BOARD UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSES: “AMERICAN POWER ACT” (THE NEW CAP & TRADE BILL)
Senators Kerry and Lieberman have introduced a new version of the "cap & trade" energy tax which is now patriotically called the "American Power Act." At their June meeting, the seven IREA board members voted unanimously to oppose this legislation.
Like the earlier failed cap & trade bill, this legislation calls for a 17% reduction in CO2 below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% by 2050. To put this in perspective, the last time the U.S. produced so little carbon-based energy was 1867. For each individual, this would mean a huge reduction in standard of living and quality of life.
The bill calls for the cost of "emission permits" to double in ten years and continue to increase yearly thereafter, so the expense would be astronomical. Energy costs would increase by trillions of dollars, plus there would be trillions of dollars in added costs for food and other products because of the increased energy costs for producing food products and the manufacturing all other products.
Furthermore, even if this level of reduction were possible, it is estimated that these draconian measures would reduce temperatures only 1/15th of a degree Fahrenheit by 2050 and 1/5th of a degree Fahrenheit by the year 2100.
The only positive aspect of this legislation would be its support for nuclear energy, but environmentalists have vowed to have this support removed and to fight the construction of any new nuclear plants.
The board resolution (the complete text can be found on our web site) also noted that the "science of climate change is far from resolved, with prominent scientists disagreeing on the extent to which CO2 increases influence climate and especially whether mankind has any meaningful impact."
Not wanting to waste a crisis, the administration seems determined to link passage of this bill to the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Readers are reminded that oil supplies only 1% of our electric generation (see chart, next column), thus claims that increasing electricity production from wind and solar sources will "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" are specious. Increased use of electricity may prove key to reducing oil imports, but to reach that goal we will need more reliable, efficient base load generation resources. The bill burdens those resources with additional costs.
This is but another effort to force a reduction in energy use by raising the cost of electricity. Xcel Energy is doing this now by implementing a tiered rate structure. Xcel's residential consumers using more than 500 kWh of electricity each month will now pay DOUBLE the kWh charge for any energy above that level. Since the average Colorado consumer uses 750 kWh per month (according to the Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities), this policy will increase rates almost 18% for the average user.
IREA members are already being responsible by voluntarily conserving energy. We speak to individuals every day who are installing compact-fluorescent light bulbs, adding weather stripping and insulation, replacing old windows, and taking other efficiency measures. They tell us they are doing what they can and they just want us to keep electric rates down. We are listening to our member-consumers and we will continue to do everything in our power — including fighting senseless and expensive cap & trade legislation — to keep rates down.
TOP TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY
1. While temperatures rose in the 20th century, why did most of the warming occur in the first half of the century and earlier, when fewer fossil fuels were burned? North America warmed substantially between 1850 and 1930. But in 1971 a spokesman for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, while noting that global temperatures had fallen during the previous 20-30 years, claimed that industrial pollution would soon reduce the global temperature by 3.5°C.
2. According to the Institute of Economic Analysis in Moscow, the IPCC's Hadley Climate Unit ignored 40% of the data from Russian temperature measurement sites while only using data from sites that supported the hypothesis of global warming. What change did this cherry-picking of sites have on our ability to accurately measure surface temperatures?
3. The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great importance in the global warming debate. The Surface Station Project has spent years documenting official surface temperature monitors in the United States and found that, due to encroachment from heat sources, "89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." [surfacestations.org]. So, if global warming is occurring, why is it measurable only on the surface (where monitors are subject to "Urban Heat Effect") and not in the atmosphere?
4. Where is the "Hot Spor that was predicted by climate models? Computer models and theoretical expectations have predicted that increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases should lead to pronounced warming in the troposphere. The predicted "hot spot" has not been found. Either no warming is occurring, or climate models are not able to accurately predict climate change (which makes them worse than useless).
5. The Earth has cooled 0.74°F since Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. Also, there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. Why can't climate models account for the latest cooling trend?
6. Why is the sea level rise lagging behind predictions of approximately 14 inches this century? Antarctica isn't melting, and ocean temperatures seem to be going down recently, so water isn't expanding. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
7. Why did climate scientists feel it necessary to manipulate data and suppress dissent ("Cli-mateGate") if their position is unassailable?
8. Why don't climate models acknowledge a link between solar activity and global temperatures? Researcher Dr. Timothy Patter-son, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, finds "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations and past climate changes. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.
9. CO2 exists in nature and is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth, and increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. How can the Environmental Protection Agency declare it a pollutant?
10. Are polar bears really in danger? Actually, polar bear populations have increased 400-500% since 1950. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.
IREA OFFICERS, DIRECTORS AND GENERAL MANAGER
TIMOTHY WHITE, President
SIDNEY HANKS, Vice President
EUGENE M. SPERRY, Secretary/Treasurer
GEORGE R. HIER, Asst. Sec./Treas.
JAMES DOZIER, Director
BRUFF SHEA, Director
MIKE KEMPE, Director
STANLEY R. LEWANDOWSKI, JR., Gen. Mgr.
INTERMOUNTAIN RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
5496 North U.S. Highway 85
Sedalia, CO 80135
303-688-3100
www.intermoutain-rea.com
One copy by: Schaffernews@Deertrailco.net 7/14/2010 12:07 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment