*2 Day Diet progress follows post
Climate Change is back in the news, and it seems like,
except for a few die-hards on right wing talk radio, the conversation is
finally changing from whether it’s real to what to do about it. It started on
May 6 with the release of the National Climate Assessment (I recommend visiting the website), a comprehensive
document which confirms that everything most of us saw was happening to be
true: the climate is changing; it’s the result of burning fossil fuels; severe
weather and droughts are becoming more severe and more frequent; they will continue
to get worse unless global emissions are severely reduced (and maybe even if
they are); and human health, water supply, infrastructure, agriculture, oceans,
and indigenous peoples are all threatened.
And now, after years of Congressional inaction, the EPA has
proposed regulations forcing states to confront the emissions from power plants
in an effort to reduce carbon emissions by 30% of 2005 levels by 2030. It
sounds like a lot, but in fact we are already almost halfway there because of
rules in place for new power plants and competition from cheaper natural gas.
Contrary to rhetoric from those who scream, “War on Coal” this merely continues
the retirement of older coal-fired power plants that cannot meet current
standards and encourages a better mix of energy sources. Coal is still expected
to supply about 30% of America’s energy needs. These regulations do nothing to
control carbon emissions from other sources such as vehicles, homes, and
factories. It is not a comprehensive carbon policy.
Republicans and some Democratic lawmakers in coal states
like ours complain about EPA overreach, but a recent poll by the Washington
Post showed 70% of Americans willing to pay more for electricity to lower
carbon emissions. Lawsuits will be filed in an effort to stop or delay
implementation. But if lawmakers don’t think we should be regulating carbon
emissions, there are proposals for market-based solutions to a problem that
even they are finally having to admit exists and must be addressed. The one
most likely to be palatable to Republicans is referred to as a “Revenue Neutral
Carbon Fee.” It also referred to as a carbon tax, but most Republicans prefer
the word fee, even though the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the individual
health insurance mandate equated the two words.
If this were to become law, the cost of emitting carbon
would be applied to every household and business in America and also to imports
from countries that did not adopt a similar fee. This fee, or tax, would start
low, but increase every year for ten years giving businesses a predictable cost
curve. And the revenue neutral part means the government would not keep the
fees. Instead, it would return the money equally to every citizen of the United
States. This would offset the costs for those who use a moderate amount of
carbon and would even pay a dividend to some households, who, for instance, do
not own a car.
While I would support allowing government to withhold some
of the revenue to use to offer aid to those whose jobs may be lost and for
alternative energy production, this legislation offers Republicans a way to decrease
carbon emissions without expanding government, without regulations, and that is
market based. We should urge all of our state and national lawmakers and the
candidates to consider this proposal. You can learn more about it at citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-tax.
My 2-Day Diet Progress Week 30, June 2, 2014
Beginning weight 11/3/13: 209 lbs.
Height 5'8" Age: 62
Goal weight: 165 lbs.
Total loss goal: 44 lbs.
Beginning waist size: 43 in.
Current waist size: 38 in.
Weight end of this week: 177 lbs.
Gain/Loss this week: +1 lb.
Total Gain/Loss: -32 lbs.
No comments:
Post a Comment