Seth Levine has posted Marion Jenkins’ detailed rebuttal to HB 1192. Mr. Jenkins suggests this tax legislation should be opposed due to a wide range of problems, including it being a new tax which should go before all voters to the complexity in determining when a lump of software code is deemed “standard” and subject to these new taxes versus custom code that is not to be taxed.
The bottom line is really about jobs in Colorado. And with this bill, the jobs which are easily moved to more business friendly states will start that migration. The Sixty-sixth General Assembly can choose to address the issues with the state budget directly and bring the issues to the people, or they can choose to tear down the reasons businesses choose to be in Colorado.
In a move clearly designed to keep up the pressure on the US to take strong action on climate change, UN climate chief Yfo de Boer stated, “Whatever route is taken, the president of the United States committed to a 17 percent emissions reduction in Copenhagen. The president of the United States committed to more ambitious emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050. And it is those statements to which the international community will hold the government of the United States accountable.”
In Massachusetts, a proposed wind farm called Cape Wind was dealt a blow last Friday that will delay what would be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. The Massachusetts Historical Commission agreed with local Indian tribes who claim that the location for the wind farm should be considered for listing in the National Historic Register because the Wampanoags’ history and culture are “inextricably linked to Nantucket Sound,” according to the opinion.
An offshore wind farm in north Wales, U.K.
(Credit: Vestas)
“If the tribes are successful, that would have a severe chilling effect (on the entire wind industry) because tribes up and down the coast could make the same claim,” said Mark Rodgers, the communications director for Cape Wind. “Never before has an open ocean been caught up in this kind of declaration.”
Then again, never before has a rare combination of private and government investment pumped so much into alternative energy projects. As these projects grow in frequency and scale, a new breed of NIMBY (not in my backyard) is emerging: Opponents of wind or solar installations who generally support renewable energy, just as long as they are built somewhere else. Coal and nuclear plants, it turns out, aren’t the only energy facilities people don’t want built in their backyards…or coastlines.
The Cape Wind fight, in particular, has brought together a testy combination of excellent wind conditions, opposition from well heeled local residents including members of the Kennedy clan, and a surprising assertion of Native American rights.
Department of Energy Secretary Chu announces $93 million from the Recover Act to support the development of additional wind energy in the United States. The money will support R&D and testing for wind turbine drivetrains, support university and industry consortia focusing on critical wind energy challenges, advanced technology development in the private sector and a National Wind Technology Center in Colorado.
Chu also announced the National Renewable Energy Laboratory will receive $100 million for infrastructure projects. The largest is the development of an energy efficient LEED Platinum certified office, constructed at the same cost as that of a low efficiency commercial office building. The others are to use solar and other green energy sources to reduce the labs carbon use and to upgrade the integrated bio-refinery research facility used to develop commercial scale cellulose to ethanol technologies.
During his visit to the Golden, CO facility Chu stated that $26 billion of the more than $100 billion in the Recover Act for renewable energy projects had already been authorized with the goal of 70% being authorized by early September. He also discussed streamlining the DOE loan approval process with the goal of reducing the time to getting a loan application approved to a few months. It has been known to take years under the current process.
It is great to see some of this huge spending bill is being directed to innovation and more importantly that this is being coordinated with private industry. There continues to be a gap in funding for the commercialization of proven technologies. Until this gap is filled, the great innovation from the labs and universities will be delayed in helping solve our energy issues.
Economists Nicholas Stern and Michael Grubb, along with European Commissioner Janez Poto?nik, agree that the United Nations Climate Change Conference, to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, marks a critical juncture for addressing climate concerns. And they all agree the United States must take serious action to back up the serious language currently coming out of Washington, D.C.
McKinsey’s Matt Hirschland interviewed economist Nicholas Stern in Brussels this past January. You can read the transcript here or click below to watch the video.
So just what is a cap and trade system and how does it work? MSNBC has a Frequently Asked Questions page that answers this question. While President Obama signaled his desires in his budget, congress is required to pass the legislation and the details. Many experts are suggesting legislation is unlikely this, however “Powerful Democrats such as House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., have said they would work hard to get legislation passed by this summer.”
Earlier this week, the White House stated a climate bill passed in 2010 would be fine as long as it included the critical components President Obama included in his campaign promises. This is consistent with President Obama’s budget which includes revenue for carbon cap and trade allowances of $658 billion in total for the years 2012 through 2019. $150 billion of this will be committed to invest in clean energy along with tax credits.
“America, in the face of our common dangers; in this winter of our hardship let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brace once more the icy currents. An endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s chirdren, that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end. That we did not turn back nor did we falter and with eyes fixed on the horizon and god’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”
Grove wants to focus on retrofitting a few high volume, low mileage models to test the theory. His goal is to reduce the dependency of our transportation system on petroleum and therefore foreign interests by moving more of our transportation miles to rely on electricity. Arguing that electricity is generated using a variety of fuel sources and a higher carbon productivity rate, this will also reduce GHGs emissions.
His article received a significant amount of feedback encouraging him to prepare a response only a few days after the original was posted. Primary concerns of those writing in were:
Electricity Generation
Electrical Grid Capacity
Small Impact of 1 million Cars
Getting Political Support
and one reader who suggested he stick to his knitting and leave energy to others.
The European Parliament has approved a deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the 27-member bloc. The package will obligate EU nations to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels. The package also seeks a 20 percent energy savings and increasing the use of renewable energy sources up to 20 percent of the total. Lawmakers in Strasbourg also agreed measures to cut CO2 emissions from new cars by 18 percent by 2015.
President-elect Obama has followed up on his campaign climate commitments in selecting his “Green Team” for environment, energy and new coordinating positions. His picks confirm the Obama administration intends for the US to make an about-face on energy and environmental issues. His selections are experienced in alternative energy and cap-and-trade systems. In several cases choosing science and engineering over legal and political experience, Obama is clearly indicating the climate debates in his administration will include significant scientific evidence.
Steven Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a 1997 corecipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, is Obama’s pick for secretary of energy. Lisa Jackson, a former commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection who was trained as a chemical engineer, is nominated for the post as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. And Carol Browner, former EPA chief in the Clinton administration, has been asked to serve as a “high-level coordinator” on energy issues—and perhaps something of a “czar” on climate change.
Department of Energy – Steven Chu
At Berkeley, Chu has strongly advocated research into solar power and advanced biomass, in particular biofuels made from grasses that won’t compete for space with farmland. At a talk this summer in Nevada, Chu said, “In the first eight months of a new research program, we have developed ways to separate out cellulose, and we have already made a yeast [that] makes a gasolinelike fuel. Already within eight months, we are working on diesel and jet replacement fuels. We need to work with making this really scalable so it will outperform the yeast we have to today.” (One potential disagreement with Obama: Chu has criticized corn-based ethanol, which Obama has strongly supported in the Senate and in the campaign.)
Administrator of the EPA – Lisa Jackson
Ms. Jackson had been the head of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection since 2006, and in October, Gov. Jon S. Corzine announced that she would become his chief of staff starting on December. She presently serves as Vice President of the Executive Board of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a program organized by northeast states to develop a regional cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy producers. She has a master’s degree in chemical engineering from Princeton and spent 16 years at the federal E.P.A. as a top enforcement officer in Washington and New York. She has led the Obama transition team at E.P.A. and knows the agency inside and out, according to associates.
Coordinator of Energy and Environmental Policy
Browner will work closely with Obama, who pledged his “personal engagement” in these issues, and coordinate the work of the DOE, EPA, as well as the federal, state and local governments. Obamo pointed out that Browner will bring her experience from the EPA of establishing the NOx and SO2 emissions trading programme. On the international stage, she was behind drafting the US’ submission to the Kyoto protocol in 1997, which he said was the “the best framework for carbon policy that has ever been developed.”
Ms. Browner, an acolyte of former Vice President Al Gore, will have forceful support in the new Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, who will be the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who is returning as chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Opposing their efforts will be many Republicans and some Democrats, as well as manufacturers, utilities, oil companies and coal producers who will bear the brunt of the costs of any steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the main culprit in global warming.
The nominees have a record of supporting high levels of federal involvement in energy and environmental issues, both in terms of money invested and regulatory oversight. During the early 1990s, Browner earned a reputation for attempting to uphold water and air regulations in the face of opposition from congressional Republicans. Jackson, likewise, at a congressional hearing last May on mercury emissions, told lawmakers, “Implementing the real maximum achievable protections is simply the only moral and ethical choice available if we are to meet our responsibility as public officials.”
Citing lower forecasts in 2009 output along with an increase in the number of firms announcing temporary shutdowns, analysts are scaling back their forecasts for carbon emissions and the price for allowances for those emissions. Societe Generale has cut their forecast for EUAs a third to 17 euros a ton. They went on to say prices could rise to 20 euros by 2012, sharply down from estimates earlier this year that prices would reach 37 euros during this timeframe.
Deutsche Bank believes EU emissions in 2009 could be 10% below 2007 levels. This would push emissions below allowances for 2009. The excess allowances for 2009 can be “banked” for use through 2012 and the forecasted emissions for 2009-2012 remain slightly above the EU carbon allowances. As a result of reduced emissions and smaller shortfall, UN-approved Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) which EU industry can import from developing nations to meet compliance, may be able to meet the entire shortfall. Price estimates for EUAs and CERs clearly indicate analysts believe CERs will set the pricing for EUAs for the next few years.
The good news is EU will be able to meet the allowances under phase 2 with a small “carbon price” in this recessionary period. This is also the bad news, as the lower price reduces the investment per ton of CO2 available for carbon abatement projects. The net is by 2012, the European Union will have done less and perhaps much less to lower the Green House Gases (GHG) they produce per unit of energy they consume than anticipated when the allowance allocations were set.
Packing up his campaign talk of tackling global climate change head-on, President-elect Obama has selected Nobel physics laureate Steven Chu to head up the department of energy.
Chu heads the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, stamping his imprint on the lab with an aggressive focus on developing new alternative energy technology. “If I were emperor of the world, I would put the pedal to the floor on energy efficiency and conservation for the next decade,” Chu stated in an interview last year.
Chu’s experience in advanced technology and renewable energy and lack of background in fossil fuels signals Obama expects the energy department to concentrate on new fuels, experts said.
“I believe that the selection of Steve Chu suggests that President-elect Obama is quite serious about reordering the energy sector and executing his vision of a green economy,” said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at Cato Institute.
All Americans can be proud that the country we love has taken a giant leap forward with the election of Barak Obama. And African Americans should truly rejoice with his victory. Not that victory in the civil rights movement is at hand, but that the ultimate glass ceiling has been broken. Not everyone will agree with all of his policies, but no one will argue that his story is indeed one than can happen no where else in the world.
The McCain – Clinton Gas Tax Holiday is a farce and voters are beginning to realize this. Of course, Obama has been correctly outlining the problems all along. There are numerous problems with this approach even if the money would trickle into the hands of the consumers who most need it and therefore spend it on other items. At 18.4 cents per gallon, the family burning two gallons per day would receive a savings of $11 dollars per month or 5% of the cost of gasoline at the current $3.61 per gallon.
And of course, it is a proposal that few in Congress support and President Bush will veto. So, it’s a non-starter and perhaps in the eyes of two candidates a safe proposal aimed to win voter favor without having all the downsides. And there are several.
First of all, the tax generates revenue to pay for roads and bridge maintenance, which if anything is too small for our aging infrastructure. Of the three ways to pay for this, Clinton suggests taxing the windfall profits on Oil Companies while McCain says cut other spending. Let’s start with McCain. Congress has shown little appetite for cutting spending and the Whitehouse seems to agree that deficits matter not to voters. So, he is really offering the third option of borrowing to pay for this when we need to do the opposite.
Clinton wants to tax the Oil companies with a Windfall Profit tax which would do two things. First of all, it would diminish the expected returns on oil production and over the long term would decrease supply. It would in the short term put higher price pressure on Oil and with more demand coming during the summer driving season, it is more likely this added tax expense would be passed on to consumers.
If you want to help consumers and the retailers they visit, there are better ways to insure the money get to the right people. The stimulus package aims (many would argue aims poorly) to get $600 to those who need it most and are most likely to use it. The gas tax suspension would do no such thing.
And now here is the real catch. The realities of market economics cannot be suspended. Demand will increase to a point where it meets supply. Fiddling with the gas tax will not change this and the US Fuel Retail system has very little slack capacity. Therefore, supply is relatively inelastic and prices will move with demand. Bottom line, the gas tax will be eaten by the Gasoline Value Chain and consumers will be left with little in their pocket other than a higher debt and nothing done to solve the longer term energy issues. It’s bad policy, bad economics and it is time for us to show politicians, that pandering for votes is bad politics.
Meeting the fast growing energy needs of the world just may be the most daunting task mankind has faced to date. No doubt many things must be done to address this issue before fossil fuels are depleted and without destroying economic progress or the environment. McKinsey and Company has produced a paper on Energy Productivity which they claim is the key to curbing global energy demand growth.
Are our schools prepared for the challenges our kids will face this century? This decade? Alvin Toffler suggest our schools were built to prepare the rural American child for the industrial revolution. Get to work on time, enjoy repetitive tasks and essentially fall in line. Agree? Perhaps we have advanced somewhat since the late 1800′s and this seems all too familar to much of the work I recall from oh so many years ago.
Today, when I see our dedicated, hardworking teachers struggle to escape from the bonds of top down driven curriculm, I think there must be a better way.  Here is one alternative. Future School You’re talking about customizing the educational experience.
“Exactly. Any form of diversity that we can introduce into the schools is a plus. Today, we have a big controversy about all the charter schools that are springing up. The school system people hate them because they’re taking money from them. I say we should radically multiply charter schools, because they begin to provide a degree of diversity in the system that has not been present. Diversify the system.
In our book Revolutionary Wealth, we play a game. We say, imagine that you’re a policeman, and you’ve got a radar gun, and you’re measuring the speed of cars going by. Each car represents an American institution. The first one car is going by at 100 miles an hour. It’s called business. Businesses have to change at 100 miles an hour because if they don’t, they die. Competition just puts them out of the game. So they’re traveling very, very fast. Then comes another car. And it’s going at 10 miles an hour. That’s the public education system. Schools are supposed to be preparing kids for the business world of tomorrow, to take jobs, to make our economy functional. The schools are changing, if anything, at 10 miles an hour. So, how do you match an economy that requires 100 miles an hour with an institution like public education? A system that changes, if at all, at 10 miles an hour?”
or overstepping the boundaries of government? Which of these best describes the recent “Healthcare for All” bill supported by an overwhelming majority of the Massachusetts Legislature (154 to 2 in the House and 37 to 0 in the Senate) and Govenor Mitt Romney? The plan’s objective is one shared by all concerned about the unisured, responsible quality healthcare for all. It differs from many other universal plans in several ways.
The bill requires individuals to provide personal coverage, just like the state’s laws on auto coverage. Massachusetts is the first state requiring individuals to have health insurance or prove they can self-insure.
In addition, the bill provides funds to make sure those eligible for Medicare and Medicaid are enrolled. It subsidies healthcare insurance for those who don’t qualify for government programs and can’t afford insurance. The state expects to pay for the subsidies out of a $1 billion fund set aside for providing healthcare for those who can’t afford it.
The bill currently requires employers to pay $295 per unisured employee. “That’s likely to be adjusted by me,” stated Governor Romney. Will he wield the line-item veto pen?
Massachusetts now spends about $1 billion a year to provide emergency health care for at least 500,000 uninsured citizens. About 200,000 of those are young people, predominantly male, who are making enough money to buy health insurance but figure they don’t need it. They would be required to buy a relatively inexpensive health insurance policy, with higher deductibles and co-pays—that’s where the “mandate” comes in. Another 100,000 are extremely poor people who are eligible for Medicaid; a concerted effort would be made to bring them into the system. The remaining 200,000 are the people who have been most neglected by the system in the past: the working poor, people who have low-end service jobs or work part time for employers who don’t offer health coverage.
According to USA Today, Mass. Gov. Romney’s health care plan says everyone pays , other healthcare proposals have focused on expanding government healtcare coverage for the poor and have largely failed. Romney put distance between his proposal and the Clinton plan, saying “we don’t need Hillary-care.”
In an article by The Washington Post, Mass. Bill Requires Health Coverage, the plan goes much farther than any other state but is by no means finalized. It leaves the task of determining exactly how much some low-income residents will pay for their new, more affordable policies to a new agency that would serve as a liaison between the government, policyholders and private insurance companies.
Because of that uncertainty, some still worry that the residents required to buy insurance would not be able to.
In any event, a creative approach which does not unduly burden employers or tax payers. As long as it does not place too great a burden on the poor, then it is a very good start.
The folks at FactCheck.org are equally critical of Bush’s use of agressive projections and language as he pushed his plan to revamp Social Security in his State of the Union address and MoveOn.org’s use of false claims regarding cuts in benefit payments.
“In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for ‘bankruptcy,’ a term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes ‘bankrupt’ a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised.
Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they ‘will’ grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future.”
Moveon.org
“MoveOn.org launched a false TV ad in the districts of several House members, claiming through images and words that President Bush plans to cut Social Security benefits nearly in half. Showing white-haired workers lifting boxes, mopping floors, shoveling and laundering, the ad says ‘it won’t be long before America introduces the working retirement.’”
The Irony of Outsourcing
By Kevin Laws on November 18, 2003 09:03 PM supports the argument that economic activity flowing to the most efficient provider creates the greatest total value and in the long run the greatest value for each country involved. He points out the engineers who “thought” manufacturing workers out of jobs are now seeing their own jobs reduced and sent offshore.
This posting by Kevin Brancato suggest that our view of healthcare cost in the US is distorted. While the data seems to lead to the conclusion that we’re buying much more healthcare at sky-high prices, economists doubt the validity and applicability of the offical data because it does not appropriately adjust for quality.
BusinessPundit talks about this movement which according to The Economist is One of the biggest corporate fads of the 1990s—less overpowering, no doubt, than dotcom mania, but also longer-lived—was the flowering of “corporate social responsibility†(CSR). The idea that it is not enough for firms to make money for their owners is one that you might expect to be an article of faith among anti-globalists and eco-warriors. Many bosses now share, or say they share, the same conviction.
