Letting the Market Cut Carbon
Some are simply likely growing tired of this topic. Can’t we just move on. This is just some environmentalists crying jihad and to what purpose? If was just another exercise in “I know better than you do” then perhaps we could ignore it. But it is not.
The article below gives some indication of the progress the USA has made in reducing carbon dioxide by nearly 10% while growing the economy. To meet the energy needs of not just our economy but others as well, the consumption of energy will go up by a lot. It makes good sense that to achieve that, as Rand Paul mentioned in the debate we will have to utilize all sources of energy. For alternative energy to have a bigger share of this supply it must be more cost effective than it is today. Do we need big breakthroughs or just scaling up the solar and wind to reduce cost? It is not difficult to see that there is great risk in assuming that the cost just need to be driven down by some percentage. It would be more prudent to assume that there are big new technologies that will be needed. For alternative energy to be increasing it must be more cost effective. For every unit of alternative energy added recently there were nearly 250 units of fossil fuel derived energy added, even with all of the subsidies.
Simple question: do we need to unleash private innovation in energy or have government pick winners and losers which is largely what has happened up to now. As usual to have real progress, government needs to get out of the way including all of the regulators who are wanting and desperately need more paperwork to make the climate change more what exactly?
So the simple question goes to do you pick Obama and the Paris Climate convention outcomes (which will at least estimate reduce temp at the end of the century by about 0.05C) wasting a lot of money and giving a lot to developing economies; or do you pick the free enterprise system to find the best path? This is a serious question and one that we should all engage with and weigh in on.
Increased production of clean-burning natural gas is lowering carbon-dioxide emissions, without any EPA mandates.
By Jack Gerard
Nov. 12, 2015 7:07 p.m. ET
With the United Nations Paris Climate Conference set to begin on Nov. 30, various countries are calling for ambitious policies to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. The United States has an opportunity to present a proven strategy. Call it the “U.S. Model”—a market-driven approach that does not sacrifice economic growth and energy production.
The U.S. has reduced carbon emissions from energy consumption to near 27-year lows—“more than any other nation on Earth,” President Obama noted in September 2014—due largely to greater use of clean-burning natural gas. Overall, the Environmental Protection Agency says greenhouse-gas emissions in 2013 were 9% below 2005 levels while population, energy use and gross domestic product are all up.
This was not due to government mandates. Instead, thriving energy production made natural gas more affordable and available, and the market took it from there.
Market forces have also spurred reductions in methane emissions, which have plummeted 83% from hydraulically fractured wells and 13% from overall natural gas production since 2011. Natural-gas producers have invested millions in new technology to capture methane to sell for a variety of uses including heating homes and generating electricity.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s sweeping Clean Power Plan ignores the natural-gas success story and is trying to force utilities to switch to more costly and intermittent renewable sources such as wind and solar. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association projects this forced restructuring of the electricity grid will shutter 111 power plants nationwide and reduce capacity for another 171.
This will cause electricity costs to skyrocket. Yet the EPA’s own projections show that 22 states are on track to reduce emissions more quickly—with the help of natural gas—without the Clean Power Plan than with it.
Then there is the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. A climate victory? According to a 2014 State Department analysis, carbon emissions for transporting Canada’s oil to Gulf Coast refineries will actually be 42% greater without Keystone XL due to greater reliance on rail.
As the International Energy Agency notes, more than a billion people around the world lack access to electricity and face a daily challenge for adequate food and education, clean water, protection from heat and cold and efficient transportation. To rise out of poverty and enjoy the health and safety many Americans take for granted, these developing nations need more energy, not less. As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said, “Energy is the golden thread that connects economic growth, social equity, and environmental sustainability.”
The International Energy Agency projects global energy needs will increase 45% by 2040, and slightly more than half of demand will be met by oil and natural gas. The success of market-driven reductions in carbon emissions demonstrates that climate progress need not come at the expense of economic growth That’s good news for the U.S., and critical for developing nations.
Mr. Gerard is president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased
Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues. What is driving this? And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.
Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?
At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.
