The US Congress hasn't passed a law dealing with climate change or greenhouse gas emissions.
There isn't an actual US climate change policy. The current Executive branch of the US Government does support measures dealing with climate change, but it's harder without Congress giving an actual go-ahead. The President and the EPA and DOE and DOT and even DOD are taking some action, but not as much as they could be. A different President and what the Executive Branch does can change.
There also isn't a comprehensive energy policy for the US. Not having one makes dealing with climate change harder.
Some US states are trying to do the job in the absence of a national policy.
Some US states are listed on this EPA site as having a climate change action plan: http://www.epa.gov/s...tion-plans.html
Looking at the list and thinking about the missing states, seems like the ones that have large fossil fuel interests are prominent. Not exactly a surprise.
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
0
US state climate change efforts
Started by still learning, Feb 18 2012 06:43 PM
6 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 19 February 2012 - 04:13 AM
After the state of the union, c-span aired several state of the state addresses from governors, and a few
said that it was up to them, on a local level to tackle this; even some republicans.
With this do-nothing congress, it is up to the local officials to move this forward. States are seeing the
effects to their farmers, cattle ranchers, etc. and they are stepping up to the plate.
said that it was up to them, on a local level to tackle this; even some republicans.
With this do-nothing congress, it is up to the local officials to move this forward. States are seeing the
effects to their farmers, cattle ranchers, etc. and they are stepping up to the plate.
#3
Posted 19 February 2012 - 05:25 PM
There recently was an article in Science detailing some of the measures that will need to be taken to meet the levels of greenhouse gas emissions that California will try to achieve. The title of the article is "The Technology Path to Deep Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts by 2050: The Pivotal Role of Electricity." The abstract is here http://www.sciencema...064/53.abstract but unfortunately the body of the article is not viewable online by the public. The authors mainly are with an organization called Energy and Environmental Economics, website at http://ethree.com/ , worth a look.
Some of the "ground rules" that the authors operated under are here http://www.arb.ca.go...scopingplan.htm
and http://www.energy.ca...-2008-007-F.PDF and http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=1861 (this last, an Executive Order, was signed by our previous Governor who is nominally a Republican.)
The authors stipulated that California wouldn't "be going it alone," and they kept technologically unlikely advances like fusion electricity out of the article. Also, the authors kept major "lifestyle" change requirements out, though they mentioned the possibility.
There are lots of words, but the final objective is to achieve a level of California's greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 to 80 percent below the 1990 level.
Some bits from the 6 page article (there's also about 30 pages of online supporting material):
Energy efficiency is one of the keys. Lots of it. Need improvement of 1.3% per year for forty years.
Decarbonization of electricity is key. Need to be 90% CO2 free by 2050 while generating more because....
Electrification of transportation is key (and other stuff) Need to have 75% of cars and other light vehicles to be electric or plugin hybrid by 2050, lots of other electrification too.
Also important is "smart growth" (reduction in vehicle miles travelled while still accomodating population growth). Rooftop PV is important (an objective is for new homes to be net energy zero by 2020). Biofuels will be important, still have need of airliners and diesel trucks. Non-energy (cement manufacture) and non-CO2 (agriculture) greenhouse emissions need to be cut too.
The article considers five different ways to decarbonize electricity, a high renewables path, a high nuclear path, a high CCS path, a mixed path and a mixed path without the 40 years of energy efficiency improvements. All have relative advantages and disadvantages but the one without the energy efficiency looks impo ssible to achieve.
It won't be easy. An expected 45% more people than now will make it even harder. It won't be cheap. Estimated per capita net cost of $320 per year in 2020 increasing to $1200 per year by 2050. No time to waste either.
What'll it be like?
Wallet a little lighter. Air cleaner (way less smog stuff emitted along with less CO2). Quieter probably, lots of electric autos. Wonder where all the cars that are now parked overnight on streets will go? They (or rather thier replacements) will need to be plugged in somewhere. Just about every rooftop will have PV and solar hot water stuff.
The authors of the article wonder about what the economic ripples will be as petroleum drops from 45% of end use energy to 15%. Fewer gas stations. Fewer oil refineries. Fewer oilwells being drilled.
A related, earlier, shorter article on the subject here http://newscenter.lb...emissions-2050/
Some of the "ground rules" that the authors operated under are here http://www.arb.ca.go...scopingplan.htm
and http://www.energy.ca...-2008-007-F.PDF and http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=1861 (this last, an Executive Order, was signed by our previous Governor who is nominally a Republican.)
The authors stipulated that California wouldn't "be going it alone," and they kept technologically unlikely advances like fusion electricity out of the article. Also, the authors kept major "lifestyle" change requirements out, though they mentioned the possibility.
There are lots of words, but the final objective is to achieve a level of California's greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 to 80 percent below the 1990 level.
Some bits from the 6 page article (there's also about 30 pages of online supporting material):
Energy efficiency is one of the keys. Lots of it. Need improvement of 1.3% per year for forty years.
Decarbonization of electricity is key. Need to be 90% CO2 free by 2050 while generating more because....
Electrification of transportation is key (and other stuff) Need to have 75% of cars and other light vehicles to be electric or plugin hybrid by 2050, lots of other electrification too.
Also important is "smart growth" (reduction in vehicle miles travelled while still accomodating population growth). Rooftop PV is important (an objective is for new homes to be net energy zero by 2020). Biofuels will be important, still have need of airliners and diesel trucks. Non-energy (cement manufacture) and non-CO2 (agriculture) greenhouse emissions need to be cut too.
The article considers five different ways to decarbonize electricity, a high renewables path, a high nuclear path, a high CCS path, a mixed path and a mixed path without the 40 years of energy efficiency improvements. All have relative advantages and disadvantages but the one without the energy efficiency looks impo ssible to achieve.
It won't be easy. An expected 45% more people than now will make it even harder. It won't be cheap. Estimated per capita net cost of $320 per year in 2020 increasing to $1200 per year by 2050. No time to waste either.
What'll it be like?
Wallet a little lighter. Air cleaner (way less smog stuff emitted along with less CO2). Quieter probably, lots of electric autos. Wonder where all the cars that are now parked overnight on streets will go? They (or rather thier replacements) will need to be plugged in somewhere. Just about every rooftop will have PV and solar hot water stuff.
The authors of the article wonder about what the economic ripples will be as petroleum drops from 45% of end use energy to 15%. Fewer gas stations. Fewer oil refineries. Fewer oilwells being drilled.
A related, earlier, shorter article on the subject here http://newscenter.lb...emissions-2050/
#4
Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:21 PM
Although I don't like the use of carbon sequestration as a way of justifying fossil fuel use, I think that it could be a valuable tool if fossil fuel use was being curbed. All that C02 from burning fuel was trapped in the ground before so putting it back there or using it in materials production would seem to make sense. Otherwise, we will have to wait for the plants to suck it up and turn it into plant material in places where it can't decompose quickly such as in swamps and bogs. I think that if we could pull CO2 out of the air to use in the creation of carbon fiber products, we could get a double win.
#5
Posted 28 March 2012 - 01:15 PM
The US is always two steps behind everyone in terms of climate change efforts. This is mainly due to the GOP, which is constantly denying climate change and blocking bills that protect the environment and natural resources. In fact, they want to destroy the environment even more with their oil drilling - "drill baby drill" as they say.
#6
Posted 29 March 2012 - 04:04 AM
There is an occasional commercial on from Lowe's or Home Depot about the benefits of insulation but
if it was a state or federal psa, stating the benefits of reducing heating and cooling-number one being
cost reductions, along with the fact of reducing coal, oil or gas emissions, more people would do it.
People may care about emissions but they care about their wallets first.
Even if a persons house was powered by solar for instance, but their home was still leaking heat/cooling
like a sieve, they'd still be using more than they would need to. If their home was properly insulated,
they could sell the leftover electric back to the utility company and make money.
Efficient homes and commercial buildings would save us literally tons of CO-2 emissions from going into
our atmosphere.
if it was a state or federal psa, stating the benefits of reducing heating and cooling-number one being
cost reductions, along with the fact of reducing coal, oil or gas emissions, more people would do it.
People may care about emissions but they care about their wallets first.
Even if a persons house was powered by solar for instance, but their home was still leaking heat/cooling
like a sieve, they'd still be using more than they would need to. If their home was properly insulated,
they could sell the leftover electric back to the utility company and make money.
Efficient homes and commercial buildings would save us literally tons of CO-2 emissions from going into
our atmosphere.
#7
Posted 19 April 2012 - 05:56 PM
I agree with Shortpoet-GTD. Though it's unfortunate that some Americans aren't roused to action by the already visible effects of climate change, there are several opportunities to re-communicate our cause. For example, green buildings reap incredible financial savings through energy and water savings. Additionally, many green buildings experience higher rent premiums, tenant retention and occupant satisfaction. The business case of green building is motivating industry to action. In this case the end justified the means (I'm not Machiavellian in a universal sense), but a new approach to communicating climate change may help our cause.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users