United States Energy Policies:
The Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program (SNAP) is an Environmental Protection Agency
undertaking to reduce United States Chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) emissions. This program gives the EPA the authority to compile
lists of ozone-depleting substances to be phased out of industrial practices
such as air conditioning and aerosols.
Furthermore, the EPA will publish lists of alternative chemicals that
can be used in place of the current environmentally harmful CFCs. This is important because mandating
industrial sectors to change their practices without providing actual solutions
to the issue could be harmful to US manufacturing capabilities.[i]
However, the Federal
Government does not see the need to always provide solutions to environmental
issues. The Better Buildings Challenge
relies on placing incentive in the hands of CEOs, state governments, and
University presidents. This is a good
strategy in my opinion because private sectors should be efficient at enacting
change in a capitalist economy. This was
a logical request from the federal administration because non-residential
buildings account for 50% of energy consumption in the United States.[ii]
Brazil has not yet
implemented a similar strategy for improving the energy efficiency of
commercial buildings. However, a
suggested course of action for developing these standards in Brazil is
addressed in section 3.3 of “Policies for Advancing Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Use in Brazil” (Howard Gellera et. al.). It appears that commercial building energy
code efforts in Western countries such as the United States are the inspiration
behind these considerations for Brazil.
According to the Journal Article, educating engineers to have an
efficiency mindset is crucial to the success of such a project. I agree with this sentiment, but also believe
a federal policy is necessary to prompt private sectors to invest resources in
these undertakings.
The Climate Plan
Adaptation Plans were developed to prepare the United States for the effects of
global warming in case policies to halt damage to the environment fail. This inter agency approach focuses on the most
vulnerable regions and infrastructure within the country. Some examples of these susceptible areas are coastal
highways, heat-wave susceptible cities in arid regions, and wildfire prone
forest regions. The plan aims not only
to retrofit existing structures to be more resilient, but to incorporate resilience
to natural disasters into new designs.[iii]
Developing alternative energy solutions is an absolute must for the United States. An inability to fuel our industries and military equipment is a threat to national security. On the other hand, the United States has several oil reserves that would be excellent for these situations. An example is the Bakken formation in the Dakotas and Montana.
Even if dependence on foreign oil is not a huge threat, it still serves as an excellent "excuse" to explore alternative energy options. Global warming may not be threat enough to the average person in society to make these technologies appear worth wile. The raw statistics are however undeniable; the United States exports 1/10 of the oil it imports.
From Wolfram Alpha
Brazilian Energy
Policies:
One Brazilian
alternative energy policy that I found particularly impressive is PRODEEM. Photovoltaic energy systems were purchased by
the Brazilian government and implemented in Northern Brazil at absolutely no
cost to end users. This seems far more
effective than subsidizing the technologies and hoping that this is incentive
enough to get private companies to adopt them.
I wonder if the roadblock to doing this in the United States is a
general dislike of the government taking tax payer’s dollars and distributing
them to specific organizations. PRODEEM
specifically benefits agricultural sectors, and industrial companies may be
adverse to the US government “playing favorites” with this type of funding. However, if the United States government
provided equal funding for alternatives to both industrial and agricultural
sectors, the movement would instantly have enormous support. In my opinion, it would likely not be
difficult for the government to convince the populous as a whole that this is a
sound investment for the country overall.[iv]
PROINFA (Incentive
Program for Alternative Sources of Energy) was designed to help Brazil
capitalize on energy potentially available from wind. Investing in this energy will also help
Brazil move away from its dependence on large scale hydroelectric power. This makes sense to me because putting all
the alternative energy eggs in one basket is a poor strategy. It would force Brazil to redirect streams and
displace river-side towns every time they wish to expand energy
capabilities. It is important for Brazil
to invest in other sources so that they can be optimized.[v]
A Brazilian
alternative energy program known as PROCEL can be compared to Energy-Star
appliance ratings implemented in the United States. The policy both rates appliances by
efficiency and mandates minimum efficiency standards. Awards are provided by the PROCEL
organization in order to further promote technology companies to invest in
energy efficiency.[vi]
Questions:
1.
What policies are in place for each country for fuel
sources (oil, natural gas, ethanol, biomass)? What
changes do they propose for fuel sources?
In the article describing United States
policies, the plan of action is to switch from oil to natural gas or
renewables. This idea comes from the
fact that natural gas is cleaner in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Action to implement biomass as a significant
energy resource is also underway. The
Department of Defense is planning on using biomass as part of its 3 gigawatt
alternatives target.
The Brazilian energy policy currently in
place is to expand domestic oil production.
However, this policy failed to produce sustainability, denoted by the
fact that petroleum imports are still increasing. There is a Brazilian policy
proposal under consideration that will lead to increased ethanol vehicle
sales.
2.
What policies are in place for renewable energy
sources? What changes in policies do
they propose for renewables?
The Obama
administration set a goal to implement 10 gigawatts of publicly available
energy from renewable resources in 2012.
This goal was accomplished and the new goal is to implement an
additional 10 gigawatts of energy by 2020.
Brazil already has
successfully implemented policies that provide 84% of the gross energy
consumption from renewable resources.
The Brazilian strategy focuses mostly on improving technologies
currently in place. This means
engineering the technologies to be more efficient. Also, Brazil plans to expand alternative energy
capabilities simply by building more facilities. Furthermore Brazil will diversify its
alternative energy sources so they become less dependent on large hydroelectric
power. This is because hydroelectric
power is susceptible to droughts.
3.
What do they say the current impact these policies
have on the environment, society and economy?
Moving to alternative
energies or towards natural gas will reduce CO2 emissions, thus
curbing global warming. Global warming
could lead to the natural disasters that absolutely devastate society. This in turn would lead to significant
economic investments to repair the damages.
Developing and building the energy facilities will provide jobs that
benefit society and the national economy.
4.
What do they suggest will be impacted or improved
with these new energy policies on the environment, society and economy?
No comments:
Post a Comment