Passed the U.S. House in June by 7 votes; awaiting U.S. Senate action.Limits or caps carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. (The “cap” part.)Companies that emit less CO2 than their cap can sell their excess allowances to other companies that need allowances to operate. (The “trade” part.) Cap is reduced over time.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The 1400+ page Waxman-Markey Bill (a.k.a., the American Clean Energy and Security Act) passed the U.S. House in June by 7 votes; awaiting U.S. Senate action. Limits or caps carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Covered utilities, oil companies, and facilities would receive government-set allowances based on some formula to be determined. (The “cap” part.) Companies that emit less CO2 than their allowances could sell the excess to others that need allowances to operate. (The “trade” part.) Over time, greater cuts are required. Note: The cap rationale is based on an unproven causal link between CO2 emissions and global climate change. (The US Chamber recently proposed a formal debate on the science of this causal relationship, which many scientists now disagree with.) How the allowances would be distributed is still being debated. Over time, the cap will be ratcheted down, requiring greater cuts in emissions.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2012 2020 2028 2036 2044
Cap
(m
illio
ns
metr
ic t
on
s)
Cap drops to 83% below 2005 in 2050
Source: NRECA June 2009 Presentation
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Note: This graph was produced by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in June 2009, based on the U.S. House bill’s provisions. It clearly proposes some very significant reductions down the road that some believe cannot be accomplished absent some very significant changes in consumer energy use.
For the state of Florida, over the 2012–2035 timeframe on average, the Waxman–Markey bill would,• Lower gross state product by $16,806 million,• Reduce personal income by $6,920 million,• Destroy 66,938 jobs,• Raise electricity prices by $829.0 per household,• Raise gasoline prices by $0.65 per gallon.
Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on the IHS/Global Insight U.S. Macroeconomic and Energy models.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: The CRA study predicts the estimated state “GDP” decline would “hobble” our state's economic growth. Florida’s job losses would be felt broadly as output in key sectors like energy intensive businesses, services, and manufacturing all declined. The economic toll of the bill would also lead to a big reduction in Florida state revenue from tax receipts. Tax revenues would shrink by $620 million in 2015 and by more than $1.2 billion in 2030, taking away much-needed funds that could be used for schools, hospitals and police and fire departments.
Net job losses are estimated to rise to 2.5 million by 2035.The financial impact on a ‘typical’ America family expected to range from $200 to $3000 or more, per year. The impact will be highest on low-income families.Gross domestic product is expected to be cut by an average of $393 billion annually, 2012-2035, cumulatively totaling $9.4 trillion.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Net job losses are estimated at 1.145 million, 2012-2035; by 2035, The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis projects a net loss of 2.5 million U.S. jobs. The financial impact on a ‘typical’ America family could range from $200 to $3000 or more, per year. The impact will be highest on low-income families and families served by electric utilities that rely more on fossil-fueled power plants. Gross domestic product is expected to be cut by an average of $393 billion annually, 2012-2035, cumulatively totaling $9.4 trillion. The forecast net job losses take into account, some so-called “green jobs” that may be created. Some of these lost jobs will go to countries such as China and India that have rejected carbon reduction programs as too costly, with too few benefits. We believe the higher family impact estimates are more valid, given that costs will increase for every and anything produced, run or transported using fossil fuels. The Wall St. Journal recently reported forecasts that power prices alone will rise an additional 19% from 2025-2030, after the bill’s “free” emissions permits to utilities are phased out.
An American Petroleum Institute (API) study predicts the burden on U.S. refiners will cause domestic oil production to plummet, making the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil. (Carbon Control News, 8/31/2009)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes The new analysis commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API) finds. The House-passed climate bill will impose such a burden on U.S. refiners that domestic production will plummet , As a result, our country will become more dependent on foreign oil This outcome would be a direct contradiction to assertions by the bill's proponents that the legislation would reduce the nation's dependence on petroleum imports. (Carbon Control News, Aug. 31, 2009) The Heritage Foundation believes that is carbon permits are traded on a national basis, it will lead to extensive speculation, driving up the cost of permits even higher, which will drive up retail electric rates
Trading of carbon emissions permits will open the door to Wall Street-style speculation, driving up the cost of energy and other goods and services even higher.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes The new analysis commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API) finds. The House-passed climate bill will impose such a burden on U.S. refiners that domestic production will plummet , As a result, our country will become more dependent on foreign oil This outcome would be a direct contradiction to assertions by the bill's proponents that the legislation would reduce the nation's dependence on petroleum imports. (Carbon Control News, Aug. 31, 2009) The Heritage Foundation believes that is carbon permits are traded on a national basis, it will lead to extensive speculation, driving up the cost of permits even higher, which will drive up retail electric rates
Federal policies encouraged co-ops to build coal plants in the 1970s, to keep costs down, keep energy affordable, and reduce reliance on foreign energy sourcesIn Florida and most of the southeastern U.S., inconsistent winds and significant cloud cover make solar and wind turbine installations less reliable and less economical alternatives to fossil-fueled power.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Co-ops are more reliant on fossil-fueled power plants due to federal policies that encouraged co-ops to build coal plants in the 1970s, to keep costs down, keep energy affordable, and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources. In Florida and most of the southeastern U.S., a lack of consistent winds and significant cloud cover make solar and wind turbine installations less reliable and less economical alternatives to fossil-fueled power. About 57% of “our Members’” energy now comes from coal. The Florida Solar Center says solar installations in central Florida produce energy only about 20% of the time, compared to 90-plus percent availability for fossil-fueled generating units.
Carbon reductions mandated by the American Clean Energy and Security Act at “best” would result in no more than a 0.2-degree reduction in projected global temperatures by the end of this century. That’s only a 1/5th of one-degree difference in exchange for a potential loss of $9.4 trillion in America’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035.
Source: "Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (The IPCC-Based Arithmetic of No Gain), May 6, 2009, at http://masterresource.org/?p=2355
China's (carbon) emissions grew at an average rate of 12.2% per year, 2000 to 2007. (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration)
“China is still constructing coal-fired power plants at the rate of one per month. Think it will shutter the two it has built since the House passed its measure in June? Don't bet the farm on it.” (Washington Times, 9/2/2009)
China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd, the world's most valuable coal producer, will invest $39.5 billion through 2013 to expand production capacity as it races to supply China, the world's top coal consumer. (Reuters, 9/1/2009)
In August, India reiterated its longstanding position that it won’t accept carbon emissions caps because that would limit economic growth. (The Wall St. Journal, 8/14/2009)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
China's (carbon) emissions grew at an average rate of 12.2% per year, 2000 to 2007. (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration) “China is still constructing coal-fired power plants at the rate of one per month. Think it will shutter the two it has built since the House passed its measure in June? Don't bet the farm on it.” (Washington Times, 9/2/2009) China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd, the world's most valuable coal producer, will invest $39.5 billion through 2013 to expand production capacity as it races to supply China, the world's top coal consumer. (Reuters, 9/1/2009) In August, India reiterated its longstanding position that it won’t accept carbon emissions caps because that would limit economic growth. (The Wall St. Journal, 8/14/2009)
Carbon dioxide is beneficial to plants and marine life.CO2 is needed for photosynthesis and enables growthStudies show that higher CO2 concentrations have existed in the past, and would benefit global agriculture.Higher concentrations may also help offset a loss of crop yields due to natural temperature increases.
The data show that temperature change correlates with changes in sun activity, not with changes in atmospheric CO2concentrationsIf the U.S. adopts carbon controls, the only impact will be a significant drop in our standard of living
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
390
1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010
CO
2C
once
ntra
tion
(ppm
v)
YEAR
It is True that CO2 Levels Have Risen…
CO
2C
once
ntra
tion
(ppm
v)
Air Tem
perature Anom
aly (°C)
YEAR
… But The Changes in Global Temperatures Do Not Correlate with Changes in CO2…
1995 2010
355 -
390 -
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In reality, CO2 increases have lagged temperature increases, indicating that rising temperatures are driving up concentrations of CO2 – not the other way around!
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Satellite measurements have been used since 1979, per Juan Ramirez, an environmental engineer with Seminole. This is a measurement of light and heat given off by the sun. Higher levels correlate with sunspot activity; the sun does not maintain a steady temperature.
Siegenthaler, Stocker et al. (2005) Science, vol. 310, 1313-1317; Spahni et al. (2005) Science, vol. 310, 1317-1321
CO2 temperature
Present 650,000 years ago
cooler
≈10°C
While the chart below appears to show a positive relationship between temperatures and CO2, the compression of 650,000 years of data hides the fact that temperatures change before CO2 levels change.
But What About the Chart in Al Gore’s Movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”?”
warmer
Given the lack of evidence that climate change is driven by carbon emissions, sacrificing the U.S. economy for a minimal reduction in global carbon emissions makes no sense.1. Greenhouse gases are not leading temperature increases2. Manmade greenhouse emissions are only a fraction of global
greenhouse emissions – most GHG emissions are natural3. If American coal cannot be used in America it will be exported
and used in countries where environmental regulations are less stringent, resulting in a net increase in global emissions of pollutants that cannot be emitted in the U.S., under current regulations.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: There are many online resources that discuss the fallacy of climate change “models” 1. Over the past several years many noted scientists have jumped off the “global warming” bandwagon. Read their views at http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/T 2. The Heartland Institute's Global Warming Facts site, at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/, aggregates research on climate change. 3. A discussion of the problems with carbon cap and trade also is available online: http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/energy-and-environment.cfm
1. Avoid “one size fits all” mandates, recognizing regional differences in resources and cost impacts,
2. Acknowledge and enable the significant role that nuclear energy must play in meeting future needs,
3. Fund an independent study to define the projected benefits and costs of any carbon reduction legislation, to ensure real benefits,
4. Preclude a cap-and-trade program that will lead to market speculation and tax our families,
5. Preclude any carbon cap until large scale carbon capture and sequestration technologies are commercially available and legal issues are resolved,
6. Include incentives for cost effective retail investments in conservation and energy efficiency, at the retail level, and,
7. Establish a single set of regulatory rules for greenhouse gas emissions, to preclude the costs of coordinating and compliance with conflicting federal and state regulations.
Write or call Florida’s U.S. Senators Bill Nelson and George LeMieux, and tell them you will only support “smart” climate legislation that protects both consumers and the U.S. economy, and is based on the science –not the popular view.Go to www.ourenergy.coop/ to send an advocacy e-mail to Congress, expressing your concerns about the high costs and minimal benefits of reducing US CO2 emissions through cap-and-trade legislation.
