Almost all Americans want climate change action

Almost all Americans want climate change action

If this is true why are fossil fuel companies advisors in charge?

SCCRENDO | 11 April, 2019

Weathermoron babble flagged

Tesla-David | 13 April, 2019

The weathermoron lately seems to be unhinged in his tiresome posts!

SCCRENDO | 14 April, 2019

Weathermoron. Your comments are mostly stupid and nothing more than trolling. Go away.
Idiot troll flagged again!!!!

jimglas | 14 April, 2019

7 year old idiot troll flagged

andy.connor.e | 15 April, 2019

There were in fact 2 periods of intense warming. We know that because of the massive amounts of ice that melted in such a short period of time. Where ocean levels rose somewhere in the magnitude of a hundred if not hundreds of feet in a few weeks.

jimglas | 15 April, 2019

idiot fact free troll flagged again

SCCRENDO | 15 April, 2019

@Andy. Indeed there are natural cycles. No one is disputing this. Here is a possible explanation for the rapid warming during the last ice age.

Science suggests that this latest warming is entirely related to greenhouse gases. This is where deniers claim it has happened before why is this one not natural. Because there is enough evidence to show it isn’t natural. It becomes a lot more challenging to disprove a negative. That is what deniers count on in their “debates”.

andy.connor.e | 15 April, 2019

Interesting links. I've been trying to say look to the oceans for evidence of warming.

jswami972 | 15 April, 2019

Fossil fuel consumption should be changed , it can only be done by tesla electric cars.

andy.connor.e | 15 April, 2019

Carbon emissions tax should not be implemented until all income levels can afford the alternatives. Because if the only alternative costs $40,000, all it will be is another tax on the middle class/poor.

Tesla-David | 15 April, 2019

@Andy I am a member of Citizens Climate Lobby, which is recommending a Carbon Fee and Dividend, returning all fees back to the public households to offset the costs of rising carbon based fuels. CCL has done an economic analysis and the middle class and poor would not be impacted by this approach.

andy.connor.e | 15 April, 2019

So it looks like that bill would put the CO2 cost on the big corporations or perhaps utility companies who are producing CO2. Then the fee they charge the companies would be credited to the end users or customers.

Darthamerica | 15 April, 2019

Carbon fee? That’s ludicrous!

andy.connor.e | 15 April, 2019

nice contribution Darth. Welcome to the conversation lmao

andy.connor.e | 15 April, 2019

I actually dont see this being a good idea. Because all this is going to do is drive the cost of products/services for the end users, because the companies are not going to just take the fees. They will increase the cost of their products/services and we will be paying for it anyway. And even if there is a great argument in opposition to this standpoint, i'd be in the boat of people who would not be willing to take this risk. Because in the end, we are the ones who pay the consequences. I'd rather reduce my demand on the utility company, because with todays technology, they are not necessary for residential energy supply.

Darthamerica | 15 April, 2019

Thanks Andy but there’s actually a not so subtle reference. You and I share the same concern about the effect to products and services. There is ZERO doubt that any cost will be immediately passed on to the customer. In addition to that it will also effect Tesla and other EVs since the act of building their batteries makes enough Carbon to equal years of driving! It’s a very silly and naive idea. A lot like when people say we should give reparations for slavery without considering that most people have white ancestors a few generations back. How would you tell who’s owed reparations and who pays? How can anyone take this kind of thing seriously... not to mention AGW is not a proven thing.

SCCRENDO | 15 April, 2019

@andy. FYI from wikipedia
"Carbon taxes offer a potentially cost-effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[9] From an economic perspective, carbon taxes are a type of Pigovian tax.[10] They help to address the problem of emitters of greenhouse gases not facing the full social cost of their actions. Carbon taxes can be a regressive tax, in that they may directly or indirectly affect low-income groups disproportionately. The regressive impact of carbon taxes could be addressed by using tax revenues to favour low-income groups."

andy.connor.e | 15 April, 2019

"The regressive impact of carbon taxes could be addressed by using tax revenues to favour low-income groups"

I wonder what the income requirement will be. Will probably be yet another slam to the middle class. Rich can afford it, low-income gets dividend. Might be best to just cut the utility connection ASAP.

But redistributing that carbon tax back to the people who need the help, will not stop the companies from increasing the cost of their products/services. If you're trying to incentivize people to stop producing CO2, you cant just tax the crap out of them until they switch. Provide an alternative that is affordable in the long haul.

For instance, there is an alternative for low-income people. You need to get their landlord on board. As long as its not a 15 story apartment building, try to explain them the economics of the solar roof. Because the landlords are in it for the long-run, so when its time to replace the roof again and they dont have to, better for them.

SCCRENDO | 15 April, 2019

@andy. This is the broad principle. But compromises need to be worked out using positive rather than negative incentives. There may be a price for everyone to pay. But the consequences of not addressing climate change are even more expensive particularly to those with less resources

Darthamerica | 15 April, 2019

I assure you that our 1st step with be to raise pricing to offset cost if anything like this foolishness was ever introduced. A live example of this is Tesla deciding not to close stores and cut staff. What happened as a result? Check Model 3 pricing...

Mike83 | 15 April, 2019

A climate change denier propagandist grows up who even worshipped oxycotin Limbaugh.

andy.connor.e | 15 April, 2019


Completely in agreeance that the cost for climate change will be exponentially higher than any financial burden that could be in place. I just dont agree the step in that direction needs to come from a tax burden, whether its on the companies or the individuals. There is a lack of education in this country, because when i talk about Tesla with my friends and family its like everyone is clueless. When i talk about appliances that use less energy, or i talk about solar/hydro/tidal/geothermal energy generation its completely dismissed. Its like no one has any interest in it at all, and i think thats the single largest hurdle keeping us held back from utilizing this technology.

Nothing will be accomplished with a tax, other than pissing everyone off. When someone goes to replace their roof, they need to be educated on ALL of their options. Rather than assuming the only thing to do is to replace it with another roof of the exact kind. When its time to get another BMW, why not weigh the economics of an EV, because they could have less vehicle expenses over a 5 year period. Why not a solar water heater when your gas water heater dies? Federal tax credits are running out quickly! I would jump on them if i had the cash im telling you.....

SCCRENDO | 15 April, 2019

We could stop fossil fuel subsidies and use some of that money. But indeed taxes will be needed. We just need to find a way to spread the load. How about the billionaire tax as an example

Mike83 | 15 April, 2019

I believe Exxon makes a NET PROFIT of around $27 BILLION per year and probably pays less tax than a school teacher thanks to the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Besides taking away the tax breaks they should be held accountable for the Climate damages and forfeit their profits and fund Alternative energy, evs, and jobs. They don't even have to pay for massive damages they have caused in the past. And this is just one fossil fuel entity.

dmm1240 | 15 April, 2019

During the 1950s, a time of great economic growth, American companies paid 30%+ of annual federal revenues. Today, it's down to below 10%. Who made up the difference? Who do you think? Us.
Below are the 18 companies that paid no federal income tax from 2008-2015, according to ITEP. Many of them are in the energy sector.
Pepco Holdings
PG&E Corp.
Wisconsin Energy
International Paper
Amos Energy
General Electric
American Electric Power
Ryder System
Duke Energy
NextEra Energy
Xcel Energy
CMS Energy
Sempra Energy
Eversource Energy
When it comes to tax day, many big American corporations have a powerful message: We’ll pass.

Of the Fortune 500 companies that have already filed their 2018 taxes, 60 were profitable and yet avoided all federal income tax, according to an ITEP analysis released on Thursday. The total U.S. income of the 60—which ITEP reports included such names as Amazon, Chevron, General Motors, Delta, Halliburton, and IBM—was more than $79 billion and the effective tax rate was -5%. On the average, they got tax refunds.

In a previous ITEF study of 258 Fortune 500 companies that were profitable in every year from 2008 to 2015, 18 of them paid no federal income in any of those years. According to ITEP, 2018 saw the second-largest corporate income tax reduction, with only 2009 showing a bigger fall.

The current public face of this issue has been Amazon, which has taken heat of late for not paying Federal income tax in 2017 or 2018. That’s despite an analysis of public financial data by Fortune which showed that since going public, the company has amassed a total net income over 22 years of $57.8 billion. A company statement sent to Fortune said in part, “Amazon pays all the taxes we are required to pay in the U.S. and every country where we operate.”

But Amazon and the other 59 on the no-taxes list are certainly not alone. Even with top corporate rate down from 35% to 21%, companies are still throwing massive sums at tax experts who help them find ways—often creative and convoluted—to pay as little as possible. That has meant a dramatically widening gap between what corporations pay and what individuals pay. Below, we looked at the three main ways corporations are skirting Uncle Sam.

andy.connor.e | 15 April, 2019

Billion dollar corporations are so powerful, and have such a massive amount of control on the market, that if we tax them more, the only thing that will happen is they will increase the prices of the products/services that they offer in order to offset the tax. Putting the tax on the consumers that buy from them.

You have to understand that this is a matter of making the best decision. Im not posing a conspiracy here by saying this by any means, but that is literally the most logical thing for a billion dollar corporation to do. 5% of $10 billion is an absolute ton of money. So ya, we will get in this hypothetical example $500 million in tax dollars, but really that was funded by the taxpayers because ultimately the price of that corporations goods/services by 5% to offset it onto someone else. Not a good solution. If thats the case, you might as well raise taxes 5%. Which is not a good solution.

Best solution is to get industry involved in finding the solution. We need industry to develop solutions that are not only feasible, but economical in the long run. If you make it economical for a 15-20 year time period, then it at least will make sense in the long run. No one is going to invest in renewable energy systems if its a total loss.

Mike83 | 16 April, 2019

I really believe we should have real competitive capitalism and not keep giving welfare to fossil fuel companies who control some of government preventing progress in the next century. The US will fall behind as China and the rest of the world moves ahead. It seems insane to me.

SCCRENDO | 16 April, 2019

@andy. we do need to get industry involved in the solutions. However industries need to also be regulated. The free market allows industries to make the most profit. But the quality and safety of the product is not always addressed . And often inferior and toxic products are used. They also will not necessarily do the correct thing as regards fossil fuels and pollution if burning fossil fuels is cheaper. Thus carbon credits and fines would be useful. Companies may increase their prices to a certain degree but they will be limited because they could price themselves out of the market. Some of the recent tax breaks for them could also be removed as this was overdone. To raise extra money and to offset the effect on the less wealthy we could consider the wealth tax that Elizabeth Warren is talking about. Billionaires got the biggest benefit from the recent tax cuts. Many end up paying a smaller percentage of their income as much of their earnings come from capital gains and they have the ability to take advantage of tax breaks and often use creative accounting. Wouldn’t you love to see Trump’s tax returns??? Taxing their capital (say over 10-20 million) at 2 % will hardly be noticed by them, will not affect the price of products to the consumer and would be similar to property tax that we all pay. That is taxation on capital not earnings.

andy.connor.e | 16 April, 2019

Hmm, perhaps if the carbon taxes led companies to increase their prices, then the price of renewable energy could become competitive. I'll keep that in mind.

SCCRENDO | 16 April, 2019

@andy. The fossil fuel industry is subsidized. We should remove the subsidies and transfer those funds to renewable energy market. For example extending EV and solar rebates.

andy.connor.e | 16 April, 2019

Thats probably the easiest and most effective thing to do, that could be done right now without requiring any industry change.

SCCRENDO | 16 April, 2019

@andy. Agreed. However we are going to need to do more. The green new deal recognizes the priority. We need to address this soon as we could reach the point of no return in a decade or so. For the benefit of the denier trolls and Foxnews aficionados that does not mean the world will end in 10-12 years. The green new deal looks at the broader impact of climate change including costs and jobs.

jimglas | 17 April, 2019

Go away troll

El Mirio | 17 April, 2019

said the guy transferring from stone age to copper age

dmm1240 | 17 April, 2019

This is something that has not gone unnoticed by veterans of the car industry. At a forum co-hosted by the National Automobile Dealers Association on Tuesday, Scott Keogh, the chief executive officer of Volkswagen AG’s US unit, noted that Tesla has all but proven that electric vehicles are here to stay. The exec noted that Volkswagen plans to release electric cars of its own, including a small, all-electric SUV that will be part of its $800 million investment in its Chattanooga, Tennessee plant.

Addressing Tesla’s rise from a niche electric car maker to a company that is now attempting to breach the mass market, Keogh stated that “we have not seen in the history of the auto business, a company going from zero to fourth place in luxury in a matter of a few years.” The exec added that Volkswagen’s research has indicated that electric vehicles are at the top of numerous consumers’ list for their future vehicles; thus, “even if it’s 10 percent of the market, we want to pursue it (electromobility).”
New figures by energy consultancy EnAppSys have shown that renewable energy sources generated 33% of the total volume of Great Britain’s generated electricity over the first quarter of 2019, while clean energy technologies (including nuclear) accounted for nearly 50%.

EnAppSys published first-quarter updates for both Great Britain and the European Union last week, in which it highlighted the continually increasing role of renewable energy in Britain’s energy mix and the increasingly dominant role of wind energy in Europe’s grid (covered more fully here).
Vermont’s largest utility company, Green Mountain Power, announced it has set a goal to use 100% carbon-free energy by 2025, and 100% renewable energy by 2030. The company announced its plans at an Earth Day event this weekend, WCAX reports. CEO Mary Powell said,

“We feel that it is imperative upon us to move that way. We feel it’s possible to do it in a cost effective way for Vermonters where we continue to bring collaboration and innovation.”

The company is already making great progress. It announced in December 2018 that its energy supply was already 90% carbon-free and 60% renewable. As of December, GMP revealed the majority of its supply comes from hydro (60.6%) with 1.7% coming from solar. The remaining supply comes from nuclear (27.9%) and fossil fuels (9.8%).

Green Mountain Power also made a deal with Tesla years ago to install Powerwalls.
The Swiss plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) market smashed its previous sales record (1,341 registrations) last month by registering 2,162 vehicles. That meant that the PEV share jumped to 7.5% (6.4% from fully electric vehicles and 1.1% from plug-in hybrids), pulling the 2019 PEV share to 5.3% and thus almost doubling last year’s result.

The Tesla Model 3 delivery tsunami was the main reason for this brilliant performance, with the sedan scoring 1.094 registrations. That’s not only an absolute record for a plug-in vehicle, but also the first time that an electric vehicle is #1 on the vehicle market — across all fuel sources.

dmm1240 | 17 April, 2019

Researchers at the Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (LUT) in Finland and Energy Watch Group (EWG) have completed a 4½ year study that examined how to meet the goals of the Paris climate accords without such measures as carbon capture and geoengineering. Their conclusion? Run everything on electricity and generate all of that electricity using renewables, primarily solar.

When the scientists say electrify everything, they mean that quite literally — all transportation, all building heating, all manufacturing, and all desalinization. A fantastical, theoretical goal? Not at all, the study says. “A global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors — power, heat, transport, and desalination before 2050 — is feasible.” In fact, the authors say it could be done quicker than that, according to RenewEconomy.

“Existing renewable energy potential and technologies, including storage, is capable of generating a secure energy supply at every hour throughout the year. The sustainable energy system is more efficient and cost-effective than the existing system, which is based primarily on fossil fuels and nuclear. A global renewable transition is the only sustainable option for the energy sector, and is compatible with the internationally adopted Paris Agreement.”

The full study is 300 pages long and can be accessed in full at this link. In a press release, Energy Watch Group highlights the key findings of the study:

The transition to 100% renewable energy requires comprehensive electrification in all energy sectors. The total electricity generation will be four to five times higher than electricity generation in 2015. Accordingly, electricity consumption in 2050 will account for more than 90% of the primary energy consumption. At the same time, consumption of fossil and nuclear energy resources in all sectors will cease completely.
The global primary energy generation in the 100% renewable energy system will consist of the following mix of energy sources: solar energy (69%), wind power (18%), hydropower (3%), bioenergy (6%) and geothermal energy (2%).
By 2050, wind and solar power will account for 96% of the total power supply of renewable energy sources. Renewable energies are produced virtually exclusively from decentralized local and regional generation.
100% renewables are more cost-effective: The energy costs for a fully sustainable energy system will decrease from € 54/MWh in 2015 to € 53/MWh in 2050.
The transition in all sectors will reduce the annual greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector continuously from roughly 30 GtCO2-eq. in 2015 to zero by 2050.
A 100%-renewable electricity system will employ 35 million people worldwide. The roughly 9 million jobs in the worldwide coal mining sector from 2015 will be phased out completely by 2050. They will be overcompensated by the over 15 million new jobs in the renewable energy sector.
“The report confirms that a transition to 100% renewables is possible across all sectors, and is no longer more expensive than the current energy system,” said Hans-Josef Fell, president of the Energy Watch Group. “It shows that the whole world can make the transition to a zero emission energy system. That is why all political powers around the world can and should do much more to protect our climate than they currently envision.”
Argue with them.

dmm1240 | 17 April, 2019

You don't listen well. Take it up with the Finns. I'm not the least bit interested in engaging with a misinformation machine.

SCCRENDO | 17 April, 2019

Verbose Russian troll flagged!!!!

El Mirio | 18 April, 2019

IEA world energy outlook predicts steep oil production decline within the next 6 years. This is worth the read!

As far as i know IEA in the past put peak oil towards 2040/2050, so this is quite a change of heart. Interesting also that energy companies have been slow rolling investment and instead opted to buy shares back, this behavior supports IEA´s findings.

Investment in oil production usually take 10 years to generate return/oil, also Saudi´s reserve are very suspicous as they did not decline since the mid 80´s.

Could it truly be that we are about to see peak oil? Boosting transition into renewable into high gear?

Darthamerica | 18 April, 2019

@El Mirio that's a reason we can agree on to make investments in alternatives.

Tesla-David | 18 April, 2019

Thanks @dmm for excellent summary on Finland and Energy Watch Group (EWG) study. I totally believe it is doable. We have been net positive over last 6+ years, and now with PW2 batteries now will be using even less grid energy, and exporting even more back to grid. Over past 6+ years we have averaged exporting 9,000 kWh/year back to grid (~71%) for others to use after satisfying our all electric home requirements, and charging both Tesla's (MS and M3). Solar + batteries + EV's is an unbeatable combination, and a wining formula for Tesla going forward.

dmm1240 | 18 April, 2019

Thanks, but not my words, Tesla-David. A simple copy and paste. Someone else deserves whatever credit is due.

Tesla-David | 18 April, 2019

Here is yet another dose of reality that our planet is heating up at an accelerated rate.

"A high-profile NASA temperature data set, which has pronounced the last five years the hottest on record and the globe a full degree Celsius warmer than in the late 1800s, has found new backing from independent satellite records - suggesting the findings are on a sound footing, scientists reported Tuesday.

If anything, the researchers found, the pace of climate change could be somewhat more severe than previously acknowledged, at least in the fastest warming part of the world - its highest latitudes.

“We may actually have been underestimating how much warmer [the Arctic’s] been getting,” said Gavin Schmidt, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which keeps the temperature data, and who was a co-author of the new study released in Environmental Research Letters."

jimglas | 18 April, 2019

fact denying troll flagged

Tesla-David | 18 April, 2019

disgusting fact challenged AGW denying troll flagged

Tesla-David | 18 April, 2019

Wow that was fast, troll post gone

SCCRENDO | 19 April, 2019

Idiot verbose troll multiple flagged!!!

Darthamerica | 19 April, 2019

Why do you flag data? Data is data. Flagging it is like burying your head in the sand!

SCCRENDO | 19 April, 2019

@Darth. We don’t flag data. We flag trolls and repetitive BS trying to masquerade as data

jimglas | 20 April, 2019

trolls flagged