The bipartisan bill House Resolution 763 — Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives Jan. 24. This bill aims to reduce carbon pollution by 40 percent within 10 years with a 91 percent reduction by 2050.

Polluters would be charged $15 a metric ton of carbon emitted, and the price would increase by $10 every year. Instead of using the tax to fund government programs, the money from polluters would return the revenue to everyone regardless of income level in the form of a dividend that would offset the potential for higher energy costs.

The Citizens Climate Lobby supports this bill and needs your advocacy for its passage. Volunteers will provide advocacy training at 12:15 p.m. April 7 at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Galveston County at 502 Church St. in Galveston to prepare any interested person to write effective letters and to conduct in-person lobbying of our U.S. Representatives.

If you wish to learn how best to advocate for this bill as a team of Galvestonians and energize a Citizens Climate Lobby chapter in Galveston, please respond to me at sullivansandra17@gmail.com. For more information on the group, visit www.citizensclimatelobby.org. For information on the bill, visit www.energyinnovationact.org.

Sandra Sullivan

Galveston

Locations

(50) comments

Gary Scoggin

Sandra,
Why is this group advocating a carbon tax instead of a cap and trade which is more responsive to the economy and can be constructed to drive actual levels of reductions? (Full disclosure, those that read my GDN comments on this issue know that I much prefer a cap and trade over a tax.)

Also, I assume the theory is that CO2 emissions decrease due to consumer choices due to quickly rising energy costs. How were these specific numbers selected and how were the resulting emissions reductions calculated? Doesn't a $10/ton/year increase seem like a pretty high rate of growth?

How are the collected taxes returned to the economy? Tax cuts? Direct payments prioritizing the poor? The rich? Offset infrastructure costs? The reason I ask is that once you give politicians a new revenue stream that can't wait to give it out to their favorite constituents.

Joel Martin

How is CO2 considered a "pollutant"? With out it all plant life would die and all humans shortly after. This climate hysteria is a scam.

Gary Scoggin

Anything can be a pollutant if there is too much of it.

Gary Miller

Too much of it? Like the political pandering about C02. How much CO2 is enough, how much is too little? Having enough is critical and I haven't seen any answer on what the minimum is. Too little and plants we eat will starve, when plants starve people die. No amount of sun or water can overcome a shortage of CO2.

Carlos Ponce

House Resolution 763 — Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019, written by Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-22] has 21 co-sponsors, only one Republican (Rep. Rooney, Francis [R-FL-19). Technically "bipartisan" but with only one Republican, ZERO Texans of either party.
Not to worry, although HR 763 may pass the Democrat House it will be DOA in the Senate. Why? The United States ALREADY leads in carbon dioxide reduction while the rest of the world INCREASED their CO2 emissions.
"China and India accounted for almost half (212 million metric tons) of the increase in total global carbon dioxide emissions (426 million metric tons) in 2017. The world’s increase in carbon dioxide was more than 10 times the reduction of the United States."
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/in-2017-the-u-s-had-the-largest-reduction-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-in-the-world/

Gary Scoggin

I would include Europe in that category “rest of the world”. China by the way is increasing in size but also simultaneously increasing in efficiency. It has the highest growth rate in renewables. India is coping with an emerging middle class coupled with few natural gas reserves, lots of coal and a very dysfunctional government. That will be the biggest problem globally, followed, I think, by Russia. When I was in the business I never had confidence in the Russian emissions numbers. But Russia is a massive oil producer and much of the associated gas is flared rather than captured. It’s hard enough to get oil to market from northwest Siberia, much less natural gas.

Paul Hyatt

Carlos, you are missing the point as many do not care that the rest of the world is polluting as they just want to punish the USA to the point that we no longer exist....

Gary Scoggin

Actually, Paul, it’s maybe worse than that. What many countries want is for the US to give them money to solve their climate problems as reparations for us make the problem bad in the first place. Of course I’m sure this money - in 2015 they were asking for $100 billion/year from theWest — would proppant make it’s way to it’s intended use and not see any politician’s or general’s pocket along the way. I believe we agreed to pay some of this blood money, but not a lot. A penny would be too much if you ask me.

George Croix

Support your bill?
No...not quite crazy enough to do that yet........and am allergic to unrealistic agendas....
As the country that uses the most energy but also the one that has done and still does the most for the world with it, I personally am a little tired of the false equivalencies used to claim we should feel bad about ourselves.
Here's a thought...get some smart guys to figure up how much this country has spent coming to the aid of most of the rest of the world, in the past and still, and let them pound sand with their demands........

Bailey Jones

Much ado about nothing. Our president, who believes that our problem is that we don't burn enough coal, and the half of the country who believe he is literally their Moses, will not allow any legislation aimed at lowering CO2 to pass. This bill is DOA. Climate disaster is inevitable. Then only unknown is who Republicans will blame for it.

Carlos Ponce

AP Fact Check:
THE FACTS: There is no scientific consensus, much less unanimity, that the planet only has 12 years to fix the problem.
A report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drawn from the work of hundreds of scientists, uses 2030 as a prominent benchmark because signatories to the Paris agreement have pledged emission cuts by then. But it's not a last chance, hard deadline for action, as it has been interpreted in some quarters.
"Glad to clear this up," James Skea, co-chairman of the report and professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College London, told The Associated Press. The panel "did not say we have 12 years left to save the world."

Gary Miller

One carbon molecule, two oxygen molecules? Plants need the carbon and exhale the oxygen. CO2 is the most important gas in earths atmosphere, without it earth would be a cold, dry and dead planet like Mars. I've never seen anything saying we have too much CO2 in our atmosphere or anything that identifies the perfect amount. The oceans are sequestering hundreds of times more CO2 than trees.
PS. To AOC, cows don't fart CO2, farts are mostly methane, CO2 is exhaled when a cow or a man breaths. The best way to keep a cow from producing CO2 is EAT the cow.

George Croix

You expect AOC, et al, to know which end of a cow they're talking about....?????

[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

Gary Scoggin

Methane has 25 times the global warming effect of CO2.

George Croix

So, no more Gringos chalupas??

Bummer......[wink][smile]

Gary Scoggin

Just out of courtesy to others if no other reason.

George Croix

I suppose a bright side is if Al's prediction of totally melted polar ice caps by two years ago had come true then we'd be flooded up to about, what Pike's Peak, with colder water so then would have lower atmospheric CO2...

Win some, lose some.......[whistling]

Gary Miller

Al Gore will talk as long as he gets money to talk.

Gary Scoggin

It's water vapor that keeps the earth's climate from being like that of Mars. Mars' atmostphere is principally CO2. With regards to the oceans, 90% of the heat trapped on the planet ends up in the ocean. As oceans warm their CO2 storage capacity diminishes.

George Croix

Climate disaster IS inevitable.
Eventually, the sun will either expand to the point all on Earth fry or shrink to the point they all freeze, depending on one's theory of choice.
Until then, the Earth will muddle along as it has since the primordial soup had some single celled life forms floating in it....some ups, some downs....still here.
It's already been 4 decades plus since we were told we'd all be freezing in the new mini-ice age and a decade plus since Al told us all in 2006 that the polar ice caos would all be melted away in 10 years...12 years ago....
Pick a prophet of doom...any one....believe them all you want.
They will be right, for sure, just as soon as that sun thingy happens.........
Ma Nature is still around, and except for the last couple of generations of them, the scientists telling us we're doomed are all dead...of non-climate related causes......
Proving...nothing, except it's never wise to bet against Her........

Carlos Ponce

Noel Brown, who was the director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, warned that “[c]oastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Brown added that “governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human” ability to stop it.
See "U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked"
Published June 30, 1989
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
More 1989 "predictions":
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.
Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
All this by the year 2000. The future isn't what it used to be.[rolleyes]
Note from the year 2019: NOEL BROWN and the UN WERE WRONG!

Bailey Jones

Carlos, I'm not sure why you would think that politicians (e.g., Noel Brown) have anything to do with science. I get the same argument wrt Al Gore - as if he created the science he so often misquotes. Well, as it happens, a month ago was the death of Dr. Wallace S. Broeker, one of the first scientists to sound the alarm about climate change and the researcher who popularized the term “global warming".

He published a landmark scientific paper in 1975 that asked in its title, “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”

I found the paper and read it. I'll spare you the details (you can get it on line), but essentially what he predicted, in 1975, was that the earth would be about 1.1 degree warmer in 2010 than in 1900.

So what actually happened? It turns out that global temperature has risen by about 0.9 degrees. That's a pretty good prediction for one made 4 decades ago with a 1975 era computer model. Certainly better than anything ever spewed by any politician. Of course we don't need scientists or computer models to know that the climate is changing or that sea levels are rising or that the oceans are warming or that the coral reefs are dying, or that we're on the brink of the 6th great mass extinction event, we need only open our eyes and look. Is 12 years the magic number before climate change is irreversible? I don't know, I don't care. Maybe it's 30. Or 50. Or 100. It doesn't matter because no one is going to do anything to stop it. Because for some reason I can't quite understand, the idea of replacing our pollution creating fossil fuels with clean and inexhaustible wind and solar isn't seen as a reasonable and productive thing to do.

George Croix

"Because for some reason I can't quite understand, the idea of replacing our pollution creating fossil fuels with clean and inexhaustible wind and solar isn't seen as a reasonable and productive thing to do."

Bailey, surely understand that automobiles and trucks and airplanes and ships and all of the machinery of life and commerce do not run on wind and solar, and cannot run on wind and solar.....neither wind nor solar are inexhaustible as both must have backups for when it's not sunny enough and not windy enough.
And surely you understand what those backup sources are.....
If you're discussing as much as possible then you have a point...we shoudl develope as many alterante energy sources as are practical and viable.
But, if you're not, if actually unable to understand (your words, not mine....) that wind and solar CANNOT replace fossil fuels absent some other as yet undiscovered energy source that can power all the things that fossil fuels power and to which existing ones can be converted, then you're just not being realistic....
IF so, then the old "wish in one hand and poop in the other" is going to leave you with nothing but one handful of poop, and one empty.............

Hasn't got a thing to do with politics....it simply is what it is.......

Carlos Ponce

I saw a report on the Statue of Liberty on the Science Channel. Turns out Liberty Island and Ellis Island were at one time connected to each other on a peninsula connected to Manhattan Island. Native Americans would harvest oysters on what is now Ellis and Liberty Islands leaving oyster shells on the land. Scientist say several thousand years ago they were all connected but sea levels rose making the islands that we see today. Sea level rising has been going on for thousands of years. And they will continue to rise, and fall. It's ongoing. It's natural.
"What has been is what will be, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

Gary Scoggin

George wrote, "Bailey, surely understand that automobiles and trucks and airplanes and ships and all of the machinery of life and commerce do not run on wind and solar, and cannot run on wind and solar.....neither wind nor solar are inexhaustible as both must have backups for when it's not sunny enough and not windy enough."

Renewable power can be usd in transportation. Two examples, electric cars and proper biofuels. By biofuels I'm not thinking the US version where we help subsidize Cargill and Archer Daniels but large scale like in Brazil where the vast majority of transportation fuel is ethanol derived from sugar cane. The cane gets its carbon from the air, thereby creating a semi (not perfect) closed-loop carbon cycle. Large scale ethanol brings about other issues but, from an environmental standpoint, it very likely solves more problems than it creates.

A big problem with renewables, as you point out, is the "intemittency problem" -- when the sun don't shine or when the wind don't blow. Based on current technological thinking, the answer is large-scale storage, i.e., batteries. There is a huge amount of research on this and practical gains are taking hold. As these better batteries take hold, we get into the implementation problem. It takes time and money for these things to get themselves into the system. (I would editorialize here but it would just be things I've said before.)

Bailey Jones

Well, sure George. And, as I'm sure you noticed when you read the Green New Deal proclamation (you did read it, right?), every clause ends with the phrase "as much as is technologically feasible". I'll take issue with you on cars and trucks - they can in fact run on wind and solar because they have - wait for it - batteries. And the lack of a good cheap battery is all that stands between us and endless wind and solar energy. But that's just a matter of time and tech. I'm sure you know that the cost of solar panels has dropped 90% over the past decade or so, and wind 40%. A 13.5-kilowatt-hour Tesla Powerwall 2.0 battery goes for $6,700 - plenty of capacity for my small island house. Not cheap, but not crazy, either - about the cost of a brand new AC unit. The future economy will be based on clean inexhaustible natural energy (I don't really care for the term "renewable" - trees are renewable, am I right?), every bit as much as "one word - plastics" was in 1967. I'm an engineer and an entrepreneur - new tech is new opportunity. And the energy sector is huuuuuge.

Bailey Jones

Gary, the "intermittency problem" applies to all energy (except maybe nuclear). No one drives around with a hose connected from their engine to an oil well. Oil wells are just as intermittent as solar and wind. Oil gets pumps out, then stored, then refined into gasoline, then stored, then shipped to the local gas station where it is stored again, and finally it gets stored in my tank. And the method for storing oil hasn't changed since the Minoans invented pithoi. Seems like it's high time for something new. The time will come when efficient cost effective batteries are as ubiquitous as the gas can. And, oh, the fortunes that will be made! It would be nice if those fortunes were made in the USA.

George Croix

And batteries add, what....weight...and weight adds to the GVW, which subtracts from the GCW, which means even IF an electric vehicle can generate the torque to move large, heavy loads, that total load is limited by also having to haul the weight of the batteries.....etc...so it goes with other 'green renewable energy' assumptions of equivalency....they are false equivalencies, except in circumstances where the user is already at the low end of energy use...
We don't all HAVE small homes, and many of us have a reason to drive large vehicles, and we all have a reason to eat...life....and so far Tesla isn't in the 18 wheeler business...etc...etc...etc.....
A sure bet, too, that it would take a while for each current fueling station to also become an electric vehicle powering station, too, each with accomodations for the drivers while waiting for recharge, a lot slower than than fill up and get back on the road......not so sure about the battery operated airplanes, and since nukes give the 'greens' hives, not much going for battery driven large shipping, either....maybe we just go back to sailing......
It's NOT a one-to-one swapover to wind/solar......except for the lowest common denominators...the lowest hanging fruit....
Say what you will, but the 'green new deal' is fools gold, just from cost alone, not even getting into the utter fantasy level of it, and fossil fuels will be THE PRIMARY source of energy until that Magic Pill is invented, and all conversions or replacements made to accommodate it.....
It's OK to think otherwise..this is America with a First Amendment.....we haven't yet passed an Amendment requiring reality checks..............[wink][smile][beam]

Gary Miller

In 1990 2000 was the future. Today 2000 is the past. Al Gores predictions were based on science of the past, today proves he was wrong. AOC says facts or truth are less important than being moroley correct. She is moroley correct but factually wrong.

Gary Scoggin

George, the polar ice caps may not have floated away but there has been an increase of shipping traffic along the three arctic shipping routes north of Canada, US, and Russia. Just because some of these guys got the timing wrong doesn’t mean that they got the trend wrong.

And, as Bailey mentions below, I don’t take scientific advice from any politician, be it Gore, AOC, Inhofe, or (especially) Trump.

Gary Scoggin

melted not floated. They are already floating

Gary Miller

Floating ice can't raise sea levels when it melts. It will cool the ocean as it melts which will trend to lower sea levels. Water shrinks as it cools.

George Croix

Sure, Gary, but the climate hysterics and silly-to-stupid 'plans', as opposed to objective observation and reaction, are not based on what eventually DOES happen, but what some attention showered ideologue gets willing people to believe is going to happen SOON.....even though it has yet to do so....and that person has never yet been right...
It's how the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, just because someone says bathwater is bad and must be eliminated NOW.....unreasoning panic does ZERO good.....and unreasoning panic is what the entire POLITICAL side of emissions issues is all aimed at.....based on their prediction reliability to date.........
But, nobody panicked ever bothers to check the bonafides of the demagogue, they just suck right in for another ride...............
Keep in mind that 'scientific advice' like all advice comes from not just science, but vested interest by that scientist or other advisor....
There's nobody impartial in this issue......nobody...........imo.........

George Croix

Actually, the thought behind the author's purpose is not a bad one, imo.....
Just in the wrong country...
THIS one has already spent GAZILLIONS reducing 'pollution' and still spending and fine tuning and looking for crumbs...have others done the same at even remotely the same rate in numbers large enough to remotely make the same 'global' improvements?
Hold your breath while counting.....you'll be alright...it won't take long......
This stuff is constantly shoved down our throats here in an effort to intimidate the easily intimidated into foregoing their own way of life so that the High Priests/Priestesses of the political version of 'climate change' can continue to live as THEY say we should not, and make bucks off us at the same time selling 'right's to move stuff from one hand to another and call it a real change. Bull-o-knee.....
Why not take your survey/petition/entreaty/wish list to China, or Inoda, or Russia, or any African country or South American or almost anyplace else and get them to sign on and agree to your 'cuts'....
There's a reason you don't, isn't there................
[rolleyes][whistling]

Gary Scoggin

The reason we (the US) has spent a GAZILLION dollars on reducing pollution is because we have the most ineffective system in the world for setting and enforcing pollution standards. On a world scale, our emissions standards are in places tight but there are many examples around the world where there are tighter standards. (And I'm not talking CO2, where we have no national emissions standards.). For example, the best refinery wastewater system I’ve ever seen - and I’ve seen lots of them - was in China.

George Croix

Our 'ineffective system' is called freedom. In this country we supposedly can't be shot or simply disappear for disagreeing with the government .....and we don't have another 1 billion people needing sanitation....yet...until we let all of Central America in and become as big a hole as they are.....
Turn America into a dictatorship, and any attempts not to comply or even openly to disagree with any directive or rule will be met with swift 'compliance'...pretty much like the Left runs college campuses now.......[wink]...and like China......

Gary Scoggin

I've been involved in how environmental regulations are developed and enforced in the US and around the world and when i think of how we do it here, "freedom" is hardly the first word that comes to mind. Try "competing special interests", "politics" and "fear of the slightest risk." This is not how it's done in many other places around the world. Instead there are intelligent discussions, often case-by-case risk assessments, and regulatory requirements that fit the situation.

Even in the less developed world, a proper base-level group of environmental standards are set by either the governments themselves, the financiers (such as the World Bank) or by the partners (usually multi-national energy companies).

Bailey Jones

Gotta love how free marketeers invoke China, India, or Africa in the freedom vs pollution argument, instead of say, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Portugal and Spain - all of whom manage to pollute less per capita than we do - and yet still manage to enjoy free democracies and modern living.

George Croix

If you added all of those up they might equal what this country alone spends on other countries, and maybe even what it produces. If one eats more, they poop more. Works the same for lots of things...........
Makes a great 'green' talking point, though.....
STILL doesn't answer how wrecking this country will solve a single thing.
And still doesn't give credit to fossil fuels and products for quite literally everything we have...but, it makes for good water cooler talk to debate the obvious.....[beam]

George Croix

Do they have as many lawyers as we do.......[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

George Croix

ps:
Competing special interests are a product of a free society, otherwise the government just dictates what will be done. Same for politics. Not much politics in countries that tell you what you will believe. Fear of the slightest risk is right back to the freakin' lawyers aain, and the perpetually aggrieved who'll drop a lawsuit on anybody who disagrees with them.....
Freedom costs a lot..........
Several million dead military personnel think it's worth it............
You could get ALL you mention, Gary, right here...all you need to is to elect the Left to the Executive and both Legislative branches...the 'resistance' is chomping at the bit to turn us in to one of those foreign 'better places'.......

Gary Scoggin

George, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. But I’ll try to get your point.

With regards to lawyers, it’s not say to blame them but to focus on them exclusively misses the point, just like focusing on illegal immigrants exclusively misses many other points. One of our problems is A culture that refuses to accept any risk. A culture that’s developed over decades. It’s not a right thing, not a left thing, it’s an American thing.

The left contributes by thinking every prudent risk that goes bad is evidence of avarice, greed and worthy of jail time, not to mention payment of damages, while the right ignores the concept that clean water and clean air are a publicly owned, finite resources that shouldn’t be willy-hilly exploited without some oversight by, or recompense to, the rightful owners (the public). And both sides ignore or even discredit any bits of science that makes their lives uncomfortable.

George Croix

Not THE point, Gary, as there is no single one...just A point....and, in this country, one of the most likely to be in play..........

In that last paragraph, I hope you didn't hurt yourself stretching so far in all directions.......[wink]smile]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think uncomfortable is a synonym for impractical, or imprudent, and certainly not for impossible, which would be the case, absent petroleum products, for as far as the eye can see with what we have to look at right now. Everywhere this side of being reduced to a bunch of savages relearning the skills of the stone age once all the food ran out and all the stores had been looted....
One has only to look south a thousand miles or so to see, on a much smaller scale, what happens when food gets short and the lights go out.........

George Croix

ps:
Does ANYBODY really want dirty air and water?

We already know who really wants the economy wrecked, EXCEPT for themselves personally...........

Gary Scoggin

Nobody would CLAIM to want dirty air and water but there are plenty that don’t mind creating it if that’s what it takes to get the economic results they want. For all practical purposes that’s the same thing. That attitude was once prevalent, even in this town. It still exists in many places in this country as well as in many others. Without meaningful regulation, whether by governments or investors, many places would go back there in a heartbeat.

Just throwing out a real example. Gasoline wasn’t allowed to have high levels of sulfur in many places so we just pulled the sulfur out here and threw it into the air as S02. For free. Why, because we valued our air less than others valued theirs.

George Croix

Hmmmm....First paragraph....that's certainly a point...some...some.....will do whatever it takes to get what they want as long as they don't have to suffer the same consequences as those they effect - point acknowledged... with the caveat that it's a small percentage of people....still, small IS more than nobody, so......
We both remember "Smells like money...." .... to a person to whom that makes the difference between prosperity and destitution, they will probably always believe it. Worldwide....It is a global issue, one that only making change in the USA will have marginal effect on environmentally, but will have monumental local economic impact, and actually, as this country is in large part the reason for other countries economic success or failure, huge one's there, as well, if we wreck ourselves.
One can cure some of the ills a victim of cancer suffers by careful and targeted application of treatment, or simply kill the patient. Same principal is in play with the more extreme 'green' initiatives....
Second para.....seems to me that's pretty much the same as the 'credits' thing....sell the rights at A for someone else at B to maintain if not increase their emissions....but you've explained that it's not the same as cap and trade, even though I see no difference unless/until actual reductions at both ends are made.
Not mentioned, though, was that the reason so often was that those Other Places wouldn't allow refining, or at least not enough of it to meet their fuels demands, so cheerfully allowed A to do the dirty work or spend the bucks on remediation and thus take the hit for them, B . Excuse....hmmmm??? Reality...definitely...
Unless the SAME standard(s), which is what a standard is, something equal to all, is applied everywhere, without exception, then it's just a game of emissions whack a mole....imo.....and unless someone less strident than the current crop of Doom and Gloomers gets involved, and targets an audience less....uh....optimistic.....than the people who actually think fossil fuels can be eliminated anytime remotely close to soon, then you and I and a lot of others are just jawboning....zero will change, as no shared misery WILL equal no shared acceptance.....imo, as always......

Gary Miller

Gary. China was where you saw the best ? One Chinese good doesn't equal millions of Chinese bad.

Gary Scoggin

I dint mean to suggest that. The facility I visited that particular week was fairly new and built to very appropriate environmental standards for its setting. It was on an important Bay and there was lots of attention to water issues. It was not in an area susceptible to ozone formation so they didn’t go overboard on NOx controls... (reliable low NOx instead of finicky Ultra Low NO), asexamples. And, in fairness, there are things they should have done differently.

There are lots of examples where China has done their industrial development poorly. But what I was trying to say was that the US doesn’t have the monopoly on good design and operations.

George Croix

Inoda?
India......
Heck, keep hunting till you find Inoda...might as well try to find a non-existent country to sign that not-going-anywhere petition............

Rusty Schroeder

I say NO just because Gary threw the methane gas from cows out there, I have cows and I might just buy a couple more now. :)

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.