Green lawsuit in California seen as warm-up for future climate litigation

Carbon Control News reports that two “environmental justice” groups (Communities for a Better Environment and California Communities Against Toxics) sued the state of California on June 10 alleging the state’s climate change program violates its 2006 global warming law. [Click here for the summary].

Carbon Control News rightly pointed out that the lawsuit

… could foreshadow similar legal challenges facing a federal GHG cap-and-trade program, because the California groups, who question the effectiveness of emissions trading, are also opposed to the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation.

The lesson here — especially for USCAP’s business members — is that while businesses may feel like they can deal with seemingly “mainstream” green groups (like USCAP’s Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council) in crafting a survivable climate bill, in the end the more extreme green groups will come along and try to scuttle the deal in favor of more extreme regulation.

Buffet: Waxman-Markey a consumer rip-off

Carbon Control News reports that in a June 9 hearing before the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee,

[David Sokol, the chairman of Warren Buffet’s utility subsidiary MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, said] utilities, and by extension consumers, will be charged twice under the trading provisions of the legislation, “first to pay for emission allowances, which will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one ounce, and then for the construction of new low- and zero-carbon power plants and other actions that will actually do the job of reducing these emissions… This bill will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and we think it is wrong to saddle customers with these unnecessary and duplicative costs that provide them with absolutely no benefits.”

Brookings: Waxman-Markey a $9 trillion tax!

The Waxman-Markey climate bill amounts to a $9 trillion tax that will reduce personal consumption by up to $2 trillion by mid-century, according to an analysis presented yesterday by the left-leaning Brookings Institution.

No effort was made to estimate the benefits of Waxman-Markey, apparently because of the difficulty of such an estimation, according to a report in Carbon Control News.

To summarize: We know Waxman-Markey will hurt taxpayers, consumers and the economy, and it’s too difficult to determine whether the bill will provide any benefits — so let’s hurry up and enact the Mother of All Taxes?

Click here for Brookings’ “Fact Sheet.”

Click here for Brookings’ Powerpoint presentation.

UN green chief: Ban plastic bags

UN environmental chief Achim Steiner said yesterday that,

“Single use plastic bags which choke marine life, should be banned or phased out rapidly everywhere. There is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere.”

The notion that plastic bags pose some special hazard to marine life, however is a myth. As reported in the Times (UK) on March 8, 2008,

Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims.

The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds…

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, The Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals…

Double Whopper w/ Guts: Burger King franchisee defies alarmists, franchisor

Please patronize the 40 Burger Kings in Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi owned by Mirabile Investment Corporation. Here’s why…

Click here for the story….

Call/write Burger King in support of the Mirabile Investment Corporation’s valiant effort to fight global warming baloney!

Burger King Holdings, Inc.
5505 Blue Lagoon Drive
Miami, FL 33126
Main number:(305) 378–3000
Consumer relations: (305) 378-3535

Poor countries: Tax international air travel for global welfare fund

From The Guardian,

Britain and other rich countries will be asked to accept a compulsory levy on international flight tickets and shipping fuel to raise billions of dollars to help the world’s poorest countries adapt to combat climate change.

The suggestions come at the start of the second week in the latest round of UN climate talks in Bonn, where 192 countries are starting to negotiate a global agreement to limit and then reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The issue of funding for adaptation is critical to success but the hardest to agree.

The aviation levy, which is expected to increase the price of long-haul fares by less than 1%, would raise $10bn (£6.25bn) a year, it is said.

Poor countries are just cutting their own throats by siding with the greens who, if they had their way, would simply ban international air travel — except, of course, for the green elites like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Richard Branson, the Google creeps, etc.

Moreover, if poor countries want to be richer, in addition to political reform, they should kick the anti-development, people-hating greens out of their countries, as Paul Driessen explains in his book Eco-imperialism: Green Power, Black Death.

Mass transit not so green

From AFP:

You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint — the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study…

Click here for the full article…

Obama’s new coal scare: U.S. not the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal

A new report from the Obama administration’s Department of Energy says we may no longer be the “Saudi Arabia of coal,” according to the Wall Street Journal, because we may only have 120, rather than 240 years years of economically accessible reserves.

I promise to worry about what people will do for energy in 120 years right after I finish worrying about free enterprise and capitalism surviving the Obama administration.

Greens vs. Al Gore?

The greens are using their chokehold on water supplies to thwart water-dependent solar projects.

This may upset Al Gore. His venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins, has invested millions of dollars in the solar power firm, Ausra, which uses the water-dependent solar technology.

It’s hard to pick sides on this one. Maybe the Earth can just open up and swallow both of them.

Waxman-Markey federalizes local building codes

… even the Washington Post is worried about this one:

In fact, the [Waxman-Markey] bill also contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to the specs on hot tubs, and it will reshape America’s economy in dozens of ways that many don’t realize.

Here is just one: The bill would give the federal government power over local building codes. It requires that by 2012 codes must require that new buildings be 30 percent more efficient than they would have been under current regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model codes for states and localities to fill in the details, creating a national code. If they don’t, the bill commands the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.

The Post concludes:

Is the best way to achieve that, though, to federalize what has long been a matter of local concern? And if the point of cap-and-trade is to change market incentives, why does Congress, and not the market, need to dictate these changes? Those are a few questions that emerge when you begin to read through the 900 pages.

One dream. One world. Obamaland für alle.

If you pay a lot for power…

… then you probably don’t rely on coal.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on June 2 that,

If you were paying a lot for power in 2008 and you were not from Hawaii, you were probably living in the Northeast or California. All of the remaining utilities with the 10 highest power prices in 2008 were located in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts…

The cheapest power prices in the United States in 2008 were again found in the Midwest and Southeast, where utilities with ample coal-fired generation supply were able to offer customers prices frequently less than 6 cents or 7 cents per kWh on average across customer classes.

The anti-coal nature of cap-and-trade will ensure that all of us pay a lot for power and everything else that is produced by means of electricity — i.e., all goods and services.

PowerPrices2008