Senate panel to kick off climate hearings on Tuesday 10

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Michael Wagner Posted 4:43 pm
   06 Jul 2009

   Cap-and-Trade makes no sense!!!Go Figure:You and your neighbor are polluting like mad...So...--you decide to invest $100,000 in pollution-control equipment...But your neighbor decides NOT to invest in such technology...So...--instead he's going to pay and pay and pay till his dying day, while you reap and reap and reap till your dying day (under the cap-and-trade provisions...)In fact, there's no way for the coal power plants that are currently on-line to reduce GreenHouse Gases...Meanwhile, the Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine simply uses PERMANENT MAGNETS to provide power equal to a SMALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!! At a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost!!!Plus the MagLev's low-center-of-gravity = perfect for offshore = areas surrounding the US = 24/7!!!Wind/Solar could make clean/cheap Hydrogen for "rainy days."Here consider how the Hydrogen Distribution problem for cars is NO PROBLEM for Power Plants and Jumbo Jets!!!

   Permalink

2. 

   F James Handley Posted 9:09 pm
   06 Jul 2009

   This hearing is to consider different “legislative tools” for addressing climate change.  But the witness list looks like cap-and-traders vs. climate change deniers.  Either way we lose.The public is justifiably wary of a carbon trading system that could crash financial markets and which hasn't been effective in the EU. Cap-and-trade tries to hide the price, which leads to huge exaggeration of its cost (by many Republicans) as well as its effectiveness (by many Democrats).Former Clinton advisor and political scientist Elaine Kamarck suggests it may be time for the Senate to go Back to Plan A: The Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax.  “If we can design a policy that is transparent and easy for people to understand, puts an effective price on carbon, and reimburses average Americans for all or nearly all of their increased energy costs, we have a chance to reverse climate change in a timely manner.” Direct carbon pricing options will be the subject of a briefing for Senators, staff, NGOs and reporters next Monday July 13 at 1 PM in rm 208-209 of Capitol Visitor's Center.  The Price Carbon Campaign, Carbon Tax Center, Climate Crisis Coalition, Friends of the Earth, the Friends (Quaker) Committee on National Legislation, WeAct for Environmental Justice, the Clean Campaign, and Progressive Democrats of America are hosting.  Lead NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen will speak along with Robert Shapiro economist and former undersecretary of Commerce, Cecil Corbin-Mark policy director of WeAct for Environmental Justice and Janet Milne, professor at Vermont Law School.

   Permalink

3. 

   Michael Wagner Posted 11:38 pm
   06 Jul 2009

   With a Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax corporate taxes are reduced at an equivalent rate.Imagine you and your neighbor are polluting like mad...So,,,--you spend $100,000 on pollution control equipment...But your neighbor DECLINES to do such--AND WHY THE HELL NOT??? It's not going to cost him a damn thing--any carbon tax he pays will be reduced from his corporate tax...So...--simply cap GHG emissions, and if "you" cannot afford the necessary pollution control equipment than the Govt. can provide a 0-interst loan.RIGHT!!! The sub-prime lenders decide to drastically hike up interest rates--pulling the rug right our from beneath people's feet--and driving themselves right out of business (or rather right into Big Brother's comforting arms), and so "you're" all like OH NO!--we can't hurt the economy. Like lets get it straight about what's important here...Read:+ Banks Gone Wild / Paul Krugman, NY Times:" In fact, according to Fortune, Merrill Lynch made it BIGGEST purchases of bad debt in the first half of this year--after the sub-prime crisis had already become public knowledge."Sheese--you lawyer-types are too much!!!Read:+ Why China Could Blame Its CO2 on West / Wall Street Journal:"If you have emission constraints, it's become very attractive to relocate dirty production to developing countries ... You import the finished goods and leave the pollution in China."+ China shifts pollution fight / Wall Street Journal:"A significant portion of China's air pollution can be traced to the production of goods that are exported. In the city of Shenzhen, a major industrial base in southern China, about 89% of emissions of sulfur dioxide, an air pollutant that causes acid rain, are released in the process of export manufacturing. ... The study also found 71% of particulate matter, the small particles that cause smog and respiratory problems, can be traced to the manufacture of exported goods."+ Invisible export--A Hidden Cost of China's Growth: Mercury Migration / Wall Street Journal:"Mercury and other pollutants from China's more than 2,000 coal-fired power plants soar high into the atmosphere and around the globe ... The US EPA recently reported that a third of the country's (USA) lakes and nearly a quarter of its rivers are now so polluted with mercury that children and women are advised to limit or avoid eating fish caught there ... Some scientists now say 30% or more of the mercury settling into US gouund soil and waterways comes from other countries--in particular, China."Yeah--what we need is a lawyer willing to risk his life suing the dirty bastrads for the mess they've made!!!NOT HOLD BIG INDUSTRY'S LITTLE HAND!!! 

   Permalink

4. 

   Billhook Posted 4:07 am
   07 Jul 2009

   Resorting to the Monbiot Fallacy - (that, because something might be done badly, its proper operation should not even be attempted) as a core critique of Cap & Trade, seems disingenuous. After all, just how many taxes intended to control "a bad" have ended up merely extending the problem's duration due to Govt. dependence on the tax revenue ? Tobacco ?? Alcohol ???As for the practicalities of getting a carbon tax into law, have a look at the last Canadian election, where a neocon prat retained power (and will thus attend Copenhagen) partly as a result of his opponent's rash proposal of a carbon tax . . . .We need, urgently, to unite around the effort to ensure the efficient operation of Cap & Trade as a fossil fuel suppression policy.The present divisions are the very best news the denialists could hope for. We need to end them.Regards,Billhook 

   Permalink

   1. 

      veritone Posted 12:55 pm
      07 Jul 2009

      I think you have pegged Monbiot incorrectly. He's not wild about Waxman-Markey but is on record saying he hopes it passes.

      Permalink

      1. 

         Billhook Posted 7:19 am
         08 Jul 2009

         Veritone -the concept of a "Monbiot Fallacy" arose from his incoherent, prejudiced critique of the potential of Biochar as a means of carbon sequestration while also raising agricultural yields and providing decentralized fuel supplies and justifying investment in native reforestation.It could of course be done badly, or, given proper supervision for accreditation, very well indeed.Sorry that my use of "Monbiot Fallacy" appeared to refer to his attitude to the Aces bill.Regards,Billhook

         Permalink

5. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 9:34 am
   07 Jul 2009

   Hear Ye!  Hear Ye!Turks clean our clocks with super efficient Hydrogen Car !!! Turkish students create fuel-efficient pride of Turkeyhttp://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=179791&bolum=101SAHİMO was voted the third-most fuel efficient
   vehicle in Europe in the 26th Shell Eco Marathon in 2008. Achieving a
   distance of 568 kilometers on just one liter of hydrogen, SAHİMO would
   theoretically be able to travel from Turkey's eastern region of Iğdır
   to Edirne in the west -- a distance of around 1,744 kilometers -- on
   just three liters of hydrogen file:///C:/DOCUME~1/jabailo/LOCALS~1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg

   Permalink

6. 

   Michael Wagner Posted 5:55 pm
   07 Jul 2009

   <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]> <style>
   st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
   </style>

   Permalink

7. 

   F James Handley Posted 10:03 pm
   07 Jul 2009

   Billhook,Waxman-Markey is a step backward for many reasons.  Perhaps the most glaring: a $2 trillion market in carbon-based securities (with accompanying unregulated derivatives) would do little or nothing to reduce emissions and might crash the financial markets again, putting climate way on the back burner.  With unemployment soon to be in the double digits because of financial gimmicks, are we really willing to entrust not only our financial system, but our climate system to Wall Street?  That's not a partisan argument, that's common sense.And Waxman-Markey would repeal or phase out a whole range of existing authority by EPA and states that is at least a backstop.  If we have to wait another year or two to get the policy right, that's far better than trying to wrest this Rube Goldberg contraption from the grasp of traders, coal interests and the purveyors of bogus offsets.   Fortunately, the Senate doesn't seem all likely to pass it.  The sooner we start thinking about a simple, effective pricing system the better. 

   Permalink

8. 

   Michael Wagner Posted 2:55 pm
   08 Jul 2009

   <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]> <style>
   st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
   </style>

   Permalink