news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Climate legislation is both smart and right

Tuesday, October 27, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

Many thanks to Sen. Kay Hagan for stating her support for curbing global warming pollution in Mark Binker’s article, “Hagan and cabinet secretaries talk energy” (Oct. 20).

With more than 1,000 clean-energy businesses already in the state, North Carolina will benefit from limits on greenhouse gas pollution.

In fact, a recent study found that the clean energy and climate legislation moving through Congress would create as many as 11,000 jobs in North Carolina by the year 2020.

Recently, a team of Environment North Carolina organizers gave Sen. Hagan’s office more than 600 handwritten letters and a letter signed by more than 100 small businesses supporting repowering North Carolina with clean energy and slowing climate change.

For the short-term jolt our economy needs, and the long-term health of our planet, we hope Sen. Hagan will take her cue from these citizens and business leaders and support the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

Kassidee Fisher
Raleigh

The writer is a field associate for Environment North Carolina.

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

rahrah

October 27, 2009 - 4:23 am EDT

looks like we've got the trifecta today.

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 5:11 am EDT

how's school, rahrah?

rahrah

October 27, 2009 - 8:13 pm EDT

crap-tons of work.

ghost from white oak

October 27, 2009 - 10:00 am EDT

rahrah, it would appear you hit the nail on the head!

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 5:15 am EDT

I have seen where the wolf has slept by the silver stream.
I can tell by the mark he left you were in his dream.
Ah, child of countless trees.
Ah, child of boundless seas.
What you are, what you're meant to be
Speaks his name, though you were born to me,
Born to me,
Kassidee.

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 7:48 am EDT

Follow the money:

"The study also concludes that the cap-and-trade plan would raise much more money for the federal government than the official congressional estimate. The government would raise about $1.5 trillion by 2020 if it sold all carbon emissions allowances, according to the Brookings analysis. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that the House bill would raise $846 billion by selling or auctioning off carbon allowances by 2019."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/gdp-hit-found-with-cap-t...

The author didn't mention the jobs lost in the energy sector with this legislation nor the increase in energy costs we will all pay. Wonder why. We may as well put the entire state of WV on welfare rolls as the coal industry will be gone.

There will be some jobs created, those for consultants who help businesses navigate the confusing waters of govt. legislation. I've seen it before with consultants on OSHA, EPA, ADA, EEOC, etc. etc., it used to be quite profitable. Only problem is the number of businesses have declined and moved offshore.

It's difficult to have everyday low prices AND compliance with all of the regulations. It's interesting explaining to my kids why all their toys are made in China.

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 10:02 am EDT

"It's interesting explaining to my kids why all their toys are made in China."

.. let them read my posts and letter over the past 20 years as America accelerated towards manufacturing abandonment in favor of Every Day Low Prices ... all the while hearing from among other fellow N-R bloggers what a LIEbural Socialist Commie I was for speaking against the absolute beauty of capitalism.

==

I agree, follow the money .. except .. IF is a big word in meaning. I did not read the link, but your quote from the Brookings Institute has the work IF in a key location. As I understand it, the g-men decided to give away all the juicy allowances .. something about the strength of lobbiest and politics and re-elections ...

"The study also concludes that the cap-and-trade plan would raise much more money for the federal government than the official congressional estimate. The government would raise about $1.5 trillion by 2020 [IF] it sold all carbon emissions allowances, according to the Brookings analysis. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that the House bill would raise $846 billion by selling or auctioning off carbon allowances by 2019."

IF

==

The coal industry might be hurt .. or with higher revenues they might be motivated to clean up the stack or invent better technologies.

==

"There will be some jobs created ... Only problem is the number of businesses have declined and moved offshore."

Mover Off Shore? See 1st comment above.

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 1:15 pm EDT

"As I understand it, the g-men decided to give away all the juicy allowances."

I knew that. It's kinda like when you start a game of Monopoly the bank gives you some start up money. But you have to buy those houses and hotels.

IF is a big word, but have no doubt the govt. will make money off this and we will all pay for it, especially those who can least afford it.

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 1:54 pm EDT

What I was trying to say, Dan .. was if they are going to "sell" the allowances .. then they should sell all of them .. not pick & choose based on some logic ... which is never logical .. yet is typical g-man fashion ... and apparently what the current proposal allows.

==

.. and it's more like a game of Monopoly where the bank gives you & I start up money, but I also receive a 50% off deal on the houses and hotels .. a deal you are never offered.

An exact story: There are deals in place for Big Lot Stores (Lowes, Wal-mart's for example) where the incentive to plop the new store "here" is: Keep the 7% sales tax for period of xxx years. Yea you have to build the store (that's what banks are for) and meet payroll, but during that period of xxx years, the local (small) guy down the street has to pay his rent and payroll as well as turn over every bit of the sales tax he collects .. and the Big Box gets a significate 7% advantage.

It is also not uncommon after the xxx year grace period expires for the Big Box to simply shut down ... go on out ... and find another sweet deal gonna treat 'em with style ... at which point the Highly Compensated Owner sings, "ya gotta admit that that sweet sweet jelly's so good."

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 4:00 pm EDT

Well then we are in agreement. The freebies up front are but bait to lure the eeeeeevvvvvviiiiilllll corporations into the scheme.

What states are letting big boxes keep sales tax revenues? I was unaware of that. That's a little different from corporate welfare in the form of infrastructure and tax deductions i.e. Dell. See how well that worked out. I've always been against corporate welfare as it is unfair to the small to medium business owners who get nothing but unfair competition.

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 4:43 pm EDT

"Illinois leads the list with an annual revenue loss of $126 million. Texas is second at $89 million, followed by Pennsylvania at $72 million and Colorado at $68 million. Combining those with and without ceilings, we estimate that the 26 states providing retailer compensation lose a total of just over $1 billion a year."

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/skimming.pdf

References at the bottom

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 6:03 pm EDT

Illinois, surprise surprise.

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 4:33 am EDT

"Illinois, surprise surprise"

Well if partisan slant is your only interest, I gotta say I'm disapointed. Dan. There are so many legal "scams" out there that .. inho ... are ripping you & me off .. and all you note is 'bama land ??

==

P.S.: By some estimates, Walmart costs us $54,409,985.

2005 - Total # of Wal-Mart Employees in State: 49,956
2005 - Estimated # of Wal-Mart Workers on Medicaid: 6,598
2005 - Estimated # of Wal-Mart Dependents on State Health Programs: 4,027
2005 - 2005 - Estimated Total Cost; Federal & State:$54,409,985

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 11:36 am EDT

OK ... I read your link.

" .... lower the nation's gross domestic product in 2050 by 2.5 percent ... "

2.5% over a 40 year period? That's the lead line & concern? Gimme a break.

" ... net job loss would be 0.5 percent over the first 10 years"

0.5% loss of jobs over 10 years is the concern? Heck Wall Street's CDR's did ten times that in one year.

btw - here an official summary http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0608_climate_change_e...

and the real thing

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0724_carbon_morris_wilcoxen_mckib...

dcolin

October 27, 2009 - 11:21 am EDT

Danagain,

Credentials?
Any scientific background what so ever?
Chemistry,Physics,Math.

Climate warming?
You understand thermodynamics?

Even economics expertise?

If you show me some standing I might listen.

Qualifications, Qualifications Qualifications.

You are always so sure. Why?

Maybe God talks to.

Give me a reason to listen to you.

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 1:28 pm EDT

"If you show me some standing I might listen.

Give me a reason to listen to you."

Guess what David, I don't give a damn whether you "listen" to me or not. Besides, you aren't listening to me you are reading my posts.

Fwiw, this in an opinion blog in which many of us use links to illustrate facts and studies. I don't need to be a qualified climatologist in order to search and post studies on the internet.

If you are so concerned about qualifications you may want to check the lack thereof with your buddy algore. He holds a BA in Government, does that make him an expert on climate change?

I'll throw you a bone however, I worked with a company for 12 years that consulted with business on the myriad of OSHA and EPA regulations and have seen how detailed these regulations are. You do have to have specialists in these fields and many small to medium businesses do not have the resources for compliance so they use consultants.

J D R

October 27, 2009 - 1:38 pm EDT

... ... seen how detailed these regulations are ...

Amen on that. The funny thing is you comply exactly with Section V Paragraph 5, except Section IX Paragraph 3 tells you there is no need to comply with Section V Paragraph 5 if you are in compliance with Section II Paragraph 51 .. nothing cross referenced of course.

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 4:08 pm EDT

I would imagine this exists in your business as well. That company I worked for employed some very educated people, many of PhD. level, to assist companies with govt. regulations.

My favorite was the asbestos boom of the early 80's. Newsflash, asbestos is dangerous to breathe. Once that became wifely known everyone was scrambling to get the stuff out of their buildings, particularly the schools. Most of it was in areas students didn't even frequent, boiler rooms, crawlspaces, etc. but it didn't matter to the parents who were scared to death their shillrun (had to think of Neo) were going to die just by sitting in a class room. As you know asbestos is harmless as long as it is not disturbed.

That company made boat loads of money off of overseeing asbestos removal. The contractors had to have a 3rd party monitor the air during removal, inspect and do final air counts after removal to ensure it was clean. We were the 3rd party.

Instead of working at McDs flipping burgers I was in my space suit and respirator crawling under buildings to oversee these removal projects during the summers when the schools were closed. Here was a college student being paid $200/day (80's dollars) to do this work.

dcolin

October 27, 2009 - 10:54 pm EDT

Dan

"That company I worked for employed some very educated people, many of PhD. level, to assist companies with govt. regulations"

What is your point?

dcolin

October 27, 2009 - 9:38 pm EDT

No credentials.

Right?

Just opinions.

Al Gore is not popsting here.

How do you feel about the FAA and FDA

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 9:48 pm EDT

"Just opinions"

I thought an old man would have a bit more sense now. Get this David, letters to the editor are OPINION, why do you think they are printed on the op-ed page in the N&R instead of the front page?

Nice dodge on algore, you couldn't answer the question.

What are your credentials to post on climate change David? If you don't have any then don't post.

What are your credentials on the FAA David? If you don't have any then don't post. As a licensed pilot for over 20 years I do have quite a bit of knowledge regarding the FAA. I'll use your logic, if you are not a pilot or don't work for the FAA then you have no business offering an opinion about aviation. See how your argument works?

dcolin

October 27, 2009 - 9:56 pm EDT

Actually Dan you cofuse me.

I have not posted any opinions I have asaked questions.

As I said I don't consider my opinions on these complex subjects qualified.

I said nothing about the FAA I asked you?

You know my background.
Whats yours?

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 10:07 pm EDT

"Actually Dan you cofuse me."

A confused liberal isn't surprising.

"I have not posted any opinions I have asaked questions."

Exactly try to post some opinions instead of questioning the credentials of others.

"As I said I don't consider my opinions on these complex subjects qualified."

Then if you are not qualified then just remain silent instead of questioning the qualifications of others.

"I said nothing about the FAA I asked you?"

See my other post, I am very educated in aviation. Does the mean I can only post an opinion to letters regarding aviation?

"You know my background."

No I don't.

"Whats yours?"

Why does that matter? Why do you bother to "listen" to me?

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 10:00 pm EDT

Hey David, if you do not know what FSS, MEA, ILS, NDB, IFR, CTAF, AWOS, MDA, VOR, FBO, LOC, ADF, IAF, DME, RNAV, TDZE, APP, REIL, ATIS.....and I'll throw you a bone again.....GPS mean..... then you have no business commenting on aviation.

dcolin

October 27, 2009 - 10:29 pm EDT

Dan

Your right.
However
I havn't commented on aviation.
What are you ranting about.

By the way

What gets airplanes off the ground.

I thought it was an optical illusion.

danagain

October 27, 2009 - 11:13 pm EDT

Your right.

Thank you.

However
I havn't commented on aviation.
What are you ranting about.

Just using your logic, credentials you know.

By the way

What gets airplanes off the ground.

I thought it was an optical illusion.

Illustrates what you think.

Most people think it is under the wing that creates lift.

http://www.essortment.com/all/howdoairplane_rlmi.htm

dcolin

October 27, 2009 - 11:36 pm EDT

"Most people think it is under the wing that creates lift"

How?

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 3:52 am EDT

EVERYONE knows it is Bernoulli.

dcolin

October 27, 2009 - 10:38 pm EDT

FSS, MEA, ILS, NDB, IFR, CTAF, AWOS, MDA, VOR, FBO, LOC, ADF, IAF, DME, RNAV, TDZE, APP, REIL, ATIS.....and I'll throw you a bone again.....GPS

You majored in abbreviations.

dcolin

October 27, 2009 - 9:49 pm EDT

What is your expertise?

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search