Obama Seeks Fast Action On Warming (Obama energy policy)

[Junghalli]

From the San Francisco Chronicle (sorry, no link, it's a newspaper article). Apologies for any spelling mistakes, I had to copy the whole thing manually.

Curbing emissions will boost economy, he tells governors

In his first speech on global warming since winning the election, President-elect Barack Obama promised Tuesday to set stringent limits on greenhouse gasses, saying the need is too urgent for delay.

Many observers had expected Obama to avoid tackling such a complex, contentious issue early in his administration. But in videotaped comments to the Governors’ Global Climate Summit in Beverly Hills on Tuesday, he called for immediate action.

“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer and acceptable response. The stakes are too high, the consequences too serious.”

He repeated his campaign promise to create a system that limits carbon dioxide emissions and forces companies to pay for the right to emit the gas. Using the money collected from that system, Obama plans to invest $15 billion each year in alternative energy. That investment – in solar, wind and nuclear power, as well as advanced coal technology – will create jobs at a time of economic turmoil, he said.

“It will … help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generation 5 million new green jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced,” Obama said.


Schwarzenegger ‘very happy’

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger convened the Global Climate Summit along with the governors of Florida, Illinois, Kansas and Wisconsin – states that have been developing their own global warming policies rather than waiting for federal action. Schwarzenegger clashed repeatedly with the Bush administration on climate policy and complained that the White House was dragging its feet on a looming crisis. He told the conference Tuesday that he welcomes a new approach from Washington and would work with Obama.

“Of course I am very, very happy” Schwarzenegger said. “This is so important for our country, because we have been the biggest polluters in the world, and it is about time that we as a country recognize that and that we work together with other nations in order to fight global warming.”

Obama touted the idea of companies paying to emit greenhouse gases, a system known as “cap and trade,” during the campaign. But many people had doubted he would make it an early priority as president.

Under such a system, the government would set an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions and let companies buy and sell the right to emit specific amounts. The limit would decline over time.

Such systems are complicated to create. They’re also controversial. Critics say they amount to a tax on energy use that would hurt businesses and consumers at a time when the economy is floundering.

But one business group threw its support behind Obama on Tuesday.

The US Climate Action Partnership, which includes San Francisco’s Pacific Gas and Electric Co. as well as several environmental organizations, started calling for government action on global warming two years ago. The group wants a cap and trade system as soon as possible, even though many of its members – such as oil giants BP and ConocoPhillips – emit large amounts of greenhouse gases.

“We stand united behind President-elect Obama’s statement earlier today,” said James Rogers, chief executive officer of Duke Energy, one of America’s largest electric utilities. “Delaying thus further doesn’t make sense. And using the economy as an excuse is wrong… We can solve our economic and environmental crises simultaneously.”


Paying for emitting carbons

A cap and trade system forces companies to pay for emitting greenhouse gases, effectively putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, alternative energy technologies should become more cost-competitive with fossil fuels.

“At its core, it’s very simple – we need a price on carbon,” said David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG Energy, another Climate Action Partnership member. “We own coal-fired power plants. That’s what we do for a living. We’ve been developing low-or no-carbon technologies as we look to the future. … But again, we need a price on carbon, because it’s not cheap.”

Obama’s four-minute videotaped speech largely repeated elements of his energy plan from the campaign trail, saying the nation must cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

He repeatedly linked the fight against global warming to reviving the economy, saying the investment in alternative energy would put Americans to work.


Nuclear power, ‘clean coal’

Obama also made a point of backing technologies that many environmentalists despise – nuclear power and “clean coal,” which involves trapping and storing underground the emissions from coal-burning power plants.

Obama told participants at the governors’ climate conference that he would work with any country, state or business that wanted to fight climate change. Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Mexico, Indonesia and the United Kingdom all sent representatives to the two-day conference.

“I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House,” he said. “Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that is willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.

Well, at least we have the energy policy he wants somewhat fleshed out now. My only comment at this point is I'm happy to see he seems to be supporting nuclear power; my big worry was and still is that he'll cave into the anti-nuke lunatic fringe. Personally I'd like to see a lot more emphasis on nuclear power, but I am somewhat reassured, though whether he'll put his money where his mouth and buck the lunatic wing of the environmental movement and if so how much remains to be seen.

[Soontir C'boath]

One way I thought of to appeal to carbon emitting corporations is to allow them to invest the amount they're taxed into an alternative energy company of their choosing. This way, alternative energy is supported and they have a stake in gaining a profit.

[Shogoki]

I never doubted he was pro-nuclear, simply because he's not an idiot. He was merely making sure he got the hippy vote, he's a politician after all.

[Ender]

This is what I was alluding to a few days ago. Assuming I was not misinformed, expect his proposal to ape a lot of the IL stuff, including a big nuke push.

[Ekiqa]

The one problem with nuclear, right now, is that so many other countries are building nuclear plants, that the few companies that build them have a large wait list.

[Duckie]

According to this map, Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors, above the national average of 2.1 (3.3 if you only count states that actually have a nuclear reactor) and is the most nuclear-powered state in the country. 48% of Illinois' power is supplied by nuclear power, which is far above the national average of 19%.

France gets 75-80% of its power from 60 plants (although each of their plants produces about 1.6x as much energy as ours, perhaps because theirs are more modern), and France uses about half the energy of the US (I believe), so it stands to reason that if we had 60 more nuclear power plants the country would probably be at least to 40% or 50% nuclear powered.

[CmdrWilkens]

The one problem with nuclear, right now, is that so many other countries are building nuclear plants, that the few companies that build them have a large wait list.

However if there is a sufficient, and economically viable, plan for long term committment to nukes then it would be well within the realm of possibility for the feds to help one of the US steelmakers build the neccesssary foundry. That would add capacity, jobs, and speed the aquisition of 4th Generation reactors. Moreover it would create additional tax revenues in the entire stream as plants either spend money to push out carbon or put money into buying domestic nuke parts. Honestly I get that the waste storage issue is huge and worrisome but at the same time there are just so many upsides to rebuilding the entire chain of US manufactured plant parts.

[Mayabird]

Honestly I get that the waste storage issue is huge and worrisome but at the same time there are just so many upsides to rebuilding the entire chain of US manufactured plant parts.

So we build reprocessing plants and create even more jobs in the building and staffing of them. Unless you're talking about some other waste storage issue. But at any rate we really need to get our domestic manufacturing back on track instead of just shipping it out of the country.