While voters, businesses, and politicians are calling for carbon regulation, exactly what that regulation would look like is far from decided.

Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are the two most-cited proposals for cutting carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Supporters argue over which plan would be the most efficient method of cutting emissions while allowing for flexibility in the economy.

A carbon tax is a tax levied on CO2 emissions. Those who favor a carbon tax say it will drive innovations and technologies that allow for the same amount of work to be done with less pollution, and decrease the demand for products that are dirtier and thus more expensive. Critics point out that a tax would have a harsher impact on the poor, while others argue that carbon tax revenues could be used to lower other taxes, like income taxes or payroll taxes.

A carbon tax also makes many elected officials nervous: New taxes, fees, or whatever you want to call them, are rarely popular with voters. One notable supporter of carbon taxes — although he’s not running for office anymore — is Al Gore. He has promoted a carbon tax in addition to implementing a cap-and-trade program.

A cap-and-trade system requires an overall cut in emissions. Companies that cut emissions further than required are issued permits that they can then sell to companies that can’t or won’t cut emissions far enough.

Promoters of cap-and-trade say that the system provides an incentive — rather than a heavy-handed tax approach — to cut emissions because companies can sell the excess permits. It also requires a definitive limit on emissions, while some are afraid that a carbon tax would simply drive companies to pay the fines, pass the increase along to consumers, and keep on polluting. Companies like GE, DuPont, Duke Energy, and Toyota back a cap-and-trade policy, as do many environmental groups and labor unions. Presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama also prefer it.

This fall, Congress could see a slew of measures to cut CO2. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) are planning to propose a cap-and-trade bill. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) is expected to introduce a carbon tax proposal — not in the hopes of actually passing it, but rather just to show how unpopular such a tax would be.

San Francisco Chronicle
Wall Street Journal, via Environmental Economics

States continue to take the lead in cutting global warming pollution and more may soon follow, spurred by a federal judge’s ruling last week that Vermont can set stricter vehicle emissions standards — stricter than what the federal government requires.

Furthermore, the widespread state action on auto emissions could persuade the government to enact nationwide fuel efficiency laws, rather than leave a patchwork of state regulations for automakers to work around.

The Christian Science Monitor took a look at what’s happening across the U.S., and predicted some ramifications of the Vermont case:

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be prompted to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act. This would allow California, along with Vermont and the 10 other states with identical laws, to begin enforcing emission requirements for cars sold in their states.

• Six additional states – Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota – may proceed with their own emissions requirements. All together, the 18 states that have vehicle emission laws or that are exploring them make up about half the U.S. auto market.

• Congress may have to reconsider new fuel-efficiency standards it’s currently weighing (which are not as demanding as Vermont’s). Or they could mandate a tougher federal requirement (more of a long-shot, I’d say).

• Federal judges in two similar cases brought by the auto industry in California and Rhode Island could dismiss those cases if they determine the industry has had its day in court and further proceedings would be redundant.

Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense were party to the Vermont lawsuit, and are optimistic that the judge’s ruling will spur other states to action. The auto industry promised to stricter regulations.

The 12 states with emissions laws already on the books could cut up to 100 million tons each year. Overall U.S. emissions from cars and light trucks total about 1.5 billion tons per year.

Christian Science Monitor
Cybercast News Service

We can stop the chest beating and flag waving, folks: China has passed the U.S. as the largest annual emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution.

Although some analysts didn’t expect China to overtake the U.S. for several years, the U.K. newspaper The Guardian reports that the Asian nation is now the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide, a main contributor to global warming. However, the U.S. still remains the largest cumulative contributor to climate change, and our per capita CO2 emissions are four times that of China. Whew.

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which crunched the numbers, noted that China's soaring demand for coal (the equivalent of one coal plant is built each week) and surge in cement production (a very energy-intensive process) helped push it to the top. Although the statistics don’t include other sources of CO2 pollution, such as aviation, shipping, gas flaring and underground coal fires, a scientist from the Agency noted that those numbers would likely not affect China’s top spot.

The announcement may put more pressure on world leaders to work out a climate change agreement that includes China in the solution, as well as the U.S. Earlier this month, China unveiled a plan to cut energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20 percent by 2010. But as the GDP grows, so too will its emissions. It has stressed that technology and costs are major barrier to energy efficiency, and wants international help moving towards a low-carbon economy.

It’s Getting Hot in Here
The Guardian
Technology Review

If lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming, they will have to face another giant to make real progress: A government program, hailing from the Depression era, that sends billions of dollars of low-interest loans to rural areas to build coal plants. The Rural Electrification Administration was created in 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt to bring electricity to U.S. farms. The mission has been accomplished, but the money keeps coming.

Rural electric cooperatives ("co-ops") are nonprofit organizations that distribute electricity and are owned by their customers. There are more than 800 of them across the U.S., and more than 50 of them own a power plant. The co-ops plan to spend $35 billion to build old-fashioned coal plants over the next 10 years. A sobering reality check: That’s enough to offset all state and federal efforts to cut CO2 emissions over that time.

The Office of Management and Budget wants to end the loans for new power plants and limit the ones for transmission projects in the most remote areas. But the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is a powerful lobby, and sent 3,000 members to Capitol Hill last week to keep the lending program rolling, arguing that the new coal plants are needed to keep energy cheap and reliable.

Glenn English, chief executive of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, pointed out that taxable utilities get tax breaks to encourage renewable energy projects and efficiency measures, but rural co-ops can’t. He wants Congress to give the nonprofit co-ops incentives too, like no-interest loans.

Besides political influence, co-ops often carry a lot of clout in their communities because they are more involved than just distributing electricity. English explained that one co-op reopened a gas station that went out of business. Another bought and kept open the local Dairy Queen.

Others argue that many of the co-ops shouldn’t qualify as rural anymore because of their expansion into densely populated zones, like Dallas-Fort Worth area and Atlanta. Additionally, the low-interest money they receive removes any incentive to promote energy efficiency or go after renewable resources. In fact, rural co-ops get on average 80 percent of their electricity from coal, compared to 50 percent with the rest of the country. Their energy demand is also growing at twice the national rate.

This is going to be a tough political issue for Congress to tackle. Both sides may have valid points, but the system must be restructured to be a more efficient process that emphasizes clean, renewable, local energy. If not, than all the state and federal goals, programs, and initiatives that aim to cut climate change emissions will be simply blown away.

Washington Post

I saw it for myself: President Bush directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with the departments of energy, transportation, and agriculture to come up with a plan to cut global warming emissions by the year 2008. As for the details…well, they get pretty vague.

Bush spoke a lot about fuel consumption, again alluding to our nation’s addiction to oil, but never called for a specific increase in vehicle efficiency standards. He repeated his State of the Union proposal to replace 20 percent of the nation’s gasoline with alternative fuels in the next 10 years. He summed up his plan:

“When it comes to the environment and energy, the American people expect common sense, and they expect action.”

But apparently not too much action: The Washington Post reports that U.S. negotiators are attempting to weaken a climate change declaration set to be unveiled at next month’s G-8 summit of the world’s top industrial nations. Specifically, U.S. officials want to strike a sentence about energy efficiency,

“Therefore we will increase the energy efficiency of our economies so that energy consumption by 2020 will be at least 30 percent lower compared to a business-as-usual scenario”

and language to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Furthermore, the U.S. proposed striking an opening line that declares

“…tackling climate change is an imperative, not a choice. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and sustain our common basis of living.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy are all pushing for a strong statement on global warming solutions.

The heads of the U.S. departments called on by President Bush to come up with a plan said a draft should be available by this fall. But will it be real action? While the President is calling for change, his representatives at the UN are doing everything they can to stall it. We know political rhetoric when we see it, Mr. Bush. Fool us once…

CNNMoney.com
Washington Post

There’s a lot of talk about China’s staggering amount of planned coal plants, and the narrowing gap between it and the U.S. for the title of Planet’s Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter. But China is examining at least one unique way to develop more sustainably.

Welcome to Dongtan, the world’s first CO2-free city. Developers are building this $1.3 billion eco-city just outside of Shanghai. Renewable energy will be used extensively, the layout of the city maximizes walking and biking rather than cars, and transport vehicles will run on batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Other plans include recycling organic waste, green roofs, and rainwater capture.

Dongtan will cover an area about three-quarters the size of Manhattan on wetlands at the mouth of the Yangtze River. However, Peter Head of Arup, the London-based firm heading the planning, said the wetlands are not at risk from the development. From the Architectural Record:

“‘First of all, water usually discharged into the river will be collected, treated, and recycled within the city boundaries,” he says. ‘There will be a 2-mile buffer zone of eco-farm between city development and the wetlands.’ While farming is water intensive, relatively small amounts of water reach the plants themselves. Head says Dongtan ‘will capture and recycle water in the city and use recycled water to grow green vegetables hydroponically. This makes the whole water cycle much more efficient.’”

But what will the habitants do in this eco-utopia? City officials and consultants expect jobs in education like at the planned Institute for Sustainable Cities, and they anticipate attracting companies pursuing clean technologies, food research and production, and health care. Dongtan is also expected to rely heavily on ecotourism.

Designers hope CO2-free city will serve as a model for the rest of the urbanized world. Its first phase includes a marina village of 20,000 habitants that will be unveiled at the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai. Nearly 80,000 people are expected to live in the city by 2020, and eventually designers hope to see 500,000 citizens living the good, green life there.

Architectural Record
Jetson Green

As a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, Canada has committed to cutting global warming emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But emissions have climbed, and the northerly nation is nervous about forest fires that release carbon dioxide (CO2) back into the air when the trees burn, thus increasing CO2 emissions even more. As a result, Canada has decided to cut its forests from global warming emissions calculations completely.

This also means that Canada won't count forests as a CO2 absorber or "sink," either. That's just fine for some scientists: According to the Toronto Star, for three years between 1990 and 2004, trees were a net source of emissions rather than a CO2 sink.

“Government scientists made the call after learning of the damage that could come to forests from 2008 to 2012 and realizing the forests could become another source of emissions, pushing Canada even further from its Kyoto targets.”

Insect infestations have contributed to forest fires also: an insect like the mountain pine beetle burrows into a tree and prevents it from drawing water, killing it and turning it into kindling.

The Kyoto Protocol gives nations the option of using agricultural land and managed forests (ones that are regularly cut down and replanted) in their emissions calculations. Although forests should theoretically be a great source of storing carbon in such a forested country like Canada, a hotter planet has changed that assumption.

Some environmentalists are angry about the decision, saying Canada is skirting its Kyoto responsibility.

A spokesman for Environment Minister John Baird said that the decision to not count forests only applies to Kyoto’s first commitment period, which ends in 2012. After that, Canada may reassess its decision.

The Toronto Star, via the Daily Canuck

As California implements a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming, it’s eyeing the European CO2 market as a model. Creating similar market-based mechanisms to fight global warming could create a more thorough, comprehensive solution to the problem.

California officials met with EU lawmakers last week to discuss cap-and-trade, a system in which industries are given a limit as to how much CO2 they can emit. For companies that cut emissions more than what is regulated, they receive credits. That company can then turn around and sell those credits to other companies that cannot or will not cut their CO2 pollution, thus allowing them to meet their requirements, too. So the further a company can reduce its CO2, the more money it can make from selling or trading its extra credits.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act signed into law last fall by Governor Schwarzenegger requires a CO2 market, but the state has learned that creating its own unique market could be very costly and complicated. Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, told Reuters: “Our governor has asked us to design a market that could be compatible with the ETS, the European trading system.”

California is the 12th largest CO2 polluter on the planet, so their entry into the European market could mark the beginning of a global CO2 trading system. Adams hopes that other nations will join:

"California and the European Union can't solve this problem alone. We think working together and working with China and India and other countries will lead to a solution."

Reuters, via Planet Ark

Last week, Bill Chameides, chief scientist at Environmental Defense, talked with Ira Flatow on National Public Radio’s Talk of the Nation: Science Friday about market-based policies to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a big contributor to the global warming problem.

Chameides argued that the fastest, most cost-effective way to reduce CO2 emissions is with a policy called cap-and-trade. This system tells big emitters – like powerplants, automobile manufacturers, etc – that they have to cut their CO2 emissions by a certain amount by a certain date. For companies that make deeper cuts than what is required, a credit is issued and can be traded (sold) to other emitters that don’t meet the targets. With this system, explained Chameides, government plays “a fairly light role” by ensuring that technologies are valid and are reducing emissions, while carbon dioxide becomes a commodity and sold on the open market. Companies are rewarded for innovations that take them beyond targets set by lawmakers.

Cap-and-trade isn’t a new concept: A cap-and-trade policy was enacted with the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments to cut emissions that cause acid rain. According to the current Bush Administration, the cap-and-trade system has been a “resounding success,” cutting annual sulfur dioxide emissions ahead of target dates and at one-third of the expected cost.

When a caller pointed out the lack of action from the federal government on CO2, Chameides noted that states have taken the initiative. For example, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an effort by Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce CO2 emissions. RGGI employs a multi-state cap-and-trade program and requires electric power generators to make the cuts. California is also implementing a cap-and-trade system (one that targets all big emitters, not just the electricity sector, and which covers all six major global warming gases, not just CO2), and Europe’s cap-and-trade came into effect over two years ago. As important as it is for states to forge ahead, Chameides is concerned that without leadership from the federal government, we won’t get the cuts we need and we’ll fall behind in renewable energy innovation:

“Europe is way ahead of us in renewable energy technology and that’s where we’re really going to have to play catch up…If we wait long enough, we’ll have to be an importer of these technologies instead of an exporter.”

There are several bills in Congress that have cap-and-trade policies, and many see a “clear preference” for this approach among utilities, compared to a carbon tax. In fact, 91 percent of California businesses in one survey responded that a cap-and-trade policy was the best way to meet CO2 reduction goals. Chameides argued that a carbon tax – besides being “a political nonstarter” – doesn’t allow for measurable reductions, and the government sets the price on CO2 rather than the marketplace. The best way to slow global warming, spur technological innovation, boost our economy, and clean up our environment is with a measurable, market-based system like cap-and-trade.

UPDATE: See Maria Energia for another point of view: Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek argues that a global carbon tax is the most efficient, market-friendly way to cut emissions that cause global warming.

Business Wire, via Find Articles
Climate Action Network Europe
MarketWatch
National Public Radio
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Terra Daily
WhiteHouse.gov

Global warming solutions that would earn a laugh from many of us are getting some serious attention by scientists.

With the impacts of global warming being felt around the globe, an insurance policy of sorts may be needed in case the effects are faster and more dramatic that what can be fought with more traditional methods like efficiency, renewable power, etc. Here’s a sample of the more interesting scenarios that are being considered and studied:

• A man-made "volcano" that shoots gigatons of sulfur high into the air, creating a "sun shade" made of trillions of little reflectors between Earth and the sun and slightly lowering the planet's temperature, mimicking what has happened during large natural volcanic eruptions. Scientists with the Center for Atmospheric Research have put this idea into a climate model, but the results aren’t cheap or promising. It would take tens of thousands of tons of sulfate to have a persistent effect, and some scientists point out that shooting sulfate into the atmosphere doesn’t do anything to fix the initial problem of humans emitting too much carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution. Furthermore, it doesn’t address the dramatic increase in acidity of the world’s oceans, a predicted impact of global warming.
• A forest of artificial "trees" that suck carbon dioxide out of the air. Looking more like a 200 foot high “radiator on a stick” than a tree, these contraptions use air filters that grab the CO2 and use chemical absorbers to compress it into a liquid or gas that can be shipped and stored elsewhere. Columbia University professor Klaus Lackner’s middle school daughter was able to do this on a tiny scale for a school science fair, but now Lackner – inspired by Richard Branson’s $25 million prize offer - is looking at it on a global scale. Hurdles include the need for a huge amount of energy to power the air capture devices and the cost of CO2 disposal.
• Dumping iron dust into the ocean to increase the natural plankton and algae system that would drink up the CO2 from the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has cited this as a possible way to fight global warming, but also warned against the “large-scale fertilization of the ocean,” causing harmful temperature differences between the surface water and deeper waters and having a dramatic effect on marine life. This has been tried out several times on a small scale since the 1990s, and earlier this month Planktos Inc. of Foster City, CA launched the Weatherbird II to dump 50 tons of iron dust in the Pacific Ocean. Planktos Inc. CEO Russ George assured the Associated Press that his company has consulted with governments around the world and is dropping the iron in open international seas that don't require permits. He argues that the amount of iron dust is small compared to the ocean volume and so poses no threat. Scientists continue to debate the effectiveness of this.

Of course, many scientists are wary of such drastic solutions. From the AP:

Scientists in the recent past have been reluctant to consider such concepts. Many fear there will be unintended side effects; others worry such schemes might prevent the type of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are the only real way to fight global warming. These approaches are not an alternative to cutting pollution, said University of Calgary professor David Keith, a top geoengineering researcher.

NASA is finishing up a report summarizing ideas like the ones listed above, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research has spent the last six weeks running computer simulations of the man-made volcano scenario.

Associated Press, via WPVI-TV