The increase is entirely
on the upstream emissions side.
Not exact matches
As well as its decision
on upstream oil and gas, the World Bank Group said
on Tuesday that it would, among other things, report the greenhouse gas
emissions arising from investment projects it finances in «key
emissions - producing sectors» from 2018.
Probably the most discussed aspect of the NGP Report (see this excellent discussion
on CBC's The 180 beginning at around the seven minute mark) is the JRP's treatment (or lack thereof) of «
upstream» greenhouse gas
emissions (GHGs), and specifically the apparent asymmetry between the JRP's decision to consider the need to open markets for projected increases in oil production — the vast majority of which would uncontrovertibly be from the oil sands — but not the GHGs associated with this projected growth.
The move came after Canada's National Energy Board announced a broader review of the Energy East project, including its impact
on upstream and downstream greenhouse gas
emissions.
Whether its Energy East, Gateway, the energy innovation cluster or the NEB's positioning
on upstream and downstream
emissions during pipeline hearings - what we see from Alberta is a federal government not as a builder, but a blocker.
It's sad that the biggest takeaway from the UT Austin / Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) study
on methane
emissions from
upstream shale gas production has been the involvement of industry.
Electric cars»
upstream carbon dioxide
emissions are also calculated using DOE data
on the electricity source for each state.
We then consider adding a simple carbon tax
on biofuels» and biomass» combustion
emissions, regardless of
upstream sequestration or
emissions.
This would exclude credit for carbon sequestered during plant growth while also excluding taxes
on upstream production - related
emissions.
Although the burning of fossil fuels generates most of the potential
emissions from most reserves,
emissions from production and processing operations (known as «
upstream emissions») can also be important, depending
on the reserve type and technologies used.
Posted in Carbon, Climatic Changes in Himalayas, Development and Climate Change, Green House Gas
Emissions, News Comments Off
on The Himalayas:
Upstream but Downwind
... And 11 % in Full Lifecycle Analysis But that's just
upstream emissions:
On a full lifecycle basis, the report concludes, «
emission reduction potential is likely in the 7 - 11 % range.»
Given that, if one wants freedom of choice and an efficient market, shouldn't one accept a market solution (tax / credit or analogous system based
on public costs, applied strategically to minimize paperwork (don't tax residential utility bills — apply
upstream instead), applied approximately fairly to both be fair and encourage an efficient market response (don't ignore any significant category, put all sources of the same
emission on equal footing; if cap / trade, allow some exchange between CO2 and CH4, etc, based CO2 (eq); include ocean acidification, etc.), allowing some approximation to that standard so as to not get very high costs in dealing with small details and also to address the biggest, most - well understood effects and sources first (put off dealing with the costs and benifits of sulphate aerosols, etc, until later if necessary — but get at high - latitude black carbon right away)?
Total
emissions includes
upstream emissions for gasoline, so I based the tailpipe
emission for the US average
on the total
emission and the 1.25 ratio given here.
This working paper focuses primarily
on evaluating and reducing
upstream methane
emissions in the natural gas sector.
Federal rules building
on existing Clean Air Act (CAA) authorities could provide an appropriate framework for reducing
upstream methane
emissions.