This might make you mad. That’s even more reason to read about it.
$1.9 million in environmental justice grants 10th May 2010 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded $1.9 million in environmental justice grants to 76 non-profit organizations and local governments working on environmental justice issues nationwide. The grant program supports Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s priority to expand the conversation on environmentalism and work for environmental justice.
And it isn’t just in the USA, the EPA is giving US taxpayer money to Brazilian programs. Think that’s bad? They are giving money to China too, as if the Chinese need our help.
Project Title: Methane Atlas Energy Gen. in Brazilian Landfills
Grant ID Number: XA – 83604601-0
Recipient Name: Abrelp Associacao Brasileira De Empres De Limp Pub
Award Date: 01/08/2011 Cum Award: $160,000
Project Start: 01/08/2011 Project End: 31/01/2013
To develop a publication, the “Atlas of GHG Emission and Energy Potential by Waste Destination in Brazil.” This will provide up-to-date information on waste management in the country, the types of final waste disposal in each geographic area broken down by state, waste management as a renewable energy resource for Brazil, the potential for GHG emissions reductions, and finally the viable end-use options to be applied in the sector.
==================================================
Project Title: Scale-up of Biomass Stoves in Western China
Grant ID Number: XA – 83366201-2
Recipient Name: China Assoc. of Rural Energy Industry
Award Date: 28/04/2010 Cum Award: $230,000
Project Start: 01/08/2007 Project End: 31/01/2011
The China Association of Rural Energy Industry will help 100,000 Chinese adopt cleaner technologies that improve health while protecting the environment (reducing deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions).
Full report here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sample_grants.pdf
One of the best ways to clean up the environment in poor countries is to provide small business loans for local cottage industries and then let them go about their business in creating that industry. Improving the earned cash flow of individuals by making them repay their low-interest loan does more to clean up their environment than welfare in the form of benevolent grants ever could. Grants need to be externally refilled and if stopped altogether, tend to result in the degradation of what they tried to create. Loans have at least a potential internal refilling source and when stopped have a far greater chance of resulting in what they helped create be successful on its own.
Stop the free stuff and instead build on the strength of the individual entreprenerial capacity of the human species.
@ferdberple – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952
——————————————————
At the same time as the USA is giving money away the EU is funding Climate Programmes in the Sahara.
A large fraction of that money will have been borrowed from the Chinese for which we pay them interest to do so. Therefore, we are borrowing money to give it away to them and paying them on top of that to take it.
@ferdberple Your statements about marginal tax rates were interesting, considering virtually no one pays the actual marginal rate. The marginal rate was as high as 91% in the past, with multiple tax brackets along the way. Do you really think people paid 91% of their income to the government? The effective tax rate is what matters–and it’s often a negative number for the bottom income levels.
As for the idea of “None of the Above” for an election choice, how long do you want to go without a government? (No, I am not being sarcastic.)
@fredberple and his Proposition X “none of the above”
I like the idea–not sure how we’ll get it into practice. Might also have the undesirable effect of keeping the incumbents in office until an election actually elects someone.
Well, Santorum was the skeptics’ man. He did not make the trip to Bella Vista, AR to pick up checks from the Grand Umbra’$
I wonder how much filters back as campaign contributions?
ferdberple says:
August 29, 2012 at 6:57 am
80 years ago, before the “global economy”, before “free trade”, Congress decided the income tax was a better tax than the sales tax. Since that time the rules have changed, but Congress has not recognized the reality.
IMO, congress recognizes the reality and sells changes to the tax code to fund campaigns. It’s the primary reason the federal government is so broken. The tax code needs to make sense again.
History shows that no matter high how the marginal tax rates, the average tax revenue as percentage of GDP hovers at around 18% (http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/). Higher rates do not result in higher revenues because people change their behavior according to the tax code. When marginal tax rates are high, people put their money in unproductive (and legal) tax shelters, such as low-yield municipal bonds. When marginal rates are lower, people invest more productively, that is, they put their money to work instead of parking somewhere. Lower marginal tax rates promote economic growth and more tax revenues.
Reality check says:
August 29, 2012 at 10:14 am
“…how long do you want to go without a government? (No, I am not being sarcastic.)”
Depends on what you mean by government. No government is better than a bad fickle one, or a tyrannical one, or a Marxist one etc.
EPA= Lavish with taxpayer Cash, economical with the Truth.
Isn’t it strange how countries deep in debt can afford to give money away.
Holy cow some of these reponses really scare me. China does not need or deserve a red cent from the USA. 1.9 million could have bought high effeciency ac units for right here in the USA, could have bought high effeciency toilets for low income right here in the USA. If the Chinese want to pollute themselves to death then that is their right.
Fix the USA before you try to fix other countries. We have to stop ALL out of country cash outflows, untill we get OUR budget in order. It will be tough people will be mad as hell but we are moving in an unsustainable course which will at some point becom catastrophic. Unfortunately it will be sooner rather than later.
“””””…..Garrett says:
August 29, 2012 at 1:32 am
Your kidding right? You’re angry at a grants program that is “designed to help communities understand and address environmental challenges and create self-sustaining, community-based partnerships focused on improving human health and the environment at the local level”?…..”””””
Well Garrett, I actually do not possess any “kidding” such as you refer to; so I’m just guessing (wag) that you might have intended to say; ‘ You’re kidding right ?’
Well Garrett, I’m all in favor of “communies” ….”at the local level”… understanding and addressing environmental challenges “at the local level”. It used to always be that way.
But Clause 1 of Article 1 Section 8, of the US Constitution ONLY authorizes the Congress to lay and collect taxes;….to pay the national debts…..to provide for the common defence… and the general welfare……..OF THE UNITED STATES.
The United States is that Washington DC third party to the Constitutional contract, besides “We, the people” , and the “several States” of the Union. (all 57 of them).
Nowhere does it authorize taxes for anything like community activist grants, nor the general welfare of Tom, Dick, and Harry; It’s those four words OF THE UNITED STATES that are the important part of Article 1 Section 8.(they are not in the preamble; which is NOT, “the Constitution”)
We don’t get taxed for the benefit of Brazil, or communist red China; only our debt obligations, and defending the Union, and its wellbeing.
The (sovereign) States can take care of their State issues (as provided for in their State Constitutions), and local communities as their charters permit; and “we the people” can take care of ourselves.
The other 16 or 17 clauses authorize Congress to do other things; but NOT to tax the people to pay for them. Nowhere does it charge the federal government with studying climate data.
Obama and his administration have brought us the “man made disaster”.
Eric Barnes; I have to disagree. I think a bigger factor in our dysfunctional Government is 1) Congress Critters are allowed to homestead and become, as a result, more representative of their big doners vs their constituents (term limits are good) and 2) Congress Critters have made themselves above and/or exempted themselves from the laws they write: e.g. insider trading, Social Security, Obamacare, etc.
Do you really believe “no government” is better? How do you think people will behave when there is no one to mail out Social Security checks, no one to pay for the three meals a day kids get at school, no one to pay for roads, no one to mint money? Approximately one-half of this country believes the government is their parent and you want to orphan over 150,000,000 people just like that? Best to rethink that one.
If you think it’s a good idea for the USEPA to give money to Red China, you are a Redneck.
This is no worse than giving $529 billion in loan guarantees to Fisker to make electric luxury cars in Finland:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875#.UD6CHMHgsXs
So I started to lose my hair in the late 70’s — obvioulsy a result of Global Warming!!!! Hey can I get some money to study the issue — maybe I can get a hair transplant – you know to protect me from the harmful rays
Ramblings from the LazyTeenager at August 29, 2012 at 12:49 am:
“…Hmmm. I seem to remember that many of you were so incredibly, incredibly concerned about how the poor people of the world will be affected by not having access to cheap energy…”
Still are. There are thousands around the world that could really use cheap, reliable energy. But the push to solar and wind aren’t it, and the CAGW crowd demonize burning of fossil fuels. What’s your easy fix?
“…Now coal is cheap of course but in China it brings tears to your eyes. The sulphuric acid aerosols are trying to eat yours eyes out…”
Wow. It’s true that oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, but papers (such as this one: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei19/session5/lu.pdf), shows the SO2 levels peaking in 2006, and being on a decline since then.
I really would like to know your source for the “sulphuric acid aerosols are trying to eat yours eyes out” statement.
“…So maybe a few measely dollars donated to the poverty stricken Chinese is something you shouldnt be complaining about…”
Poverty stricken Chinese. Did you see the numbers above? We’re talking about $230,000 to help 100,000 Chinese (works out to about $2.30 per person). How much of a “Scale-up of Biomass Stoves in Western China” will 2.30 get them – a new stovepipe, maybe?
If you really think that throwing 230,000 dollars at a country with 5 times the people we have is really going to slow down the rush to CAGW, you’re deluded.
But then, you do have the freedom to make totally asinine statements here, knowing full well people will bite and respond. Congratulations.
““…Now coal is cheap of course but in China it brings tears to your eyes. The sulphuric acid aerosols are trying to eat yours eyes out…” – L.T.
I’ve been to China many a time spending my time mostly in Shanghai, about the most industrialized and populated area. The air quality could certainly be called less than ideal, but I’ve never witnessed this phenomenon of which you refer. Logically wouldn’t it be the PRC’s responsibility to ameliorate their own air problems at their own cost especially considering that we’re already in debt to them?
[+emphasis]
It saddens me greatly to agree that you nailed it in your third sentence, possibly triggered by an Iranian nuclear device.
The “civilized” nations just do not seem to have the resolve to honestly face the ills that trouble the world.
Gunga Din says:
August 29, 2012 at 1:58 pm
If you think it’s a good idea for the USEPA to give money to Red China, you are a Redneck.
______________________________
Hey GD-
I know you are trying to be funny and mimic Jeff Foxworthy, but he would never tell that joke.
Jeff knows that a real redneck would get red faced at the thought of the EPA’s idiocy.
We’ll hear what real rednecks have to say in November.
Hopefully, there are a whole bunch of us out there.
Just asking here, what does this post have to do with the numbers acquired and analyzed in regards to the climate? This appears to be more of a political / xenophobic subject matter. I think posts like this one diminish your site and your message. I think that denialist have value in the science (no different then alarmists), however they both diminish their ability to contribute by extremist behavior. I appreciate you will never see this point, as denialists are as blind as alarmist at accepting that they may be so much as 1% wrong on something. It’s a shame. If denialists & alarmists worked as one another’s gate keepers as a team, devils advocates, can you imagine the accuracy of what is being examined and how we could use that information? We truly are a self destructive species, and for the wrong reasons. Cheers.