Jackson Free Press

Entergy Corp. says the Mississippi Gulf Coast will suffer $370 billion in losses to global warming if power companies do not offset the amount of carbon they are putting into the environment.

Jeff Williams, director of Entergy's Climate Consulting division, released an Oct. 21 PowerPoint acknowledging that global warming is a reality and that the power industry must act immediately to counter it.

"It's not a question of if man's activity will warm the planet. Ninety eight percent of scientists agree that it is. The question is how much impact we're talking about and when it will happen," Williams told the Jackson Free Press Friday.

The company warned that the planet may be "approaching tipping points of no return" regarding sea-level rise, more intense storms and massive worldwide food and water shortages as a result of global warming.

Entergy said the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has been rising steadily since 2006. The company reports that in 2010, the planet reached almost 390 parts per million of CO2 emissions. (One part per million CO2 equals 2.1 billion tons of CO2 above what the earth's carbon sinks--areas that absorb carbon in the land and ocean--can remove.) In 2006, the global CO2 amount was 380 parts per million, so the company estimates the planet is adding an extra 2 parts per million every year. A peak of 480 parts per million would produce a 70 percent to 85 percent chance of global temperatures increasing up to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

That temperature change could prove problematic for the Mississippi Gulf Coast and other areas of the world: Entergy reports that a rise of 2 degrees Celsius increases the probability of melting the Greenland ice sheet and adding 20 feet to the planet's sea level. Coastal areas, it adds, are already experiencing hazards related to climate and a rise in sea level, which the company said puts at risk its customer base and billions of dollars of investment in the Gulf Coast area.

"We commissioned a ($4 million) study of the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas. ... We mapped it out, and did ... modeling on hurricane tracks, and calculated what the hazards would be from more intense storms and sea-level rising," Williams said.

The company compared potential losses under three climate-change scenarios and determined that its customer base is looking at a cumulative estimated loss of $370 billion from 2010 to 2030 as climate change takes hold.

"It's tough to get your head around that large a number," Williams said. "You could rebuild all the buildings in the city of New Orleans six times over for $370 billion."

This is not the first time the company has sounded the alarm. Entergy Corp. and its affiliates Entergy Mississippi Inc. and Entergy Louisiana Inc., among others, are members of the Edison Electric Institute--an association of shareholder-owned electric companies serving 70 percent of the U.S. power industry.

Last year, EEI worked with House Democrats Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and others on a legislative proposal to reduce climate change. The proposal included cap-and-trade legislation, which puts limits on the carbon a power company can dump into the atmosphere. To avoid reaching that cap, a carbon-emitting company can purchase carbon permits from another power-producing company that has earned substantial permits by investing in renewable, carbon-light energy production, such as solar or nuclear technology.

However, the bill drew animosity from coal-based power generators, who managed to derail the legislation despite their small number. Companies challenging the climate bill comprise about 6 percent of shareholder-owned power companies and only serve about 4 percent of the country's electricity users, but they found a friend in the Republican Party, which refuses to support the climate bill or any effort to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

The New York Times reported in October that "large-scale efforts to pass a broad U.S. climate policy are off the table for at least a couple of years," when Republicans erode Democratic control of the House and Senate.

But power companies like Entergy say they want to see some effort in Washington so they can know to what extent they can invest in renewable power production. Specifically, the company wants to be able to sell carbon-neutral tax credits to other power companies to fund its expensive transition to nuclear and renewable power generation and steer the cost of investment away from Entergy rate-payers.

"What we need is certainty," Williams said. "We're investing in long-term, (carbon-reducing) assets, and it would be helpful to know what regulatory regime will be in place. We're an advocate of putting a price on carbon and allowing the market to pick the most efficient path forward. In advance of knowing if there's going to be a price on carbon, we would be at risk of investing in technology, only to find that the policy wasn't there (to support it) later."

Industry critics say they worry if power companies are pushing the climate-change debate to contain the costs of dicey investments in "clean coal" or nuclear technology. Mississippi Power Company recently received approval from the Mississippi Public Service Commission to charge ratepayers for the construction of a $2.8 billion Kemper County coal-burning plant designed to capture roughly half its carbon dioxide. Environmental groups like the Mississippi Sierra Club oppose the plant, saying it is an untested and overly expensive alternative to cheaper solar technology, and has filed an injunction against its construction in Harrison County Chancery Court.

Mississippi Sierra Club Executive Director Louie Miller also opposes expansions in nuclear technology. "I'll stand with nuclear the day they can tell me where they'll keep all the radioactive waste, which stays toxic for thousands of years," Miller said.

Entergy used Electric Power Research Institute figures to show how nuclear power and carbon-capture coal plants like the Kemper County plant could remove 500 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere by 2030. But Williams said the company is open to a myriad of carbon-saving measures, including renewable energy investment like solar and wind energy, and efficiency investments on the consumer end if it meant stabilizing the Gulf Coast economy.

"We view this as a risk-management challenge--taking the worst potential outcome off the table as an insurance policy. One thing people don't understand is that not doing something is a kind of decision in itself, and it's the costliest decision we could make for the country," Williams said.

Previous Comments

ID

160676

Comment

But renowned climate scientist Haley Barbour calls global warming a "radical fringe issue" pushed by "eco-extremists." It's not like he's a semi-retired lobbyist for energy companies, right? Global warming could be much worse than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Newer projections put it at 5 degrees or more, which is about 9 degrees F. I don't think people appreciate how radically Mississippi would change if temperatures increased by that amount. If you think summers are hot now, watch out.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-11-03T12:40:13-06:00

ID

160684

Comment

I find it hard to believe that Entergy is interested in halting climate change. They are looking for money.

Author

Dave Coleman

Date

2010-11-03T15:25:57-06:00

ID

160692

Comment

I'm glad to hear Entergy promoting a clearer understanding of the reality of our warming climate. I track climate data in Mississippi. Even with the crazy cold February we had this year, the last five years in Mississippi have been about 1.5 degrees F warmer than the thirty year historical average of the years 1970-2000. The solutions promoted by Entergy are exactly what anyone should expect from a large energy corporation. They back high-tech, concentrated power solutions with huge government subsidies. The solutions that make the most sense for all of us are quite different. Greatly increased energy efficiency is at the top of the list, followed by renewable, non-polluting, distributed power solutions like passive solar, solar photovoltaics, wind generation, small scale hydro power, and some bio fuels.

Author

luke

Date

2010-11-03T19:07:43-06:00

ID

160696

Comment

Great article, Adam Lynch! I don't understand why this is so hard for so many to understand, especially when the evidence is up front and in your face. It is not by accident that there is so much happening with climate change and something so simple as the bear's comfort zones for hibernation being thretened. Businesses on the Gulf were very hard hit with BP's oil spill. It was devastating for the economy and for the poor occupants of the waters (shrimp, lobster, birds, etc.): This was a situation that over time could be corrected. Once the earth heats to the point that our water supply is severely effected, the party is over! Let's get serious about our world and for starters, at least acknowledge the reality of GLOBAL WARMING!

Author

justjess

Date

2010-11-04T09:00:02-06:00

ID

160704

Comment

I find that anything Entergy would do has an underlying ulterior motive. Perhaps they are angling for another reactor which would require a nice rate hike? Remember, Entergy has been less than forthcoming with the PSC. What is also ironic is that the UN data on Global Warming has been proven a hoax. They even admitting to destroying the data so it couldn't be double-checked. Plus, the GW advocates really jumped on the Katrina season as the foreboding of how it will be yet we have had rather calm hurricane seasons since. Everything is cyclical. Weather, the economy, politics, and our lives. Arch an eyebrow when an energy company says anything.

Author

Mr Fat Back

Date

2010-11-04T10:33:49-06:00

ID

160710

Comment

Fat Back, that is an egregious lie. The IPCC has not been proven a hoax, and it has not retracted its findings. They did not admit to destroying the data so it could not be double-checked. Global warming advocates do not claim that we will see Katrina events every year. Produce a source for your outrageous claim about the UN or retract it at once.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-11-04T12:40:02-06:00

ID

160716

Comment

Lest anyone take Fat Back's nonsense seriously, note this study on consensus among climate scientists. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change. Note that every official investigation into the so-called "climategate" controversy has cleared the researchers of scientific misconduct. An American scientist accused of manipulating research findings on climate science was cleared of that charge by his university on Thursday, the latest in a string of reports to find little substance in the allegations known as Climategate. Finally, the IPCC has embraced an independent review of its procedures in light of the Himalayan glacier goof, which was caught by a climate scientist who supports the scientific consensus on global warming. That review has called for some reforms to how IPCC is managed, but it did not even address the scientific consensus. If the UN has admitted to falsifying data, please explain this statement from the director of the IPCC. In responding to the panel's findings Monday, Dr. Pachauri defended the science itself, noting that seven investigations have been conducted into allegations of data fudging or other alleged scientific abuses stemming from the leaked emails. The investigations all concluded the science itself is sound.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-11-04T13:29:41-06:00

ID

160717

Comment

You claim, Brian, is an egregious lie. The IPCC admitted that in a year ago in November ..... "The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times. The article opined, "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud." The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)." http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud GW is unproven and serves as a tool for population subjugation through draconian laws required "fix" the climate.

Author

Mr Fat Back

Date

2010-11-04T13:32:00-06:00

ID

160723

Comment

Fat Back, you are quoting a publication of the John Birch Society! To say the least, it is not a credible source on climate science. More to the point, nothing in your quote even comes close to backing up your claim. You claimed that the IPCC admitted to destroying data, which is not supported even by your John Birch publication. If your only evidence that the IPCC has been proven a hoax is New American Magazine, you are wasting everyone's time. As for climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, he is a climate skeptic bankrolled by the energy industry. Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are, but leaked documents have revealed that several were power utilities which operate coal power stations. On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. He has also been a frequent speaker with leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups. Check your sources before you pollute the public square with this nonsense. Provide a source that actually backs up the claims you made above. If the IPCC "admitted" that it falsified data, it should be easy to find a quote from the IPCC that substantiates that claim. Obviously, it would make the news. But you can't find such a quote because it never happened. You should retract the false claims you have made immediately.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-11-04T14:27:44-06:00

ID

160726

Comment

Those who are in denial about climate change are the monied interest. You can debate whether it's happening as rapidly, but there is no denying that it's happening.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2010-11-04T15:33:34-06:00