Northeastern states participating in America’s first carbon cap and trade program have outperformed the rest of the country in GDP growth and reduction in global warming pollution.

That’s according to a new report from Environment New Jersey, which examined emissions data and economic growth indicators from 2000 to 2009.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a nine-state cap-and-trade market designed to reduce emissions in the utility sector 10% by 2018. A recent independent analysis showed that the program has already created $1.6 billion in economic value and set the stage for $1.1 billion in ratepayer savings through investments in efficiency and renewable energy.

This latest report shows that states under the RGGI program saw a 20% greater reduction in per-capita carbon emissions than non-RGGI states — all while growing per-capita GDP at double the rate of the rest of the country.

It is, however, very difficult to pinpoint the exact impact that RGGI had on these emissions reductions. While the program has been in the works since the early 2000′s, it was only implemented in 2008. The combination of increased penetrations of natural gas and the economic downturn likely had the biggest roles to play in the emissions dip.

But some officials in the region believe that RGGI did play a part. InsideClimate News reported on reactions to the news:

“It’s very clear that emissions have decreased in the Northeast. I think it’s largely because of low natural gas prices, plus the effects of RGGI on top of that,” said Bob Teetz, vice president of environmental services at National Grid USA, a Waltham, Mass.-based electric and gas company. The utility operates 4,000 megawatts of natural gas power plants in Long Island, N.Y.

“All of these efforts are bearing fruit,” Ken Kimmell, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, told InsideClimate News. “We very much expect that that progress will continue,” as the economy gains strength, he said.

While we can’t say exactly what role RGGI played in these drops, we can make many other observations with certainty: The program has helped stimulate more efficiency and renewable energy, it has helped local businesses grow, it has added enormous economic value to the region, and it has not driven up electric rates.

Let’s compare real-world experience to the outlandish claims made by opponents of the program.

The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity actually claimed that RGGI would drive rates up in New Jersey by 90%. And New Jersey Governor Chris Christie pulled his state out of the program, calling it a “gimmicky tax.” According to program administrators, proceeds from carbon credit auctions brought $29 million to New Jersey in 2010, leveraging $3 to $4 in benefits for every dollar invested.

Opponents who claim cap and trade is bad for the economy simply don’t have a leg to stand on.

Everyone’s looking for a solution to high gas prices. Well, here’s a novel concept: we could just use less fuel.

According to a new analysis from the Natural Resources Defense Council, increasing our average vehicle fleet efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon would save consumers $68 billion per year after 2030 when new mileage standards have been fully met.

By bumping up the fuel efficiency of our nation’s vehicles to that target, NRDC estimates that the amount of oil saved per day in 2030 would equal today’s combined imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The emissions reductions would also be substantial — cutting enough carbon dioxide to equal the shut-down of 76 coal-fired power plants.

Last July, the White House announced a plan to increase fuel efficiency from 21 mpg today to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The targets, which would spur new manufacturing activity in America’s auto sector, had strong support from labor unions and most major auto manufacturers. Over the life of the program, the cumulative savings would be more than a trillion and a half dollars, according to the Obama Administration.

To date, these fuel efficiency standards are one of the most credible policy solutions to addressing high gas prices.

The “drill baby drill” crowd falsely believes that more fossil fuel extraction is the answer. But as numerous analyses have pointed out, including one from the Associated Press, more domestic drilling simply does not correlate with lower prices at the pump.

Excessive speculation is also a key target for many lawmakers. While some economists say speculation in the oil markets has raised oil prices by 15% in the last decade, any short term efforts to crack down on the problem don’t really address the real issue: Investors believe that oil prices will continue to go up, largely because of booming global demand, finite supply, and continued conflict around the world.

Alternatives to petroleum like electric vehicles and advanced biofuels are extraordinarily important and will be a major piece of the solution. However, these two sectors are facing a number of financial, technical and consumer-demand challenges, making the extent of their role still uncertain.

Increasing fuel efficiency standards is a proven, tangible solution that can help us reduce petroleum use and help save consumers money. Although such targets may increase the cost of a vehicle by as much as $2,000, NRDC estimates that the savings in gas use would be as high as $6,400 — netting consumers roughly $4,400 over the lifetime of a vehicle.

And Americans say they’d make the investment. Last year, Consumer Reports issued a poll showing that 58% of Americans were willing to pay more up front for an increase in fuel efficiency. Around the same time last year, the Consumer Federation of America released a survey showing that three quarters of Americans supported an increase in fuel economy standards, with a 65% wanting aggressive targets of 60 mpg by 2025.

With manufacturers, labor unions, and consumers all throwing their support behind fuel efficiency, this should be a policy solution that our nation’s policymakers should be able to agree on.

The Lasting Impact Of Deepwater Horizon

by Kiley Kroh and Michael Conathan

Two years ago an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico took the lives of 11 men and spewed nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf. It took 9,700 vessels, 127 aircraft, 47,829 people, nearly 2 million gallons of toxic dispersants, and 89 days to stop the gush of oil. But the work to restore the ecosystem and Gulf economy has only just begun.

The regional oil and gas industry hasn’t skipped a beat despite claims from Big Oil and drilling advocates in Congress that the moratorium on deepwater drilling imposed in the wake of the spill devastated the Gulf economy. The New Orleans Times-Picayune found that oil-fueled economies in the Houma area are humming along just fine. And according to a recent Reuters analysis, Gulf drillers will be busier this year than at any point since the spill, adding eight new deepwater rigs and bringing the total count to 29, just shy of pre-spill levels.

But even though BP’s slick new ads show sparkling beaches and flourishing marshes, the perception that everything is fine in the Gulf is far from the truth. Last week Garret Graves, top coastal advisor to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, said the state “still has 200 miles of oiled coast,” including “very clear, retrievable oil in coastal areas,” and called the current conditions “unacceptable.”

While the Obama administration took steps to strengthen offshore drilling safety and oversight, much remains to be done. Tourism in the region has rebounded this year but the Gulf Coast is still struggling with the lingering effects of the spill and will likely continue to do so for decades to come. Here are five reasons the Gulf deserves renewed attention:

Read more

by Paul Douglas, via Bloomberg Businesweek

I’m a moderate Republican — a fan of small government, light regulation and market solutions. A serial entrepreneur, I founded companies that invented 3-D television weather graphics and the first app on a cell phone. I’m a Penn State meteorologist. My day-job since 1979: tracking weather for TV news.

If you know anything about American politics these days, and follow the climate war at all, you might anticipate with some confidence that I agree global warming is a hoax. That’s a shame, and I hope it changes soon.

In the 1980s I was skeptical that an upward blip in global temperatures was the result of manmade gases. Then the blips persisted. By the mid-90s I began to see them as unsettling changes. The weather was becoming erratic and even more unpredictable than usual. Storms were more frequent and intense. Curious, I began including climate statistics in daily TV weather segments, like annual trends in flash-flooding, hail, summer humidity, fewer subzero nights and decreased snowfall.

Mixing climate and weather was a problem in local TV news, with its reliance on Q-scores and market research. Finally, in 2008 I lost my job in local TV. I continued to write a daily column for the Star Tribune. Mixing climate news in with weather reports made me a lightning rod for skeptics there, too. The flame-mail was relentless. “Stop proselytizing, you crazy liberal – climb back under your rock!” wrote one reader. That’s one of the tamer, more family-friendly messages I’ve received.

I don’t take speaking out on this topic lightly. My father escaped a communist regime in East Germany, moved to the U.S. and became a Republican. He taught me to never take my freedom for granted. He taught me “actions have consequences.” That’s true of nations as it is of individuals. It is sheer lunacy to pretend that releasing 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year won’t come back to bite us.

Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get, the saying goes. Climate is the weather over a long period of time — 15 or 30 years. We’ve pushed the bell curve of ‘average weather’ in a new and more extreme direction. There are simply too many coincidences not to take this seriously.

Read more

by Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman

Beginning on Monday April 23, and continuing through May 1, the five biggest oil companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell – will release their first quarter profits for 2011.

Given record gasoline prices for this time of year, these profit figures are likely to be quite large.  How much money did they make from January through March, and how are they spending it?

In 2011, the Big Five made a combined record of $137 billion in profits.  These companies made $32 billion in the first quarter of last year alone, a 38 percent increase over the first quarter of 2010. High gasoline prices yield large profits: A CAP analysis found that every one cent in gasoline prices produces $200 million more in profits (on a quarterly basis).

In general, the oil industry spends 50 times more on oil exploration than on alternative energy investments. So how are the largest five oil companies spending their enormous profits? Five easy questions could give us some big answers:

Read more

Corn farmers concerned about the impact of climate change are speaking out, calling the problem “a grave threat” to the nation’s agricultural sector.

Responding to the increase in severe weather — and the prospects for a “quantum jump” in such devastating events — a group of corn farmers is renewing calls for policies to help cut global warming pollution.

The American Corn Growers Association is highlighting statements made by its former president, saying that farmers are “at the front lines of global warming”:

Bolin, who farms near Manlius, Illinois, and who served as president of American Corn Growers Association from 2004 – 2012, said he felt there was no doubt that the weather has become more extreme, with high rainfall and severe droughts more prevalent today. He expressed concern for the ability of farmers to deal with and adapt to the changing environment. Bolin urges public policy to further develop alternative renewable energy resources, along with efforts to educate and inform agricultural producers to prepare for and adapt to the changing environment, to ensure adequate food and energy production.

“There’s simply no substitute for good soil and a stable climate for growing crops,” Bolin said. “That puts farmers at the front lines of global warming — it’s a grave threat to rural livelihoods and quality of life. That’s why I support EPA policies to cut global warming pollution from automobiles and power plants.”

The ACGA has been a strong supporter of climate policies. In 2009, led by Bolin, the organization put its support behind the comprehensive climate bill that eventually failed in Congress.

As a new report from Environment Illinois shows, the impact of intensifying extreme weather on the agricultural sector is substantial. Record-breaking floods along the Missouri River caused more than $200 million in crop damages in Iowa last year; the recent warming-induced drought in Texas cost farmers in the state more than $7 billion; and a sudden shift from extremely wet conditions to extremely dry conditions in the Midwest reduced corn yields by a billion bushels in 2011.

Of course, the agricultural sector also plays a major role in climate change. Farming operations across the U.S. represented about 6.2% of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2011, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. And agriculture was responsible for about 29% of all methane emissions — a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Related Post:

• Climate Story of the Year: Warming-Driven Drought and Extreme Weather Emerge as Key Threat to Global Food Security

Our round-up of the latest news in climate and energy. Please post additional links below.

The acceleration of climate change is stressing mountain plants in Europe and driving them to migrate to higher altitudes, according to a study released by US researchers. [AFP]

California has had remarkable success in extending its national lead in clean technology, using it to help fuel the state’s economic rebound and drive its effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions, even as its population continues to grow. [LA Times]

Two years after a blowout on BP’s Macondo well killed 11 men and triggered the largest oil spill in U.S. history, oil companies are again plying the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. [Washington Post]

“Chill out – sometimes this stuff takes years.” That was Bill Clinton’s wry observation on Thursday as he addressed a sustainability conference in New York City, expressing frustration over how long it is taking for the country to move forward on clean energy and energy efficiency. [New York Times]

Forget about putting solar panels on the roof. Miles Barr wants to make curtains, cell-phone cases, and even shirtsleeves that generate electricity from the sun. [Businessweek]

Beginning with a magical shower of 3D snowflakes, Greg MacGillivray’s IMAX documentary “To the Arctic 3D” takes us to the frozen north — or, rather, the not-so-frozen north. [Seattle Times]

Mexico’s Senate on Thursday passed a climate change bill aimed at encouraging a voluntary carbon emissions trading market, clearing the way for President Felipe Calderon to sign it, as expected, into law. [Reuters]

China will support the building electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in the country, hoping to have 5 million green cars to appear on the roads of China by 2020. [Auto World News]

Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has stepped into the growing row over the coalition’s green policies to call for companies to pay much higher penalties for the carbon dioxide they emit. [Guardian]