Have Californians Seen The Light?

This is going to become one grand pissing contest.

Bid to suspend California's global warming law qualifies for November ballot
The battle over the initiative, launched by Texas oil giants Valero and Tesoro, will pit that industry against environmentalists and the state's clean-tech businesses.

Margot Roosevelt
The Los Angeles Times

California headed for a high-stakes battle over global warming Tuesday, as an oil industry-backed measure to suspend the state's aggressive climate-change law qualified for the November ballot.

The fight will pit the state's powerful environmental organizations and clean-tech businesses against the oil and manufacturing industries. It also arrays many conservative political leaders, including the GOP nominee for governor, Meg Whitman, against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fellow Republican who regards the global warming law as a key part of his legacy.

Whitman has said she would suspend the global-warming law for one year but has not endorsed the initiative.

The measure, launched six months ago by Texas oil giants Valero Energy Inc. and Tesoro Corp., comes as the industry has fallen under intense scrutiny in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster.

Under California's law, known as AB 32, the state is setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, oil refineries and other industries, and will probably require that a third of the state's electricity come from renewable sources by 2020, up from about 15% today. New rules under the law would encourage sales of more fuel-efficient cars.

Supporters of the law say it has spurred a large market for solar, wind and other clean energy sources.

But backers of the ballot effort, who are calling their measure "the California Jobs Initiative paint the climate law as "an energy tax." Their initiative would halt enforcement of the law until unemployment in the state, now over 12%, sinks to 5.5% for at least a year.

"AB 32 will impose billions of dollars in higher utility rates and fuel prices on California families when they can least afford it," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn, and co-chair of the initiative campaign.

Schwarzenegger lashed back Tuesday, saying, "This initiative sponsored by greedy Texas oil companies would cripple California's fastest-growing economic sector, reverse our renewable energy policy and decimate our environmental progress for the benefit of these oil companies' profit margins."

He added, "I will not allow this to happen on my watch."

And if the electorate tells you to phuk off, Ahnold?

Proponents of the measure spent $3 million, more than two thirds of it contributed by the two Texas companies and other energy interests, to gather more than 800,000 signatures to place the measure on the ballot. To qualify, the initiative needed 433,971 signatures, equal to 5% of the ballots cast in the 2006 general election.

"The Texas oil companies think if they can kill their clean energy competition in California, they can do it everywhere," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for the initiative's opponents, who set up a campaign committee called Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs.

Valero, which owns two California refineries, has mounted an aggressive campaign against federal efforts to pass climate legislation, including a House bill that was modeled in part on California's law. Environmentalists acknowledge that postponing California's rules to limit greenhouse gases could damage the chances of any federal legislation.

Supporters of the law have marshaled a who's who of the clean-tech world, including 300 companies, to raise money to fight the initiative. "AB 32 is an incubator of innovation," said Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt. The law, he said, would lead to "new job creation in many sectors as business responds to the need for energy-efficient buildings, transportation and a growing portfolio of renewable energy resources."

Although the gulf oil disaster could turn undecided voters against the measure, proponents already face a steep hurdle in the wording that will describe the ballot. The title was set by the office of state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, a supporter of AB 32 and the Democratic gubernatorial candidate. It will be described on the ballot as follows: "Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming until unemployment drops below specified level for full year."

The ballot wording goes on to say the measure "requires the state to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted."

Given deep pockets on both sides and the high cost of television advertising, spending on the initiative could reach $150 million, making it one of the most expensive ballot battles in the state's history.

The ballot will also be crowded with other controversial propositions, including an $11-billion state water bond, a measure to legalize and tax marijuana, an initiative to transfer authority over the redistricting of congressional districts from the Legislature to a commission and a measure to fund state parks with an $18 vehicle license fee.

Contact Margot Roosevelt

Busy chasing some strange, al-Gore was unavailable for comment.

Continuing to show how they're out of step with what remains of their membership ...

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”. ― Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

"We are creating a new currency."

There will be dancing in the streets of the parallel universe for sure.

Ministers ordered to assess climate cost of all decisions
Coal-fired power stations, airport expansions and new road schemes could all be put on hold following a decision by (British Prime Minister ed.) Gordon Brown that ministers must in future take account of the true economic cost of climate change damage.

Ministers have been instructed to factor into their calculations a notional "carbon price" when making all policy and investment decisions covering transport, construction, housing, planning and energy.

That price - which will increase annually - is intended to frame all day-to-day policy and investment decisions for the next 30 years.

As a result carbon-free or clean technologies, including nuclear power, have been given a significant boost as they will now become relatively less expensive than polluting technologies.

The "shadow price for carbon", representing the cost to society of the environmental damage, has already been agreed for every year up to 2050 by government economists. It will be set at £25.50 (£1=US$0.50 ed.) a carbon tonne for 2007, rising annually to £59.60 a tonne by 2050.

The climate change minister, Phil Woolas, said: "This will have huge implications for [the] government. If for instance a new power station is due to cost £1bn, but it will add £200m worth of carbon emissions, we will decide that the cost of the power station is £1.2bn, even though its cash price is £1bn. We are creating a new currency."

In theory the carbon price will create a bias against roads and carbon-emitting coal stations and make new "zero carbon" building regulations appear more economic.

In other words, they won't.

Decisions about investments in new nuclear power stations will be made exclusively by the private sector, but the social carbon price is likely to affect the role of regulators and make them more willing to back nuclear as opposed to other more carbon emitting energy technologies.

It has also been agreed that every major Whitehall policy and investment decision will be monitored over the next year to check that policymakers are actually incorporating the shadow price of carbon.

Woolas said: "This is far bigger than people realise. It is intellectually thought-through and very tough. Gordon Brown may not ride a bike, but by god he is showing a lead."

My ass. Comrade Brown and his commissars have done nothing but create a cash cow for the government.

Tony Juniper, the head of Friends of the Earth, said the "carbon price" could change economic calculations around issues such as a third runway at Heathrow. He added: "At the moment there are gaping holes in government policy with them professing concern for climate change on one hand, and rushing to expand airports and widen roads on the other. If this helps to fill in that gap then it has to be a step in the right direction. Whether it works or not will depend on whether they have set the carbon price high enough."

The price has been set at a level calculated to ensure the government can meet its major policy target of stabilising carbon emissions at between 450 and 550 parts per million carbon, the figure recommended by the review conducted for the Treasury by Sir Nicholas Stern.

The review found that the costs of addressing climate change now will be cheaper than the costs of doing so later.

The shadow price is partly drawn from new modelling on the scale of the threat posed by climate change and partly by economic work undertaken by McKinseys and the Stern review on behalf of the Treasury on the economic costs of failing to address climate change.

The price is intended to take into account the full global costs of the damage carbon causes over the whole of its time in the atmosphere.

Equivalent values will be used for other greenhouse gases.

A note setting out the government's thinking prepared in part by the chief economist at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Richard Price, says ministers must refer to the shadow price. It states: "It is important that the shadow price for carbon is applied consistently and universally across decisions in government with significant implications for emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases."

Via the The Guardian

Also at A Tangled Web

A Tax By Any Other Name . . . .

This will surely be music to Progressive ears.

Thousands of motorists with large cars will soon have to pay hundreds of pounds to park outside their house.

Councils across London are pressing ahead with a sliding scale of charges for residential parking permits that penalises owners of fuel-hungry vehicles.

Horse crap. It's a tax except for electric cars.

Richmond was the first to push through a swingeing £300 levy on gas-guzzlers and 4x4s earlier this year.

Now other authorities are planning to do the same as the green lobby piles on the pressure for tougher measures against motorists.

From the beginning of next month, Hackney residents with cars that have engines bigger than four litres (producing around 350g/km of carbon dioxide emissions) will have to pay £207.50 a year - compared with £80 now.

Yes!! 'Global warming'. Be sure to get your carbon credits.

These include the BMW 745 and Hummer.

Cars with engines over three litres, including the BMW 735 and some models of the Land Rover Discovery and Isuzu Trooper, will attract an annual charge of £166, while anyone who wants to park a Mercedes E-Class or Porsche Boxster, at over two litres, in a controlled parking zone (CPZ) will get a bill for £124.50.

Owners of smaller cars under 1200cc - such as some models of Volkswagen Polo, Ford Focus and Nissan Micra - and hybrids such as the Toyota Prius, much loved by environmentally conscious MPs, will be charged only £41.50.

And permits will be free for electric vehicles such as the Mega City and Piaggio Porter van.

Islington, meanwhile, is carrying out a borough-wide referendum on a proposed increase from £95 to £200 for cars over 2500cc.

It claims about a third of motorists would pay more, and two-thirds would either pay less or see no change in the cost of a parking permit.

In a message to residents, the council's Lib Dem leader James Kempton said: "Cars dirty our air. They emit carbon dioxide, along with other pollutants, so reducing their emissions will be a step in the right direction."

Similar charging structures are being considered by Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Camden, Kensington & Chelsea, Barking & Dagenham, Haringey, Southwark and Brent.

Well, they do have to cover the spiraling costs of providing council estates and social benefits for the easily offended portion of their populace.

------ ker-snip ------"But this policy is not just window-dressing. . . . "There is clear evidence that it will have a significant impact on air quality and climate change."

And I'm the high rabbi of the Magic Kingdom.

Note: At current exchange rates, £1 equals US$1.97.

Europeans Pay For China To Cut 'Greenhouse Gases'

The sun shines on the Goracle's Ponzi scheme.

Power generators and other polluting firms are buying "carbon credits" from countries such as China to offset their own emissions.

But where the Chinese gain by cleaning up their factories and selling the resulting credits, European consumers lose as the costs are often passed on in the form of higher energy bills.

Last year alone, European companies spent around $2.5bn (£1.25bn) on carbon credits from China.

Although action to tackle global warming is generally welcomed, consumer groups worry that poor people are finding it increasingly difficult to pay this energy "tax".

Jonathan Smith, a spokesman for the international power company E.ON, admitted the purchase of carbon credits had contributed to a rise in utility bills in Europe, and warned that the cost of buying carbon credits was likely to rise over the coming years.

Newly-minted environmental expert Jean-Pierre Kerry was unavailable for comment; and Nancy Pelosi was out shopping for trees.

The Goracle May Be Offended

On Monday, insisting that there be a fair playing field, the Czech Republic filed a lawsuit against the European Commission over cuts in CO2 permits.

In an analysis worked out for the ministry, the way the Commission proceeded when setting the amount of carbon credits for the Czech Republic was interpreted as discriminatory against Czech energy and industrial companies, he added.

The Czech Republic asked for permissions to emit 102 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, but the Commission only approved 86.8 million tonnes a year. The lawsuit was proposed by Industry and Trade Minister Martin Riman.

The lawsuit has been sent to a first-instance court in Luxembourg where the Czech Republic will be represented by Tomas Bocek, government commissioner for the European Court of Justice and procedures with the European Commission.

By means of emission allowances, the European Union tries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that are believed to cause global warming.

Not known to cause global warming, merely believed.

Within the emissions trading scheme, companies that want to emit more greenhouse gases than the set ceiling can buy extra carbon credits on the European market. In contrast, firms producing less emissions can sell their excess allowances.

The collapse of carbon credit prices in the middle of last year, which was caused by a surplus of allowances, was another reason for the Commission to resort to a reduction of carbon credits allocated to individual countries.

Why would someone be concerned about the price of carbon credits?

Heresy on the Continent

During the past two weeks, tax reform became the centerpiece of government reorganization in the now-heretic countries of the Czech Republic and . . . France.

In the Czech Republic,

The Finance Ministry has been asked to draft by next year a new law on income tax that should be part of the second stage of the public finance reform and enter into force in 2010 at the latest, Finance Minister Miroslav Kalousek said after the cabinet meeting today.

Within the reform, the government plans a flat income tax at 15 percent that would be calculated from a "super gross wage" that includes social and health insurance.

But it gets even better.

Lower VAT is to be raised from 5 to 9 percent. Corporate tax is to be decreased from the 24 to 19 percent by 2010.

The government accepted the Greens' demand that households using gas for heating should be exempt from the environmental tax.

The tax will also not apply to the combined production of electricity and heat for household heating.

The tax changes are expected to simplify the business environment and reduce the tax burden on small businesses.

The minimum tax introduced in 2004 is to be cancelled and so are the monitored cash registers which businesses were to start using since January 2008.

Not surprisingly, such reform measures are vehemently opposed by the Social Democrats (CSSD) and the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM).

In France, the government of newly elected President Nikolas Sarkozy has wasted no time in acting on the president's agenda of reforming . . . France.

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said on Wednesday his government aimed to boost French growth to 3.0 percent using tax reforms to "shock" the economy into a faster track.

"We are going to propose a set of fiscal and financial measures designed to bring about a shock that will create growth," he told French radio Europe 1.

One of the more significant reforms will be to

. . . put a 50-percent cap on overall individual taxation.

Sarkozy's electoral triumph has been described by French historian Max Gallo, as a Victory of Reality over Utopia.

The ideology of the left, which has influenced, if not dominated, public and intellectual life in France since World War II, is in a deep crisis. Marxism ended long ago, and yet the French socialists haven't discovered any new answers.

Meanwhile, our Cousins across the Pond are also engaged in tax reform.

The government will push ahead with its much-maligned road pricing policy this week when it publishes proposals for pay-as-you-drive trials.

A draft version of the road transport bill will give local authorities the power to introduce road pricing in towns and cities. Ten areas in England considering schemes include Manchester and Birmingham, although ministers say a national scheme is at least a decade away.

And here's the jaw-dropper:

The local schemes are seen as a precursor to a UK-wide network that would track the movement of cars by satellite or roadside gantries, charging about £1.30 a mile on the busiest roads.

At current exchange rates, £1 equals two bucks.

The potentially radical reforms were attacked by motoring groups and the voluntary sector and even alarmed the Church of England.

Details emerged as the Government prepares to introduce a Bill allowing for road pricing pilot schemes in several parts of the country.

At present, anyone who is reimbursed for using their own car is entitled to claim 40p a mile for the first 10,000 miles without facing tax. After that anything paid over 25p a mile is subject to both tax and national insurance.

Revenue and Customs confirmed that the tax penalty would apply to those using their own cars for work.

And that would be on top of UK gasoline prices, currently about $7.44 per gallon (£3.75).