Tag: Greenhouse Gases

Green New Dud

Lots has been writing, argued, debated and lied about when the climate is brought out in polite circles (that excludes deniers and the network they worship)…..

The Dems have been pushing a Green New Deal….well true progressives that is…..and there have been some attempts to calm the rhetoric around climate.

Then there is the worthless attempt by Pallone of New Jersey……

Broadly, Pallone’s climate plan—which came after 15 committee hearings about the human-caused crisis—aims to enable the United States to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by 2050. It would direct all federal agencies to use their existing authorities to meet that goal, and includes provisions for the power, building, transportation, and energy sectors.

The proposal would require states to develop plans to meet the 2050 target that must take into account the needs of communities on the front lines of the climate crisis. It would also establish a first-of-its-kind National Climate Bank to help states, municipalities, and companies transition.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/27/extremely-disappointing-new-analysis-offers-scathing-critique-top-democrats-clean

It is a dud……this does little but help the industries that profit from exploiting the climate for profits….

The draft Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation (CLEAN) Future Act—largely seen as a “competing plan” to the Green New Deal—was announced earlier this month by the committee’s chair, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). Crafted after 15 committee hearings, the bill (pdf) aims to ensure that the United States achieves net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by 2050.

In a joint statement with Reps. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Pallone said Tuesday that “every day, communities across the country are paying the price for inaction through record wildfires, flooding, and drought, and Congress cannot afford to simply watch from the sidelines.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/28/green-new-dud-not-green-new-deal-climate-groups-denounce-draft-bill-house-democrats

Just another attempt to be doing something while doing NOTHING substantial.

But for those that need a simpler explanation to why this is not a good deal then please click on this analysis….https://1bps6437gg8c169i0y1drtgz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Pallone-Energy-Report-Final.pdf

You truly want some true action on climate change?  Then use a Tried a true technique of presidents……Executive Order.

Not long lasting but it would be a start….and the planet will thank you.

This Dem proposal is weak and a worthless waste of time…..but can we expect from them?

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Climate Change For A Sunday

We are back to warm weather and rain…..the garden will be happy but MoMo is not……the weekend is a time for reflection and meditation……(not really just time to do those honey dos)…..

Climate change has returned to the national dialog……especially since the introduction of the Dems “Green New Deal”…….I posted a couple of articles on this “plan”…….https://lobotero.com/2019/02/21/that-green-new-deal-2/

After that plan I found another plan to help with climate change….ever hear of “geoengineering”?

Nope?

Now you have……


Harvard’s Gernot Wagner wants to save the world from global warming. His method? Develop a new type of plane that will fly more than 4,000 missions a year dumping particulates into the stratosphere.

Wagner and his colleague Wake Smith call the proposed plane “SAI Lofter (SAIL).” Anonymous individuals at “Airbus, Atlas Air, Boeing, Bombardier, GE Engines, Gulfstream, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Near Space Corporation, Northrup Grumman, Rolls Royce Engines, Scaled Composites, The Spaceship Company, and Virgin Orbit” provided input.

Estimates for SAIL’s design and operation seem sophisticated but are fabricated. Wagner and Smith admit, “No existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill [their] mission.”

Wagner and others believe that scientists can calculate how many particulates will be needed to cool the Earth to a desired temperature.

https://theantimedia.com/geoengineer-planet-global-warming/
 
At least this is a plan as is the Green New Deal….all are heads above any plan the GOP may have (BTW they have NOTHING to offer in the fight with climate change)

That is about all I have on this Sunday….I am being prodded to get off my butt and go for that delayed walk…..MoMo is persistent if not anything…LOL

Cash For Clunkers

This is a blog entry from US News & World Report.

Got an old gas-guzzler in your driveway? Legislation that was introduced yesterday may soon allow you to trade it in for cash – up to $4,500, depending on the car. Said Sen. Charles Schumer, “This is an even better trade-in offer than they could get from any car dealership.”

“Cash for Clunkers,” as the program is being called, aims to get millions of fuel-inefficient vehicles off the road to help lower our reliance upon foreign oil, and reduce emissons and pollution. According to the Associated Press, by its fourth year the program would save between 40,000 and 80,000 barrels of fuel a day. The estimated cost of the program is between $1 and $2 billion.

The newer the vehicle, the more cash you’ll get for it. If your vehicle was made before 1998, you’ll get $2,000, while vehicles from 1999-2001 will get $3,000 and any vehicles made after 2002 will get $4,500. A person can also claim the equivalent dollar amount in public transit fares. The cars must be driveable, and must have a fuel economy rating of less than 18 miles per gallon. Once turned in, the old vehicles would be taken apart for scrap.

I had to think about this for awhile before I could comment……This is just so much BS…they will be wasting time and money on a program that will go NO WHERE.

Japan’s Green Car Industry

Honda’s new FCX clarity feels like a perfectly ordinary car—which may well be the most shocking thing about it. It looks and drives like a run-of-the-mill four-seat sedan. Slip behind the wheel and press the pedal with your foot, and the car accelerates with satisfying punch. But after a few minutes of cruising, you’ll notice that something is missing. The only audible engine noise is a faint whir, so faint that you can actually hear the tires swishing along the asphalt.

That’s because the Clarity is a hydrogen-fuel-cell car, one of the most advanced in the world. The once bulky fuel-cell stack that supplies energy to the engine has been reduced in size by half over the past decade while increasing the power output by 50 percent. It’s the first to be certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the first to be delivered to retail customers (albeit on a leasing basis). As for CO2 emissions, the only exhaust it produces is a trickle of water. And perhaps most important of all is what stands behind it: A state-of-the-art factory that’s ready to produce thousands of the vehicles once the market’s ready. Most of Honda’s competitors, by contrast, are still bringing concept cars to the auto shows.

In large part, Japan’s lead in green-car technology is an outgrowth of its old austerity. Japan was obsessed with energy efficiency long before global warming made it a worldwide obsession. For decades Japanese companies have struggled to cope with their oil-poor country’s sky-high energy costs by placing a premium on energy-saving technologies, and it has paid off. Even old Japanese industries are cutting-edge in cutting energy costs. Japan continued to make batteries long after U.S. rivals quit, and now makes the most efficient batteries in the world. Japanese steelmakers have ceded ground to cheaper emerging-market rivals but are still unsurpassed in the fine niche art of making superlight steel for car bodies. The hidden strength of Japanese smokestack industries helped create its green cars, and now the success of those cars is pushing more and more Japanese industries—electronic-motor and control-unit producers, all sorts of material companies—to innovate faster.

The focus on green cars reveals the kind of industrial vision that Japan is often criticized for having lost decades ago. Toyota launched the G21 Project, which ultimately produced the Prius, back in the 1990s, when oil prices were low and America’s love of SUVs was still growing. The idea was to create a model car for the 21st century, and counter Toyota’s reputation for “boring” vehicles. Toyota simply saw the long view before others, assuming that the petroleum-based economy was becoming unviable for a variety of environmental and economic reasons, according to Noriyuki Matsushima, analyst at Nikko Citigroup in Tokyo.

As reported in Newsweek.

California’s Better Plan?

California is poised to pass the first law in the nation linking greenhouse gas emissions to urban planning, a departure from the growth approach that spawned the state’s car culture and urban sprawl.

The measure, known as SB375, aims to give existing and new high-density centers where people live, work and shop top priority in receiving local, state and federal transportation funds. The idea is that such developments check sprawl and ease commutes, in turn cutting the car pollution wafting through the Golden State.

Authored by Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), the bill reflects California’s push to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Sponsors say the measure is part of a much-needed growth policy for a state whose population is expected to swell to 50 million from the current 38 million in two decades.

The state’s legislature recently green-lighted the measure, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who aims to make California a trendsetter in fighting global warming, is expected to sign it into law once the state balances its long-overdue budget.

If he does, the state’s Air Resources Board will set emission-reduction targets for 17 major metropolitan planning organizations responsible for housing and transportation projects. A separate bill, also expected to be signed by the governor, would designate financial resources to these organizations.

Exerpts of an article written by Ashley Surdin in the WaPo.

How About A Carbon Tax

One of the most pressing issues facing the candidates is global warming or climate change, whichever you prefer.  I want to talk about ways to stop or at least slow down the effects of said issue, at least from the Dem perspective.  I have listened to the candidates and their positions on helping the planet.  So far I am not too impressed with many of their views.  To me they are given too much time for the elimination of the harmful emissions.  IMO, the popular cap and trade that is being proposed by most candidates will not do the trick.

The leading candidates have the same plan, only with slightly different end goals.  That is a cap and trade system.  That is efforts to curtail emissions through fuel economy standards, biofuel mandates, or appliance standards may be well-meaning, but in my opinion, this is not the answer.  Clinton wants to cut oil consumption in half by 2025; Obama wants to a two-thirds reduction by 2050 and then there is Edwards who wants an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050.  All these are cap and trade approaches.

The program that I feel would be better in the control of the situation is an emissions tax.  But it is a TAX!  Yes it is and taxation seems to be an ugly word these days, but if taxation discourages consumption; for example, taxing carbon emissions discourages carbon consumption, why would this be a bad idea?  The less carbon emissions released into the atmosphere the better and more healthy the planet will be. 

There are five reasons why the emissions fee or carbon tax is better than the popular cap and trade.  These are the reasons put foward by carbontax.org

    * Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will do little to mitigate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.

    * Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.

    * Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.

    * Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.

    * Carbon tax revenues can be rebated to the public through dividends or tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.

The costs passed on to each consumer might be noticeable, but need not excessive. An emission fee of $15/ton or a permit price of $15/ton would increase gasoline prices about 15 cents per gallon and residential electricity prices about ¾ of a cent per kilowatt-hour, according to Joe Aldy of the Progressive Policy Institute.   

The proposals of the “Big 3” take too long to achieve the goal of cutting emissions and saving the planet for future generations.  Personally, since we all are contributors to the problem then we all should be part of the solution and the best solution is the emissions fee.