Tag: CO2 - Page 4 - Granite Grok

NH Senate Should BEG Our forgiveness on RGGI

September 26, 2018May 16, 2011

by Steve MacDonald

Fools! God has a sense of humor. Just days after Republican State Senators in New Hampshire bent over backwards to the green lobby (and refused to leave RGGI) a major green lobby advocate (George Monbiot) announced that none of their ideas work. (Ideas like cap and trade for example.) Now, just days after that, a highly credentialed European scientist who was on the Anthropogenic Global Warming Government money "Gravy Train" has a message to those who continue to support CO2 mitigation of any kind, and in particular the failed variety like RGGI…

..to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

So who is David Evans? Here’s his bio from the article.

David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.

Is this speaking truth to power?

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

For Repeal of RGGI

September 26, 2018May 5, 2011

by Don

This morning NHPR had a program on RGGI. Senator Peter Bragdon spoke for keeping RGGI and Representative Jim Garrity spoke for repeal. I tried to call and comment but didn’t get on the air. They suggested that I send in my comments, so I sent the comments below. Some of my comments are reactions to Peter Bradgon’s comments supporting RGGI.

"I am for repeal of RGGI.

1. We have plenty of energy in this country in the form of coal and gas, and even oil if the government would let us get it. We do not need to import fuel from countries that want to kill us to generate the electricity we need. My understanding is that gas can be relatively easily burned in oil fired energy plants, we have lots of natural gas.

2. It is hard to believe that wood pellets burn more cleanly than oil or certainly than gas. While I understand the desire to buy locally, they should compete like other fuels.

3. If energy efficiency is beneficial to people, governments, businesses, etc., then why do the rest of us have to subsidize it for them?

A Global Warming Alarmist In ‘Efficiency Sheeps’ Clothing?

September 26, 2018March 20, 2011

by Steve MacDonald

Gore Jim Grady, President and owner of LighTec in Merrimack, has a letter in the Sunday Telegraph on the current effort in the New Hampshire legislature to drop out of RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. He expresses some concern over Republican objection to the plan, points out what he sees as inconsistencies in objections to it, and does not believe it should be mothballed.

But there are problems.

Jim argues that the fee created by RGGI is actually a small cost that benefits all of us, and that we should not object to such a tax because we have had something similar in place in the State for 12 years now.

Most House members seem utterly unaware that for the past 12 years the state has levied a “tax” on the many that indisputably benefits the many: the Systems Benefit Charge (SBC). If you look at your electric bill, you’ll see a tiny charge of $0.0035 per kilowatt-hours of energy usage to pay for state-sponsored energy efficiency. This SBC “tax” (like RGGI, bipartisan) benefits the many by reducing the need to make multi-billion dollar investments in new power plants and electricity transmission and distribution systems.

But Jim never explains why, if we have that tax in place to benefit state sponsored efficiency projects, why we signed onto a separate system that adds an additional tax, supervised by an out of state entity, that skims a portion of that "tax" off the top for administrative costs? How does that help everyone in New Hampshire when it diverts some of that so-called benefit away from the state.

Why not make a case to raise the SBC to fill the stated need? Why add a separate system, run by an outside third party, based on the questionable need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

Because Jim Grady was a member of the working group for the Carbon Co2alition, whose goal is or was…

… to advocate for a national energy policy that protects our communities and environment from the ravages of global warming caused by carbon pollution.

That affiliation might have been good to know in advance. But we can take a look at that right now…