CAP AND TRADE REALLY WORKS

RGGI Cap-And-Trade Boosted State Economies: Report

Connecticut has invested energy credits in green jobs and sustainable energy. Hails program a success.
New York on the other hand has tragically squandered its credits to plug the budget deficit gap! What a waste, taking the easy way out.

RGGI Cap-And-Trade Boosted State Economies: Report

The Huffington Post Joanna Zelman Posted: 03/ 1/11 02:39 PM

Read More: Cap And Trade, Cap-And-Trade, Climate Change, Ct Rggi, Nh Rggi, Politics, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Repeal Rg, Rggi, Rggi Ct, Green News

If cap-and-trade is truly dead, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is desperately fighting to resuscitate it.
RGGI was formed by ten states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, focused on reducing CO2 emissions through cap-and-trade programs. RGGI reported this week that state programs have already seen many economic and environmental benefits.
States are expected to sell emission allowances through auctions, and invest their proceeds in consumer benefits. Participating states are reportedly investing, on average, 80 percent of their CO2 allowance proceeds to consumer benefit and energy programs. The report's findings are based on a two-year analysis of program investments, specifically focused on energy efficiency, renewable energy, bill payment assistance, and additional programs.
Overall the report finds that state investments have created jobs, reduced energy costs, and generated high economic returns.
The states have taken different approaches to achieve their communal goal of reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector 10 percent, by 2018. For example, in Connecticut, while most proceeds from CO2 allowances are going towards expanding programs focused on efficient and renewable energy, a small portion of their proceeds are aimed at additional climate programs. Nearly 70 percent of their investments are focused on energy efficiency, with 23 percent for renewable energy, and seven percent for other programs and administration.
The Energy Conservation Management Board (ECMB) runs energy efficiency programs in Connecticut. The ECMB consists of 14 members who advise the state's three electric distribution companies on programs that are both cost-effective and energy efficient. Programs are focused on public outreach, process improvement, and workforce development.
Reports show that between 2008 and 2009, these CT programs produced $3 to $4 for every $1 invested. Nearly 2,700 jobs are directly attributed to energy efficiency, with an average employment income of $50,000 per year. ECMB's energy efficient programs also reportedly benefit low-income consumers -- through auditing, weatherization, and retrofitting programs, consumers saw an estimated $6 million dollars in annual energy savings.

Story continues below

Advertisement

Regarding renewable energy programs in CT, the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF) is focused on promoting clean energy sources. Last year, 14 schools and seven town buildings approved projects to install solar PV systems with CO2 allowance proceeds. RGGI estimates that these systems will produce nearly 1,500 megawatt-hours of electricity annually.
Connecticut also has a Small Business Energy Advantage Program (SBEA) focused on enabling small business owners to reduce their energy budgets. 1,900 businesses received assessments and upgrades in 2010, which saved participants over $5.8 million annually. According to RGGI, the upgrades also prevented nearly 18,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year.
The report offers the following story:

Chick's Drive-In, a landmark restaurant in West Haven, Connecticut, was just one of nearly 1,900 small businesses to benefit from SBEA in 2010. Through SBEA, the restaurant received financial incentives for the purchase and installation of more efficient lighting and refrigeration equipment. As a result, the owner Joseph "Chick" Celentano is now saving hundreds of dollars on his electricity bill each month. The eatery will save 468,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity--the equivalent of planting 56 acres of trees or saving more than 17,000 gallons of gas--over the lifetime of the new equipment.

But not everyone paints as rosy a picture as RGGI. Reports found that states such as New York and New Jersey aimed to divert green energy funds toward saving their budgets. The Sierra Club's Jeff Tittel remarks on the raid, "Unfortunately, once government discovers a new source of money, it's like a potato chip: They keep going back for more."
Just yesterday, a Fox News headline gleefully gloated, "One Giant Leap Forward - New Hampshire Smacks Down Cap-And-Trade." The op-ed highlighted New Hampshire's House of Representatives newly passed vote to repeal RGGI, with House Speaker William O'Brian claiming, "The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has always been a backdoor tax increase on the citizens of New Hampshire. RGGI is a perfect example of the cost of regulation to the public. Rarely has a program been as transparent in its attempts at income redistribution."
It seems that New Hampshire's House of Representatives may reflect U.S. Republican House sentiments overall. While 10 states may be participating in cap-and-trade initiatives, recent election results make it highly unlikely that a federal cap-and-trade program will be implemented in the near future.
Overall, while many consider the recent RGGI report a success story, skeptics remain dubious. Only time will tell if the programs can sustain themselves and inspire other states to follow suit.

Kuddle up to Kindle--$139

DON'T FORGET TO RECYCLE YOUR OLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS!

Another Huge Offshore Windfarm In Europe

 Wind, solar, whatever! The Europeans and Chinese understand the need for sustainable, renewable forms of energy. Do we have to become a 3rd world nation before we get it? This is a much more important issue for America than we give it credit for. Let's wake up people(and our elected officials). This means jobs, cleaner air for our children, moving forward with new technology. Please let's stop bickering before it's to late.

Dong Energy Commits to German 320 MW Offshore Windfarm

Monday, 28 February 2011 10:40 Industrial Info resources

EMAIL

PRINT

FAVORITES

TWITTER

LINKEDIN

FACEBOOK

SHARE

Galway. Dong Energy A/S (Fredericia, Denmark) has announced that the company is going ahead with the construction of its first offshore windfarm in German waters. The Borkum Riffgrund 1 windfarm in the German part of the North Sea will cost approximately 1.25 billion euros ($1.72 billion) and will have a generating capacity of up to 320 megawatts (MW), making it one of the largest German offshore projects to date. Construction is expected to begin in 2013, with the first power expected in 2014. When complete, the windfarm, which will be located 55 kilometres from the German coast, will be capable of generating enough electricity for 330,000 homes. Borkum Riffgrund 1will give Dong a strong foothold in the growing German offshore energy sector. Last month, French energy supplier Areva SA (EPA:CEI) (Paris, France) received a 400 million-euro ($519 million) turbine order for the Borkum West II offshore windfarm, which is 45 kilometers off the northern coast of the island of Borkum in the German North Sea. The order is for 40 of Areva's M5000 turbines, rated at 5 MW each, with provision for 40 additional M5000 turbines to be supplied through 2011. For related article, see January 10, 2011, article - Germany's Largest Offshore Windfarm Progresses.
Dong Energy CEO Anders Eldrup said: "Borkum Riffgrund 1 will be Dong Energy's first offshore windfarm in Germany. I am confident that Dong Energy, as a market leader within offshore wind, will be able to play a vital role in the interesting and fast developing German market."
The Borkum Riffgrund 1 windfarm will use 89 turbines from Siemens Energy AG (Erlangen, Germany), each with a rated capacity of 3.6 MW and a rotor diameter of 120 meters. In addition, Siemens has signed a five-year service, maintenance and warranty agreement for the units.
René Umlauft, CEO of Siemens' Renewable Energy Division, said: "The first wind power project in German waters for Dong Energy, the world's leading operator of offshore windfarms, clearly shows that offshore wind power is now also gaining momentum in Germany. In fiscal 2010, onshore wind power business accounted for more than 60%."
Borkum Riffgrund 1 is Siemens' fifth order for the construction of an offshore windfarm in German waters, coming after EnBW Baltic 1 (48 MW), EnBW Baltic 2 (288 MW), Borkum Riffgat (108 MW) and Dan-Tysk (288 MW).
Germany's first offshore windfarm, Alpha Ventus, which has a generating capacity of 60 MW, was commissioned in April 2010, generating enough power for 50,000 homes. The facility is owned by a consortium of companies, including E.ON AG (OTC:EONGY) (Dusseldorf, Germany); Vattenfall Europe, which is part of Swedish utility Vattenfall AB (Stockholm, Sweden); and EWE AG (Oldenburg), a German energy and gas provider. For related news, see April 29, 2010, article - Germany Commissions First Offshore Windfarm.

Posted by Ordons News Team, write to editors@ordons.com

House Quashes Rules On Student Debt at For-Profit Colleges

House Quashes Rules On Student Debt at For-Profit Colleges

ONCE AGAIN REPUBLICANS IN THE 'HOUSE' TAKE THE SIDE OF SCHOOLS THAT EXPLOIT THE MIDDLE CLASS AND LOW INCOME STUDENTS.

You've all seen the late night TV ads for colleges(formerly trade schools) that advertise their programs for great jobs in the industries of the future such as "medical bill", "pharmacy assistant" or "IT Specialist". They claim that these jobs will secure a good future for those students that want to improve themselves but don't qualify for a 4 year or community college.
In an effort to add consumer protection to these claims the Department of Education and the Obama Administration proposed disclosure legislation called the "gainful employment rule". This would allow the DOE to cut off Federal loan funding for those programs which did not actually provide a proven career path as promised. You see most of these for profit schools make most of their money from the tuition secured by Federal student loan programs offered to students trying to improve their future. Experience has shown that some of these programs--not entire schools--do not provide the education needed to get a job that pays well enough to provide for a good future. And since these students are burdened with thousands of dollars of student debt they eventually default on these Federally insured loans which taxpayers have to pay for. The default rate on these loans is significantly higher than for the not for profit colleges and yet the for profit colleges can make up to 90 percent of their profits from these loans. Additionally tuition costs at these schools is approximately twice as high as a 4 year school and 5 times as much as a community college.
The Republicans in the HOUSE and some Democrats have come down on the side of the for profit schools which have-by some coincidence-increased their lobbying efforts in Congress. This is a very cynical attitude about education and improving the employment capabilities of marginal but ambitious students.
The HOUSE has already done the dirty deed but that doesn't mean you can't call your Representatives and tell them how you feel. The Senate has not done anything yet so there may still be some time to have them revitalize the "gainful employment rule"--that is unless you look forward to helping out the for profit schools at taxpayer expense--again. Read the full article in the Huffington Post.

iPad Your Future

Facing Foreclosure Without Missing A Payment: One Couple's Housing Nightmare

Facing Foreclosure Without Missing A Payment: One Couple's Housing Nightmare

This could happen to anyone, but if you're in the middle class you have a much higher risk!
Published by the HuffingtonPost, this article about a young couple who paid the mortgage on their dream home on time received a notice of foreclosure!!! Read this article. If you have a similar experience or you are being negatively impacted by the economy please send your story to: lettersfromthemiddleclass@gmail.com. I will do my best to let the world know. I promise.

Obama's Big Budget Cut Proposals Target The Poor
Read the Huffpost article for full coverage.
A short shout out to anyone listening. One of the items to be cut in the budget, by 50 percent, is funding for LIHEAP = Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This will most likely cause the death of people who cannot afford to pay for all of their heating fuel. The states won't be able to pick up the slack since they are also broke. It is imperative that everyone call their Representatives and Senators to prevent cuts in LIHEAP.
http://huff.to/h9p65J

IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT TRYING TO ENSLAVE THE MIDDLE CLASS ...JUST CONNECT THE DOTS

Op-Ed Columnist

The New Voodoo

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: December 30, 2010

• e
  • Linkedin
  • Digg
  • Mixx
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Permalink
  • 
    

Hypocrisy never goes out of style, but, even so, 2010 was something special. For it was the year of budget doubletalk — the year of arsonists posing as firemen, of people railing against deficits while doing everything they could to make those deficits bigger.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

Go to Columnist Page »

Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal

And I don’t just mean politicians. Did you notice the U-turn many political commentators and other Serious People made when the Obama-McConnell tax-cut deal was announced? One day deficits were the great evil and we needed fiscal austerity now now now, never mind the state of the economy. The next day $800 billion in debt-financed tax cuts, with the prospect of more to come, was the greatest thing since sliced bread, a triumph of bipartisanship.
Still, it was the politicians — and, yes, that mainly meant Republicans — who took the lead on the hypocrisy front.
In the first half of 2010, impassioned speeches denouncing federal red ink were the G.O.P. norm. And concerns about the deficit were the stated reason for Republican opposition to extension of unemployment benefits, or for that matter any proposal to help Americans cope with economic hardship.
But the tone changed during the summer, as B-day — the day when the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy were scheduled to expire — began to approach. My nomination for headline of the year comes from the newspaper Roll Call, on July 18: “McConnell Blasts Deficit Spending, Urges Extension of Tax Cuts.”
How did Republican leaders reconcile their purported deep concern about budget deficits with their advocacy of large tax cuts? Was it that old voodoo economics — the belief, refuted by study after study, that tax cuts pay for themselves — making a comeback? No, it was something new and worse.
To be sure, there were renewed claims that tax cuts lead to higher revenue. But 2010 marked the emergence of a new, even more profound level of magical thinking: the belief that deficits created by tax cuts just don’t matter. For example, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona — who had denounced President Obama for running deficits — declared that “you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.”
It’s an easy position to ridicule. After all, if you never have to offset the cost of tax cuts, why not just eliminate taxes altogether? But the joke’s on us because while this kind of magical thinking may not yet be the law of the land, it’s about to become part of the rules governing legislation in the House of Representatives.
As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, the incoming House majority plans to make changes in the “pay-as-you-go” rules — rules that are supposed to enforce responsible budgeting — that effectively implement Mr. Kyl’s principle. Spending increases will have to be offset, but revenue losses from tax cuts won’t. Oh, and revenue increases, even if they come from the elimination of tax loopholes, won’t count either: any spending increase must be offset by spending cuts elsewhere; it can’t be paid for with additional taxes.
So if taxes don’t matter, does the incoming majority have a realistic plan to cut spending? Of course not. Republicans say that they want to cut $100 billion in spending, which is itself small change in a $3.6 trillion federal budget. But they also say that defense, Medicare and Social Security — all the big-ticket items — are off the table. So they’re talking about a 20 percent cut in what’s left, which includes things like running the judicial system and operating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; they have offered no specifics about where the cuts will fall.
How will this all end? I have seen the future, and it’s on Long Island, where I grew up.
Nassau County — the part of Long Island that directly abuts New York City — is one of the wealthiest counties in America and has an unemployment rate well below the national average. So it should be weathering the economic storm better than most places.
But a year ago, in one of the first major Tea Party victories, the county elected a new executive who railed against budget deficits and promised both to cut taxes and to balance the budget. The tax cuts happened; the promised spending cuts didn’t. And now the county is in fiscal crisis.
Now the federal government has a lot more flexibility than a county government: it needn’t, and shouldn’t, balance its budget each year. The deficits of the past two years have actually been a good thing, helping to support the economy in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
But Nassau County shows how easily responsible government can collapse in this country, now that one of our major parties believes in budget magic. All it takes is disgruntled voters who don’t know what’s at stake — and we have plenty of those. Banana republic, here we come.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 31, 2010, on page A23 of the New York edition.

Connect with The New York Times on Facebook.