EC February 2017

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

1 participants
2 discussions

Fwd: A Rare Republican Call to Climate Action - The New York Times
by Jonathan Rosenbaum via EC 14 Feb '17

14 Feb '17

-------- Original Message -------- SUBJECT: A Rare Republican Call to Climate Action - The New York Times DATE: 2017-02-13 12:36 FROM: Len Conly <lconly(a)lmi.net> TO: CONS-TRANS-CHAIRS-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/a-rare-republican-call-to-climat… > > A RARE REPUBLICAN CALL TO CLIMATE ACTION > > By THE EDITORIAL BOARD [1]*FEB. 13, 2017 > > Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg > > The most important thing about a carbon tax plan [2] proposed last week may be the people behind it: prominent Republicans like James Baker III, George Shultz and Henry Paulson Jr. Their endorsement [3] of the idea, variations of which have been suggested before, may be a breakthrough for a party that has closed its eyes to the perils of man-made climate change and done everything in its power to thwart efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. > > This gang of Republican elder statesmen -- they call themselves the Climate Leadership Council [4] -- is not made up of the usual environmentalists, which is why their proposal might gain traction, though probably not right away. > > Their proposal [5] would tax carbon emissions at $40 a ton to start and would be paid by oil refineries and other fossil fuel companies that would pass costs on to consumers with higher gas and electricity prices. The money raised would be returned to Americans through dividend checks; a family of four would get about $2,000 a year to start. This would help people adjust to higher energy prices and give them an incentive to reduce consumption or switch to renewable sources of energy. Most lower-income and middle-class families would get back more than they pay in taxes. To avoid placing American industry at a disadvantage, imports from countries that do not impose a comparable tax would be subject to a per-ton tax on the carbon emitted in the production of their products, while exports to those nations would not be. > > Scientists and economists have long argued that putting a price on carbon would encourage conservation and investment in renewable energy. Ireland, Sweden and British Columbia already have carbon taxes [6]. The European Union, Quebec, California and Northeastern states like New York and Massachusetts have adopted cap-and-trade systems [7] that use emission permits to lower emissions over time. > > The last serious effort to impose a national price on carbon came in 2009 with cap-and-trade legislation [8] by Edward Markey and Henry Waxman, both then Democratic House members. The bill passed the House, but never received a vote in the Senate. Since then, Republican control of one or both houses of Congress has thwarted ambitious climate legislation. As a result, President Obama turned to administrative actions to reduce emissions, including the Clean Power Plan [9] and higher fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks. Those regulations and standards are now on the chopping block under the Trump administration. > > The new Climate Leadership Council argues that conservatives should support a carbon tax because it is a more market-friendly approach than Mr. Obama's regulations. And after a carbon tax is put in place, the council says, the government should eliminate most of those rules, since they won't be needed. But there are legitimate fears that the tax alone might not achieve emission reductions on the scale needed to save the planet from out-of-control warming, and that regulations and other policies like public investments in renewable energy will be needed, too. > > Neither President Trump nor Republicans in Congress have embraced the proposal. Many conservatives believe they'll be able to dismantle Mr. Obama's regulations through administrative, legal or legislative maneuvers, without compromising. Plus, many are philosophically opposed to, and politically fearful of, any new taxes. > > Their dismissal of the council's proposal is myopic and puts their party out of step with the country. A large majority of Americans want the government to address climate change -- 78 percent of registered voters [10] support taxing emissions, regulating them or doing both, according to a Yale survey conducted after the election. The Republican elders are offering their party an opening to change the conversation. It should take the cue. Links: ------ [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-… [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-solution-… [4] https://www.clcouncil.org/ [5] https://www.clcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/TheConservativeCasefor… [6] https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/ [7] https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works [8] https://www.c2es.org/federal/congress/111/acesa [9] https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants [10] http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-n…

1 0

Fw: New England's Shrinking Need for Natural Gas
by James Kotcon via EC 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Compliments of the Mass and Conn Chapters,(and others), this is the kind of report we need to help fight the WV pipelines. JBK ________________________________ From: Synapse Energy Economics <bcopes=synapse-energy.com(a)mail119.suw11.mcdlv.net> on behalf of Synapse Energy Economics <bcopes(a)synapse-energy.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 11:49 AM To: James Kotcon Subject: New England's Shrinking Need for Natural Gas Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser<http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672&id=bd427c9cf6…>. [http://gallery.mailchimp.com/bef0f8c2ef390a88c3e173e7c/images/Synapse_small…]<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b…> February 7, 2017 Contact Us<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b…> [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672/images/35506952-12c…]<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672/images/fec3f9c4-1be…] <http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> ________________________________ New England's Shrinking Need for Natural Gas Synapse is thrilled to announce the release of a new report, New England’s Shrinking Need for Natural Gas<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…>. This report examines the need for, and the cost of, the Access Northeast (ANE) natural gas pipeline. As proposed, the ANE pipeline relies on a novel funding mechanism whereby electric ratepayers would pay for new gas pipelines. This unprecedented funding proposal has spurred controversy and litigation: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission both rejected this approach, declaring that it violates state laws enacted to restructure the electric utility sector and to protect consumers from undue financial risk. Pipeline proponents claim that the ANE pipeline is needed to relieve capacity constraints on New England’s natural gas pipeline system and that the cost of the pipeline is justified because it will ultimately save money for New England electric ratepayers. Our analysis shows otherwise. Any savings created by the ANE pipeline are likely to be outweighed by its costs, which are more than twice what proponents have generally reported. Our analysis also indicates that the need for natural gas in New England will decrease dramatically within a few years of ANE’s construction. This would alleviate the capacity constraints cited to justify the pipeline. We modeled energy use, prices, and emissions<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> in a base scenario in which there is no new pipeline compared to a scenario in which the ANE pipeline is constructed. Read the <http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> report<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> for our analysis and findings. This report was prepared for the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Consumers for Sensible Energy, Mass Energy Consumers Alliance, Pipe Line Awareness Network for the Northeast, Sierra Club Connecticut, and Sierra Club Massachusetts Short on time today? Check out report highlights on our blog<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…>. ________________________________ Newsletter Subscription You are receiving this newsletter because we think you will find the information interesting and relevant to your work. If for any reason you don't wish to receive these emails, you may unsubscribe by emailing marketing(a)synapse-energy.com.<mailto:marketing@synapse-energy.com> Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 485 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 2 Cambridge, MA 02139 www.synapse-energy.com ©2017 Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. All rights reserved. This email was sent to jkotcon(a)wvu.edu<mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu> why did I get this?<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/about?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e4672…> unsubscribe from this list<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b6…> update subscription preferences<http://synapse-energy.us1.list-manage.com/profile?u=80ccfa970a5bcb075b62e46…> Synapse Energy Economics · 485 Massachusetts Ave · Suite 2 · Cambridge, MA 02139 · USA

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC February 2017