Good to see a start on limits

By Dave Churchill (Contact) | The Daily Journal

Published Friday, June 1, 2007

Whether you call the problem “greenhouse gases,” “global climate change” or “carbon emissions,” doing something about it has become a fast-rolling bandwagon.

Carbon emissions are, in simple terms, the left-overs that pour out of smokestacks and exhaust pipes when fossil fuels are burned. Carbon dioxide — CO2 — is the particular culprit.

You know it has become serious when even President Bush says, as he did in a speech Thursday, that something needs to be done about it.

The Bush administration has fought limits on carbon emissions. Administration officials have given various explanations for disagreeing with almost every expert on the subject. The reason is most likely that limits will be costly for industry and for individuals.

And putting any limits on industry is not something Bush has favored. As recently as this spring, the administration argued before the Supreme Court that it could not be responsible for setting gas mileage limits on automobiles, a carbon-limiting measure.

So it was a shocker this week when the president suggested setting standards for emissions. True, he was vague about what kind of limits, and it appeared he meant for them not to take effect any time soon. But, still, what a change.

Critics complained that the president didn’t go far enough. That is probably true. But the most extreme environmentalists either do not know — or won’t admit — that limiting CO2 emissions is going to be a long process. Unless it is approached with moderation, it could be ruinously expensive and damaging to almost every American’s lifestyle.

Consider the issues that confront electricity generators and their customers — that would be all of us. Utilities recognize there is an environmental problem. Nearly every speaker at Otter Tail Power’s annual meeting this spring mentioned the issue.

But what’s a utility to do? A complete switch to wind power, which many advocate as the answer, simply won’t work. If we rely entirely on wind, there will be no power on days when the wind doesn’t blow — which, often enough, are the hottest days when electricity demand is the highest.

Nuclear power remains too scary for most people to consider. Solar? Maybe at some point in the future. Hydro power? Insufficient in these flatlands.

That leaves coal which, inevitably, emits CO2 when it burns.

So an immediate end to emissions would leave utilities and their customers in a tough situation: Periods with no power. That’s bad for business — not to mention the challenges it poses for home cooking, cooling, heating, running gas station pumps and so on.

The right answer is going to be the sort of phased-in approach under way in Minnesota, requiring more clean power at a pace gradual enough to find the answers without disrupting... well, everything.

Meanwhile, one of the biggest sources of CO2, our cars, has barely been addressed. Even the president has sensed that the nation is concerned about global warming. But no politician yet has the spine to suggest Americans change their driving behaviors.

If we are really going to be world leaders on the issue of green houses gases, Americans are at some point going to have to mend their automobile-based culture. And that, too, is going to take decades, because our lives are almost totally based on the ability — and need — to drive our own cars anywhere at anytime.

It was interesting — and exciting — to have the president finally admit there is a need to curb CO2 emissions. It would certainly be good for our country to take a leading position on the issue.

It will be even more exciting when there’s a recognition that each of us, individually, ought to play some role in solving the problem. That, however, seems to be far in the future.

Journal publisher Dave Churchill’s column runs on Fridays.