Green Options

Editor’s note: If this is your first look at Alexis Madrigal’s five-part series on California’s ethanol mandate, make sure to check out the first three installments (linked at the bottom of the page).

IV. In Which Our Hero Is Called Upon One Too Many Times

The California Energy Commission expects ethanol to continue to become more integrated into the state’s energy system. In response to Federal legislation, ethanol blends are expected to increase from about 6 percent now to 10 percent by 2012. That will drive demand from 1 billion gallons of ethanol this year to 1.7 billion gallons by 2012. Put in perspective, if the expected changes occur, ethanol use will have grown 1.6 billion gallons in a decade. The total ethanol market will be larger than the Netherlands’ entire gasoline market, and only a little smaller than Thailand’s.  As rapid changes in industrial infrastructure go, it’s spectacular.

But now a host of new regulations are forcing even more changes to liquid fuel in the state.

Our dependence on oil, rightly called an addiction, has given rise to a strong movement to kick the habit. The coalition pushing for an end to crude oil derivative use for transportation fuel comes from an odd variety of corners with distinct interests.

Responding to those concerns, the California legislature and governor have promulgated a cluster of laws and regulations designed to change the fuels you put in your car. The following table summarizes these overlapping desires made law.

Governments are beginning to mandate green building for some new construction, and that ought to be a cause for celebration. But because of the way these requirements are made, the possibility of problems arising when a building does not meet a required level of green building could lead to legal difficulties and lawsuits.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday a first draft of a rule that will govern the geologic sequestration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from power plants.

Geologic sequestration of global warming gases, is viewed by some as an essential component of a climate change policy portfolio.

It comes as no great surprise to many of us that there will always be a roadblock to a good step forward; especially if it’s a green step. People often do not like new technology. They’re scared of it, or fearful of the jobs it will take away/create. This is very much the case for wind-power, and wind-farms in particular. People are upset because they feel that their lovely views are worth more than the environment itself.

Does someone really need to point out that, if we continue down the road we are on, their views will be spoilt regardless?

A report by the Minerals Management Service in the US gave preliminary environmental approval to a proposed wind-farm off Cape Cod. Plans by developer Cape Wind Associates describe a wind-farm encompassing 25 miles of federal waters in Nantucket Sound, with 130 windmills generating power for thousands of households.

The findings showed that the plans would pose no significant threat to the environment, despite claims to the contrary by locals and politicians.

Thursday morning’s session at the Papandreou Foundation’s Symi Symposium focused on the "green economy": how to craft economic policy that both internalizes the costs of a carbon-based economy, and creates incentives to move away from carbon-intensive energy sources. The presenters in this session were Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and former member of the Clinton administration, and Angelo Consoli, Director, Codeco s.s., European Affairs and Progressive Communication.

Professor Stiglitz’s presentation picked

[...]