Boxer-Sanders climate protection act
Alford busted on CRA study by Boxer, he gets tetchy (CRA go to attack on climate bills, including hers?)
go to attack climate legislation bogus high cost families Inhofe
renta-quote? [used by renta-tom]
sep 2009
kate s
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/inhofe-climate-skeptic-roadshow/
as world leaders gathered in New York this week for a major United Nations summit on climate change, back in Washington, leading Senate global warming skeptic James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has been hard at work lining up aclimate “truth squad” to travel to treaty negotiations in Copenhagen this December.
Inhofe told the**:{National Review Online:(style="box-sizing:inherit"):}:** that his squad (he has not yet named any participants) will make it clear to world leaders that although the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will probably approve a bill as well, the United States Congress isn’t going to pass climate legislation anytime soon—no way, no how. The senator, famous for his claim that global warming is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” took a similar group of skeptics to climate change negotiations in Milan, Italy in 2003. “I was the outcast at that time,” Inhofe told NRO. “Now, I want to make sure that those attending the Copenhagen conference know what is really happening in the United States Senate.”
And according to Inhofe, what’s really happening is nothing at all.“There may be enough votes to get a bill out of EPW,” said Inhofe, referring to the Environment and Public Works committee headed by Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), which he chaired until the 2006 Democratic take-over. “[B]ut there is far from enough support in the Senate. The Democrats don’t have the votes. There are too many newly-elected Democrats in the Senate who don’t want to go home and tell voters that they just voted for the largest tax increase in American history.”
Apparently President Barack Obama’s speech to the UN on Tuesday only spurred on Inhofe’s desire to send a truth squad, if only because the address didn’t include enough specifics (which, by the way, is also bugging environmentalists).
“I don’t know what he’s going to do,” said Inhofe. “It’s clear that he doesn’t know what he’s going to do, either.”
==
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/11/harry-alford-on-obama-priorities-this-is-not-america-video/
Committed to successful black entrepreneurship, Harry C. Alford, Jr. has been president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce since 1993.
During that time, he has spoken out with increasing boldness against the liberal orthodoxy hurting the black community. In 2009, he took on Democratic California Sen. Barbara Boxer at a cap-and-trade hearing, and that video
[boxer invites to come to CA to see new jobs, condescending, it's racial, i take offense to it, a vet of this country; why don't you quote an Asian? path going to explode in the Post
Pews study, naacp resolution put in record; john grant100 bl men of atlanta (millions of jobs, support naccp; Just as in my community..." oil co CRA report: exxon mobil 100K$ for CRA he cites; inhofe wants actual resolution CRA represent broad...anyone who wants them to do work they will]
Army: must contend with some other black gp; this has to do with energy; married to vet, nothing to do with this issue; ]
{{ Black Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO Harry Alford accused Senator Boxer (D-CA) of playing race politics during an EPW Committee hearing on green jobs.
1965 boxer chair he said 1962 arrive
sd 406
naacp historic resolution put in record
john grant 100 bl men of atlanta grn jobs
cond to qute another bl man gp, it's racial, i take offense, a vet
path is going to explode in post
pew study of ca
"you're speaking on behalf of blk ppl?" study
"diversity"?
oil corps funded CRA study you quote
inhofe backs CRA, demands naacp reso put in rec b/c it does not specifically endorse this bill?
600k views
road is godawful
married to a vet
DC bethesda inhofe}}
In this interview with Alford, he continues to boldly confront the politics of government dependency, which he believes stand opposed to the founding principles of capitalism, private property and opportunity.
Alford claims President Barack Obama is hurting black entrepreneurship everyday with entitlements and dependency.
“He’s just after votes,” Alford said of Obama. “And people who don’t know, ‘He gives me a free cell phone, I increase my food stamps.’ That’s not America. That’s not why we fought the British.”
==
http://grist.org/climate-energy/sanders-and-boxer-introduce-fee-and-dividend-climate-bill-greens-tickled-pink/
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) unveiled ambitious climate and energy legislation on Thursday. In our current sclerotic political environment, it has pretty much zero chance of passing in the Senate and negative chance of passing in the House. But many climate activists like it, and many climate deniers hate it, and the San Francisco Chronicle calls it “radical,” so let’s find out what all the fuss is about.
Here’s a quick summary of the Climate Protection Act of 2013 from Sanders’ office: “Under the legislation, a fee on carbon pollution emissions would fund historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.”
It’s what green wonks call a“fee and dividend” bill. TheChronicledescribes it as a “variant on a carbon tax”:
It would impose a fee on carbon emissions at their source, such as coal mines, raising the price of fossil fuel energy.
But instead of giving the proceeds to the government, three-fifths of the money would be refunded to U.S. residents.
Such rebates could run into hundreds of dollars. The idea is modeled loosely on Alaska’s “permanent fund” that distributes royalties from the state’s oil and gas industry to every Alaskan resident. …
The Sanders-Boxer bill would impose a $20 per ton tax on carbon or methane equivalent, rising 5.6 percent each year for 10 years, on the nation’s [2,869] largest fossil fuel producers. Imported fossil fuels from countries that do not impose a similar tax would also pay.…
The tax would raise an estimated $1.2 trillion over a decade and reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent from 2005 levels. Three-fifths of the tax would be rebated to “every legal U.S. resident,” which might make it more politically feasible than if it went to the government.
The rest of the money would go to incentives for clean energy and research.
A version of the “fee and dividend” idea is a favorite of NASA climate scientist James Hansen and climate activist Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org.
More from The Hill:
The bill also would require the gas drilling industry to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
And still more, from Sanders’ two-page summary, on the bill’s aims:
- Weatherizing 1 million homes per year …;
- Tripling the budget for ARPA-E breakthrough energy research and development;
- Creating a Sustainable Technologies Finance Program that would, through public-private partnerships, leverage $500 billion for investments in wind, solar, geothermal, advanced biomass and biofuels, ocean and tidal energy, hydropower, advanced transportation projects, and energy efficiency technologies;
- Investing in domestic manufacturing and energy-intensive industries to promote energy efficiency and mitigate impacts of a carbon price; and
- Funding $1 billion a year in worker training and transition programs to help move workers into jobs in the clean energy economy.
If you want still still more, here’s full text of the bill [PDF], and a companion bill [PDF] that would eliminate some subsidies for fossil-fuel companies.
Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says she intends to move the legislation through her committee and to the Senate floor by this summer. Many greens will be rallying behind her, but how many fellow senators will? We’ll keep you posted …
Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.
Read more: Climate & Energy, Politics
the nation
no lnx
In the midst of a heightened conversation on combating climate change—as thousands of protestors are headed to DC this weekend to protest against the Keystone XL pipeline project, and as President Obama increasingly uses his bully pulpit to talk about the issue—the Senate is now jumping into the fray.
Senators Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer announced comprehensive climate change legislation Thursday morning at a news conference on Capitol Hill that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. It’s an ambitious bill that doesn’t settle for half-measures, but rather lays out an actual solution to the climate crisis. “This is a gold-standard bill,” Boxer said. “Every once in a while we have them.”
The lawmakers are putting the finishing touches on the initial version of the bill, but here are some features of the imminent legislation:
A price on carbon or methane equivalent of $20 per ton. That amount rises 5.6 percent annually for ten years.
The carbon price applies only to “upstream” producers, that is, the points of origin for fossil fuels—coal mines, oil refineries, natural gas processing points and so on. It would also apply to any imported fossil fuels, at the point of importation.
The price also applies to only 2,869 of the largest fossil fuel polluters, which covers 85 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions.
The carbon price would raise $1.2 trillion in revenue, according to the CBO. A large portion of that revenue would go towards investments in clean energy and energy efficiency: weatherizing 1 million homes per year, tripling the federal budget for energy research and development via ARPA-E, and creating a $500 billion sustainable technologies finance program, and providing worker training for clean energy technologies, among other initiatives. Using revenue from the carbon price and from ending subsidies to oil and gas companies, the Sanders-Boxer legislation would also pay $300 billion towards deficit reduction.
Since this would likely boost natural gas production, the bill contains several fracking safeguards: it ends current fracking exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act, and heightens disclosure requirements for fracking chemicals.
Many people’s immediate response to this bill is: it will never pass. Never mind the Republicans filibustering it in the Senate and never even taking it up in the House; President Obama hasn’t endorsed it and called for a different approach based on cap-and-trade during his State of the Union speech, and Harry Reid might not even put it on the Senate floor for fear of making vulnerable senators take a tough vote. (Asked Thursday morning if he received any promises from Reid that the legislation would receive a floor vote, Sanders implied he hadn’t: “I have over the years talked to Senator Reid on this issue. In general, he is sympathetic, but we’ll see how he and other leaders come down on this in the months to come.”)
But both Sanders and Boxer think the bill can create a serious public discussion on climate change that could lead to its passage.They’ve mobilized several mainstream environmental groups to fan out across the country and whip up support: Bill McKibben, president of 350.org, spoke at Thursday morning’s announcement, as did representatives from the Center for American Progress, the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and the National Community Action Foundation. In other words, this isn’t a one-off messaging bill: they want to try to get it passed.
The Senators repeatedly stressed it was up to the movement, and the people, to make this bill law. “The United States Congress is way behind where the American people are on this issue,” said Sanders. “And we’re going to win this fight when millions of people stand up and say ‘you have got to do something for my kids, and grandchildren, and for my business—you cannot ignore this planetary crisis.’”
Boxer added: “The people are the ones who are in control of what happens. And that’s a great thing. Because they are so far ahead of us. They know what they are seeing. No big oil company can sit down in their living room and tell them Superstorm Sandy didn’t happen, or droughts didn’t happen, or fires, or this bark beetle, or all these other things they see happening in front of their eyes,” she said. “We think the community is the key.”
The one thing Boxer can control, as chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is hearings and mark-ups on this bill, which she anticipates will happen this spring. The first step for the bill’s defenders will be focusing national attention on these hearings.
Already, protestors have been marching in Washington against the Keystone pipeline, George Zornick reports.
George Zornick is The Nation's former Washington editor.
introduced Feb 14,2013
113th Congress (2013–2015)
Status
Died in a previous Congress
This bill was introduced on February 14, 2013, in a previous session of Congress, but it did not receive a vote.
Although this bill was not enacted, its provisions could have become law by being included in another bill. It is common for legislative text to be introduced concurrently in multiple bills (called companion bills), re-introduced in subsequent sessions of Congress in new bills, or added to larger bills (sometimes called omnibus bills).
Cosponsors
1 Cosponsor (1 Democrat)
SourceCongress.gov
passed:
The table below shows whether legislators on relevant committees or cosponsors of relevant bills are the sponsor or a cosponsor of this bill.
| Cosponsor? | Legislator | Committee Assignment(s), Bills Sponsored |
|---|---|---|
| No | D Carper, Thomas [D-DE] | Environment and Public Works Chair |
| No | R Capito, Shelley [R-WV] | Environment and Public Works Ranking Member |
| Primary Sponsor | I Sanders, Bernard “Bernie” [I-VT] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | R Boozman, John [R-AR] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | D Cardin, Benjamin [D-MD] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | R Cramer, Kevin [R-ND] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | D Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | R Ernst, Joni [R-IA] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | R Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | R Inhofe, James “Jim” [R-OK] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | D Kelly, Mark [D-AZ] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | R Lummis, Cynthia [R-WY] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | D Markey, Edward “Ed” [D-MA] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | D Merkley, Jeff [D-OR] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | D Padilla, Alejandro “Alex” [D-CA] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | R Shelby, Richard [R-AL] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | D Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | R Sullivan, Dan [R-AK] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | D Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] | Environment and Public Works |
| No | R Wicker, Roger [R-MS] | Environment and Public Works |
heritage hit
derrick Morgan
Former Vice President for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity
Derrick Morgan is no longer a staff member at The Heritage Foundation.
https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/boxer-sanders-carbon-tax-would-empower-epa-crush-booming-energy-economy
Boxer–Sanders Carbon Tax Would Empower EPA to Crush Booming Energy Economy
April 12, 2013 20 min read Download Report
Derrick Morgan
Former Vice President for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity
Derrick Morgan is no longer a staff member at The Heritage Foundation.
Copied
Select a Section 1/0
In his 2013 State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama called on Congress to pursue a solution to climate change, or else he would do it on his own. The same week, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D–CA) and committee member Bernie Sanders (I–VT) introduced the first major bill that would institute a carbon tax, the Climate Protection Act of 2013 (Boxer–Sanders).
One glaring problem with the bill is that it would not preempt regulation of greenhouse gases by federal agencies. Even worse, the bill effectively turns the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator into a venture capitalist, industrial planner, trade referee, and social welfare agent. Boxer–Sanders would:
Inflict high costs on families, especially those in carbon-intensive states;
Thwart energy investment and development;
Destroy manufacturing jobs;
Risk triggering a trade war;
Waste money;
Fail to provide environmental benefits; and
Impose a massive tax and leave a command-and-control regulatory regime in place for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Congress should instead stop the Administration from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and ensure that the oil and natural gas economic renaissance is not obstructed by federal regulation.
Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>
The Bill
Citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on a generic carbon tax, the sponsors of the bill estimate that it will raise $1.2 trillion over 10 years by imposing a tax at the rate of $20 per ton of CO2. The bill increases the tax rate by 5.6 percent each year until the 12th year, when the EPA Administrator is required to submit a report to Congress recommending a fee for subsequent years (without action, the fee would continue at the 12th-year rate). The tax would increase the price of conventional fuels like oil, natural gas, and especially coal.
The bill apportions 60 percent of incoming revenue from the tax for a rebate program administered by the EPA with a newly created Office of Environmental Rebate Advocate.[1] Forty percent of the revenues goes to a Pollution Reduction Trust Fund to mitigate economic effects on energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries ($7.5 billion a year); fund a Department of Energy (DOE) weatherization assistance program for low-income persons ($5.0 billion a year); provide job training, education, and transition assistance for individuals employed by the fossil fuel industry who are seeking to work at clean energy jobs ($1.0 billion a year); and support DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy research ($2.0 billion a year). Any remaining funds would be applied to deficit reduction.
In addition, Boxer–Sanders imposes a Carbon Equivalency Fee—essentially a tariff on goods with high carbon content. Revenues from this new trade barrier would be divided evenly between transportation and environmental objectives.
Increases Costs on Families
Although the bill does not indicate how rebates would be apportioned among legal U.S. residents, it is important to understand the purpose behind a carbon tax to predict how such a rebate scheme would work.
The major point of a carbon tax is to “put a price on carbon” to capture what proponents of climate legislation identify as an externality cost (a cost borne by society at large). If one could determine the correct “price” of a ton of CO2—presumably a tax in the amount equal to the supposed damage caused by the ton of CO2—then, the thinking goes, those who purchase the product would be absorbing the externality. Of course, determining any externality price of CO2 is very difficult considering the unsettled state of the science with respect to how much man-made emissions affect the Earth’s temperature.
If one assumes that the tax will be passed on to consumers, as the director of the CBO does, the tax will make it more expensive to drive a car, heat or cool a home, or buy goods made with energy. Consumers will do less of those things, thus emitting less CO2. It is important to note that such changes in behavior will clearly lower one’s comfort and enjoyment—make one worse off—in ways that are not quantifiable using economics. The simple fact is that affordable conventional fuels have vastly increased humankind’s productivity, health, and standard of living. One goal of the legislation is to reduce CO2; proponents say it will reduce GHG emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.[2]
[see fee and div for all]
Climate Protection Act 2013 - World Future Fund
THE CLIMATE PROTECTION ACT AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY BILL 2013 SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT) AND BARBARA BOXER (D-CA) THE CLIMATE PROTECTION ACT S.332 . THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ACT S.329 . Many people have called these two bills a "gold standard " for energy efficiency and environmental protection.
Sanders and Boxer introduce 'fee and dividend' climate ...
Joshua Lopez / Project Survival Media Boxer and Sanders introduce the Climate Protection Act of 2013. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) unveiled ambitious climate and energy...
:{PDF:(style="margin:-0.2em 0px 0px;padding:1px 0.35em 0px;border:0px;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:600;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:middle;border-radius:var(--default-border-radius);display:inline-block;position:relative;user-select:none;top:-1px;background-color:#d0d0d0;"):}: Statement Regarding the Sanders/Boxer Climate Bill
The Climate Protection Act of 2013 and companion Sustainable Energy Act will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a price on carbon and methane pollution while also mitigating the price increases. The bill will also protect consumers by using the revenues generated by placing a price on emissions to invest in energy
Analysis of the Climate Protection Act of 2013 by Michael ...
Last year, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced S. 332, the Climate Protection Act of 2013. Based on a "fee-and-dividend" concept, the bill would levy a carbon pollution fee on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions starting in 2014 at $20 per metric ton of CO2, rising at 5.6% per year through 2023.
Sanders/Boxer carbon tax - Legal Planet
The "Climate Protection Act of 2013" would impose a fee of $20 per ton (carbon or methane equivalent) on coal, petroleum, natural gas and other fossil fuels. In other words, it would impose the fee on upstream producers (coal mines, oil refineries, etc.). The fee would increase 5.6% per year for 10 years and then remain in place indefinitely.
Boxer-Sanders Carbon Tax Would Empower EPA to Crush ...
The same week, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and committee member Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the first major bill that would institute a carbon...
Bills - Carbon Tax
Sanders-Boxer "Climate Protection Act" On February 14, 2013, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Climate Protection Act . Sanders-Boxer would impose an economy-wide tax on CO2 pollution, starting at $20/T CO2 and rising over a decade to $33/T CO2.
Climate Protection Act of 2013 (2013; 113th Congress S ...
S. 332 (113 th ): Climate Protection Act of 2013 Overview Summary Details Text Study Guide A bill to address climate disruptions, reduce carbon pollution, enhance the use of clean energy, and promote resilience in the infrastructure of the United States, and for other purposes. The bill's titles are written by its sponsor. Sponsor and status
Sanders, Boxer Propose Climate Change Bills » Senator ...
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 - Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today introduced comprehensive legislation on climate change. Boxer is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Sanders sits on the environment committee and also is a member of the Senate energy committee. Under the legislation, a fee on carbon pollution […]
S.332 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Climate Protection Act ...
Shown Here: Introduced in Senate (02/14/2013) Climate Protection Act of 2013 - Amends the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose: (1) a carbon pollution fee on any manufacturer, producer, or importer of a carbon polluting substance; and (2) a carbon equivalency fee on imports of carbon pollution-intensive goods.