From the “pay and your sins shall be forgiven” department…
FROM KTVU-TV in Oakland:
Officials Approve Controversial Greenhouse Gas Tax
SAN FRANCISCO — Air pollution regulators in the San Francisco Bay area voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to approve new rules that impose fees on businesses for emitting greenhouse gasses.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s board of directors voted 15-1 to charge companies 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide they emit, an agency spokeswoman said.
Experts say the fees, which cover nine counties in the Bay Area, are the first of their kind in the country. The new rules are set to take effect July 1.
The modest fee probably won’t be enough to force companies to reduce their emissions, but backers say it sets an important precedent in combating climate change and could serve as a model for regional air districts nationwide.
“It doesn’t solve global warming, but it gets us thinking in the right terms,” said Daniel Kammen, a renewable energy expert at the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s not enough of a cost to change behavior, but it tells us where things are headed. You have to think not just in financial terms, but in carbon terms.”
But many Bay Area businesses oppose the rules, saying they could interfere with the state’s campaign to fight global warming under a landmark law signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006.
Jupiter has developed a third red spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm
Berkeley is calling it climate change.
“The appearance of the planet’s cloud system from just north of the equator down to 34 degrees south latitude keeps surprising us with changes and, in particular, with new cloud features that haven’t been previously observed,” Marcus said. “Whether or not Jupiter’s climate has changed due to a predicted warming, the cloud activity over the last two and a half years shows dramatically that something unusual has happened.”
via Tom Nelson
If you want Vancouver, you do realizes we are getting are own carbon tax starting in July. You get it lock, stock an barrel. No cherry picking allowed!!
Holy crap. How many tons of pollutant does a company create in order for the 4.4 cent a ton to be costly. This is freaking scary. It’s a whole ton. Why not fine them $100.00 a ton.
How many tons a year does the average car produce?
Hooray for San Francisco!
It’s great to see such environmental leadership from California, showing that individual states can make a difference where the national administration has stalled all progress.
Thanks for this marvellously positive news. Proves that there is more to America than ignorant self-interest at the expense of the global environment.
“You have to think not just in financial terms, but in carbon terms.” Yes, by all means. Whatever you do, don’t think about the cost, let alone the uselessness and sheer idiocy of trying to reduce C02 levels. Trust us, those in power to do your thinking for you. Would we steer you wrong? There, there, don’t fret, it’s just a few pennies more, and besides, it’s for our planet. You do like our planet, don’t you? I knew you did.
This is good for Michigan.
“Maybe we could trade them to Canada in exchange for Vancouver… or maybe just a case of Labatts Blue.”
We don’t want them either and NO you can’t have my beer, unless you want to trade us for Vegas, and then we can talk (I might even throw in some Tim Horton donuts!!)
Deadwood05: “And Texas? Why would they go there, when the cites there are run by same bunch of luddites?”
The #1 produce of Austin is watermellons. The rest of this very large state will
welcome Calif. companies.
OK, I am in the carbon industry, and even I think these folks are BAAQinG MaD.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes and absolute mess of more significant policy efforts. Other carbon taxes are revenue neutral, and this one is going to raise the princely sum of $4.4-million annually? And how much will it cost to police and collect? Did anyone do an ROI on this?
Think! And act in concert with others.
This one time, I stepped on a rake. Cartoon physics are sometimes correct; don’t do it.
Re: jeez (19:48:49)
If the strip club is close to good, the patrons breathe faster. Elevated metabolism, more CO2, more tax.
David S (14:05:41) : I think the original income tax was only 2%, on the very highest incomes. By 1940 it was 90% of the last dollar earned for those folks.
This is more of the camel’s nose under the tent. Another source of revenue to fund boondoggles. Politicians can’t sleep at night, worrying that they have left one dime untaxed.
While we are on the subject of government lunacy, let me tell you about one of Florida’s nutty laws. It is illegal in Florida to walk WITH the traffic where there are no sidewalks. You must walk against traffic and not only have people been fined, they have been taken into custody. Recently passed by the Sarasota City Council: The City of Sarasota will no longer hire anyone who smokes at any time. The have given themselves the power to test employees to determine if they have smoked in the past 48 hours. The City of Sarasota has also just passed a stronger vehicle noise ordinance. If you play your music too loud your car can be impounded on the spot by a police officer. No evidence needed, just the Officer’s word. The nuts are not all in California.
Now if today the word went out that the “carbon footprint” doesn’t impact climate one iota and in fact improves global food production do you think they would reverse it? Not a chance. It’s revenue baby and it’s all theirs now.
It’s just stupid. They already overtax. That means when they raise taxes, they get a little more in the short rub, and then less in the long run as wealth is “uncreated”.
Either revenue is lost or less revenue is gained.
I am a liberal who wants to extract as much money as humanly possible out of the rich. The solution to the current situation is to CUT TAXES, then stand back as the economy responds and piles of extra revenue pour in.
It’s not a matter of liberal vs. conservative. It’s called Remedial Economics for Dummies 001. It is maddening that there are still fools out there who think a 5% tax hike will get them 5% more revenue (rather than actually reduce revenue as it kills business).
These idiots are mindlessly killing the economy a piece at a time. Suppose GW is a serious threat. How in Sam Hill would we solve it without improved wealth and technology? Not only are they killing our future but they are leaving us disarmed in the fight to improve the environment.
robp
“Maybe we could trade them to Canada in exchange for Vancouver… or maybe just a case of Labatts Blue.”
We don’t want them either and NO you can’t have my beer, unless you want to trade us for Vegas, and then we can talk (I might even throw in some Tim Horton donuts!!)
Hmmm, Well we don’t want to trade Vegas but how about if we reduce the price on San Fran to a six pack and a couple of day old donuts?
We’ll return the empty bottles too.
Retired Engineer
I think my 7% number is correct. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19
I agree with you about the nose of the camel under the tent. I would just suggest that the best solution is to drop something really heavy on the camel’s nose, maybe a law suit challenging the authority of unelected bureaucrats to levy taxes and seeking a huge financial settlement.
It is almost June and here in Michigan we have no mosquitoes!
Come to think of it, I haven’t seen much of any flying insects this Spring, even flies in our barn and bees too. We had a week or so in April that brought out the windshield splatters, but that’s about it.
Normally we’re out spraying for wasps all around the barn by Memorial weekend; not this year.
“Other carbon taxes are revenue neutral”……?
Then why have the tax in the first place? In reality, when I rear some say this tax or fee will be revenue neutral, I have learn to hold on to my wallet. Taxes or fees are only revenue neutral until the ink drys on the paper work.
I hope that California taxes becomes so heavy that more business move out. Ohio sure needs the the jobs.
Create a tax, use the revenue from the tax to create jobs to enforce and expand the tax. Use the increased revenue to create more jobs to enforce and expand the tax. It appears that tax models also use feedbacks or is it forcing.
No, these politicians have achieved the ultimate in taxation. We used to joke that, if left to their own devices, politicians would tax breathing. These guys have done it. Or at least they are close.
beatk,
They call it pollution because, if they can get people to accept that absurdity of CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ (one of the great logical fallacies ‘repeat something often enough and people will start to believe it’) it will be easier to get them to accept the cost of ‘doing something about it’. Far easier to get people to accept doing something about a substance that is ‘polluting’ the air than to get them to do something about a substance that is essentially benign and beneficial. When faced with this absurd claim by AGW friends (who think I’m a quite mad flat earther) I simply ask if CO2 is a ‘pollutant’, why greenhouse operators keep the level of CO2 pollution in their greenhouses at 1000ppm? This seems to cause no end of consternation, followed by much head shaking and lamenting that I am a right wing tool of Big Oil (I preferred the days when they called me a ‘lackey of capitalist, imperialist, hegemonic, bosses’ — circa 1968-1975).
Well doneSF, and may the rest of the major cities follow suit!!
Could be timely as the masking of global warming by the cooling phase of natural cycles will soon be over. Nobody on this blog has mentioned this…(surprise?!) but the Arctic ice cover is now down on last years historic low with marked decrease in ice around the west Greenland coast and the Canadian ice sheet http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=05&fd=23&fy=2007&sm=05&sd=23&sy=2008. The cracks are showing well at ground level http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7417123.stm.
It seems I was correct in blaming the increased extent of Arctic ice this winter on the ice melt diluting the sea water thus increasing the freezing point.
The first rise in atmospheric methane levels for a decade could suggest that the melting of parts of the Asian permafrost are starting to release very significant levels of methane.
Any way the less fossil fuels burned the less money in the hands of OPEC, now that must be an incentive to conserve fuel!!
It’s not very ‘global warming’ friendly weather here in Northern California. Right now it’s drizzly with temperatures hanging around the middle 50s. Last Saturday it was 105 F. How’s that for climate change?
Anthony, what’s the meteorologist explanation for this weather? I know last week there was a power high pressure region over the middle US. That caused the high temperatures. However, as that high pressure dissipated it created weather disturbances, tornados, storms ect. The satellite map show the clouds are circulating over the North West, and at the moment stalled over Northern California. It also looks like there are some clouds (moisture) over the Pacific that could get drawn in later.
Hmmm… yet the city isn’t worried about its Wi-Fi pollution:
http://overlawyered.com/index.php/2008/05/claim-allergic-to-wi-fi/
Maybe they’ll invest some of that money into getting a hypoallergenic Wi-Fi system? 😉
Anthony, are you the only sane person living in that state?
Actually that was Santa Fe but what the heck, SF is still SF not to mention it is also the abbreviation for science fiction .
MikeK:
90% of the Arctic thaw has been caused by soot deposition. Around a third of the ongoing thaw is due to dirty snow thawing earlier and earlier due to soot.
The Facts Please:
Up to 90 percent of the centennial Arctic thaw appears to be due to soot, with the Arctic ice loss constituting nearly 19 PERCENT of ALL global warming since the 19th Century (Zender, Hansen, Ramanathan).
A black iceberg & melting snow
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=impure-as-the-driven-snow
Woods Hole published photos of ice lakes in Greenland and I could see that the snow & ice were as dirty as the shoveled mounds of snow in NYC after a good snow.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ht_greenland3_080417_ssh.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ht_greenland6_080417_ssh.jpg
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/popup?id=4675170&content
– CURRENT black carbon heating effect in the Arctic is equal to CO2’s effective warming effect in the Arctic (air & sea).
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1639
Zender’s opening statement comes about a third into the video, after Ramanathan
– Historical Effects: Up to 90 percent of the historical Arctic thaw has been due to soot (the past 200 years).
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070506202633data_trunc_sys.shtml “… The effect is more conspicuous in Arctic areas, where Zender believes that more than 90 percent of the centennial warming could be attributed to dirty snow.” The *ongoing* effect of soot is around one-third of all warming effects in the Arctic, but the centennial effect could be as high as 94 percent.
Both figures are actually consistent with each other: The current 33% effect is an ongoing progressive amount, the 90% effect is a historical figure from compounded decimation (especially when historical CO2-driven warming was relatively small).
– The Earth has warmed about 0.8 degree Celsius. Dirty snow contributed 0.1 to 0.15 degrC increase, up to 19 percent of the total warming
– The Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees, with dirty snow causing 0.5 to 1.5 degrees warming, potentially as much as 94 percent of the observed change.
– New snows lose their rejuvenating effect on aging ice packs, no longer being perennially young and bright.
– Warming a patch of Arctic ground triggers more climate change than warming a comparable patch of ground that isn’t covered by snow in lower latitudes. That is if the small region of the poles were kept from warming by a few degrees, it would keep climate more stable than keeping a similar-size region of the tropics from warming,” he said.
– Nations that encircle the Arctic, including the United States, Canada and Russia, could get more bang for the buck by reducing soot in the Arctic than by reducing greenhouse gases elsewhere.
[a great amount of soot from East Asia is making its way up into the Arctic as well, and may equal or exceed the contributions from the USA & Canada]
– Contemporary Effects: One third of the current ongoing Arctic thaw is due to soot.
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Soot-infused-Snow-Responsible-for-Arctic-Warming-3A-Study-20933-1
http://www.ocregister.com/science-technology/soot-arctic-climate-1960383-warming-snow
“Keeping the poles cold is a great place to start … Preserving the climate in the poles is very important now relative to any other piece of real estate on the planet.”
McDonnell/Edwards study on the different effects by soot type:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/industrial_soot_and_its_arctic_impact
Essentially Zender is saying that in the Arctic the benefits of significant soot mitigation would be like cutting CO2 levels by a third (or more). The efficacy of soot mitigation is far greater, however, because soot mitigation has an immediate effect, as opposed to waiting 50 years for the effects of an equivalent reduction of CO2 now.
Charlie Zender:
http://www.ess.uci.edu/~zender
==========
With a paucity of data you AGWers are ready to fall over for the most draconian, costly and invasive crash-program ever dreamt of by the proponents of big gov’t, wealth redistribution and social control.
Al Gore gives his pitch:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243
(This was hard for me to watch … it made my eyes bleed & ears ache )