“Positive RGGI program reviews have been from RGGI, Inc. (the program administrator) and the Acadia Center, which advocates for reduced emissions (see Stutt, Shattuck, and Kumar 2015). In this article, I investigate whether reported reductions in CO2 emissions from electric power plants, along with associated gains in health benefits and other claims, were actually achieved by the RGGI program. Based on my findings, any form of carbon tax is not the policy to accomplish emission reductions. The key results are:
• There were no added emissions reductions or associated health benefits from the RGGI program.
• Spending of RGGI revenue on energy efficiency, wind, solar power, and low-income fuel assistance had minimal impact.
• RGGI allowance costs added to already high regional electric bills. The combined pricing impact resulted in a 12 percent drop in goods production and a 34 percent drop in the production of energy-intensive goods. Comparison states increased goods production by 20 percent and lost only 5 percent of energy-intensive manufacturing. Power imports from other states increased from 8 percent to 17 percent.” click here
What’s wrong with this picture (or table) below? The top “green” country has zero wastewater treatment. Carbon dioxide emissions could certainly be lowered if all wastewater treatment plants were shut down. This assessment (click here) completely ignores other aspects of the environment and quality of life. But there’s more below….
Let’s consider the economy. Where do these countries fall on the graph below? How would they rank using measures of quality of life? Apparently, to be a “green” country is to be a poorer, polluted country.
“Chopping down trees and transporting wood across the Atlantic Ocean to feed power stations produces more greenhouse gases than much cheaper coal, according to the report. It blames the rush to meet EU renewable energy targets, which resulted in ministers making the false assumption that burning trees was carbon-neutral.” click here
“The EPA attributed the overall decline to lower carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, which itself came about because of less coal consumption in favor of natural gas, warmer winter weather that decreased heating fuel demand and lower electricity demand overall. ” click here
Sweeney, C., et al. (2016), No significant increase in long-term CH4 emissions on North Slope of Alaska despite significant increase in air temperature, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, doi:10.1002/2016GL069292.
Continuous measurements of atmospheric methane (CH4) mole fractions measured by NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network in Barrow, AK (BRW), show strong enhancements above background values when winds come from the land sector from July to December from 1986 to 2015, indicating that emissions from arctic tundra continue through autumn and into early winter. Twenty-nine years of measurements show little change in seasonal mean land sector CH4 enhancements, despite an increase in annual mean temperatures of 1.2 ± 0.8°C/decade (2σ). The record does reveal small increases in CH4 enhancements in November and December after 2010 due to increased late-season emissions. The lack of significant long-term trends suggests that more complex biogeochemical processes are counteracting the observed short-term (monthly) temperature sensitivity of 5.0 ± 3.6 ppb CH4/°C. Our results suggest that even the observed short-term temperature sensitivity from the Arctic will have little impact on the global atmospheric CH4 budget in the long term if future trajectories evolve with the same temperature sensitivity.
This post is very interesting. The argument has been that “global warming” will happen on earth just like on Jupiter if atmospheric carbon dioxide is continues to increase. This study refutes that argument.
“Prior work has confirmed the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on 8 planets including Earth, and why this falsifies the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming. On the basis of this new paper, we find the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect also holds for Jupiter and that the pressure vs. temperature curve satisfies the Poisson Relation of the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect.” click here
The metric of “green house gas” emissions is too crude or blunt to be of any practical use as a regulatory device or for discerning the state of environmental quality. But if it is going to be used then we need to look at all of the implications.
“Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.” click here and here