Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 07/25/2008 8:45:49 PM PDT by dixiechick2000
Your daily routine -- switching on a light, cooking a meal, driving down the street -- would generate less greenhouse gases under a first-of-its-kind regional strategy to curb global warming unveiled Wednesday at the state Capitol in Salem.
The strategy emerged from the Western Climate Initiative, an alliance of Western states -- including Oregon and Washington -- and Canadian provinces trying to jump ahead of any federal move to regulate greenhouse gases.
Large utility companies and factory owners would feel the effects first, followed by fuel distributors, as they face limits on their greenhouse gas emissions. Individual Oregonians would not feel the limits firsthand but probably would see changes in how their power is generated.
State officials who unveiled the approach in Gov. Ted Kulongoski's offices said the draft strategy's mandates may push power rates and fuel prices up slightly. But Oregonians should see lower bills in the end because the strategy promotes conservation measures that should reduce energy use, they said.
The basic premise is to cap greenhouse gas emissions and then gradually lower the cap over time. Each major emitter -- a power plant, for instance -- would get credits allowing it to release a certain amount of gases, such as carbon dioxide.
If the plant reduced emissions, it could sell its credit to another plant that couldn't meet its limits. Likewise, if the plant had trouble meeting its limit, it could buy credits from another one that had reduced its emissions. The idea is to allow flexibility as to where the reductions occur, so they're as cost-effective as possible.
Each state and province in the alliance will work out certain details of the cap-and-trade system on its own, but some elements will be consistent:
• Large greenhouse gas emitters such as power plants and factories would be regulated under the strategy by 2012. In Oregon, this would include fewer than 10 utility companies and about 50 companies total, including large plants and lumber mills.
• Vehicle and home heating fuels, including gasoline and natural gas, would come under regulation by 2015. Cap-and-trade systems for greenhouse gases in Europe, for example, have not included transportation emissions, which are responsible for about 40 percent of greenhouse gases produced in Oregon.
• Each state gets a share of emissions allowances and decides for itself whether to hand them out to major emitters or auction them. Auctioning the allowances could generate revenue that could help pay for energy efficiency measures or help low-income residents cope with energy prices.
• Greenhouse gas emitters could meet up to 10 percent of their obligation to reduce emissions by purchasing offsets, usually by funding projects that capture or eliminate emissions elsewhere. For instance, an offset might involve planting trees that soak up carbon dioxide.
Although Kulongoski has advocated a cap-and-trade system, he has not yet endorsed the regional strategy, said David Van't Hof, the governor's sustainability and renewable energy adviser. State officials are seeking public comment about the draft approach and hope to release a final version in September, he said.
The Legislature would probably consider enacting the system into law in its 2009 session.
Van't Hof said he expects criticism of the plan for being too weak or too strong. For instance, some environmental groups said Wednesday that the plan waits too long to limit greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.
The Western Climate Initiative includes Oregon, Washington, California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Montana, and British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Several other states and provinces, including several Mexican states, are observers.
The more states and provinces involved, the more cost-effective the plan will be, Van't Hof said. "At the end of the day, we're creating a market, not rules and regulations."
The federal government is widely expected to pursue limits on greenhouse gas emissions, advocated by both major presidential candidates. But Van't Hof said the states are moving forward because it's unclear whether or when the federal government will act. Even if it does, he said, states may gain advantages by acting first.
For example, some federal proposals have provided special incentives for states that have enacted their own systems, he said. "The early actors are going to be winners."
This guy might as well have transcribed Kulongoski's press release.
They'll double.
No, nobody would "feel the limit firsthand" when their power bill doubled or tripled inside of a year.. That's a "secondhand feel" which is much kinder and gentler than a "firsthand feel."
I wish this global warming nonsense would just go away already. Unfortunately, like tattoos, it seems to be a trend intent on lingering around.
At least Alberta seems to have some sense. And Saskatchewan, too.
Well, you geniuses, just continue this obvious trend and drive the price infinitely high. We'll all benefit because our bills will be infinitesimally small, maybe even zero dollars. Think of all the money we'll save not having to buy the evil electricity.
The only question to me is: When will the revolution begin?????
Economics for the insane.
I think we should deal with the unicorn infestation before we mess around with global warming. It’s much more urgent...and more credible.
Weasel words upon weasel words. Anyone with brain function above that of a one-celled organism knows that all extra costs will be immediately passed on to consumers in massive utility bill and gas pump price increases that the Democrats will blame on "the energy companies."
State officials who unveiled the approach in Gov. Ted Kulongoski's offices said the draft strategy's mandates may push power rates and fuel prices up slightly. But Oregonians should see lower bills in the end because the strategy promotes conservation measures that should reduce energy use, they said.
This is like saying that allowing serial killers to roam around free will make us safer "in the end" because everyone will be afraid to come out of their houses. If an enormous percentage of the state's population has to quit their jobs because they can no longer afford to drive to work, or are rendered homeless by the tripling of utility bills, then there will definitely be "reductions" in energy use.
I predict that this action will force more citizens to burn wood for heat and thus produce more greenhouse gases, acheiving exactly the opposite of what this strategy wants which is to lower or eliminate those gases.
It will be the only thing marginally affordable for people living in rural areas.
God help the politician who thinks he/she can outlaw woodstoves or fireplaces in the Pacific Northwest. That person will be hunted down and lynched.
Well, you subtract education and substitute globalism in our educational system, what do you expect?
Oregon fascism alert...
Which is to say, you've been in an ivory-tower *way* too long when you start claiming that consumers won't feel the price hikes imposed on power companies.
For 100,000 of the last 120,000 years downtown Seattle was buried under a half mile of glacial ice.
For those of us who live here, global warming is not necessarily a bad thing.
The Republican campaign poster I hope to see this fall...
...The upper floors of Seattle’s skyline poking out of 500 foot snow drifts, and the headline, “Stop Global Warming Now!”
The insanity continues.
What’s wrong with tattoos if they’re not overdone and have actual meaning to the person whose body it’s on?
The Democrats are plotting war against workers. Real idiots.
I consider them incredibly tacky and an insult to the human form, which is plenty beautiful enough on its own without distortion. It’s a personal aesthetic opinion, and you’re more than free to think otherwise. For the majority of the people who get them, I find the story amounts to, “Oh, I like “American Pie” and was wanting a tat.
Lame.
Do I have this straight?
The higher the cost goes, the less one uses, so the bills go down.
Reduced bills equals reduced income for a company, that has had it's cost increased.
Reduced income in the face of increased costs, forces raising rates further to cover the losses, unless cuts can be made.
So, either the rates soar, and bills DO go up, regardless of "conservation"; or the system is allowed to erode to point of falling apart due to inability to pay for maintenance, repairs, or replacements, let alone add capacity to provide for a growing customer base.
Do I understand correctly, or am I missing the dancing fairy waving its magic wand somewhere along the line?
Oh, before I forget, if bills are going to go DOWN, then why is THIS necessary?
Auctioning the allowances could generate revenue that could help pay for energy efficiency measures or help low-income residents cope with energy prices.
There are already various schemes to 'aid the poor' with their energy bills; but, if they bills are supposed to DROP, then FEWER people should need such aid; and those still needing it, should need LESS of it; not a new source of revenue to give them MORE.
Pinging you to the most egregious usurption of power.
I would love to read your take on this.
The primary evidence, the essential necessary evidence, that the greenhouse effect, and by extension CO2, is causing global warming doesn't exist. If the planet is warming this is proof positive that it isn't because of the greenhouse effect.
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
This is a short and easily understandable article showing the plain truth. The hinge pin that links global temperature to the greenhouse effect is missing. It is easily measurable and hundreds of probes have done so.
Written by the man who "DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office."
It was just poorly written. I think you've got it but let me put it another way the author probably didn't think of.
The colder you are the less you pay. Seems fair doesn't it? /s
So the gist of it is, "While many are cold, few are frozen"?
Uh, yeah.
Very good! Extremely memorable.
I will adopt that this winter, when I expect it to be true.
It would appear that no Democrat in history has ever taken a course in Economics and even fewer fave ever taken a class in common sense.
Well, it certainly would have a positive effect IF we could tear down all the barriers to Nuclear and Hydroelectric power production.
Wasting natural gas and petroleum products on electric power generation is kind of stupid anyway when there are better ways to use those resources. (like heating your home)
This AGW hand has been so overplayed that it may now be possible to use it against the Green-weenie-tree-hugger communists to overthrow their weaker arguments, such as bogus endangered species suits, and nuke hysteria.
This strategy is probably already in play.
Weakness is strength. Ignorance is knowledge.
And they call us rednecks stupid!!
There could also be a surge of No. 2 oil or propane fueled home generators to produce electricity, too. It may not be affordable by everyone, but they would also grow. People will find ways around our idiot politicians.
At the end of the day, we're creating a market, not rules and regulations.
One has to admire the brass-bound arrogance it takes even to attempt to pass this egregious lie off as truth. The market, of course, already exists or we wouldn't be having this conversation. What they intend to do with it is control it with rules and regulations to the point where the people in it will behave precisely as they wish. "The power to tax is the power to destroy," said Judge Hand, and he was right. They intend to destroy what they consider a wasteful way of life. This is the crudest and most broad-reaching social engineering with the vague and unquantifiable aim of "saving the planet," and never mind the fact that not a single of the premises behind this draconian regulation machine have ever been proven.
This isn't actually environmentalism at all, it's totalitarianism. These people mean to rule. And by controlling the cost, and rationing the usage of energy they have a means to power that is at once all-pervasive and unchallengeable. Who would dare be accused of NOT wanting to Save The Planet?
Quite a few of us, actually. Let us take a look at which aspects of life these totalitarians intend to effect: where you may live, your housing materials, construction, means of and amount of heating, your diet, what food is grown and how much of it, what travel you may undertake, its means, and how much of it, what entertainment you may pursue, its form, and how much of it, what you may grow for decoration and how much of it, what you may consume, what you may discard, and finally what you may say and what you may think. Anyone who thinks the last items are exaggeration hasn't heard the ravings of James Hansen lately.
It is a proposal modest enough to make a Stalinist's head spin, to make a Mussolini regret that he hadn't thought of it first, to make a Hitler green...with envy. It is no less than their own creed, word for word: "it will be better for you in the long run if we control you."
This is totalitarianism. Literally. No hyperbole, no rhetorical license. It didn't die, it merely changed form.
Ugh. “Single” = “single one” and “effect = affect.” I hate it when I do that.
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.