Comments on: NRDC’s summary of the Waxman-Markey bill http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/ Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:53:45 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Bholenath http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-4320 Bholenath Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:56:30 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-4320 How deceptive! No mention of Kyoto's 1990 level of Co2 as base level?? Was not expecting at least NRDC to endorse such Capitalistic bill even though its a start. How deceptive!
No mention of Kyoto’s 1990 level of Co2 as base level?? Was not expecting at least NRDC to endorse such Capitalistic bill even though its a start.

]]> By: Politicians and Science, Like Oil and Water http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-3860 Politicians and Science, Like Oil and Water Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:42:17 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-3860 [...] Oil and Water In a recent Op-Ed for the New York Times, Paul Krugman discusses the Waxman-Markey climate bill we’ve all been hearing so much about. Krugman notes that it’s not the barely passing [...] [...] Oil and Water In a recent Op-Ed for the New York Times, Paul Krugman discusses the Waxman-Markey climate bill we’ve all been hearing so much about. Krugman notes that it’s not the barely passing [...]

]]> By: Sir Gareth http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-3814 Sir Gareth Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:51:12 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-3814 Let's remember the critical issues at stake here: 1) Untold billions of corporate capital have been invested in this; GE and a myriad of untold other corporations are counting on the gullibility of the American Public to surrender their liberty in order that fabulous riches will acrue to them in trade for American gullibility and stupidity. 2) None of people who run this global scam live the "green" (read impoverished) lives of servitude that they insist that you must lead - all to "save the planet" Gawd, I though we were done with this after the dark ages ended. 3) The Government passes laws to keep the big money flowing to them and they would sell your 12 year old daughter to the highest bidder if it kept them in their sweet life. Remember: political parties are merely criminal mobs who have the power to make their crimes legal. Anyone else doing the same as they do would be doing time in prison. Let’s remember the critical issues at stake here:

1) Untold billions of corporate capital have been invested in this; GE and a myriad of untold other corporations are counting on the gullibility of the American Public to surrender their liberty in order that fabulous riches will acrue to them in trade for American gullibility and stupidity.

2) None of people who run this global scam live the “green” (read impoverished) lives of servitude that they insist that you must lead – all to “save the planet” Gawd, I though we were done with this after the dark ages ended.

3) The Government passes laws to keep the big money flowing to them and they would sell your 12 year old daughter to the highest bidder if it kept them in their sweet life. Remember: political parties are merely criminal mobs who have the power to make their crimes legal. Anyone else doing the same as they do would be doing time in prison.

]]> By: Richard Yarnell http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-3606 Richard Yarnell Sun, 17 May 2009 20:48:42 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-3606 While working in the solar DHW industry in the 70's/80's I opposed cap/trade. If it's a good idea, install alternatives to fossil fuels because it's right. Over the years, my position softened; then along comes Krupp to convince me. Don't give the carbon credits away. Perhaps price them moderately at first, but, immediately establish a regulated exchange (producers and users only, no speculators allowed). Supply and demand will set the value and the price of credits will gradually increase. By so doing, the credits become an economic engine, not just a punishment. For businesses developing alternatives or marketing them, the credits become a revenue stream that will lead to further research and quicker profitability. For those producing carbon above authorized limits, carbon becomes an expense which, at some time in the future, managers will want to avoid. That allows both innovators and managers to do what they do best without the need for government subsidy - at least not as much of it. I, for one, would like to see credits available to individuals who help make the market for alternative devices and systems. My 9KW array should produce more juice than I use and I should be able to market the balance to a willing buyer who cannot yet invest in an alternative of his own. There's a whole new industry to be manned: the means by which to keep track of production and use of energy plus the exchange itself. If the past is instructive, we know that Uncle Sam will grossly undervalue the credits which will reduce their effect on the march toward alternative, carbon free or reduced carbon energy sources. Strict and annually diminishing limits on carbon emissions; a speculator free exchange; putting the negotiated value of the carbon in the hands of those whose technology reduce its use will change our pattern of fossil fuel use more quickly than any regulation can. In most cases, the market does work. And if I've not understood the thrust of Krupp's "Earth: The Sequel," I still think cap and trade on a regulated exchange is a good idea. Richard Yarnell Beavercreek, OR While working in the solar DHW industry in the 70’s/80’s I opposed cap/trade. If it’s a good idea, install alternatives to fossil fuels because it’s right. Over the years, my position softened; then along comes Krupp to convince me.

Don’t give the carbon credits away. Perhaps price them moderately at first, but, immediately establish a regulated exchange (producers and users only, no speculators allowed). Supply and demand will set the value and the price of credits will gradually increase.

By so doing, the credits become an economic engine, not just a punishment. For businesses developing alternatives or marketing them, the credits become a revenue stream that will lead to further research and quicker profitability. For those producing carbon above authorized limits, carbon becomes an expense which, at some time in the future, managers will want to avoid. That allows both innovators and managers to do what they do best without the need for government subsidy – at least not as much of it.

I, for one, would like to see credits available to individuals who help make the market for alternative devices and systems. My 9KW array should produce more juice than I use and I should be able to market the balance to a willing buyer who cannot yet invest in an alternative of his own. There’s a whole new industry to be manned: the means by which to keep track of production and use of energy plus the exchange itself.

If the past is instructive, we know that Uncle Sam will grossly undervalue the credits which will reduce their effect on the march toward alternative, carbon free or reduced carbon energy sources.

Strict and annually diminishing limits on carbon emissions; a speculator free exchange; putting the negotiated value of the carbon in the hands of those whose technology reduce its use will change our pattern of fossil fuel use more quickly than any regulation can.

In most cases, the market does work. And if I’ve not understood the thrust of Krupp’s “Earth: The Sequel,” I still think cap and trade on a regulated exchange is a good idea.

Richard Yarnell
Beavercreek, OR

]]> By: Diane http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-3593 Diane Thu, 14 May 2009 23:51:39 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-3593 Given that nuclear energy is the cheapest and cleanest, volume, land management and close-by transmission form of electrical energy, which saves on line losses, and France is nearly producing all its electrical energy from nuclear power, and we probably know best how to do this, aside from the waste issue, why is nuclear energy omitted from this bill? Given that nuclear energy is the cheapest and cleanest, volume, land management and close-by transmission form of electrical energy, which saves on line losses, and France is nearly producing all its electrical energy from nuclear power, and we probably know best how to do this, aside from the waste issue, why is nuclear energy omitted from this bill?

]]> By: Diane http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-3592 Diane Thu, 14 May 2009 23:03:13 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-3592 What arrangements have been made in the bill to produce solar energy using a minimal natural resources footprint? Example of one of the problem I'm concerned about: Some solar to electrical energy is currently being produced in the Mojave Desert using water to cool the collectors, which is to me a silly waste of natural resource at the minimum. And an extravagant waste of water at the maximum in a water resource area that is already in trouble. What arrangements have been made in the bill to produce solar energy using a minimal natural resources footprint?
Example of one of the problem I’m concerned about: Some solar to electrical energy is currently being produced in the Mojave Desert using water to cool the collectors, which is to me a silly waste of natural resource at the minimum. And an extravagant waste of water at the maximum in a water resource area that is already in trouble.

]]> By: Diane http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-3591 Diane Thu, 14 May 2009 22:50:19 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-3591 Given that there is a need to continue producing electricity using coal for many years to come, and we want the cleanest emissions possible, what arrangements have been made to: 1) eliminate environmental activists from wasting coal-fired energy company financial resources in endless lawsuits that could be better used in lowering emissions? 2) make the cleanest coal available to the user? Given that there is a need to continue producing electricity using coal for many years to come, and we want the cleanest emissions possible, what arrangements have been made to: 1) eliminate environmental activists from wasting coal-fired energy company financial resources in endless lawsuits that could be better used in lowering emissions? 2) make the cleanest coal available to the user?

]]> By: Are We Free to Pollute the Atmosphere? Climate Change, Wealth and Liberty - Part 1 « Green Thoughts http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-3465 Are We Free to Pollute the Atmosphere? Climate Change, Wealth and Liberty - Part 1 « Green Thoughts Fri, 01 May 2009 22:26:21 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-3465 [...] are aiming to pass some form of carbon pricing legislation in the next year or two, most likely a cap and trade bill though I would hope our leaders will consider the less cumbersome, more robust carbon tax instead. [...] [...] are aiming to pass some form of carbon pricing legislation in the next year or two, most likely a cap and trade bill though I would hope our leaders will consider the less cumbersome, more robust carbon tax instead. [...]

]]> By: Philippa Solomon http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-3375 Philippa Solomon Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:36:56 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-3375 Not later than 2017, the President is to report to Congress on the impact of the “Inslee-Doyle” program on specified energy-intensive. This sentence is incomplete. Not later than 2017, the President is to report to Congress on the impact of the “Inslee-Doyle” program on specified energy-intensive.

This sentence is incomplete.

]]> By: kyan http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2009/04/09/nrdcs-summary-of-the-waxman-markey-bill/#comment-3352 kyan Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:26:36 +0000 http://blog.climateandenergy.org/?p=2758#comment-3352 While the ACESA bill is to be commended for its clean energy and EE provisions, the offsets provision seriously weakens US efforts to reduce our (and global) CO2 emissions. See new analysis: http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/4223 Including such a huge amount of offset “hot air” in the ACESA draft means that its apparent mandated emissions reductions – to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050 – would be achieved only on paper. In reality, emissions from the major sources of greenhouse gas pollution in the US would be allowed to increase until 2025 and the 20% reduction supposed to happen by 2020 would not actually be required to occur until 2036. Given scientific warnings, shouldn't our concern be more about avoiding climate catastrophes and mitigating existing global warming problems, rather than asking other countries to "go on a carbon diet for us," especially if many of these offsets may be fake? While the ACESA bill is to be commended for its clean energy and EE provisions, the offsets provision seriously weakens US efforts to reduce our (and global) CO2 emissions. See new analysis: http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/4223
Including such a huge amount of offset “hot air” in the ACESA draft means that its apparent mandated emissions reductions – to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050 – would be achieved only on paper. In reality, emissions from the major sources of greenhouse gas pollution in the US would be allowed to increase until
2025 and the 20% reduction supposed to happen by 2020 would not actually be required to occur until 2036. Given scientific warnings, shouldn’t our concern be more about avoiding climate catastrophes and mitigating existing global warming problems, rather than asking other countries to “go on a carbon diet for us,” especially if many of these offsets may be fake?

]]>