99counties.org

ht Ed Morrisey at Hotair

This is another example of how every [without exception] big government project redistributes wealth and picks the winners and losers, regardless of the sponsors’ alleged altruistic intent.

A new U.S. EPA analysis requested by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is spawning a lobbying frenzy among Midwestern utilities that claim the document shows they will be treated unfairly under federal climate legislation.

“The EPA document just confirms the formula will disadvantage Midwest states for decades to come while the coastal states will hit a ‘federal jackpot’ every year over the life of the new program,” said Zachary Hill, senior manager of federal government affairs at Alliant Energy, a Wisconsin-based utility.

The EPA analysis shows some interesting variations in the burden of carbon compliance, based on the legislative language in Waxman-Markey. How many million tons do each state emit at the moment, and what will they be allowed to emit by 2012? Let’s start with a few notable coastal states:

* California – 87 now, between 99-127 in 2012
* Florida – 138 now, between 111-112 in 2012
* New York – 57 now, between 58-69 in 2012
* Washington – 35 now, between 35-41 in 2012
* Oregon – 20 now, between 20-23 in 2012
* Massachusetts – 24 now, between 23-27 in 2012

Alone among these traditional Democratic strongholds is Republican-leaning Florida, which will be asked to make massive cuts of at least 15% or buy excess credits … from places like California, New York, Washington, and so on. What about Midwestern or coal-belt states?

* Minnesota – 56 now, 33-45 in 2012
* Wisconsin – 55 now, 34-44 in 2012
* Michigan – 77 now, 52-62 in 2012
* Iowa – 36 now, 21-29 in 2012
* Indiana – 75 now, 52-61 in 2012
* Ohio – 110 now, 76-89 in 2012
* Pennsylvania – 84 now, 68-72 in 2012
* West Virginia – 23 now, 16-19 in 2012
* Kentucky – 62 now, 44-50 in 2012

The EPA predicts that Waxman-Markey will force the interior states to buy excess credits from those states, mainly on the coasts, that will have so many emissions credits that they can sell them to bolster their state governments. Just coincidentally, most of those are states that go Democratic in national elections. California’s example is especially egregious, given the potential for almost 150% of current emissions in credits for 2012. Perhaps it’s also no coincidence that Henry Waxman represents the Golden State in Congress.

Emissions allocations look less like an energy policy and a lot more like Chicago-on-the-Potomac.

Tags: business, climate change

How did we get here?

If you want to understand all the intricacies that would lead to the Environmental Protection Agency to propose [in 18,000 pages of bureaucratic nonsense]  what would amount to a tax on livestock as much as $175 per head, you will need to turn off your logic circuits and engage your touchy-feely, save-the-planet emotions.

Try to pay attention, class.

• Climate Change, née Global Warming, is a crisis that will lead to the destruction of the human race if we do not “do something.”
• Greenhouse gases cause Climate Change.
• Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. [Try to exhale less, please.]
• If we call re-classify greenhouse gases [CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, et al] as “pollutants”, then the EPA must regulate them under the Clean Air Act.
• Under the Clean Air Act any entity emitting more than 100 tons per year of a “regulated pollutant” must obtain a permit in order to continue to operate.
• Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs emits more than 100 tons of carbon and would have to obtain permits under Title V of the Clean Air Act in order to continue to operate if greenhouse gases are regulated.
• At EPA “presumptive minimums” a permit would cost $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 for beef cattle, and a little more than $20 per pig.

And there you have it.  When you consider ,for example , that the average profit per hog in Iowa is estimated between $9 and $25 depending on market conditions, a $20 permit allowing said hogs to fart, will likely be met with some resistance.  But, of course, resistance is futile.  No legislation is required for this to become a reality.  All that is required is leadership at the EPA with a very anti-business agenda.  In other words, anyone that Obama will nominate.  Indeed there is already talk of Obama pushing to elevate EPA administrator to a cabinet-level position.

As a prediction, I will posit that accompanying any such anti-agriculture tax will be a new breed of subsidies to help producers “modernize” their operations (perhaps with some sort of tubing to collect the earth killing methane).  This will ensure that the only ones hurt by such measures will those citizens stupid enough to buy food.

Tags: climate change, Environment

The Des Moines Register gives a big smooch to 34 Iowa cities that have “pledged to create strong local policies and programs to reduce global warming.”  While the Register allows that these cities’ images benefit more from the efforts than the environment, it does not take ownership of that one criticism, instead it relies on the ubiquitous weasel words ’some experts.’  But the result of the efforts?

“The efforts are paying dividends at the bank and in the air.”

It’s a win-win!  Who knew saving the planet from its own climate changes could be so cost effective?  Let’s take a look at some of the wonderful planet and cost savings we are getting:

[Des Moines] has changed lights in City Hall, the armory and the police station, saving $27,000, 500,000 kilowatt hours of power and 1 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. The capital city also installed energy efficient LED bulbs in traffic signals at 300 intersections, saving $120,000 in electricity costs and 4.7 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, according to city documents.

Are these savings made on day one?  Annually?  Over the life of the lighting?  There is no mention of any actual upfront costs associated with the transition to the vastly more expensive LEDs.  I think that investing  money in the longer lasting and more efficient lighting is admirable but there needs to be an honest assessment of the costs involved. A report by the DOE shows that LED traffic lights have a simple payback period of additional costs of 2.4 years.

The Register admits, “Some Iowa cities’ efforts cost millions of dollars but earn paybacks in lower energy costs and usage.” But it also claims that going green is a political necessity because, “Taxpayers and businesses are demanding their local governments save energy and cut emissions.”

The other cities mentioned in the article have made some image-boosting changes as well:

• Ames owns an electric car.  However, this electric car gets its energy from a coal-fired plant.  But, not to worry, Ames replaced some of the coal at its city-owned power plant with pellets made of trash, saving “money”,  and is looking to cut greenhouse emissions by 20 percent before 2021.
• Davenport agressively plants trees and “restored a 4 1/2-acre prairie, which helps sweep carbon from the sky.”
• Iowa City is moving to establish an east-side recycling center and educational facility.  [No mention of cost]

Tags: climate change, Environment, global warming