THE HOT HOUSE

March 28, 2008

The Bee endorses cap-and- trade -- as long as allowances are auctioned

The Bee's editorial board today examined the growing rift over a proposed cap-and-trade system in California for reducing greenhouse emissions.

It urged the air resources board not to be swayed by environmental justice groups who oppose market mechanisms -- labeling them as "Enron-style" -- and industry groups that the state to adopt a weak European-style trading system.

You can find the full editorial here.

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 03:02 PM | Comments

Smash up over electric cars

Interesting to read the contrasting spin on yesterday's decision by the California Air Resources Board to revise its zero emission vehicle requirements.

In a press release, CARB made the vote sound like a victory for environmentalists, saying the board voted to "triple the amount of zero emissions vehicles that staff had proposed for automakers to produce from 2012 through 2014."

Left unsaid was that the staff has proposed a 10-fold reduction in ZEV production, so a tripling of what the staff proposed was still a weakening of the ZEV mandate.

By contrast, Plug In America, a group that advocates for electric vehicles, issued a press release with the headline, "California Regulators Eviscerate Clean-Car Mandate Again – a 70% Drop."

The group urged state lawmakers to "take over" the ZEV program and create a Battery Electric Vehicle Partnership, similar to the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership.

Where you come down on the ZEV fracas depends on a few factors: Whether you think hydrogen vehicles will become a reality by 2012-14, what you think of the marketablity of electric cars, and where you stand on prompting auto makers to speed up production of plug-in hybrids.

The proposal the board approved yesterday gives automakers more credit for producing hydrogen vehicles than battery-powered ones. That hurts smaller electric car companies, such as Tesla, which had invested on the assumption that the air board would stick with its original ZEV requirements.

In exchange for allowing car makers to produce fewer ZEV vehicles, the air board required them to produce 180,000 low-emission vehicles, such as plug-in hybrids. But it only requires them to produce 58,000 by 2012-14, with a determination later on targets for the following three years.

Arguably, the board's action could reduce both greenhouse gases and smog-forming pollutants if the automakers actually roll out 180,000 plug-in hybrids in the years ahead. But if they stall, as they have in the past, and try to get the air board to keep rolling back the mandate, yesterday's action could be a real setback. I'd be interested to see an analysis of projected GHG emissions and ozone precursers that could result from these two scenarios. If someone has one, send it my way.

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 10:34 AM | Comments

March 26, 2008

Cap-and-trade being knee capped?

Claiming there is "growing pressure" to abandon a cap-and-trade program in California, an industry coalition has sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a letter urging him to "speak out" in favor of market mechanisms in implementing the state's global warming law.

The letter, signed by leaders of California's manufacturing, development and oil industries, as well as the Chamber of Commerce and other groups, doesn't directly say who is applying this pressure. But the missive appears to be a response to efforts by Senate Democrats and environmental justice groups to slow down or stop adoption of cap and trade by the Public Utilities Commission and the Air Resources Board, as noted in the previous item.

The letter states:

"Despite the consideration by the California Air Resources Board of a cap and trade program in its AB 32 scoping plan, growing pressure to adopt only command and control strategies, rather than a blend of regulatory approaches, may interfere with this market development. We continue to feel that a cap and trade system stands out as an approach that can provide a level of environmental integrity and cost savings that conventional regulations simply cannot match. Thus, it is vital that you continue to speak out about the benefits of market-based solutions in order to preserve public support for your vision of California as a leader on climate change policies."

This letter is intriguing on a couple of fronts. One, it was sent to the governor instead of Air Board chairwoman Mary Nichols. That suggests that industry lobbyists think they'll get a more favorable hearing out of the governor's office instead of his air board appointees.

The letter also leaves out the fact that, although industry groups support cap and trade, they adamantly oppose a trading system in which the allowances are auctioned off. (See page 3 of this letter.) Numerous economists, including ones the governor appointed to his Market Advisory Committee, supporting auctioning, whereas industry groups want the allowances to be allocated free of charge.

So it remains to be seen if industry groups will remain supportive of cap and trade. They are now, but will they be in the future? Stay tuned.

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 05:08 PM | Comments

March 20, 2008

Cap and trade attacked, defended

As California edges closer toward implementing its law to control greenhouse gases, one likely tool in the tool box -- a cap and trade system for emissions -- continues to trigger intense debate.

As reported here last month, environmental justice groups oppose any form of trading scheme for emissions, fearing it will result in additional pollution from refineries and power plants near low-income communities.

In response, economists Lawrence Goulder of Stanford and Robert Stavins of Harvard published an op-ed in The Bee that defends cap and trade. In the article, Goulder and Stavins argue that cap-and-trade will reduce emissions at a lower cost to energy prices than traditional regulation. Environmental justice advocates need to recognize this economic benefit, they argue, because "low-income households devote greater shares of their income to energy and transportation costs than do higher-income households."

Cap-and-trade also continues to come under fire from state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and other Senate Democrats. They penned a letter questioning a recent proposed decision by the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a cap-and-trade program for electric utilities.

That letter, in turn, prompted David Yarnold of Environmental Defense to issue an environmental defense of cap and trade, which was published yesterday in the San Jose Mercury News.

While liberal groups are the main critics against cap and trade on the Left Coast, on the Right Coast, its a different story.

There, the Edison Electric Institute and various conservative groups are trying to stop a cap-and-trade law proposed by U.S. Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Warner.

That bill has triggered a split in the utility industry, with coal-dependent utilities opposed and a separate coalition, one that includes PG&E from California, supporting the measure.

So, to sum up, the politics are pretty simple, right?

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 05:21 PM | Comments

March 17, 2008

Got bait? Schwarzenegger touts future of nuclear power

The blogosphere is abuzz about Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's comments last week saying that the future looks bright for nuclear power.

The governor's full comment:

"I, myself think that nuclear power has a great future. I think that we should look at it seriously again. I know there are people that are scared about it. I know that there are certain environmentalists that put the scare tactics out there and they frighten everyone that we're going to have another blowup and all of those things, but I think that knowledge has advanced so much, and also that we are now seeing that there is such an unbelievable reduction in waste, nuclear waste. So they're really bringing it way down, so that now we can really, I think, relook at that issue again rather than just looking the other way and living in denial. Because it will be very beneficial, like in France where they get 82% of their energy through nuclear power, to look at that because there's no greenhouse gas emissions. So we talked about that. We had an interesting discussion."

It's the first we've heard from the governor on the subject of nuke power. When he ran for governor in 2003, he released a 7-page paper on his environmental positions. Nuclear power was not mentioned, although he went on at length supporting other alternatives to coal and gasoline, including compressed natural gas, liquified natural gas, ethanol, hydrogen, electric cars and fuels made from low-sulfur and non-petroleum diesel.

The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital reported on the governor's comments Friday, and now it's been picked up by Assemblyman Chuck Devore, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Atomic Insight and others who support nuclear power.

Sacramento Bee Photo/Lezlie Sterling

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 04:44 PM | Comments

March 14, 2008

Mary Nichols: New technologies will allow us to do anything!

Mary Nichols, the chair of the Air Resources Board, has come to the defense of her boss, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and his near-daily flights between Southern California and Sacramento.

In a letter to The Bee published today, Nichols states that "people around the world want to live like Schwarzenegger" and that new technologies will eventually "enable people everywhere to have both freedom of travel and a healthy environment."

So just keep living your lives, everyone. No need to worry about current patterns of resource consumption, or concerns that upticks in "vehicle miles traveled" will overwhelm improvements in fuel efficiency. Technology will fix everything. Really, it will.

The full text of Nichols letter:

Re "Air Schwarzenegger: The governor wings his way home daily," editorial, March 10: The Bee wants Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to buy a house in Sacramento and donate it to the state instead of flying home to Los Angeles to be with his family. The newspaper proposes this at least in part on environmental grounds.

The Bee might also concur on a new measure by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., to eliminate the home mortgage tax deduction for houses over 3,000 square feet as a way of making the wealthy pay the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions rather than making the congressman's Michigan truck and car company backers clean up their products.

Both of these proposals suffer from the same delusion that taxing rich people's pollution is the way to solve global pollution problems. People around the world want to live like Schwarzenegger and other successful Americans. Keeping them in their place is just not going to work. The solutions must come from technologies that enable people everywhere to have both freedom of travel and a healthy environment: zero-emission vehicles running on renewable energy sources. Fortunately, California researchers, investors and regulators – spurred on by Assembly Bill 32's challenge to reduce our state's emissions to sustainable levels – are on track to provide those solutions and create green jobs in doing so.

- Mary Nichols, Sacramento
Chair, California Air Resources Board

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 02:59 PM | Comments

March 13, 2008

Thanks to Drudge, “Air Schwarzenegger” stirs up the masses

The Sacramento Bee ran a snarky editorial Monday about the governator’s near-daily commutes, via jet, between Brentwood and Sacramento. (Full disclosure: I might have had something to do with that editorial.)

For some reason, this little ditty was picked up by the Drudge Report, which gave it a much greater national online audience than our editorials normally receive.

On a good day, our missives generate a few hundred hits on our Web site. So far, "Air Schwarzenegger" has generated more than 150,000. And apparently there is a strong stripe of opinion (at least from the Drudgery) that Schwarzenegger, along with Al Gore and other climate crusaders, are hypocrites for their frequent jet setting.

A sampling of reader reaction:

"Perhaps the Governor will use biodiesel in his jet (see Sir Richard Branson for any tips), and ramp up the effort to get excess NOX out of the emissions."

"Carbon Credits are a joke. A few people will make a bundle for a while then the small investors will take the hit when the Global Warming from C02 scam is exposed. Arnold, I don't think there are many trees at 30 thousand feet to use the C02 your jet produces."

"Talk about hypocrisy! You liberals are the ones who claim that buying carbon credits from the God of global warming, Al Gore, makes everything OK. Schwarzenegger is playing by YOUR rules. According to Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore, you can do whatever you want as long as you pay him thousands of dollars. He flies all over the world in his private jet and has made millions of dollars trying to con people into paying him "guilt" money."

"That's the problem with these people. Environmentalists like Gore, Laurie David, and Schwarzenegger claim to be so pro environment but they live in big mansions which consume more energy than the average home and they get around on private jets. As for local travel, they may drive hybrids for some photo ops but Gore was being shuttled around in a limo in his movie and Arnold has his Hummer."

"Perhaps the governor, being the Servant of the people, could move his family to Sacramento, as suggested by another writer, and donate the $10,000 to hurting Californians who are being foreclosed daily."

"He is showing an amazing amount of arrogance and elitism, and is showing himself to be the hypocrite that he is. Arnold, if you're going to force us to cower in fear over the myth that is Global warming, at least be the first to change YOUR lifestyle, apply the rules you have forced upon us to your own life."

Sacramento Bee Photo/Brian Baer

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 05:27 PM | Comments

March 07, 2008

Schwarzenegger's carbon footprint grows larger

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, depicted on magazine covers as a climate crusader, is now commuting nearly every day via private jet from his mansion in Brentwood to the governor's office in Sacramento. So reports the Los Angeles Times today in a front page article.

The Times reports the governor is buying carbon credits -- at about $43 per hour of flight -- to offset the resulting greenhouse gases, "although they don't eliminate the pollution from Schwarzenegger's plane."

Schwarzenegger is paying for all this jet setting with his own money, although he also has taken several international trips courtesy of foundations funded by various business groups. The Fair Political Practices Commission has proposed a ruling to restrict such gifts, as The Bee reported earlier this week.

I'd be interested to see how Arnold would fair if he used the state's new carbon calculator to estimate his carbon footprint.

Sacramento Bee photo/John Decker

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 05:28 PM | Comments

March 06, 2008

D+ for state "report card" on CO2 cuts

After missing a March 1 deadline, the Schwarzenegger administration has posted a report card on how state agencies are doing in reducing greenhouse gases.

The report card was required by a budget trailer bill, SB 85, which this blog covered last May. The bill was aimed at ensuring that all state agencies are making progress in reducing emissions, either in their own operations or in sectors of the economy they oversee.

It also required each agency to prepare "a list and timetable for adoption of any additional measures needed to meet GHG emission reduction targets" and that the overall report card be submitted in "a clear, standardized format" and placed on an agency Web site.

So how did the state perform?

I would give this report card a D+.

It met the minimum requirement of the law, showing the planned activities to reduce greenhouse gases, with some information on how those activities would meet targets. But there are a lot of TBDs -- "to be determined" -- in this report card. For instance, the Department of General Services has several TBDs for programs to reduce emissions from vehicle fleets.

If California is going to require industries to attempt expensive cuts in greenhouse emissions, the state should at least be transparent in what it is doing to meet the same targets. This week's report card falls short, and lawmakers should demand more.

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 03:50 PM | Comments