NSR reform
I'd like to offer another perspective on NSR reform. You call "nonsense" the claim that the proposed reform is an environmental defeat, because the NSR program was broken and needed fixing, and because air quality is improving across the country. I certainly agree that the past situation, when it was unclear what would trigger new source performance reviews and pollution control upgrades, was a problem that needed fixing. However, when the Clean Air Act was first passed, exemptions were granted to existing plants in anticipation that they would either be retired within a relatively short time, or upgraded, triggering new controls. Instead, the two-tier system whereby new plants required stringent—and expensive—controls and old plants often were allowed to operate with few controls, yielded a system which promoted the continued operation of plants that would otherwise have been retired years ago.
Many of these plants cause substantial harm to the environment and public health. A good example is the group of old coal-fired power plants in the Ohio River Basin that cause substantial air quality problems hundreds of miles away, in the northeast.
It is true that total US emissions are down, but averages can hide continued problemsU.it is estimated that thousands of premature deaths are caused annually by emissions from these power plants. One may argue over what the appropriate policy should be—but it is not "nonsense" to claim that allowing these plants to continue to operate for many more years without additional controls, which is the likely outcome with the proposed reform, is an environmental defeat.
Steven Plotkin
Argonne National Laboratory
Washington, DC
Climate alarmism
The purpose of this input is to bring to the attention of your readers a new book on the science, economics, and politics of the climate change issue. This book is particularly timely as there have been several recent reports along the line that climate alarmism or propaganda or false alarms are perfectly okay today. The book is entitled: "Climate Alarmism Reconsidered," by Robert Bradley. It may be the book one needs to refute climate alarmists from NGOs, the media, academia, or even industry. Several key points are made in this book:
1. Energy sustainability. The major threat to energy sustainability is government interference, not depletion, pollution, reliability, or climate change. Major government interventions in energy markets, such as price controls, access restrictions, or carbon suppression, create the energy problems that nonpoliticized, free market processes work to prevent. The energy sustainability issues of resource depletion, reliability (security), and pollution have been effectively addressed by the free market, by technology, and, where necessary, by measured regulation. Continuing improvement is expected.
2. Anthropogenic climate change. The remaining carbon energy-related sustainability issue is manmade climate change. Current levels of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, on a weighted basis, are approximately 50% above preindustrial levels. Emissions from combustion of oil, natural gas, and coal probably account for a large majority of this accumulation.
A concurrent increase in the global warming potential of 66% has also occurred, but the balance of evidence points toward a benign temperature greenhouse signal. A greenhouse signal has not been identified with weather extremes.
3. Benefits from increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). Enhanced atmospheric CO2 concentrations create tangible benefits such as increased agricultural yields, and enhanced forest growth, to offset costs associated with any anthropogenic climate change.
4. Other benefits. Liberal energy markets foster wealth creation, adaptation, and social resiliency—a positive strategy to deal with any climate change, either natural or anthropogenic. In addition, free-market reforms in the energy sector harness self-interest in energy efficiency, which have historically tended to reduce GHG emissions per unit of energy.
5. Mandatory GHG emission reductions. These produce costs in excess of benefits under realistic assumptions, including discounting future benefits of reduced warming (if discernable) to compare to near-term costs.
6. Carbon sequestration. Serious efforts to manage the carbon cycle will have to employ novel sequestration strategies, given increasing energy usage, likely supply constraints with renewable energies, and political and economic limitations with nuclear power.
7. Cap-and-trade. Proposals for GHG reductions via cap-and-trade programs should be approached cautiously. There may be unintended consequences to open-ended regulatory regimes driven by temporary political majorities.
8. Precautionary principle (PP). Use of the PP should also be approached cautiously. If it has to be used, it should also be applied to government intervention limiting GHG emissions (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol), not just acts of man on the natural environment. Economic risks, in other words, must be evaluated along with environmental ones.
This brief review captures Bradley's main points. The author has had extensive experience in the boiler rooms of the energy industry. Robert L. Bradley Jr. is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston and a senior research fellow at the University of Houston. He has written extensively on the oil and gas industry, including:
- The Mirage of Oil Protection (1989).
- Oil, Gas, and Government: The U.S. Experience (2 volumes: 1996).
- Julian Simon and the Triumph of Energy Sustainability (2000).
He has received international attention for his work on energy sustainability issues.
This book is recommended for those interested in energy and climate change policy.
Gerald T. Westbrook
Houston
