Eat Less Learn More: Cap-and-Trade legislation needs more thought

If you've walked past Johnston Hall, you've seen steam rising and heard noise coming from the "Power House."

I knew nothing more than its noise and presence until this semester. I took a tour of the facility  during on of my engineering classes and learned how prominent it is at LSU.

Not only does it supply roughly 17-18 megawatts on a summer day, but it heats the majority of buildings on campus with steam created by the exhaust from the turbine. The power is like 2,687 hits from Chad Jones in one second (watch the most recent Arkansas game for reference). It's impressive, but it also releases CO2.

Carbon dioxide emissions have increased worldwide since the industrialization of societies. Burning fuels emits carbon dioxide — no one can dispute that fact.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere catches the infrared waves of heat released from the earth, but it lets through the light from the sun, which heats the earth. Read physics and chemistry books for better understanding.

The immensity of these effects is debatable because of factors such as the enormity of the earth's atmosphere, our lack of ability to measure all of that gas accurately and insertions of political motives. But, if increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is bad, we should reduce its production.

I doubt many would argue damaging the earth is a terrific idea, but no one wants to pay an arm and a leg for — well, anything.

Cap-and-Trade is a concept I knew little about until a presentation in my engineering class, but I'll get to that.

There are two basic approaches to financially forcing down carbon emissions.

The first is our government can tax companies' carbon emissions and use those revenues to alleviate the increase of cost of energy for average consumers with tax cuts on income or payroll.

The second is to have companies bid on the rights to emit allocated amounts of CO2. The government would also use these revenues to decrease the trickled down cost to us the consumers.

Both strategies would reduce carbon emissions, but in the second, the credits could also be given to companies who can sell them at 100 percent profit.

Congress just passed the second strategy without restricting free credits — you have to love special interest groups, right?

How does that relate to the Power House?

LSU invested $20 million to build our facility, reducing the amount of energy we bought from Entergy. The next few numbers are approximated, but they still make a point.

If before the Power House, LSU produced 10,000 pounds of CO2 per hour by heating the campus and bought its power from Entergy, who produced 40,000 pounds of CO2 per hour generating that power, LSU was responsible for 50,000 pounds of CO2 per hour entering the atmosphere.

Let's say after the Power House was installed, LSU produced 20,000 pounds per hour and bought less power from Entergy who produced only 10,000 pounds per hour. LSU is now only responsible for 20,000 pounds, right?

Entergy wouldn't agree. It's  producing a fourth of previous CO2 production. LSU doubled its production, and Entergy's losing business.

But LSU made the capital investment! Ambiguity is awesome.

Because there is lack of clarity in assigning credit for emissions reductions, it's very difficult to reward or penalize either party.

As far as Cap-and-Trade goes, LSU won't feel its effects unless we change something in the future. The policy is not retroactive, but if LSU waited just five years to get the Power House rolling, it would have changed a lot of decisions.

Slowing the planet's increase in temperature is a great idea that will help the future of humans, but the legislation enabling it needs to be more clearly thought out.

Matthew Lousteau is a 20-year-old mechanical engineering junior from LaPlace. Follow him on Twitter @ TDR_mlousteau.



----
Contact Matthew Lousteau at mlousteau@lsureveille.com