realitybase - Journal

One government policy response to the threat of global climate change is to provide incentives to develop clean electricity sources, such as solar and wind power, and to require their use by "renewable portfolio standards." An unintended and unfortunate consequence of those policies could be to displace clean natural gas fired power plants instead of shutting down dirty coal fired power plants, according to the CEO of Entergy, Wayne Leonard, in this NYT op ed piece. It is worth reading in full. Of course, being right about problems with that policy doesn't mean his preferred policy, cap and trade, isn't also fraught with potential for unintended consequences and failure.

Whatever global climate change policies are put in place, they can succeed only if they put a stop to burning coal without carbon capture and sequestration ("CCS"). If CCS technology is not commercialized—and the Bush administration shut down the most promising attempt to demonstrate CCS—the only way to save the planet is to stop burning coal. Period. There is at least one thing wrong with every policy option for getting to that result, but that's what has to happen. And it has to happen worldwide.

Update on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 at 09:12AM by

Skeptic

While I think price manipulations could bring about dramatic changes in the fuels and technology used in electricity generation, I don't think increasing the tax rate on highway fuels is a practical answer to either our energy security problem or the global climate change problem. Very high highway fuel tax rates, more than $2 per gallon say, would only reduce per-vehicle consumption to a level approaching present-day Europe, and that's not good enough. Here is an excellent CBO study in October 2008, and Climate Progress has a good analysis here.