Cutting a lot of carbon, without a lot of fuss

(Editor’s note: We received this email from a US-based correspondent “Motorshack” in New Hampshire. It was so striking we thought we would publish as is, showing as it does how even ultra-conservative political forces can embrace concepts such as a carbon price and energy efficiency).

Here’s a link to a local article about the carbon intensity of electrical generation in New Hampshire.  In particular, I thought you would find this quote interesting.

“Between 2005 and 2013, carbon emissions from PSNH’s power plant fleet in 2013 dropped 70 per cent,” said company spokesman Martin Murray in an email, quoted in an article in the local paper.

PSNH stands for Public Service Of New Hampshire, which is the biggest local power company, and the one that happens to supply my own electricity.

I should add that these numbers have been achieved with almost no political kickback or other fuss.  The legislature, which happens to have a heavy Tea Party presence, put some policies in place a few years ago – including membership of the regional carbon trading scheme, renewable energy policies and energy efficiency initiatives, and everyone went along with it.

In this same vein, my landlord said that he got a flier from PSNH the other day offering to give him a 3 per cent rebate on any Energy Star refrigerators that he buys.  It’s pretty hard to ignore the message when the power company is willing to pay you to use substantially less power.

If you’re wondering how we get Tea Party legislators signing off on carbon reduction policies, it’s not actually that mysterious.

First of all, a lot of it is down to our membership in RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), which is a market-based cap-and-trade system that actually puts money into the state coffers without raising taxes.  Given the deep hostility to taxation here, this sells very well to the right-wingers: both market-based and a way to reduce taxes.

Second, aside from the foregoing, it was also sold as a way to keep electric bills from rising as fossil fuels get more expensive.  Again, this sells well to some of the cheapest people in the country, and especially so when some of those RGGI revenues are used to directly subsidize residential energy efficiency measures which hold down the electric bills.

Third, New Hampshire is very big on outdoor sports, and many of those folks are therefore very concerned about conservation.  So, curbing climate change fits in with that very neatly.

The hunters in particular are well aware that slightly warmer winters have already caused a massive jump in a species of tick that is now destroying the moose population.  In just ten years the moose population is down by something like 60% from this one cause alone.  This concern cuts across the entire political spectrum, and is hardly confined to the left-wing environmental activists.

Fourth, the project thirty years ago to build Seabrook Station, the local nuclear plant, was such a financial disaster, and required such a big bailout from the state, that the ability of PSNH to lobby the state has been crippled ever since.

No one trusts their judgement, and probably never will again.  This means that the submissions of PSNH are more reasonable to start with, and they get triple-checked by all kinds of independent reviewers, who have no trouble getting the attention of the legislature.

A 70% drop in carbon emissions in just eight years is eye-popping, and all the more so when you consider that there is almost no fuss about it. I knew that progress was being made, but even I was startled by that number.

I guess that shows what can happen when you happen to have incumbent generators who lack the usual political clout. And there is nothing like public policy that actually works.

Finally, my own electricity usage comes to almost exactly two MWHs per year, so my carbon footprint from personal electricity usage is only about nine tenths of a ton, and I have almost no other direct energy consumption.  Even my heating is electrical, which is not absolutely the most efficient way to do it, but still only generates about half a ton of carbon per year.

Ironically, I could cut both the carbon and the cost of heating in half if I switched to propane, because there would be no transmission and conversion losses.  But that would entail safety issues and engineering costs that are not worth the bother merely to save a hundred dollars a year.  If I were going to make that kind of investment I would put it into a solar hot air furnace instead.

Also, as you can see from the article, my carbon footprint is dropping steadily, even if I do nothing further myself.  Nothing like public policy that actually works.

Anyway, now that I have tantalized you with this vision of rational politicians, I will leave you to go back to your usual work of banging your head against the wall.