“Of course you realize, this means war!” – Bugs
War has been declared in the New York court system over global warming regulation.
Indeck Corinth L.P., which operates the Corinth Generating Station, an electric power plant in Corinth, NY, sued New York stateon January 29, 2009 claiming that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Northeast U.S. is illegal.
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Rhode Island have signed on to the RGGI agreement. You can read more about it here at: http://www.rggi.org/home
This is the simple view of RGGI from their website:
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states will cap and then reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10% by 2018.
States will sell emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits: 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.
Indeck Corinth claims that New York’s involvement with RGGI does the following:
- Is ultra vires and violates the state constitution;
- Imposes an impermissible tax not authorized by the state legislature;
- Is arbitrary and capricious as implemented by New York;
- Is pre-epmted by state and federal regulations;
- Violates the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution; and
- Violates Indeck Corinth’s due process and equal protection rights
See Indeck Corinth’s legal complaint. (PDF)
Indeck Corinth and New York State are now arguing over the venue for the suit. Indeck Corinth wants the suit heard in Saratoga County where it is a major employer. New York wants the suit heard in Albany County where it has home field advantage.
This will be watched intensely by many on both sides of the energy -versus- environment issue.
h/t to Junkscience.com
I live in Maryland, one of the states in the RGGI. There is a skitzophrenic (SP?)character to politicians when it comes to energy in states that embrace climate change solutions like this. On the one hand they want to do everything they can to mitigate greenhouse gases so they sign up for RGGI and other energy initiatives which work to encourage conservation and develop new energy alternatives by raising the cost of fossile fuel energy. At the same time, they are the protector of the little guy and want to make certain the changes they make won’t affect jobs or the cost of electricity. So far they get away with it by essentially saying its the power provider who is raising prices and blaming excessive profits and bonuses for peoples bills. Never mind that the rates charged cannot be changed until approved by the public service commision and the rates allowed are based on the cost to produce power. I think people will eventually catch on but California, which leads the way in this insanity, watched its main electricity provider go bankrupt because of poorly thought out semi-regulation which allowed costs to rise at market rates but forced power prices at the end users outlets to remain the same. If you really get into the lawsuit in NY, you’ll find that is the heart of the problem. They do not have a mechanism raise prices as costs increase.
Robert Bateman (20:38:22) :
‘I’m working on that day.’
Maybe we could pool our money and hire ACORN to protest Hansen. LOL
Ray B (01:29:08) : “We have come to the decision that the easiest way to comply with the government mandated 20% CO2 reductions was to disconnect known environmental/AGW groups and their supporters from power company service. Subsequently the CO2 targets will be met by the people that wanted them, and it will be done with no cost to the balance of our our customers.”
What a great idea!!!!
BTW, Florida has no state income tax, lot’s of sunshine, great fishing, golf weather year round, three NFL teams, two MLB teams, two NHL teams and two NBA teams, some of the best college football in the Country, housing prices near rock bottom and Disneyworld. If you are remotely contemplating a move south, now is the time before the rush starts. You just have to get used to an occasional hurricane or two.
Robert Bateman (20:38:22) :
Yikes! I hadn’t noticed that the reference to Concord wasn’t followed by New Hampshire! Sorry ’bout that.
I fear there isn’t enough time for Robert to drive here and be on time, but if he were to show up, I’d be happy to take him out to dinner.
There’s a State House in Concord, CA? I would’ve guessed Sacramento. 🙂
Thursday may be the warmest day of the year (so far) here. Dr. Hansen was looking pretty exhausted when I saw him a month ago in Atlanta just before the Capitol Hill power plant protest. Perhaps the Hansen effect batteries are still recharging.
I emailed my state Governor back in about September when they had their 1st auction to suggest he get the state out of this. I even suggested the State could be subject to risks of litigation. Well what do you know? I think I’ll send him a follow-up.
BTW, I got no response the 1st time.
If people screamed loudly at $4/gallon gasoline, how much more loudly are they going to scream when 20% of their income is going to energy in the form of a carbon tax.
I love the Ray B idea about disconnecting the environmental/AGW from their utility service.
There was a post recently on Prometheus by Roger Pielke, Jr. about the lack of transparency of RGGI.
Link:
I can only conclude that RGGI is in reality a tax…
Bye,
TMTisFree
Ray B (01:29:08) ,
In a more perfect world, a U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) suit against the hoaxsters would work, but it appears that this whole issue will be resolved politically.
I do think that, perhaps, to mitigate the effects of future technical hoaxes being used to push “agendas”, some sort of punitive action is needed. Perhaps political punishment will be sufficient.
James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, Andrew Weaver, IPCC
Bogeymen of the C02 hoax losing ground
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, March 30, 2009
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer
James Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), and Andrew Weaver, lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports, made statements clearly designed to frighten people.
Both men are politically active in climate change and at the forefront of the attempt to convince the world that CO2 is a problem. Their remarks are intended to scare people by threatening impending doom – nothing new – except there is increasing urgency and fear because their message is failing. As Andrew Weaver summarized, ”All those fossil fuel emissions need to be eliminated. And we must do so quickly if we are to have any chance of stabilizing the climate and maintaining human civilization as we know it.”
Hansen increases urgency for action claiming we are on the verge of a tipping point, defined as follows. “Tipping points can occur during climate change when the climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying feedbacks are activated by only moderate additional warming.”
We’re reaching a tipping point, but it’s not the one Hansen anticipates. We’re close to the point where the public and politicians realize they have been totally deceived about the nature and cause of climate change. Even before a shift to concern about the economy polls showed a growing shift in public opinion.
Weaver is also troubled by his own definition of dramatic change occurring. He wrote in a March 24 article, in the Vancouver Sun, “There are many depressing things about being a climate scientist these days. The emerging data is going from bad to worse and the political leadership is still acting as if we have all the time in the world to deal with global warming.”
Yes, it’s depressing but because people are not fooled any more and politicians are not acting as Weaver expects. And yes, emerging data is going from bad to worse, but only because it shows CO2 is not causing warming.
Other remarks by both men indicate their fear. For example, Hansen said, “The democratic process doesn’t seem to be working.”
It’s a bizarre comment from a civil servant prior to his apparently breaking US law (the Hatch Act) again by participating in a public protest at the headquarters of E.ON, a power firm in Coventry, England. The push for elimination of CO2 emissions is failing because, despite his histrionics, democracy is working.
A few days later in the Vancouver Sun article ironically titled “’Environmentalists’ are abandoning science,” Weaver wrote, “The scientific community has a very solid understanding of what is causing global warming: It is overwhelmingly because of the combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, the solution to the problem is as simple as it is daunting: The elimination of fossil fuel use in our economies.”
Weaver claims he and his IPCC colleagues “have been as a clear as we know how about the science and the measures needed.” This is simply not the case. Their rules mean they only look at human causes of climate change. They produce a political summary for policymakers then used to make sure the science report agrees with the summary. (Canada Free Press)
More important, the entire claim of human caused CO2 global warming is based on computer models that simply can’t work.
It’s not surprising Hansen and Weaver are computer modelers; they have the most invested in these claims and the most to lose professionally and politically. I watched over the years as computer modelers took over and dominated climate science, particularly through the IPCC. But as Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton, said in the May 1999 issue of the American Physical Society and still valid today, “They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.” However, “If we persevere patiently with observing the real world and improving the models, the time will come when we are able both to understand and to predict. Until then, we must continue to warn the politicians and the public: don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.”
Or as Pierre Gallois put it, “If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it,” but more and more people are criticizing it.
Why have two prominent scientists made such unsupportable sensationalist comments? Simple – they’re losing control of their ability to achieve their political objectives. Here is a list of events raising their fears.
Even the lowest computer model temperature projections have overestimated the reality. They failed to project the cooling that has occurred since 2000.
That cooling occurred as CO2 levels rose in complete contradiction to IPCC assumptions.
Scientists doing proper science yet derogatively labeled skeptics by Hansen and Weaver have consistently shown the fallacy in the assumptions and methods of the IPCC.
The Kyoto Accord has failed and attempts to find a replacement are failing.
Proponents of the claims of human induced global warming, such as Al Gore, have lost credibility by making money from the sale of carbon credits.
Increasingly illogical statements, such as the claim that current cooling is due to warming, raise doubts even if you don’t understand the science.
More and more politicians, such as Northern Ireland’s Sammy Wilson and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus are speaking out against global warming claims.
The real cost of reducing CO2 emissions and the inadequacies of alternative fuels are emerging.
The public does not see warming as a concern. A Pew Center poll of January 22, 2009 showed it 20th on a list of 20 top priorities. On March 25, 2009 the Gallup Poll reported, “Global warming is clearly the environmental issue of least concern to Americans. In fact, global warming is the only issue for which more Americans say they have little to no concern than say they have a great deal of concern.”
The growing lack of commitment of the Obama government who they believed would implement their policies. Hansen notes, “he was growing “concerned” over the stance taken by the new US administration on global warming.”
Instead of accepting that their science and proposed actions are wrong they blame the people. Hansen’s comment that democracy isn’t working means it is not doing what he wants. Weaver’s remark that, “The public debate is becoming a caricature” is an arrogant insult and sadly typical of my experience with too many of the climate modelers. The people whose fears and lack of knowledge they exploited and who they thought were too stupid to understand are using democracy to stop the fraud. Hansen and Weaver’s comments disclose their fears as Hoffer predicted.
This tort could be the 21st Century equivalent of Scopes vs State (TN).
Imagine a discovery process compelling Hansen to discharge his formulae, as the plaintiff’s counsel attack the regulation for being based upon a fraud.
This is the debate they NEVER wanted and perhaps now cannot avoid.
I hope every entity fed up with this AGW nonsense files amicus curiae.
A really neat trick would be to get a sample or two of coal from the Pittsburg/Antioch Calif. deposits, a couple of geologists, anthropologists and confront Hansen in Concord with a question: What was the place like when this fossilized biomass was formed, the animals & plants and the atmosphere, climate etc?
Of course, in an image on WUWT I look for a Stevenson screen. But that thing by the river is about 15 feet across (and zoomed in it becomes the wrong shape). Scrolling west is a waste water plant, but no MMTS visible.
Discovery will be interesting when the utility demands the algorithms of any climate models used as evidence.
I found this on Dr. Roy Spencer’s website and wanted to verify the information:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/
Mr. Gore Recants
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009
In an unprecedented about-face, Al Gore last night recanted his claim that mankind is causing global warming. The announcement was made late Tuesday night from his Nashville home through his press secretary. Mr. Gore has remained unavailable for comment. In part, the announcement reads:
“While I will continue to support the development and rapid deployment of alternative energy technologies, I believe that the science can no longer support the view that catastrophic global warming is probable. This decision has required considerable soul searching on my part. But this is the nature of science, and scientific progress. I have no regrets over the path I have chosen.”
The announcement says that Mr. Gore will be publicly renouncing his portion of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to him in 2007 for his tireless efforts to raise global awareness of the climate crisis. In fact, he will no longer be referring to the fight against a ‘climate crisis’, but instead the fight will continue against a “global energy crisis”.
“The need for inexpensive and readily available energy is the most important issue facing the world’s poor”, the statement reads, “and I will be advocating free market approaches to the leaders of Third World countries in order to allow their citizens to enter and contribute to the 21st Century global economy.”
There is also the hint that he is considering returning his Academy Award for best documentary, although he hopes that a new movie category (best movie, science fiction) will be created to accommodate his highly acclaimed motion picture on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.
This admissions is too good to not verify before discussing further.
Regards
REPLY: This is an April fools joke, ignore it. – Anthony
Bob
Smokey (18:47:16) :
“I’m in agreement with the posters here. FatBigot echos my feelings: “Oh what fun we have in store.”
If by hook or by crook Messers Hansen, Gore, Mann, et al. could be lassoed into the inevitable depositions, it would be almost more fun than a mortal being could endure!”
And imagine the entertainment for us IMmortal beings!
As soon as the everyday folks on Main Street wake up and realize what this will do the cost and reliability of their utilities, they will begin to elect State and Federal legislators with a bit of common sense.
Cap and trade for electric utilities is not all bad. Mostly bad, but not all bad.
Indeck Corinth is in a bad position because they already use the most efficient technology to generate power, a combined-cycle gas turbine, CCGT. This is what California law mandates for all new gas-fired power plants (excepting of course the peaker plants, but that is a different story).
Indeck Corinth has very few options to reduce their carbon emissions, which places them at a disadvantage from the get-go. No wonder they are unhappy.
Where the cap and trade may make sense is for a coal-fired power plant to be replaced with a CCGT. The low cost of coal is offset by the higher efficiency of the CCGT. Also, the coal-fired plant has a higher capital cost for all the coal-handling equipment, the particulate scrubbers, and SOx removal. The reduction in CO2 by replacing coal power with CCGT is rather large. These carbon reductions are worth a lot of money these days.
California is a participatant in the Western Climate Initiative, an agreement among several western states and Canadian provinces that will be similar to RGGI. Details are yet to be formalized.
http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/Index.cfm
It has nothing to do with CO2, it’s all about taxes, taxes and more taxes to support the spend, spend, spend agenda. My advice to everyone is stop buying cars and wait until we see what the new Government Motors Corp. laws are regarding MPG standards. You may find yourself paying a CO2 gas tax on some types of transportation. Obama is so far left that Europe thinks he is crazy.
If this is true they can sew the President as well:
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/03/obama-intimately-tied-to-carbon-trading.html
Ron de Haan:
It sounds logical that in order to make possible a world government the US should “near third world status” as the article of your link says.
All this seems like SF, or better, like political fiction of the 50´s.
Well, we´ll see what happens in the real world. Hope the old and faithful Sun will keep on spoiling Gwrs. most maddening wishes.
I’m curious.
How much ‘clean renewable’ energy is bought?
How much is generated?
If you only want ‘clean renewable’ energy, does your supply get cut off when the wind isn’t blowing?
DaveE.
Once again: SOx removal, and CO2 removal is done through scrubbing with milk of lime, which, in turn it is obtained by calcining CaCO3 (burning it using fossil fuels) and emitting CO2 to the atmosphere (like crazy dogs running after their tails!). In case of SOx it can be turned also into H2SO4 (sulphuric acid). There could be other more sophisticated and expensive methods, like reducing SOx to elemental sulphur but, again, using a lot of energy.
All this business is out of reason.
I insist, my guess is, that the “public” thinks of CO2 as being a “dark stuff” not the transparent gas we all exhale. As for SO2, they ignore, also, that the most humble volcanic eruption produces more SO2 than many refineries in their whole existence.
Tom in Florida (04:08:42) :
Since GoreHansenMann the Manbearpig has established that warm is bad and cooler is better, I’m puzzled that we don’t see more of you Florida folk flying up here to spend your Winter vacations with us friendly folks in Minnesota.
From today’s Denver Post:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/
People do not want to pay more for green energy. There won’t be any cap and trade or carbon tax. People will let their representatives know, in no uncertain terms, they do not want to pay more for energy. Increasing energy bills could become the new third rail in politics.
The Thune Amendment
By Roger Pielke, Jr., Prometheus
The ability of Congressional legislation on cap and trade that results in actual emissions reductions died an early death last night. An Amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on the Budget Resolution and its text is as follows:
To amend the deficit-neutral reserve fund for climate change legislation to require that such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices.