California approves cap and trade program

Luckynumber3

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
4,988
Reaction score
3,625
Jeesuz, now I know why there was a earthquake the other day and why that one guy said the world was supposed to end today....

State's cap and trade program gets final approval

Sacramento --
California's plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions and put a price on carbon is set to take effect on Jan. 1 after the Air Resources Board voted Thursday to make final adjustments in the regulation.

The state board first passed the cap-and-trade program last December. But the board, which normally allows its staff to finalize details, took the unusual step of personally tying up the loose ends of the nation's only comprehensive limit on greenhouse gases. It is the last major regulation the board considered to meet the requirements of AB32, California's greenhouse gas reduction law passed by the Legislature in 2006.

The law requires the state to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The cap-and-trade element covers about 20 percent of that goal, with the majority of the other reductions coming from limiting the amount of carbon in fuel and requiring more efficient vehicles, renewable energy mandates and energy efficiency requirements.

Model for the country

"When the nation is ready to address the growing danger of climate change, as I believe it must and will, California's climate program will serve as a model for a national program," said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board.

Many environmentalists echoed that prediction, though any action in Congress appears unlikely in the near term. Business and industry groups stepped up their criticism of the program as the board neared Thursday's vote, predicting that it would lead to significant job losses and result in businesses leaving the state.

Under the regulation, there will be a limit on carbon emissions starting in 2012 for emitters that produce about 85 percent of the state's carbon emissions. That amounts to about 350 businesses at 600 locations, though it will be implemented first for electrical utilities and large industrial plants and later on fuel distributors. Enforcement will not begin until 2013.

The number of allowed metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions will be capped and then reduced every year until 2020. In all, the regulation is supposed to remove 273 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air by that year.
Free and paid credits

Businesses that emit more carbon dioxide than is allowed under the law will have to use "allowances" - or credits - to make up for the difference. The allowances will be mostly free when the program starts in a little more than two months, but eventually businesses will have to purchase credits in an auction - a sort of penalty for exceeding the limit. The board's major action on Thursday was to finalize how credits will be allocated.

The opposition from the industrial sectors, like glass manufacturers and oil refineries, strongly objected to the initial requirement that forces these businesses to pay for 10 percent of their credits. They said paying for the allowances - one previous idea was that they be free - will be crippling as businesses in other states and countries will have a competitive advantage.

Some businesses will remain at the 10 percent payment level - which means 90 percent of their allowances are free - while others will see their payment levels rise over time to about 70 percent. Thirty percent of the credits will remain free under certain conditions. In a letter to the board from the state's major industries and the California Chamber of Commerce, they called the 10 percent requirement an "unjustified, job-killing tax."

"By forcing trade-exposed industries to purchase up to 10 percent of what were to be free emissions allowances, CARB will be in effect imposing a new tax on regulated entities. In addition to being legally questionable, this tax will lead to dramatically higher energy costs that will harm virtually every sector of our economy," they wrote.

Higher water rates

Multiple representatives of water agencies, mainly in Southern California, also told the board that because the regulation covers their energy usage, water rates would increase.

The cost will be about $2.50 per year per household, said air board spokesman Stanley Young, explaining that utilities are covered by the law because of the electricity used in moving water from Northern California to Southern California.

Debra Man, chief operating officer for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which provides water for 19 million people, asked the board for an exemption from the regulation.

She said cap and trade would result in "unnecessary and cumulative costs on our water rates."

Major concessions

But proponents hailed the final approval as another historic step by California to combat climate change and said the regulation is a compromise among many disparate interests and that environmentalists made major concessions.

"The petroleum industry has gotten most of what they've asked for," said Dan Kalb, California policy manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
In addition to the allowances, emitters also could meet up to 8 percent of their required reduction by "offsets," which are other actions, such as planting trees, to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

Cap and trade has been the most controversial portion of the effort to meet the carbon emission limits required by AB32. A coalition of groups seeking to protect the poor from the impacts of pollution sued to stop it, contending the plan would have a negative impact on poor communities living near large polluters and arguing the board did not sufficiently consider alternatives as required by state environmental law.

A Superior Court judge in San Francisco agreed, though the work to finalize the regulation was allowed to go forward as staff at the board developed deeper analyses of options. The board also gave final approval to that change.

If I am getting this right, the state will be charging you more for hot air. *insert fart emoticon here* California's leaders just can't seem to stop trying to make California get worse...

I mean seriously, I can see smog clouds all around if I go up on a hill yet we seem to not worry about those, only an invisible gas that gives life to plants! Amazing...
 

SKATTERBRANE

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
21,430
Reaction score
12,391
The only GOOD thing that can come of this, is, once again, California can be the example of what NOT to do. (if only we puny humans would learn from our mistakes)
 

morrow

Banned
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
3,901
Reaction score
3,267
First the Dream Act, then children being able to give their own concent for vaccines, now THIS?
And to think i'm moving back to CA soon. ****
 

morrow

Banned
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
3,901
Reaction score
3,267
YOU ARE MOVING BACK TO CALIFORNIA????

Is it too late to turn back?:laugh2:
I'm sensitive to bad weather and humidity. Hate it. Humidity makes my seasonal allergies really bad too. California has a monopoly on the good weather.
Moving to San Diego.
**** **** ****
 

Luckynumber3

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
4,988
Reaction score
3,625
I'm sensitive to bad weather and humidity. Hate it. Humidity makes my seasonal allergies really bad too. California has a monopoly on the good weather.
Moving to San Diego.
**** **** ****

Haha I got the crappiest genetics possible: I fry in the heat, have bad allergies, etc. I like when its rainy and cold here and not the heat but it is probably better than most other places.

I happen to live in a good neighborhood in the good part of where part of my family grew up way back before anybody had even heard of my town. The rest of the area is pretty ghetto though- I lived in it when I was a little kid and it was the type of place where people stole bikes right out of your garage in the daytime or smoked weed on your lawn.:laugh2:

If I didn't live in this particular part of town and didn't live so close to a bunch of other good stuff, Id probably gtfo and move to another state, or even out of the US. (Ive been on several roadtrips and found that as soon as I moved out of california the amount of graffiti and trash shrunk, and when I went over the border to canada, there was none at all).
 

Roberteaux

Super Mod
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
34,230
Reaction score
159,993
If I am getting this right, the state will be charging you more for hot air. *insert fart emoticon here* California's leaders just can't seem to stop trying to make California get worse...

There's a fart emoticon? I find this information to be... somehow disturbing. :hmm:

...I lived in it when I was a little kid and it was the type of place where people stole bikes right out of your garage in the daytime or smoked weed on your lawn.:laugh2:

New Orleans is in California? Somehow, that explains a lot of things to me...

--R :laugh2:
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
""The petroleum industry has gotten most of what they've asked for," said Dan Kalb, California policy manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
In addition to the allowances, emitters also could meet up to 8 percent of their required reduction by "offsets,........"


No teeth in it. Just set up to make traders rich and poor people very poor.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
29,998
Reaction score
44,381
The Union of Concerned Scientists?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Union of Concerned Scientists: Funding sources, staff profiles, and political agenda
...The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT -- the original “union” -- sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. A conference that coincided with the strike included appearances from such notables as Noam Chomsky (who is now recognized as a leader of the 21st Century “hate-America left”); Eric Mann, who led the 1960s terrorist Weather Underground; and Jonathan Kabat, who argued: “We want capitalism to come to an end.”
Later that year, when the founding document of the Union of Concerned Scientists was formalized, the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union was featured even more prominently than environmental issues. Three of the five propositions in the founding document concern political questions of the Cold War -- a topic about which even the brightest physicists and biologists can claim no particular expertise.

UCS continues to involve itself in issues where scientific credentials carry little weight. For example, the group opposes urban sprawl, disputes a war in Iraq, and supports abortion. While these positions may be perfectly legitimate in themselves, they are hardly the product of “rigorous scientific analysis.”

An early petition from UCS argues: “A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth… This ethic must motivate a great movement.” So activists with lab coats are now presuming to instruct us on matters of ethics and politics.

Among its ethical appeals that have nothing to do with science, UCS’s approach to farming stands out. The activist group advocates “a sustainable approach, based on understanding agriculture as an ecosystem.” They call it an “agroecosystem,” and label it “holistic.” They call it “science”; the rest of us call it Zen.

At UCS, politics drives science -- not the other way around. “We undervalue our scientists and agriculturalists if we accept today’s productive, but highly polluting agriculture,” UCS claims. Of course, UCS advocates organic-only agriculture, the widespread adoption of which (at today’s anemic levels of production) would result in mass starvation. So in this instance, some form of technology will surely have to save the day, even for organic farmers. But when it comes to something UCS opposes -- like missile defense -- they argue that the technology will never work.

Respectable scientists operate by considering a question, developing a methodology to answer that question, and only then arriving at a conclusion. They disdain political interference, and go to the media only when their conclusions warrant immediate public attention. The Union of Concerned Scientists stands this process on its head. It develops a press strategy first, and then conducts politically tainted and methodologically flawed analysis. After all, it’s getting harder to convince the media that your environmental scare is more lurid than the next guy’s. You need good PR. That’s why UCS partners with slick Washington PR firms -- to get attention, whether or not there’s good science behind the sound bites.

Black Eye

By any real scientific yardstick, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a lousy track record. Their predictions are often laughably, and sometimes tragically, wrong. A few examples:
In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of “global warming” and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that “the scientific community has reached a consensus.” But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called “consensus” was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a “deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation.”
UCS invested significant resources in “a multiyear effort to protect Bacillus thuringiensis, a valuable natural pesticide, by bringing high visibility to a preliminary report on the toxic effect of transgenic [biotech] corn pollen on the Monarch Butterfly.” Unfortunately for them, both the USDA and the EPA have concluded that Bt corn is only a threat to the crop-devastating insects it’s supposed to kill.
Based, we suppose, on some “science” or other, UCS’s Margaret Mellon predicted in 1999 that American farmers would reduce their planting of genetically enhanced seeds in the year 2000, saying it “probably represents a turning point.” What happened? Just the reverse. Planting of biotech crops has increased in 2000, 2001 and 2002 -- and shows no sign of slowing down.
In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. “It is now abundantly clear,” the group wrote, “that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages.” Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing.
To improve fuel efficiency, UCS argues for lighter tires on SUVs. But lighter tires are blamed -- even by Ralph’s Nader’s Public Citizen -- for tread separation. 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries were attributed to tread separation in Firestone tires alone.
UCS apparently hasn’t learned from its many, many mistakes. But if at first you don’t succeed, scare, scare again.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,662
First the Dream Act, then children being able to give their own concent for vaccines, now THIS?
And to think i'm moving back to CA soon. ****

I'm sensitive to bad weather and humidity. Hate it. Humidity makes my seasonal allergies really bad too. California has a monopoly on the good weather.
Moving to San Diego.
**** **** ****

Trust me, not a good move. Arizona or Nevada might fill your bill better.

There's a fart emoticon? I find this information to be... somehow disturbing. :hmm:

--R :laugh2:

fart-3.gif


No teeth in it. Just set up to make traders rich and poor people very poor.

... and make those concerned about global warming think that something is being done.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
36,942
Reaction score
74,589
First the Dream Act, then children being able to give their own concent for vaccines, now THIS?
And to think i'm moving back to CA soon. ****

Once you give up and stop giving a shit, it can almost be entertaining to watch these assholes. Of course until you stop caring, you generally want to eat a stick of dynamite.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
36,942
Reaction score
74,589
""The petroleum industry has gotten most of what they've asked for," said Dan Kalb, California policy manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
In addition to the allowances, emitters also could meet up to 8 percent of their required reduction by "offsets,........"


No teeth in it. Just set up to make traders rich and poor people very poor.

Of course. So they get what they want, and the suckers get to pay even MORE to them anyway.
 

colchar

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
33,834
Reaction score
74,682
Well this kind of system has worked so well in Europe why wouldn't others want to emulate it?
 

Luckynumber3

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
4,988
Reaction score
3,625
You and me both buddy. Moonbeam and his crony legislature are getting close to driving a lot of people out of the state.

Already drove one of my friends away a year or two ago... (before brown though- lots of people leaving.) In fact, some people are just leaving the urban centers and going off to the mountains or other random places still in california.
 

V Man

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
755
Reaction score
883
California is on a slide to hell and the Governor and Legislature keep finding ways to grease it.
 

Latest Threads



Top