is to convene in Bali, and as Congress approaches a vote on proposals to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.
The report said the country was brimming with “negative cost opportunities” — potential changes in the lighting, heating and cooling of buildings, for example, that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels even as they save money. “These types of savings have been around for 20 years,” said Jack Stephenson, a director of the study. But he said they still face tremendous barriers.
Among them is that equipment is often paid for by a landlord or a builder and chosen for its low initial cost. The cost of electricity or other fuels to operate the equipment is borne by a tenant or home buyer. That means the landlord or builder has no incentive to spend more upfront for efficient equipment, even though doing so would save a lot of money in the long run.
Another problem, the report said, is that consumers often pay no attention to energy use in choosing gear. Computers, for instance, can be manufactured to use less power, but with most users oblivious to energy efficiency when they are shopping for a computer, manufacturers perceive no competitive edge in spending the extra money on efficiency.
“What the report calls out is the fact that the potential is so substantial for energy efficiency,” said Ken Ostrowski, a leader of the report team. “Not that we will do it, but the potential is just staggering here in the U.S. There is a lot of inertia, and a lot of barriers.”
The country can do the job with “tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies,” the study found, but doing the work “will require strong, coordinated, economywide action that begins in the near future.”
The report focused on describing the problem, rather than on advocating fixes. But it did mention some possible solutions. Rules for utilities could be rewritten so they make as much money in promoting conservation as in selling electricity, the study said.
The task might also require emissions limits and other government mandates, as well as incentives like tax breaks to promote efficient buildings, cars and appliances, the study said. The McKinsey report said “lifestyle changes” by Americans could play a role in improved efficiency, even though they were not a major factor in the potential gains the report cited.
“A broad public education program around wasteful energy consumption could be mounted,” the report said. Modeled on the “Keep America Beautiful” campaign of the 1960s, it could promote reduction in “carbon littering” by increasing people’s awareness of the problem.
In contrast to improved efficiency, measures like capturing carbon dioxide from coal power plants and storing it would be relatively costly, and they account for less than 10 percent of the potential to cut emissions, the study said. The potential contributions from new nuclear plants and renewable energy supplies from wind or solar sources are also relatively modest, the report said.
The study, released yesterday in Washington, was conducted by McKinsey & Company for DTE Energy (the parent company of Detroit Edison), Environmental Defense, Honeywell, National Grid, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Gas & Electric and Shell.
Its release comes a week before a United Nations climate conference is to convene in Bali, and as Congress approaches a vote on proposals to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.
Global Warming
On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.
The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.
The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.
American Apathy And Global Warming
In a Gallup survey from 1989, 35% of respondents told interviewers they worried a great deal about global warming. In its March 2009 poll, nearly the same number, 34%, said they did. Further, the issue ranked dead last--20th of 20 issues--when the Pew Research Center asked respondents to list top priorities for President Obama and Congress. In an ABC/Washington Post poll on the same topic, global warming ranked 11th out of 11 issues.
How could this be, given all the media coverage and political attention global warming has received? Why aren't Americans more concerned about it?
Understanding current attitudes requires stepping back to see how the environment emerged as an issue on our radar. From 1935 to the early 1960s, opinion surveys included hardly any questions about the environment. Pollsters asked a few questions about sanitation (glass vs. paper cartons) and a handful of questions about the population "explosion." But not one on what we would today call "environmental issues."
The issue sprang to life in the late 1960s, and it soon became clear from the polls that Americans wanted a clean and healthy environment and were willing to take reasonable steps to achieve it.
The environment became a core value. When we as a nation agree on the goals policy should serve, we usually step back from the discussions about the means by which those goals should be achieved. Most of us are busy, and we don't have time to read the latest reported changes in water quality or global temperature over the past century.
In other words, we follow debates casually. As a back-handed compliment to our system of representative democracy, we are content to let competing interest groups, political parties and others debate the next policy steps, reasonably confident that good policy will result from the clash of interests. This understanding of how public opinion forms explains why global warming isn't a top priority.
Pollsters are currently seeking answers to lots of questions about the next steps to address global warming because, on this topic, existing results are of limited use. It is extremely difficult to know from polls how far people want to go in terms of taxing, spending and regulating in the abstract.
A recent poll from Yale and George Mason universities found that 79% of Americans would support a 45-mile-per-gallon fuel-efficiency standard for cars, trucks and SUVs--even if it meant a new vehicle would cost $1,000 more.
Related Stories
Who Killed California's Economy?
Get Briefed: P. Brett Hammond
Can We Trust Polls From Iran?
Sotomayor's Supreme Challenge
Europe: No Longer A Role Model For America
Related Videos
World Stocks Trade Higher
Google, IBM Surprise
Symantec CMO Carine Clark
Telecoms Hit Europe
Million Dollar Moon Landing Auction
Stories
Videos
But would people really be willing to pay a $1,000 more for a car when their health care and day-to-day living costs are increasing too? I'm not sure, but I do know that abstract questions like this one are not reliable for determining public opinion.
There are other reasons that, right now, global warming isn't a top priority. Americans don't see it as a problem for today. Only 4% of respondents to the Yale/Mason poll strongly agreed that they had personally experienced the effects of global warming. For obvious reasons, people are much more concerned about the economy and unemployment. They also have high confidence in capabilities of American science and, as a result, they may believe efforts in that area will lead to progress.
Finally, there is evidence from polls that media outlets may have over-covered the topic. When the environment emerged as an issue, the media had much greater public credibility. A decade ago, 31% of respondents to one poll said the media were exaggerating the seriousness of the issue. That figure has risen to 41% today.
In another new poll, the "mainstream media" ranked far below scientists and environmentalists as a source people turned to for information about global warming. Media's championing of the cause may also explain a new development in more recent polls on the topic: intense partisan polarization on many aspects of the debate.
To answer the question posed at the beginning of this column, Americans are concerned about global warming. They believe it's a problem that is real and serious; they aren't indifferent. But most may think their voices have already been heard and, as a result, they will choose to stay on the sidelines as the issue remains in the realm of intense political debate.
How could this be, given all the media coverage and political attention global warming has received? Why aren't Americans more concerned about it?
Understanding current attitudes requires stepping back to see how the environment emerged as an issue on our radar. From 1935 to the early 1960s, opinion surveys included hardly any questions about the environment. Pollsters asked a few questions about sanitation (glass vs. paper cartons) and a handful of questions about the population "explosion." But not one on what we would today call "environmental issues."
The issue sprang to life in the late 1960s, and it soon became clear from the polls that Americans wanted a clean and healthy environment and were willing to take reasonable steps to achieve it.
The environment became a core value. When we as a nation agree on the goals policy should serve, we usually step back from the discussions about the means by which those goals should be achieved. Most of us are busy, and we don't have time to read the latest reported changes in water quality or global temperature over the past century.
In other words, we follow debates casually. As a back-handed compliment to our system of representative democracy, we are content to let competing interest groups, political parties and others debate the next policy steps, reasonably confident that good policy will result from the clash of interests. This understanding of how public opinion forms explains why global warming isn't a top priority.
Pollsters are currently seeking answers to lots of questions about the next steps to address global warming because, on this topic, existing results are of limited use. It is extremely difficult to know from polls how far people want to go in terms of taxing, spending and regulating in the abstract.
A recent poll from Yale and George Mason universities found that 79% of Americans would support a 45-mile-per-gallon fuel-efficiency standard for cars, trucks and SUVs--even if it meant a new vehicle would cost $1,000 more.
Related Stories
Who Killed California's Economy?
Get Briefed: P. Brett Hammond
Can We Trust Polls From Iran?
Sotomayor's Supreme Challenge
Europe: No Longer A Role Model For America
Related Videos
World Stocks Trade Higher
Google, IBM Surprise
Symantec CMO Carine Clark
Telecoms Hit Europe
Million Dollar Moon Landing Auction
Stories
Videos
But would people really be willing to pay a $1,000 more for a car when their health care and day-to-day living costs are increasing too? I'm not sure, but I do know that abstract questions like this one are not reliable for determining public opinion.
There are other reasons that, right now, global warming isn't a top priority. Americans don't see it as a problem for today. Only 4% of respondents to the Yale/Mason poll strongly agreed that they had personally experienced the effects of global warming. For obvious reasons, people are much more concerned about the economy and unemployment. They also have high confidence in capabilities of American science and, as a result, they may believe efforts in that area will lead to progress.
Finally, there is evidence from polls that media outlets may have over-covered the topic. When the environment emerged as an issue, the media had much greater public credibility. A decade ago, 31% of respondents to one poll said the media were exaggerating the seriousness of the issue. That figure has risen to 41% today.
In another new poll, the "mainstream media" ranked far below scientists and environmentalists as a source people turned to for information about global warming. Media's championing of the cause may also explain a new development in more recent polls on the topic: intense partisan polarization on many aspects of the debate.
To answer the question posed at the beginning of this column, Americans are concerned about global warming. They believe it's a problem that is real and serious; they aren't indifferent. But most may think their voices have already been heard and, as a result, they will choose to stay on the sidelines as the issue remains in the realm of intense political debate.
Teen Behaviors Stem From Genetics, Environment
Teens' alcohol use and behavior problems are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, a new study finds.
"In the past, research on genetic and environmental influences on behavior was often conducted in isolation," researcher Danielle Dick, an assistant professor of psychiatry, psychology, and human and molecular genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, said in a news release.
"Some scientists were interested in genetic effects, others in environmental effects. We now know that both genetic and environmental influences are important for most behavioral outcomes, and our challenge is to understand how they interact," she explained.
"Much of the research on environmental influences on alcohol use and behavior problems focuses on the impact of parents and peers," Dick added. "While these are clearly critical environmental influences, we have also found that socio-regional, or neighborhood influences, also have big impacts on adolescent behavioral outcomes, and these environmental effects have not received as much attention historically."
In this study, Dick and colleagues analyzed long-term data gathered on more than 5,000 twins born in Finland between 1983 and 1987. The researchers focused on how genetic and environmental factors influenced behavior problems at age 12 and alcohol use at age 14.
They found that certain environments promoted the expression of a teens' genetic predispositions, while other environments limited gene expression.
The study, which appears online, will be published in the October print issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.
"There is now converging evidence across a number of different studies that behavioral problems in kids are associated with both concurrent and future alcohol problems," Dick said. "There is evidence accumulating from genetic studies that behavior problems may be one of the first signs of an individual at increased susceptibility for developing alcohol problems."
An important message from this kind of research is that a person's destiny isn't written in their genes, the authors noted.
"We're not all equally predisposed to develop alcohol or behavior problems, and the environment can be a key factor in whether or not an individual ever develops problems," Dick said.
"In the past, research on genetic and environmental influences on behavior was often conducted in isolation," researcher Danielle Dick, an assistant professor of psychiatry, psychology, and human and molecular genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, said in a news release.
"Some scientists were interested in genetic effects, others in environmental effects. We now know that both genetic and environmental influences are important for most behavioral outcomes, and our challenge is to understand how they interact," she explained.
"Much of the research on environmental influences on alcohol use and behavior problems focuses on the impact of parents and peers," Dick added. "While these are clearly critical environmental influences, we have also found that socio-regional, or neighborhood influences, also have big impacts on adolescent behavioral outcomes, and these environmental effects have not received as much attention historically."
In this study, Dick and colleagues analyzed long-term data gathered on more than 5,000 twins born in Finland between 1983 and 1987. The researchers focused on how genetic and environmental factors influenced behavior problems at age 12 and alcohol use at age 14.
They found that certain environments promoted the expression of a teens' genetic predispositions, while other environments limited gene expression.
The study, which appears online, will be published in the October print issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.
"There is now converging evidence across a number of different studies that behavioral problems in kids are associated with both concurrent and future alcohol problems," Dick said. "There is evidence accumulating from genetic studies that behavior problems may be one of the first signs of an individual at increased susceptibility for developing alcohol problems."
An important message from this kind of research is that a person's destiny isn't written in their genes, the authors noted.
"We're not all equally predisposed to develop alcohol or behavior problems, and the environment can be a key factor in whether or not an individual ever develops problems," Dick said.
Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top
While supporters of nuclear energy ardently proclaim the power source is necessary to combat climate change, incentives for nuclear power may not be the silver bullet sponsors need to pass climate legislation in the Senate this year.Both supporters and critics of a climate bill agree that some sort of nuclear title is likely to be included in the measure taken up by the Senate in the fall. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear, making its potential role in climate negotiations muted.
"I expect there will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to that on the floor," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, told reporters earlier this week. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said.
Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but, "we just have to do it the right way."
"I think there will be a nuclear title, yes," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. "I think there will be a nuclear title on incentives for R&D ... but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear," Romm said. The industry is waiting to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications for new reactors, he said.
An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the industry.
"The challenge is to balance expectations that there is a magic bullet out there for nuclear with the reality that under the best of circumstances a major build out of new plants is still about a decade away since it takes four years to license and another four years to build," the source said.
Dems wait and see; Republicans aren't optimistic
Managing expectations is a difficult task for sponsors who have to rally senators to vote for the whole climate bill, especially when many have other serious problems with a cap-and-trade bill.
"Adding a nuclear title to the climate change bill would be just one of many improvements needed to secure Senator Landrieu's vote," said Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said nuclear power and other energy issues such as oil and natural gas included in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee energy bill passed in June "stand on their own" and there should be a separate vote for a climate bill. Earlier this year Reid decided the committee energy legislation would be considered with the climate bill.
The energy committee bill has several perks for nuclear energy including a Clean Energy Development Administration, training programs for nuclear education, and exclusion of new nuclear generation or capacity upgrades through efficiency at existing nuclear plants from the power sales baseline used to measure the renewable electricity standard (RES).
The House climate bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), also contains a Clean Energy Development Administration -- although it prevents any technology from using more than 30 percent of total available funds. It also includes the exclusion of new nuclear generation from the power sales baseline used to calculate the RES.
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -- a heavy coal-production state -- Dorgan simply said, "We'll see."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass, natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach, Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key potential Republican supporter, told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill, which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. McCain said the "1,400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures (E&E Daily, July 16).
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), another possible supporter, said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive."
"Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day, but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill," Corker said.
Both supporters and critics of a climate bill agree that some sort of nuclear title is likely to be included in the measure taken up by the Senate in the fall. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear, making its potential role in climate negotiations muted.
"I expect there will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to that on the floor," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, told reporters earlier this week. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said.
Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but, "we just have to do it the right way."
"I think there will be a nuclear title, yes," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. "I think there will be a nuclear title on incentives for R&D ... but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear," Romm said. The industry is waiting to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications for new reactors, he said.
An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the industry.
"The challenge is to balance expectations that there is a magic bullet out there for nuclear with the reality that under the best of circumstances a major build out of new plants is still about a decade away since it takes four years to license and another four years to build," the source said.
Dems wait and see; Republicans aren't optimistic
Managing expectations is a difficult task for sponsors who have to rally senators to vote for the whole climate bill, especially when many have other serious problems with a cap-and-trade bill.
"Adding a nuclear title to the climate change bill would be just one of many improvements needed to secure Senator Landrieu's vote," said Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said nuclear power and other energy issues such as oil and natural gas included in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee energy bill passed in June "stand on their own" and there should be a separate vote for a climate bill. Earlier this year Reid decided the committee energy legislation would be considered with the climate bill.
The energy committee bill has several perks for nuclear energy including a Clean Energy Development Administration, training programs for nuclear education, and exclusion of new nuclear generation or capacity upgrades through efficiency at existing nuclear plants from the power sales baseline used to measure the renewable electricity standard (RES).
The House climate bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), also contains a Clean Energy Development Administration -- although it prevents any technology from using more than 30 percent of total available funds. It also includes the exclusion of new nuclear generation from the power sales baseline used to calculate the RES.
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -- a heavy coal-production state -- Dorgan simply said, "We'll see."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass, natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach, Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key potential Republican supporter, told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill, which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. McCain said the "1,400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), another possible supporter, said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive."
"Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day, but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill," Corker said
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would welcome a stronger nuclear title in the climate bill but there are several other problems, such as the cost of the bill, said spokesman Robert Dillon.
At this point she is not supporting a cap-and-trade bill," Dillon said. "No one can give us a clear estimate about the cost. ... There are more questions than answers that people need to have before they are going to say they are going to start supporting this bill."
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who was also thought by many to be a possible supporter of a climate change bill, said this week no amount of nuclear incentives would tempt him to support a climate bill that involved cap and trade (E&ENews PM July 13).
"The bill needs to be junked," Alexander said at a press conference this week unveiling a "blueprint" for constructing 100 nuclear power plants in 20 years. Alexander said he would be pursuing his goal in separate legislation to boost loan guarantee funds, increasing resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and more money to nuclear research and development.
Looking for love in all the wrong places
The underlying question for sponsors: If nuclear incentives are not enough to get undecided senators on board with cap and trade, what is the point of including them at all?
"I think the question is who do you get who you weren't going to get?" Romm said. "I think that obviously there is no point in adding stuff to the bill if you are not adding more votes for it. Republicans like nuclear, but I don't think they are going to vote for this bill."
Romm believes it will be an agreement with China on reducing emissions or even natural gas that will get the necessary senators on board. For instance, the natural gas industry sat out of negotiations in the House but have said they want more input into the Senate bill. And Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and "a lot of interesting states" -- i.e. senators who may vote for the climate bill -- have discovered a good reserve of potential natural gas recently, Romm said.
Boxer does not appear to be willing to go much further in adding nuclear provisions to the bill. Boxer and Alexander have had lengthy disagreements about the role of nuclear during committee hearings on the climate bill this week.
The nuclear issue dominated much of the debate at a hearing on Tuesday intended to focus on the climate bill's potential for agriculture and forestry. Alexander and other Republicans on the panel touted the proposal to build 100 nuclear plants by 2030, but Boxer fired back at them that her bill would be the better way to go.
"I think it's very important we understand that the approach we're taking, we don't pick winners or losers. We put a cap on carbon and let the marketplace do it," Boxer said. She highlighted the U.S. EPA analysis of the House bill that estimates it could lead to 260 new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants by 2050.
After Alexander called on President Obama to support his proposal for more nuclear plants, Boxer replied: "It is very clear he doesn't have to support your proposal. His [support of the House bill] results in more nuclear power plants being built."
Boxer added after a hearing yesterday, "I think if you look at Waxman-Markey, the prediction is there being well over 100 nuke plants. I don't know that we'll need to have more than that. But we'll certainly look at all of these issues."
Nuclear lobby split
The Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the U.S. nuclear industry, has stayed relatively quiet on the climate change negotiations as its members, including Exelon Corp. and Southern Co., have different positions on the House bill.
NEI has strongly pushed for more funding in the loan guarantee program and backs the new clean energy bank but has not issued many other demands.
"What we are hopeful for in any climate bill are those provisions. One, the recognition of nuclear as a clean energy source so if someone has nuclear in their portfolio they should be recognized for that and, two, recognition that to move forward we are going to have to private-public partnership of government and private enterprise," said Derrick Freeman, senior director, of NEI's legislative programs.
Individual utilities, as well as the Edison Electric Institute -- which represents investor-owned utilities -- have taken the lead on lobbying their interests in climate legislation. But their main target is the distribution of the free emission allocation provisions for utilities.
"Exelon is particularly pleased that free allowances will be allocated to local utilities to help mitigate the impact of increased prices on consumers," a statement from Exelon said after the House vote last month. The statement also included approval of the strong support for protection of consumers the bill provides, according to Exelon, but did not mention any of the nuclear measures or lack thereof.
Similarly a letter (pdf) from Duke Energy Corp. sent to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) the day before the bill was scheduled for a vote supports the allocation scheme, criticizes the offsets and cost-containment mechanisms among other subjects, but makes no mention of the nuclear provisions either for better or for worse.
Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO, said yesterday he has spoken to Boxer about including in the climate bill a provision to shorten licensing approval process under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to two years and a provision that deals with "the waste confidence issues in a straightforward way."
"I expect there will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to that on the floor," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, told reporters earlier this week. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said.
Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but, "we just have to do it the right way."
"I think there will be a nuclear title, yes," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. "I think there will be a nuclear title on incentives for R&D ... but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear," Romm said. The industry is waiting to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications for new reactors, he said.
An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the industry.
"The challenge is to balance expectations that there is a magic bullet out there for nuclear with the reality that under the best of circumstances a major build out of new plants is still about a decade away since it takes four years to license and another four years to build," the source said.
Dems wait and see; Republicans aren't optimistic
Managing expectations is a difficult task for sponsors who have to rally senators to vote for the whole climate bill, especially when many have other serious problems with a cap-and-trade bill.
"Adding a nuclear title to the climate change bill would be just one of many improvements needed to secure Senator Landrieu's vote," said Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said nuclear power and other energy issues such as oil and natural gas included in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee energy bill passed in June "stand on their own" and there should be a separate vote for a climate bill. Earlier this year Reid decided the committee energy legislation would be considered with the climate bill.
The energy committee bill has several perks for nuclear energy including a Clean Energy Development Administration, training programs for nuclear education, and exclusion of new nuclear generation or capacity upgrades through efficiency at existing nuclear plants from the power sales baseline used to measure the renewable electricity standard (RES).
The House climate bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), also contains a Clean Energy Development Administration -- although it prevents any technology from using more than 30 percent of total available funds. It also includes the exclusion of new nuclear generation from the power sales baseline used to calculate the RES.
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -- a heavy coal-production state -- Dorgan simply said, "We'll see."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass, natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach, Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key potential Republican supporter, told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill, which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. McCain said the "1,400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures (E&E Daily, July 16).
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), another possible supporter, said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive."
"Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day, but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill," Corker said.
Both supporters and critics of a climate bill agree that some sort of nuclear title is likely to be included in the measure taken up by the Senate in the fall. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear, making its potential role in climate negotiations muted.
"I expect there will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to that on the floor," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, told reporters earlier this week. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said.
Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but, "we just have to do it the right way."
"I think there will be a nuclear title, yes," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. "I think there will be a nuclear title on incentives for R&D ... but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear," Romm said. The industry is waiting to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications for new reactors, he said.
An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the industry.
"The challenge is to balance expectations that there is a magic bullet out there for nuclear with the reality that under the best of circumstances a major build out of new plants is still about a decade away since it takes four years to license and another four years to build," the source said.
Dems wait and see; Republicans aren't optimistic
Managing expectations is a difficult task for sponsors who have to rally senators to vote for the whole climate bill, especially when many have other serious problems with a cap-and-trade bill.
"Adding a nuclear title to the climate change bill would be just one of many improvements needed to secure Senator Landrieu's vote," said Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said nuclear power and other energy issues such as oil and natural gas included in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee energy bill passed in June "stand on their own" and there should be a separate vote for a climate bill. Earlier this year Reid decided the committee energy legislation would be considered with the climate bill.
The energy committee bill has several perks for nuclear energy including a Clean Energy Development Administration, training programs for nuclear education, and exclusion of new nuclear generation or capacity upgrades through efficiency at existing nuclear plants from the power sales baseline used to measure the renewable electricity standard (RES).
The House climate bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), also contains a Clean Energy Development Administration -- although it prevents any technology from using more than 30 percent of total available funds. It also includes the exclusion of new nuclear generation from the power sales baseline used to calculate the RES.
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -- a heavy coal-production state -- Dorgan simply said, "We'll see."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass, natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach, Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key potential Republican supporter, told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill, which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. McCain said the "1,400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), another possible supporter, said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive."
"Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day, but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill," Corker said
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would welcome a stronger nuclear title in the climate bill but there are several other problems, such as the cost of the bill, said spokesman Robert Dillon.
At this point she is not supporting a cap-and-trade bill," Dillon said. "No one can give us a clear estimate about the cost. ... There are more questions than answers that people need to have before they are going to say they are going to start supporting this bill."
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who was also thought by many to be a possible supporter of a climate change bill, said this week no amount of nuclear incentives would tempt him to support a climate bill that involved cap and trade (E&ENews PM July 13).
"The bill needs to be junked," Alexander said at a press conference this week unveiling a "blueprint" for constructing 100 nuclear power plants in 20 years. Alexander said he would be pursuing his goal in separate legislation to boost loan guarantee funds, increasing resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and more money to nuclear research and development.
Looking for love in all the wrong places
The underlying question for sponsors: If nuclear incentives are not enough to get undecided senators on board with cap and trade, what is the point of including them at all?
"I think the question is who do you get who you weren't going to get?" Romm said. "I think that obviously there is no point in adding stuff to the bill if you are not adding more votes for it. Republicans like nuclear, but I don't think they are going to vote for this bill."
Romm believes it will be an agreement with China on reducing emissions or even natural gas that will get the necessary senators on board. For instance, the natural gas industry sat out of negotiations in the House but have said they want more input into the Senate bill. And Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and "a lot of interesting states" -- i.e. senators who may vote for the climate bill -- have discovered a good reserve of potential natural gas recently, Romm said.
Boxer does not appear to be willing to go much further in adding nuclear provisions to the bill. Boxer and Alexander have had lengthy disagreements about the role of nuclear during committee hearings on the climate bill this week.
The nuclear issue dominated much of the debate at a hearing on Tuesday intended to focus on the climate bill's potential for agriculture and forestry. Alexander and other Republicans on the panel touted the proposal to build 100 nuclear plants by 2030, but Boxer fired back at them that her bill would be the better way to go.
"I think it's very important we understand that the approach we're taking, we don't pick winners or losers. We put a cap on carbon and let the marketplace do it," Boxer said. She highlighted the U.S. EPA analysis of the House bill that estimates it could lead to 260 new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants by 2050.
After Alexander called on President Obama to support his proposal for more nuclear plants, Boxer replied: "It is very clear he doesn't have to support your proposal. His [support of the House bill] results in more nuclear power plants being built."
Boxer added after a hearing yesterday, "I think if you look at Waxman-Markey, the prediction is there being well over 100 nuke plants. I don't know that we'll need to have more than that. But we'll certainly look at all of these issues."
Nuclear lobby split
The Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the U.S. nuclear industry, has stayed relatively quiet on the climate change negotiations as its members, including Exelon Corp. and Southern Co., have different positions on the House bill.
NEI has strongly pushed for more funding in the loan guarantee program and backs the new clean energy bank but has not issued many other demands.
"What we are hopeful for in any climate bill are those provisions. One, the recognition of nuclear as a clean energy source so if someone has nuclear in their portfolio they should be recognized for that and, two, recognition that to move forward we are going to have to private-public partnership of government and private enterprise," said Derrick Freeman, senior director, of NEI's legislative programs.
Individual utilities, as well as the Edison Electric Institute -- which represents investor-owned utilities -- have taken the lead on lobbying their interests in climate legislation. But their main target is the distribution of the free emission allocation provisions for utilities.
"Exelon is particularly pleased that free allowances will be allocated to local utilities to help mitigate the impact of increased prices on consumers," a statement from Exelon said after the House vote last month. The statement also included approval of the strong support for protection of consumers the bill provides, according to Exelon, but did not mention any of the nuclear measures or lack thereof.
Similarly a letter (pdf) from Duke Energy Corp. sent to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) the day before the bill was scheduled for a vote supports the allocation scheme, criticizes the offsets and cost-containment mechanisms among other subjects, but makes no mention of the nuclear provisions either for better or for worse.
Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO, said yesterday he has spoken to Boxer about including in the climate bill a provision to shorten licensing approval process under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to two years and a provision that deals with "the waste confidence issues in a straightforward way."
China jails environment activists - rights group
A Chinese environmental activist and his daughter have been jailed for leaking state secrets and endangering national security related to a uranium mine, a human rights group said.Sun Xiaodi worked at a uranium mine in the remote northwestern province of Gansu, and has campaigned against nuclear contamination and for labour rights for years, Human Rights in China said in a statement.But he has now been sentenced to two years of "re-education through labour". His daughter, Sun Dunbai, was given 1-½ years.Human Rights in China said Xiaodi was found guilty of stealing information related to the mine and giving it to his daughter to supply to foreign organisations."If the authorities have evidence that Sun Xiaodi and his daughter endangered state security, they should present it in an open and fair trial," said Sharon Hom, executive director of HRIC."Instead, they chose re-education through labour -- a non-transparent process of administrative punishment lacking procedural protections -- raising strong suspicions about their handling of these cases."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)