| Sourced From |
The comparison of the proposed carbon dioxide cap-and-trade with the acid rain program is misleading (“A chance to compete fairly in marketplace,” by Purdue University professors Kevin Gurney, Leigh Raymond, Tim Cason and Helen Rowe, May 31). I believe the two issues are very different, based on my 35-year involvement in energy and related environmental issues.
Point sources such as electrical generation, industrial fuel use and metal refining generated the majority of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. Home and commercial discharges were minor. Reductions of sulfur in fuels and use of catalytic converters dealt with mobile sources. In contrast, transportation (cars, trucks and trains), and home and commercial building heating are major sources of carbon dioxide. Transportation alone is about a quarter of all carbon dioxide generated in this nation. The cap-and-trade proposal has no direct effect on these activities.
Another major difference is technology. Proven scrubber technology existed for sulfur dioxide removal at the time discharge limits were increased. The carbon dioxide problem is very different. Some carbon dioxide is generated every time a fuel is burned, regardless of whether it is coal, gasoline or switch grass.
The professors suggest market forces are best to minimize the costs of these reductions, but under cap-and-trade, transportation and building heating will not see the direct cost. If we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions whether other nations do or not, some form of carbon tax on all fuels seems a better way. The tax should include adjustments for users who capture and store the carbon dioxide.
Fred Corban
Commissioner (retired), Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
Indianapolis
Related posts: