Archive for November, 2010

The price of going green in Ontario, part 2

11/23/2010

[Follow up to yesterday’s post:]

“[Ontario Finance Minister Dwight] Duncan’s new electricity plans are riddled with contradictions. He claims that the government’s new long-term electricity plan will lead to “stable and predictable pricing.” Yet, in his own statement, he admits that: “Over the next five years, however, residential electricity prices are expected to rise by 46%”  …

One glimmer of truthfulness in the Economic Statement is the admission that renewable power generation is the main driver for the rate increases.  …

Applying the government’s estimates, by 2015 the cost of sole-sourced green energy contracts above the market value of the power will exceed $4-billion per year.  …

[Ontario Premier Dalton] McGuinty’s Green Energy Act, passed last year, erased more than a century of electricity policy consensus based on the idea that the purpose of the power system, irrespective of policy instruments used, was to serve consumers. Now the purpose of the power system is to achieve green economic and social transformation.  …

McGuinty claimed his electricity policies, enshrined in the Green Energy Act, would benefit future generations. Although our bills are skyrocketing, Duncan has signed an additional blank cheque payable by our kids to fund irresponsible green initiatives. Duncan has polluted the power system with unprecedented political meddling and created a whole new class of taxpayer liability.”  “Tom Adams: Ontario’s shell game hides green costs

Advertisements

UN's REDD enables Indonesia to collect $1B to clear cut rain forests and plant palm oil trees

11/23/2010

“Vague legal definitions [of “forest” and “degraded land” in UN’s REDD] may allow Indonesia to class forests as ‘degraded’ and ‘rehabilitate’ the land with palm trees and biofuel crops.

Indonesia plans to class large areas of its remaining natural forests as “degraded” land in order to cut them down and receive nearly $1bn of climate aid for replanting them with palm trees and biofuel crops, according to Greenpeace International.

According to internal government documents from the forestry, agriculture and energy departments in Jakarta, the areas of land earmarked for industrial plantation expansion in the next 20 years include 37m ha of existing natural forest – 50% of the country’s orangutan habitat and 80% of its carbon-rich peatland. More than 60m ha – an area nearly five times the size of England – could be converted to palm oil and biofuel production in the next 20 years, say the papers.”  “Indonesia eyeing $1bn climate aid to cut down forests, says Greenpeace

Beyond comedy — UN: next climate report will be "dramaticaly worse"

11/23/2010

“Robert Orr, UN under secretary general for planning, said the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming will be much worse than the last one.  …

He said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would make it clear to world leaders in Cancun “that we should not take any comfort in the climate deniers’ siren call.”  …

[S]cientists agree that climate change “is happening in an accelerated way.”

“[J]ust about everything that you will see in the next report will be more dramatic than the last report …””  “Next climate warming report will be dramatically worse: UN

The humans

11/22/2010


H/t No Consensus

Phoenix urban heat island: 6 degrees

11/22/2010

[From the Coyote Blog:]

Blast from the past — 2005

11/22/2010

Climate change is a bigger threat to elephants, tigers and the rhinoceroses than poaching, a wildlife expert says.

Dr Richard Leakey told BBC News global warming … could make the animals extinct.  …

And the former director of Kenya’s wildlife service believes concerted action is needed within five years.  …

“We can spend money trying to stop poaching, but there’s no point in doing that if the stuff in there [protected areas such as national parks] is going anyway,” he told the BBC News website.

“If the concern is symbolic species, there may well be a bigger threat from climate change than from utilisation and poaching.”  …

“Protected areas are now islands,” said Dr Leakey.  …

“And if there’s significant climate change, as is predicted [by AGW climate models], what’s going to happen to these areas?

“Paleontologically, island faunas become extinct.”  …

He will attempt to convince representatives of bodies such as the World Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) that they should set up a new fund of around $100m to research the issue, and find ways of protecting wildlife from climate change.  …

I think we may well be looking at a mass extinction …””  “Climate fear for African elephant

It's over — we're doomed, doomed I say!

11/22/2010

“It’s too late. The world has missed the opportunity to avoid serious, damaging human-induced climate change. … [T]he United States and the rest of the world have waited too long to act to cut the emissions of damaging greenhouse gas pollutants. We are now committed to irreversible long-term and inevitably damaging consequences …”  “Unavoidable climate change — past the point of no return”  h/t Tom Nelson

EPA out to shut down the economy, part 2

11/22/2010

“The new EPA [ozone standard] rules call for a reduction in the national ambient air-quality standard for ground-level ozone, a precursor of smog, from 75 parts per billion to between 60 and 70 parts per billion, a cut of up to 20 percent.

While this might seem innocuous enough, setting a more-stringent ozone standard will in fact cause economic havoc.

Hundreds of U.S. cities and counties already don’t meet the current standard. If the EPA tightens the rules, these counties will fall permanently into noncompliance, even with costly investments in new pollution controls.

Under the Clean Air Act’s nondegradation provision, state and local governments are not permitted to take actions that would worsen air quality, even if the area is in compliance with EPA standards.

If a county or city is not in compliance, its economy won’t be able to grow—so the EPA’s proposal would spell economic stagnation for many communities.

A study by the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, a 75-year old organization that provides economic research and training for business executives, warns that the new standard would destroy an estimated 7.3 million jobs nationwide and add $1 trillion annually in new regulatory costs beginning in 2020.  …

This huge price tag, however, wouldn’t appreciably improve public health. So it’s fair to ask why a more stringent ozone standard is even needed.  …

The EPA’s proposed ozone standard exemplifies arbitrary over-regulation that will destroy jobs and harm our economy without any offsetting benefit.

Congress should block the EPA move.”  “How EPA could destroy 7.3 million jobs

EPA out to shut down the economy

11/22/2010

“Environmental Protection Agency officials Wednesday provided power companies and states with new guidance on EPA’s plans to regulate greenhouse gases.

A D.C. lobbyist for two major power companies told Bloomberg News that “the energy and manufacturing sectors will essentially be in a construction moratorium” as a consequence.

Here we are, with 15 million Americans unemployed and millions more underemployed, and the EPA is moving blindly ahead with new regulations that will increase dramatically the energy costs of U.S. industries, reducing their competitiveness and profitability, and making it less likely they will hire.  …

All EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will accomplish is to impoverish America …

Increased energy consumption in China and other developing economies will offset any reductions in the United States.  …

Congress should block the EPA move.”  “How EPA could destroy 7.3 million jobs

The price of going green in Ontario

11/22/2010

The price of subsidizing alternative energy: 75% electricity rate increase to consumers since 2003 and another 39% increase by 2012:

Ontario Clean Energy Benefit — Wind Concerns Ontario questions what’s ‘clean’ about McGuinty’s vote buying Hydro rate cut

It’s so bad that the government has been forced to give consumers a 10% rebate to stave off a voter revolt.

Large industrial electricity consumers don’t get the rebate, which means they will pass it along to consumers in increased costs of goods and services, negating the rebate to consumers.  46% increase in the next 5 years and 56% when the rebate ends:

Lawrence Solomon: Ontario’s powerful sleight of hand

Brilliant.