Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden released an ambitious and expensive ($1.7 trillion) plan to reduce carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050. He would pay for it by rolling back corporate tax cuts spearheaded by Republicans. He'd also rejoin the Paris Climate Accord his first day in office. In stark contrast to Biden, the Trump administration has done its best to dismantle every environmental protection enacted by his predecessors. Unless a huge Democratic majority is elected in both the Senate and the House, it's highly doubtful that Biden's plan will ever become reality. But there's hope. While our so-called national leaders scoff at the science behind man-made climate change, local governments are beginning to wake up.Even here in the Lehigh Valley.Last month, Northampton County became the first in the state to adopt a clean energy financing tool enabling property owners to obtain low-cost, long-term financing for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation projects. It's called C-PACE.
On Monday night, in Bethlehem Tp, Commissioner John Gallagher had two environmental proposals. He wants to establish an Environmental Advisory Council. He pointed out that the township would "get points" in the state mandate to reduce sedimentation if it establishes a Council. While other Commissioners want to review the proposal, no one spoke against it.
In addition, Gallagher asked Commissioners to adopt a policy to purchase electric or hybrid vehicles for the Township's non-emergency fleet. This consists of about 10 vehicles. The Township has no need for non-emergency vehicles at the moment, but Council President Michael Hudak promised to bring this up when the need arises.
Perhaps the most ambitious proposal comes from Bethlehem,which does have an Environmental Advisory Council. It is chaired by Lynn Rothman, and she urged Bethlehem City Council to take action on a solar ordinance her group proposed in late April. If enacted, it would require commercial projects equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet, or that contain 10 or more residential units, to be energized with solar panels if an assessment determines that it is feasible. This is similar to an ordinance enacted in Watertown, Ma.
Unlike a meaningless plastic straw ban, this proposal actually would reduce Bethlehem's carbon footprint. But at what cost? Would construction costs result in higher rents? At the end of the meeting, Council member Olga Negron went on a crying jag as she complained about her inability to find an affordable apartment on the south side. So Council needs to determine whether this proposal could exacerbate Bethlehem's affordable housing problem.
Biden copied and pasted a bunch of unattributed stuff, and his staff had to walk back the plagiarism - again.
ReplyDeleteAsk Rothman and the EAC how they feel about the inexcusable system of hauling trash in Bethlehem. 21 different trash haulers drive up the same street every week. Those garbage trucks spew more carbon into the air every week than any house or condo carbon footprint!!
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to electricity,green energy costs about 50% more. Sell that to those on a fixed income.
ReplyDeleteCarbon tax!
ReplyDeleteThen blame Trump and oil companies for how expensive gasoline and home heating becomes.
8:15,
ReplyDeleteMost of the carbon tax proposals I have seen in the US have an income-based rebate or tax refund component. That means that everyone sees the increase in prices in oil and gas, but the less money you make, the more money you see returned to you from the carbon taxes. This remedy is specifically designed to prevent a carbon tax from becoming a "flat" tax and resulting in the sort of backlash that can be seen in France right now.
"Ask Rothman and the EAC how they feel about the inexcusable system of hauling trash in Bethlehem. 21 different trash haulers drive up the same street every week. Those garbage trucks spew more carbon into the air every week than any house or condo carbon footprint!!"
ReplyDeleteExactly...but everyone in Bethlehem loves their garbage man!
Where is Van Wirt on this issue? Her, Negron and Reynolds should be championing this issue, after all, they are the climate defenders in Bethlehem! Zrinski and Zanelli (two self-proclaimed environmentalists) should be lobbying Bethlehem for this!
The post could be rewritten as follows:
ReplyDeleteYesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden released his ambitious and expensive plan to tank the US economy and destroy jobs.
Not to be outdone, democrats in two area municipalities are working on similar plans locally.
I am very cognizant of the negative financial impact that cap and trade has on working people. This is why I opposed it when Obama tried to force it on everyone. Interestingly, it is not part of the green new deal. Before an environmental change is imposed, there should always be an impact study performed to see what impact it will have on the community.
ReplyDeleteA switch to single hauler will actually be beneficial financially to most residents. It will reduce the carbon footprint. It needs to be implemented. There are other low or no cost changes that can be made, like rooftop gardens. I would start by doing what has no negative impact on ordinary people.
I would hope Lynn Rothman considers this. I respect her efforts but she needs to consider that many people are of limited means.
"Most of the carbon tax proposals I have seen in the US have an income-based rebate or tax refund component."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, income redistribution disguised as saving the Earth.
And of course, we can rely on the government to efficiently take the money and "give it back."
How's YOUR property tax relief from the casinos going?
The trash hauling from bethlehem to allentown has many factors that differ. The first one being all the trash being carted into allentown via pick-up trucks from distant places as far as ny city.
ReplyDeleteImagine the carbon footprint from that one on the locals not to mention the monitary one that adds to the 27% tax increase!
yes we need to follow this radical left wing agenda they are such smart people
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing remotely left wing or radical about wanting to preserve our planet. I know many conservatives who actually do want to conserve our planet. The main problems are elitist attitudes that fail to consider the working poor and ignorant denials that climate change is happening in a negative way.
ReplyDeleteThe real denial is from those who think we can maintain our economy and standard of living without fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of elites, how can one justify subsidies for rich people to buy Teslas and solar panels? These people still have huge carbon footprints, but enjoy tax subsidies to pay for their toys.
Negron cries about almost everything! I don't know of any place that is getting cheaper to live in.
ReplyDelete"The real denial is from those who think we can maintain our economy and standard of living without fossil fuels."
ReplyDeleteSure you can.
Try looking at the total cost of those fossil fuels.
Coal- add the cost of the water pollution along with the extra healthcare costs.
increased respiratory diseases etc
Oil- so two gulf wars had nothing to do with oil? so add that cost.
oil rig explodes in the Gulf who paid for that?
ever notice how some goober drops a wrench in a refinery and gas goes up by 20 cents a gallon?
BTW why send your dollars to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia?
Why not keep those dollars here?
"tax subsidies" try looking at all the subsidies the oil companies get.
So when you look at the whole picture weaning away from fossil fuels has tremendous advantages.
No matter how many made-up costs you want to add to fossil fuels, there is no viable replacement.
ReplyDeleteWant to calculate the costs for materials needed for solar and wind regarding mining of rare earths and refining of silicon, and how much money we're sending to China for those?
And they don't even provide a fraction of the energy fossil fuels do.
I doubt we send much money Venezuela's way anymore since their socialistic utopia imploded.
Your answer inherently means you want a drastically more expensive energy price structure since your comment makes no sense unless you want to require monetizing those "costs" of fossil fuels and pass them down to the consumer. $0.20/gallon would be chicken-feed if you got what you wanted.
And the costs you think we'll save are all hypothetical. Do you really think there will be no international conflict and health problems if we have no fossil fuels? How's Tesla going to keep their third-world supply line in place?
You probably don't know that most world-wide fossil fuel subsidies are two-bit governments subsidizing their population's gasoline prices so they can stay in power. Even in the US, a billion dollars of fossil fuel "subsidies" are for low income heating fuel. Go ahead, get rid of that.
11:07, a carbon tax with a tax refund would actually be less redistributive than a carbon tax without one, which would distribute the revenues from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, just like sales taxes. This is because the wealthy generally spend a smaller proportion of their wealth on things that produce carbon emissions, even though they produce more in an absolute sense.
ReplyDelete5:29, part of the reason that Venezuela imploded is that it is a petro-state entirely dependent on the sale of oil, and the price of oil collapsed as a consequence of the shift towards natural gas. Only the most ridiculous lefties ever looked to it as a positive example. The costs of fossil fuels mentioned by 4:52 are not "hypothetical," they are what economists refer to as "externalities," essentially costs that are associated with production and use of a product that are not paid for by the consumer or the companies in the supply chain. An obvious and fairly uncontroversial example of this is the healthcare costs of coal miners with black lung, which are not borne either by coal producers or consumers. Usually these costs are foisted on the public, so you pay them as a taxpayer whether you'd like to or not. Renewables do also produce externalities, but because they don't produce emissions, they are much more easy to manage. Some renewables may be relatively expensive now (although some are actually cheaper than coal), but the more people switch to them, the bigger the market, and the greater the incentive for companies to invest in R&D to reduce the price, and the price of solar is already falling precipitously.
Honestly, the best thing that can be done for the environment at a local level is to encourage people to replace their lawns with native plants. People use an enormous amount of fertilizers and pesticides on their lawns, all of which end up in the river at some point. I can't imagine how much carbon is emitted from everyone mowing their lawns every two or three weeks for 5 months every year, and native plants are better for wildlife and better looking anyway.
no the radical left does not support the new green deal Bernie you got problems
ReplyDelete5.29
ReplyDelete"there is no viable replacement" they said that about horses also.
"costs for materials needed for solar and wind" and compare output over their lifetime energy production vs coal or oil--- anytime you want.
do not forget oil spills,rigs exploding etc. so start the math. fossil fuels lose by a big margin.
"fraction of the energy fossil fuels do" yup because you do not enough of them remember there was once only a handful of automobiles with a lot of horses how did that work out?
"send much money Venezuela's way" they stopped pumping crude?when did that happen?
kinda forgot about Saudi Arabia hmm wonder why? how much cash do we send them?
"require monetizing those "costs" of fossil fuels and pass them down to the consumer" and you seem to want to ignore the massive costs supporting the fossil fuel industry.
"no international conflict and health problems if we have no fossil fuels?"
never said world peace would come but the last adventure in the desert cost over six trillion (there is the deaths of people but money talks so ignore that).
six trillion would have bought quite a lot of solar power.
""subsidies" are for low income heating fuel. Go ahead, get rid of that."
Try spending some money saving energy by increasing efficiency of appliances,refitting and insulating homes and office spaces.
remember that billion ends up in the pockets of that two bit dictator oil rich nation. better you spend the money here.
How about charging oil companies for leasing rights that are realistic instead of basically giving them away.
Even the Socialistic state of Alaska got a better royalty rate for the North slope.
How many billions did that fund produce?
the vast majority of that oil went to Japan so they footed the bill.
The change will not occur overnight,nor should it.
Blindly blowing off mountain tops in West Virginia so that burning coal can toss mercury into the air,pollute the water supply,and leave an ecological mess for a future generation does not make sense.
“Honestly, the best thing that can be done for the environment at a local level is to encourage people to replace their lawns with native plants. People use an enormous amount of fertilizers and pesticides on their lawns, all of which end up in the river at some point. I can't imagine how much carbon is emitted from everyone mowing their lawns every two or three weeks for 5 months every year, and native plants are better for wildlife and better looking anyway.”
ReplyDeleteThis should be music to everyone’s ears. I am all for every way you can think of to avoid yard work. I reached this conclusion long ago, and am doing my part, lol.
This is an idea that does not cost anything and might actually save money.
Any candidate at any time can run on a platform of banning fossil fuels, running the economy entirely on renewables, giving poor people insulation instead of heat, and growing weeds in the front yard. Should be fun.
ReplyDeleteRothman & Reynolds are control freaks. Ordinances that impose unrealistic costs with inefficient solar panels don’t belong on the agenda in Bethlehem. This isn’t Florida where solar panels can be be more efficient but still more costly if not subsidized by taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteOff topic, Telly Savalas' daughter is now a singer:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCTOpdlZJ8U
Who also helped some of us understand more of the words to Shaggy's 1990's hit - It wasn't me.
https://www.facebook.com/postmodernjukebox/videos/1774903889212455/?v=1774903889212455
Post Modern Jukebox, making new songs old since the aughts ;)