California’s AB32 cap-n-trade: “could be worse than sticky”

SPECIAL REPORT-The California Carbon Rush (Hold the Eureka!)

It could be worse than sticky, argues Gary Stern, a power utility executive. Stern lived through the disastrous deregulation of the California power market a decade ago and fears the carbon market will be small and open to manipulation. The state refuses to set a limit for prices. Traders could learn how to corner the market (think Enron) and then hold hostage utilities and factories with no option but to buy sky-high permits on the open market.

State officials say they are working on new safeguards to stop just such efforts and will unveil them in July. California also plans to hire an external monitor to watch the markets — a key recommendation of Stern. “I’m not saying we would expect the same thing to occur in the emissions markets,” he said. “However, we didn’t expect that to occur in the electricity markets.”

Even if all goes well, nine years of carbon trade won’t be enough to end worries about climate change, especially if other states and nations don’t pitch in.

“The ambition doesn’t add up in terms of what the science is calling for. In fact it doesn’t get close,” said Greenpeace forest campaigner Rolf Skar, who derides the decision to give away any pollution permits at all. He also turns up his nose at California’s plans to let industry pay for “offsets” — projects to soak up carbon, such as forest management.

Offsets are seen as an important price safety valve — letting a redwood grow bigger to capture carbon in its wood is cheaper than building a carbon-free power plant, and a substantial portion of California’s emissions reductions could come from such schemes.

Owners typically pay contractors to verify such projects — which is not dissimilar to a bond issuer paying a credit agency to rate it — but designers say the offset program avoids conflicts of interest and project standards are extremely strict.

To make a serious dent in emissions, regulators will target transportation. Cars, trucks and planes spew out 40 percent of the state’s carbon, more than utilities or industry.

The state’s climate change law could have been called the “California Petroleum Use Reduction Act,” Mary Nichols, California’s top climate change regulator, joked last year.

The state is the third biggest user of gasoline in the world, after the U.S. as a whole and China, but drivers can change emissions very quickly — by leaving the car in the garage or buying a new, more efficient, car.

“You are just trying to get people to drive less, effectively, which is probably going to be quite expensive,” said Sikorski of Barclays.

Auto fuels are pulled into the cap-and-trade system in 2015. Gasoline prices are sure to rise as distributors are forced to buy carbon permits.

full story here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Carbon credits and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to California’s AB32 cap-n-trade: “could be worse than sticky”

  1. Lance says:

    Last one to leave California, please turn off the lights….

  2. Al Pipkin says:

    A ‘green’ train wreck … just what California needs!

  3. Jean Parisot says:

    How is this a market? It looks like an auction for indulgences.

  4. James says:

    Whats to stop someone with a printer / scanner and Photoshop forging one of these ?

  5. Andrew30 says:

    Lance says: February 18, 2011 at 6:33 am

    “Last one to leave California, please turn off the lights….”

    Unless it is a calm cloudy day, when the lights will already be off.

  6. erik sloneker says:

    We need congressional hearings into the science ASAP. That appears to me to be the only way to stop this train wreck.

  7. Jeremy says:

    You guys have it wrong about California. What you want to be doing is jumping at the chance to buy property out here once the state completely tanks. You should be praying that the environmentalists screw the economy up so bad that a major correction is in order, just so you can capitalize on beachfront property.

    It is an opportunity my friends, an opportunity.

  8. Randle Dewees says:

    As a hostage, oops, I mean resident of Kali I see what looks like a perfect storm ahead. I really think this all (crazy eco policies, out of control spending, tax payer/voter revolt) has to happens. The forces at work seem too strong for the voters to dissipate without a meltdown first. Hopefully I’ll be watching from Utah!

  9. James Sexton says:

    Someone has to be the example of “what not to do”. I can’t think of a better state than California. Let them reap what they sow instead of the rest of us.

    You guys let us know how that works out! Sorry, A and the rest. Don’t worry, I’m sure we’ll be around to pick up the pieces.

  10. DesertYote says:

    Just goes to show how loonie the lefties are, is that they are still calling that power grab mess “Deregulation”. But what do you expect, with our Marxist education system teaching how bad capitalism is by telling lies and blaming all of the failures of socialist meddling on capitalism, no one knows what real free market capitalism is. That is the only explanation for passing laws that tell businesses what they can and can not do and call it “deregulation”.

  11. NoAstronomer says:

    Lance : “Last one to leave California, please turn off the lights….”

    They won’t have to. Lights are next on the proscribed list.

  12. pascvaks says:

    People and Bats are very much alike. The longer they reside in one spot the deeper the guano gets. (A Parent’s Faint Hope: If we are able to pass anything to our children worth saving perhaps they’ll put it in a museum rather than chucking the lot and starting all over again from scratch.)

  13. Charles Higley says:

    ““You are just trying to get people to drive less, effectively, which is probably going to be quite expensive,” said Sikorski of Barclays.”

    Expensive for whom? Obviously the normal route is to punish the person who wants to go anywhere. There is, of course, no viable public transportation that covers most of the state.

    Once we watch California immolate itself over a false crisis and they have to sell the state to get out of their economic disaster, I’ ll glad to take land there for dirt cheap.

  14. Frostbite says:

    What will they say, in the distant future, the archeologists about these strange rituals of the men from the past?. Perhaps they will say that, as men are made of carbon, this element was considered a sacred element, the most valuable element of all, thus they eventually they forbade its use,and by fulfilling this prohibition they destroyed their civilization.

  15. Bushy says:

    I seriously wonder if we as a collectively cognizant life form ( best I could come up with) will learn anything from this particular debacle when it is finally put to rest. I consider myself as reasonably sane, if there is any such thing, but my goodness – this idiocy is beyond stupid and I fear that we as humans are seriously stumbling and failing to learn from our past mistakes.
    That of course is crucial and is the cornerstone of physical evolution but perhaps not mental evolution.

  16. John Marshall says:

    Stern? Any relation to our Lord Stern, the Economist, who suddenly became a climate scientist and foretold cataclysmic events which have yet to become true.
    Probably not.

  17. DeNihilist says:

    {“You are just trying to get people to drive less, effectively, which is probably going to be quite expensive,” said Sikorski of Barclays.}

    and when well us trades people be able to load our tools and materials onto a bus that will take us at least within a block of our clients’ homes?

    I have a feeling horses are about to make a comeback……

  18. MarkW says:

    Lance,

    What makes you think anyone will be able to afford to turn on any lights by then?

  19. Spen says:

    Without the commitment of Asian countries and in particular China, this is an utterly futile exercise. 67% of the world’s coal production is currently burnt in Asia and this figure is predicted to increase relentlessly every year. China alone is planning 400GW of new fossil fuel power generation by 2020.
    Then we could mention the 120 new airports and the milluion new vehicles each year ……..
    Its not good enough to say we all have to do our bit. a clear cost benefit analysis is required by all OECD countries otherwise we are looking at lots of pain and no gain.

  20. pat says:

    It is clear that these fools have absolutely no idea what they are doing. And they don’t care because their intentions are so good and it is other peoples money.

  21. MNHawk says:

    Nice touch, with the red star.

  22. ShrNfr says:

    It is highly ironic that the particular subspecies of bear that CA uses as its icon is extinct in CA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear

  23. bubbagyro says:

    Jeremy says:
    February 18, 2011 at 7:02 am

    I have been thinking the same thing lately. It looks like the light at the end of the tunnel is Godzilla.

  24. kwinterkorn says:

    I have some good friends, who, while in general are good people, on politics are insufferable, semi-demented, “progressives” from California. Only very harsh reality-training is going to clear their heads. Sadly, harsh reality is coming like a freight train, and many innocents will be hurt.

  25. Bob Diaz says:

    First of all, I live in the “People’s Republic Of California” and have watched this state go downhill over the years. AB32 is the worst thing yet. We did have a chance to stall AB32 with Prop. 23, BUT the environmental groups outspent the Yes on 23 by $3 for every $1.

    People were told that is Prop. 23 passes, it would kill 650,000 “Green Jobs” jobs. In reality, they were talking about “Fantasy Jobs”, because the jobs do NOT exist. It was only a fantasy on the part of the environmental groups.

    California’s unemployment is the third highest in the nation and our debt is staggering. The “solution” from Sacramento, raise taxes and enact new regulations that will drive businesses out of California. AB32 is a good example of a job killing bill.

    I really miss the Golden days of California when Ronald Reagan was our Governor.

  26. polistra says:

    Arrggghh. We need to stop listening to these “experts” who claim that something or other was “unexpected”.

    The people who design these systems know exactly what to expect, and have their Swiss bank accounts open and ready for the expected result. After it’s done and they’ve stolen a few trillions, the “experts” go around repeating the word “unexpected”, because this magic incantation prevents lawsuits.

    There is no such thing as an unintended consequence.

  27. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    If this wasn’t so catastrophic to the future of ordinary Californians it would be funny.

    Sooner or later the reality will impose itself on California – how big is the State deficit this year?

  28. James Sexton says:

    On a very related note, …..pop quiz! Who said, “The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs. Jobs for every American is doomed to failure because of modern automation and production”????

    Give up?

    The newly elected governor of Cali, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, on his radio show 1995. Steve Goddard covered this little jewel. My sympathy to all the sane people left in Cali,………both of them.

  29. John from CA says:

    sigh — I can’t believe CA is so foolish.

    Is it even legal in the US for a State to impose the purchase of a Derivative Contract as a mandate?

  30. Vince Causey says:

    “To make a serious dent in emissions, regulators will target transportation. Cars, trucks and planes spew out 40 percent of the state’s carbon, more than utilities or industry.”

    I agree. People don’t need to drive cars when they can ‘telecommute’ from home, and trucks are just a waste of space, hauling useless things like chinese tv screens and food around, and does anyone really need to go on vacation? I mean, our great great great grandparents got on just fine without any of this carbon spewing nonsense.
    /sarc.

  31. Jim G says:

    The “green people”, many of whom feel that people are like a disease on their great “mother earth”, are their own best examples that prove their own hypothesis. California is an absolute joke and the best counter example of what NOT to do in almost any situation. Unless they can get the rest of us to pay for their follies they are ultimately doomed to cold, starvation and darkness.

    To those with the willingness and wisdom to move their business, Wyoming offers no state or city income taxes, low property taxes and a better work ethic. You must, however, pass a short test regarding your willingness to leave California ideas behind.

  32. Hoser says:

    Let’s just be honest and put the hammer and sickle under that red star to the left of the bear.

  33. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    The mirror of Carbon Credits . . . . Fee In Tariffs

    Ontario’s green energy numbers don’t add up:

    Wholesale Average Weighted Cost (YTD) of Ontario electricity: 3.35 cents/kWh

    Guaranteed 20-year contract price per kWh for solar panels (ground level): 64.2 cents/kWh

    Guaranteed 20-year contract price per kWh for solar panels (roof-top): 80.2 cents/kWh

    Guaranteed 20-year contract price per kWh for wind turbines: 13.5 cents/kWh

    (link to microFIT rates, pdf)

    Cost to the province in 2011 to reduce bills by 10% to hide increases caused by green energy programs until after the election: $1.1 billion

    Ontario has promised to pay renewable energy producers up to 23 times the actual price for electricity which is the driver for increased bills and time-of-use billing. At risk of belaboring a point, sustainable subsidies are not sustainable. Premier Dalton McGuinty has pulled the plug on offshore wind projects – it’s time to end the FIT programs before they bankrupt us.

    http://dailybayonet.com/?p=7923

  34. John from CA says:

    California Climate Share s/b 16 tons?

  35. Black Sabbath says:

    One day we’re going to look back at this and we’re going to be aghast that we ever let this kind of obvious stupidity and nonsense run our lives. This is truly the tulip bulb fiasco of our day.

  36. William Mason says:

    I live in the insane state of California. Unfortunately I am outnumbered by stupid people. I would love to leave but my wife insists on staying near family. As far as my driving habits go I really don’t have a viable choice. I live 23 miles from my work. A long time ago I had to take the bus system while my car was being fixed. I had to leave home at 5:45AM to MAYBE get to work by 9:00AM. I was late often but I couldn’t even go earlier as I caught the fist bus that ran as it was. Leaving work at 5:00PM would get me home at 8:30PM. That’s just not workable. We are too spread out to do things like get groceries or do other shopping without driving. None of this madness will change my behavior because it is not done optionally. I have to work. I have to eat. All this will do is take more money from me.

  37. Smokey says:

    On a related note, Republicans counter attack Obama’s use of various “Czars.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49781.html

  38. Scott Brim says:

    The advocates of California’s AB32 cap-n-trade scheme should be asked why they wouldn’t be in favor of significantly reducing carbon consumption through a much more simple, much more direct, and much more effective means.

    Tax energy consumption in California so severely that significant reductions are a necessity among all of California’s energy consumers — agriculture, industry, the services sector, small businessmen, state and local governments, consumers, homeowners, legions of soccer moms driving SUVs — anybody and everybody whose presence in California adds to the state’s carbon footprint.

    As a rough guess, a 100% tax on energy use at the point of consumption would do a credible job of significantly reducing California’s carbon footprint, possibly to a level which is three-quarters of what it is today.

    How about it, advocates of California’s AB32 cap-n-trade scheme ……. If Anthropogenic Global Warming is in fact the kind of serious environmental problem you claim it to be, why would you not be in favor of taking the most direct, the most simple, and the most effective approach to quickly reducing California’s carbon footprint; i.e. by taxing California’s energy consumption severely?

  39. Bob Kutz says:

    Watching the liberal California establishment destroy their economy and way of life in the face of a globe that refuses to continue warming is going to be delicious!

    Schadenfreude will simply be an unfortunate self-realization.

  40. Cam_S says:

    The Golden State is betting that its new carbon trading scheme can create jobs and cut emissions. Is that California dreaming? (7 pages)

    http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/01/CarbonTrade.pdf

  41. Jay says:

    “Last one to leave California, please turn off the lights….”

    Unless it is a calm cloudy day, when the lights will already be off.

    LOL !
    ;-}

  42. DesertYote says:

    Just remember, the same education theory that has been (deliberately) destroying the ability of Kalifornians to be able to perceive reality (by interfering with children’s normal development of cognitive processes via, e.g. inductive learning) for the last 60 years, has been at work in the rest of the country for at least 40. We are doomed :(

  43. Sorry you guys got landed with Sir Nicholas “make me a lord” Stern in your neck of the woods.

  44. Snotrocket says:

    Just a crazy thought…. could the now withdrawn plan to sell off the UK’s forests have anything to do with preparing for the privatisation of carbon credits through woodland ownership? Yeah….crazy, I know….

  45. DirkH says:

    Bushy says:
    February 18, 2011 at 7:28 am
    “I seriously wonder if we as a collectively cognizant life form ( best I could come up with) will learn anything from this particular debacle when it is finally put to rest.”

    I already learned that if the day comes i will leave the EU, i will not be buying a plane ticket to California.

  46. Dan in California says:

    I am one of the founders of a California company that currently has 23 employees. We plan to move to another state in about 2 years. It’s just going to get worse.

    I lived here in 1977 during the second OPEC oil embargo, and clearly remember Governor Moonbeam (Jerry Brown) say that California had nothing to fear about an oil embargo because California has a thriving walnut industry and we can just burn walnut shells instead of oil. He is Governor again and still hasn’t learned grade school arithmetic.

  47. Matt says:

    @Jim G
    To those with the willingness and wisdom to move their business, Wyoming offers no state or city income taxes, low property taxes and a better work ethic. You must, however, pass a short test regarding your willingness to leave California ideas behind.

    SHUT UP!!!!!! We don’t want anymore Californians, they are trying to screw up our great state with their liberal “I know better than you” attitudes. They can move to Colorado, the people there are just as stupid as the ones in California, and since Coloradans look down on us Wyomingites, we won’t get any of them up here.

  48. jorgekafkazar says:

    Charles Higley says: “Once we watch California immolate itself over a false crisis and they have to sell the state to get out of their economic disaster, I’ ll glad to take land there for dirt cheap.”

    China will have first dibs after Obowma does a partial bailout of Calif.

  49. Gordon Melville Ford says:

    And graft is sure to follow, if the Chinese bond holders don’t foreclose first. That may not be a bad thing as they have a very efficient way of dealing with non-sanctioned graft in China.

  50. Curiousgeorge says:

    Hotel California. You can check out, but you can never leave. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ygI3BZxdCY

  51. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    This reminds me of the “war” against smoking. The stated goal is to eliminate the smoking of tobacco, along with other uses of it. Fine then, just do it. Ban tobacco use outright. If that can’t be done (there goes all those fancy cigars), tax it into virtual non-existence, $40 a pack of cigarettes would do it.

    But they don’t. Tobacco is an “undeclared” addiction. Many TV shows and movies promote tolerance and understanding of addictions to harder drugs, urge sympathy and support. But smokers are dirty thoughtless morons who pollute the air with their filthy habits, they can quit if they want to.

    Thus the politicians have a captive source of revenue, and have carefully taxed tobacco to where they can claim reductions of use, and there has been a reduction in casual use, but the net result is maximizing the revenue stream. The different smoking cessation programs, from drugs to other nicotine sources like gum and patches, tend to be pricier than smoking and generally considered not affordable without someone else (like government) helping to pay the bill.

    Note the matches to the anti-fossil fuel (anti-CO2 emissions) schemes. Tax to maximize revenue stream, lose some non-essential usage (turn off unneeded lights, etc) but generally maintain the captive base of those who need the energy they use. Demonize the dirty thoughtless moronic fossil-fuel users who pollute the air with their emissions and can quit emitting if they want to. Provide Other People’s Money for the up-front costs of ceasing to use fossil fuels (wind, solar), support the “substitution deception” (you’re still getting the energy you need for your car, but now it’s electricity from the wall socket instead of burning liquid fossil fuels therefore it’s much better, even if it costs more), etc.

    This ain’t about saving anything, except perhaps the jobs of unelected bureaucrats. And like with the Tobacco Settlement monies (which were diverted from the stated uses of cessation and education programs and to fund health care, into general funding and pet projects of politicians), don’t expect the monies generated from “carbon restrictions” to be actually used for reducing CO2 emissions in meaningful ways.

    This is what Government does. It forces you to give up money you can hardly afford to lose, while trying to make you feel ashamed that the government has to take away your money at all. The good news, those carbon taxes are never going to be so high that people can’t find a way to pay them, don’t expect lots of “food or gasoline” decisions among the general voting populace. Government has proven adept at maximizing what funds they can get from a population of addicts, be they hooked on tobacco or energy.

  52. I believe increasing unemployment will make people drive less …oh wait….

    I think skeptics in California should go out and support the extreme green policies, such as not giving any credits or offsets. A quick obvious crash of green policies and then recovery is better than a decade protracted slow strangulation of the state.

  53. observa says:

    You know there’s a real kicker to that wise old adage that socialism is a great system til you run out of other people’s money. Now they just print more.

  54. Rich Lambert says:

    I’ve never considered living in California before, but it may be a good idea in a few years after the house of cards has fallen.

  55. BBk says:

    “Is it even legal in the US for a State to impose the purchase of a Derivative Contract as a mandate?”

    States have a lot more leeway (potentially) than the federal government. It depends on how the State Constitution is crafted. If it’s crafted well, then it keeps the government from running roughshod over its citizens. I suspect that California’s isn’t set up that way.

  56. BBk says:

    Now that I think about it, if they can drive more people out of california they’ll have less federal representation, which can only be good for the rest of the country. ;)

  57. Mike D. says:

    California is what it is. The rest of us, especially residents of the neighboring states, need to build a wall/fence/barrier ASAP. It’s not fair or just to excuse the behavior of Californians by allowing them to desert their state when the chaos ensues. The people who made the mess should be required to live in it and/or clean it up themselves.

  58. Tom in Texas says:

    “…and when well us trades people be able to load our tools and materials onto a bus that will take us at least within a block of our clients’ homes?”

    Or pedal down to Home Depot to pick up some concrete blocks and 2×4′s.

    When I lived in Calif. and Jerry was running, I remember a bumper sticker that said:
    “If it’s Brown, flush it”.

  59. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Here is a comment I posted yesterday on Joe “Rantin’ Joe” Romm’s blog which he wacked.

    RE: BC Climate Action Plan, a New Communist Manifesto.

    Hello Joe!

    Go to the following link:

    http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/cap.html#cap

    On this page download the Climate Action Plan pdf file where you will learn that since the BC gov has the legislative authority to control GHG emissions and levy carbon taxes, the gov can:

    1. Sieze control of all means of production

    2. Regulate the production of all goods and services

    3. Control and regulate every aspect of the personal activities and lives of the people of BC.

    4. Redistribute wealth to the low income wage earners via a carbon tax rebate.

    Presently, the carbon tax is claimed to be revenue neutral. Not quite true. Overall, the tax is revenue neutral. However, the gov can change the taxation rules anytime in the future. Or when Prof. Mark Jaccard at SFU tells them to.

    The carbon tax is presently $20 per ton of CO2 equivalent. I now pay a carbon tax of $1 per gigajoule of nat gas which costs $5 per gigajoule. This tax will go to $1.60 per gigajoule on July 1 2012. That is a tax rate of 32%

    The weather forecast is for temps to drop well below freezing next week. And there is no relief on the carbon tax for unusual cold snaps. I’m sending my carbon tax bill to Mother Nature and she can send the extra money to Gordon “Clueless” Campbell.

    Do you really want that Lisa lady and her crowd running you life?

  60. Patrick says:

    Can we erect a border wall with California, so the pathologically suicidal greenies don’t infect our states?

  61. jtom says:

    If California wants to commit economic suicide, who are we to stop them. It might be humorous to watch all the liberals in Hollywood moving out of the state to avoid the increase in taxes and fees.

    The only thing that worries me is that some in Washington will insist CA is “too big to fail” and force the rest of the nation to bail them out. Perhaps some worthy Tea Party member in Congress will start the mechanisms now to deny ANY state a federal bailout. Might be good verbage to add to the budget bills.

  62. Brian H says:

    Why turn out the lights if there’s no one left to worry about the bill? Might as well get the benefit of the upstream CO2 emissions.

  63. dwright says:

    Harold Pierce Jr says:
    February 18, 2011 at 7:37 pm……….

    I live in Powell River – and I cringe every time the furnace comes on.

  64. E.M.Smith says:

    This, as they say, will be interesting…

    I can see a thriving black market developing in Nevada Gasoline…

    I can get a 250 gallon “plastic jug” to fit in the back of my wagon. With a set of extra heavy tires on it (it will take truck tires…) it can carry that load. Now I use Diesel, so it’s not a fire issue to haul it. That much fuel will get me about 1 year of driving (and my spouse would need one per 1/2 year). So if I visit my family in Nevada 2 or 3 times a year…

    BTW, we also have a “e-waste” fee. This is to make up for the “pollution” of electronic equipment. So to buy a TV or laptop it adds $8 to $16 (or maybe more? it goes up with screen size). Add in our 9+% sales tax, and buying that new flat screen TV is “not pretty”. But… Buy it in Nevada or Oregon while tanking up? Hmmmm…..

    Then again, I’ve always wanted a bit of land out of state… Maybe I’ll finally be able to convince the spouse to move…

  65. Jack Simmons says:

    Communism is that long hard road from capitalism to capitalism.

  66. Puckster says:

    Lance says:
    February 18, 2011 at 6:33 am
    Last one to leave California, please turn off the lights….
    ________________________________________

    When the last party supply store has closed……time to book(old expression).

  67. George V. says:

    Regarding people leaving California, check this out:
    http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html

    Click on Los Angeles County and see the red lines indicating people leaving and the black lines (much fewer) of people moving in. Mouse over the endpoints to see how many people move in or out from each endpoint county.
    In the case of LA County, the only significant black lines (people coming in ) seem to be from New York and my area, southeast Michigan.

    George V.

  68. starzmom says:

    I listened to a lecture last week by a San Francisco lawyer touting the great economic opportunities in California’s green initiative. I sat shaking my head, then I decided maybe she was talking about economic opportunities for lawyers. Good luck, y’all. You are going to need it.

  69. Alan McIntire says:

    It would be cheaper and more humane for California to meet their emission goals just by
    picking 40% of their population at random and shooting them.

  70. Olen says:

    California is making sure no one frauds the fraud. And California also claims their efforts won’t be enough to end worries about climate change, especially if other states and nations don’t pitch in.
    The answer to that is the famous quote from Alfred E. Neuman in Mad Magazine “What, me worry”. Of all that people are worried about climate change is not one of them. And seeing their state follow California down the drain is not something most would want.

    You know it is the squirrels fault for not gathering all the nuts.

  71. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    RE: BC Carbon Taxes On Fossil Fuels

    Here are current tax rates on fossil fuels:

    Liquid fuels, cents per liter
    Gasoline: 4.45
    Diesel: 5.11
    Jet: 5.22
    Propane: 3.o8

    Solid fuels, dollars per tonne:
    Coal, high heat value: 41.45
    Coal, low heat value: 35.54

    Gas, cents per cubic meter:
    BC Nat Gas: 3.08

    BTW reg gasoline costs ca $1.22 per liter or $4.61 per US gal. And nobody gripes about the high cost of gasoline (or diesel) like the folks with big honking SUV and pick-up trucks.

    The tax on nat gas is presently $0.9932 CDN per gigajoule which cost $4.568 CDN per gigajoule. On my last gas bill I paid a carbon tax of $13.31. When they are on sale at the Safeway, I can buy ca 2-3 large pizzas (ca 900 g) or 26 donuts for that amount of tax.

    These carbon taxes are based on a tax of $20 CDN per tonne of CO2 equivalent. On July 1 2012, the carbon tax increases to $30 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, an increase of 50%.

    For the transportation sector there are complex regulations for the assessment and payment of carbon taxes and are costly for companies to administer. Some independent truckers (i.e., owner-operators) are fearful these carbon taxes will really squeeze the botttom line and might put them out of business.

    If a Boeing 747 filled up in Vancouver intl airport with 346,000 US gal of jet fuel, the carbon tax would be $68,270.

    The carbon taxes will greatly increase the costs of basic construction materials such as cement, bricks, roofing tiles, etc as well as pottery, glass containers, etc.

    The BC gov will soon release laws regulating the emission of GHG’s from the so-called “big polluters”.

    Fortunately for us in BC, we pay only 6.27 cents per kwh for the first 1354 kwh and 8.78 cent per kwh for any additional electricity.

  72. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From E.M.Smith on February 19, 2011 at 1:45 am:

    I can get a 250 gallon “plastic jug” to fit in the back of my wagon. With a set of extra heavy tires on it (it will take truck tires…) it can carry that load. Now I use Diesel, so it’s not a fire issue to haul it. That much fuel will get me about 1 year of driving (and my spouse would need one per 1/2 year). So if I visit my family in Nevada 2 or 3 times a year…

    According to this liquid weight calculator, 250 gallons of diesel is 1825 lbs (828 kg) alone, then comes tank weight. Can you haul a ton in the wagon?

    It’s likely moot anyway. After extensive searching for how much can be transported before the authorities get irritated, and finding about the same amount of gallons usually mentioned, I found 49 CFR cited with the relevant section:
    http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=392.51

    § 392.51Reserve fuel; materials of trade.

    Small amounts of fuel for the operation or maintenance of a commercial motor vehicle (including its auxiliary equipment) may be designated as materials of trade (see 49 CFR 171.8).

    (a) The aggregate gross weight of all materials of trade on a motor vehicle may not exceed 200 kg (440 pounds).

    (b) Packaging for gasoline must be made of metal or plastic and conform to requirements of 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, and 178 or requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration contained in 29 CFR 1910.106.

    (c) For Packing Group II (including gasoline), Packing Group III (including aviation fuel and fuel oil), or ORM-D, the material is limited to 30 kg (66 pounds) or 30 L (8 gallons).

    (d) For diesel fuel, the capacity of the package is limited to 450 L (119 gallons).

    (e) A Division 2.1 material in a cylinder is limited to a gross weight of 100 kg (220 pounds). (A Division 2.1 material is a flammable gas, including liquefied petroleum gas, butane, propane, liquefied natural gas, and methane).

    [63 FR 33279, June 18, 1998]

    Yes it says “commercial” but you know how these things go. How much explaining do you want to do and how often do you want the cops to pull you over? The 119 gallon spec is repeated in other states. Minnesota example:
    http://www.dot.state.mn.us/cvo/factsheets/FuelTanks.pdf

    No, I do not know how they reconcile 119 gal of diesel, 869 lbs, with the 440 lbs limit of (a). Tank can only be half full?

    This seems to be why the largest transfer tanks for diesel are normally 90 gallons. They’re also normally metal, aluminum specifically. I suspect a regulation somewhere against plastic for transferring large quantities of diesel, linked to lack of fire resistance (plastic melts).
    Google Search

    I’ve read the translation is container size, thus you could have multiple containers of 119 gal max size, just like how you can carry multiple gasoline cans that are each 8 gal or less. More explaining. Also, diesel is a Class 3 hazardous material (reference), you might need the appropriate diamond warning signs. The metal transfer tanks are to be bolted to a truck bed, I’ve also seen mention of maybe needing a grounding strap as well. And if you’re referring to a “station wagon” then you should know the tanks are to have an emergency vent to release overpressure, which is incompatible with being confined in the cabin space.

    Best option is a tank trailer:
    http://www.refuelingtanktrailer.com/
    Made in America, 390 gallons.
    On the non-commercial versions that shouldn’t be yelled at by the authorities (see Photos), they are labeled “Not For Hire” and “Private Use” which indicates they are DOT/FMCHSA exempt, legal on all public roads. Also these tank trailers are “equipment” not “trailers” thus might avoid needing registration and a license plate.

    The absolute base unit is only $2999.99 with flat rate $299.99 shipping to your door in the contiguous 48 states, thus it should pay for itself in… How high are you expecting those Kalifornia fuel taxes to go?

  73. Bigdinny says:

    Harold Pierce: While your dollar calculations may be correct regarding the 747 fueling in Vancouver, the aircraft itself only holds 64,225 US Gals., not the 346,000 gals. you cite. A small point, perhaps, but worth mentioning anyway.

  74. Merovign says:

    Someone pointed it out earlier that what happened during the Great Power Crunch was *not* “deregulation,” unless the definition of the word suddenly changed to “strict regulatory control contrary to obvious and inevitable market forces.” It’s just another “persistent media-carried lie.”

    Also, please remember that these things don’t pass 100% even in CA – but between the flight of the reasonable, gerrymandering and regional discrepancies, reasonable Californians are outnumbered. These crazy things don’t always pass but they’re usually 60/40. So 40% of us are reasonable but stuck here for one reason or another.

    Until it becomes literally unbearable, a day which appears to be approaching rapidly.

  75. Dan in California says:

    Merovign says: February 19, 2011 at 12:26 pm
    Someone pointed it out earlier that what happened during the Great Power Crunch was *not* “deregulation,” unless the definition of the word suddenly changed to “strict regulatory control contrary to obvious and inevitable market forces.” It’s just another “persistent media-carried lie.”
    ———————————————————
    Here’s a good summary of what caused the great California electricity problem that got the Governor removed from office:
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf65.html

    California imports about 1/2 its electricity, and the new policy deregulated the wholesale market but maintained regulation over the retail market. Then, the legislators prohibited long term power purchase agreements (that’s collusion and therefore bad). This forced the utilities onto the spot market where the wholesale price was higher than the retail price.

    Then, of course it went to hell, and the regulators claimed that “deregulation doesn’t work” If I read this in a fiction novel, I wouldn’t believe it because nobody can be that stupid.

  76. PandR says:

    I see Intel is starting it’s move. Which company is next?
    I cannot laugh, my country Australia will go the same way by year end, already there is almost no investment in manufacturing or research. I see many Australian professionals have left for Asia already.
    http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2011/02/intels-new-arizona-plant-new-standard.html

  77. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Bigdinny

    You are right! The 346,000 gals should be 346,000 pounds. I remember gettting that fuel capacity from an airline’s website for a 747-ER with APC but I didn’t double check the number. APC stands for advanced power conversion, which is a small turbine in the tail used for generating electricity.

    Nevertheless, the carbon tax on 242,277 liters of fuel would be about $12,670 CDN. However the airline wouldn’t have to pay the tax if it does not fly the airplane over BC.

  78. juanslayton says:

    E.M.Smith, Kadaka

    Don’t forget to Google “California Use Tax.” If Guv Brown could collect that on all the guys who fill up on the Arizona side of the river, he’d have a tidy sum. Don’t know why Arizona gas should be so much cheaper than California. I’m still wondering if someone has found the Lost Dutchman Petroleum Reserve….

  79. e. c. cowan says:

    Hard to believe, I know, but the SEC has found some devious people trying to take advantage of Global Warming and Cap and Trade………….

    SEC Charges Seven in Global Warming Pump-and-Dump Scheme

    article says in part:
    ‘..Washington, D.C., Feb. 18, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a group of seven individuals who perpetrated a fraudulent pump-and-dump scheme in the stock of a sham company that purported to provide products and services to fight global warming….’

  80. In an Absolute World California wouldn’t have this problem.

Comments are closed.