The U.S. Senate Republican minority used the filibuster to block the majority from passing a carbon cap and trade program in 2010, because FREEDOM, or something. So a group of Northeast states went ahead with it anyway and it continues to prove cap and trade works really, really well:
Massachusetts and eight other states – Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont – are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is the nation’s first “cap-and-trade” program. Power plants in the RGGI states must purchase “allowances” that allow them to emit carbon dioxide. The states auction off these allowances and use the proceeds for public purposes, especially investments in energy efficiency, which create jobs and keep energy spending local.
The revisions to the Commonwealth’s RGGI program, as well as similar changes in the other eight states, will lower the existing “cap” on power plant emissions in the RGGI states from the current level of 165 million tons per year to 91 million tons per year starting in 2014. The cap will then be lowered by 2.5 percent each year thereafter until 2020. This reduction will ensure that in 2020, power plant emissions from these nine states will be half of what they were in 2005, when RGGI was initiated.
The lower cap is also expected to generate an estimated $350 million in additional revenue for the Commonwealth by 2020. These revenues will be invested primarily in programs to improve energy efficiency in Massachusetts’ municipalities, businesses and residences, which will, in turn, reduce energy costs and lower carbon dioxide emissions.
$350 million in revenue for Massachusetts alone? I wonder how much his state would be raking in if Gov. Chris Christie hadn’t pulled New Jersey out of the program. What’s the opposite of fiscal conservatism? Christie’s pander to the Tea Party was that.
But cap and trade is supposed to bankrupt families and leave children shivering in the dark … uh, right?
Before making these revisions, the RGGI states conducted extensive modeling on the impacts of these changes on consumers. The modeling shows that the impacts of the reduced emissions cap will be very modest, less than one percent in consumer bills. The average Massachusetts residential customer’s monthly electric bill of $72 will rise by 39 cents; the average commercial customer’s monthly bill of $455 will rise by $3.89; and the average industrial customer’s monthly bill of $6,659 will rise by $83.
A little over a penny a day to curb superstorms like Sandy and make sure we pass on a stable climate to our children and grandchildren? Seems like the biggest doorbuster bargain of the holiday season.
Cross-posted from The Green Miles
Pelosi got it passed in her chamber in 2009.
Death by a thousand cuts, we have the gas tax on auto-pilot now, mini cap and trade, a push for a federal cap and trade policy, end fracking, stop Keystone, no nuclear, all this crushes the hard working people who are not PHD’s or engineers.
To blame Sandy on CO2 emmissions is a stretch, there have been hurricanes in the past that were just as powerful, and today, Israel and Egypt are getting snow fall, the first time in 100 years.
Where do you think all that extra moisture is coming from to cause the biggest snowfall in 100 years. By the way, Israel gets snow every once in a while, the 100 years you mention is the last time they had this much snow.
In fact, just in January they had the biggest snowfall in 20 years (8 inches).
That’s the self-imposed fee for replying to DFW! 🙂
The Animal Rescue League of Boston thanks you for reminding me.
I take donation penalties seriously 🙂 Always a good reason to give.
My point is more taxes and fees yet again, and for what? No impact on the overall CO2 global output. I would rather give my money to an animal shelter than to these green energy companies or politicians.
They couldn’t breath the CO2. If they hadn’t fixed the CO2 scrubber problem, the astronauts would have died before returning to Earth.
Next time you want to say how CO2 is harmless, take an old refrigerator, climb inside it, shut the door and sit there quietly for several hours, or just put a plastic bag over your head and tie it off with some rope. And then, have a conversation with David Carradine.
Or you could talk to some of you anthrocite coal miners friends about how CO2 never hurt anyone trapped in a mine.
There’s a very common misperception that people who die in high-CO2 environments always do so because of a lack of Oxygen in the air. This is not necessarily the case. If you find yourself in an atmosphere that’s 85% Oxygen and 15% CO2, you’re going to die very quickly. The ILDH exposure limit for CO2 is 4% (40K ppm). We are not likely to ever see that concentration in the general atmosphere, but activities such as using dry ice in a confined space can easily raise the level of CO2 TO 9%, which will cause death within 5 minutes. Again, this is regardless of how much Oxygen is in the air.
Be safe.
… If you wish to be taken seriously by serious people you should do serious scholarship. If you did serious scholarship you would not make such silly statements. If you did not make silly statements, people would not think you were silly. If you did not cling, tenaciously, to your silly statements people would not think, also, that you are smug.
IF there were storms just as powerful as Sandy, they certainly have not occurred in the past 100 years and so a 1 in 100 year occurrence is nothing special: this according to your initial subclause where you minimize the connection between CO2 and Sandy. However, in the last subclause you reverse, completely, the odds and says a 1 in 100 year occurrence is of great note. You cannot have it both ways.
Let me save you the trouble: There were no very comparable storms, in the record of the Atlantic than Hurricane Sandy. So in a very clear way let me spell it out for you: as long as people have been tracking and recording storms nothing has been as big or as powerful as Sandy. Nothing. There is a slight possibility that prior to tracking and recording storms one or two storms might have been as big and as powerful as Sandy, but given our understanding of the climate record, particularly ocean temps and arctic snowpack (the lessening of which played a particularly important role in Sandy) it is highly unlikely.
Yes, there have been storms that briefly had higher winds or briefly greater intensity (as measured by barometric pressure) but these had neither the length nor breadth, nor the longevity, of Sandy. It truly was a storm of a different magnitude altogether.
Yes, there have been storms that have killed more people and done more damage, but that does not mean they were more powerful. Destruction is less a function of the hurricanes’ size/strength and more a result of poor planning or infrastructure, lack of foreknowledge or inadequate resources. Absent the foresight bequeathed by modern science Sandy would no doubt have killed tens of thousands if not a hundred thousand people or more. Modern science saved many many people from the most powerful storm ever described in the Atlantic ocean, which hit squarely dead center of what is certainly within the top ten of densely populated 100 square miles on the planet.
If, however, you truly believe that such a statement as you have made is adequate and sufficient rebuttal then I must conclude that you either aren’t fundamentally able to discern between serious and spurious or simply aren’t interested in doing so. That, too, is a choice.
Very powerful storms, lots of destruction and sadly, people were killed.
I’m not saying you do but it seems to me those that push green energies use the scare card, that something like Hurricane Sandy never happened before, when it has.
I think it’s good there is snow in Egypt, tells me the planet is not over-heating or had a fever. I think I read how the earth just recorded its coldest temperature ever, do cold, the observers had to wear a mask.
I really wish this site’s moderator’s would ban habitual liars, but for the record: Hurricane Sandy was the largest Atlantic hurricane ever as measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles. Its central pressure hit 940 millibars, the lowest barometric reading ever recorded for an Atlantic storm to make landfall north of Cape Hatteras, NC.
So no, there’s never been a storm like Sandy before.
He “recalls stories” of yadda yadda yadda. The whole plural of anecdote = evidence routine.
Learn the difference between weather and climate.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Good thing I made a $25 donation.
I’m telling you, Dan, it hasn’t. It has not ever happened before. Sandy was a storm of a completely different magnitude from most every other storm in the Atlantic ever. People died in Edna and Carol and Claude and others because we didn’t have the foreknowledge we have today. People died in the Storm of ’78 which wasn’t even a hurricane. People die in floods that have not on one hundredth the power of a hurricane.
That Sandy was followed nearly a year later, by one of the largest storms (Hayan) ever recorded in the Pacific (if not the planet) is not scare tactics… It’s just plain shit-yo-pants scary. You have no idea how completely and totally out of the ordinary Sandy and Hayan are AND how anomalous it is that they occurred a year apart. I’m tryin g to give you an idea, but you’re willing to google for something and believe that before you believe me.
That’s still an anomaly and indicative of how little we understand and not at all a get out of climate change free card. We, the scientists, goofed when we let the press call it ‘global warming’. It’s may be global warming, it may be extreme climate change, but it is not benign and it is man made: greenhouse gasses are trapping more and more energy in the ecosystem. We really have no idea how the system is going to shake this excess energy out, but we do know that it going to do so ruthlessly and with absolutely no regard to humans comfort, or even continued existence. There is no debate on that any more.
Comparing the two based on wind speed, it’s Huk Hogan VS Anthony Weiner.
Probably that’s where I error, just looking at this one aspect of hurricanes. I believe Edna had stronger winds, and Carol just as strong as Sandy, if not higher, No, they were not as large as Sandy, but Sandy wasn’t as “powerful” (in this regard) which is what I am saying.
I don’t disagree with what you say, and believe what greenmiles says about the specifics of Sandy, but all I am saying is these suckers have wrecked havoc in the past, and will do so in the future. I just don’t believe we as Americans, can do much about it, when its a world problem with CO2 emissions.
Not to be snarky, but how many on BMG or in New England can say their living room is 78 degrees and not use a drop oil heat or fracked natural gas? Even the bedrooms upstairs are warm.
Sandy was a category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in Cuba.
When Sandy landed on NJ, it was. Cat-1. Comparing apples to apples, as best as I can…..
Compare the storms at their strongest. Not strongest-when-it-hits-america.
than Sandy. I concede Sandy was wider, thus impacted a larger area. And Carol was no slouch either.
Hurricane of 1938 = winds of 160 MPH
Hurricane Carol 1954 = 115 MPH
Hurricane Edna 1954 = 120 mph
Hurricane Sandy 2012 = 115 mph
Just stop. We’re trying to engage with you but you seem willfully immune to reason. Please stop.
What will it take for you to believe us? Is there any fact, facet, insight or understanding that you won’t twist into a picayune discussion of small distinctions and irrelevant distractions? What do we have to say to you to make you see things, even if only temporarily, from our point of view? Do I have to bring up the difference in seawater temperature between now and then? Do I have to show you gradients of arctic snow melt and plot the jet stream currents? Do I have to list and quote every last serious scientist who concurs in the analysis that Sandy was a storm orders of magnitude larger than any that had gone before. What, pray tell, will convince you?
‘Cause if there isn’t any thing that will be said to change, or at least open, your mind then it really is best for you to go elsewhere. It will save us all a lot of time and angst.
Do me this personal favor: Go find your favorite, most comfortable, spot and suspend your disbelief, even if only for ten minutes, and simply imagine what it would be like if everything we’re saying is true. I like the beach for contemplation, myself, but that’s probably not a good idea during the winter. You don’t even have to tell me what happens. In fact, I don’t want to know. I would just like you to take ten minutes… set an alarm if you don’t want to go past ten minutes… and seriously contemplate the possibility that we are earnest and honest in our discussion here and that what we say might be true. That’s all. I’m not asking you to change your mind. I’m only asking you to imagine, for a short time, our point of view.
that yes, if I believed 100% what you say about climate change, I would be very worried and I admire yours, and others, passion on the subject. We only have one planet to live on, not like we can colonize the Mars or something.
Then I thought of how I must come across as a big jerk on BMG, so then I asked why do I think the way I do. Things that came to mind (keep in mind, it’s late at night, I’m sipping on a cold Schlitz) were the dust bowls in Oklahoma in the 1930’s, was that climate change? Next was JFK having Diem (So. Vietnam President) assassinated in early Nov of 63, The Tonkin Gulf Resolution, CIA in the drug dealing business during the 80’s, Savings and Loan Crisis, the promises of NAFTA and GATT by the politicians, the Catholic Church coverup of pedophiles in their ranks, WMD’s, real estate crash, and of course, Obamacare and “you can keep your plan and doctor…period, and save $2500 to boot”.
In this diary, greenmiles wrote at a cost of a penny a day, we can curb superstores like Sandy and pass on a more stable climate. Do you truly believe that? Please say you don’t.
You understand now why I look at what these politicians say, with a skeptical eye? So when Obama or Deval or Limo rider Al Gore preach in front of a wind turbine (guillotine for eagles and hawks), I quickly turn the channel and look for Megan Kelley doing an interview. I truly believe they are looking to F me over somehow and take more from me and give to the chums who are politically connected.
…I for one would still like a cleaner and better preserved environment regardless of who might benefit.
I actually, and specifically, said that I didn’t want to know the results. The exercise was for you.
Thinking “the way that you do” has, almost nothing to do with how you “come across as a big jerk on BMG.” You do come across as a big jerk for several reasons:
1) you don’t appear to bother to read what other people have to write. Case in point, I specifically wrote that “I don’t want to know” what happens after you take time to consider our point of view. I wrote it. I meant it. You ignored it.
2.) You don’t critically analyze what you have to say. Case in point: when I say that Hurricane Sandy was the biggest most powerful storm you breeze right past me and quote categories of previous storms as a mode of comparison… without realizing that the very same people who came up with categories for hurricanes, and who use those categories every day, and whom you are invoking in defense of your thesis are the very same ones I’m quoting as having said, forthrightly, Hurricane Sandy is orders of magnitude larger than other storms. You cannot disprove them by invoking them… It doesn’t work like that.
3) You do yourself no favors by conflation. Case in point: Whatever you or I might think of Obamacare, be it in opposition or even dismissal, it’s not even remotely in the same category as the assassination of Diem, CIA drug running, WMDs or the Catholic Curia harboring and abetting pedophiles.
And, for the record, I do, absolutely and comprehensively agree with greenmiles that a penny a day is both a possible and a desirable way to help pay for the cost of ameliorating climate change. I do think we should pay even more, but that’s a good start. Massachusetts population is about 6.6 million people: If we amortized over the population at a penny/day, that’s $66,500/day or, if you like really big numbers thats $24,272,500/year
It is entirely possible for you to think that they are, indeed, trying to “F people” without you being a jerk about it here on BMG. I do not think that anyone here at BMG is in position to F you over, nor, honestly, do I think that any of them would readily do so, if they had the opportunity.
I’ll give you any Atlantic hurricane from any time in the past. If you took away that hurricane, whatever hurricane you name, and put Hurricane Sandy in its place the wreckage would be several orders of magnitude MORE. More what, you ask? More more. Or, as Stephen Colbert now puts on his opening splash “26% more most”. Hurricane Edna, which you named, killed 21 people. If Hurricane Sandy hit in ’54 the death toll would have been much much higher… Saying that a hurricane that killed in ’38 is the same as a hurricane in ’12 is not saying anything.
I don’t know anyone who keeps their living room at 78 degrees, anytime. I certainly don’t. Nor do I much appreciate you, again, trying to have it both ways: You say that the problem is global to the extent that you “just don’t believe we as Americans, can do much about it”… yet somehow, BMG’ers or any one in New England, bears responsibility for the use of oil heat or fracked natural gas. You may not have set out to be snarky but you sure arrived there in a hurry nonetheless.
and it’s quite successful. It wouldn’t surprise me if it expands in the next decade — both more states, and more facets of fossil fuel consumption.
Each state can spend their share of the proceeds however they like. NJ spent a lot on their general budget; NY spent some, though not as much. MA spends quite a bit on energy efficiency programs, which is the ultimate middle class benefit — it helps middle class homeowners drive down their energy bills, which helps them stay in their homes despite rising costs, and through retirement or a temporary employment stutter. That it reduces air and water pollution, CO2 emissions, and costs *less* than new power plants is a bonus.
By 2020, RGGI proceeds will likely go up to about 2.5 times what they are now, for each state. I expect MA will invest even more heavily in EE (helping to spread the benefits throughout society), and, I would hope, use the money to invest heavily in EE and RE (generally, solar panels) on both state and local government buildings. Whether you prefer tax cuts or expanded programs, every buck not spent on an energy bill frees that buck for one or the other or some of each.
status a couple of years ago. It provided solar arrays on our new library, which will save us money in the years to come. Our town had qualified for a $150,000 grant. The way state aid goes these days, all revenue is good.
As a Green Community, your town also increased the building code so that any substantial renovation or new building will have better air sealing, more insulation, and more efficient HVAC equipment. Your town pledged to purchase fuel efficient vehicles when vehicles are to be purchased. Your town zoned some land in town as renewable energy generation develop-able by right. If your city or town is a green community, then your city or town did all of these things, because those are some of the requirements to gain the status.
The lege deserves a real tip of the hat on the Green Communities Act. Cities and Towns chose to embrace and pursue greener policies, both internal to government and regulations applying to private enterprise. Those towns are now proving that the improvements come at little/no/negative cost, and that will help the Lege double back and improve the EE/RE standards for all cities and towns in Massachusetts.
The funny thing about my town is the fact that it is one of the few conservative municipalities in Hampshire County. Granby supported Scott Brown along with two other towns.
The vote was close at Town Meeting, but opposition was subdued when they learned that the Green Building codes would eventually become code anyway.
there are EE programs that target low-income families (by working with land lords, for instance).
Pretty hard to avoid benefiting property owners in the process, since you are making improvements to buildings.
Arguably good mass transit is an EE benefit for poor folks too.
Of course. MA pursues ’em, too. And, I’d add, there are EE opportunities for renters which don’t involve the landlord directly: CF/LED bulbs and higher appliance standards for non-landlord appliances (cable box, TV, DVR, computers, window rattlers, etc) come to mind.
Good mass transit is good for energy use reduction, but it’s not EE by definition. Folks using mass transit instead of personal vehicles is mode-shifting. The MBTA improving the lumens per watt of lighting [LEDs, CFs, etc] would be an example of EE.
We are not on the stand. I think there is an environmental-justice case for using Compact revenues to improve mass transit generally (that is, not just with efficiency improvements). For that matter a straight environmental case as well.
there are EJ cases and straight environmental cases to improve mass transit. But given that “energy efficiency” has a particular meaning, why not use it correctly?