Page 6 disapproves.

8/17/2009 6:10:11 AM

Quote :

"Editorial: Global-warming welfare is on its way State scheme will redistribute greenhouse-gas fees to 'disadvantaged' communities. Anticipating hundreds of millions of dollars a year in greenhouse gas fees collected from California businesses, the Legislature is planning to redistribute much of the bounty to the state's "most impacted and disadvantaged communities." Perhaps a bill pending in the state Senate reveals the motive of feel-good legislative efforts to fight global warming: a massive redistribution of wealth. Assembly Bill 1405 calls for 30 percent of new fees raised under global warming regulations yet to be drafted to go to a Community Benefits Fund to be used in specially selected communities, based on specific criteria also yet to be drafted. A Senate analysis says anticipated new rules by the state Air Resources Board allow revenue from fees imposed on greenhouse gas emitters to pay for the board's administrative costs, but not for "climate-change-related mitigation activities." AB 1405, authored by assembly members Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, and V. Manuel Perez, D-Indio, would amend the so-called Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 to require 30 percent of money raised by fees under consideration by the Air Resources Board to be "used solely in the most impacted and disadvantaged communities. . ." The 2006 law provides broadly that "revenues collected pursuant to this section, shall be deposited into the Air Pollution Control Fund and are available upon appropriation, by the Legislature, for purposes of carrying out this division...""

But of course that's not what the Federal Gov't would want to do, never!

/sarcasm

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fees-air-global-2547482-board-state

9/4/2009 2:07:37 PM

Walmart shoppers and welfare queens are struggling so hard good thing are cap n trade dollars will be further aiding their plight of laziness, alcoholism, stupidness, and lower evolutionary behavior.

[Edited on September 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM. Reason : a]

9/4/2009 2:26:14 PM

Quote :

"Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year (AP)The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year. A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation." The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday. These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats' cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June -- the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to "no" -- and it faces significant opposition in the Senate. One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year." One difference is that while Heritage's numbers are talking about 26 years in the future, the Treasury Department's figures don't have a time limit. "Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately," says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. "It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors." "They're not telling you the cost -- they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation." The FOIA'd document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: "Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.) Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year. One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line. The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption. You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this."

And it continues...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

9/16/2009 11:30:01 AM

Looks like the EPA can't resist oversteeping their bounds and the constitution as well.

Quote :

"The 'Absurd Results' Doctrine Turning the carbon screws on businesses so they lobby Congress for cap and trade. 'In recent years, many Americans have had cause to wonder whether decisions made at EPA were guided by science and the law, or whether those principles had been trumped by politics," declared Lisa Jackson in San Francisco last week. The Environmental Protection Agency chief can't stop kicking the Bush Administration, but the irony is that the Obama EPA is far more "political" than the Bush team ever was. How else to explain the coordinated release on Wednesday of the EPA's new rules that make carbon a dangerous pollutant and John Kerry's cap-and-trade bill? Ms. Jackson is issuing a political ultimatum to business, as well as to Midwestern and rural Democrats: Support the Kerry-Obama climate tax agenda—or we'll punish your utilities and consumers without your vote. The EPA has now formally made an "endangerment finding" on CO2, which will impose the command-and-control regulations of the Clean Air Act across the entire economy. Because this law was never written to apply to carbon, the costs will far exceed those of a straight carbon tax or even cap and trade—though judging by the bills Democrats are stitching together, perhaps not by much. In any case, the point of this reckless "endangerment" is to force industry and politicians wary of raising taxes to concede, lest companies have to endure even worse economic and bureaucratic destruction from the EPA. Ms. Jackson made a show of saying her new rules would only apply to some 10,000 facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year, as if that were a concession. These are the businesses—utilities, refineries, heavy manufacturers and so forth—that have the most to lose and are therefore most sensitive to political coercion. The idea is to get Exelon and other utilities to lobby Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill that gives them compensating emissions allowances that they can sell to offset the cost of the new regulations. White House green czar Carol Browner was explicit on the coercion point last week, telling a forum hosted by the Atlantic Monthly that the EPA move would "obviously encourage the business community to raise their voices in Congress." In Sicily and parts of New Jersey, they call that an offer you can't refuse. Yet one not-so-minor legal problem is that the Clean Air Act's statutory language states unequivocally that the EPA must regulate any "major source" that emits more than 250 tons of a pollutant annually, not 25,000. The EPA's Ms. Jackson made up the higher number out of whole cloth because the lower legal threshold—which was intended to cover traditional pollutants, not ubiquitous carbon—would sweep up farms, restaurants, hospitals, schools, churches and other businesses. Sources that would be required to install pricey "best available control technology" would increase to 41,000 per year, up from 300 today, while those subject to the EPA's construction permitting would jump to 6.1 million from 14,000. That's not our calculation. It comes from the EPA itself, which also calls it "an unprecedented increase" that would harm "an extraordinarily large number of sources." The agency goes on to predict years of delay and bureaucratic backlog that "would impede economic growth by precluding any type of source—whether it emits GHGs or not—from constructing or modifying for years after its business plan contemplates." We pointed this out earlier this year, only to have Ms. Jackson and the anticarbon lobby deny it. Usually it takes an act of Congress to change an act of Congress, but Team Obama isn't about to let democratic—or even Democratic—consent interfere with its carbon extortion racket. To avoid the political firestorm of regulating the neighborhood coffee shop, the EPA is justifying its invented rule on the basis of what it calls the "absurd results" doctrine. That's not a bad moniker for this whole exercise. The EPA admits that it is "departing from the literal application of statutory provisions." But it says the courts will accept its revision because literal application will produce results that are "so illogical or contrary to sensible policy as to be beyond anything that Congress could reasonably have intended." Well, well. Shouldn't the same "absurd results" theory pertain to shoehorning carbon into rules that were written in the 1970s and whose primary drafter—Michigan Democrat John Dingell—says were never intended to apply? Just asking. Either way, this will be a feeble legal excuse when the greens sue to claim that the EPA's limits are inadequate, in order to punish whatever carbon-heavy business they're campaigning against that week. Obviously President Obama is hellbent on punishing carbon use—no matter how costly or illogical. And of course, there's no politics involved, none at all."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574447090218534138.html

10/5/2009 11:57:24 AM

Leading Climate Scientist: Cap and Trade Could Ruin US Economy
Thursday, October 29, 2009

Quote :

"BILLINGS- As debate over climate change legislation heats up on Capitol Hill, the Director of the University of Montana's Climate Change Studies Program, and a co-author of a Nobel Prize winning report, says cap and trade legislation could ruin the US economy. During a Wednesday morning interview with statewide radio talk show host Aaron Flint on 'Voices of Montana,' Dr. Steve Running said any climate change solution needs to involve all nations. 'We have to have all the major nations in agreement on future progress,' said Running. Running is a co-author of the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and founder of the Climate Change Studies program at the University of Montana. He added, 'If the US passed a cap and trade and other countries did not, it wouldn't work. It would ruin the US economy and it wouldn't save the climate either. So this is a global issue, the global climate statistics are global in nature, global carbon emissions are global in nature, and we really have to have an international consensus of what to do. That is going to stretch our international diplomacy to its limit, there's no doubt about that.'"

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16314

10/30/2009 1:23:20 AM

Quote :

" Tim Flannery, the jet-setting doomsaying global warm-monger from down under, was in Ottawa the other day promoting his latest eco-tract, and offered a few thoughts on “Copenhagen”—which is transnational-speak for December’s UN Convention on Climate Change. “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery. “We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”"

Well at least they're not all lying anymore about their true intentions...

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/gullible-eager-beaver-planet-savers/

[Edited on October 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM. Reason : k]

10/30/2009 1:30:02 PM

I'm no fan of Andrew Revkin, but with articles like these you really have to wonder who's best interest is at stake.

Quote :

"E.P.A. Lawyers Challenge ‘Cap and Trade’ for Climate By Andrew C. Revkin When an economist at the Environmental Protection Agency rejected the Obama administration’s stance on global warming by writing an unsolicited report challenging the scientific consensus on greenhouse dangers, groups fighting restrictions on greenhouse gases hailed him as a courageous maverick. Climate campaigners said he was irrelevant and ill informed. Now two more functionaries at the agency — Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, who are lawyers and a married couple — have sharply criticized the core element of climate legislation pushed by Democratic lawmakers and President Obama. Their views are unlikely to be welcomed by either side in the political fight. Like the administration, they say that human-driven climate change poses enormous risks; they just completely reject the cap and trade system favored by Democratic leaders and some environmental groups. This system would force overall emission reductions but allow flexibility through a market that trades credits accrued by companies or institutions that make extra-deep cuts. Mr. Zabel and Ms. Williams made the argument last year in an open letter to Congress and recently on YouTube (above), but an Op-Ed article, published over the weekend in The Washington Post, provides the most visibility so far. [UPDATE 8:00 p.m.: David Roberts at Grist.org posted his views on why the bill is bound to get weaker still.] They argued that the trading system provides far too much leeway for dealing in “offsets,” credits earned by avoiding or preventing emissions of carbon dioxide. In summary, they wrote: “Together, the illusion of greenhouse-gas reductions and the creation of powerful lobbies seeking to protect newly created profits in permits and offsets would lock in climate degradation for a decade or more.” They seek a transparent system of fees and rebates to provide the impetus for the country to shift energy habits in ways that curb emissions. This is in sync with the “tax and dividend” proposal of Peter Barnes and similar calls for a tax and rebate by James E. Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who lately has become an impassioned proponent of speedy cuts in emissions. I sent their article to Jake Schmidt and David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of whom said the legislation under consideration by the Senate dealt with potential loopholes they described (including credit systems for forests and some refrigerants). I also sent it to Dr. Hansen, who offered this endorsement of the couple’s proposal: Williams and Zabel have the experience and knowledge to explain why the acid rain “proof” that cap-and-trade works is absolute nonsense. Indeed, it was a “cap” and a “floor” — emission reductions were held to 50% even though the economic national benefit of additional reductions exceeded the cost by a factor of 25. Worse than that, in related “horse trading” that the industry insisted on before it would allow the regulations to happen, they managed to grandfather old coal plants — so today we are still stuck with emissions from old coal plants — most of the electricity form coal is from plants that were built before 1970, indeed, most built before 1950, I believe…. I hope that Williams and Zabel give decision makers pause. This is no time to be rushing into costly ineffectual legislation. It is time to call a halt on any legislation this year, and take time to understand the matter. It would take 20 years to fix the mess that Congress, with the help of special interests, seems intent on creating. Read what they had to say and offer your thoughts about the climate bill and their alternative. "

I found it humorous that Hansen complained about most plants being built before 1970 or even 1950. It's the environmentalists fault that we don't have newer plants! Having their cake and eating it too, you've got to love that!

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/epa-lawyers-challenge-cap-and-trade-for-climate/

11/3/2009 12:08:57 PM

for the record, I don't think that article has Hansen complaining about that.

11/3/2009 7:27:40 PM

Well he's not really complaining, but is pointing it out in a negative light.

11/3/2009 9:52:19 PM

fuck. reading is fundamental

[Edited on November 3, 2009 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2009 10:14:07 PM

Quote :

"Don't buy those carbon credits just yet By: David Freddoso Democrats' cap-and-trade climate change bill contains a provision that could suddenly render useless the carbon credits it creates, says Sen. David Vitter, R-La. Vitter will speak at a press conference later today on how the bill establishes emergency conditions requiring the president to step in and use all of his authority over relevant agencies to stop global warming. According to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which performs climate modeling analyses for the Department of Energy, the emergency conditions laid out in the bill would be triggered within months of its enactment. The cap-and-trade bill -- both the Senate version that passed the Environment and Public Works committee and the version that already passed the House -- effectively declares a climate emergency if world greenhouse gas levels climb above 450 parts per million. (The number appears to have been chosen arbitrarily.) According to the Pacific Northwest National lab, which wrote in response to Vitter's inquiries, the world's air will hit that level of greenhouse gases next year, in 2010, if undeveloped nations do not accept carbon limits. The result is a a scenario in which the law not only permits but in fact requires the president to “direct all Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions...to address shortfalls" in emissions cutbacks. The bill's language places an unusually broad mandate upon the president to act in the event of this "emergency" situation." In a letter to Vitter, EPA administration Lisa Jackson wrote that she does not know what her agency would do. “It is premature to describe exactly what additional actions EPA may take until such an analysis is conducted," she wrote. But declaration of this "climate emergency" could result in federal agencies denying all discretionary permits for carbon-emitting industries, and EPA itself could impose non-attainment status upon the entire United States. "In that context, the carbon credits won't matter," Vitter told me yesterday. If a future president tries to go easy on industry, environmental groups are sure to litigate based on the clear language in the law, forcing his hand. "This provision was not focused on to any significant extent during the House debate," said Vitter. The climate change bill passed the House this summer, hours after hundreds of pages of amendments were added to it. Vitter said he plans to write industry leaders who are supporting the climate bill to ask whether they understand what the bill's language would do"

So the gov't is trying to set up a multi-billion dollar carbon trading market with this bill, but when CO2 atmospheric concentration exceeds 450ppmv they'd just disregard it under the provision in this bill. Sounds great for business.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dont-buy-those-carbon-credits-just-yet-69645032.html

11/11/2009 9:55:08 AM

Quote :

"California Cap-and-Trade Revolt A ballot measure would suspend the law until joblessness falls. Could Californians finally be serious about turning around their sputtering economy? One hopeful sign is a ballot initiative that would repeal the Golden State's version of a cap-and-trade carbon tax. This feel-good law to reduce the state's carbon footprint was enacted with great hoopla by the Democratic legislature and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006 when the state's economy was growing and the jobless rate was 5%. The law requires that starting in 2012 the state must ratchet down its carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The politicians and green lobbies told voters this energy tax would create jobs—the same fairy tale many in Washington are repeating today. Now the jobless rate is 12.3%, 2.25 million Californians are unemployed, and the state government is broke. So Republican Assemblyman Dan Logue has begun collecting signatures for "The Global Warming Solutions Act," a ballot initiative that would suspend California's cap-and-trade scheme until the unemployment rate falls below 5.5%. He's aiming to get it on the November ballot."

Gee, I wonder why they're going to try and repeal this. Oh yeah, b/c its expensive and destroys jobs...how could I forget?

Whole article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638153342723572.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

1/11/2010 1:02:06 PM