Skip to main content

House Panel Backs Mandatory Emissions Cap

From Greenwire (subscription required):
The influential House Appropriations Committee went on record this afternoon in support of addressing global warming through a mandatory cap on U.S. emissions. The Republican-led panel accepted a nonbinding climate change amendment that endorses capping greenhouse gas emissions as long as the program does not harm the U.S. economy. The amendment also requires participation from international trading partners.
More later...

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Starvid, Sweden said…
Whatever you do, don't implement an emissions trading system like we have in the EU. It only creates more volatility in power prices. If you do, make sure pollution rights are auctioned, not handed out.

Anyway, a federal CO2 tax is a lot smarter than emission trading. Less bureacracy and less volatility. And it makes it possible to tax gasoline too.

The money should go directly to the elimination of payroll taxes, so that the government does not become needlessly big, and also to compensate the poor for Buschco's unjust tax breaks for the rich.

------------------------------------

Or you could go absolutely French, volontariste, dirigiste, statist and use the money for 300 new state owned nuclear reactors, a continent spanning power grid and a massive TGV railroad system. :) :) :)
Paul Primavera said…
Starvid,

The issue of the tax cuts supported by President Bush is not all black and white. An interesting discussion on this was broadcast on the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio earlier today:

< http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/ >

The Cato Institute has some really good studies of taxation in the US:

Tax Policy
< http://www.cato.org/fiscal/tax-policy.html >

Corporate Welfare
< http://www.cato.org/fiscal/corporate-welfare.html >

Federal Budget Policy
< http://www.cato.org/fiscal/budget-policy.html >

I think, however, that we can agree that the "borrow and spend" policy of the neo-conservatives is as injurious (if not more so) to long term American economic health as the the "tax and spend" policies of the liberal democrats.

If we borrow much more, then there will be nothing left for "300 new state owned nuclear reactors, a continent spanning power grid and a massive TGV railroad system"

:( :( :(

Seriously, though, at least in the US, private industry generally runs nukes a lot better than the govt. I used to work at a nuke owned and operated by NYPA, the state power organization for New York State. Then the plant got bought by Entergy. As a corporation, Entergy (ETR) is able to run a nuke a lot better than NYPA was (our capacity factor is a heck of a lot better under ETR than NYPA) - I have lived through it [and I still remain mgt's biggest critic - a happy sailor is a whining sailor!].

Lastly, what I have found amusing in a perverse sort of way is that if we had spend on new nukes what we have already spent in Iraq, then we would now be well on our way to energy independence and could thus let the Islamic fascists drown in their own oil.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …