In the Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee, business and environmental organizations, respectively, testified for and against dropping participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI--pronounced "reggie"). The program charges industry for carbon emissions and uses the funds to support alternative energy projects and energy conservation measures.
Business said RGGI was one of several government initiatives that have made New Jersey's electricity costs the highest in the nations. That, they say, has forced companies to leave the state and has kept new business away.
Environmentalists said that RGGI and funds created by Societal Benefits surcharges on consumers' electricity bills has helped propel New Jersey into the #2 spot in the nation for solar energy installations, has created new 'green energy' jobs, and has helped businesses reduce their energy costs through the installation of solar systems.
The state Chamber of Commerce argued that Ocean Spray's recent decision to relocate its manufacturing plant from Bordentown to Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley was at least partially driven by the Garden State's high energy costs. The Sierra Club countered with a claim that Budweiser would have closed its Newark brewery for the same reason except for a RGGI-funded solar installation that helped the company trim its energy bill.
The claims and counter claims went back and forth.
Two former RGGI champions--the state's Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey's largest energy company, PSE&G are now disavowing it.
Strong political undercurrents--local and national--are amping up the debate.
Sierra Club spokesman Jeff Tittel said that the governor's decision was influenced by the right-wing, GOP fundraising Koch brothers whom he described as "the largest mountain top miners in the United States."
An unbiased observer of yesterday's debate might have had difficulty deciding who and what to believe. But one thing is clear: We'll be hearing a lot reggie-talk in the months ahead.
Below, you'll find news stories about the meeting and about legislation that two Democratic committee chairmen are introducing to block the state's RGGI departure. That legislation also seeks to prevent the governor from transferring funds raised for alternative energy and conservation programs to other uses, like balancing the budget.
You can listen to hear the entire committee debate here.
Related:
Top DEP aide tells Assembly RGGI was ineffective
Your clean energy funds at work
N.J. Democrats try to lock in emissions deal
Have an opinion on the governor's RGGI decision, on the new legislation, or the climate change issue in general? Please share it with your fellow EP Blog readers via the comment box below. If one isn't visible, activate it by click on the tiny 'comments' line. If you encounter a problem, tell us at: editor@enviropolitics.com
Our most recent blog posts:
I am an MD, PhD , prior Assistant Professor of Medicine (University of Paris East), specialized in Environmental Medicine. I used to be on the Board of the CESAM (Centre d'Etudes Statistiques Appliquees a la Medecine), and also was representant of France to the RAC, and still sit as an Expert on the Genopole Expert Committee.
ReplyDeleteI am not scientifically convinced of "Global Warming". The fact that 3000 scientists (?) have signed a document, on the contrary, warns me that it is a concept, a petition, not a scientific fact, which would only require 1 to 3 or 4 scientists to present a solid demonstration.
However, as Cicero wrote:
"quaerere solebat 'cui bono' fuisset"'
in English :"one must only seek who is making money with this"
The CO2 fear , like the plague in the aura of the 11th century, is unsubstantiated.
But it has created incomes of zillions of dollars and euros (I did not add yens, because the Chinese are more intelligent than some others, and are gloriously trading as bankers the short and long aspects of CO2). I am not saying that pollution by PM 2.5 is not dramatically dangerous, and that they for instance, like European highways generate a lot of it. That is another story.
But:
1/ Global warming is modest or absent (specific arctic and antarctic issues are different),
2/ CO2 is in no way dangerous (http://www.healthvalue.net/CO2.html)
Draining the citizens money on false claims like "warmimg" and "CO2" might well go down into history (if Fukuyama allows it to persist somewhat)as the mediocre scam marking the beginning of the great decline of the Occidental World.
Dropping participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative could go down into History as the first day of our return to a world that fron Thales to Venkatraman Ramakrishnan,Thomas A. Steitz and Ada E. Yonath, has been on the forefront of SCIENCE, the forbidden tree.
I'm not sure I agree with what you say but I'm always open to an argument from anyone who can quote Cicero in the original Latin. :)
ReplyDeleteTony - your lie is tranparent.
ReplyDeleteEven following Cicero (aside from the fact that this is a sham criterion for evaluating science, which more enlightened principles dictate must be evaluated on the empirical merits), it's not the global warming scientists, but he global warming deniers who are are supporting the billion dollar profiteers.
Shame on you.