Richard, I am surprised that you would condone federal policy regulating this in any way. I stand corrected.
On Jun 28, 9:23 am, RichardForbes <[email protected]> wrote: > I have long argued that the simple fact is that fossil fuel is not a > renewable resource and that our dependence on it has created a > significant national security issue. Pumping it faster will buy time, > but not solve the problem. Pumping it slower creates other immediate > concerns and does not solve the problem. Hybrids are a good option, > but they are not as beneficial as some think. I am for doing "all of > the above" in a policy way. Every option that we eliminate makes it > harder to obtain a comprehensive energy policy that will eliminate our > fossil fuel fascination. There are hundreds of ways to reduce our > fossil fuel consumption and most of them would take no federal program > at all. That said, I would gladly eliminate hundreds of existing > programs. projects and agencies and funnel that money into a NASA-like > program focused on accelerating the development and deployment of > alternative energy and renewable energy technologies. Because I view > it as a matter of national security, I am willing in this case to > accept the government involvement and to grease the skids at the > development level. > > On Jun 28, 10:09 am, Frederick The Moderate > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dick: > > > Why post this and not add any of your own insights or opinions? > > In any case, although I would LOVE to see us off oil and set free from > > the Middle East, I don't see it as a function of government to > > regulate this, this way. I see a need for the EPA, FTC etc... (I bet > > Richard doesn't!) but their role is to keep us safe. This seems more > > oriented toward commercial enterprise than health and welfare of the > > citizens. > > > On Jun 27, 10:35 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > [Get Copyright Permissions] > > > <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> E-Mail > > > <http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Print > > > <http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Save > > > <http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Post > > > <http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get Photos > > > <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get > > > Reprints <http://license.icopyright.net/s17/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | > > > Reuse Options <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> > > > > Jun 27, 11:12 AM EDT > > > > Winners and losers emerge in climate bill > > > > By CHRIS KAHN > > > AP Energy Writer > > > > NEW YORK (AP) -- In addition to raising energy prices, the climate > > > legislation that's winding through Congress would create a parallel > > > financial system with a carbon-based currency. > > > > The House on Friday narrowly passed landmark legislation meant to curb > > > greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, voting > > > 219-212. President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to follow suit. > > > > Everyone from small farmers to nuclear energy companies would be forced > > > to re-evaluate their place in the new order. Power plants, factories and > > > refineries would feel the first impact if the federal government moves > > > ahead with plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 > > > levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent near the end of the century. > > > > The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate. A major > > > struggle is expected with 60 votes needed to overcome a certain > > > Republican filibuster. > > > > How much it will affect other industries is still a matter of intense > > > debate, though the primary winners and losers are already emerging. > > > > --- > > > > The Winners: > > > > Solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy companies, including > > > nuclear, are some of the obvious winners in a carbon economy. > > > > In addition to the billions of federal stimulus dollars they expect to > > > receive, those industries can expect to see a huge boost in investment > > > as utilities and power companies are forced to cut their carbon > > > emissions. Companies like Florida Power & Light Co., Arizona Public > > > Service, Southern California Edison and others are already investing in > > > solar farms and other renewable energy projects, and they'll likely > > > spend even more to increase the mix of carbon-neutral energy sources. > > > > Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. > > > Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in > > > Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. > > > Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental > > > techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon > > > "offset." > > > > Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest > > > from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see > > > them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural > > > ability to absorb carbon. > > > > Louis Blumberg, director of climate change for the Nature Conservancy's > > > California chapter, envisions a system in which forest owners could make > > > money simply by signing an agreement to cut down fewer trees for lumber. > > > > The Nature Conservancy did just that last year with the Conservation > > > Fund, a nonprofit agency that owns about 24,000 acres of redwood and > > > douglas fir forest northwest of San Francisco. The groups changed the > > > logging schedule on the property, and the fund expects to receive about > > > $2 million from Pacific Gas and Electric, which participates in a > > > regional climate initiative similar to the one that the Waxman-Markey > > > bill would create around the country. > > > > "This is really a model of what can happen," Blumberg said. "Property > > > owners everywhere want to figure out a way to be part of this." > > > > --- > > > > The Losers: > > > > Anyone who pays an electric bill would likely feel the impact of climate > > > legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in > > > cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already announced > > > plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of their > > > refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which > > > will raise costs. > > > > The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental > > > Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would > > > affect energy costs. > > > > The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The > > > EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year. > > > > The American Petroleum Institute disputed both estimates, saying the > > > bill could cost the average household up to $3,300 by 2020. > > > > "That is more than a few postage stamps," API President Jack Gerard said > > > in a slap at Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Markey has compared new energy > > > costs to a postage stamp per day. > > > > API has tried to paint the bill as a job killer that would choke off > > > efforts to pull the economy out of recession. > > > > "While we support creating new jobs, the legislation offers an > > > unnecessary and false choice of eliminating good jobs in the oil and > > > natural gas industry to create green jobs," Gerard said. > > > > Oil and gas companies have spent record amounts of money lobbying > > > Congress recently as they try to blunt the impact of the bill. > > > > Refiners, in particular, say the inherent costs in the legislation could > > > shift some fuel production outside the U.S., where refiners would not be > > > bound by its provisions. > > > > The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association also says the > > > legislation hurts them two different ways, by capping emissions from > > > refineries as well as emissions from the fuels they produce. But > > > refiners say they are not recieving enough credits. > > > > The association says the legislation could cost U.S. refiners as much as > > > $58 billion a year. > > > > Coal miners also are worried because it might cut into demand for coal, > > > which is loaded with carbon. Mining also uses a lot of energy, so the > > > rise in energy costs would hurt their bottom line. > > > > The country gets about half of its electricity from coal. Some utilities > > > that rely on coal to generate much of their electricity worried about > > > initial versions of the legislation that they said would lead to > > > skyrocketing rates. The current version will mean much smaller > > > increases, they said. > > > > Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power said the legislation will > > > send rates about 25 percent higher by 2015; the initial version would > > > have meant rate hikes of 65 percent to 75 percent. > > > > Another big utility that relies on coal, Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke > > > Energy, said the legislation creates regulatory certainty for an > > > industry that spends billions on capital expenditures annually. If > > > Congress does not act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will > > > after the U.S. Supreme Court gave the agency authority to regulate > > > emissions under the Clean Air Act, Jim Rogers, Duke's chairman, > > > president and CEO, said in a letter to U.S. Rep. James Clyburn obtained > > > by The Associated Press. > > > > "While the EPA may have the technical expertise to create > > > environmentally sound regulations, it lacks the explicit legislative > > > authority to craft an environmentally sound program that minimizes costs > > > to consumers and our economy," the letter said. "So leaving the EPA with > > > the responsibility to develop and implement a program that will touch > > > every aspect of our daily lives is neither appropriate nor in the best > > > interest of our nation." > > > > Rogers said the initial legislation would have required consumers in > > > states where fossil fuels make up the majority of electric generation to > > > pay double - first to purchase the allowances to keep current generation > > > operational and then for investments in > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
