From Rob Bolman:
Hi[City Planner]Keli[Osborne],[City Councilor]Bonny[Bettman] & [City Sustainability Manager] Felicity[Fahy],
If other cities can take bold steps to tackle big problems, then what is wrong with Eugene?
Please forward this to the Sustainability Commission.
Rob
robtb@efn.org
**********
Portland Unveils Carbon Tax Plan
By Dylan Rivera, The Oregonian, Nov 8, 2007.
"In a bold move to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions from the Portland area, city officials plan to charge builders hundreds of dollars for each new home that is not extremely energy efficient. And it would require, as part of every existing home sale, that an energy efficiency report be done by home inspectors. Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the carbon fee and inspection requirement would levy taxes upon builders who merely comply with the energy efficiency requirements of the Oregon building code, already one of the most stringent in the nation. It would then pay cash rewards to developers who make buildings that save at least 45 percent more energy than the code requires. The plan will go before Portland residents, in hearings, in
January. With passage, the carbon-fee rules would be in place by 2010... Mayor Tom Potter... said he supports it. The news was immediately big in Chicago but not yet announced in Portland, where it is designed to significantly influence development. 'This is obviously an ambitious and potentially controversial undertaking, but with the new urgency and call to action on issues around global warming, this is the type of policy that Portland needs to be a leader,' [said City Commissioner Dan Saltzman who announced the plan for Portland in Chicago on Tuesday
night at the Greenbuild International Conference and Expo]. The plan also helps maintain the city's reputation nationally as a hotbed of green living and stokes a friendly competition with Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco and Austin, Texas -- cities that regularly seek to out-green each other."
May 2nd, 2008
Whats wrong with Eugene?
Whats wrong with Eugene? The answer to that is very simple. The idea that a "carbon tax" will solve or help anything is so ill informed and so totally wrong, that it gives new meaning to the word lunacy. Lets go ahead and give credence to the greatest hoax, well meaning, self annointed "intellectuals", have ever foisted on the gullable public. The idea that we can curb global warming through some sort of illegal and immoral wealth confiscation program is so detremental to the public welfare that I could write pages describing how stupid this idea is. It is akin to treating cancer with mercury. Like most scams perpetrated by self aggrandizing hypocrytes, this plan sets out to undermine hard working property owners and investors who help create opportunities for those trying to improve their lives. As usual, the people paying the highest price for this ill concieved idea, are those in the worst economic situations. Lets go ahead and destroy ourselves from within to make all the do-gooders feel good about themselves with out any consideration of the real consequences of the disastrous results of the "solutions" that are proposed. This is one more, in a long line of wrongheaded ideas, that define how far down the evolutional ladder you idiots are trying to drag us.
May 2nd, 2008
Re: From Rob Bolman: Why Not A Carbon Tax in Eugene??
You are subscribed to Post Carbon Eugene, Oregon group mailing list.
To view this group on the web, visit The Post Carbon Eugene, Oregon Home Page
To Unsubscribe from this list visit your My Subscription page for the group
May 7th, 2008
Carbon tax repackaging
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmental predictions that some would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
May 8th, 2008
Re: Carbon tax repackaging
well putTo view this group on the web, visit The Post Carbon Eugene, Oregon Home Page
To Unsubscribe from this list visit your My Subscription page for the group
May 7th, 2008
Re: Carbon tax repackaging
May 8th, 2008
Re: Carbon tax repackaging
A currency based on carbon makes infinitely more sense than the present debt-based fiat currency we enjoy (?).
Fergus
To view this group on the web, visit The Post Carbon Eugene, Oregon Home Page
To Unsubscribe from this list visit your My Subscription page for the group