Is Cap-and-Trade the Answer?
Friday, March 20, 2009 at 10:48PM
Talk Radio News Service (Admin) in Clean coal, Coffee Brown, Energy Future, Greg Walden, Jay Inslee, John Dingell, News/Commentary, University of New Mexico, Washington Post Company Conference, alternative energiy, cap-and-trade, carbon emissions, climate change, fred upton, talk radio news

Coffee Brown, University of New Mexico, Talk Radio News


At the Washington Post Company Conference on "Planning for a Secure Energy Future," Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "We are the Saudi Arabia of coal." It's harmful, he acknowledged, but we have it in abundance and we’re dependent on it. If we don't use coal, China and India will. We should have committed to alternative energy 30 years ago, "but American attention to these matters goes on and off like the light when you throw the switch," he said.
Clean coal is a relative term. We can substantially reduce emissions, but how and at what cost will involve serious debate, he said.
"The Europeans have had at least two fine messes" applying cap-and-trade, Dingell said, adding that there are many options, all having flaws, and Congress will have a huge fight over them.
Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) said coal is a great energy source, "but it has one bad feature: if we burn the coal reserves that we know exist in this country and in China, the planet will cook." He said the coal industry needs cap-and-trade, because if it does not become clean, it becomes unsustainable. Cap-and-trade revenue could fund the necessary research. "The future of this industry depends on the existence of that research," he said. "These are job-creating opportunities."
We have overestimated the cost and difficulty of such projects, according to Inslee. We had to commit to the Apollo project, and then we succeeded. "We are on the cusp of enormous technological transformation, but it cannot happen at the pace it has to happen unless we have (the pressure that cap-an-trade would exert),” he said. “As long as we can burn coal that is not sequestered, it strangles in the bed all of these new companies that are champing at the bit to start getting going." "This pace of global warming is not Al Gore's schedule,” he said, adding that it is a fact of nature and it is happening much faster than had been predicted even one year ago.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said, "By the year 2020, our country is expected to need 40 percent more electricity generation than we're using today. Coal has to be part of that picture." It's about 53 percent of total national energy generation.
We are not building new coal plants, and China is building many, he said, “and they're not using carbon capture.”
Pointing out that efficient carbon capture is 10-15 years away, but cap-and-trade starts immediately and benchmarks begin in 2012, Upton says that the technology should precede the regulations.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) agrees: "This is like (anesthetizing) the patient while the researchers are still trying to figure out how to operate." He characterized cap-and-trade as a redistribution of wealth from businesses to individuals. "Far from being a job creator, I think this could be a huge job killer."
He said that when cap-and-trade decreased sulfur dioxide emissions, circumstances were different.
All of the participants at the conference agreed on the reality and the danger of climate change, but debated whether various alternative energies are practical, and whether cap-and-trade should drive the reduction of carbon emissions or await more cost-effective technology.
Article originally appeared on Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media (http://www.talkradionews.com/).
See website for complete article licensing information.