Submit your comments on this article | |
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather- | |
Falling short of Kyoto goals, Boulder raises carbon tax | |
2009-06-08 | |
As long as it's their money....![]() BOULDER, Colo. -- Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly reported the amount energy customers would pay under the increased tax. Most residential customers would pay $21 annually, not monthly. So it's a feel-good, not a do-some-actual-good tax. Figures. And commercial costs would increase from the current average of $43 a year to $94. That's $94 too much. It's time for an in-your-face approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Boulder City Council decided Thursday night. The council unanimously approved increasing the city's voter-approved carbon tax The voters approved paying more tax from its minimum to its maximum level beginning Aug. 6, providing an additional $810,000 annually toward meeting the city's carbon-cutting goals. The tax, built into utility bills, is expected to help the city reach 95 percent of the Kyoto Protocol -- which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels -- before the tax ends in 2013. David Driskell, Boulder's deputy director for community planning, said the city must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 400,000 metric tons by 2012 to meet its short-term goals. Estimates show the city is on track to fall just short of that, at 396,800 tons. The council will have to give the tax final approval next month. The city expects to use the new tax money in part to pilot a program being called "two Anybody like that coming to my door can "consult" with my two friends - Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. And I don't mean the cooking oil. The meetings could lead to checking insulation in the attic, using a "kill-a-watt" meter to show residents how much electricity their appliances are using, replacing light bulbs and installing programmable thermostats. Technicians, in theory, would also be able to offer no-money-down, on-the-spot financing Backed by Fannie and Freddie, no doubt....
Kara Mertz, an environmental affairs manager for the city, said the program is designed to "blanket the community, neighborhood by neighborhood ... to create a community buzz" about going green. She said the "two techs and a truck" initiative would also create up to 1,200 jobs. Explain exactly how 2 magically becomes 1,200. According to city estimates, the tax at its maximum rate would cost most residential energy customers $21 a year beginning next year -- up from the current rate of about $11. Commercial costs would increase from the current average of $43 a year to $94. Nearly two dozen Boulder residents spoke at the Thursday meeting, most making impassioned pleas for city leaders to make the move to a higher tax rate. "I care about how we use our energy here," said Judy Feland, who lives near the Valmont coal-fire power station. "I think we can do what we want to, which is decarbonize our energy." I've got the popcorn concession to that event.... Stephen Keenan said he's all for higher taxes Councilwoman Angelique Espinoza noted, however, that whatever Boulder does to reduce its carbon emissions likely wouldn't make a real difference Yep - it's a Liberal Left program all right.... unless the movement spreads to other communities. It will - to other Liberal Left Loony ones. Y'all can compete amongst yourselves for the highest unemployment numbers of the Loony Left enclaves. "We're trying to develop programs that motivate people "Too stupid to live" really should be a valid diagnosis.... | |
Posted by:Barbara Skolaut |
#9 I think they should sacrifice more, a lot more. That leaves less of the "burden" for me. |
Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-06-08 23:55 |
#8 They could just ban all internal combustion engines. And electricity. And food. That should put their carbon footprint somewhere North Korea's, which to some people is ideal. |
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-06-08 22:27 |
#7 If the politicians are really serious about reducing carbon dioxide, they'll have to stop exhaling immediately, inhaling is OK. |
Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-06-08 22:04 |
#6 i grew up near the peoples republic of boulder when i was a kid. this tax is nothing... not even up to the level of background noise. they have a department attached to gettng a building permit where they make sure you have enough big windows in each room. supposedly to save on lighting costs. but in the mountains in the winter, you loose more heat through the windows than you would save by not lighting the room for the few hours a day the sun is shining while you are home. they used to have safety inspections for bicycles and would write you a ticket if they nabbed you. |
Posted by: abu do you love 2009-06-08 22:02 |
#5 two techs and a truck Is that like a couple of Chicago politicos and a bus? |
Posted by: Skunky Glins 5*** 2009-06-08 21:12 |
#4 Questions: How long before the 'suggestions' the two dorks make become 'requirements under law'? (at the homeowner's expense of course.) And how much carbon emissions will the Truck produce? Considering even an electric truck causes CO2 emissions at the power plant - and lets not forget the CO2 emitted during the production of the batteries. |
Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-06-08 19:14 |
#3 Energy Efficiency isn't too bad, as long as it's not at the expense of time efficiency. Also taxation just Redistributes pollution (even if you believe plant food is a poison). It won't actually lower pollution unless it's hypothecated into used to subsidise pollution removal activities. |
Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-06-08 18:07 |
#2 Lower oxygen content at altitude. That HAS to be part of the reason. |
Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2009-06-08 17:28 |
#1 Idiots, Taxes never go down, only up. |
Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-06-08 17:13 |