QA. Which emissions are covered in most of the U.S. legislative proposals? Are their only certain industries covered? QB. Or all users (say of electricity, or gasoline)?

AA. All of the proposals for federal climate change legislation now being considered would cover all six of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). AB. Several of the proposals (e.g., Kerry-Snowe, Waxman) do not specify what facilities or industries would be covered and instead leave the determination to the Environmental Protection Agency in a rulemaking process. The EPA would promulgate rules within two years of enactment applying the most cost-effective reduction options on sources or sectors to achieve reduction goals. The Liberman-McCain bill does state specific areas of coverage: any electric power, industrial, or commercial entity that emits over 10,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent annually from any single facility owned by the entity; any refiner or importer of petroleum products for transportation use that, when combusted, will emit over 10,000 metric tons annually; and any importer or producer of HFCs, PFCs, or SF6 that, when used, will emit over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Back to Top

Q. Do you see cruise lines as being in the transportation or travel/ leisure sector?

A. Cruise lines have already been targeted.  A new contract with Princess Cruise Lines was signed with Seattle City Light in 2005 (Seattle’s electric utility) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by switching two ships from diesel to land-based electricity during their stay in Seattle.  This took a conversion on the ships to allow for land power when in port.  Further, there are many measures that could be taken on a ship while underway.  Please contact Vista Energy for additional details.

Back to Top

Q. How can a company continue to expand while being seen as reducing its carbon footprint?

A. It is important that businesses have the opportunity to grow.  The answer is in “intensity-based” measures.  If GHGs are measured and divided by the amount of unit production as a business grows, the question is whether that intensity measure is decreasing.  If so then expansion is warranted and considered be beneficial since it would displace less GHG effective manufacturing methods.

Back to Top

Q. How do you see this applying to multinational cruise lines (ship operators)?

A. See answer above.

Back to Top

Q. How is the US approach being aligned with those in other regions (eg, EU)?

A. As we have be told in testimony before the Florida Energy Commission, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative(RGGI)is negotiating with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to allow for trading of allowances and credits established in the US in the Kyoto-based ETS. There are however many issues that still need to be resolved between the US and the international community. Most recently, the US rejected the European Union's broad target on reducing carbon emissions. The US indicated its preference to focus goals on specific sectors, such as cleaner coal and reduced gas consumption.

Back to Top

Q. There seem to be a number of problems with using ethanol as a motor fuel. Is biobutanol a viable alternative? I saw an article it is being tested in the U.K. made from sugar beets ( BP & DuPont partnership). Is this a better way to reduce CO2 output?

A. With any synthetic fuels it is the “energy balance” and the “net GHG emissions” that are important.  If it takes more energy to make the fuel than the fuel represents then the energy balance is negative.  The energy balance on some corn-based ethanol fuels is only about 11%.  Other synthetic fuels such as cellulousic ethanol are better.  The issue of GHG emissions is somewhat different.  To the extent that a synthetic fuel reduces GHG has to do with the extent to which jurassic carbon is released.  If a fuel were burned to produce GHGs, but that same amount of GHGs are absorbed in the process of growing new fuel stocks then it is “carbon neutral”.  Cellulousic ethanol is very high in this category approaching 90% less emissions than Jurassic-based fuels.

Back to Top

Q. Do you feel there will be a global standard procedure for GHG accounting? If not, how does a multinational company account GHGs in various parts of the world?

A. It is likely that the types of trading mechanisms being developed will eventually result in a global trading scheme. There are apparently enough similarities across the various trading schemes to confidently allow multinational companies to be proactive in managing GHGs. Even though there may be a need for refinement as a standard scheme is crafted, the risks seem to be less than if a company decides to take no action at all. It is safe to establish a baseline and join “the registry” in order to eventually trade the reductions that are established.

Back to Top

Q. Did I hear correctly that natural gas is a significant source of GHG's? It was always touted as a "clean" alternative...Please correct me if I heard incorrectly

A. As long as natural gas is properly burned- it produces fewer GHG emissions than coal or oil. One issue that has arisen with respect to natural gas is the fact that methane, the principle component of natural gas, is itself a very potent greenhouse gas. Methane has an ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. As a result, a natural gas leak can be extremely harmful in contributing to GHG emissions.

Back to Top