Comments on: Copenhagen Klimaforum To Press UN Delegates for Carbon Tax

By: Erin Turner

Erin Turner — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:40:16 +0000

wind farms are great but they also take up a large land area;~`

By: Owen Bell

Owen Bell — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:34:31 +0000

actually it is not that hard to setup wind farms, the only problem is that it requires lots of capital investment.;*;

By: James Handley

James Handley — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:38:02 +0000

Thanks, Johnny. Was glad to meet you and Dr. Clark in Copenhagen and to hear more about the West County Toxics Coalition's fight against even more pollution from Chevron's gigantic refinery in Richmond, California. (Chevron plans to refine dirtier and more polluting crude oil there. See: Over Thirty Bay Area Organizations Announce Mass Chevron Protest.) When my sister was living in Concord, near Chevron's refinery, she carried my nephew who was born with several unusual chronic health problems associated with pre-natal exposure to petrochemicals. So yes, you definately are on the front line of environmental justice and the struggle against fossil fuels that are strangling life on so many levels. Keep it up!

By: Johnny White

Johnny White — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:11:02 +0000

The Klimaforum Declaration needed some help from myself and Dr. Clark about the communities that are on the front line. We made sure that was in the declaration, also I would like to thank Global Exchange for their help in getting us there. We let them know about Chervon and the things they were doing here in North Richmond, CA, and also we put important things in the letter we sent to the President of United States. In all it was a challenge to make sure that the point that our community is on the front line was included.

By: katutrang

katutrang — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:49:39 +0000

I am glad to have landed here

milf hunter[/url

By: James Handley

James Handley — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:07:04 +0000

The Klimaforum Declaration includes both a transparent price mechanism and revenue recycling to people. Hope you’ll sign on by Sunday and pass the word.

Mostly, I leave the compromises to the politicians; I feel our job is to advocate the best policy. But for me, the two are linked, I don’t think we can achieve the needed carbon prices without revenue recycling, and revenue recycling gets Republican support, for example from Sen. Corker and Rep. Inglis. So I think linking the two is working for us.

- jh (from Copenhagen)

By: Ken Johnson

Ken Johnson — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:45:30 +0000

“… we want a simple, direct carbon pricing system with most of the carbon revenues ‘recycled’ to households… ”

Suppose you could have one, but not both, i.e. either (1) a “simple, direct carbon pricing system” with the same allocation (of revenue in lieu of allowances) that the federal cap-and-trade legislation uses, or (2) cap-and-trade with “most of the carbon revenues ‘recycled’ to households”. Would either be a preferable alternative to the pending cap-and-trade legislation?

Maybe this would be a more productive way to frame your advocacy:

We want a simple, direct carbon pricing system irrespective of how revenue is allocated; …

AND

we want most of the carbon revenues “recycled” to households irrespective of whether a tax or cap-and-trade is employed.

The political status quo moves in very small steps. If you can get acceptance of at least one of two initiatives it would be a step toward getting both; and either alone could be an improvement over neither. Tying the two objectives together only diminishes the possibility of getting either.