California proposes a global-warming fee on businesses

[CactusCarlos]

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8215767

California proposes a global-warming fee on businesses
BAY AREA FIRMS WOULD BE CHARGED BASED ON EMISSIONS

In the first such program in California, and perhaps the United States, Bay Area air pollution regulators are proposing to charge an annual fee to thousands of businesses based on the amount of greenhouse gases they emit.

The fee - 4.2 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide - would affect everything from oil refineries to power plants, and landfills, factories and small businesses like restaurants and bakeries.

The largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the Bay Area, the Shell oil refinery in Martinez, would pay $186,475 a year for its 4.4 million annual metric tons of emissions. The largest emitter in Santa Clara County, the Hanson Permanente Cement Plant in Cupertino, would pay $44,507 a year for its 1.05 million tons.

After years of voluntary measures, the fees, proposed this week by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, set a precedent as the first time that businesses and government agencies would face financial consequences for contributing to global warming. If successful, the fees could be copied all over the state and country, perhaps ultimately at much higher prices.

"The climate is changing, and we think that everybody needs to help with the solution and pay their fair share to reduce greenhouse gases," said Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in San Francisco.

"This is the next step in addressing the problem. The public is demanding that we be part of the solution."

The air district, a state agency, for the past 50 years has regulated smog in the nine counties around San Francisco Bay - Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Napa, and portions of southwestern Solano and southern Sonoma counties.
The air district's board will begin discussing the rule as early as late February and could take a final vote by May.

Almost certain to draw controversy and national attention, the proposal is designed to raise $1.1 million a year, Broadbent said. It is not a "carbon tax," but a cost recovery fee, he said, because the money would not go into a general fund, but would be used instead to pay for the air district's global-warming-reduction programs.

The proposal also is being closely watched around the state, since it would represent the first time that companies have been hit with fees based on their greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly every program in the United States to reduce greenhouse emissions has been voluntary to date.

Environmentalists Friday called the proposal a watershed event.

"There are costs associated with emitting carbon dioxide, and the people who emit it should pay the costs," said Carl Pope, national executive director of the Sierra Club.

Pope noted that in April the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act just like other chemicals that cause smog. That changes everything, he said.

"That ruling is going to trigger a whole series of regulatory responses like this," Pope said. "This is the first one that has a fee associated with it. You are going to see fees, and emissions standards, and permits for coal-burning power plants turned down. The country has now decided we are going to clean up carbon dioxide like we clean up other types of air pollution."

Industry officials reacted warily to the plan.

Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association in Sacramento, said hitting oil refineries and power plants with fees could end up hitting consumers in the pocketbook.

"This proposal will raise the cost of producing energy and fuel for California consumers, and at a time when consumers have concerns about what they are paying," he said. "We can't say how much that is, but it is a significant concern."

Hull also said that if some of the other 30 air districts in California - or cities or counties - begin copying the idea, the state will have a confusing patchwork of rules right at the time it is trying to craft a statewide solution to global warming under a law signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger two years ago.

Under the proposal, all 10,000 "stationary sources" of air pollution that the air district regulates would be subject to the fee, including businesses and government agencies. They would pay it annually as part of getting their overall air quality permit renewed. Small businesses would pay perhaps $10 or less. Large businesses that burn lots of fuel and use large amounts of energy would see costs in the tens of thousands of dollars.

The fee does not affect homeowners or motor vehicles.

Of the 10 largest greenhouse gas emitters in the Bay Area, five are oil refineries in the Martinez-Richmond area, and four are large power plants in the same area. Only one, the Hanson Permanente Cement plant in Cupertino, isn't a power plant or oil refinery. The district has computed rankings on everything from landfills to the United Airlines maintenance facility at San Francisco International Airport, the 30th-largest Bay Area greenhouse-gas emitter, with 114,427 metric tons of greenhouse gases. It would have to pay $4,805 under the proposed rule.

Once a carbon fee is in place, critics worry, it could easily increase. But that's the best way to cut greenhouse gases, say some experts.

"I think this is tremendously gutsy," said Dan Kammen, a Harvard University-trained physicist who is director of renewable energy programs at the University of California-Berkeley.

"Emissions in California are still going up. All the nice paperwork is not going to make emissions go down until we put a price on what we don't want - which is greenhouse gas emissions."

Europe set up a carbon-trading market after its countries signed the Kyoto agreement. Under that "cap and trade" system, companies are limited in the amount of carbon dioxide they can emit. If they emit less, they can sell credits to other companies that exceed their limits. Currently, the market cost is about $40 a ton, Kammen noted. California is studying creating a similar carbon market, and all three leading presidential candidates - Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain - have said they support creating a national mandatory cap-and-trade program. Northeastern states also are setting up a similar market for power plants.

"What the air district is doing is what every economist knows is coming - but somebody has to go first," he said.

A majority of climate scientists agree that the Earth is warming because of the buildup in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, which trap heat. The 10 hottest years since modern records began being kept in the 1880s all have occurred since 1990, according to the National Climatic Data Center, a federal agency in North Carolina.

IF YOU'RE INTERESTED

To read the proposed rule, go to www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ruledev/workshops.htm

[NHSparky]

And the idiocy of the California moonbat pols continues--so who's gonna pay your already out****inrageous taxes when the last company in California shuts out the lights?

The illegals?

[CactusCarlos]

I would never claim to have any sort of business savvy, so I would greatly appreciate someone explaining to me why a business would want to be in California. 

[Chris_]

I would never claim to have any sort of business savvy, so I would greatly appreciate someone explaining to me why a business would want to be in California. 

Direct access to a lot of people.  But I think this will stampede many of the remainders out.

Hey, it isn't like we have an 18 BILLION dollar deficit or anything.  We can afford to jettison companies and individuals who pay most of the taxes.  No problem.

[vftb]

Watching the post primary speeches tonight I heard Hillary refer to "Green Collar Workers".  Did she coin that phrase or am I just out of touch.  Now there's hope for our financial future, an army of "Green Collar Workers" 

[CactusCarlos]

Watching the post primary speeches tonight I heard Hillary refer to "Green Collar Workers".  Did she coin that phrase or am I just out of touch.  Now there's hope for our financial future, an army of "Green Collar Workers" 

I don't know if she coined the phrase but that's like the second time I've heard it this week. 

[Uhhuh35]

Watching the post primary speeches tonight I heard Hillary refer to "Green Collar Workers".  Did she coin that phrase or am I just out of touch.  Now there's hope for our financial future, an army of "Green Collar Workers" 

"Green Collar" means the same jobs as before just with higher taxes. Money is green right?
And what's with California? I guess they want to accelerate the job loss there.

[Chris_]

I would never claim to have any sort of business savvy, so I would greatly appreciate someone explaining to me why a business would want to be in California. 

Direct access to a lot of people.  But I think this will stampede many of the remainders out.

Hey, it isn't like we have an 18 BILLION dollar deficit or anything.  We can afford to jettison companies and individuals who pay most of the taxes.  No problem.

The state is hemorraging jobs and population (except for the illegals), and I'm seeing local ads here in the midwest attempting to promote tourism to the state.......who'da thunk it.......not too many years ago, CA was a tourist mecca, and the "in" place to live.   The cost of housing has outstripped the income levels of workers, and the over-regulation is running off the employers......but the citizens still can't see the handwriting on the wall, and still keep electing the same socialists to do more of the same.....

It's a shame.....

doc

[Uhhuh35]

The state is hemorraging jobs and population (except for the illegals), and I'm seeing local ads here in the midwest attempting to promote tourism to the state.......who'da thunk it.......not too many years ago, CA was a tourist mecca, and the "in" place to live.   The cost of housing has outstripped the income levels of workers, and the over-regulation is running off the employers......but the citizens still can't see the handwriting on the wall, and still keep electing the same socialists to do more of the same.....

I read an article recently, I can't remember where, about the fact that California and NY are losing tourist business because of the perception that those places are no longer safe.

Gee, I wonder why? 

[Chris_]

I would never claim to have any sort of business savvy, so I would greatly appreciate someone explaining to me why a business would want to be in California. 

Direct access to a lot of people.  But I think this will stampede many of the remainders out.

Hey, it isn't like we have an 18 BILLION dollar deficit or anything.  We can afford to jettison companies and individuals who pay most of the taxes.  No problem.

The state is hemorraging jobs and population (except for the illegals), and I'm seeing local ads here in the midwest attempting to promote tourism to the state.......who'da thunk it.......not too many years ago, CA was a tourist mecca, and the "in" place to live.   The cost of housing has outstripped the income levels of workers, and the over-regulation is running off the employers......but the citizens still can't see the handwriting on the wall, and still keep electing the same socialists to do more of the same.....

It's a shame.....

doc

Bread and circuses.  Tax people like me into exodus and stand in line for the freebies.

[Doc]

The state is hemorraging jobs and population (except for the illegals), and I'm seeing local ads here in the midwest attempting to promote tourism to the state.......who'da thunk it.......not too many years ago, CA was a tourist mecca, and the "in" place to live.   The cost of housing has outstripped the income levels of workers, and the over-regulation is running off the employers......but the citizens still can't see the handwriting on the wall, and still keep electing the same socialists to do more of the same.....

I read an article recently, I can't remember where, about the fact that California and NY are losing tourist business because of the perception that those places are no longer safe.

Gee, I wonder why? 

Not only that, but a decent hotel room will set you back $400/night.....lotsa nice places to visit for a hell of a lot less......maybe  Arnold will start a program to attract more Mexican "tourists"......yeah, that'll work......

doc

[SilverOrchid]

I just wish SF would make themselves their own country and be done with it. I am sick of their crap and I am not alone here in the People's Republic of California.

[Lauri]

whose gonna pay for the volcano's massive carbon footprint when they burp every so often?

[Chris_]

whose gonna pay for the volcano's massive carbon footprint when they burp every so often?

No problem.  Berkeley has passed a law against volcanoes, so they won't erupt any more.

[Ptarmigan]

Global Warming is just another religion for those people. It's not different from religion. Those people who believe in Global Warming are spiritually void in their life. They have a so-called leader, in this case, Al Gore. Also, there is those carbon offset, which is like Indulgences offered by the Vatican. In the past, when bad things happened, like crop failure or disasters, they blamed evil spirits or a group of people for causing it. Just change it with Global Warming. Global Warming hysteria is not different from what happened in the past.

[Ptarmigan]

California has volcanoes, Mt. Lassen and Mt. Shasta. I've been to Mt. Lassen, beautiful scenery. Mt. Lassen is one the most active. May as well go after them. Volcanoes are big climate changers. Toba in Indonesia was supervolcano and its affect's are felt today. We all have the "Toba Gene"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

[Chris_]

California has volcanoes, Mt. Lassen and Mt. Shasta. I've been to Mt. Lassen, beautiful scenery. Mt. Lassen is one the most active. May as well go after them. Volcanoes are big climate changers. Toba in Indonesia was supervolcano and its affect's are felt today. We all have the "Toba Gene"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Well, if the Yellowstone Caldera lets go there won't be anyone left to enjoy the resulting scenery.

[Chris_]

Global Warming = evil spirits and bad juju 

[RightCoast]

Green Collar Workers


http://www.management-issues.com/2006/8/24/research/the-rise-and-rise-of-the-green-collar-worker.asp

[Lauri]

whose gonna pay for the volcano's massive carbon footprint when they burp every so often?

No problem.  Berkeley has passed a law against volcanoes, so they won't erupt any more.

have you heard that idea of putting up a giant mirror in space to reflect the suns output away from earth? I think it must have been a Coast 2 Coast show... but discounting the stupidity of that idea, i'm suprised the enviroweenies havnt suggested we cap all the volcanoes on the planet... just dump concrete in there.

that would work i think.. 

[Happy Fun Ball]

I remember someone suggesting a few years ago that we nuke the moon and send chunks of it toward the earth in hopes of reducing the tilt in the axis.

[Lacarnut]

Several years ago, Shell threathened to leave the state because of punitive taxes or measures against them. It might have been when Davis was in office when he botched energy contracts; the state backed down. That might happen this time around.

[Chris_]

whose gonna pay for the volcano's massive carbon footprint when they burp every so often?

No problem.  Berkeley has passed a law against volcanoes, so they won't erupt any more.

have you heard that idea of putting up a giant mirror in space to reflect the suns output away from earth? I think it must have been a Coast 2 Coast show... but discounting the stupidity of that idea, i'm suprised the enviroweenies havnt suggested we cap all the volcanoes on the planet... just dump concrete in there.

that would work i think.. 

Well, Berkeley is also suing the Sun for being the cause of GW.  Of course, they have to serve the summons on the Sun, so to avoid the heat they will serve it at night.