Climate, energy report released
53 recommendations aim at lower greenhouse gases
By Bo Petersen
More nuclear power is on the table, right next to "green" fuels. Tougher building codes are up there, right next to consumer energy efficiency programs.
South Carolina Climate Change
The state's Climate, Energy and Commerce Action Plan released Wednesday is a behemoth of 53 recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one-third within 12 years. Putting them all in play would mean passing restrictive laws and finding money to create incentives.
They would also mean cultivating a culture of voluntary energy conservation by everyone from heavy industry to the homeowner screwing in light bulbs. The sometimes-opposing interest groups who sat as representatives for a year on Gov. Mark Sanford's committee say this is doable.
"The main question is, are we going to be compelled to do it," said Lewis Gossett, president the S.C. Manufacturers Alliance and chairman of Citizens for Sound Conservation.
Previous story
Panel details energy action plan, published 07/05/08
"If it's realistic and if it's reliable, I think you'll see people do it. We're really looking to see what's in it that we can embrace. At the same time, we'll be very critical, very careful in our review to make sure there aren't things
in it that will destroy the competitiveness of South Carolina industry," Gossett said.
For South Carolina Electric and Gas, which has two nuclear plants in the works, nuclear power "is going to have to be the linchpin to get us there (to that reduction)," said Robert Yannity, public affairs supervisor.
As far as developing "green" power sources such as solar or wind, "right now the state is just not blessed with enough natural resources to help with that. As those energy sources are developed, we'll look further at it," he said.
The report is widely expected to be a blueprint for creating a state energy policy. Energy policies are a new initiative among states, and South Carolina would be among the first to develop one. They work like zoning to set guidelines for how energy is produced and used.
The committee's job was to put together recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels in South Carolina — a reduction that would be 35 percent less than what's emitted now and more than 50 percent less than what's expected to be emitted by 2020. And to do it while growing the state's economy.
Most scientists agree that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are exacerbating climate warming. Researchers warn the warming could cause environmental, economic and health crises.
The state report includes breakdowns of the costs and cost-benefits of implementing each recommendation.
Implementing the recommendations may mean more costs up front for taxpayers, industries and consumers, but will create savings for them in energy use down the line. And it will create jobs, said Ben Moore, Coastal Conservation League climate and energy program director.
"We're not talking about lowering the standard of living in South Carolina, we're talking about improving it," he said.
Developing more-efficient energy sources and using energy more efficiently is the key to the plan, he said. It makes sense for building more nuclear plants — controversial among some environmental interests — to be on the table, because the process doesn't burn carbon fuel.
"After all, these things are just recommendations," Moore said. "I'm looking forward to the debate in this state about what belongs in our energy policy."
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
zoomru (anonymous) says...
WHAT??? Robert Yannity, public affairs supervisor said.... "As far as developing "green" power sources such as solar or wind, "right now the state is just not blessed with enough natural resources to help with that. As those energy sources are developed, we'll look further at it," he said. "
Robert....YOU LIAR !! Have you ever spent time at the BEACH !! NOT ENOUGH NATURAL RESOURCES ??? You LIAR !!
Wholly-COW ...who wrote this article...Hmm ..BO Petersen !!
BO...what kind of reporter ARE YOU ??!! YOU didn't ask Robert about the turbines from www.selsam.com?? You didn't ask Robert if he had ever been to the BEACH ??!
CITIZENS of this STATE...this is a PRIME example of AGENDA reporting !!! Bo ..do I need to take a picture of WIND blowing through OUR PALM TREES....?? ARE YOU A ROOKIE??
BO..have you ever driven down I-26 from TRYON or Hendersonville into Spartanburg ??? WE have WIND UP THERE....BUCKO !!! YOU Don't FOOL ...US !!
NO wonder OUR citizens have no direction...........!!!
August 7, 2008 at 4:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
Uh oh...........
This report upon the FIRST read looks like it was COPIED from one that was used OUT in California !!!
LOOK OUT...TAXPAYERS !!
This is a Lawyer FEST ...BONANZA !!!
2020 year timetables too boot!!!
What about ....NOW!!! This is a C-Y-A document !!!
August 7, 2008 at 4:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
amylrod (anonymous) says...
"As far as developing "green" power sources such as solar or wind, "right now the state is just not blessed with enough natural resources to help with that. As those energy sources are developed, we'll look further at it,..."
Can someone explain to me what natural resources are needed to develop solar power? Wind power, for obvious reasons, needs wind, which in this area amounts to a breeze, unless you live along the coast or the upstate. Driving on the high plateaus of Wyoming and Colorado, you feel the wind, but here? And solar power? Besides the sun, what else is needed? Money? Yeah, that must be the natural resource that is missing...Anyone who knows what "other natural resources are missing," please step up to the plate.
August 7, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
martin (anonymous) says...
Sweden, while trying to meet Kyoto emissions standards, has increased economic growth by 44%. Read the following short story (it's not a link; enter address in browser):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/20...
Guys, so what if climate change is a natural reoccuring phenomenon that has nothing to do with carbon emissions.
Surely, you do believe that huge chunks of ice pack are melting in the Arctic and we are rapidly moving toward having a Northwest Passage, that was only dreamed about 400 years ago; that warming is happening.
It doesn't matter what's causing it, it has never happened when there were billions of people on the planet who will be impacted, along with your grandchildren (who you obviously aren't particularly interested in).
Therefore, we need to do some planning to understand and mitigate the effects rather than just ranting about science.
August 7, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Jameson (anonymous) says...
There is enough wind 10 or so miles of our coast to power our state two times over.
The solar potential is limited only by our state's and our utilities' WILL to find ways to exploit it. (How is it that Germany is the world leader in solar, when the sun barely shines there?).
There is enough energy efficiency potential in our state to supply at least 10% of the state's needs (equivalent to numerous large power plants).
For utilities and lobbyists for our state's manufacturers to downplay these resources should make readers deeply suspicious.
We can't solve this problem by sticking to business-as-usual strategies and keeping all of our eggs in the same old baskets.
In the face of risk, these guys should diversify the way they do business -- the same as any successful investor.
I want to see all the jobs and revenues that are expected from the new "green" economy come here and not pass us by.
August 7, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PalmettoDP (anonymous) says...
"Implementing the recommendations may mean more costs up front for taxpayers, industries and consumers, but will create savings for them in energy use down the line."
In other words, this is not a pro-growth policy. This is about intentionally raising the cost of energy in order to divert funding to techonologies that may or may not be viable.
In the next few years, there will be much cheaper solar panels on the market. If they work and save people money, people will buy them. Today's solar panels are too expensive and wind energy requires backup power for days when the wind is not blowing.
If these regulations are implemented, get ready for rolling blackouts...
August 7, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rollo (anonymous) says...
There's enough BS on this article to provide methane fuel for 100 years! And if you quit driving around on flat tires, you'll never have to buy gasoline again!!!
Now, Seriously,...
There are no "greenhouse gasses". That is a fact that has been demonstrated by the proponents of the "Greenhouse Effect" theory themselves.
The "Greenhouse Effect" theory dictates that for the "Effect" to work, there must be a significant upward trend in temperature in the upper troposphere. After 60 years of weather balloon and satellite study no such trend has been discovered.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no "Greenhouse Effect", there are no "Greenhouse Gasses".
You have been hoaxed!
August 7, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rollo (anonymous) says...
zoomru;
Windmills are an old technology, if they were actually viable here, don't you think the coast would be littered with them?
They don't dot our landscape because they aren't reliable!
We are working (the company I work for)on re-building,/ replacing components of a windmill that was installed in the 1930s for the purpose of pumping replenishment water to a swimming pool. It was abandoned because the wind lacked reliability. The owner now wants to try it again, we'll do the work, but we can only promise our work will be right. We cannot promise results based on the whims of the wind.
August 7, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rollo (anonymous) says...
RW,
Someting you must learn about libs. They are evolved beyond our comprehension. They have access to enlightened thinking beyond any form of thinking we can hope to understand. Speaker Pelosi is only trying to save the planet!! LOL!
August 8, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- UPDATE: Missing woman's fiance seen leaving scene of burned SUV, carrying a shovel
- Magnolia Gardens offering free dream wedding to contest winner
- Body of missing woman's fiance was found near handgun
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Pinterest: Pinning hopes and dreams
- Ex-Boeing worker claims racism, retaliation in firing
- Black women today: Strong. Resilient. Ambitious.
- MCDERMOTT COLUMN: Golf business has risks, rewards
