The facts about carbon legislation. Passed the U.S. House in June - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The facts about carbon legislation.

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.

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 8 2 0 3 6 2 0 4 4 Cap ( m illions m etric tons)

Cap drops to 83% below 2005 in 2050

Source: NRECA June Source: NRECA June 2009 2009 Presentation Presentation

For the state of Florida, over the 2012–2035 timeframe

• n 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.

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.

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)

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.

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 sources

In 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.

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

• ne 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 growth Studies 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 CO2 concentrations

If 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

CO2 Concentration (ppmv)

YEAR

It is True that It is True that CO CO2 Levels Have Risen… Levels Have Risen…

CO2 Concentration (ppmv) Air Temperature Anomaly (°C)

YEAR

… But The Changes in Global Temperatures … But The Changes in Global Temperatures Do Not Do Not Correlate with Changes in CO Correlate with Changes in CO2…

1995 2010

355 - 390 -

Siegenthaler, Stocker et Siegenthaler, Stocker et al.

• al. (2005)

(2005) Science, vol. 310, Science, vol. 310, 1313-1317; 1313-1317; Spahni et Spahni et al. (2005) Science, vol. 310,

• al. (2005) Science, vol. 310, 1317-1321

1317-1321

CO CO2 temperature temperature Present Present

650,000 years ago 650,000 years ago

cooler cooler ≈10°C 10°C While the chart While the chart below appears to below appears to show a show a positive relations positive relationship between ip between temperatures temperatures and CO and CO2, , the compress the compression of ion of 650,000 650,000 years of years of data data hides hides the fact the fact that temperatures that temperatures change before change before CO CO2 levels change. levels change.

But What About the Chart in Al Gore’s But What About the Chart in Al Gore’s Movie, “An Movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”? Inconvenient Truth”?”

warmer 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 increases 2. Manmade greenhouse emissions are only a fraction of global greenhouse emissions – most GHG emissions are natural 3. 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.

• 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.