Cap & Trade

First tried in the United States, Cap and Trade is an economically efficient way of reducing pollutants. The benefit of Cap and Trade is that the total emissions are controlled and the emissions reductions are known in advance. The trading part of it sets a price for emissions and a market for their trade. In a more simple understanding, the ultimate goal of Cap and Trade is to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide in a cost effective manner.

The idea of  “cap” is that each large-scale company will be given a limit on how much greenhouse gas it can emit. The company must have an emissions permit for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. The reason for the permits is to set an enforceable limit, the “cap”, on how much greenhouse gas pollution that company is allowed to release. As time continues, the limit becomes stricter, allowing less and less pollution until the goal is met.

The “trade” allows companies to be able to sell their extra permits to companies that aren’t able to reduce easily. Some companies can reduce their emissions more easily than others, allowing these more efficient companies to help others. This plan is set so that everyone can guarantee some sort of reductions overall, and that the more efficient companies can ensure the cap is met at the lowest cost possible.

The idea of this system all begun in the 1990’s due to acid rain problems and concerns. Throughout time during the 90’s, SO2 and NOx were both subject to a Cap and Trade system that gave industries the option of taking on a new approach to control these emissions. Although it was a great success, and emissions dropped and the cost of reaching the goal was quite high, Margaret Taylor analyzed the data and explained it wasn’t so great of a success. “The implication is that CTP’s do not inherently provide sustained incentives for private sector R&D investments in clean technologies. And, in contrast t their intended goal, they do not reduce the uncertainty about the future cost of compliance, which would otherwise help industries plan their investments….For now, however, her research suggests that, while cap-and-trade works for lowering emissions, t may not guarantee the sustained market innovation that some of its proponents promise”.

Beyond Smoke and Mirrors – Burton Richter

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/new-study-suggests-cap-and-trade-results-in-decreased-innovation.ars

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/capandtrade101.html

Indian Point, NY

The major source of electricity to residents in NYC and northern suburbs, all come from the Indian Point Power plant operating since 1962. Since the original reactor back in the day, it’s newly only Entergy has experienced several accidents in the past and is on the federal list of the nation’s worst nuclear power plants.

So question all comes down to whether this power plant’s license should be renewed in the upcoming year, or should it be shut down? The plant produces 2,000 megawatts and proves 25% of the power in NYC, so if we shut it down, a plan must be in tact to take over.

The Governor of NY, Andrew M. Cuomo wants to see the power plant get shut down. He has been on the ball to get this power plant shut down since 2001. He stated in his blog “the reward doesn’t justify the risk”. The reactors would have to be shut down in 2013 and 2015 if the state department of environmental conservation doesn’t sign off on the federal permit required. The shut down could reduce electric bills if the people in NYC are concerned about the possibility, and rethink their usage of electricity.  If NYC had the ability to switch over to a more energy efficiency generator, such as wind power, it’d be easy to produce up north where wind is more constant and land is cheaper. NYC uses kerosene increasing carbon emissions, but without it NYC could have a stronger passion to upgrade more efficiently. It does not have the best standards for fire safety, possibility of sustainability in case of an earthquake, or terrorist attacks.

Entergy explains that it’ll be nearly impossible to find enough replacement power anytime soon. If we replaced the plant, it could take a minimum of 5 years and would require a long-term energy strategy. The city could end up power hungry, blacked out, and the possibility of severe sweating during the global warming summer heat waves. We all remember the brutal days in July last summer; do we take the chance and wind up with not enough power to generate all of NYC’s air conditioners? The power plant would be very expensive to replace, and would increase the percentage of power failures. Not to mention, this power plant employs 1,100 jobs.

In a nutshell, would the state of New York be able to handle the baggage that comes with shutting down this power plant, allowing enough time to smoothly transition to another source of electricity? Or should we wait until a definite plan is created before we go and take our chances of leaving residents in NYC powerless during the upcoming heat wave season.