|
But while wind may be getting most of the
headlines nowadays, hydropower--energy generated
from water flowing through turbines in dams--is
still king of renewables. Globally, hydropower
generates 20 percent of the world’s
electricity. In Canada, which is the world’s
largest generator of hydropower, over 60
percent of the electricity produced comes
from the power of water. Norway gets almost
99 percent of its electricity from hydropower,
and New Zealand is close behind at 75 percent.
In the U.S. about 10 percent of all electricity--enough
to power 35 million homes every year--comes
from hydropower.
But although hydropower does not generate
pollution, per se, it has hurt salmon populations
on both U.S. coasts, and often ruins habitat
for wildlife and people alike. In China
and India, large controversial dam projects
have flooded huge areas of land and forced
the relocation of whole communities of people.
One of the world’s oldest fuel sources,
biomass--the burning of plant material for
energy--is enjoying a renaissance thanks
to plentiful supplies of agricultural, forest
and wood waste. Proponents of biomass--or
“bioenergy”--say it could be
harnessed as a clean alternative to coal
in power plants. Currently, biomass accounts
for 7,000 megawatts of U.S. energy generation,
which puts it on equal footing with wind
energy.
Solar powered “photovoltaic”
cells, while they presently account for
only about 1,500 megawatts of power annually
in the U.S., promise to play a larger role
in our energy future. Solar cells keep getting
smaller and less costly, are highly reliable,
and don't pollute. And fuel cells, which
run on hydrogen and emit water as the only
by-product, hold much promise not just for
powering cars (all the major carmakers are
developing practical hydrogen-fueled cars)
but for powering buildings and other “stationary”
structures as well.
Despite the promise of renewables, though,
the U.S. still generates more than 90 percent
of its energy from non-renewable and polluting
sources like coal and petroleum--and there
is talk of a nuclear “revival”
despite the potential dire consequences
of a nuclear accident or terrorist act.
Finding more efficient ways to harness solar
energy is a top priority for many environmentalists,
as the Earth receives more energy from the
sun in just one hour than the world uses
in a whole year.
CONTACTS:
American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org
National Hydropower Association, www.hydro.org
American Bioenergy Association, www.biomass.org
U.S. Department of Energy Renewable Fuels
Program, www.eia.doe.gov/fuelrenewable.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear EarthTalk:
Near tax filing day this year I heard some
economists on TV
discussing "green
taxes" that can benefit the environment.
Can
you enlighten me?
-
Wendy, Providence, RI
Just like taxing cigarettes helps to discourage
smoking, so-called “green taxes”
can work to discourage activities that damage
or pollute the environment. According to
Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility,
“Very simply, green taxes use the
tax code to adjust the prices of products
or activities. Through taxes, we can increase
the cost of activities or products that
damage the environment…and decrease
the cost of activities or products we want
to encourage for environmental reasons.”
Taxes on gasoline, for example, are “green
taxes” because they encourage conservation
of a limited and polluting resource. Since
businesses and consumers are price-conscious,
adjustments to taxes force people to think
about the choices they are making. Green
taxation, or “tax shifting,”
as it is known in economic jargon, may also
involve tax rebates, such as those given
to consumers who purchase clean-fuel vehicles.
In the 1990s Great Britain instituted a
fuel tax known as a “fuel duty escalator.”
It resulted in a significant drop in fuel
consumption and a large increase in fuel
efficiency, especially for diesel trucks.
Finland, The Netherlands and Sweden have
all instituted similar measures, mostly
trying to curb energy consumption.
In addition to trying to influence positive
behavior, green taxes also seek to make
the prices of goods reflect their “true
costs.” We buy a lot of disposable
products, for example, and quite inexpensively.
But local communities then have to deal
with the resultant waste, incurring costs
not reflected in the retail price paid for
the cups. A tax, then, could price them
more in line with their true costs, with
the revenues inuring to the municipalities
that have to pay to landfill, incinerate
or recycle them.
Another philosophy behind tax shifting is
to move away from taxing ordinary, everyday
“good” behavior (like earning
an income) while taxing less desirable behavior.
Germany, for example, implemented a tax
reform in 1999 that lowered income taxes
at the same time it raised energy taxes.
So far, the experiment has been successful,
says J. Andrew Hoerner, sustainable economy
program director at Redefining Progress,
a non-profit organization in the U.S. that
works on issues of sustainable economics.
“In 44 economic studies of environmental
tax reform in Europe,” he says, “we
basically concluded that the impact on the
Gross Domestic Product is positive, the
impact on employment is positive, and the
effect on emissions is to reduce them.”
While the scale of green tax shifting accounts
for only three percent of tax revenues worldwide,
the concept is gaining in popularity, especially
in light of rising fuel costs the world
over. In the U.S., according to Erich Pica,
director of economic campaigns at Friends
of the Earth, Vermont and California are
exploring tax shifting, and many states
offer a wide range of green tax rebates.
A comprehensive listing of various state
tax incentives rewarding those who buy renewable
energy, drive hybrid cars and increase energy
efficiency is available via the website
of the Database of State Incentives for
Renewable Energy.
|
