U.S. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) visited Sussex County on April 19, using the Indian River Power Plant (on the Indian River, between Millsboro and Dagsboro) as a backdrop for a discussion on clean-air regulations targeting the electric generating sector.
Coastal Point • SAM HARVEY:
U.S. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), discusses a new and improved version of the Clean Air Planning Act, aimed at reducing harmful emissions.
Carper plans to introduce a new-and-improved version of the Clean Air Planning Act legislation, which he introduced in early 2003. The new version would be referred to by the same name.
The senator promoted the original version nine months ago (August 2005), in a visit to the Fenwick Island area, speaking of his belief in the reality of global warming. He reiterated many of those points on April 19, and referred to increasing scientific evidence suggesting that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity were contributing to that warming.
The burning of fossil fuels is the main source of CO2 in the atmosphere, and global warming models focus on that burning as the major player in a “greenhouse effect” (the thickened atmosphere still admits sunlight, but no longer allows heat to escape).
Carper noted the trend toward higher temperatures – vast areas of melting ice in the Arctic Circle, and eight of the warmest years on record in the past decade.
Dick Fleming, a Delaware Nature Society board member and former DuPont chemist, joined the senator and added a few scientific citations.
Global warming is incredibly complex, Fleming admitted. Therefore, the Delaware Nature Society has turned to the Natural Academies, he said – in particular, the National Academy of Science and the National Resource Council (both at www.nationalacademies.org on the Internet).
Although they host the scientists who advise the president, members of Congress and other public policy makers, Fleming characterized the National Academies as thoroughly apolitical, and most prestigious.
He referenced some of the main points the National Academies had emphasized in reports issued in 2002, and in particular the passage that the National Academies’ synopsis of that research lists as most-often quoted:
“Changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities with some contribution from natural variability.”
Fleming was quick to note the double modifier (“likely mostly”) but stood by the underlying conclusion – that human activity not only had something to do with global warming, it had a lot to do with it.
Carper reiterated his criticisms of President George W. Bush for faltering in his commitment to air quality, saying Bush had backed away from carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) reductions in particular.
Although “time is not on our side,” as Carper emphasized, he stated his belief that it was possible that people could do something to address global warming
He stumped for something stronger than Bush’s Clear Skies Act, but less restrictive than the international Kyoto Protocol. As he’d done nine months earlier, Carper compared the Kyoto Protocol to driving down the highway at 60 mph and slamming the car into reverse.
According to Carper, the compromise bill, supporting CO2 emissions reduction paired with a pragmatic cap-and-trade system, would get the job done without passing unreasonable costs along to the end users (customers paying for the electricity). Compared to Kyoto, his bill was more akin to slowing down, stopping and then backing up, Carper said.
Carper’s proposed legislation would address more than just CO2. It would also target sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, both of which contribute to respiratory problems, smog and acid rain, and mercury pollution. Mercury is highly toxic, and bioaccumulates in the environment (in fish, for instance). It’s linked to numerous chronic health problems, and can pass from mother to child, causing birth defects.
As explained by Carper’s office, the compromise bill would:
Reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent at every power plant in the country by 2015.
Reduce NOx by 70 percent and SO2 by more than 80 percent by 2015.
Cap CO2 emissions from power plants at 2006 levels by the end of the decade and reduce them to 2001 levels by 2015. Power plants could meet these new requirements either by reducing their own CO2 emissions or buying CO2 “credits” on the open market from other industries that can more cheaply reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modeling of this cap-and-trade CO2 program for utilities shows that it would only cost $1 a ton to reduce carbon emissions.