Posted on 07/09/2020 5:51:49 PM PDT by WLusvardi
“Be careful what you wish for. You might get it” said the proverbial Aesop (260 B.C.) in one of his ancient Greek fables. Something like this is playing out with the California Legislature that is getting just what it said it wanted when it passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 in Assembly Bill 32, which created the state’s Cap and Trade Program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG’s) from polluting industries. But lawmakers are just now learning that if you run out of emissions, you run out of revenues.
Due to the government-created coronavirus business shutdowns, California’s greenhouse gas emissions are reported to have fallen the most since World War II (minus 5% in 4 months), which is what environmentalists have long said they wished for. But along with this drop, Cap and Trade revenues from industrial purchases of pollution allowances dropped from $600-$850 million per quarter in 2019 to $25 million in May 2020 – a 97 % decrease.
These revenues are used to fund 25 percent of the California High Speed Rail project and a number of non-profit agencies in disadvantaged communities involved in “improving public health.”
To understand more about the proposed revisions to the Cap and Trade program, California Globe interviewed Tom Tanton, Director of Science and Technology Assessment for the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, and former principal policy advisor to the California Energy Commission.
(Excerpt) Read more at californiaglobe.com ...
what is McCarthy thinking? another disappointment:
9 Jul: C-Fact: So-called “conservative” climate contract paves way for Green New Deal
By Adam Houser
Several conservative politicians including Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the current Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, are regrettably endorsing the “American Climate Contract” – a document that calls for the U.S. to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Members of Congress like McCarthy have stood up for many good measures that support limited government and free market principles in the past, which makes this move surprising.
Here’s what McCarthy said in a statement on the matter:
“Conservative plans for the environment, as this contract does, understand that lasting and effective environmental progress depends on American innovation and exporting that technology around the world — not on enforcing debilitating taxes or punitive mandates.”...
To be sure, there are some things in the American Climate Contract that are good ideas. Continuing research into new energy technologies and seeking to diversify America’s energy portfolio are both worthy undertakings to bolster efficiency and improve national security.
The American Climate Contract also points out many faults in the Green New Deal and clearly states it is not advocating for a carbon tax. That is also very good.
But at the core of the issue with the American Climate Contract is that it uses President Obama’s strategy of demonizing carbon dioxide...
https://www.cfact.org/2020/07/09/so-called-conservative-climate-contract-paves-way-for-green-new-deal/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=so-called-conservative-climate-contract-paves-way-for-green-new-deal
A drop of “minus 5% in 4 months” equals a 97% drop in revenue??
Doesn’t ring true.
Perhaps it is the 1990 metric that accounts for the great difference.
Only emissions greater than those in 1990 contribute to the revenue so a small overall reduction could have a large impact on the revenue.
not a very informative article IMHO, does contribute some but could have done better.
Thanks. Well said.
But there are over 39 million people eating beans or tofu and passing gas every day there.
And thank you too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.