Tag Archives: Sierra Club

Washington voters to decide on nation’s first carbon tax

climate-change
From MyNorthwest.com: Washington lawmakers have tried and failed in recent years to make polluters pay for their carbon emissions to fight climate change. Now, voters will get to decide.
An initiative on the November ballot asks voters whether the state should impose the nation’s first direct carbon tax on the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gasoline.
Sponsors say residents have a moral responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and a carbon tax is the best way to do it. The tax encourages businesses to conserve or switch to clean energy by making fossil fuels more expensive, and it makes the tax system fairer by using the revenues to reduce other taxes, they say.
Businesses say the tax will drive up fuel and energy costs and put Washington companies at a competitive disadvantage.
And in a move that has bewildered some, major environmental and other groups — including those that backed Gov. Jay Inslee’s proposal last year to cap emissions and make carbon polluters pay — oppose the initiative. They say it takes the wrong approach.

Yoram Bauman

Yoram Bauman


Yoram Bauman, an economist who founded Carbon Washington, the grassroots group that gathered more than 350,000 signatures to qualify Initiative 732, defended it as great climate and tax policy. “It does almost everything right for Washington,” he said.
Audubon Washington supports it. “Our members came down on the side of urgency. We don’t have time to wait,” said Gail Gatton, the group’s executive director. “Climate change is happening, and this is our best available option right now to protect birds.”
But the Sierra Club, Washington Environmental Council and the advocacy group Front and Centered say the initiative is the wrong carbon-pricing approach and will hurt the state’s revenues. Whereas Inslee’s pollution fee would have raised money for education, transportation, clean energy and programs to help disadvantaged communities affected by climate change, Initiative 732 provides no such investments, critics say.
Rich Stolz

Rich Stolz


“It’s not a path that makes sense for our communities,” said Rich Stolz, executive director of OneAmerica, which works on social justice issues. Stolz said the initiative ignores climate justice and lacks input from communities of color.
Stolz’s group is part of a coalition that worked on an alternative carbon-pricing measure. Last-minute talks between that coalition and I-732 supporters to collaborate on one ballot measure fizzled last year.
The initiative is designed to be revenue neutral, meaning the tax revenue increase from fossil fuels would be mostly offset by decreases in other taxes. In this case, revenues would be returned to people and businesses by cutting the state sales tax by one point, virtually eliminating business taxes for manufacturers and providing rebates for working families, sponsors say.
A state analysis, however, estimates the measure could cost the state about $800 million in lost revenues over the first six fiscal years. Initiative sponsors dispute the state’s analysis, saying it double-counted the rebates in the first year.
The carbon tax is modeled after one in the nearby Canadian province of British Columbia. California has a cap-and-trade program, which limits emissions and allows carbon polluters to buy and trade pollution credits. If approved, Washington’s carbon tax starts at $15 a ton of carbon emissions in July, goes up to $25 the next year and incrementally increases afterward.
The Washington State Tree Fruit Association, which represents growers, packers and marketers, is among those opposed. It takes a lot of fuel to grow and transport produce, and the tax will be paid by those in the state, not competitors outside it, said Jon Devaney, the group’s president. “Raising food prices in Washington state will make us less competitive compared to others,” he said.
Initiative sponsors say a $25 carbon tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 25 cents per gallon and the price of coal-fired electricity by about 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. They say power plants and fuel suppliers likely will pass those costs on to consumers, but that consumers will see price reductions in other things they buy because the sales tax is cut. The tax wouldn’t apply to electricity from renewables like hydro, wind or solar power.
The campaign has raised $1.2 million from nearly 1,200 unique donors; more than half of those total contributions are under $200. The No on 732 campaign sponsored by the Association of Washington Business has raised $300,000 to oppose the tax.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

EPA celebrates Earth Day by jetting across America, spewing C2O

Today is Earth Day, the highest holiest day of Gaia-worshiping Greenies.

In honor of Earth Day, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sending its administrator high priestess, Gina McCarthy, on a week-long 5-city tour to preach to the benighted, which will burn up more carbon and cause more pollution than you or I could ever generate in a year.

Gina McCarthy

Fox News reports, April 22, 2014, that the EPA announced that McCarthy would visit New York, Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta and Memphis to “participate in various events to…focus on responsible steps to cut carbon pollution to slow the effects of climate change.” Her tour began yesterday with a visit to Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show,” where McCarthy touted Obama’s climate action plan. McCarthy will end her tour on Friday with a visit to sustainable energy projects in Tennessee.

But the national nonprofit environmental group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) says the greenhouse gases generated by McCarthy’s five-city tour will “far exceed” any concrete action on climate change from her travels.

In a news release, “EPA’s Clueless Earth Day Celebration,PEER states:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s idea to jet its Administrator on a multi-city Earth Day-themed tour to “ask Americans to act on climate change through simple actions to reduce carbon pollution in their daily lives” is unclear on the concept. The greenhouse gases generated by Ms. McCarthy and her entourage will far exceed any concrete climate action from their travels….

Air travel, however, is one of the most carbon-intensive activities. A cross-country plane trip can create a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person. […]

“Frenetically jetting around the country appears to undercut EPA’s message to ordinary Americans that they should conserve, consume less and reduce transportation pollution,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that as Administrator, McCarthy is a frequent air traveler and has been criticized for commuting weekly back to her home in Boston. “Hasn’t EPA heard of Skype?”

Some events on McCarthy’s itinerary have a somewhat tenuous tie-in to promoting climate action. For example this Tuesday, Administrator McCarthy and Energy Secretary Moniz will throw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Red Sox vs. Yankees baseball game at Boston’s Fenway Park.

“EPA touts this tour as meaningful but this agency’s effectiveness in public education is not measurable. While Ms. McCarthy is an engaging individual she is hardly a charismatic figure whose mere presence galvanizes public action,” Ruch added, suggested that top EPA officials could convey a more powerful message by practicing the conservation measures they are preaching.

The Daily Caller points out that Gina McCarthy’s weekly flights to and from her Boston home emit 7.5 tons to 9.4 tons of carbon dioxide per year — nearly equivalent to the yearly carbon emissions of the average non-flying American. Note that the 9.4 tons of carbon dioxide emissions are just from her weekly commute to and back from Boston, which means McCarthy’s total carbon dioxide emissions would be much more than those of the average American to whom she pontificates.

Liberalism

See also how the green hypocrites of the Sierra Club’s board of directors drive around in gas-guzzling luxury Jaguars and SUVs.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama’s EPA wants to regulate cow fart to fight “global warming”

cow fartThe Daily Caller reports, March 28, 2014:

As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.

This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Some of these methane emissions come from cow flatulence, exhaling and belching — other livestock animals release methane as well.

“Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence,” according to How Stuff Works. “Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day… while others say it’s up to 500 liters… a day. In any case, that’s a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.”

“Of all domestic animal types, beef and dairy cattle were by far the largest emitters of [methane],” according to an EPA analysis charting greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. Cows and other animals produce methane through digestion, which ferments the food of animals.

“During digestion, microbes resident in an animal’s digestive system ferment food consumed by the animal,” the EPA notes. “This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces [methane] as a byproduct, which can be exhaled or eructated by the animal.”

It’s not just the dairy industry that the Obama administration is clamping down on. The White House is looking to regulate methane emissions across the economy from agriculture to oil and gas operations — all this despite methane emissions falling 11 percent since 1990.

Methane emissions have largely been reduced because of the incentive for companies to capture it and sell it for monetary gain. Oil and gas companies, for example, have been looking for ways to increasingly capture methane leaked from drilling operations which they can then sell.

“The industry has led efforts to reduce emissions of methane by developing new technologies and equipment, and recent studies show emissions are far lower than EPA projected just a few years ago,” said  Howard Feldman, head of scientific and regulatory affairs at the American Petroleum Institute. “Additional regulations are not necessary and could have a chilling effect on the American energy renaissance, our economy, and our national security.”

“Methane is natural gas that operators can bring to the market,” he added. “There is a built-in incentive to capture these emissions.”

Environmentalists have been pushing the Obama administration to crack down on methane emissions for some time, arguing that they drive global warming and pollute the air and water. Activists have argued that the methane leakage rate from natural gas operations is 50 percent higher than the EPA estimates.

“President Obama’s plan to reduce climate-disrupting methane pollution is an important step in reining in an out of control industry exempt from too many public health protections,” Deborah Nardone, campaign director of the Sierra Club’s Keeping Dirty Fuels in the Ground campaign. “However, even with the most rigorous methane controls and monitoring in place, we will still fall short of what is needed to fight climate disruption if we do not reduce our reliance on these dirty fossil fuels.”

Republicans and the oil and gas industry argue that the methane leakage rate has been estimated to be 50 times lower than the EPA’s estimate. The GOP argues that the EPA’s estimate is simply an attack on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

“The EPA has been on a witch hunt to shut down hydraulic fracturing, and yet again the evidence doesn’t back up their excessive claims,” said Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter. “All too often we see the Agency using flawed science for political purposes, but this report – partially funded by environmental activists no less – shows EPA’s emissions estimates from hydraulic fracturing are way off.”

H/t Clash Daily

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Agenda 21 – Joan Veon Explains Public Private Partnerships

We lost a great patriot when Joan Veon succumbed to cancer in October, 2010.  She was an investment professional with press credentials who attended numerous United Nations Conferences over the past 20 years, documenting the plan to to appropriate local control and override national sovereignty by the overarching global authority of the United Nations and implementation of Agenda 21.  I just tested her link and it’s still good.   https://womensgroup.org/
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KqJQfDik4g]
~LTG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Lesbian Democrat, Rosa Koire, Lays it on the Line about Agenda 21

For anyone who just “doesn’t get it,”Rosa Koire  gives a dynamite presentation that connects ALL THE DOTS!  This is a don’t miss presentation that gives vital information every American needs to understand!  I’m not kidding, this affect everyone.   For people who are fighting in public education issues, she mentions Outcome-based education about 50 minutes into it.   ~LTG

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4]

Please follow and like us:
error0