http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9b68690-1fbe-11de-a1df-00144feabdc0.html

Old Construction Worker, you are correct even more than you may know. Remember the Graham-MCain-Kennedy immigration bill. The one Bush wanted passed? Talk about bipartisan & executive support! Do you know what defeated it? You did; we did…using exactly the same tactics that you propose. It was crazy up here. Insane. It even spilled over into House offices.

In the end, House members where calling their Senate colleagues and asking them not to vote cloture (in other words keep the debate going endlessly – avoiding a vote). The House heard the voice of the people’s anger directed at the Senate and wanted no part of it. They just wanted the bill to go away.

When we are ready, when the time is right, we will again focus this wrath. Until then, we must continue to educate.

It is very hard to spend new money on goods and services that do not rely upon fossil fuel.

How about a competition to name HOW one can spend the handout on a non-GHG activity. (Leave nuclear out for the exercise). Then, when all the suggestions are in, sum them to see if there is any significant reduction of fossil fuel demand.

Blind Freddie can see that this is just a money churn. Have you ever seen a properly-costed report of the totality of those slippery words “energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI will spur innovation in the clean energy economy and create green jobs in each state.”?

Then it’s time to slap politicians upside their collective heads.
Jam their phone lines, fax lines and send letters. And, let them know you will work to throw the ones who vote for CO2 cap and trade out of office.
Bottom line
There are more of us than there are corporations and corporations don’t vote.

Roger Sowell

California (…)
If this state did not have warm weather, sunshine, and lovely scenery, nobody would live here.

If this state did not have warm weather, sunshine, and lovely scenery it would be the UK.

It wasn’t just the figures btw, have a read of the article. As I posted there it seems as though we are being governed by the Southpark Gnomes

“1) Are you saying that cap and trade was only one way to deal with acid rain and smog and that other ways would not have worked better?
Rightttttt, UK CO2 cap and trade has done wonders reducing their CO2 emissions. NOT. And the money flow is soooo transparent.”

Yes, there were/are alternatives to cap and trade. One frequently mentioned is command-and-control, in which government dictates what technology is to be used and by what date. Catalytic converters on cars are one example. CAFE standards for gas mileage on cars is another.

Another approach is to limit the pollutant at the pipe, or smokestack in this case, via both a concentration limit and an annual tonnage limit. That approach is used in Southern California (and elsewhere) for NOx, among others, by limiting the NOx concentration to around 2 or 3 ppm, and the total tons per year based on the size of the power plant.

The industries usually lobby for cap-and-trade, as this gives them the most flexibility (and opportunity for mischief). However, some oil companies have argued for the case you put forward, just a simple carbon tax and be done with it.

” 2) Since CO2 is a non toxic, harmless gas, why regulate it at all. If you want to shut down coal fired electric plants, tax coal as it comes out of the ground. Don’t hide behind “CO2 drives the climate” scam.”

My view is the same, CO2 is good for living things. But our law makers tend to listen to some scientists rather than others, and in this case they have chosen to listen to the AGW alarmists. I suspect that all this will change in a few years when coal plants are shut down, nobody can afford to build nukes, the wind stops during winter, and natural gas gets cut off for political purposes during a cold winter. Suddenly domestic supplies of coal will look mighty good! Especially to inland areas far from the sea where wave power might do some good — or might not as it is highly variable.

I wrote on an earlier thread on WUWT about the unusual cold snap in Texas during winter of 72-73. The local gas supplier ran out of gas and the entire state had to curtail businesses and non-essential services for nearly two weeks, so the residents could stay warm. Texas had no nuclear power in those days, and I believe the coal-fired plants were on-line so we had power, too.

@3 x 2: re California as the leaders. I live in California, and see how it works…my advice is to never follow where California leads…our demonstrated inability to manage a state budget, keep people employed, keep the populace safe from crime, enforce immigration laws, manage our water resources, provide adequate basic infrastructure, establish rational goals and reduce pollution rationally, extract our mineral resources (oil and gas), to me suggest this is not a place to emulate on any matter. If this state did not have warm weather, sunshine, and lovely scenery, nobody would live here.

Pyromancer — agreed, some chemicals are potent pollutants and should be regulated. As a chemical engineer, I fully appreciate that. Nobody should ever have to endure hexa-valent-chromium, (from the movie Erin Brokovich), or any of a host of other toxic substances.

3 x 2 and o.c.w., — never mind those figures! The California Air Resources Board has spoken! The power price will only increase 12 percent by 2020. They have experts that told them so! ( sarc off now)

(UK gov) Our existing climate change policies are projected to add around 18% to annual domestic electricity bills and around 55% to industrial electricity bills by 2020.

So allowing a little time for that 55% to be passed on to customers via everything else they purchase – that is one hell of a tax hike. Enjoy.

1) Are you saying that cap and trade was only one way to deal with acid rain and smog and that other ways would not have worked better?
Rightttttt, UK CO2 cap and trade has done wonders reducing their CO2 emissions. NOT. And the money flow is soooo transparent.

2) Since CO2 is a non toxic, harmless gas, why regulate it at all. If you want to shut down coal fired electric plants, tax coal as it comes out of the ground. Don’t hide behind “CO2 drives the climate” scam.

I am with you in the head shaking over coal-based power. But, being realists, we must comply with our laws, no matter how poorly designed. The fines for failure to comply are large, and our government has the power to shut down a facility for non-compliance.

Just today, April 1, a new California ordinance went into effect for gasoline dispensers at service stations. Those not in compliance will have their pumps tagged as inoperable and fined approximately $6000 per month. The new ordinance will reduce vapor emissions slightly. The old design captured 95 percent of gasoline vapors, and the new design captures 98 percent. It requires approximately $11,000 per pump to upgrade to the new design. No kidding, folks. All this for 3 percent fewer vapors in the atmosphere!

http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/2009/rule461factsheetfinal3.pdf

There was no evidence that refrigerants destroy ozone, but the law was passed and everyone had to switch to more energy-intensive refrigerants.

This idiocy of mixing ethanol in gasoline does nothing to reduce CO2, as the ethanol production uses as much energy as the car obtains from burning it. Yet the law is there, our gasoline costs more, and here we are. The amount of imported oil saved by our making ethanol for vehicles is so small as to be a joke.

My solution is to require every step in the ethanol production process to burn nothing but ethanol for energy supply. Then, we would see just how much ethanol is left over to mix with gasoline for the cars. But that is too sensible an approach.

The US has a number of idiot-laws on the books, each one increasing the cost of goods and services, and providing questionable societal value.

Just wait until you see our Green Chemistry Initiative — if you have not already. That one will surely end our economy, yet it is coming along with AB 32.

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/index.cfm

The lunacy never ends in this state…

Anybody have any ideas on that one?

Russia and (I think) Iran have lots of LNG – buy it from there! (…huh?).

Why do we have to buy into this problem of finding alteranatives to cheap, abundant Coal? I shake my head at this mess.

You are right that it is better to leave cap and trade alone. But that is not going to happen. We have had cap and trade schemes (laws) for many years, one on the East Coast for NOx and SOx, and one on the West Coast (SCAQMD area in and near Los Angeles) for NOx and PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns size). They worked, after a fashion, reducing acid rain on the East Coast, and smog on the West Coast.

The carbon cap-and-trade will be with us, whether we (the little people) want it or not. So, the best way for a utility to participate is as I wrote above, shut down a coal-fired plant, replace it with a CCGT, and sell the carbon credits in the marketplace. One has to wonder, though, where all the natural gas will be found. Imported as LNG, some, and domestic, some. But the natural gas pipelines are barely adequate or inadequate on the East Coast during winter as it is. Pushing more natural gas through them to keep the power plants running will be rather difficult.

Gas pipelines are funny critters. After a certain point, one just cannot shove more gas through the thing. No amount of government legislation will overcome the basic laws of physics. Pipelines win, every time.

The alternative for coal-power plants is to capture and sequester the CO2 from the exhaust stack. As I wrote on another thread, the cost for this increases the power price between 2.5 and 4 cents per kwh. Not too bad, really, when one learns that replacing the plant with a nuclear power plant will increase the cost of power by 25 to 30 cents per kwh.

Most engineers know these things, and see them as obvious. Now, if we can only convince the politicians…

Anybody have any ideas on that one?