From my inbox today – “Climate Credit”

This is reminiscent of how it started in Australia with the carbon tax.

Look for a Climate Credit from the State of California on Your October Utility Bill

This month your electricity bill will include a credit identified as the “California Climate Credit.” Twice a year, in April and October*, your household and millions of others throughout the state will receive this credit on your electricity bills.

The Climate Credit is a payment to Californians from a program designed to fight climate change by limiting the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that our largest industries put into the atmosphere.

This program is one of many developed as a result of landmark legislation called the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which puts California at the forefront of efforts to battle climate change. Other programs under this law increase clean, renewable forms of electricity, promote energy efficiency in homes and businesses, and require cleaner fuels, and more efficient cars and trucks.

Together, these programs will aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere–helping to clean the air and protect our food, water, and public health, as well as the beauty of our state.

The Climate Credit is designed to help you join with California in its efforts to fight climate change and clean the air. You can use the savings on your electricity bills however you choose, but you can save even more money by investing the bill savings from your Climate Credit in energy-saving home upgrades, including more efficient lights and appliances. You can find more information and receive rebates for these and many other energy efficient choices for your home at www.EnergyUpgradeCA.org/credit.

California’s greenhouse gas reduction programs provide a range of powerful solutions to help slow climate change, one of the greatest challenges facing society. By gradually reducing emissions each year and moving to cleaner forms of energy, we are taking an important step to preserve the health and prosperity of our state for generations to come.

* Billing periods vary by utility and may not always coincide with a calendar month. If you don’t see a Climate Credit in the bill that arrives in October, it will appear in the bill you receive in November.

The CPUC regulates privately owned electric companies and serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy. For more information about our work contact us at:
news@cpuc.ca.gov, 800-253-0500, or visit www.cpuc.ca.gov.

================================================

From the FAQs page:

What is the California Climate Credit?

Under California’s climate law, power plants and industries must pay for permits when they put carbon pollution into the air. Some of that money is used by the state to fight climate change, and some goes to households and small businesses to protect them from the carbon pollution cost in electricity that comes from non-renewable resources, like coal and natural gas. The credit on your electricity bill is your share of that money.   To learn more about this credit, visit www.energyupgradeca.org/climatecredit.

 

Who is eligible for the Climate Credit?

All California residential customers that receive electricity from an investor owned utility company, electric service provider or community choice aggregation provider. This includes customers of PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, PacifiCorp, and Liberty Utilities, and the community choice aggregators Marin Clean Energy and Sonoma Clean Power.

 

Why am I receiving a Climate Credit?

Households and small businesses are receiving the Climate Credit to protect them from electricity cost increases and to give people additional opportunities to take advantage of energy and money-saving upgrades that also help fight climate change. To learn more about actions that households and businesses can take, visit www.EnergyUpgradeCA.org.

 

Does the credit amount vary by electricity provider?

Yes. However, the California Climate Credit is distributed equally to each electricity provider’s residential customers in April and October of each year, regardless of energy consumption or bill amount.

 

When will I receive the Climate Credit?

Households will receive the credit twice per year in the April and October bills. Small businesses will receive it monthly.

 

Is the credit amount connected to my electricity use?

  • Households: No, all residential customers of the same electricity provider will receive an equal amount for the California.
  • Small Businesses: Yes. The credit is tied to the amount of carbon pollution costs in small business electricity rates, and the actual credit received each month depends on small business customers’ electricity rates and how much electricity they use.

What will customers see on the bill?

Every household and eligible small business will see messages on their bills announcing when they have a Climate Credit. This messaging will vary slightly by utility, but your bills will typically include the following:

  • A line Item “CA Climate Credit” or “California Climate Credit” on your bill with the amount of the credit under your electricity delivery charges;
  • New bill messages that explain the credit
  • A new Bill Definition that explains that “CA Climate Credit” or “California Climate Credit” line item, however it may appear on your bill.

 

Does the Climate Credit apply to the gas portion of my bill?

No, it only applies to the electricity portion.

 

Will Net Energy Metering or NEM customers receive a Climate Credit?

Yes.

 

What if there is a credit remaining on my account balance after the California Climate Credit is applied to my bill?

Any carryover balance will be applied to your next month’s bill. If there is a balance, customers may ask for a refund check instead of having the balance applied to your next month’s bill.

 

How is the credit amount calculated?

The Climate Credit is calculated according to rules adopted by the CPUC. Some of the funds help support manufacturers and small businesses. Residential customers receive the remaining funds (approximately 90% of the total funds in 2014).

 

If the credit is from the State, why is it on my utility bill?

The most cost effective way to return this credit to electricity customers is as a bill credit through your energy provider. This approach maximizes the amount of savings each household and small business will receive.

 

For how many years will I receive a Climate Credit?

Right now the Climate Credit is expected to continue until at least 2020.

 

Will the size of my Climate Credit change over time?

Yes. The size of the Climate Credit depends on a large number of factors that can change from year to year, but the credit will always be calculated according to rules established by the CPUC. (Link to relevant decisions for more info.)

 

Where does the money for the Climate Credit come from?

Funds for the Climate Credit come from a state program to fight climate change by limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that large polluters can release into the atmosphere. Each year the state auctions a limited number of emission permits so that California can meet its goal of reducing its overall emissions down to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Some of the aution money is used by the state to fight climate change, and some is returned to many Californians as a Climate Credit. This program is one of many developed as a result of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which put California at the forefront of efforts to battle climate change. To learn more about California’s effort to fight climate change: www.energyupgradeca.org/climatechange.

 

What is the Cap-and-Trade Program?

Check out our page dedicated to the Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program.

 

Will my electricity rates increase as a result of Cap-and-Trade?

California has programs to encourage electricity providers to shift toward clean sources of energy, and one of those programs results in power plants facing a cost when they produce electricity from fuels that put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These costs are reflected in all customers’ electricity generation rates – the portion of electricity bills that represents the costs to generate electricity.

 

However, the rate increases for residential, small business, and some manufacturing customers will either be fully or partially offset by Climate Credits. The goal is to protect customers from overall cost increases on their electricity bills and to give people additional opportunities to invest in energy and money-saving upgrades. To find out how to join California’s efforts to fight climate change visit the website EnergyUpgradeCA.org/climatecredit.

 

What is AB 32?

AB 32 is California’s law to reduce carbon pollution and fight climate change. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or AB 32, mandates that California reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and then maintains that reduction (about 15% from current levels). For more information on AB32: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.

 

Which government agency is in charge of enforcing greenhouse gas reduction laws?

The lead agency is the California Air Resources Board (ARB). This is also the agency that sets state standards to clean the air and promote clean vehicles and clean fuels.

 

Where can I find more information about California’s efforts to fight climate change?

Here are a few useful links:

Advertisements

116 thoughts on “From my inbox today – “Climate Credit”

    • At least they’re getting the money for this from the power company, not the consumer.

      And it’s going to control the weather, too.

      • And where does the power company get the money from? The consumer ultimately pays. In this particular case, the consumer is paying for the bureaucracy necessary to implement the process of taking the consumer’s money, deducting the costs of employing people to administer the money, then giving the residue back to the people who paid up in the first place. It does nothing for the environment, but such socialist (liberal) make-work schemes are commonplace in socialist Europe. At least it provides an income for some of those who are losing their jobs as California-based industry moves to states that eschew such distopian nightmares.

      • grumpyoldmanuk,

        I well remember the fight to defeat AB32. We made those exact same arguments, but it passed anyway, by a very small margin IIRC.

        This does not do one good thing for the ‘environment’. It raises costs for consumers across the board, it makes products less competitive, it raises the cost of utilities, and it is a personal gravy train for a very few smug, self-serving rent seekers at everyone else’s expense.

        California is a leader all right — in eco-nonsense.

      • Let’s get this right. Consumers are supposed to “invest” the carbon rebates that are provided to offset the increased utility costs due to the carbon tax in purchasing new appliances and light bulbs to reduce the demand for electricity that pays for the carbon tax? What happens when industry leaves the state — no emissions, no tax revenue, no investment, higher deficit spending, higher cost of living, increasing carbon emissions per GDP, etc.

      • The power company gets it’s money from the consumers. Part of the money from the bill you pay went to pay for this project.. I can think of better ways to waste my money. Spray on hair, chia pets, searches for intelligent life on and off earth, gag toilet paper, an ‘official’ Michael Mann toupee with built in thermometer that raises the toupee slightly on hotter days, keeping you cool and comfortable and last and least, an autographed picture of Phil Jones with the inscription, “we know that co2 is warming the earth because we can’t explain it otherwise.”

    • Yep, they charge companies, companies raise their rates or cost of goods, or go out of business, allowing survivors the ability to raise rates. Also this raises the cost of power no matter what politicians think.

      How much does it cost to manage the program???

      Also the letter said…” Some of the funds help support manufacturers and small businesses.” really, how can we get that list?

  1. “1990 levels by the year 2020”

    They have just over five years left to damage their energy market. If they manage to not destroy it, others will follow.

    Although I question the role CO2 plays in any scary scenario of global warming, I do prefer cleaner/renewable energy sources for other reasons. Less dependence on foreign oil (coal doesn’t have this problem), higher power plant efficiency (less wasted resources), and my basic inclination to leave things as I find them – or better. Better fuel economy will be a great boon as well. Like the new Volvo engines producing 300HP and 35mpg. Yes, please!

    The drive against CO2 has its upsides (I also would love a Tesla Model S ;-)).

      • I was up at Crater Lake NP Oregon in June. If you are not familiar, it is way out in the boonies. I got there around 7pm. There was Tesla S with a long extension cord coming from a hotel ground floor window out to the car. Obviously a 115V outlet. When I left at 9am the next morning it was still charging and most of the other cars in the parking lot had left. Later I was curious and went to Tesla website to see how long it takes to recharge from standard 115V outlet. Takes over 48 hours to fully re-charge on 115volt outlets after the probably 150-180 mile drive from the nearest major city that person made.

        Very impractical for trips. It is just a luxury status symbol. Always will be. .

    • looncraz,

      Your “cleaner/renewable” comment is a non-sequitur: The new Volvo, etc., has nothing to do with CO2.

      Those improvements are a natural outgrowth of competition. They don’t have anything to do with these rent-seeking do gooders, who only cause consumers to pay higher costs for… nothing.

    • we have the ability to be independent of middle eastern oil without subsidizing wind or solar which lowers conventional plant efficiency. 300 hp and 35 mph will sell itself if the price is right.

    • “Although I question the role CO2 plays in any scary scenario of global warming, I do prefer cleaner/renewable energy sources for other reasons. Less dependence on foreign oil (coal doesn’t have this problem), higher power plant efficiency (less wasted resources), and my basic inclination to leave things as I find them – or better.”

      Looncraz: It’s good that you want to leave things better than you found them, but be aware that cleaner/renewable energy does next to nothing to reduce our dependence on crude oil imports (which as I understand it are declining anyway because of fracking).

      http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
      In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were

      Coal 39%
      Natural Gas 27%
      Nuclear 19%
      Hydropower 7%
      Other Renewable 6%
      Biomass 1.48%
      Geothermal 0.41%
      Solar 0.23%
      Wind 4.13%
      Petroleum 1%
      Other Gases < 1%

      As we see above, petroleum provides only a mere 1% of our electricity needs according to the fed's EIA webpage. I therefore seriously doubt that any significant increase in cleaner/renewables is going to have any meaningful impact on our crude oil imports. Petroleum, as I understand it, is primarily used for refining into transportation fuels as well as making petrochemicals and artificial materials to name a few.

      Also note that solar provides a fraction of 1% of our electricity needs as of the end of last year even though the solar panel has been around for some 60 years now (it was invented in 1954). If solar was going to have any meaningful impact on our fossil fuel dependency for electricity generation, it seems to me that we would be seeing it by now. I for one am not going to be holding my breath waiting for it to happen some time in the future. Leaves me wondering what all to hoopla over solar is anyway.

      I don't know where this myth about an association between renewables and lower crude oil imports keeps coming from, but I sure wish it would go away. Nuclear is the only way to go if we are to shift away from fossil fuels for our electricity needs.

      • The best use for “solar” power in areas of cold winters is proper sizing & orientation of windows facing equatorward. Simple & cheap.

    • my 81 tbird with bored and stroked 302 running holley 750 vacuum secondaries at 340hp and 380ftlb torque (static compression on each cylinder was 300psi) got 28 on interstate (2:23 gears) and 19 in town on a 3 speed transmission. if I could have afforded the holley projection (throttle body fuel injection) I would have gained 2-3mpg on each end.
      the original 255 engine with smog controls got 16/20.
      yeah all this environmental crap has done us good….

      • Your 81 TBird also weighs an easy 600lbs+ less, probably doesn’t have anywhere near as many emissions garbage on it, probably doesn’t make it to 60 in 5 seconds, and still does 25% worse for fuel economy over a first generation T6 drive-e engine mated to an 8-speed transmission.

        Granted, your T-Bird will probably require less types of repairs (but more frequent tune-ups… well, any tune-ups period, LOL!). The Volvo engine’s maintenance should be little more than oil changes for the first 100,000 miles (though, knowing Volvo, things never meant to break will break and no one will understand how to fix it, LOL!).

    • @Looncraz:

      I’d love to have a Tesla too… if it didn’t cost so darned much and turn into a $35,000 brick if it is left parked too long (slow steady drain eventually ‘bricks’ the battery and you can not shut off the drain…)

      As we have multiple cars, having one for “around town” would not be a hardship at all. I’d use the Diesel wagon for long distance drives….

      HOWEVER,

      The lunacy of the CPUC is that at the same time that they are pushing for more eCars and such, they drive up the cost of power to insane levels that make an eCar a Very Stupid Thing….

      I’m so glad I’m in Florida now ;-)

      • All Tesla needs to do is add a rooftop (flush) solar panel to prevent ‘bricking’. It probably wouldn’t add much to recharging but would keep the battery’s charge up while parked for extended periods.

  2. looncraz:

    “The drive against CO2 has its upsides (I also would love a Tesla Model S ;-)).”

    Yep. Just like an effort to prepare for a coming Zombie Apocalypse could have upsides. Just think, we might improve our satellite monitoring, might expend loads of money studying neurology and serendipitously come across a cure for some neurological malady in the process, might expend precious resources in urban planning that could have some positive side effects, might find ways to detect certain diseases sooner. All of these could be upsides or silver linings arising out of a trillion dollar effort to prepare ourselves for the (nonsensical and unreasonable and never-going-to-happen) apocalypse.

    Of course, putting the resources directly into those things that are useful would be a far better approach and would have much better results and would avoid untold amounts of waste. But hey, throw a trillion dollars at a non-problem and see what sticks. Some of the money will inevitably end up being spent on something useful.

    • Coming Zombie apocalypse? We are living in the apocalypse. Millions and millions of brain dead everywhere you turn. Did you not see them marching in the streets?

  3. ‘* Billing periods vary by utility and may not always coincide with a calendar month. If you don’t see a Climate Credit in the bill that arrives in October, it will appear in the bill you receive in November.’

    But, dad gum it, we really want these credits (which, of course, you yourself paid for in the first place) to get out to you in time to influence your vote in November so just remember, even if you didn’t get it before you vote, we really really wanted it to be there and it’ll be coming round the mountain when it comes when it comes.

  4. “Under California’s climate law, power plants and industries must pay for permits when they put carbon pollution into the air. Some of that money is used by the state to fight climate change, and some goes to households and small businesses to protect them from the carbon pollution cost in electricity that comes from non-renewable resources, like coal and natural gas.”

    Poor people of California, who do they think pays in the long run for the above mentioned permits? The utility companies will have to recover the costs from customers, or else the State of California will need to subsidize the cost of the electricity to “protect” households and small businesses as described.

    “Is the credit amount connected to my electricity use?
    Households: No, all residential customers of the same electricity provider will receive an equal amount for the California.
    Small Businesses: Yes. The credit is tied to the amount of carbon pollution costs in small business electricity rates, and the actual credit received each month depends on small business customers’ electricity rates and how much electricity they use.

    Oh the money from the subsidy will be from taxation. No matter how you look at it, the normal person will be paying, no matter how it is disguised.

    Roger

    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  5. Not only is it a taxpayer s-ca-m… IT IS A BIG L1-E TO PROTECT BIG WIND FROM MARKET COMPETITION.

    TRUTH will k1ll windmills — hence, the l-ies (yes, plural, there are several in that Envirosta1in1st publication… want another? “Carbon pollution.”).

    Here’s the crux of the pr0pagan-da:

    … power plants … put carbon pollution into the air. … the carbon pollution cost in electricity … comes from non-renewable resources, like coal and natural gas.”

    ****************************

    otoh…

    “… energy-saving home upgrades… .” hmmm…

    Say! (*!light bulb flashes on!*)

    Sounds great! I’ll invest in a state-of-the-art, automatic, remote-controlled, garbage can conveyer belt transport system, so I can save my energy for operating my TV remote and scooping a dish of mocha almond fudge ice cream.

    #(;))

    • Supporting cite for wind power being a MAJOR SCA-M:

      “Onshore wind looks a relatively attractive proposition on the MM data, but once allowance is made for the additional costs associated with wind-power, the attraction fades. For both near-term and medium-term projects, onshore wind ceases to be a competitive technology. The only rationale for Britain’s current “rush for wind” is the Government’s attempt to meet its renewables target under the EU’s Renewables Directive. There is no economic case for wind-power. Moreover, there is not even a CO2-cutting case for wind-power, as is discussed in chapter 3.

      {emphasis mine}

      Source: “Electricity Costs: the folly of wind-power,” Ruth Lea, Civitas, Jan., 2012 at 19; link:

      http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

  6. If a thief steals $200 from you, and then hands you back $100, should you thank him?
    How is this any California energy credit system different? Don’t people realize where that “credit” comes from?

    Obviously, in California the Democrats think you should thank them with your vote in November.

    • Yes, the people here in California will vote for carbon minimization. They are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons.

  7. This seems to be like a pyramid scheme. Could somebody makes a simple diagram showing the flow of the money. First, the money is generated by auctioning the credits to the power plants to pay for their emissions. Then the credits or income from the power plants are distributed to the consumers. Does this means the power plants will be operating at a loss, paying for the credits but could not recover those payments from the consumers? The auctioning process will have some transaction cost–i..e the cost conducting the auction, funding of the payments, etc., the cost of distributing the credits will have additional transaction cost. Each step of the process or pyramid has its own transaction cost. Hence, the money that will be returned back to the consumer will be the amount paid by the power plants, less the transaction cost and application of the funds other than a refund to the consumers such as subsidy for electric cars, renewables etc.

    Why are the power plants not required to show in their bills, the cost of the carbon credits they purchased and are passing to the consumers so that the consumers will be aware on the fraction of his money returned to him in a transparent way. As it stands the consumers will be very happy, they will be getting money for free.

    • Kashkari, the rival to Barmy Brown will be able to demostrate the flow of money, no problem.

    • EO, please read my comment above.
      The consumers will get nothing free, in fact they will pay for all of this nonsense, plus government admin costs, through taxation.

      Whenever a government creates /incurs costs, the taxpayer always pays.

      You are correct about the quasi pyramid scheme, however in this case it is just a means to dupe the normal person/taxpayers.

      Cheers

      Roger

  8. In a related matter, from California Water Plan eNews:
    The [Brave] New Climate Economy
    A roadmap for reducing the risks of climate change, while maintaining economic growth, is explained in The New Climate Economy. The report includes chapters on land use, energy, and financing a low-carbon future. There is also a 10-point global action plan.

    The link to The [Brave] New Climate Economy is:
    http://newclimateeconomy.report/

    The formatting of the download makes it difficult to read. I downloaded the Executive Summary. It starts like this, and goes downhill:
    [begin quote]
    The New Climate Economy Report
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate was set up to examine whether it is possible to achieve lasting economic growth while also tackling the risks of climate change.

    Its report seeks to inform economic decision-makers in both public and private sectors, many of whom recognise the serious risks caused by climate change, but also need to tackle more immediate concerns such as jobs, competitiveness and poverty. The report brings together evidence and analysis, learning from the practical experience of countries, cities and businesses across the world.

    The report’s conclusion is that countries at all levels of income now have the opportunity to build lasting economic growth at the same time as reducing the immense risks of climate change. This is made possible by structural and technological changes unfolding in the global economy and opportunities for greater economic efficiency. The capital for the necessary investments is available, and the potential for innovation is vast. What is needed is strong political leadership and credible, consistent policies.
    [end quote]

  9. What about all those coal fired Texan power plants selling electricity over the grid into California ?

    Doesn’t that then mean that California is just placing an extra and uncompetitive impost on its own power producers ?

    So then there will only be renewable energy generated in California with all other power coming from over the border which then means that when its not shining or blowing California’s energy supply is in somebody elses jurisdiction

    riiiight…

  10. Gonna use my credits to go buy me some (soon to be banned) disposable plastic bags! Oh wait, better save it to pay for the upcoming CA gasoline tax. Liberal stupidity / CA government activism at its finest.
    I wonder if anyone has calculated the supposed amount of immeasurable global warming temperature increase AB32 will ostensibly prevent.

  11. “This is reminiscent of how it started in Australia with the carbon tax.”
    Yeah, similar, although I don’t recall being invited to read so much bs supporting it.
    ” …. give people additional opportunities to take advantage of energy and money-saving upgrades …”
    Yep. I used it as an opportunity to help support the energy and money-saving fight against this nonsense.

  12. Let me get it straight.
    We, state of California, want to build wind and solar because we believe it is the right thing to do. But because they are expensive and will not pay for themselves, we made you, the resident, pay for them in incredibly inflated electricity rates. And because we want you to feel good about it, we’re charging you a bit more so that we can ceremonially return that bit to you, claiming it is relieving you in some way from paying for all that circus.

  13. Because of the original sin of depending on CO2 belching utilities thou shalt pay indulgences to keep your feet firmly planted on the ground, clear of the hell where you rightfully belong. But to ensure your vote is cast for us next time we, the benign managers of your every moment, shall reimburse a small portion. Be thankful.

  14. It would be useful if they also listed the number of kg of carbon dioxide that was reduced, how much this represents as a percentage of worldwide from all sources and how many degrees of warming this may have prevented (scientific notation fine to cut down the zeros after the decimal point)

    Finally they can say how many dollars this effort has cost you.

    Then you’d know

    • The answers would all be based on models, and akin to a lie. Then we would still not know anything truthful.

  15. “The most cost effective way to return this credit to electricity customers is as a bill credit through your energy provider. This approach maximizes the amount of savings each household and small business will receive.”
    No it’s not – that just created a job for some paper pusher. The most cost effective way to return the credit is not to take it to start with.

  16. Together, these programs will aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere–helping to clean the air and protect our food, water, and public health, as well as the beauty of our state.

    Would protecting our food include protecting crops from carbon dioxide?

  17. We can’t pump all that carbon into the atmosphere without something eventually happening.

    We may disagree about exactly what will happen (heating Vs cooling), but for sure, something is going to happen.

    And if we don’t know exactly how bad this “something” is going to be, doesn’t it make sense to stop pumping all that carbon into our air?

    It’s a bit like kicking a dog. You know it’s going to do something in response to your unwelcome kicking, but you have absolutely no idea what it will be. So why do it.

    Politicians and those controlling the mega wealth are the only ones who can implement appropriate action, but they won’t. Their agendas and other interests lure them away from listening to advice from the experts.

    This cartoon looks at that aspect . . . .

    http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/editorial-political/#jp-carousel-775

    Cheers
    Mick

    • You kick the dog because he’s about to bite you. You ignore the ‘experts’ because they give bad advice. Job had it right about bad advisors: No doubt but ye are the people and wisdom shall die with you.

    • We don’t know what will happen (with climate) if we don’t stop pumping CO2 into atmosphere. But we also don’t know what will happen (with our civilisation) if we stop pumping CO2 into atmosphere. The outcome of the other choice (stopping) is way more uncertain since nobody did any serious research into the issue, besides unfounded claims that “wind and sun are free”. Therefore the safer thing to do is to continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for the moment and do more research on all fronts until we understand what are we doing.

    • Cartoonmick, that’s the post-normal science precautionary principle. Please apply it to your own life first. If you have NO EVIDENCE something bad happens to you when you leave your bed, that does not mean it won’t eventually – so better safe than sorry.

      Don’t ever leave your bed.

      • Dirk: Heh! If I remember the stat correctly, more people die in bed than elsewhere. I concur with your sentiment, but would never apply the word ‘science’ to the precautionary principle, even tying it to the phrase ‘post-normal’. The PP is the refuge of one, a coward so to speak, who is afraid to face the vagaries of life with the panache of those many ancestors who have actually advanced the human race. Hopefully Cartoonmick will someday come to grips with his mortality and learn to live life unencumbered by irrational fears.

    • cartoonmick says:

      We can’t pump all that carbon into the atmosphere without something eventually happening.

      Something is happening: agricultural production is skyrocketing as a direct result of more CO2.

      There is no evidence of any global harm from CO2. It is a tiny trace gas. You would not even be aware of it’s existence if it were not for very sensitive instruments.

      Your “what if” arguments certainly get tedious…

    • How come something unknown is bad? Why can’t it be good? Surely unknown is exactly that and the outcome exists anywhere on the wide spectrum between as bad as possible and as good as possible.

      Changing behaviour to change an unknown outcome is lunacy. I mean how do you measure your success or failure for a start?

    • What a ridiculously stupid argument. Supposedly Gt co² pumped into the air over the last 50 yrs no rise in temp for the past 20 yrs. You some kind of nut ?

    • ” We may disagree about exactly what will happen (heating Vs cooling), but for sure, something is going to happen. And if we don’t know exactly how bad this “something” is going to be, doesn’t it make sense to stop pumping all that carbon into our air?”

      There is so much wrong with your logic and assumptions I don’t know where to start, but your view does again suggest to me that the Warmists in the end either have an agenda or are relying on the Precautionary Principle, and no amount of scientific disproof of AGW on this site can overcome this without debating at least the latter in greater depth.

      So I’ll start with this thought for you. CO2 is the lifeblood of the planet, it’s entire vegetation, which in turn both feeds mankind and provides mankind’s oxygen. How much sense does it make for man to declare war on that very CO2?….

      Thanks in part to logic like yours, CO2 is now officially and legally a ‘pollutant’ in this world.

      It particularly makes no sense when it is based on a theory and models only, that after twenty years have failed time after time in their dire predictions.

      If you want a precautionary principle it’s this: “don’t declare war on the very gas that is the lifeblood of BOTH the planet and mankind unless you are damn sure what you are doing”. Not the other way around.

      We need more greening, more food for more people, cheaper food… and most thinGs Warmists are doing sets up the opposite.

      ….I’m only getting started. We should talk about ‘burning our food supply’…scraping the planet of forest vegetation so we can grow sugar and corn to burn as fuel …..causing food shortages and raising the price of food worldwide, causing more hardship on the poor, and using up surplus food that went to feed the starving…causing the very food shortages the Warmists said AGW would cause…they caused in 2005.

      …the incredible diversion of society’s limited financial resources that could solve real problems that do exist when AGW is nonexistent….like ALS research, breast cancer and other cancer, Alzheimer’s….These causes are forced to plead for money using “ice bucket challenge” type campaigns….while trillions of society resources are thrown on research and ‘carbon credits’ for a nonproblem like AGW….

      There is a reason that doctors say ‘first do no harm.’ For those who think Mother Earth is alive, I believe she would ask you the same before you declare the gas she lives on, her lifeblood, a poison based on science that continues to fail. Reminds me of declaring blood a poison leading to medieval blood letting to ‘cure’ human ailments. Mother Earth says “no thank you” and ” if you want more food and cheaper food to feed that growing population, I’ll need more, not less, of that thing you call a ‘pollutant’.

    • Simply amazing, given the fact that CAGW is pure conjecture, AND there is a complete absence of ANY scientific evidence to support that it can even happen you STILL want to cripple humanity to try to reverse the benefits that increased CO2 and the energy produced provides. That is simply incredible.

  18. In Australia, we never got the credit to our electricity accounts … instead, we had the cost added on!

  19. Another case of, “look we are very nice people. here is some of your money back that we took from you. Now remember who to vote for next time and we will take more money from you and give it back again.”

  20. cartoon says…We may disagree about exactly what will happen (heating Vs cooling), but for sure, something is going to happen.And if we don’t know exactly how bad this “something” is going to be…”

    =========================================================
    Why will something bad happen? We do know that every crop on the planet now grows about 15 % more food on the same amount of land and water, then it would if we had not put that CO2 into the air. We know this. I repeat, we know this. All the harms you read about, accelerated and disastrous SL rise, more and stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, increased droughts and fires, etc add infinity, they simply have failed to materialize.

    • Even better, we can argue that “pumping all that CO2” calms the weather.. reduces hurricanes, calms tornadoes, subdues shark attacks and exposes Climate Charlatans.
      On top of boosting the food supply of all creatures.
      The magic Gas is a boon.
      As George Carlin would say; “Maybe we were created to return the missing CO2 to the bio-cycle.”
      Sorry Mick you are making a cartoon of yourself.

  21. Ask a CAGWer if they could, would they right now reduce atmospheric CO2 to 280 PPM. Most will say, without a moments hesitation, ” yes”. Then ask them what they will do when millions around the world begin to starve due to food shortages due to reduced food growth due to reduced CO2. The will look at you like your head fell off. Some, not most, but some will however secretly smile at the thought of millions starving and of wars breaking out killing millions more, reducing the evil human population.

    .

    • The certificates should come printed on soft paper…Preferably on a small roll.
      Now that’d be useful.

  22. The sad part about his is that virtually every US state and every Canadian province has a similar program waiting in the wings, ready to go when the opportunity presents itself.

    I predict that within 20 years every state and province will have a carbon controls program of some kind, founded on the California model.

    In my lifetime I never thought I would see citizens actively campaigning for higher taxes, but this is what we have seen. Governments are only too happy to oblige.

  23. Just remember this all you mid-term voters out there:

    A vote for the left is a vote for a carbon tax, because the left believes a tax can change the weather.

  24. I can only wonder on how many Californians complain about the tyranny and that they are outvoted.
    But they can vote with their feet. Many are.
    Is there some kind of Stockholm or battered partner syndrome going on?

    • Part of rural northern California has petitioned to partition themselves off into a new state to get away from the illness that has taken over Sacramento.

      If they succeed, I predict they will look just like Oregon within 30 years.

  25. If California were honest they would drop all their grid interconnections with neighboring states. Then watch how quickly their energy policy changes.

  26. #*%##^% !!!!!!!!!!!

    Thank you for reproducing this notice. It is definitive proof of the existence of a slush fund controlled by politicians used to distribute political spoils.

    Thank god I’m not a Cali resident/taxpayer.

  27. My education as an accountant and professional experience in financial regulation says this needs to come with a bit of full disclosure: “We are giving you some money out of the pot of money we took from you at the state’s request. The government hopes that you feel better for the illusion of doing something and will continue to support similar undertakings.”

  28. California maintains its position as the number one self-delusional state in our country.Must be the Hollywood influence. By calling carbon a pollution, they have designated every citizen as a polluter by living (and, presumably, breathing). I suggest we arrest Gov Brown as a polluter and prevent him from further carbon pollution.

  29. Meanwhile, Texas is going all out to entice businesses to move from Cali to here. Altho most of us wish there was some sort of entrance exam……We love people and business but they need to leave their fruitcakes politics back there.

    • Same thing happened to New Hampshire, a basically libertarian state that has been transformed by “Massholes” escaping the high taxes and bureaucratic maze that has become Massachusetts and subsequently turning New Hampshire into the same “progressive” cesspool they left behind.

  30. Be on guard in other states and nations as the usual next step is to impose the scheme on others in order to diminish the negative effects on the originating locale. Waxman’s attempt at this failed but there will be more attempts. The daily press events orchestrated around climate change BS are testament to that ongoing need to spread the impact onto others.

  31. It will be interesting to see what happens when the next recession hits and power providers are faced with fewer sales coupled with the higher business costs, which of course will be passed along to consumers, many of which will be laid off and won’t be able to afford the higher cost of power. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

  32. The behavioral signals from this policy plan are to a) stay at home (avoid commuting costs), b) continue with plan to get non-taxed state benefits loaded electronically on cash cards each month, and c) look for paid protester cash payment opportunities where possible and with bus delivery service provided.

  33. Let me try to sort this out. The state collects a tax/fee targeting utilities. The state then keeps some and gives the rest back to utilities to distribute said taxes to residents and miscellaneous businesses on their “bill”.

    The ruling board that created this homage to bureaucracy could have simply regulated rates (by type, gas, coal, nuclear, etc) which are in their power to do. But then the government would not have been able to put on a show to the victims of climate change of how saving the environment is good for… well I am not sure what… good for getting money from the government?

    Stupid is as stupid does, but this is crazy, so crazy I am going crazy and am ready to stop shaving, stop cutting my hair, put on the sandwich signs stating the end is near, and walk the streets of America in a daze.

    • The money collected passes through the grubby hands of our government for redistribution and payrolls, and what is left is a pittance.

  34. California logic. Governor Moonbeam was frothing at the mouth and couldn’t wait to implement the carbon tax. Most of the tax will go to his high speed rail pet project that no one wants except the unions, builders, and few locales that will have stops. Meanwhile, businesses that remain are studying exit plans.

  35. Forget the climate credit, just send me the check for how much my climate abatement activities, have earned over the years. How much is it worth to take a Navy shower most days. If I didn’t I’d probably have my camel in the back yard all ready.

    See today’s on line news story about the leading Wind energy States, Texas, and Oklahoma; but not California, are rethinking all the public trough slushing they have been dishing out to the, the welfare deadbeats, who masquerade as energy entrepeneurs, but scream bloody murder if you want to charge them property taxes, on their land improvements, like other “investors” usually do.

    Kansas has a lifetime exemption from property taxes, for as long as your wind turbine, manages to not blow itself up, while killing birds and bats.

    Enterprise is supposed to fund the public trough, not wallow in it.

    Well Silicon valley is crammed full of so called entrepeneurs, who soon discover the benefits of being a socialist. You would think that creative inventive types, would gravitate to conservatism; but they are in fact the monied lefties of Si valley. (with some notable exceptions.)

  36. If California wants tax payers to have more money why don’t they lower the tax rates instead of issuing inefficient rebates?

    • Because liberals and unions vote to take other people’s money and make it theirs – all while funneling it through the state coffers.

  37. In other words, the utilities are squeezed by permit fees and anti “Carbon” regulations that drive up our utility bills. Because this is unpopular (wildly in Australia so they voted in a new government to stop it) these token credits are giving us back some of the increased rates while the govt keeps the rest. This is taking big with one hand and trying to indoctrinate you and buy you off with the other. Australians were not fooled. Are we fools? Let’s follow Australia, who has been way out ahead on these issues. They changed their government, and are now preparing for what has really begun.. Deadly Globalcooling Climatechange. The longer we ignore that the Emporer Has No Clothes, the more we waste time and money walking backwards. But then again, are you getting your share? http://ow.ly/Cd6qn

  38. Late last summer Governor Brown of California announced he had signed a treaty with Oregon, Washington and British Columbia, the state to meet specific greenhouse gas limits.
    So, I sent him this email,
    ————-
    Article 1, section 10, clause 1 US Constitution: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation
    ————-….
    Two days later I saw the governor on TV, this time referring to the document as an agreement. So I sent him this email,
    ———-
    Article 1, section 10, clause 3; No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,..

    I’d appreciate it if you would fax or email me a copy of the requisite congressional consent decree, without which your agreement clearly violates the same constitution you have sworn to protect and defend.
    —————
    I have written to the governor on multiple occasions, sent him faxes and called his office. No reply. I have also spoken with representatives of both my senators and congressman, none of whom had any record of any form of congressional consent.

    It’s bad enough when the governor signs such an agreement. It’s far worse when he’s been informed repeatedly that such an agreement violates the constitution and still supports it,

Comments are closed.