Contact
Subscribe
Reducing New Mexico’s carbon emissions = economic sense
Vicki Pozzebon
When President Obama was elected, the spotlight turned to Washington D.C., where he promised to enact national climate change legislation. Now that Congress has passed on a climate bill, attention is shifting back to New Mexico where steps are being taken to regulate global warming pollution. In 2005, New Mexico established a statewide goal to reduce global warming emissions – executive order 05-033.
But the goal wasn’t enough; it didn’t require fossil fuel industries to transition to clean energy, and the fossil fuel polluters continued to emit large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Because global warming is an urgent crisis it demands immediate action to prevent climate catastrophe. The consequences of inaction are far too great, and the time remaining to reduce risks is running out.
People want solutions and don’t want to see our governments stuck in partisan gridlock. People don’t want to see our governments owned by fossil fuel interests. In response, New Energy Economy filed a petition with the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) to set a cap on global warming emissions by levels consistent with the best climate science, EIB 08-19(R).
The Santa Fe Alliance, representing nearly 450 locally owned businesses and nonprofit organizations, has supported this petition because we see that the long-term economic impact from environmental abuse is counterproductive; we believe that evidence of climate change validates the need to act protectively and proactively.
What is the response from PNM and the N.M. Oil and Gas Association? In their testimony, PNM and Oil and Gas Association have consistently opposed the cap on emission. PNM stated that “a state cap on greenhouse gasses would be costly for businesses and utility customers and that the emissions debate should be settled by the federal government.”
The costs of inaction
An overwhelming majority of mainstream climate scientists are predicting that temperatures across New Mexico have risen steeply over the past three decades, with the northernmost part of the state having warmed the most: 1.6 °F since 1980. Without significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, New Mexico is projected to warm an additional 2 °F by 2040 and 4 °F by the end of the century.
There are health costs and environmental costs to inaction. The Program on Climate Economics of the Climate Leadership Initiative (CLI) estimate the minimum annual cost to each New Mexican household to be $3,430 by 2020 and $5,410 by 2040. With no changes in policies these costs could rise as high as $12,000 per household per year in 2080. The corresponding minimum total costs for New Mexico would be $3.2 billion in 2020, $6.3 billion in 2040 and $18.4 billion in 2080.
As the leader of a community organization dedicated to developing a local living economy that creates greater community wealth for all, I can safely say those are numbers we cannot ignore.
Why should we listen to the advice and cries from the same industries that have caused the pollution? There is another perspective. Investors. Investors from Ceres (pronounced “series”), a national network of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups worth $13 trillion have this to say:
“The world can no longer afford business as usual. We must begin to reward activities that assure our future, and discourage practices that degrade our environment and society. Opportunity grows from these challenges. The breakdowns we are now seeing from an economy focused on short-term gains and growth at all costs are opening doors to revamp government, business and investment practices.”
The very first measures they deem as “critical” are: “short- and long-term emission reduction targets” and “policies that put an effective price on carbon such that businesses and investors reassess investment value and redirect their investments.”
Creating wealth through energy
New Energy Economy’s regulation to cap carbon before the EIB is not a panacea. But it will put us on a path. It is commonly known that energy efficiency implementation has not achieved its technical or economically feasible potential in New Mexico, and many believe that industry could meet the targets set by the petition if industry enacted serious energy efficiency and conservation measures.
Additionally, New Mexico has abundant renewable energy resources and has an extraordinary opportunity to benefit by creating a new direction for energy in America. New Mexico also can help our country become energy independent by becoming a leading exporter of clean renewable energy and new energy technologies.
People believe in and are hungry to participate in building a clean energy economy. Currently over 80 cents of every dollar we spend with PNM is leaving our state. Imagine the revenue we could capture if we increased local production of renewable energy. That money could flow into our education and health care coffers for statewide services. Imagine a New Mexico that creates its own wealth through its own energy.
Recovering and restoring local food and energy production requires a conscious transformation and set of ecological and economic leaps for our communities. In recognizing the links between health, food, fuel scarcity and poverty, energy, and green jobs, we can address the global challenge of climate change and peak oil and the economic and health challenges afflicting New Mexico. I urge you to support the carbon cap as an effective economic and policy stimulus.
Pozzebon is the executive director of the Santa Fe Alliance, a nonprofit organization working toward building a local living economy through community, local ownership and advocacy.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
8 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well said Mr. Casciano. To illustrate your points, this graph shows sea level ups and downs over the last few thousand years:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif
You will notice the last 18 or so thousand years, as the Milankovitch climate cycles (all natural and have nothing what so ever to do with CO2, human or otherwise) kicked in to melt the ice from the last ice age. That warming caused sea level to rise 130 METERS. You will also notice the last few hundred years where sea level has actually fallen. Yes, over the last 100 years or so it is up slightly ( a few centimeters), but that is dwarfed by the natural forces at work on our climate, none of which are caused by CO2.
And this temperature reconstruction of the last 12,000 years shows these cycles, and the fact that the last hundred years has not been unusual in warmth, nor temperature change magnitude relative to many other cycles, none of which could be caused by man’s CO2:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Therefore the scientific case is non-existant for the fear of climate disaster from human CO2. Those scientists that continue to push this flimsy and undocumented hypothesis of AGW are thus more likely pushing a partisan political agenda, not following the science and being objective. You have to go where the science leads you, not where the progressive agenda takes you.
And I would urge citizens to protest this NMED and EIB misguided effort to destroy NM’s economy using junk science at the public comment meetings released here:
“Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) Offers Opportunities to Give Public Comment
on GHG Regulatory Initiatives
The Environmental Improvement Board will take public comment for the record on the New Energy Economy (NEE) and New Mexico Environment Department’s (NMED) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) proposed rules. The hearing officer will take comments on both proposals on the same day and will bring a court reporter so that the full board does not have to travel, but can read the transcripts.
· HOBBS, Wednesday, September 1, 2:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Lea County Event Center, 5101 N. Lovington Hwy.
· CLOVIS, Thursday, September 2, 2:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Clovis Civic Center, Enchantment II Ballroom, 801 Schepps Blvd.
· FARMINGTON, Wednesday, September 8, 2010 1:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Farmington Civic Center, Exhibit Hall 1, 200 W. Arrington
New Mexico Climate Change Initiatives
Poster Sessions & Open Houses hosted by NMED
NMED will host poster sessions for the proposed Greenhouse Gas emissions reduction and reporting rules in each of the following communities. No formal presentations will be given. Staff will be available to answer questions.
· FARMINGTON: Wednesday, August 11, 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm
San Juan College, Room 7103 in the computer science building located at
4601 College Blvd.
· ROSWELL: Wednesday, August 25, 3:30 pm – 5:30 pm
Roswell Public Library, in the Bondurant Room, 301 N Pennsylvania Ave.
· CLOVIS: Thursday, August 26, 11:00 am – 1:00 pm
Days Inn and Suites, 2700 E. Marby Dr.
· LAS CRUCES: Tuesday, August 31, 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm
Roadrunner Room, Thomas Branigan Memorial Library, 200 E. Picacho Ave.
Why does the warming crowd always skip past the fact that the earth has been warming since the Ice Age 10,000 years ago, and that over the last 2,000 years mankind has generally benefitted from warming with more crops grown and fewer deaths from cold exposure? Perhaps because it does not fit their political agenda.
There was a generally recognized Little Ice Age 1450 to 1890 A.D. According to Joe Buchdahl, in Global Climate Change Student Guide “There is considerable evidence that the Little Ice Age consisted of two main cold stages of about a century’s length (Bradley & Jones, 1992). These occurred in the seventeenth an nineteenth centuries, with relative warmth arising in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Glaciers advanced in Europe, Asia and North America, whilst sea ice in the North Atlantic expanded with detrimental effects for the colonies of Greenland and Iceland (Lamb, 1982).”
It would seem that global warming and climate changes happen naturally.
The cause of climate change is one of the things being debated. The problem exposed by the emails between scientists responsible for the UN report is that they show the evidence for the theory that carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activities is not as conclusive or “settled” as a cause of global changes. This has got the proponents of man made global warming defensively trying to explain the “science”.
Climate scientists are faced with the fact that their models are very complicated and that many forces effect climate, not just CO2 (much less only man made CO2). The other problem is that the models and studies in the UN report predicted global warming over the past 8-10 years and the actual observations have shown global cooling.
A more honest and rational approach to global warming would be to deal with it and make sure man adapts and benefits (think water storage projects).
The cap and trade legislation under consideration in Congress and the regulations in front of the NM Environmental Improvement Board will hurt the average American and New Mexican. Power bills will go up and jobs will go down. Workers will further be hurt because companies will look for investment in other places especially in Asia (which will continue to use massive amounts of coal and increase CO2 emission).
Our next generation energy will come from the research and development we do today. Cap and trade rules will hurt our ability to use existing energy sources which need to be the bridge over the next 10-20 years as wind; solar and other technologies are developed.
The waste of resources associated with schemes to regulate global warming should guide the NM EIB away from the pending proposal.
correction: “developing and selling new forms of energy.”
It is the knee-jerk reaction to just say “it will cost jobs.” The responsible reaction is to look for ways to create jobs by developint and selling new forms of energy.
Why do all environmentalists think that the private sector or rate payers/consumers should pay for transitioning to a “green economy”? Redirect our investments? Why doesn’t Ceres redirect part of the 13 trillion it says it’s worth to subsidize the transition that they so want? Why don’t environmentalists advocate for state and federal governments to eliminate wasteful programs to be able to afford tax credits and incentives to mitigate the cost of “redirecting investments”?
On the issue of NEE’s unilateral GHG emmissions cap proposal to the EIB, you’ve got to be idiotically naive to believe that businesses are going to stay in New Mexico when they can pick another state that doesn’t impose this additional cost on them. It’s simple economics. Maybe utilities won’t have a choice to move out of state, but the one that’s going to pay for NEE’s proposal is the rate payer, not PNM.
America has reached the level of development and wealth that it currently enjoys by being a market oriented economy. The main reason why the Great Recession continues is precisely due to fear of more regulation. You can’t just shove regulatory measures down the throat of the country’s entrepreneurial class and expect business to continue as usual because you believe everybody should share your ideals -or should I say, ideology?
The claim that imposing cap and trade is going to bring new business to the state is ludicrous; even green businesses take care of their bottom line. How about the businesses that manufacture inputs for green products that use processes that involve GHG emmissions? It’s scary to see how people that are so clueless about business and economics are trying to impose an agenda that could have such a tremendous impact on our economy.
If you really want a transition, why don’t you suggest redirecting government budgets rather than private investment? As a businessperson, I can tell you that incentives work way better than taxes or unfunded mandates in creating new markets. Believe me, there are many more businesses in the State that employ far more workers and generate more value added than the companies represented by the Santa Fe Allianceor Ceres that are sick and tired of putting up with job killing measures such as NEE’s proposal.
To think that limiting CO2 emissions in NM would have any effect on global warming is beyond ridiculous.. Only in the highly imaginary and theoretical world of the free-tibet-save-the-prarie-dog crowd would such an idea take hold. It’s a feel-good activity for those folks and let’s hope the only effect is on the few live in such a world. Liberals dont’ care about the poor or minorities.
This is just more typical, unscientific enviro-nonsense from partisan promoters of the progressive agenda. It plays on fear and emotions using partisan misinformation and “studies”, half-truths, and cherry picked pseudo-science “facts”. Even Ms. Denish knows the truth about the ridiculous carbon cap initiatives and how they will cost NM thousands of jobs and greatly reduce our economy and standing in America. Here is her position: http://www.dianedenish.com/news/articles?id=0060
Let me quote: “On Thursday, March 18, it was reported that the New Mexico Environment Department is seeking to implement a New Mexico-specific greenhouse gas cap-and-trade plan. That’s the last thing we should do. In these historically challenging times, this new regulation would put New Mexico at an economic disadvantage and put countless jobs in our state at risk.” And of course Ms. Martinez is just as adamant against this economically disastrous and unscientifically founded proposal. And let me quote from a very qualified scientist and economist’s testimony to the EIB about the NEE petition and the bogus claims of “damage” from CO2 by IPCC and other non-scientific studies: “The IPCC is a political body whose purpose is to spur policy actions along a partisan agenda, not to further science. There is no solid scientific case that CO2, human or natural, has or is causing climate change. There is no compelling case that capping CO2 and creating a cap and trade scheme would result in any significant economic improvements in employment or the economy. And finally, there is no practical case for any climate impacts if New Mexico were to unilaterally (or as a multi-state group) cap CO2 and put in a cap and trade scheme. Therefore your cap and trade proposal should be rejected.”
Reducing carbon emissions+cap and trade laws= less jobs in New Mexico.
Yeah, we really need to protect the environment before we protect jobs. This is the problem with this administration and the “progressives” in this country – putting a fantasy before reality.
Lets fix our economy, then worry about the rest of everything else.