Senators Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer will outline the legislation on Thursday morning. They are even going to let that wacky 350.org activist Bill McKibben speak. Sheesh.
Billed as “major” and “comprehensive” legislation, it will have a carbon tax. Here is the statement from Sanders’ office (bold mine):
Sanders, Boxer to Introduce Major Climate Change Legislation
February 12, 2013
WASHINGTON, Feb 12 – Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will hold a news conference on Thursday, Feb. 14 to announce comprehensive legislation on climate change. Boxer is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Sanders serves on the environment committee and also is a member of the Senate energy committee.
Under the legislation, a fee on carbon pollution emissions would fund historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.
Environment and consumer leaders set to participate include Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org; Mike Brune, executive director of Sierra Club; Tara McGuiness, executive director of the Center for American Progress Action Fund; Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen’s energy director; and David Bradley, National Community Action Foundation executive director.
Who:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Bill McKibben, 350.org founder
Mike Brune, Sierra Club executive director
Tara McGuiness, CAP Action Fund executive director
Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen’s Energy Program director
David Bradley, National Community Action Foundation executive director
What: News conference on climate change legislation
When: 11 a.m., Thursday, Feb. 14
Where: SD-406, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing room
Source here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“every historical standard shows… we need a social safety net to survive.”
That’s pretty funny, since the “social safety net” has been in existance for an incredibly tiny part of history. How did we survive till that pt?
“A country that tries to tax its self into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to pull himself up by the handle” -Winston Churchill-
I thought the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits “The making of any law respecting an establishment of religion…”, which is what this appears to be.
“Simply put, a tax bill originating from the Senate would have no constitutional legitimacy and therefore cannot be enforced. ”
Ah, but you see, it will be put forward as a revenue-neutral environmental bill instead.
You forgot the /sarc tag. It was already mentioned that even though there are more cars on the road than ever driving more miles than ever, gas tax revenue is declining because of the widespread adoption of fuel efficient vehicles. That U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are dropping. That adoption of manufacturing efficiencies are not driven by tax penalties or subsidies, but by competitive market forces. That the Japanese are visiting U.S. steel plants to learn efficient new methods of production.
U.S. manufacturing stuck in the 20th century? I think not. For instance, the sodium filled exhaust valves used in most high power/high efficiency engines (a very high tech and extremely precision bit of manufacturing) are made in the U.S. and (of all places) Mexico.
Is everything perfect? Of course not. But not anywhere near as dire as your “glass half empty” comment would suggest.
Republicans are now fully sophisticated about the global warming fraud and are today on Fox News giving tens of millions of people a sense of perspective:
Typo alert!
Pet peeve of mine: “wack job” derives from wacky and means crazy person. “Whack” is the sound of hitting something.
REPLY: wacky is what I meant, so I’ve changed it to reflect that thanks – Anthony
“every historical standard shows… we need a social safety net to survive.”
That’s pretty funny, since the “social safety net” has been in existance for an incredibly tiny part of history. “How did we survive till that pt?”
We didn’t, obviously. Everyone from back then is now dead. [MIC DROP]
To state, Congress no longer represents the Will of The People is an understatement.
I sent an email to Barbara Boxer last year related to the Law of the Sea Treaty — Senator Kerry attempted to sneak a Carbon Tax into the treaty. I pointed out that over 70% of California voters do NOT support the tax in any form.
Her response was disingenuous and party centric.
I respect Barbara Boxer but Democrats are several bricks shy of a full load related to the climate nonsense.
Tax and Spend is Not a Plan — when will they wake up.
Solar Minimum already cured global warming. Thank you solar cycle 24. Climate change can’t be cured, its been happening for billions of years.
Owen in Ga says:
February 13, 2013 at 4:16 am
Kforestcat says:
February 13, 2013 at 6:01 am
Ken Hall says:
February 13, 2013 at 6:09 am
Gail Combs says:
February 13, 2013 at 6:15 am
Well said, All of you!
Fiscal Discipline. Constitutionally Limited Government. Free Markets.
MtK
I’ll answer:
#1 – Not one thin dime! They plan to “give the money back” to the people through more government services.
#2 – More jobs! All those new corporate and public bureaucrats who will have to be hired to ensure compliance means more jobs.
#3 – We already stopped the rising of the oceans (by electing Obama). This is for social justice, not the climate.
#4 – Four out of five
dentists scientists surveyed said so. All four of them are protesting Keystone XL with Hansen right now.The extreme AGW paradigm pushers want a carbon tax to spend money on green scams. Green scams do not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions which is not a problem anyway at there is no extreme warming crisis to solve. Green scams increase the cost of electrical power and transportation fuel in the US, further reducing US competitiveness.
The wind farm scam is a good example.
The Obama administration’s claim that 50% of new installed power generation in the US was wind farms is disingenuous. Wind farm installed capacity is quoted at the maximum theoretical capacity of the wind farm. As the power generated by a wind turbine is proportional to the velocity of the wind squared and there are times when the wind does not blow, actual average generated power from a wind farm varies from 15% Germany (The Germans install wind farms for ideological reasons and hence install wind farms in regions where there is insufficient wind), 20% (California. Californians also install wind farms for ideological reasons) to 35% for the best locations in the US and other locations in the world. Ignoring the fact that the best locations for wind farms are typically far from population centers so the US wind farms are being installed low wind locations or massive power lines need to be constructed (there is a loss of up to 20 to 30% for a long electrical power line) and have not been included in the economics.
It is odd that the extreme AGW crowd and the Obama administration are not aware of or are in denial concerning the wind farm technical show stopper.
The problem with wind power generation is the wind does not necessary blow when power is required. As there is no energy storage in an electrical grid this means fossil fuel power generation stations must be turned off when the wind blows or when wind speed increases to balance the electrical grid. If one includes the extra power required to turn fossil fuel power stations on and off there is almost no net carbon dioxide reduction from the installation of the wind farms, as noted by this technical brief that discusses wind farm installations in Ireland (which is one of the best locations to install wind farms).
If there is almost no reduction in CO2 emissions due to the installation of wind farms (if the higher fuel consumption for cycling fossil fuel plants is included in the calculations) and the generation cost from the wind farm is 3.7 times higher than a conventional fossil fuel power generation plant what is the driver to subsidize the installation of wind farms?
http://docs.wind-watch.org/EirGrid-WindImpact-Main.pdf
The electrical output from Wind Powered Generation (WPG) is intermittent in nature.
Unlike conventional plant the output is not necessarily related to customer demand.
Maximum wind production may occur during low customer demand periods and
conversely at times of peak demand there may be little or no WPG. As WPG may be
subject to priority dispatch (and has a very low variable production cost) this analysis
assumes that the electricity produced by wind is always accepted onto the system and that
the output of WPG is curtailed by wind conditions alone. As a consequence the output
required from the other sources of electricity is more volatile in nature. This report
examines three measures of performance that display the increasing operational duty on
thermal plant as a result of a rising WPG. The three parameters examined are ;
Start-ups. A large amount of energy is required to start-up large thermally powered
units. For example a large oil fired unit can consume 3000 GJ of energy during the startup
process, and if a typical price for oil is 350 cents/GJ a single start up would cost
€10,500. The start-up process is also a quite onerous on the mechanical integrity of the
unit. Even for peaking units such as open cycle gas turbines it is quite common to
determine the allowable period between maintenance outages by specifying a maximum
permissible number of start-ups. From our detailed hourly unit commitment and dispatch
studies the number of start-ups required per annum, as WPG is increases, has been
determined.
Ramping duty. The ability to pick up or reduce load on a generation unit is limited by
the thermal and mechanical stresses imposed on the unit during the process of changing
load levels. It is normal for manufacturers to specify a maximum permissible ramp-up
and ramp down rate in terms of MW per minute. Ramp up rates in the range of 1 to 10
MW per minute and ramp-down rates in the range from 1 to 15 MW per minute are
typical performance levels for thermal units. As there are limits to the ramp rate on
individual units a number of units must act in unison in order to maintain the demand
supply balance during periods when either the demand or supply of electricity is
changing rapidly. For this study the impact of increasing levels of WPG on the ramping
duty of units was quantified by determining the ‘Average Hourly MW Change’ for a unit
over a period of one year. The higher the Average Hourly MW Change the more onerous
the ramping duty and hence the greater the mechanical and thermal stresses being
imposed on the thermal units.
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
A Problem With Wind Power
The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, “We’re a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it’s typically not available.”
Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003. The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power’s contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of capacity (using the average between the AWEA’s figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and 2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially. [Click here for more about the technicalities of wind as a power source, as well as energy consumption data. Click here for conversions between and explanations of energy units.]
In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.
Eon Netz, the grid manager for about a third of Germany, discusses the technical problems of connecting large numbers of wind turbines [click here]: Electricity generation from wind fluctuates greatly, requiring additional reserves of “conventional” capacity to compensate; high-demand periods of cold and heat correspond to periods of low wind; only limited forecasting is possible for wind power; wind power needs a corresponding expansion of the high-voltage and extra-high-voltage grid infrastructure; and expansion of wind power makes the grid more unstable. [Click here for a good explanation of why wind-generated power can not usefully contribute to the grid and only causes greater problems, including the use of more “conventional” fuel.]
Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2006, the Spanish government ended — by emergency decree — its subsidies and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that “the unstable flow of wind power in their networks” has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer. [Note, April 2012: State support for industrial wind fluctuates, but the trend noted here has continued.]
A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 after some delay [click here] stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times more than otherwise and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants. A similar conclusion was made by the Irish grid manager in a study released in February 2004 [click here for 172-KB PDF]: “The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives.”
http://docs.wind-watch.org/mason-windpowerindenmark-2008.pdf
5. Carbon emissions
Denmark’s annual carbon emissions represent a tiny part of the amounts released globally into the atmosphere (47). Despite its ‘green’ reputation, however, this country remains amongst the world’s biggest consumers of coal and producers of carbon dioxide per head of population (36), and has yet to demonstrate consistent reductions in domestic carbon emissions (16) or its dependence on fossil fuels.
The intermittent and variable nature of its industrial wind power system and the associated need for dependable sources of spinning reserve mean that the operational efficiency of its backup plant is reduced (i.e. greater amounts of carbon dioxide produced per kWh of conventionally generated electricity (85; 86)). This counteracts a significant proportion of the carbon saving claimed for wind power.
A leading Elsam expert has also intimated that with its present electricity supply system further increases in wind power generation will not reduce Denmark’s emissions of carbon dioxide because more wind power leads to greater exports to neighbours (60). Such exports may reduce carbon emissions in some of these countries, but few emission savings will accrue (for example) to Norway at times when high levels of rainfall keep its reservoirs fully replenished (51; 85; 86).
Do this and say bye bye to your position as the biggest economy in the world – this will ensure you never reduce that deficit – the Europeans prove this over and over.
Are you sure these people aren’t foreign agents ?
Dear
kcrucible says: February 13, 2013 at 10:07 am
Where you state “Ah, but you see, it will be put forward as a revenue-neutral environmental bill instead.”
Nope… under established legislative procedure a bill containing a “tax” originating from the Senate can be “blue slipped” by the House. The blue slip notes the House’s constitutional prerogative and immediately returns the bill to the Senate – without taking further action.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip
Furthermore, even if the House does not blue slip a tax bill the law can be challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States v. Munoz-Flores (1990), where the Court rejected the argument that origination issues are nonjusticiable political questions. The Court held that a plaintiff with standing may pursue a claim that a revenue statute improperly originated in the Senate.
So, should the Senate pass Ms. Boxer’s bill, the bill can be stopped dead by both the House and any citizen with standing.
Regards,
Kforestcat
Australia discovered the most important about a Carbon Tax, never stand between a financially strapped government and a bucket of money.
“alex says:
February 13, 2013 at 3:29 am
Why you ask? Of course, there was.
http://www.nas.gov.uk/guides/taxation.asp”
A tax on horses in Scotland only and I see no where was this tax used to drive people to alternatives methods of motive power. It was simply a way to raise revenue, like the hearth tax.
As many have noted, getting a carbon tax thru congress likely isn’t to happen. But that isn’t the plan. According to Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post, the plan is to use the EPA –
” Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel recently outlined how the president might demand a carbon tax in return for approval of energy projects, including Keystone. Getting a carbon tax through Congress looks tricky. But Ms. Strassel reported that California Senator Barbara Boxer outlined how a carbon tax could be imposed administratively through the Environmental Protection Agency.”
Financial recompense may offset the reluctance of some to serve as skeptics.
They would accept hardships in recompense for having been selfish and lazy.
talldave2 says:
February 13, 2013 at 11:49 am
“every historical standard shows… we need a social safety net to survive.”
That’s pretty funny, since the “social safety net” has been in existance for an incredibly tiny part of history. “How did we survive till that pt?”
We didn’t, obviously. Everyone from back then is now dead. [MIC DROP]
————————————————————————
We have a social safety net now and people are still dying. [STAGE DROP]
@talldave2 says:
February 13, 2013 at 11:49 am
“every historical standard shows… we need a social safety net to survive.”
+++++++++++
The safety net is making people abuse it… and others lazy. It used to be that generous people would donate money and volunteer… but the safety net grew big enough to entitle people… And I stand by these comments!