Some Political Volaility of the Federal Energy Legislation
Whether you like it or not, the United States political system can be very intriguing, and at the same time be very entertaining. With the "new carbon economy", we expect big initiatives that will be done by the governments all over the world for the curtailment of carbon emissions for the sake of the climate. Many considerations for climate related initiatives and energy efficiency are being considered and problems surrounding the recent federal energy legislation emphasizes how volatile the entire arena will become.
An independent observer could reason that whereas climate related issues should concern us all quite rightly, there are other, sometimes more pressing items to be considered within the political landscape that could temper enthusiasm for federal energy legislation. While many believe the only a significant "cap and trade" scheme could really make a difference and have any chance of helping us meet the 80% reductions talked about by 2050, others point to significant increases in energy costs as a result and the potential for economic hardship.
Like it or hate it, you have to agree that the United States political system is intriguing, if not entertaining. The new "carbon age" shall expect major initiatives that will be taken by nations all over the world in the curtailment of carbon emissions for the climate's sake. There are indeed many energy efficiency and climate related initiatives under consideration and we have seen that problems surrounding the current federal energy legislation highlight just how politically volatile this entire arena is.
In 2010, if the federal energy legislation will not be passed nor will there be any stringent carbon trading program that would be established that would set a market-based price for carbon, there will be many who will turn to the EPA to verify their opinion. When the Supreme Court ruled that if carbon emissions were a hazard to human health, the EPA should regulate them under the Clean Air Act, the floodgates opened for potential action.
The EPA could seek to impose considerable restrictions on either new and/or existing air polluters, essentially achieving through other means a significant reduction in carbon emissions. However, the Clean Air Act was originally designed to cover a different slate of air pollutants and few believe that EPA action could be as effective as federal energy legislation. EPA action could be far more invasive and be less "tailor-made" for the problem at hand.
The political landscape is highly volatile as midterm elections loom in 2010. Like a swinging pendulum, many expect there to be a shift in power, the Democratic Party losing control of the Senate. Should this happen, the Republicans are generally in opposition to a carbon trading scheme, at least one which has such power as the one proposed under the ACES Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved onwards to restrict emissions from vehicular sources through insisting that efficiency of fuel vehicle can be increased to an average standard of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. This will in itself serve to reduce greenhouse gases significantly and the EPA is legally obliged to start regulating stationary sources of carbon emissions as well. While EPA has considerable power of course, its budget is controlled by Congress and it remains to be seen whether appropriations will be made to cover all of the EPA's plans.
Every single entrepreneur must be particular about the developments pertaining to the federal energy legislation. It should become clear that if carbon is going to be regulated in any significant way, then each business will be required to account for its energy use and its calculated carbon footprint. Every entrepreneur should learn how to properly measure and efficiently control its assets.
The refusal to confront a problem will no longer work. Small organizations might think that "cap and trade" will only affect the larger polluters. They might also think that EPA legislation will only affect organizations that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon per year, but industry lobbying groups are likely to ensure that everyone within the business world accepts an equal part of the problem in one way or the other. Regulation and cost are likely to hit home pretty soon.
About the Author
Verisae offers energy management software to monitor and control global energy portfolio. Energy efficiency initiatives include operational tactics and energy conservation strategies aimed at reducing costs. This takes place either through lowering consumption, upgrading facilities, or direct energy curtailment. Learn more at http://www.verisae.com/articles
Tell others about
this page:
Comments? Questions? Email Here