Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Local chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby calls for plan that would place fee on carbon

November 8, 2011

Advertisement

Most folks want energy costs to go down, so it’s rare to find a group pushing for energy costs to increase.

But that’s the intention of a chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby forming in Lawrence. Their goal is to convince politicians to place a fee on carbon to help speed the transition to a clean energy economy.

The idea originated with James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and author of the book “Storms of My Grandchildren.”

Any carbon that comes from the ground, such as coal, oil and natural gas, would be taxed. The revenue would be distributed evenly among households through a monthly dividend. The fees increase gradually over time.

The hope is for the carbon fee to produce more innovation and investment in clean energy and for the dividend to help ease consumers’ transition to a clean energy future.

“When people hear about this, they are really intrigued and feel very positive about the concept once they understand what it is,” said Lynate Pettengill, who is spearheading the formation of the Lawrence chapter.

The Lawrence chapter will have its first meeting on Nov. 16, during which Citizens Climate Lobby executive director Mark Reynolds will talk. The meeting will be from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Delaware Street Commons, 1222 Del.

For more information, contact Pettengill at 785-331-0625 or e-mail her at lynatepettengill@yahoo.com. More information about the organization is available at CitizensClimateLobby.org.

Comments

kenos 3 years, 1 month ago

Why hasn't Christine put her "Sunflower Horizons" stamp of agenda on this story? It's obvious the LJW has supported the myth of global warming, with its Communitarian plot to put everyone into group homes, like the Delaware Street Commons, and to tax the middle class out of existence. Carbon taxes would be a great victory for you guys. Go LJW!

Jayhawk1958 3 years, 1 month ago

"the myth of global warming"

Science doesn't lie!

hujiko 3 years, 1 month ago

Want to reduce carbon in the atmosphere?

  1. Cut down trees, which are basically huge carbon sinks.
  2. Burn the trees in an absence of oxygen (pyrolysis); produces inert carbon known as biochar.
  3. Begin a widespread local movement employing millions of people managing tree farms.
  4. ???
  5. Profit!!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

Actually, it'd have no effect whatsoever on energy costs. It'd just mean that those costs aren't subsidized and otherwise hidden.

lunacydetector 3 years, 1 month ago

why do i already have the feeling this is a done deal?....will mayor solar panel be proposing this in the near future?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

I'm more concerned with how global warming is going to affect the next 1-3 generations, and beyond. The supernova of the sun is at least a few million generations off (assuming we survive that long.)

Sunny Parker 3 years, 1 month ago

yet complain about a few extra pennies added to the cost of a burger...Liberals kill me haha

Ken Lassman 3 years, 1 month ago

Well, with some of the knee jerkers out of the way, if anyone is still reading, I thought you should be rewarded with some additional information. Here's a link to the website for this grassroots organization, and from what I can see, it actually looks kinda intriguing: http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/node/444

The fee and dividend system that they are proposing seems to be a much better, less corruptible system than the good-old-boys cap and trade system of carbon trading that congress tried to push through. For those who actually think they would rather pay now to decrease our carbon emissions or pay much more later in terms of increasingly frequent severe, extreme weather, rising oceans, acidification, etc. this bears serious scrutiny.

JrMints 3 years, 1 month ago

The science doesn't support the hypothisis of man-made global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it. Human impact on climate is extremely small, and the climate will cycle from warmer to cooler no matter what people do. Even if the entire world stopped burning fossil fuels, the climate will be essentially unaffected. So let's identify this as what it really is, i.e., a new tax. Let's debate it as a new tax and stop trying to wrap it in scaremongering alarmism about floods, hurricanes, etc.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

"The science doesn't support the hypothisis of man-made global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it."

" Let's debate it"

You clearly don't understand what "debate" means. Or "science," for that matter.

kernal 3 years, 1 month ago

Jr, what current credible scientific data are you referring to?

JrMints 3 years, 1 month ago

We could start with the recent Department of Energy report that CO2 emissions have increased by one-third since 2001. Then look at NOAA global temperature data that shows that average global temperature has not increased since 2001. Then we could ask ourselves how these facts conflict with IPCC models that suggest that global temperatures should be substantially higher with more CO2. This might be a good place to start our discussion. I would welcome to hear from you what scientific data (not model) supports AGW.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

"Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008."

roadwarrior 3 years, 1 month ago

ive heard 300lb men say that about riding a horse...."im a flea on his back". Ever seen a horse with sway back ? huh, must be genetic...................

Human impact on climate is extremely small.........you need to get out of Law Kansas once in a while dude, I suggest a trip to Ohio. will change your opinon.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 1 month ago

Last time I checked, science does not depend on what town you do it in. I suggest that you turn off your talk radio and do some real investigation into the ever increasing, overwhelming data sets and science that clearly points to anthropogenic climate change before you decide to believe in the talking heads who deny it.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 1 month ago

My bad, road, I just re-read your comment, and I missed your tongue-in-cheek point about the horse. Your comment is akin to telling the folks to turn off their radios, too. Sorry 'bout that....

Commenting has been disabled for this item.