Green Car Congress  
Home Topics Archives About Contact  RSS Headlines

« CAC Files Brief In Support of California’s Efforts to Enforce GHG Standards for LDVs | Main | Neste Oil to Introduce NExBTL Heating Oil in January »

Print this post

Texas Governor Strongly Urges US EPA Against Regulating GHGs

26 November 2008

Texas Governor Rick Perry strongly urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against passing a proposed framework for regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) due to what he called its devastating implications for Texas’ economy and energy industry.

Implementing such regulations would cripple the Texas’ energy sector, Perry said. Rather than adopting the EPA’s suggestion to make traditional energy sources more expensive, the governor proposed making alternative energy technologies less expensive.

Texas supplies 20% of US oil production, one-third of the natural gas production, a quarter of the refining capacity, and nearly 60% of the chemical manufacturing.

The governor’s comments to the EPA are based on findings by the Texas Advisory Panel on Federal Environmental Regulations, which was created earlier this month to study the economic impact to Texas of the EPA’s proposed rules. Members of the panel include Bryan Shaw, commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Barry Smitherman, chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas, and Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams.

Resources

November 26, 2008 in Brief | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef0105361c009b970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Texas Governor Strongly Urges US EPA Against Regulating GHGs:

Comments

How about starting with regulating GHG from foreign-derived sources. That would help the environment yet not immediately hurt the Texas economy.

Perry's letter asserts that we (and especially, Texas) can't afford to regulate greenhouse gasses, yet he goes on to make several expensive alternate recommendations. To his credit three of them would improve clean energy availability and reduce global warming:
- "The federal government must promote the modernization of the nation's electricity transmission grid." (This is necessary to make better use of existing generating capacity and to accommodate more wind power.)
- "The federal government must remove barriers that prevent substantial new investments in nuclear generation."
- "The federal government must provide for long-term regulatory and tax certainty for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies."

He also asks for development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. As these are all fundamentally expensive and very likely infeasible on the scale required to have significant effect, this amounts to asking for political cover to burn ever more fossil fuels. It would be much simpler and immediately effective to take the lowest cost of these and apply it as a tax of about $40 per ton on the fossil carbon content of all fuels, (about $35 per ton of coal, $0.24 per gallon of gasoline, etc.).

ObligatoryGCCRelevanceNote: improved electricity availability accommodates increased use of partial- and full-electric vehicles.

Dear Rick

The whole idea about regulating GHG is to ruin the emitting industries before they ruin the planet.

The only thing that remains to be studied and debated is how fast we should ruin the polluting industries in order to save the remaining species from extinction. That will depend on how fast global warming is happening, how destructive it is and on our technical and economic options. Don’t worry too much. Texas will still be a massive energy exporter without the oil industry because it has some of the most productive wind resources in the US. Install 200 GW of wind power or 40,000, 5MW wind turbines and export electricity to other states. That will make up for many of the lost jobs in the oil industry.

Sincerely yours

.

Could one have possibly imagined the federal government wanting to regulate breathing!?! We've taken the religion of Globalwarmism (now being renamed Climate Change, since the Earth is on a cooling trend - even with an increase in CO2) to incredible extremes. It makes militant Christians and Islamists look moderate! Question the god of Globalwarmisnm and one is simply shouted down - possibly fined by the government. Show peer-reviewed proof that AGW is false and one is banned from forums and labeled a heretic.

Lets all agree to be reasonable by leaving religion out of this and concentrate on cleaning up pollution. Stop wasting precious resources on non-pollutants such as water vapor and CO2.


.

Mr. Envirotroll:

Thanks for playing. Go troll elsewhere, we adults are interested in reality based dialogue.

drivin98

This would confirm USA's claimed exclusive divine right to pollute?

What a good way to make friends!!!

Unfortunately, many Americans (from Texas) and Canadians (from Alberta) would approve.

HarveyD

I was just looking for a short-term compromise. As you say, sadly, the people who live where the oil makes them money could care less about the planet.

stomv said: "Thanks for playing. Go troll elsewhere, we adults are interested in reality based dialogue."

Wow! stomv was quick to prove Mr. Environment correct. Name calling, an attempt to belittle, and an admonishment to not post all wrapped up in two sentences. Congratulations on proving Mr. Environment's point so quickly.

Why not concentrate on the conversion of coal-fired power plants to NG in the near term? This will satisfy the T-Boone/GHG cartel while more wind, solar and nuke is brought online. Coal and emitted gaseous and particulate toxins are the REAL polluters - having nothing to do with CO2.

http://tinyurl.com/6f3p55

If CO2 were a REAL pollutant why is it responsible for marked increases in tree and plant growth? CO2 fertilization is a confirmed component of biomass growth cycles - important to healthy forest and tropical growth alike.

Actually, plants all react to CO2 differently. For the plants that do enjoy increased CO2, all the other requirements must be in place for them to use it. Proper temperature, humidity, nutrients etc. Otherwise, they don't benefit.


It seems that people believe that coal mine, oil well, refinery and other industry owners are emitting green house gases for their own pleasure and amusement. It is people who buy any industrial product who are the cause of CO2 emissions. There are people who consume more products who cause more CO2 gas emissions than others. The place for restrictions is not on industries but on the consumers. Europe has the value added tax. The US can adopt the carbon added tax. It is not necessary to prove carbon dioxide is harming or not harming the environment to add a tax to it. Phones were taxed as a luxury for a long time. The carbon dioxide added tax will be added to fuel bought, and all fuel must be bought on a personal credit card and the more fuel someone buys the higher the tax rate on the fuel. If you want to fly a personal jet instead of flying united you pay a lot more for fuel. Everything bought has a fuel price known to it and this price is also added to a persons fuel account.

It is only humans who think that climate changes are a problem. Eliminate all humans and there is no one to worry about manhattan island being flooded or left high and dry. Was the earth of the age of the dinosaurs a better place? Not very many mammals were around at that time.

If Texas wants to continue to produce CO2 because people buy Texas products, Texas should spend money building nuclear power plants anywhere in the US including Texas and selling that carbon free energy to those who want it to trade for the CO2 produced. Then coal burning plants will go out of business and CO2 releases will be lowered.

It is true, very true, that nuclear power can reduce the production of CO2 cheaper and faster than any other means whilst retaining the same level of industry in the US.

Because people, including politicians, do not understand that nuclear power is statistically the safest and cheapest source of electricity in the long run, polititians and others have pandered to the uninformed and false fears of the public to continue to get elected and obtructed in many ways the construction of nuclear power sources. Statistically nuclear power sources do not have to be built any safer than the automobile use on the street and highway system of the US. If nuclear power were to eliminate 50,000 persons a year it would only just replicate the loss of the automobile industry and road system, but nuclear power has at most directly cost the existence of 10 persons a year caused by radiation related illness or accident in the whole industry including mining. A recent railway accident in Los Angelos caused the immediate demise of more persons than Chernobyl. ..HG..

My recent readings show that to develop so called clean coal plants, especially by transporting the CO2 and sequestration it underground in oil wells will result in very expensive electric power. Additionally, nuclear power plants are some of the most expensive buildings created and nuclear fuel is the most expensive of all the fuels to use, even if the fuel can be reformulated and recycled.

I believe that oil and coal should be used to form new materials and not burned in the atmosphere as a fuel. Oil is the basis of our plastic industry and coal could be reformed into coal oil and used for the same materials.

I would like to see a concerted effort to increase the renewables industry and solar industry so we can stop polluting our air and reduce the price of renewable energy power plants based on economies of scale. As many know solar panels and geothermal devices are growing in use and the price is trending downward as a result. Many ideas are taking shape to store energy in the form of giant flywheels, heat-retaining molten salts, up-hill storage ponds, and batteries.

It will take time, perhaps decades, for the U.S. to switch to cleaner forms of power and transportation if we continue the current rather cavalier approach to developing alternative energy.

It makes no difference if you believe in GHGs or not, coal, gas and oil are produce smog emissions that are expensive to clean up and expensive to the health cost of our country. In the case of automobile engines, often the smog emissions controls are more expensive than the basic engine. If you want clean air anytime soon, then you cannot allow the continued use of dirty coal. I would like to see all new power plants build from renewable energy; however, if you must continue to use fossil fuel plants as an interim measure, make them natural gas until the renewables and solar catch up. Quit burning coal...it's killing all of us!

Why does everyone think that by regualting the US out of carbon fuels is going to drop the amount of gh produced? It will only shift use to third world countries. So long as we are using them we have some control over the gh produced. Alts are great but (which is why Texas produces the most wind power of any state in the Union) they are still not as cheap as carbon based sources. Untill you can alt power cheaper than carbon power someone will use it.

But Henry,
They tell me polar bears have for he first time turning canibal.
They may not be complaining about GW on this site anytime soon, but you should not presume to talk for them.

John M obviously disagrees with sorm v when he congratulates for proving Mr E's criticism right in two lines.
Mr E's criticism is very schizoid when by by the second sentance he introduces religion "The religion of Globalwarmism" to the discussion.
He then prattles on for three more lines and concludes with.

"Lets all agree to be reasonable by leaving religion out of this and concentrate on cleaning up pollution. Stop wasting precious resources on non-pollutants such as water vapor and CO2."

One advantage of he net is that what is said is stone and you may meet people who are neither ignorant or silent when it comes to making a point.

If you disregard Climate Change, the energy systems are still in trouble for small and ultra-fine particle pollution, which causes heart defects in unborn (UCLA study), causes lung problems (multiple studies) and has recently been implicated in untreatable thickening of blood which causes strokes and other problems.

ACAGal, when you mention UCLA studies of the unborn having hearts, oh my. That would imply that the unborn are "alive" you know! I don't think PM10 or less is what the "unborn" have to worry about...

Persons on this site favour limiting GHG but not limiting the extermination of "unborns." I think its a green-minded thing. Save the planet, animals and bugs, kill the babies.

Im still trying to get used to this style of thought.

Nate H.
Dover, Ohio

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2017 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group