What Cost Carbon?

The cost to control carbon emissions is manageable--that's the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In IPCC's latest report, the authoritative panel estimates that we could stabilize the level of greenhouse carbon emissions by 2030 at a cost of roughly $100 per ton of carbon. To translate that into a meaningful figure, it would add about a $1 to the price of a gallon of gas. (See Washington Post story here.)

Of course, the Bush administration immediately reacted in knee-jerk fashion, declaring that such a cost "would of course cause a global recession."

What are these guys (i.e., the Bushies) smoking? The price of gas already went up a $1 a gallon in the past couple of years and guess what--no recession. Moreover, IPCC calculates the cost of the $100/ton of carbon as equating only 0.12 percent annually of global output.

Let's compare that to say, the cost of the War in Iraq, or the cost of rebuilding New Orleans (which will only flood again).

If anything, the Bush administration should hail the IPCC report as good news, declaring that "yes, this is something the U.S., at least, can and should afford."

In related news, the Senate Energy Committee is considering a new lighting standard, as part of a broader energy bill to be pushed by Democrats, that would effectively phase-out the standard incandescent light bulb in about 10 years. This would be a welcome development.

Philips Electronics, the largest European light bulb manufacturer, estimates that replacing all the incandescent bulbs in the U.S. would eliminate the need for 23 electric power plants of 1000 megawatts each, while saving $14 billion in electric bills.

(Some reports state that compact fluorescent bulbs cost more than incandescent bulbs. That's really not true. They cost more at the check-out counter, but the fluorescents last 5-8 times as long and recoup their cost in saved electricity, so they actually cost a LOT less than incandescent bulbs.)

Let's hope this measure--still being hammered out between environmental groups and bulb manufacturers--passes this year. It will then give builders of the millions of new homes, condos and apartments over the next decade a powerful incentive to install the right kind of lighting and bulbs, while everyone else retrofits.

Coming Next Week: Jamestown at 800--what will Virginia look like in 400 more years (feel free to comment with your suggestions).

Fluorescent Aussies, Green Californians, Red Virginians

In a rather stunning development, Australia has announced that it will ban traditional incandescent light bulbs in just three years, requiring the entire country to conserve electricity by adopting energy-saving compact flourescent lights.

Imagine the United States having the willpower to do something that dramatic! (If we did, we could reduce electric consumption by several percentage points.)

We hope that by the time the Aussies' long-lasting fluorescents burn out (7-8 years) the next generation of even more energy stingy lights--LED's like those blinking on your modem--will be ready for prime time.

We were at the Wisp ski resort in western Maryland this weekend and are happy to report that the lodge there has converted most of its lights, including basic lamps in guest rooms, to flourescents. (Soon, we'll review Wisp from the skiing standpoint and compare it to Wintergreen, another nearby ski resort we visited this season.)

On our way home, we also noted with interest a large wind farm perched along a ridge near the continental divide, which much be as good a place as any to "mine" the wind. No doubt some see the huge turbines as ugly, but we think they're beautiful--a lot nicer than a tanker full of Arab oil.

While it's good to see individuals and businesses in our neck of the woods adopting conservation measures and investing in renewable energy, it was rather shocking to learn this weekend (courtesy of the Washington Post) that Californians, on average, have just half the per capita electricity use of Virginians. (Californians: 6732 kwh's/per capita; Virginians: 13,748 kwh's per capita.)

That proves the point of some of our regular commenters, who note that Dominion Power would not need to string ugly new high voltage cables (or build a costly new nuclear power plant) if Virginians simply adopted a number of fairly simple conservation measures.

(By the way, those California figures are BEFORE factoring in California's aggressive program to invest in renewable sources of electricity, particularly solar.)

How does California do it? Partly it is the high cost of electricity in the Golden State, but a lot of it has to do with how the utilities are regulated. California has adopted de-coupling, which allows a utility to profit even as its sales decline. This encourages the utilities to invest in conservation instead of simply promoting increased demand. (Also, we note that if you pay double the rate for electricity, but use half as much, the cost really isn't any higher.)

It's pretty clear that decoupling, along with some aggressive state programs such as strict building codes that require conseration measures, really works. If the entire U.S. consumed electricity at the same rate as California, we could retire dozens and dozens of dirty coal-fired electric plants and reduce our dependence on mid-east oil.

Virginia legislators are still considering a bill to re-regulate the electric utilities here--essentially Dominion Power. Previously, we urged the General Assmbly to table the bill that they've been rushing through (it was drafted by Dominion) so that a broader group can study it and make recommendations. Seeing that Virginians are using double the electricity of Californians (who aren't exactly living a deprived lifestyle) only reinforces the point. Something is wrong here in the Old Dominion. With thoughtful regulation, we, too, can live the good life without destroying the environment and contributing to flooding of our coastal communities.