|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 1, 2008 1:24:30 GMT
A special note of appreciation to those doing the hardcore research and posting on this forum.
The information is invaluable.
Billalexander, your expose' of the tax schemes and government expansion plans are excellent!
You folks can't imagine how helpful all this is.
A request; please provide links to the reports, data, etc. whenever possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 1, 2008 1:27:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 1, 2008 4:12:22 GMT
Link no worky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 7:35:35 GMT
A More Prudent Woe: Carbon Content Tax Legislation by the Other SideEconomic cost drives Senate climate debate - Yahoo! NewsAuthor: H. Josef Hebert Abstract "A separate GOP proposal, from Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, would set milestones for carbon dioxide reductions over the next 20 years. It would allow for mandates after that time once a clearer picture develops about new, low-carbon energy technologies. Senators advocating aggressive action on climate change say that would be too late to avert the worst effects of global warming. Also in dispute is the distribution of pollution allowances. Many Democrats, including Clinton and Obama, to auction all allowances. The Senate bill would give about half of them to states, municipalities and affected industries. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont  , said he will try to get that changed so that none goes to what he considers to be special interests. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also wants most, if not all, the allowances auctioned and the money going out in checks to anyone earning $150,000 or less, or $300,000 for couples. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_go_co/climate_showdown_10;_ylt=Ano_aMFsV7kSTxRqkygdl08E1vAI Accessed Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:20:25 PM Comment: Why more prudent? - Milestones for tracking progress (and perhaps assessing model skill?)
- Twenty years to develop alternative low-carbon energy sources
- Mandates only after 20 years; I assume this means no carbon taxes
In my opinion, the Senators "advocating aggressive action" will have none of this, as they are already dividing up the spoils: - Auctioning allowances, redistributing proceeds to states, municipalities and affected industries
- So that none goes to what he (Sanders) considers to be "special interests"
- checks to anyone earning $150,000 or less, or $300,000 for couples
"Special Interests" can be better understood when you consider that Senator Sanders is a Socialist (even though he calls himself an "Independent"), and addressed the Democratic Socialists of America's (DSA) National Convention. In the DSA's position paper, Toward An Economic Justice Agenda, your will find (pg 11) "climate change is an economic, scientific, and labor issue much more than a traditional environmental issue". We should understand "special interest" as the DSA defines it. Finally, those advocating aggressive action on climate change say Voinovich's delay would make it too late to avert the worst effects of global warming. On the contrary, delay might make it too late to impose carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, or carbon credits. Data from PDO, ADO, La Nina, and the Sun may demolish the Beloved Models. Alternative energy sources may mature to economic feasibility in 20 years. And with that, we might hope that CO 2-driven AGW may follow the "Turnover Tax" into the dustbin of history.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 1, 2008 16:14:54 GMT
funny it doesnt make note of any of their qualifications - how do we know the janitor didnt sign it. Also doesnt make note of their comments - which could be ignored Why should it? You can look these people up if you want to. Even better try this, the first 12 have already been looked up here: rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/list-for-morano-like-john-hersey-eli.html1. ACHUTARAO, Krishna, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA An overview of results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project C Covey, KM Achutarao, U Cubasch, P Jones, SJ... - Global and Planetary Change, 2003 – Elsevier The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) collects output from global coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation models (coupled GCMs). Among other uses, such models are employed both to detect anthropogenic effects
2. ADLER, Robert, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Combined Precipitation Dataset GJ Huffman, RF Adler, P Arkin, A Chang, R Ferraro, … - 1997 - NASA/GSFC
3. ALEXANDER, Lisa, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Offi ce, UK, Australia, Ireland Comparison of Modeled and Observed Trends in Indices of Daily Climate Extremes D Kiktev, DMH Sexton, L Alexander, CK Folland - Journal of Climate - Bootstrapping techniques are used to assess the uncertainty in the gridded trend estimates and the field significance of the patterns of observed trends. The findings mainly confirm earlier, less objectively derived, results based on ...
4. ALEXANDERSSON, Hans, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Sweden A homogeneity test applied to precipitation data - H Alexandersson - J. Climatol, 1986 - doi.wiley.com In climate research it is important to have access to reliable data which are free from artificial trends or changes. One way of checking the reliability of a climate series is to compare it with surrounding stations. This is the idea
5. ALLAN, Richard, Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, UK Simulation of the Earth’s radiation budget by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather ... RP Allan, MA Ringer, JA Pamment, A Slingo - J. Geophys. Res, 2004 - agu.org Richard P. Allan. Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, Reading, UK. Mark A. Ringer. Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, UK. ..
6. ALLEN, Myles, Climate Dynamics Group, Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, UK, Quantifying Uncertainties in Climate System Properties with the Use of Recent Climate Observations -CE Forest, PH Stone, AP Sokolov, MR Allen, MD … - Science, 2002 - sciencemag.org We derive joint probability density distributions for three key uncertain properties of the climate system, using an optimal fingerprinting approach to compare simulations of an intermediate complexity climate model with three It's a pretty bad assessment. They make some quite horrific assumptions. For example they assume that only people who left comments examined a chapter: They also assume that any lack of comments in the review period indicates scientists disagreeing, which backwards to common sense. People usually comment when they spot an error or have a disagreement. People rarely comment when they agree. A lack of comments does not indicate disagreement or tell you how many people reviewed it. Again they assume a lack of comments is a bad thing. They also here wrongly assume that reviewers should have commented on every chapter. The chapters are on different subjects and people are unlikely to find reason to comment in chapters outside their expertize. Any rejection will be "contentious". That goes without saying really. Another meaningless argument. It is hardly suprising that any comprehensive review of published papers undertaken by experts in the field will contain some of the papers by those experts. This is what happens when the bulk of experts in the field accept it. In short this "assessment of the IPCC contributing authors" by the "Science and Public Policy Institute" is bunk, filled with junk arguments with no substance. But then the "Science and Public Policy Institute" is a front group for pushing anti-climate science news in the media anyway, so this is kind of spin piece can only be expected from them. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 1, 2008 17:00:27 GMT
funny it doesnt make note of any of their qualifications - how do we know the janitor didnt sign it. Also doesnt make note of their comments - which could be ignored Why should it? You can look these people up if you want to. Even better try this, the first 12 have already been looked up here: rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/list-for-morano-like-john-hersey-eli.html1. ACHUTARAO, Krishna, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA An overview of results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project C Covey, KM Achutarao, U Cubasch, P Jones, SJ... - Global and Planetary Change, 2003 – Elsevier The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) collects output from global coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation models (coupled GCMs). Among other uses, such models are employed both to detect anthropogenic effects
2. ADLER, Robert, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Combined Precipitation Dataset GJ Huffman, RF Adler, P Arkin, A Chang, R Ferraro, … - 1997 - NASA/GSFC
3. ALEXANDER, Lisa, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Offi ce, UK, Australia, Ireland Comparison of Modeled and Observed Trends in Indices of Daily Climate Extremes D Kiktev, DMH Sexton, L Alexander, CK Folland - Journal of Climate - Bootstrapping techniques are used to assess the uncertainty in the gridded trend estimates and the field significance of the patterns of observed trends. The findings mainly confirm earlier, less objectively derived, results based on ...
4. ALEXANDERSSON, Hans, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Sweden A homogeneity test applied to precipitation data - H Alexandersson - J. Climatol, 1986 - doi.wiley.com In climate research it is important to have access to reliable data which are free from artificial trends or changes. One way of checking the reliability of a climate series is to compare it with surrounding stations. This is the idea
5. ALLAN, Richard, Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, UK Simulation of the Earth’s radiation budget by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather ... RP Allan, MA Ringer, JA Pamment, A Slingo - J. Geophys. Res, 2004 - agu.org Richard P. Allan. Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, Reading, UK. Mark A. Ringer. Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, UK. ..
6. ALLEN, Myles, Climate Dynamics Group, Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, UK, Quantifying Uncertainties in Climate System Properties with the Use of Recent Climate Observations -CE Forest, PH Stone, AP Sokolov, MR Allen, MD … - Science, 2002 - sciencemag.org We derive joint probability density distributions for three key uncertain properties of the climate system, using an optimal fingerprinting approach to compare simulations of an intermediate complexity climate model with three It's a pretty bad assessment. They make some quite horrific assumptions. For example they assume that only people who left comments examined a chapter: They also assume that any lack of comments in the review period indicates scientists disagreeing, which backwards to common sense. People usually comment when they spot an error or have a disagreement. People rarely comment when they agree. A lack of comments does not indicate disagreement or tell you how many people reviewed it. Again they assume a lack of comments is a bad thing. They also here wrongly assume that reviewers should have commented on every chapter. The chapters are on different subjects and people are unlikely to find reason to comment in chapters outside their expertize. Any rejection will be "contentious". That goes without saying really. Another meaningless argument. It is hardly suprising that any comprehensive review of published papers undertaken by experts in the field will contain some of the papers by those experts. This is what happens when the bulk of experts in the field accept it. In short this "assessment of the IPCC contributing authors" by the "Science and Public Policy Institute" is bunk, filled with junk arguments with no substance. But then the "Science and Public Policy Institute" is a front group for pushing anti-climate science news in the media anyway, so this is kind of spin piece can only be expected from them. Ah, the standard AGW ad hominem response. But you can't refute their results, can you? |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 21:00:47 GMT
A Different Version of the Same Woe: Cap-And-Trade LegislationThe Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill: Quick Summary and AnalysisAuthors Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner Which is: America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191) was introduced in the Senate on October 18, 2007 by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). The bill states as its purpose: " rompt, decisive action is critical, since global warming pollutants can persist in the atmosphere for more than a century."
Review at www.nationalcenter.org/NPA570.html Accessed Monday, October 27, 2008 4:58:07 PM
Notes:
1) The (Lieberman-Warner) bill would create a national "cap and trade" policy for greenhouse gas emissions. Companies would be allocated right-to-emit credits based on how much greenhouse gas they currently emit. The proposal -- frequently referred to as a cap-and-trade plan -- would establish an emissions trading system that would permit companies that emit fewer greenhouse gases than they are allowed to sell the excess portion to companies that exceed their allowances. The Act's sponsors estimate the bill would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050. The initial limits between the years 2005 and 2012 would cap emissions at 5,200 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent to estimated levels during 2005. Between 2012 and 2020, emissions would be further reduced two percent per year, resulting in a 15% reduction below 2005 levels.
2) Lieberman-Warner would establish: - A domestic offset program, allowing regulated facilities to meet up to 15% of their compliance obligation in any given year with allowances generated through domestic offset projects certified by the EPA. They could meet their emissions limits, provided they receive approval from the EPA, by purchasing credits on the international emission trading market or by borrowing from credits they would normally receive in future years.
- The Bonus Allowance Account, established using 4 percent of all emission allowances for calendar years 2012 through 2035, that would be used to reward firms that sequester their carbon emissions in geological formations.
- The Carbon Market Efficiency Board to monitor and report on the national GHG emission market.
3) Within the Treasury Department, it ( Lieberman-Warner ) would establish: ... (8) The Climate Change Credit Corporation to auction emission allowances. Cost and Impact Studies: Meeting the goals of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade plan would impose enormous financial strain on Americans, according to four independent econometric studies. | A study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) projects that by 2014 retail gasoline prices would increase between 13 and 50 percent; residential electricity prices would rise between 13 and 14 percent; and natural gas prices would increase between 18 and 21 percent. The study, "Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S.2191) using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS/ACCF/NAM)," www.accf.org/pdf/NAM/fullstudy031208.pdf also projects that the U.S. economy will suffer employment losses of 850,000 jobs by 2014 and between 1.2 and over 1.8 million more lost jobs in 2020. Moreover, households stand to lose between $1,010 and $2,779 of income each year by 2014. The economy would suffer Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of between $135 billion and $269 billion by 2014. Estimates are based upon 2007 baseline energy prices and produced a range of estimated price increases depending on the future availability of energy technologies and various socio-political constraints. | | The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change projects that, if Lieberman-Warner becomes law, in 2015 gasoline prices would increase 29 percent, electricity prices would jump 55 percent, and natural gas prices would be pushed up 15 percent. The MIT study, titled an "Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals," w3.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146_AppendixD.pdf is based on 2005 baseline energy prices and accounts for subsidies for carbon capture and storage (CCS), as well as 15 percent of emissions covered by the trading mechanism. | | An assessment by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University estimates that in 2015 gasoline prices would cost up to six percent more, electricity would be roughly 18 percent more expensive and natural gas prices would increase about 15 percent. Moreover, the study projects economy-wide GDP losses of $75 billion in 2015 and $245 billion in 2030. The 2007 study, "The Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act: A Preliminary Assessment of Potential Economic Impacts," www.nicholas.duke.edu/institute/econsummary.pdf considers credit trading as well as domestic offsets in its projections. | | The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis projects that Lieberman-Warner would cripple the future economic health of the United States. GDP losses are estimated to be between $45.7 billion and nearly $170 billion in 2015 (2000 dollars) - totaling as much as $4.8 trillion of lost GDP by 2030.10 In addition, Heritage analysts estimate annual employment drops could be as high as 901,000 as early as 2016 and will exceed 500,000 per year before 2030. By 2030, skyrocketing energy prices will mean the average household will spend an extra $608 for heating oil, $647 for electricity and $303 for natural gas per year from projected 2012 levels. www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/cda_0802.pdf | More:
Patrick Michaels, "Cato Scholar Comments on Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act," The Cato Institute, May 30, 2008, available at www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=ncomments&id=34 as of May 30, 2008.
Ben Lieberman, "Five Myths About the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Legislation," The Heritage Foundation, May 30, 2008, available at www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1940.cfm as of May 30, 2008
National Center for Public Policy Research, "Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Proposal, New Poll Suggests," May 28, 2008, available at www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Poll_Lieberman_Warner_052808.html as of May 30, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2008 1:14:06 GMT
Ah, the standard AGW ad hominem response. But you can't refute their results, can you? I just did |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 4:33:49 GMT
Piling Woe upon Woe: Cap-And-Trade plus Carbon Taxes
Looking back on Dingell's proposal, we see he includes both Cap-And-Trade and Carbon Taxes in his future hopes.
Re: The Politics of “AGW” « Reply #41 Yesterday at 8:25pm
Carbon Tax Summary: Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation
"In addition to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, ... a fee on carbon ...."
Re: The Politics of “AGW” « Reply #43 on Oct 31, 2008, 8:41pm »
Troubles To Come: Carbon Content Tax Legislation
Carbon's Power Brokers
Suggested and rejected as politically infeasible: "And a carbon tax (alone) would avoid the uncertainties inseparable from cap-and-trade's government allocation of emission permits...."
Re: The Politics of “AGW” « Reply #44 on Oct 31, 2008, 8:58pm
Another Woe To Come: Carbon Content Tax Legislation
Dingell to Take On Global Warming
"The cuts would come from a previously untested national cap-and-trade program ...."
|
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Nov 2, 2008 4:34:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 5:09:57 GMT
A Third Woe to Come from Across the Pond: The Carbon Credit, aka RationingMPs back personal carbon creditsAuthor: Environmental Audit Committee Abstract: "The government should go ahead with a system of personal 'carbon credits' to meet emissions targets, MPs have said. The Environmental Audit Committee said the scheme would be more effective than taxes for cutting carbon emissions. Under the scheme people would be given an annual carbon limit for fuel and energy use - which they could exceed by buying credits from those who use less. "In the meantime there is no barrier to the government developing and deploying the policies that will not only prepare the ground for personal carbon trading, but will ensure its effectiveness and acceptance once implemented." "He said it could be administered by the private sector, following the model of supermarket loyalty schemes in which a complex computer system is accessed by a "single plastic card". There would also be difficulties in deciding how to set the rations, taking into account a person's age, location and health. Website Title: BBC NEWS | Politics | Date: May 26, 2008 URL: newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7419724.stm Accessed Thursday, June 05, 2008 1:26:29 AM Notes:(British) Environmentalist George Monbiot applauded the scheme. "It's more progressive than taxation, it tends to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor; it's transparent; it's easy for everyone to understand, you all get the same carbon ration. "It also contains an inbuilt incentive for people to think about their energy use and to think about how they are going to stay within their carbon ration." (I believe I've heard something similar to George Monbiot's comment recently. Just where escape's me. Perhaps I'll recall it by Tuesday.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 5:29:23 GMT
A Third Woe to Come from Across the Pond: The Carbon Credit, aka Rationing (Comments)(The Carbon Credit proposal may explain why we read that "Climate Change", i.e., AGW, is comparable to World War II. We accepted rationing in that war; the external totalitarian attack meant the end of Liberty. But this time, the attack comes from within.  )Personal carbon credits: the trick Author: Mick Hume Abstract: "We are under attack from a noxious army of doom-troopers demanding that we treat climate change as a rerun of the Second World War. In the latest move to militarise everyday life, the Environmental Audit Committee of MPs has seriously proposed energy rationing, aka 'personal carbon credits'. "What solution do the doom-troopers propose to the problem of public resistance? Let's suspend democracy, like we did in the good old days!" Website Title: Times Online Date: May 27, 2008 URL: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article4009605.ece accessed Monday, June 02, 2008 9:50:28 AM Socialist Rationing Carbon CreditsAbstract: "Remember Tim Yeo? He was the Conservatives spokesman who intervened during one of the most ghastly episodes in the appalling history of Britain’s Labour Government. It was the dreadful holocaust during the foot and mouth epidemic. Yeo complained that the Government were not doing enough slaughtering. "Now he has excelled himself in making a statement of pure authoritarian socialism, as readers following the last link in the piece immediately above might have noted. Still pursuing the insubstantial global warming theory, in complete disregard of the ever-mounting contrary evidence, he and his cross-party mates are urging the introduction of a personal carbon tax. Yeo offers his justification in a paraphrase of this succinct and honest one by Moonbat himself: 'It's more progressive than taxation, it tends to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor; it's transparent; it's easy for everyone to understand, you all get the same carbon ration.' "Ration books disappeared after we managed to get rid of the post war Labour government, but socialists still have a sentimental attachment to the idea of forced equality for everybody (except MPs of course)." Date: May 2008 URL: www.numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20May.htm#face Accessed Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:46:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 2, 2008 8:01:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2008 8:03:22 GMT
"# Free electricity and free parking for city employees that drive electric vehicles
# Free or reduced cost electricity and parking for citizens that drive electric vehicles"I do not get what the advantage is of an electric vehicle. * They are heavier than a hydrocarbon fueled vehicle so need more energy to move around * They store the energy in batteries that use huge amounts of increasingly rare metals (probably so rare that we are past their peak availability already) * The energy they use was generated usually from fossil fuels in any case but the pollution is out of sight at a distant power station * The energy is then transmitted over lossy lines to an inefficient battery charging device (lots lost as heat) * They will all be recharging at the same time - late evening and overnight - the power grid would need to be strengthened to cope with the surge in demand. Considered as a whole from energy production to use, they actually use MORE energy LESS efficiently - Why are electric cars seen as so green? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2008 8:19:29 GMT
Why the surprise? The US is about to see Taxation used in the way it is used in Europe. So everyone here is talking about gas prices (petrol in UK speak) being expensive at $3 while in UK they are paying between $6 and $7 dependent on exchange rate. The UK government has used the recent oil price drops to raise tax on fuel. The fact that this tax is passed on in costs of everything is dismissed. The excuse of 'carbon tax' is also used to add $200 to air fares from US to UK - as if that will reduce any carbon footprint. The AGW theories will now be used to justify every tax rise. This despite what looks to be the beginning of one of the coldest winters for some time. As we have seen here - the religion is such that even going into a new ice age will still leave the politicians 'convinced' that its because of radiative forcing from burning fossil fuels. |
|
, said he will try to get that changed so that none goes to what he considers to be special interests. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also wants most, if not all, the allowances auctioned and the money going out in checks to anyone earning $150,000 or less, or $300,000 for couples.
)
