Keystone may seem a bit off topic for this group, but perhaps still worth thinking about as it really, in a way, influences the seriousness of addressing the climate change issue and so the potential need for geoengineering in the future:
What would be an interesting outcome in the Keystone decision, in my view, would be for the President to, as part of the settlement of the Environmental Impact Statement analysis (so approving but with conditions), find the need for remediation for the consumption of the fossil fuels that is equivalent to the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The SCC has been set and used by the Administration in considering priorities among policies relating to fossil fuels, efficiency, etc. I realize the value of Social Cost of Carbon is currently considered low (by a factor of a few to several), so the charge for importing would need to be indexed to the Social Cost of Carbon at the time the fuel is transported across the border. This would, in effect, impose the equivalent of an appropriate carbon tax on the consumption of at least that segment of our use of these fossil fuels (and use by others if products are to be exported). To get this covering a larger share of US fossil fuel use, I have also been suggesting this be done in other areas‹for example, through the EIS for ongoing leasing of lands for coal mining from public lands. I would think imposing this requirement as part of an EIS approval would be possible by the Administration without Congressional action (of course some would object). In my view, taking such an action would much more clearly make the case for national action on climate change policy. There is also a very interesting provision in Section 526 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which was passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President Bush, so how can this law of the land not be something that the President should be acting to enforce as bipartisan policy? You can see the Act at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf (and yes, it seems to require the duplication present in the URL). The provision basically prohibits the Federal Government from buying transportation fuels with a higher carbon footprint than conventional petroleum (so applies to fuels from the Canadian tar sands and, interestingly, also from Venezuela)--the EIS on Keystone actually estimates how much more carbon is involved, but does not link the calculation to the Act. Thus, technically, any employee of the USG can¹t purchase such fuels anywhere, which does complicate its implementation (e.g., if a USAF plane has to refuel in Canada). There has already been a lawsuit seeking to force the US Dept of Defense to include this provision in its solicitations for fuel purchase agreements‹the lawsuit failed to gain standing (very strange when citizens can¹t get a hearing in the court seeking only an order that a government agency obey the law), but the DOD did commit to an EIS on the matter (I am not sure where that matter is at present). Adding the Social Cost of Carbon to the fuels as a remediating action could, in some sense, be argued to create a balancing here‹or perhaps this could force Canada to take actions to sequester a balancing amount of carbon for the products to be exported into the US. I¹m not a lawyer, but were I in the position to push such actions (and I¹m not), I¹d be pushing the limits here, at the very least to force a greater discussion of the issue. With all of this made clear as a card in the President¹s hand, one would think that there might be the possibility of a deal‹though we have heard that type of argument before and no deal has resulted, so, my view is, impose the SCC where it can be done and then start talking about how to advance from that point (so play your hand more aggressively than in the past). Mike On 1/11/15 8:31 AM, "Brian Cartwright" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for weighing in, Andrew. I agree that pricing is the effective signal > in this market; note that there are not major investments being made in > infrastructure like refining, because there are not secure long-term new > supplies. This is an opportunist industry at this point. Saudi pricing > leverage is having greater effect than activism, unfortunately. > > If I were dictator there would be a tax to level prices, neutralize price wars > and incentivize clean energy. > > Brian > > On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 7:06:06 AM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: >> With my moderator hat on.... >> >> If people think this is an appropriate topic for the list, it would be >> helpful to have some numbers to demonstrate why. >> >> The pipeline would have to make a significant difference to price globally to >> significantly increase the quantity of FF demanded by the market. Will it do >> this? I have seen no evidence here, or elsewhere. If not, this is off-topic. >> >> Without my moderator hat on... >> >> My personal view is that carbon taxation or energy-efficiency regulations are >> far more effective a tool to manage carbon output than what environmentalists >> call "site battles" (squabbling over this-or-that piece of infrastructure). >> Site battles lead to haphazard and irrational decisions. >> >> As an aside: The pipeline could potentially be reused in the post-oil age to >> redistribute hydrogen, biofuels, water, etc. >> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
