You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
San Franciso to charge Global Warming Tax
2008-05-21
SF Becomes First In Nation To Charge 'Pollution Fee'

Move Meant To Help Slow Global Warming


SAN FRANCISCO -- The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's board of directors on Wednesday approved new rules to charge businesses a fee for the pollution they emit. The group's board of directors voted 15-1 on unprecedented new rules that will increase state control on all parts of life impose fees on factories, power plants, oil refineries and other businesses that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

The agency, which regulates air pollution in the nine-county Bay Area, will be the first in the country to charge companies fees based on their greenhouse gas emissions, experts say. The new rules will take effect July 1.

The modest fee -- 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide -- probably won't be enough to force companies to reduce their emissions, but backers say it sets an important precedent to charge more in the future in combating climate change and could serve as a model for regional air districts nationwide. The fee will not be imposed on vehicles, district spokeswoman Lisa Fasano said.
Yet
"It doesn't solve global warming, but it gets us thinking in the right terms," said Daniel Kammen, a renewable energy expert at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's not enough of a cost to change behavior, but it tells us where things are headed. You have to think not just in financial terms, but in carbon terms."
The Camel's nose is under the tent.
It is better to feel as though you're doing something as opposed to doing something.
But many Bay Area businesses oppose the rules, saying they could interfere with the state's campaign to curb greenhouse gas emissions under a landmark global warming law signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. The California Air Resources Board, which is charged with implementing the law, is expected next month to issue its preliminary plan to reduce the state's emissions before it approves a final plan later this year.

Climate change is "a big issue that needs a comprehensive statewide plan to address it," said Cathy Reheis-Boyd, chief operating officer for the Western States Petroleum Association. "We believe it's premature for local air districts to design local programs before we have a state program."

The fees are expected to generate $1.1 million in its first year to help pay for programs to measure the region's emissions and develop ways to reduce them. More than 2,500 businesses will be required to pay the proposed fees. About seven power plants and oil refineries will have to pay more than $50,000 a year, but the majority of businesses will pay less than $1, according to district estimates.

The proposed program, which requires companies to measure and report their own emissions, could make it more complicated and expensive to do business in the Bay Area, said Shelly Sullivan, who heads the AB32 Implementation Group, a coalition of business groups working with state regulators to implement California's global warming law. "It's going to make Bay Area businesses less competitive because companies outside the area won't face similar costs," Sullivan said. "There would be a patchwork of plans that would not be consistent."

Opponents also question whether the agency, which is charged with regulating air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter, has the authority to impose fees on greenhouse gas emissions. Bay Area district officials believe the agency has that authority because global warming is raising surface temperatures, which worsens air quality.
At least we'll stay cool in the Bay Area.
"We see a direct connection between the climate and air pollution," said Jack Broadbent, the district's executive director. "We believe the changing climate is going to require effort on the federal, state and local level."

The mission of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, as stated on their Web site, is to attain and maintain air quality standards, increase public awareness of positive air quality choices and to develop and implement protocol and policies for environmental justice.

China: Most Polluted? The growth in China's carbon dioxide emissions is far outpacing previous estimates, according to analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley and San Diego.

SLIDESHOW: UC Researchers: China Most Polluted Place On Earth?

Previous estimates, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the region that includes China will see a 2.5 to 5 percent annual increase in CO2 emissions, the largest contributor to atmospheric greenhouse gases, between 2004 and 2010. The new UC analysis puts that annual growth rate for China to at least 11 percent for the same time period.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#7  God, I can't wait for that earthquake...
Posted by: tu3031   2008-05-21 21:52  

#6  I read a serious plan some decades ago to add water to mars by guiding and crashing ice-laden comets into Mars, they were seriously debating whether to use the "Incoming", to speed up the planet's rotation, slow it down, or change it's orbit to a more "Habitable" one or a combination of he three.
(The idea was to Match Earth's orbit and climate/rotation)

Seems possible (if impractical) to me, just don't get it's orbit too close to ours.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-05-21 21:41  

#5  Actually Colin, it has truth. Especially in orbital mechanics. Doing slingshot orbits to increase a probe's speed decreases the planet's speed some. Get 300 million probes slingshooting around Mars and you could see some slowdown. Movements for "Restore original rotation speed" might be as common as Global warming. People launching probes to use Mars to slowdown to restore the "balance".

hmmm.... where is my sci-fi notebook?
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-05-21 20:54  

#4  A thought struck me, a decidedly evil one, so I figured I had to share it at Rantburg, because they'd appreciate it here. The developmment of wave and wind power (which I for the record would love to see happen) are touted as one of the many 'solutions' to global warming. BUT - I wonder just how much of a monkey wrench you could throw into the works by pointing out in some scholarly-sounding fashion that since winds and waves striking a turbine must transfer energy to that turbine, taking energy from the system as a whole so that human energy needs will, over the course of time, leave us utterly becalmed, our seas stagnant. I'm no scientist, and I'm quite certain that the notion is utter poppycock, but you could sell it to a pretty fair number of ignoramuses like me who would tout it as gospel. Scary.
Posted by: Colin MacDougall   2008-05-21 19:57  

#3  Glad to know San Francisco's economy will soon be based solely on selling tourist smoothies and giving each other reach arounds.
Posted by: ed   2008-05-21 18:55  

#2  If any state destroys their own economy and seeks a bailout from the central government then it should revert to territorial status and purged of anyone involved in the process, especially to include reclaiming any pensions being paid.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-05-21 18:36  

#1  Glad to see California continuing to destroy their economy.

Dumbfarts.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-05-21 18:01  

00:00