Summary
The implications of President Bush's announcement are that there are none. It is just smoke and mirrors, a ploy to appear to be on the band wagon. President Bush clearly does not know how to achieve significant reductions in GHG's while increasing the country's economy.
Analysis
I have several points for readers to consider regarding the issue of GHG reductions.
Point 1:
The low hanging fruit or for those who need a more clear description, the most economical and greatest return on investment in reducing GHG's is energy efficiencies and renewable energy replacement using already proven technology. This applies to every GHG emitting industry from steel to oil & gas. By the time we exhausted this technique of GHG reductions the reductions would exceed 50% from estimated 1990 levels with a pay back ranging from 2 years net back to 5 years net back. Should you need to find out more you need only call Gerson Lehrman Group and set up several consultations with me because it's going to take more than an hour.
Point 2:
President Bush who has been all over the need to rely less on foreign controlled (especially radical Muslim controlled) oil is missing one of the easiest GHG solutions. Currently oil production leaves approximately 70% to 90% of the oil in the ground. Now if you were to achieve an extra 5% to 15% recovery through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) what do you think that would do for our economy and security. This can be achieved by sequestering CO2 and oh yes isn't CO2 a GHG! Now there are some important needs to know on how to achieve this economically, but it is proven. Again should you need to find out more you need only call Gerson Lehrman Group and set up several consultations with me because it's going to take more than an hour.
Point 3:
Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) is being heralded as the way to go not only in the USA, but in many countries. This has some serious issues from geological formations to capture compression and transportation. All of these issues add to the cost which because the only benefit albeit significant to climate change is prohibitive to the economy. There are other better solutions employing CCS. If we are going to go down the path of CCS then at least lets do it where our economy can see a benefit. In order to achieve that other energy efficiencies need to be employed first to industries like coal fired plants that will see a reasonable return on investment and GHG reductions among other things. Again should you need to find out more you need only call Gerson Lehrman Group and set up several consultations with me because it's going to take more than an hour.
Point 4:
In reference to China, yes China is a large emitter of GHG's and yes they need to reduce GHG's. But to use China or India or any other nation to excuse the USA or any other nation from addressing this issue is unacceptable. We on earth live in a global climate system not a regional system and therefore all nations need to take part. Oh by the way the Chinese CDM office has over 1000 additional GHG reducing projects registered and seeking approval, that from a nation who's economy is developing not developed.
In conclusion President Bush has no intention of reducing GHG's because he doesn't know the economically stimulating ways to do so. Yes it will rely entirely upon a new president to set a course for change.
