Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Energy Companies Face Climate Action in States
Energy companies that have fought climate legislation in Congress are also facing threats in the states, where governors and legislatures are acting on their own to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
Greenpeace activists burn a symbol of carbon dioxide at an earlier protest in Germany. (AFP/DDP/File/Theo Heimann) The latest example is a move by 11 governors from the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic region to adopt a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) to reduce greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, and possibly home heating systems that use oil products.
Emissions from the transportation sector alone account for 30 percent of the carbon dioxide released in those states.
Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity pose "serious risks to human health, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and economies globally and in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region," states a memorandum of understanding (MOU) the governors signed on Wednesday.
The goal is to develop a framework to reduce emissions from fuel use by 2011.
Oil companies and industry-backed groups argue there aren't good alternatives to gasoline. Efforts to lower carbon dioxide emissions from fuel use in the Northeast won't have an impact on global emissions and could raise energy prices in the region, critics say.
A low-carbon fuel standard could "have dramatic negative impacts on transportation costs and the overall economy," the Consumer Energy Alliance, a group of energy consumers and producers, said in written comments to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), which is developing the rule.
The American Petroleum Institute, ConocoPhillips and BP all wrote NESCAUM opposing the low-carbon fuel standard.
One target of the effort is the importation of oil produced from oil sands in Canada. A low-carbon fuel standard measures the life-cycle emissions of the fuel, not just the carbon content of gasoline that propels cars and trucks. Life-cycle standard includes the emissions produced to extract the fuel, refine it and use it. Because it is harder to extract oil from the oil sands, Canadian oil often has a comparatively higher carbon footprint than oil produced elsewhere.
Chris Tucker, a spokesman for CEA, said the standard won't reduce global emissions because the oil sands producers will simply sell their product to other countries. He pointed to a recent agreement with a Chinese oil company to buy a stake in the sands as evidence.
Supporters of the effort in the Northeast say it will force producers in Canada to extract the oil in a more environmentally sensitive way.
Opposition to a proposed pipeline to the West to open up the Asian market will likely leave the U.S. as the only "viable export market," according to the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a group of investors that support action against climate change.
"A broad adoption of LCFS in the U.S. would force oil sands producers to significantly reduce the carbon intensity of the producer in order to maintain access to this critical market," the Investor Network on Climate Risk said in written comments.
The group said the low-carbon fuel standard would reduce the region's dependency on foreign oil by encouraging use of alternatives and "fostering a strong clean fuels market."
One reason oil companies are lobbying against the effort in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic is that they fear regional efforts will increase pressure on Congress to adopt a federal low-carbon fuel standard. A standard was originally in the House version of climate change legislation but was taken out after opposition from oil-patch Democrats.
The effort in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic follows a similar push in California to adopt a low-carbon fuel standard. All but one of the 11 states working on the new MOU is also part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an effort to cap carbon emissions at power plants.
Climate legislation passed the House last summer but faces an uncertain future in the Senate, with several centrist Democrats urging their leaders to delay action beyond this Congress.
The environmental group Environment America released a report last month that listed all the actions at the state level to curb carbon dioxide. The list includes the low-carbon fuel standards and other efforts to conserve energy through efficiency programs and to require utilities to purchase renewable energy from wind and solar and other sources.
Environment America said state actions would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 7 percent by 2020 relative to the 2007 level. States have acted as "laboratories for the rest of the country" that show greenhouse gas curbs needn't be a burden to the economy, said Anna Aurilio, a director at Environment America.
Still, Congress needs to pass a climate bill that calls for steeper cuts than states are now contemplating and that would apply to all 50, Aurilio said.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

6 Comments so far
Show AllThe burning CO2 picture is an effective image, but it is like shooting someone to show the danger of guns.
Glad to see states taking independent action, the feds won't.
Wonder if NAFTA and the WTO will allow the states to set CO2 standards or will sue them under the small print in the agreements we so blindly signed under Clinton. Thanks a lot Slick Willie.
Gary
I am happy that some States are waving their hands at CO2 emissions. However the power is in their hands to actually
drastically cut oil usage and greenhouse emissions by actually running trains, buses and light rail that are already operational. They could easily fund that with a fraction of the amounts they spend on roads, highways, ambulances and all the enormous hidden costs of cars. Unfortunately as Transportation for America ( http://t4foramerica.org has documented over 100 communities have had transit cuts.
In May,2008 at the height of the gas prices New Jersey Transit cut my own train service 30% to Hoboken. In the news are major cuts to the New York Metropolitan Transit Agency.
For an example of how cheap it is to just run mass transit consider that the total operational costs for all of New Jersey Transit for the State of New Jersey are only $300 Million yet the cost of fixing just 1 highway interchange was over $70 million!
If these States are serious they should increase their gas taxes and funnel that money to mass transit. They should also consider instituting parking taxes as well.
Good points and since the socialist highway interchange is free the same should be true for mass transit.
Savings of just 7% in 10 years are a joke!
In just 1 year between mid-2008 with $4 gas prices and then the
Great Recession gas consumption went down by 6%!
This is without ANY positive governmental actions and actually mass transit cuts all over the US.
With increased gas taxes, new parking taxes and the use of that funding to actually run trains, buses and shuttles
surely it should be possible to cut by 50-60% over a decade.
This would also require of course reviving old abandoned trolley and rail lines wherever possible and running trains and transit right down major highways instead of eternal lane expansion.
But it is surely doable.
If 50 years saw the destruction of this country's mass transit for the highway monster, surely we can turn it back.
After all a lot of rails still exist and the highways make the perfect right of way for new rails and mass transit.
I am sorry 7% does not cut it - "F"!!
Just left a Public Service Commission hearing on an 18% electricity rate increase. There was a large crowd of hundreds of people even though the temperature was near zero. One after the other stories of deep and troubling hardship were revealed to the commission. Soft spoken respectful people shared their stories. Then it was my turn. I delivered short pointed remarks in a thunderous voice that rocked the room. I tried to speak for the people in a language that could not be ignored or forgotten. I was not there to make friends with the utility or the commission. Mine was the voice of the approaching storm. I believe I made an impression.