The worldwide economic slowdown is having an unexpected positive impact in the fight against global warming: Emissions of carbon dioxide are falling, records collected by governments show.

Across the globe, a slowdown in manufacturing has resulted in lower CO2 emissions.

- Carbon dioxide from U.S. power plants fell roughly 3% from 2007 to 2008, according to preliminary data from the Environmental Protection Agency analyzed by the Environmental Integrity Project. That’s the biggest drop since 1995-1996, the first two consecutive years for which data are publicly available.

- Carbon dioxide from industrial facilities in 27 European nations in 2008 plummeted 6%, according to Point Carbon’s analysis of data published last week by the European Commission.

While this has meant a loss of jobs and hardship across the globe, it also means our fight against global warming has had an unexpected ally. It’s tempting to think that this is but a momentary reprieve, but in fact it has given world the leaders the opportunity to implement climate saving new technologies and encourage more planet friendly regulations.

Read more of this story »

That’s probably what the memo said on Joe Lucas’ desk this morning when he got to work.  Joe, the spokesman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) was on a CNN yesterday, saying he didn’t know if Coal was responsible for global warming.  By now, you’ve probably seen the following short clip:

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

Transcript:
Still the industry refuses to say its plants contribute to global warming.
[Question:] Can you just answer that yes or no? If you believe that burning coal causes global warming?
[Joe Lucas:] I don’t know, I’m not a scientist.

Clearly, Joe knows.  He’s the spokesman for a Clean Coal advocacy group that admits as much, only they say that coal can clean up it’s act.  Now, there’s a lot of evidence that Coal can’t, that from cradle to grave it will always be very dirty.  Regardless, from a policy perspective, this sort of thing is just frustrating.

Read more of this story »

iLinc has created the Green Meter to give concreteness and life to the abstract. It calculates the CO2, cost, and travel reductions accrued while using their service, down to the individual level. When companies are required to reduce their carbon footprint, whether internally or by the government where they do business, this will prove an invaluable tool. And in this fragile, downwardly spiraling economy, being financially  prudent with your expenses will be increasingly important.

Read more of this story »

The proposal would affect about 10,000 “stationary sources” of pollution and raise $1.1 million dollars a year in the Bay Area. While small businesses would pay perhaps $10 or less, the Shell oil refinery would be charged with $186, 475 per year for its annual emissions. Four other oil refineries, four power plants and a cement plant are the top emitters in the area. Even the San Fransisco International Airport would get $5,000 a year in fines.

Last April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But don’t call it a carbon tax: Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the air district told the San Jose Mercury News that the fine is a cost recovery fee because the money would not go into a general fund, but would be spent on the area’s emission-reduction programs.

As expected, environmentalists like the Sierra Club are lauding the move while the oil industry says it will raise costs for consumers. And economists say that until there’s a price on carbon, we’re not going to cut emissions fast enough with only voluntary measures.
The final vote on the CO2 proposal will likely happen in May.
San Jose Mercury News

The Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences has just received $590,000 to support research into how diet affects a cow’s methane emissions. Livestock are blamed for 28 percent of the world’s human-caused emissions of methane, a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Photo courtesy of Man vyi at Wikimedia Commons

To do this, carbon dioxide (CO2) - a major contributor to global warming - has been assigned a “shadow price” that government officials will have to consider. This theoretical cost of carbon will, of course, drive up the price tag of projects like new coal plants and new roads. And that’s the point: Assigning a cost to carbon will increase the costs of traditional, dirty projects (and show a truer value in a world more and more likely to assign a cost to CO2) and make cleaner, more efficient projects more attractive and less expensive.

Government economists have set the price at £25.50 per carbon tonne for 2007. That cost will rise each year until it reaches £59.60 per tonne in 2050. The price was set at a level by which the government can meet its target of stabilizing CO2 emissions at 450-550 parts per million, which was recommended by a review for the Treasury. The price is intended to reflect the global costs of carbon’s damage in the atmosphere (more on how and why the price of carbon was determined can be found here).

Read more of this story »

Of course, there's still great uncertainty into a.) how economically feasible this entire process is, and b.) is it safe? Greenpeace, which has previously considered the dumping pollution, was highly critical of the new rule. "We think the London Convention has not taken objections seriously – such as who will be responsible for leaks, who will oversee the storage, who will clean up," said a spokesperson."

Greenpeace (along with several other greenies, including your's truly) believes that less energy should be devoted to carbon-storage projects and more investment and time put into technologies that reduce such emissions. This way, we won't have to worry about messing with our oceans as well as the air. The argument is moot for the moment since such endeavors on the part of companies or nations would have to be economically smart. Currently, it's far cheaper to simply pump CO2 into the air than under the sea. Until the cost of emissions reaches $25 to $35 a ton, you can expect the atmosphere to continue storing most of our waste.

Source: Burial At Sea For C02 Given Seal of Approval