|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 24, 2010 1:53:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by enginer on Feb 24, 2010 2:58:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 24, 2010 3:41:50 GMT
It's not going to move anywhere in Boxer's committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 24, 2010 13:45:40 GMT
It's not going to move anywhere in Boxer's committee. Not necessarily. There were some comments by Boxer and Jackson that suggest they might be backing away from the IPCC and leaving the door open for a "do-over" on the scientific basis of the finding. Although the SCOTUS found that regulating CO2 would be within the purview of EPA, they did not order EPA to do so. That was the EPA's call and could be changed on the basis of new evidence, etc. www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/02/23/HP/R/29898/Hearing+Examines+EPA+Budget+Request.aspx We can hope, and there is a lot of pressure building on EPA to reconsider. I think, right now, that they are looking for a way to save face, and blaming the IPCC for embarrassing the EPA might be it. Don't forget the new Climate Agency's role in this. There's also a distinct possibility that Boxer may not be heading that committee after November. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 24, 2010 15:42:09 GMT
There's also a distinct possibility that Boxer may not be heading that committee after November. We can only hope. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 24, 2010 21:47:32 GMT
There's also a distinct possibility that Boxer may not be heading that committee after November. We can only hope. Here's a little new info on the costs of Cap & Tax or new EPA regs on farmers. Obviously any new farm production costs (est $7/acre) would show up in our grocery carts, etc. This push to lower CO2 for no discernible benefit ( and quite likely a detriment ) to human well being is absolutely beyond comprehension. The people behind this insanity to be need to be institutionalized for everyones good. Partial excerpt from - www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=0353b2fa-34a2-481b-912d-1cb46058ad3aAll manufacturers will be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on their plants under the House and Senate bills, but refiners have to go a step further," said Bob Looney, CHS vice president for government affairs. Every gallon of fuel a refiner produced would count against its carbon footprint. On the two refineries majority owned by CHS, the company would need to spend between $188 million to $683 million every year to comply with the law. That does not count costs incurred to reduce smokestack and plant emissions at its refineries or at the two oilseed processing plants it owns.
Those estimates assume CO2 equivalent prices will trade in the $11 to $40 per ton range, similar to what European markets experienced when they first implemented a cap-and-trade system. At the higher price, farmers could expect to pay an extra 38 to 50 cents per gallon at the pump, Looney said. CHS believes that counting all fuel, fertilizer and electricity price spikes under the climate bill could raise farm production costs about $7 per acre. Also note the following warning:"We're not saying 'hell no, never,'" Looney added. "Reducing our plant emissions at the refineries and at the two soybean processing plants CHS owns is probably doable." But to impose that kind of cost on U.S.-made refined fuels will be counter productive, he added. One likely scenario would be for the oil industry to import more fuel from other countries that have opted not to impose greenhouse gas standards on their manufacturers. China and India are expanding their refining capacity while the U.S. recently retired 900,000 gallons of capacity.
"It looks like we'd do to small refineries what we did to the U.S. fertilizer business a decade ago -- move it off-shore," Anthony said.
Chuck Spencer, director of government affairs for Growmark, the Illinois-based cooperative, shares that anxiety. "It's always a concern when fuel costs go up to that degree since it would be just one component of higher energy costs that would filter through the economy," he said. Growmark believes the U.S. will put its industry at a competitive disadvantage internationally unless all countries commit to reduce emissions. |
|
