YellowBlue, the New Green

President Obama’s energy tax plan global warming fiasco

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31137

President Obama’s energy tax plan — a version of the failed European “cap and trade” global warming fiasco — may cost families $1,800 yearly in higher utility bills, far exceeding his promised $800 a year tax cut for 95% of Americans.

While campaigning, Obama admitted that his energy plan would cause electric bills to “skyrocket.” Few took note, perhaps because Sen. John McCain also backed some form of a “cap-and-trade” energy tax.

Obama’s official budget claims that his proposed energy tax would add $646 billion to energy costs over 8 years. But that’s low-balling it.

As the Washington Times reported:
President Obama’s climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion, nearly three times the White House’s initial estimate of the so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation, according to Senate staffers who were briefed by the White House. . . . At the meeting, Jason Furman, a top Obama staffer, estimated that the president’s cap-and-trade program could cost up to three times as much as the administration’s early estimate of $646 billion over eight years. Put another way, Furman estimates the cap-and-trade scheme will cost, on average, $250 billion annually. That estimate must be taken seriously because Furman is deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council.

So what does this mean to everyday Americans? Let’s put those numbers into context.

Total electricity sales (business and residential combined) run about $343 billion a year (according to 2007 Department of Energy figures). Throw in our other energy
expenses — gasoline, natural gas, etc. — and the U.S. Department of Energy estimates our total energy spending at “over $500 billion.”

So Obama’s $250-billion a year energy tax could approach a 50% increase in what you, as a consumer, pay for energy, since all costs are passed along to consumers.
Yet the Obama budget audaciously claims that it will “reduce utility bills”

According to the White Fence Index, the average home utility bill is $297 per month, which is about $3,600 per year. So a 50% increase would be $1,800 per year under
the Obama proposal. This far exceeds a Heritage Foundation projection of $467 a year in higher utility bills under an earlier U.S. Senate energy tax plan. That less-
aggressive plan, though, could have cost 500,000 to 1 million jobs, according to Heritage. Who knows how many jobs would be lost under Obama’s more
burdensome plan? The lost jobs would become “gangrene jobs,” a counter to Obama’s claim to create new “green jobs.”

The White House and Mr. Furman try to justify drastically higher energy costs by offsetting it with their plan to give 95% of American families a permanent $800 per
year “Making Work Pay” tax credit. (42% of that “tax cut” would actually go to people who don’t pay any income tax.) But even with the $800 subsidy, the net loss is $1,000 per family per year.

Obama also proposes to use the new energy tax to subsidize “green energy” technologies. The idea is to replace affordable nuclear and fossil energy sources with (far more expensive) renewal energy. Replacing cheap power with expensive power will raise energy costs even above the increase attributable to Obama’s energy tax.

Obama and his allies justify it all by claiming it’s necessary to save the planet from man-made global warming, even though the Earth for many years has been cooling
instead.

A recent Gallup poll found a record-high 41% of Americans now believe mainstream media exaggerate global warming dangers in their reporting. They are not alone.

The ranks of skeptics keep expanding among the experts as well. More than 800 experts who are dubious about environmental alarmism attended this month’s
International Conference on Climate Change. That group so far has gathered signatures of more than 31,072 American scientists who endorse this
conclusion: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Yet President Obama and his political allies in Congress are pushing aggressively for climate change legislation as a centerpiece of their agenda.

Americans angered by the big-spending liberal bent in Washington are already organizing tea parties in protest. In addition to making teabags the symbol of protest, perhaps thermometers should be included as well. Slogans such as, “Hands Off My Guns” may be replaced by “Hands Off My Thermostat.”

Nevertheless, one major man-made threat of global warming should never be overlooked — the quantity of hot air being emitted in Washington, DC.

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Cool Yellow Blue Pictures

Yellow Blue Teaser Video

Test Post for the Homepage

Vestibulum facilisis consectetur lacus ac adipiscing. Vivamus ut porta purus. Curabitur sit amet eros massa. Morbi vel augue ipsum. Curabitur in mi sed nisi ultricies commodo quis vel tortor. Etiam eu eros nibh, vitae commodo lacus. Etiam velit sapien, auctor eget convallis bibendum, viverra eget massa. Integer mauris nunc, adipiscing quis congue et, varius at eros.

Integer accumsan tellus at dui gravida ac consequat dui suscipit. Integer dapibus, nunc ut rutrum ornare, leo lectus pretium ipsum, id pretium nisi velit vel ante. Praesent eget arcu eget erat sodales posuere. Curabitur porttitor accumsan dictum. Praesent sit amet arcu ut nibh vulputate vehicula ac quis dolor. Sed vitae enim leo. Suspendisse urna leo, rhoncus vel dictum et, eleifend id tellus. Donec quis vestibulum purus.

Suspendisse lorem risus, volutpat vel vulputate quis, tempus ac augue. Sed lacinia, diam at interdum mattis, ipsum nulla posuere quam, id ultrices magna nunc ac sem. Proin non libero dictum arcu adipiscing scelerisque.

4th of July Parades, Fireworks, and Waste

It’s not the Fourth of July without a parade and fireworks — plus lots of trash and some not-so-healthy toxins and pollutants.

Parades generate trash.

Rhode Island prides itself on hosting the oldest parade in the nation. The Bristol tradition draws some 100,000 spectators, who leave behind about 64 tons of trash, according to the Department of Public Works.

Progress has been made in recent years to control waste by requiring vendors to haul out their own garbage. Stapling paper yard-waste bags to trees and telephone poles along the parade route also has encouraged spectators to help with the clean up of bottles, cups, balloons and other debris.

“We flood the parade route with those bags and it’s a huge help,” said Jim Sylvester of Bristol’s DPW.

None of the waste, however, is sorted for recyclables.

It’s not well known, or at least not well publicized, that fireworks — from sparklers to professionaldisplays — leave behind a fair amount of waste, while releasing noxious gases and heavy metals.

The large displays emit a fog of chemicals and toxins with various levels of health risks. Perchlorate is a widely used rocket propellent with a history of finding its way into groundwater. The toxin has been linked to thyroid irregularities, particularly in women, infants and children younger than 12.

Five years ago, Massachusetts became the first state to set protective standards for perchlorate in drinking water. And in 2008, at least three perchlorate firework displays around Cape Cod were identified as possible sources of drinking water contamination. In May, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued environmental recommendations “to minimize potential problems” with perchlorate, such as buying no- or low-perchlorate fireworks.

Rhode Island has yet to consider issuing similar guidelines on the health risks of fireworks, even though a 2010 law officially permits the backyard use of sparklers, smoke bombs and ground-based sparking devises. These over-the-counter fireworks emit many of the same pollutants, toxins and dioxins as the big shows and can be just as harmful to people, pets and the environment.

A 2006 report published in Atmospheric Environment concluded that fireworks displays create potent air pollution. “Although firework-related recreational pollution episodes are transient in nature, they are highly concentrated, contribute significantly to total annual metal emissions, and are on average fine enough to be easily inhaled and a health risk to susceptible individuals,” wrote Roberta Vecchi, author of the study.

Photo shows a pop-up store in East Providence capitalizing on fireworks that whistle, smoke and erupt with glittery and potentially hazardous chemicals.

Photo credit: Tim Faulkner/ecoRI News staff

Article continues: http://www.ecori.org/front-page-journal/2011/6/27/parades-and-fireworks-dependent-on-waste.html

 

ConEdison Study Reveals New Roles for Green Roofs

By now it’s become widely accepted that green roofs can help reduce heating and cooling costs for buildings, and evidence is mounting that they can provide tangible benefits in other areas as well. The latest piece of information comes from New York, for a green roof constructed by ConEdison, the city’s electric utility. The study, conducted in partnership with the Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, reveals that green roofs could play a much larger than role than previously expected in helping cities find cost effective ways to deal with excess storm water. That, in turn, provides building owners with new opportunities to participate in urban sustainability planning.

Stormwater runoff from urban areas is is significant source of pollution in nearby waterways. In older cities with combined sewer systems like New York, the problem is compounded because the normal flow of sanitary waste from buildings commingles with stormwater and snow melt from streets. Most treatment plants have enough capacity to handle some of the excess, but in heavy weather some of the excess flow has to be shunted directly into nearby waterways. In recent years the city has employed a variety of strategies to reduce these events, called “combined sewer overflows.” This includes the construction of large — and expensive — underground holding tanks.

The Green Roof Solution

New York has also explored the use of green roofs to trap excess stormwater, but previous studies suggested that this was not a cost-effective approach compared to other solutions. For this reason, the 2008 version of the city’s sustainability master plan, PlaNYC, gave green roofs an unfavorable cost-benefit ranking in terms of reducing combined sewer overflows. However, the new Con Edison green roof study (pdf) reveals just the opposite. The researchers determined that the roof was trapping about 22 times more stormwater on an annual basis than was previously thought possible, making it the most cost-effective solution available.

The Green Roof Advantage

The researchers point out that green roofs have a distinct advantage over holding tanks and other infrastructure. Holding tanks simply capture excess flow, which is eventually sent to a treatment plant. In contrast, the excess flow captured by green roofs eventually evaporates or is absorbed by its vegitation, so it never enters the treatment system at all. That helps to reduce energy consumption and other costs related to treatment systems.

Article continues: http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/con-edison-study-helps-define-benefits-green-roofs/

 

Economic Indicators Point Toward Growth in Renewable Energy

While scanning the horizon in sea of mostly grim economic news, I found three gems – – – news reports or economic indicators, if you will, that point to solid and profitable growth in the renewable energy sector of the economy in the near, 3-5 year term.

These indicators point toward a shift in the financing, production, consumption and distribution of alternative energy, predicated on advances in technology that will bring the productions costs down to a competitive plateau with conventional fossilfuels. I suspect the time it takes from “innovation in the laboratory” to diffuse into the commercial market place has to be reduced from years to months or less, in order for this to work. When investors like General Electric, Google, and MIT, direct research and investment on this scale – – – it just might tip the balance.

  • The cost benefit ratio of “coal fired” electricity vs “solar” will equalize or fall in favor of solar. In a recent report from Bloomberg news, Mr. Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co., predicts that solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels within 3-5 years. A combination of rising energy prices with lower production cost and higher efficiency will make solar cost competitive with conventional coal fired electric generation. General Electric (GE) plans to invest in “advanced” solar panel manufacturing and expects to open a plant in 2013, employing over 400 people and make enough solar panels to power 80,000 homes. If this business plan unfolds as predicted, watch for explosive growth on all fronts the Solar industry. See full report:www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html
  • Major advance in battery technology will change the automotive playing field. The “energy density” ratio of stored battery power vs liquid fossil fuel will get closer giving the battery powered automobile the range you’d expect from a tank of gas – – – with much faster re – charging time. In a press release from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology dated June 6, 2011, researchers announced they have devised a radical new approach to battery construction that provide an inexpensive, smaller, and lighter, alternative to existing battery technology. This is the “breakthrough” technology needed to make electric vehicles affordable and practical. To see the technical details and read full press release go to; http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/flow-batteries-0606.html
  • New financing models from GOOGLE brings solar to roof tops

Google recently announced a $280 million partnership with California installer, Solar City, (www.solarcity.com) to set up a financing model that offers residents a roof top solar system for no money down. In exchange, customers agree to pay a set price for the power produced by the panels. This is largest solar initiative of its kind in US that will facilitate cost competitive utility scale power generation and distribution to thousands of homes.

To date, GOOGLE has invested over $680 million in renewable energy projects, with the goal of making the company a “net zero” user of electric power. This corporate philosophy is based on the bottom line premise that solar will cost the consumer less than conventional fossil or nuclear. We will all be watching this project to see how it plays out, both in KWh generated and return on investment. If this investment model works for GOOGLE, then maybe, other corporate investors will follow. See full press release; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110614/ap_on_hi_te/us_google_solar

 

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera