CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Cap And Trade northeast u.s.

Published on May 24th, 2011 | by Zachary Shahan

8

3 States Stay in Northeast Cap & Trade Program (for Obvious Reasons) Despite Huge Republican/Tea Party Attack

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

May 24th, 2011 by Zachary Shahan 

northeast u.s.

I had been worried about two or three states pulling out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, pronounced “Reggie”), the nation’s first cap and trade program for greenhouse gases, for awhile. It seemed 99.9% sure that New Hampshire would pull out after its House of Representatives voted to pull out of the initiative and its Senate had a clear Republican majority likely to do the same. Even if the Governor tried to veto such a decision, he could be overridden.

Meanwhile, strong attacks were being made on New Jersey’s involvement in the initiative as well as other states’ by the Tea Party and their Republican puppets.

At the same time, let’s note that RGGI has been extremely successful at encouraging clean energy and energy efficiency (which has meant creating jobs and lowering energy bills), providing energy assistance to low-income families, and making the participating states a decent amount of money (which, in crisis, some have even inappropriately used to help balance state budgets).

In total, RGGI creates over 20,000 jobs and generates approximately $2.6 billion in economic growth.

Now, New Hampshire (very surprisingly), Delaware, and Maine have voted to stay in the initiative, due to the many benefits mentioned above. The NH Senate voted 16-8 to stay in RGGI!

“The tide has definitely turned against these ideas of pulling out of RGGI,” Seth Kaplan, vice president of policy and climate advocacy for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), said. “It is a classic political pattern. You have a small group of committed folks trying to make something happen, and they do not realize the depth of the people who oppose them.”

Yes, some politicians get the fact that RGGI benefits their state and as long as their state, and that voters notice that as well.

RGGI helps people (creates jobs, helps people to lower their electricity bills, and helps keep the air and water clean and climate livable) and thus helps society or a state as a whole.

Now, New Jersey is still under threat with a Tea Party governor and strong efforts from Koch front groups to take the initiative down. Greenpeace recently showed that RGGI is the new, number one target of the Koch Brothers.

NJ, a pretty large and powerful state economically, could have a strong impact on the future of the scheme. It is considered the most important state of those that have been looking to potentially pull out. It emits almost as much as the three states mentioned above combined. Therefore, it is where Koch front groups have focused their attention.

The NH House is still pushing to pull out despite the Senate’s recent vote and a new University of New Hampshire study that shows how ridiculous it would be to do so. And, in the Senate-amended bill, “the state could withdraw from RGGI if another state with at least 10 percent of the initiative’s total electricity production, like New Jersey, exits the program,” Solve Climate reports.

It is critical that New Jersey stay in RGGI for the initiative to stay strong and keep running indefinitely. No matter how much Tea Party groups lie or are lied to about the effects of RGGI, the state as a whole and its politicians need to understand that they benefit from being in the program.

Sign the petition above to encourage NJ to stay in RGGI. And spread the word about this. (This is a free-market approach to regulating greenhouse gases, encouraging clean energy efficiency, and creating jobs, for goodness sake! And it’s working.)

Related Stories:

  1. New Hampshire Vote to Exit RGGI Endangers Solar Rebates by January
  2. Another Big Win for Koch Tea Party Funding – New Hampshire Abandons its RGGI Polluter Controls
  3. Northeast Cap & Trade Initiative’s 10th Auction Brings in $48.2 Million
  4. Massachusetts Joins California and New Mexico to Cut GHGs 25% Below 1990 by 2020
  5. New York Public Radio Listeners Love Cap and Trade

Photo via Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the BPL

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • Hroark314

    RGGI does not increase state gross product. I’m sure that you’ve turned up a study by some economist who was paid to claim that the program has benefits, but the reality is that the marginal benefit of the reduced CO2 emissions approaches $0 and there are real costs to the economy associated with inefficiently choosing to use more expensive electricity than necessary. You’re simply buying into the old liberal fallacy that all government spending has a positive economic impact in excess of the cost of appropriating those funds from the public. Your allegation that RGGI creates $2.6 billion of additional economic output could just as easily be applied to any and all government spending and, in spite of what the Keynesians in Washington would have us believe, increasing government spending as a percent of GDP is inversely correlated with GDP per capita. That’s just the way that it is.

    • Anonymous

      Wow, here’s a nonsense reply to respond to. First of all, i don’t really
      appreciate this ridiculous generalization: “You’re simply buying into the
      old liberal fallacy that all government spending has a positive economic
      impact in excess of the cost of appropriating those funds from the public.”

      Secondly, whether you like to admit it or not, the clear economic benefits
      are not anything a sane person can argue with. Even without any complicated
      analysis, this isn’t hard to realize. Putting money into energy efficiency
      and renewable energy instead of old coal (especially from out-of-state
      companies), more person-intensive fields for more middle and working class
      people, goes a lot further and creates a lot more economic growth. Giving
      that same money to coal company billionaires is not the same.

  • Pingback: New Jersey Pulling Out of RGGI? Not Yet (& Clear Reasons Why It Shouldn’t) – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Heres_a_clue

    Thanks for the heads-up.  I live in NJ and just signed the Tea Party petition repudiating RGGI.  Ofcourse I guess that means I’ve somehow been bought by the Koch Brothers.  You loons need to get a clue and realize how manipulated you are by environmental extremists’ fear mongering, lies and exagerations on climate change.

    • Anonymous

      yeah, it means you’ve been completely confused by their front groups’ and politicians’ propaganda. on climate change, yes, we and nearly every major overarching scientific organization have been mislead by the magicians of climate science. “get a clue?” try learning about the science of important topics before you make important decisions or statements on them.

      here’s more on climate science (and i encourage you to explore the links in the post above for more on RGGI):

      • Anonymous

        hmm, formatting got screwed up, again here (hopefully better):

        http://planetsave.com/2011/02/

        http://planetsave.com/2010/05/

        http://planetsave.com/2011/05/

        furthermore, with about 97-98% of climate scientists telling us the same thing (hundreds or thousands of them), can you really assume this conspiracy theory you propose? have you ever known any climate scientists? i have.

        if 97% of heart doctors in the world told you that you had a critical heart problem and gave you advice on how to solve it, would you assume it was a huge conspiracy to steal your money and make you poor? so, why do you assume the same percentage climate scientists, coming to a clear conclusion after decades of intense research and advising that we cut our carbon emissions (i.e. stop overusing coal and oil), are wrong?

        anyway, here are the scientific bodies that i referred to above:

        links available here: http://www.skepticalscience.co

        The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:

        American Association for the Advancement of Science
        American Astronomical Society
        American Chemical Society
        American Geophysical Union
        American Institute of Physics
        American Meteorological Society
        American Physical Society
        Australian Coral Reef Society
        Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
        Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
        British Antarctic Survey
        Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
        Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
        Environmental Protection Agency
        European Federation of Geologists
        European Geosciences Union
        European Physical Society
        Federation of American Scientists
        Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
        Geological Society of America
        Geological Society of Australia
        International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
        International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
        National Center for Atmospheric Research
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        Royal Meteorological Society
        Royal Society of the UK
        The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

        Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
        Royal Society of Canada
        Chinese Academy of Sciences
        Academie des Sciences (France)
        Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
        Indian National Science Academy
        Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
        Science Council of Japan
        Russian Academy of Sciences
        Royal Society (United Kingdom)
        National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
        A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

        “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
        The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

        African Academy of Sciences
        Cameroon Academy of Sciences
        Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
        Kenya National Academy of Sciences
        Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
        Nigerian Academy of Sciences
        l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
        Uganda National Academy of Sciences
        Academy of Science of South Africa
        Tanzania Academy of Sciences
        Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
        Zambia Academy of Sciences
        Sudan Academy of Sciences

        Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

        Royal Society of New Zealand
        Polish Academy of Sciences
        A survey of peer-reviewed research

        Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes’ survey…

  • Jan Williams

    Mr. Shahan: Since you bring up Koch Industries, here’s another interesting group they participate in : ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council.) Let your fingers do the walking. (Just in case , you didn’t know about them already.)
    I thank you for keeping responsible citizens informed. Love the site!

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Thank You, Jan. I think I’ve run across it. But thanks for informing me (and others)!

Back to Top ↑