Carbon tax coming closer!

[akihabro]

House Panel Passes Limit on Greenhouse-Gas Emissions

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 22, 2009

A bill to create the first national limit on greenhouse-gas emissions was approved by a House committee yesterday after a week of late-night debates that cemented the shift of climate change from rhetorical jousting to a subject of serious, if messy, Washington policymaking.

The legislation would create a cap-and-trade system: Over the next decades, power plants, oil refineries and manufacturers would be required to obtain allowances for the pollution they emit. Those who need more or less could turn to a Wall-Street-like market in the allowances.

The 33 to 25 vote was a major victory for House Democrats, who had softened and jury-rigged the bill to reassure manufacturers and utilities -- and members of their own party from the South and Midwest -- that they would not suffer greatly.

"I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that this is a turning point, in the history of the United States and [its] energy sources," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), one of the bill's chief sponsors. "This is a day we've waited a long time on."

The vote gives this bill more momentum than any previous legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, but it faces hurdles. In the House, Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) has said he wants to take up the bill in his Agriculture Committee, seeking to change rules for those who raise corn for ethanol. The Senate has shot down previous cap-and-trade plans.

President Obama supports the bill, an aide said yesterday, though some provisions are weaker than what he advocated during the presidential campaign. In particular, Obama called for all pollution credits to be auctioned off by the government, but the House bill would give away about 85 percent of them.

Rest of the article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104251.html

[Elwar]

............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....} ............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|............ ..`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,.............. .............`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_......... .._,-%.......`
...................................,

[CUnknown]

As long as they lower the income tax (or another tax) at the same time as they institute a carbon tax, I am all for it. A tax on carbon is a way to improve the environment, it shouldn't be used as a way to raise revenue.

Even if you don't believe in global warming, are you still against a carbon tax if your total tax burden stays the same? On the off chance that global warming is actually true, don't you think replacing the income tax with a carbon tax is a good idea? If nothing else, it will spur on advancements in alternative energy and hopefully get us off of foreign oil -- isn't that a good thing?

Now, I agree that it is bs if they just raise taxes for no other reason than to raise them.

[HOLLYWOOD]

No One has listed the both the GREEN activists, WITH, the Corporate clout of Money and lobbying to get this to a vote.

Just follow the trail of money and it shall lead you to the TRUTH~!

[Danke]

As long as they lower the income tax (or another tax) at the same time as they institute a carbon tax, I am all for it. A tax on carbon is a way to improve the environment, it shouldn't be used as a way to raise revenue.

Even if you don't believe in global warming, are you still against a carbon tax if your total tax burden stays the same? On the off chance that global warming is actually true, don't you think replacing the income tax with a carbon tax is a good idea? If nothing else, it will spur on advancements in alternative energy and hopefully get us off of foreign oil -- isn't that a good thing?

Now, I agree that it is bs if they just raise taxes for no other reason than to raise them.

The income tax is avoidable. I doubt (since most of us can't do without conventional and cheaper energy) that the same can be said about the carbon tax.

[ClayTrainor]

As long as they lower the income tax (or another tax) at the same time as they institute a carbon tax, I am all for it. A tax on carbon is a way to improve the environment, it shouldn't be used as a way to raise revenue.

Taxing carbon will not help the environment, because c02 is not harming the environment.

I'm not trying to say i know everything, but i did have a short career in the Weather field and have been trained by climatologists, ice observers, etc. I worked at CYQG airport as a weather observer / data collector, for about 2 years.

The majority of people that i know in the weather community think the c02 claims are totally bogus, but there are some who do support the theory, i'll admit, certainly not a majority though.


Even if you don't believe in global warming, are you still against a carbon tax if your total tax burden stays the same?
Yes, because Carbon Tax has no limits. They can literally tax livestock, because they exhale Co2. It's a retarded idea for taxation if you ask me. Nothing but a power grab.

And i don't believe the tax burden would stay the same, and to believe that is naive. People probably believed that the Income tax wouldn't grow either, when they first implemented the 16th.


On the off chance that global warming is actually true, don't you think replacing the income tax with a carbon tax is a good idea?

If it were as real as Al Gore says, then yes, but it's not so don't worry about it. The earths climate has been on a general incline since the Ice Age, yes Global Warming is real, but it has absolutely nothing to do with C02, and Global cooling is much more fearsome than global warming.



If nothing else, it will spur on advancements in alternative energy and hopefully get us off of foreign oil -- isn't that a good thing?

The free-market can find a better solution than a Carbon Tax.



Now, I agree that it is bs if they just raise taxes for no other reason than to raise them.

Just wait and see bro, it will, i promise you.

[kojirodensetsu]

I agree with ClayTrainor. This is just a power grab. Most people (at least that I know) believe in global warming so the government is using that to grow bigger. Given the option to grow bigger with little to no resistance from the populous governments will always choose to grow bigger.

[akihabro]

As long as they lower the income tax (or another tax) at the same time as they institute a carbon tax, I am all for it. A tax on carbon is a way to improve the environment, it shouldn't be used as a way to raise revenue.

Even if you don't believe in global warming, are you still against a carbon tax if your total tax burden stays the same? On the off chance that global warming is actually true, don't you think replacing the income tax with a carbon tax is a good idea? If nothing else, it will spur on advancements in alternative energy and hopefully get us off of foreign oil -- isn't that a good thing?

Now, I agree that it is bs if they just raise taxes for no other reason than to raise them.

Who are you?! Yes you have your opinion but I hate taxes, global warming is a fraud and carbon tax is a way to profit off our indoctrinated fears about mother earth.

[Number19]

I may be in error here, but I seem to recall that the idea of "cap and trade" was first advanced, back in the 70's or 80's, by libertarian thinkers.

The idea is that individuals are responsible for their actions. Also, pouring pollutants into the atmosphere inflicts damage on others. So the question posed was : What is a free market solution to solving or mitigating this problem.

The devil is in the details.

[Brian4Liberty]

I may be in error here, but I seem to recall that the idea of "cap and trade" was first advanced, back in the 70's or 80's, by libertarian thinkers.


Probably. I am sick and tired of "thinkers" of all types. Everyone today can come up with a theory and they are all given equal merit and usually implemented. No common sense, no real world experience, no testing, no review to actually ensure that the original purpose is being achieved.

The end result is always the same: the taxpayers get screwed, government grows in size and power, the original intent does not get met, and a few insiders get rich gaming the system. That's the real world, and that comes from experience, not from a think-tank or university full of experts in mental masturbation.

[Pepsi]

Al Gore buys carbon credits from himself

http://nwocollapse.freehostia.com/article.php?ID=70

[Number19]

Probably. I am sick and tired of "thinkers" of all types. Everyone today can come up with a theory and they are all given equal merit and usually implemented. No common sense, no real world experience, no testing, no review to actually ensure that the original purpose is being achieved.

The end result is always the same: the taxpayers get screwed, government grows in size and power, the original intent does not get met, and a few insiders get rich gaming the system. That's the real world, and that comes from experience, not from a think-tank or university full of experts in mental masturbation.There sure are a lot of "thinkers" on this forum who "think" they know what is best. Man is a "thinking" animal. Despite all the discussion and debate on anarchic society, it will never happen. The challenge is for mankind to work with what exists to achieve the maximum freedom for individuals.

[Brian4Liberty]

There sure are a lot of "thinkers" on this forum who "think" they know what is best. Man is a "thinking" animal. Despite all the discussion and debate on anarchic society, it will never happen. The challenge is for mankind to work with what exists to achieve the maximum freedom for individuals.

LOL! Yeah, this forum certainly has it's share of "thinkers". :D

I am more impacted (and angered) by the thinkers that create new programs and systems in the government and big business. The lame-brain, "looks good on paper" ideas that are actually implemented. In small business, that kind of idiocy doesn't fly. They are much too close to the bottom line. But in big business and government, it is the norm. As a matter of fact, incompetence is often rewarded in big business and government. Cap and trade will be one of those programs.

[Brian4Liberty]

For a real world example of "cap and trade", look at California water. They created a "cap and trade" program in water, to "help" the environment. Taxpayer money was used to "save the fish" in the delta. Bottom line: the program actually made the fish issue even worse (increased pumping from the delta), cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and made a very few politically connected corporate farmers extremely wealthy.

A complete and utter failure, with the exact opposite of the intended outcome. This is what will happen with the "carbon credits" scam.


http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_12439808

A paper accounting thing

The idea behind the environmental water account was to protect the Delta ecosystem without taking water away from people, farms and agencies that held growing expectations — and contracts — for water. By setting aside water that could supplement flows from the Delta, biologists would be able to slow Delta pumps at sensitive times, thereby protecting imperiled fish such as Delta smelt.

The water account was meant to enhance existing environmental protections and protect water users from the possibility that regulators might force them to give up more water to protect fish.

Despite good intentions, however, the program lacked the resources to provide the environmental benefits it promised. Traditional users got their water, but the environment suffered. Delta smelt dropped to levels near extinction. Even the backbone of the state's commercial salmon industry, Sacramento River fall-run chinook salmon, broke under the combined strain of ocean fluctuations and a variety of Delta-related problems, possibly including water management. That salmon fishery, which had never before been closed, is now off-limits to anglers for the second consecutive year, leaving supermarkets temporarily devoid of wild California salmon.

The way it was supposed to work was novel. If fish were in danger of being sucked into massive Delta pumping stations, for example, biologists could invoke the account to slow the pumps down. Then, contractors who would otherwise be deprived of water from the slowdown would be made whole with water from the account.

In order to provide that replacement water to contractors, the water account needed water stored south of Delta pumps. The underground water storage facilities in Kern County's aquifers and ancient river formations proved to be its most important source.

But the location at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley was not ideal. It made more sense to store the water closer to the Delta, where distribution would be easier to a wider variety of places.

So the water in Kern County was "exchanged" for Delta water that was being pumped at record high — and environmentally damaging — rates. The Delta water was then deposited in the environmental water account at San Luis Reservoir near Gilroy.

The exchange legally moved the water that was stored underground in Kern County to San Luis, but the water was still there. To complete the trade, then, the underground water had to be treated as if it were being delivered from the Delta.

Sometimes, Kern County water agencies retrieved the "Delta" water from underground for irrigation, but in most cases, the state was delivering so much water they did not need to.

Instead, most of the time all they had to do was simply forego storing the excess Delta water and pocket the difference between the low rates they paid to the state and the higher market rates they collected from the sale to the water account.

"I wouldn't pump that water to sell the (environmental water account)," said Dennis Atkinson, general manager of the Tejon Castaic Water District, which sold about $2 million worth of water to the account. "How are you going to make any money? ... It's a paper accounting thing. We never turned on a pump."


http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_12443070

Gaming the water system
By Mike Taugher
Staff Writer
Posted: 05/25/2009 05:31:15 AM PDT
Updated: 05/27/2009 12:38:24 PM PDT

Just before Interstate 5 climbs the Grapevine out of the San Joaquin Valley is a massive underground reservoir that its owners say is the largest water banking project of its kind in the world.

Here among the tumbleweeds, sand and scrub, 15 miles west of Bakersfield, the gush of crystal-clear water appears as curiously out of place as the great blue herons cruising along the bank's six-mile canal.

The Kern Water Bank, which was owned by the state Department of Water Resources from 1988 to 1995, is now in the hands of Kern County interests and is 48 percent owned by Westside Mutual Water Company, a private water company controlled by Beverly Hills billionaire Stewart Resnick.

It is 32 square miles of desert where one natural river and two artificial ones pass: the Kern River, which originates in the southern Sierra Nevada; the California Aqueduct, which carries Delta water more than 400 miles to a reservoir in Riverside County; and the Friant-Kern Canal, which takes water to valley farmers from behind a dam on the San Joaquin River.

"We have lots of water conveyance facilities that bring water past the Kern Water Bank," said Jonathan Parker, general manager of the Kern Water Bank Authority. "That makes this location pretty unique."

In wet years, the water bankers deposit water from the rivers into ponds where it percolates into the Kern River's alluvial fan.

In dry years, they make withdrawals, which is why on a tour of the bank earlier this year water was gushing out of the ground from pipes and bubbling up into the canal from underground structures.

Kern County water users, thanks in part to local ownership of the Kern Water Bank, became the biggest source of water for CalFed's "environmental water account" that cost taxpayers nearly $200 million.

The account was in effect during a period when record amounts of water were pumped out of the Delta and fish populations staggered to record lows. One species, Delta smelt, could be near extinction in large part because of Delta water pumping.

Roughly one-fifth of all the money spent to buy water for the program went to companies owned or controlled by Resnick, one of the state's largest farmers.

More than half of Kern County's water sales to the environmental water account — and all of Westside Mutual's sales — came from the Kern Water Bank.

And thanks to the magic of paper water trades, less than half of the water sold from here was actually pumped out of the ground.

Representatives of Resnick's farm and water companies did not respond to repeated requests for interviews over a two-month period.

The state Department of Water Resources also declined to comment.

Deal's 'linchpin'

The deals worked by letting sellers trade the underground water they were selling at market prices for water the state was delivering to them at much lower prices.

Instead of going to Kern County, then, Delta water went to San Luis Reservoir east of Gilroy.

The state got the Delta water at the reservoir, while in Kern County the water was either pumped out of the ground for farmers' use or, more often, simply reclassified as if it were delivered from the Delta. The sellers then pocketed the price difference.

The exchanges made some sense because, by taking delivery of the water upstream, the state could deliver it almost anywhere it would want to without unnecessary pumping.

But it also meant that at a time when the state Department of Water Resources was pumping record amounts of water out of the Delta — in some cases exceeding conditions regulators had approved as safe for Delta fish — it was delivering some of that water to itself for a program that was supposed to protect the same fish populations that were damaged by the high pumping levels.

And it paid Kern County interests with taxpayer money for the ability to do so.

The general manager of the Kern County Water Agency, James Beck, said the program was a way for the state to ensure those buying water in Kern County got the water to which they were entitled.

"The environmental water account was a good example where water was provided to the state at a reasonable price ... to assist the state to meet its contractual obligations to its contractors," Beck said.

For many sellers to the environmental water account, including Resnick's companies, the key was ownership of the Kern Water Bank.

The deal that transferred the Kern Water Bank from state ownership to Kern County interests has its roots in the last big California drought, from 1987 to 1992. As have been the past three dry years, the last drought featured water cutbacks and severe environmental strains in the Delta, where fish were being added to the lists of threatened and endangered species.

In Kern County, the last drought was particularly acute because contract rules at the time required Kern County's farmers to take deeper cuts to their Delta water supply than Southern California cities.

To avoid a court fight, water officials representing the state, Kern County and Southern California reached a deal with ramifications that linger today. Among other things, the deal transferred the Kern Water Bank from the state to local interests.

The "Monterey Agreement," named for the city where the negotiations took place, along with the CalFed plan that followed, laid much of the groundwork for how the state's water supplies would be managed and how the Delta environment would be protected.

The results were mostly good for big water users, and almost entirely bad for taxpayers and the environment.

"The environmental water account was in some respects the linchpin to close the deal for the CalFed plan," said Spreck Rosekrans, a co-author of a 2005 Environmental Defense Fund study that showed how the account lacked the resources it was expected to get while it also was required to do more than planned.

"It involved buying some of the water that had been overpromised. It allowed folks to game the system and gain profits that were unwarranted," Rosekrans said.

State denied

At the time of the last drought, Resnick was expanding his farm holdings near Bakersfield. Kern County property tax records show his companies appear to own more than 115,000 acres — nearly four times the size of San Francisco and more than all the parks in the East Bay Regional Park District combined.

The water supply for those farms and orchards, which his companies boast include the largest pistachio and almond growing and processing operations in the world, was secured in part by the Kern Water Bank.

With a capacity of at least 1 million acre-feet, it is like having a reservoir the size of Folsom Lake, near Sacramento, or 10 reservoirs the size of Los Vaqueros, near Brentwood.

There are other advantages too. Little water is lost to evaporation. Terrestrial habitat is not flooded.

The water is easy to get out of the ground: It only costs $35 to $40 to pump an acre-foot — nearly 326,000 gallons, Parker said.

Though the state invested a total of $74 million in buying and developing the Kern Water Bank, it could never get the groundwater storage operations up and running, partly because of a state law that requires the Department of Water Resources to receive local approval for groundwater projects.

Kern County never granted that approval.

As a result of the negotiations in Monterey, the bank was transferred from the state to the Kern County Water Agency in exchange for Kern County interests giving up a small portion of their claim to water. The agency immediately turned the bank over to a joint powers authority made up of a handful of water districts and Westside Mutual Water Company, which has a 48 percent stake.

Another 10 percent is owned by Dudley Ridge Water District, where Resnick's farming company, which owns more than 40 percent of the district's irrigated acreage, is the largest landowner.

Dudley Ridge's board president, Joseph MacIlvaine, is also president of Resnick's farm company, Paramount Farms.

The agreement made in Monterey also forced Southern California cities to share equally with Kern County farmers in the pain of drought.

And it created a new program that allowed agencies in Kern County, Southern California and elsewhere to buy so-called surplus water for cheap — discount water that flowed so freely that, until the Delta ecosystem hit the skids, it amounted to more than the cut they took in their water contracts to obtain the water bank.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a December analysis, said delivery of "Article 21" water was also much more than what they approved when they issued a permit in 2004 meant to protect Delta smelt from the effects of Delta water pumping.

[Number19]

LOL! Yeah, this forum certainly has it's share of "thinkers". :D

I am more impacted (and angered) by the thinkers that create new programs and systems in the government and big business. The lame-brain, "looks good on paper" ideas that are actually implemented. In small business, that kind of idiocy doesn't fly. They are much too close to the bottom line. But in big business and government, it is the norm. As a matter of fact, incompetence is often rewarded in big business and government. Cap and trade will be one of those programs.I agree. I placed (the libertarian) cap & trade in parenthesis, because this is the current terminology being used, but this current incarnation has very little in common with what libertarians proposed. It represents a good example of how politicians will steal basic ideas and corrupt it to the statist model.