 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 33/600) |
|
fierobear
|
DEC 11, 10:11 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Phranc:
Some of those I can understand but, "Also at large are the father and son team of Carlos and Allesandro Giordano, who were arrested in 2003 as the owners of Autodelta USA, a company that was illegally importing and selling Alfa Romeos that did not meet U.S. emission or safety standards. The two men are believed to be hiding out in Italy." is that really so grievous a crime compared to dumping toxic waste? |
|
True, some of those aren't bad, but that's not the main point. One thing is the specter of the EPA having an "eco-fugitive" list. The other is the question of what is the EPA doing policing the environment in the South China Seas? I had no idea our territorial waters extended that far.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 11, 10:15 PM
|
|
The 'Green Jobs' Myth
European workers aren't believers
From today's Wall Street Journal Europe
The United Nations is huddling in Poznan, Poland, this week to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, but the real news is that part of the global "consensus" on climate change seems to be unraveling. To wit, the myth of "green jobs."
In Brussels last week, some 11,000 metal workers clogged the EU quarter to protest global-warming policies. They worry that their industry could be harmed and their jobs forced overseas; some of them carried coffins as props. Most of the marching workers were from Germany, where auto makers are also still fuming over new emissions standards. Audi and BMW and other carbon-using industries have argued both for shallower emissions cuts and a longer phase-in period.
Meanwhile, Poland is threatening to veto a new EU climate-change accord unless restrictions on its coal use are eased. And Italy's government complains that new green policies could cost its industry up to €20 billion a year over the next decade. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared at Poznan by video, asserting that green measures "will also revive our economies."
But not everyone is buying it. As Stefania Prestigiacomo, Italy's environment minister, has noted, "Some people claim environmental measures are a way to relaunch industry, but we have to be realistic. Resources are limited, and they will be even more so because of the economic crisis."
This is certainly a new tune for the Europeans, who have lectured Americans for more than a decade to sign Kyoto because the planet is in peril. Their happy talk of a painless 20% reduction in emissions by 2020 has been mugged by reality. Carbon emission regulations come at a high price in lost jobs and lost competitiveness.
No wonder, then, that the Europeans are delighted over the pledges by the incoming Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress to adopt similar legislation to tax U.S. industries. The EU members may differ on their own limits. But they all agree that the U.S. should "show leadership" by committing to meet the same target they're setting for themselves -- reducing emissions by 20% to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. Never mind that most European countries aren't close to meeting their Kyoto goals, and in all likelihood will fall short of any new targets. The point is to impose those same burdens on the Yanks.
China and India, two of the globe's biggest carbon emitters, have even called Mr. Obama's goals for combating climate change "inadequate" and have advised the U.S. to speed up its time table for carbon reductions. And why not? They would be first in line to gobble up the jobs and production lines that the U.S. would lose if energy costs rise sharply in America.
We hope the incoming Obama economics team is paying attention to the worker and industry backlash in Europe. Mr. Obama is still embracing the line from Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund that cap and trade can generate five million "green jobs." If you throw enough tax subsidies at something, you're bound to get some new jobs. But if the money for those subsidies comes from higher energy taxes -- and a cap and trade regime would amount to as much $1.2 trillion of new taxes -- millions of jobs in carbon-using industry are also going to be lost.
The Europeans once believed the "green jobs" myth too. Now, as blue-collar workers take to the streets, they have learned that climate-change legislation means green unemployment.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 12, 09:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Fastback 86
|
DEC 12, 09:29 PM
|
|
|
Drilling in any National Refuge is a slippery slope. Sure, maybe the first drilling site is in a barren waste land, but what happens when that one is tapped? Or what if it turns out to be no good, and the oil is over in the nice part? Drilling, Mining and Logging in any kind of preserve sets a bad precedent.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 12, 09:58 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Fastback 86:
Drilling in any National Refuge is a slippery slope. Sure, maybe the first drilling site is in a barren waste land, but what happens when that one is tapped? Or what if it turns out to be no good, and the oil is over in the nice part? Drilling, Mining and Logging in any kind of preserve sets a bad precedent. |
|
If that were true, why aren't there oil wells literally *everywhere*, including places like Yellowstone? Also, as I understand it, there are all sorts of mixed uses on government lands not unlike this.[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-12-2008).]
|
|
|
|
Formula88
|
DEC 12, 09:58 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Fastback 86:
Drilling in any National Refuge is a slippery slope. Sure, maybe the first drilling site is in a barren waste land, but what happens when that one is tapped? Or what if it turns out to be no good, and the oil is over in the nice part? Drilling, Mining and Logging in any kind of preserve sets a bad precedent. |
|
While I can appreciate the slippery slope, keep in mind the sizes involved. They're talking about drilling in 2000 acres of ANWR, which is about the size of South Carolina.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
DEC 13, 02:08 AM
|
|
Well...California officially did it. They threw the future state economy down the toilet, and possibly the nation's economy with it.
California adopts the most sweeping curbs on greenhouse gas emissions in U.S.
The state air board orders a 15% cut in emissions over the next 12 years, bringing them down to 1990 levels.
Reporting from Sacramento -- California regulators adopted the nation's first comprehensive plan to slash greenhouse gases Thursday and characterized it as a model for President-elect Barack Obama, who has pledged an aggressive national and international effort to combat global warming.
The ambitious blueprint by the world's eighth-largest economy would cut the state's emissions by 15% from today's level over the next 12 years, bringing them down to 1990 levels.
Approved by the state's Air Resources Board in a unanimous vote, the 134-page plan lays out targets for virtually every sector of the economy, including automobiles, refineries, buildings and landfills. It would require a third of California's electricity to come from solar energy, wind farms and other renewable sources -- far more than any state currently requires.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been a vigorous advocate of the plan, vowed that it would "unleash the full force of California's innovation and technology for a healthier planet."
Businesses, however, are sharply divided.
Automakers oppose California's pending crackdown on carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a regulation that more than a dozen states have pledged to adopt. Manufacturers want regulators to lower the cost of complying, saying it will lead to billions of dollars in higher electricity costs.
"This plan is an economic train wreck waiting to happen," James Duran of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce told the board, saying that it would cause financial hardship to minority-owned companies.
But Bob Epstein, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, led a coalition of energy, technology and Hollywood executives, including Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, in endorsing the plan as a spur to the state's lagging economy.
Investors have poured $2.5 billion into California clean-tech companies in the first nine months of the year, up from $1.8 billion for all of 2007, he said, a level that eclipsed the software industry.
"This plan is a clear signal to investors to invest in California," Epstein said.
Schwarzenegger, a sharp critic of President Bush's opposition to climate legislation, said, "When you look at today's depressed economy, green tech is one of the few bright spots out there."
California's plan will be "a road map for the rest of the nation," he predicted.
After an aborted attempt last spring, Congress is expected to renew its efforts to craft climate legislation next year. Many of the elements in contention are addressed in California's blueprint, including a cap-and-trade program that would allow industries to reduce emissions more cheaply.
In 18 months of public hearings and workshops, hundreds of people testified and more than 43,000 comments were submitted. More than 250,000 copies of the plan have been viewed or downloaded from the air board's website in the last two months.
The state's blueprint will be implemented over the next two years through industry-specific regulations. Republican legislators have called on Schwarzenegger to delay the plan, citing the dire state of California's economy and criticism of the air board's economic models.
Fears were also expressed at Thursday's hearing by city and county officials who said the plan's effort to force land-use changes infringes on local powers. Environmentalists want more ambitious strategies to curb the sprawl that has led to a rapid increase in driving, and thus in greenhouse gases.
Worldwide, emissions of planet-warming gases, which are mainly formed by burning fossil fuels, have been growing far more rapidly than scientists had predicted. California is expected to experience severe damage from climate change by mid-century, including water shortages from a shrinking snowpack, increased wildfires, rising ocean levels and pollution-aggravating heat waves.
Given the state's fast-growing population and sprawling suburban development, its emissions are on track to increase by 30% over 1990 levels by 2020. The new blueprint would slash the state's carbon footprint over the next 12 years by a total of 174 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions -- the equivalent of 4 metric tons for every resident.
Despite the reach of the state's effort, it would barely make a dent in global warming: The state's emissions account for about 1.5% of the world's emissions. Nonetheless, air board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said California's leadership has spurred other states to move ahead. "We are filling a vacuum left by inaction at the federal level," she said.
More than two dozen states have committed to capping emissions since California passed its landmark 2006 global warming law, the trigger for Thursday's action by the Air Resources Board.
California has joined with four Canadian provinces and seven western states to form a regional cap-and-trade program. Under the program, the states would set a total allowable amount of emissions -- as California did in its blueprint. Utilities and other large industries would be required to obtain allowances to cover their emissions. If companies cut emissions more than required, they can sell their extra emission reductions to firms that are not able to meet their targets.
A cap-and-trade system has been adopted in Europe, where it was initially fraught with logistical problems and afforded windfall profits to many industries. California's system, which would apply to industries responsible for 85% of its emissions, is the most controversial aspect of its plan.
Groups representing low-income residents of polluted urban areas testified that allowing industries to trade in emissions would lead to dirtier plants in their neighborhoods. Under California's plan, industries would also be allowed to buy "offsets" -- emission reductions from projects in other states, or possibly foreign nations, to avoid making their own reductions.
However, the board assuaged many environmentalists Thursday when it pledged that it would gradually move toward a system to auction 100% of greenhouse gas permits, rather than give the permits away for free, as was initially the case in Europe.
Bernadette del Chiaro, an energy analyst for Environment California, predicted the auctions could bring in $1 billion at the outset and up to $340 million per year by 2020.
"This is huge," she said. "Revenue from polluters would be used to transit to a green economy."
|
|
|
|
Fastback 86
|
DEC 13, 01:42 PM
|
|
|
I swear, we have THE MOST shortsighted environmentalists in this state. I'm all for saving the planet, but you have to measure that kind of ambition against reality.
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
DEC 13, 01:46 PM
|
|
|
I wonder where all the industry will move to when Cali taxes and fines them into nothing? Nevada? Oregon? Or more likely in Mexico where the new petroleum plant went.
|
|
|
Raydar
|
DEC 13, 01:57 PM
|
|
And here, I thought my power company stock was relatively sheltered from the rest of the stock market cluster-fest.
Looks like that's going to go to hell, too.
|
|
|
|