Laura,
Here is where the rubber meets the road. After all of the "studies", conferences, debating, arguing, and lobbying, the end result will be found in people's utility bills.

Even without the AGW debate, many parts of the nation are finding out that our utility infrastructure is stressed and inadequate. During peak summer months, brown outs and black outs are becoming more and more frequent. In Texas there is a need for at least a 20% increase in energy; in California its even greater. Yet, regulations, lawsuits, and the "not in my back yard" mentality amongst the local community have precluded this. Thirty years after the building of our last nuclear power plant, the nations faces a 30% increase in power use with a 1975 infrastructure. Increased prices just reflect increased demand.

Now factor in increased demand for oil, and the more than certain plethora of new AGW based regulations, and you have a recipe for disaster. Some states are attempting to lighten the regulatory burden, but others like California are just outsourcing thier energy production to nieghboring states (another recipe for disaster for Californians).

Carbon trading, as we've seen in Europe, will not work. Since the signing of Kyoto, the participating European states have only increased thier CO2 emissions. There is no way they will meet thier 1992 emissions cap target-heck they can't even meet the 2002 caps. Like junk bonds of the late 80s, carbon trading will go down as a great swindle. In the end, we will see our CO2 emissions rise. The only thing that will reduce CO2 emissions worldwide is a global recession.

The AGW proponents should be careful for what they wish for.

Agreed Laura. Even though I have my misgivings about the realities of global warming, the political reality is that regulation in some form or another is going to happen. In light of Mass v. EPA, it is also likely that states might take the initiative as well. In fact, the Congress has already taken steps by introducing a bill in the House of Representatives that would authorize federal agencies to purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions. For those who are interested, the bill number is HR 823 IH. I would also suggest that there will be more action at the federal level with the election year upcoming.

I have also written an article about this topic for our Bar's bi-weekly newspaper.

I think this blog should have more stories like this where we talk more about solutions to mitigating AGW rather than debating whether AGW is real. The deniers will hate to admit this, but the debate amongst public policymakers, corporations and the public is what to do about the problem, not whether the problem is real.

The deniers are going to deny AGW until they reach their graves, and no amount of evidence will change their "skeptical" minds. There isn't much you can do with those people. There's always going to be a subset of the population that is anti-environment, anti-science, and listens to Rush Limbaugh on the radio every afternoon.

And I see yet another example of alarmism from our skeptical friends:

"The only thing that will reduce CO2 emissions worldwide is a global recession."

These pessimistic, doom-and-gloom economic outlooks with any environmental regulation never come to fruition, and this will be no different. Keep trying to scare people though.

Laura, I don't have to read the article since it is fairly obvious that utility companies will have to pull that silly EU crap. It may even be the best possible thing to do, but it won't be because of scientific work or cold hard facts of any kind, it will be because of politicians pandering for the Gaian Green vote.

Like I and others have said, if AGW people are serious and want to reduce carbon footprints, then why aren't they calling for nuclear power? Given the antinuke excuses I hear and have heard for a couple of decades now, if those are still the reasons (and I haven't heard any different yet), then everyone else can be assured that AGW is based on urban legends.

Nice post JP.

The environmentalists do more harm than anything. Their intentions may be good, but the results are sophomoric. Case in point, nuclear power and...

Interstae 93 is 1 of 2 major arteries that cross NH. This highway leads directly into the heart of downtown Boston. Have you heard of the big dig? 93 turns into the big dig. Anyway, it is still a 2 lane highway in NH. Why? Frogs. The enviros have halted construction legally for 5+ years. They feel that a 4 lane highway will impact the environment too much. Like the frogs will notice an increase of 2 lanes. On somedays, it could take you 3 hours to go 40 miles into Boston. And if there is an accident, forget about it. How is burning gas and emitting CO2 as you sit in bumper to bumper traffic good for the environment?

Locally, we are trying to build a bridge over the Merrimack River to free up traffic congestion. Alot of cars running while not moving is bad for the environment, right? Well the environmentailists are supressing this because there are 3 American eagles where the work was started. Instead of relocating the eagles down the river, they have legally halted construction(going on 3+ years now), are inconveniencing thousands of commuters(to not inconvenience 3 eagles) resulting in wasted gas and increasing our contribution to AGW. Is it worth it? Don't get me wrong, I love the American Eagle. I have a tattoo of one on my arm, but give me a break! Get your heads checked. Your priorities are screwed up.

Lol, Mark,

Don't take my comments on regulation as a sign that I believe the AGW crew is right. To ensure there is no confusion, I do not buy into the "realities" of AGW; that doesn't make me a skeptic or a denier, but it does make me a questioner.

I do believe in the "political realities" of regulation. I use the term "reality" very loosely when it comes to politics because politics rarely has anything to do with reality (that goes for any political ideology.) The "reality" is that whether AGW is accurate or not, the political environment is fertile for it and regulation is going to happen. I would be a denier if I said otherwise. :)

At the risk of this thread degenerating as well, I must say that your idea, which in my opinion, is to stifle debate on the topic of AGW, amounts to nothing more than indoctrination. That is a political strategy that has historically been used to great effect. Sorry if this sounds condescending because it certainly wasn't meant to be.

Mark says:

These pessimistic, doom-and-gloom economic outlooks with any environmental regulation never come to fruition, and this will be no different. Keep trying to scare people though.

-------------

Oh really? Forget about the money, how about the human impact of government regs run amok.

The DDT ban of the 1970's continues to kill MILLIONS from malaria throughout impoverished countries because of RIDICULOUS US regulations.

Your faith that ANY government will save us is naivete at its finest.

Good luck.

Rich, perhaps if the State of NH had followed through on its promise to develop commuter rail transport from Nashua to Boston, given in exchange for permission for the massive expansion of Route 3 from Nashua to the MA line, the various environmental groups (not to mention regulatory authorities) might have been more receptive to the proposals you complain about.

Perhaps if fewer of the "Live Free or Die" folks commuted every day, one driver per SUV/truck, from New Hampshire to downtown Boston, there might be less need for more lanes on I-93 south.

For example, reliable and effective commuter rail service between Boston MA and Nashua NH, Salem NH and Manchester NH would do a great deal to solve the very real traffic problems that Rich mentions. It would also cost a great deal less, would emit far fewer pollutants, and would have a drastically reduced impact on the environment.

Such an approach would be good for AGW, good for the environment, and even good for business. It might be instructive for Rich (or anyone else) to compare transporation alternatives for the 60-mile Manchester/Boston commute to, for example, the 85-mile Poughkeepsie/New York commute. Which metropolitan area has a better "business environment", Boston MA or New York NY?

Perhaps if the right-wing devoted rather more of its energy to actually solving the problems that create AGW, pollution, and traffic and rather less of its energy to hostile attacks on various scapegoats -- "environmentalists", "immigrants", "liberals" to name a few -- we might actually make some progress in addressing these difficult challenges.

Brookline Tom and Mark,

Since when is recognizing economic realities of proposed solutions "Right Wing"? Many people 30 years ago proposed nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels based energy, and looked what happened. Currently, it is the utilities that exhaust the majority of the CO2 in our nation (65% of our GHG come from this sector of our market). The biggest demand for oil contrary to popular opinion will come from the utility companies. Demand for additional power especially in the Far West and the Sunbelt has driven electric prices through the roof and has stressed out infrastructure. There just are not enough power stations in the US to meet demand. Many of the New England states must buy KWH from Canada. California is now a net importer of electricity.

You can ignore this immediate problem all you want, well that is until you get your electric bill. Couple in the fact that we are now importing both crude oil and refined gas, and you have the beginnings of an energy crisis if oil goes above $80 a barrel.

This is not just a problem in North America, but worldwide. Former Third World nations are now modern, energy consuming nations (ie India and China). The IPCC's Feb Report for Policymakers outlined a number of economic scenarios that will effect GHG concentrations for the next 100 years. I say economic because, that's what it all comes down to. Scenario A1 forecasts GHG concentrations for a world that continues the current robust economic growth (this is the worst case scenario). Scenario B2 is the best case scenario (slow population growth, very slow economic growth). I use the words best and worst case to show the inverted morality of the IPCC. Economic Growth Bad for the World, Slow to little growth is Good.

When I stated that the only way to reduce AWG is for the world to fall into a deep recession, I wasn't just injecting hyperbole. I was just using data and opinions from the IPCC itself. Frankly, I don't think their scenarios were incomplete. They should have added another one for reduced populations from the top 15 economic powers in the world -that is the top 15 GHG emitting nations.

I am not a devotee of the AGW school of climate. However, if any of you think that we will be able to meet the CO2 caps the IPCC reccomends without a serious reduction in energy use you are mistaken. Energy costs are simply a function of Supply and Demand. Supply can also be manipulated by goverment regulations -just compare gasoline costs between Lexington Ky and San Diego Ca.

There is no way alernative energy sources can even come close to meeting current or future demand. Since nuclear power is off limits, and coal isn't even being considered we are stuck in a regime of rising demand and falling supplies.

BT:

You crack me up.

So, I am to take it that the "left wing" is incapable of solving your perceived GW issue. It is up to the "right wing" and if nothing gets done, it's the "right wing's" fault.

Can you explain for me why NOTHING was actually resolved during the Clinton-Gore years? Sure, they put money towards it and talked alot, but nothing was actually done to solve the issue. I mean they had the legislative branch for a bunch of those years. Can you explain why it was the Goreacle, yes the Goreacle himself that ended US participation in the Kyoto accord in 1997? If it needed fixing, they had 3 years to do it. Yet Bush is the bad guy since he just continued the Goreacle's stance.

I feel for the utility companies and us because while they wait for regulations to come down the pike and we will end up paying through the nose for them inthe end.

Maybe if people like BrooklineTom didn't spend all their time free time stereotyping, marginalizing & outright condemning everyone who doesn't completely(and I really stress completely) fall in line with the UN's AGW mindset, we could better find a greater incentive as a global society to all want to work together with governments and businesses to come to a mutual, inclusive global consensus on what's best for the world's economic, social, psychological & physical well being based on truth & facts only & not selfish, child-like "us vs. them" political hysteria designed to feed the bank account of a certain Democrat politician form Tennessee(and others like him) while demoralizing everyone else.

The US supply of nuclear power must now be expanded, and I have written so many times on this board.

Had the proponents of nuclear power made realistic efforts to address the very real concerns of hazardous waste disposal, safety concerns, and evacuation plans, instead of the relentless mud-slinging, corruption, and lies (the history of the failed Seabrook NH plant is an instructive case study) that was the stock-in-trade of the pro-nuclear right wing during the seventies, then we might have made some progress during the last thirty years.

The fact that after thirty years, we still have no viable alternative to fossil fuels -- especially coal -- is a stunning indictment of the failure of the US economic and political leadership over that period. The GOP and right wing played a disproprotionally-large role in crafting that failure. AGW is just one of the many potentially catastrophic consequences of this incredible incompetence. JP writes of the energy problems of California, yet fails to mention the role of Enron -- with its intimate ties to the White House (remember "Kenny Boy" Lay, intimate chum of Dubya?), GOP and the Republican Party -- in creating those problems.

This is a blog about AGW and so I suppose we should stay focused on that. It must be said, however, that in addition to AGW, our failed energy policy is also a primary driver of the morass in the ME, the on-going runup in energy prices and the recession that it threatens, and the venality that runs rampant in the US government. All of these contribute to the AGW problem, and all of these are a direct result of our shortsighted decision to increase, rather than contain, our dependence on fossil fuels in general and foreign petroleum specifically.

It is, sadly, true that we now have no other choice but to develop nuclear power -- in spite of all its shortcomings. This is something we should shamefully admit in failure, not something to trumpet in some claimed success.

Finally, I'd like to remind those who don't know (perhaps including JP) that the energy supplied by Canada to New England is overwhelmingly hydroelectric power and does not consume fossil fuel, generate pollution, or emit greenhouse gases. Our northern neighbors, it seems, found more productive ways to spend the last three decades.

I'm a big advocate for nuclear power, so not sure what you're talking about there. And your doom-and-gloom scenario assumes that we'll always be reliant on non-renewable energy sources. Eventually - although it may take several decades - we will be using mostly renewable energy sources. Another benefit of mitigating AGW is that we're forced to address this problem of rising population and dwindling resources. But that will be difficult as long as we have people out there who are only interested in maintaining the status quo.

Thanks Brookline, I can rest my case now.

What about the commuters from the Commonwealth State who come up to NH for outdoor recreation and vacation? On the weekends, I-93 is at a standstill, full of Mass plates heading up to NH or back down home to MA. What about them Tom? 2 lanes were ok in the 60's, but they are no longer efficient. Why can't you comprehend this?

That massive expansion of the Everette turnpike shaved 25 minutes off my wifes one way commute to Lowell. Thats almost 1 hour per day of less driving/CO2 emitting, a safer highway, and more time to spend with loved ones. Right, all bad. Who is gonna use commuter rails? We all have our own vehicles. They are comfortable, safe, reliable, on time, efficient, etc. I should disregard this, despite me paying for vehicle payments, registration, insurance, taxes, etc. Now I have to take commuter rail? Get real guy. Throw another freaking lane on 93. Your priorities are screwed up.

Darren, in case you didn't know, we had a Republican congress in the 90s.

Tom,

Blame, blame blame. No solutions. Just looking in the rear view mirror and blame. Thank goodness their are people in leadership postitions with more vision than you and will make decisions based on the big picture and not the myoptic view of a very few.

Canadian hydro power? Can you imagine what would happen if ANY COMPANY proposed to build a dam in this country...the greenies would make it impossible to accomplish. Your comparision is, well, silly. The use of hydroelectric power is widespread in Ontario, due to the province's abundance of rivers and lakes over many decades. If they tried the same construction today, it would never happen because some owl would put a stop to it.

Try again.

Mark:

In case you didn't know, my post said that the Dems controlled the legislature for a bunch of those years. Republicans only controlled the legislature from 1996 on. So, the Dems had complete control from 1992 to 1996. I see you do not dispute the fact that the Goreacle killed Kyoto.

After verifying my facts, I found that the Dems controlled the legislature a whole lot more than the Republicans. That fact explains a lot of the regulations and taxes we all pay for.

BT:

Your endless complaints about the "right wing" is tiresome. The problems that we apparently have in developing a different energy source fall directly to the Democrats since they had control of congress for 80% of the time since 1948. And can you please tell all of us just how efficient fuel cells and wind turbines were in the 70's and 80's. Let me start, they stinked, stanked stunked. Great for the time but for the cost, not much power. New technology may solve all that.

Dave seems to have missed the following comment from JP, to which I responded:
There just are not enough power stations in the US to meet demand. Many of the New England states must buy KWH from Canada. California is now a net importer of electricity.

It's ironic that the same crowd that whines about my "endless complaints" about the right wing has no hesitation about endlessly repeating the same tired myths about the "left wing" (or the "Dems", or the "Liberals", or whatever).

These whines happen because there is no way to escape several relatively simple truths:

1. The Enron fiasco devastated California's energy infrastructure and therefore supply.

2. Enron was DEEPLY embedded in the Bush/GOP political machine

3. The US "energy strategy" has, for thirty years, been dominated by the fossil fuel industry, with little or no effective oversight, regulation, or even influence from the government (regardless of political affiliation).

4. US energy suppliers have steadfastly resisted investing in the development of alternative energy sources, including safe nuclear.

5. The power that New England buys from Canada is, in fact, generated by environmentally-sound hydro sources.

The right-wing can bluster, sputter and spit all they want; these facts remain.

Uhm, no, Darren, Republicans took over after the '94 elections. Clinton only had a Democrat congress for two years. And Republicans were only interested in "studying" the problem back then.

"We all have our own vehicles. They are comfortable, safe, reliable, on time, efficient, etc."

The reason for traffic jams in this country is because of what Rich just said right here. Americans love their cars, and that's fine. But don't whine about the tradeoffs. If you drive, you are going to sit in traffic, so deal with it. Don't be blaming frogs. I sit in traffic every day too. This reminds me of the people that complain about gas prices when they drive a huge SUV. Puh-leeze. If you don't like your commute, then you should have moved closer to work, or change jobs. Personal accountability -- isn't that what you're supposed to believe in? Well believe it.

Tom,

Dave didn't miss anything.

All of your points are meaningless in the grand scheme of your Global Warming hysteria (yawn).

You and your buddy Mark can't get through a missive without blaming somebody right-of-center for the ills of the planet.

California's energy problems land squarely on the shoulders of the envionmental wackos, who have held up ANY new energy construction for 20+ years. Did Enron contribute? A very small percentage to their overall energy problems.

There is always TWO sides to every story...take a look around, you may be surprised at what you see.

Try again.

BTW Tom,

Enron contributions:

Democrats received $257,140 and Republicans received $346,348 in the house and Senate Democrats received $110,513 to the Repubs $417,480.

Looks to me like some of your left-wing buddies received a few dollars from Kenny-Boy also.

Remember....two sides to every story.

Try again.