/PRNewswire/ -- PJTV's Tea Party TV today unveiled the results of a special Tea Party poll, which revealed that about one-in-three (32%) African Americans who are likely voters would vote for a candidate supported by the Tea Party movement.
"Questions of racism within the Tea Party have been raised for months now," said Vik Rubenfeld, PJTV's Polling Director. "Our survey found that more than one-in-three African Americans support the movement. Moreover, the data revealed that 32 percent are also likely to vote for a congressional candidate whom the Tea Party supports."
"PJTV's Tea Party poll shows that, for many black voters, race no longer serves as a rationale for supporting policies that undermine their economic interests," said Joe Hicks, PJTV's host of the Minority Report and a former Executive Director for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. "Democrats and leftists have attempted to define the Tea Party movement as a collection of angry white bigots. However, the PJTV poll of black voters shows the wheels on the race card bus are beginning to fall off."
Poll Highlights
* 35 percent of likely voters who are African American support the Tea Party movement and 17 percent support the movement strongly.
* 38 percent of African American respondents who support the Tea Party endorse the movement privately. 34 percent publicly support the Tea Party.
* 32 percent of African American respondents are more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who is supported by the Tea Party, including 14 percent who are very likely.
Methodology
PJTV has been conducting weekly Tea Party tracking polls of 1,000 likely voters since August 2, using Pulse Opinion Research. However, today they presented a special analysis spanning eight weeks from August 2 to September 19 which represents 543 likely voters who are African American. The margin of sampling error on this special survey is +/-4 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label carbon pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon pollution. Show all posts
Friday, September 24, 2010
Monday, July 13, 2009
With Cap-and-Trade Proving Unworkable, It's Time for Plan B, Say Carbon Tax Advocates
/PRNewswire/ -- The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill barely passed the House and appears to be faltering in the Senate; it's time for Congress to consider a more straightforward alternative to the unwieldy cap-and-trade approach, a coalition of environmental groups told the Senate Monday. At a Senate briefing today, a panel of scientific, economic and legal experts discussed the drawbacks of cap-and-trade and advocated a direct tax on carbon emissions with revenue returned to the public, preferably through payroll taxes reductions, as the best approach to passing effective climate legislation.
Panelists who spoke at the briefing included *Dr. James Hansen*, leading climate scientist; *Dr. Robert Shapiro*, Co-founder and Chairman of Sonecon and the U.S. Climate Task Force, and former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce; *Cecil Corbin-Mark*, Deputy Director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice and Co-Coordinator of Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change; *Professor Janet Milne* of Vermont Law School, contributing author of "The Reality of Carbon Taxes in the 21st Century." *Brent Blackwelder*, President of Friends of the Earth, moderated. The briefing was hosted by the Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org), Climate Crisis Coalition (www.climatecrisis.us), and Citizens Climate Lobby (www.citizensclimatelobby.org).
Last Thursday, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced that the Senate's climate change bill won't be ready until some time after lawmakers return from August recess, a month later than previously planned. The delay raises doubts about whether the current bill can garner the votes to pass.
The House bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by only the slimmest of margins (219-212) after last-minute deal-making further weakened its provisions and ballooned the legislation to over 1,400 pages. The vote on the bill, authored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), broke along partisan lines, with only eight Republicans supporting the measure, and several progressive and environmentally-oriented Democrats voting against the weakened measure.
"The political weakness of Waxman-Markey is actually a positive sign for the climate," said Marshal Saunders, president of Citizens Climate Lobby. "Cap-and-trade is a very tough sell in the Senate. If Congress has any hope of passing meaningful climate change legislation, it will have to consider Plan B - a revenue-neutral tax on carbon pollution. Waxman-Markey stalling in the Senate could be a turning point towards something that will actually work."
"The Senate must do better than the House," said Tom Stokes, Coordinator of the Climate Crisis Coalition. "Cap-and-trade tries to hide the carbon price, which gives opponents license to make outrageous claims about its cost. In contrast, the cost of a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be clearly known. With unemployment at 9.5% and consumer spending down, using carbon revenues to boost every worker's take-home pay will help address both the climate and the economic crisis."
"President Obama stresses the need for open, rigorous debate to develop sound policy. Supporters of the Waxman-Markey bill maintain that it is the most important piece of environmental legislation ever, yet they cut off discussion of direct carbon pricing: a simpler, more effective policy supported by most economists and a growing spectrum of concerned citizens. Not a single hearing addressed or explored revenue-neutral carbon pricing as the principle mechanism for containing greenhouse gases," Stokes said.
"The compromised and fundamentally flawed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade would lock-in an ineffectual approach that would accomplish little, while blocking effective action for years," said Daniel Rosenblum, co-director of the Carbon Tax Center. "The main beneficiaries would be Wall Street and polluters who want to be protected from having to take prompt action. The Senate should start over with a simpler and more understandable carbon pricing system that will do what cap-and-trade won't: encourage energy efficiency, clean renewable energy and prevent catastrophic climate change."
Briefing panelist and leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, argued the Waxman-Markey approach would fail to reduce CO2 emissions enough to prevent catastrophic warming. "Continuing to increase burning coal, oil and gas will soon drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil's cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back," Hansen said. "The Waxman-Markey bill locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like 'cap-and-trade' scheme... It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level, far short of the trajectory needed to return atmospheric CO2 to safe levels -- and the bill sabotages even these by permitting unverifiable 'offsets,' by which other nations are paid for projects, most of which would have been undertaken anyway. A far superior alternative to cap-and-trade is a rising carbon fee, which provides the best incentive to move to ever higher energy efficiencies and carbon-free energy sources. As engineering and cultural tipping points are reached, the phase-over to post-fossil energy sources will accelerate."
Briefing panelist Robert Shapiro, former Under Secretary of Commerce, pointed out that the trading component of cap-and-trade -- buying and selling permits to release CO2 -- would also create a trillion-dollar market in carbon futures and derivatives that could crash financial markets again. As he wrote in April, "The unavoidable volatility of the prices of emission permits... would attract furious financial speculation, since speculators live off of volatile prices. And we now know the risks that we all run when rampant speculation occurs in financial instruments tied to our economic foundations, such as housing -- or energy."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Briefing panelist and Vermont Law School professor Janet Milne cited the carbon tax's recent track record outside the U.S. as evidence of its political strength. In British Columbia, Premier Gordon Campbell and his Liberal Party passed a revenue-neutral carbon tax last summer, and despite an aggressive campaign against it, went on to win reelection in May.
Panelists who spoke at the briefing included *Dr. James Hansen*, leading climate scientist; *Dr. Robert Shapiro*, Co-founder and Chairman of Sonecon and the U.S. Climate Task Force, and former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce; *Cecil Corbin-Mark*, Deputy Director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice and Co-Coordinator of Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change; *Professor Janet Milne* of Vermont Law School, contributing author of "The Reality of Carbon Taxes in the 21st Century." *Brent Blackwelder*, President of Friends of the Earth, moderated. The briefing was hosted by the Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org), Climate Crisis Coalition (www.climatecrisis.us), and Citizens Climate Lobby (www.citizensclimatelobby.org).
Last Thursday, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced that the Senate's climate change bill won't be ready until some time after lawmakers return from August recess, a month later than previously planned. The delay raises doubts about whether the current bill can garner the votes to pass.
The House bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by only the slimmest of margins (219-212) after last-minute deal-making further weakened its provisions and ballooned the legislation to over 1,400 pages. The vote on the bill, authored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), broke along partisan lines, with only eight Republicans supporting the measure, and several progressive and environmentally-oriented Democrats voting against the weakened measure.
"The political weakness of Waxman-Markey is actually a positive sign for the climate," said Marshal Saunders, president of Citizens Climate Lobby. "Cap-and-trade is a very tough sell in the Senate. If Congress has any hope of passing meaningful climate change legislation, it will have to consider Plan B - a revenue-neutral tax on carbon pollution. Waxman-Markey stalling in the Senate could be a turning point towards something that will actually work."
"The Senate must do better than the House," said Tom Stokes, Coordinator of the Climate Crisis Coalition. "Cap-and-trade tries to hide the carbon price, which gives opponents license to make outrageous claims about its cost. In contrast, the cost of a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be clearly known. With unemployment at 9.5% and consumer spending down, using carbon revenues to boost every worker's take-home pay will help address both the climate and the economic crisis."
"President Obama stresses the need for open, rigorous debate to develop sound policy. Supporters of the Waxman-Markey bill maintain that it is the most important piece of environmental legislation ever, yet they cut off discussion of direct carbon pricing: a simpler, more effective policy supported by most economists and a growing spectrum of concerned citizens. Not a single hearing addressed or explored revenue-neutral carbon pricing as the principle mechanism for containing greenhouse gases," Stokes said.
"The compromised and fundamentally flawed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade would lock-in an ineffectual approach that would accomplish little, while blocking effective action for years," said Daniel Rosenblum, co-director of the Carbon Tax Center. "The main beneficiaries would be Wall Street and polluters who want to be protected from having to take prompt action. The Senate should start over with a simpler and more understandable carbon pricing system that will do what cap-and-trade won't: encourage energy efficiency, clean renewable energy and prevent catastrophic climate change."
Briefing panelist and leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, argued the Waxman-Markey approach would fail to reduce CO2 emissions enough to prevent catastrophic warming. "Continuing to increase burning coal, oil and gas will soon drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil's cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back," Hansen said. "The Waxman-Markey bill locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like 'cap-and-trade' scheme... It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level, far short of the trajectory needed to return atmospheric CO2 to safe levels -- and the bill sabotages even these by permitting unverifiable 'offsets,' by which other nations are paid for projects, most of which would have been undertaken anyway. A far superior alternative to cap-and-trade is a rising carbon fee, which provides the best incentive to move to ever higher energy efficiencies and carbon-free energy sources. As engineering and cultural tipping points are reached, the phase-over to post-fossil energy sources will accelerate."
Briefing panelist Robert Shapiro, former Under Secretary of Commerce, pointed out that the trading component of cap-and-trade -- buying and selling permits to release CO2 -- would also create a trillion-dollar market in carbon futures and derivatives that could crash financial markets again. As he wrote in April, "The unavoidable volatility of the prices of emission permits... would attract furious financial speculation, since speculators live off of volatile prices. And we now know the risks that we all run when rampant speculation occurs in financial instruments tied to our economic foundations, such as housing -- or energy."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Briefing panelist and Vermont Law School professor Janet Milne cited the carbon tax's recent track record outside the U.S. as evidence of its political strength. In British Columbia, Premier Gordon Campbell and his Liberal Party passed a revenue-neutral carbon tax last summer, and despite an aggressive campaign against it, went on to win reelection in May.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
New Poll Shows American Public Supports Immediate TARP Repayment: Senate Vote Risks Public Ire
/PRNewswire/ -- A poll commissioned by National Media Inc. over the weekend demonstrates that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that healthy banks should be allowed to repay TARP investments immediately. Of the one thousand respondents, 86 percent believe that banks should be allowed to repay the government immediately, if they are capable of doing so. Only 11 percent disagreed.
"Last night the U.S. Senate had the opportunity to allow banks who are financially sound to repay their TARP money, but failed to do so," said Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and commentator. "This is counter to the American public's desire and some of the better respected experts and elected officials on this issue."
Additionally, 75 percent of those polled believe taxpayers should expect a return on their investment when the funds are repaid. If informed of a hypothetical return -- 10 percent was used in the poll -- 65 percent of respondents are more likely to support the TARP program (Actual return will vary based on valuation of the warrants that Treasury hold in each TARP bank. Analysts have stated that returns could be as high as 15 percent.)
"The data shows that policymakers would have gotten more support for the TARP if it had been more clearly understood that the taxpayers would get a return on their investment," said Castellanos. "One of the most controversial acts of the financial crisis could have been politically more palatable to taxpayers if they'd understood the TARP was designed to produce a return on investment, not just throw taxpayers' money to the wind."
TARP Perception Survey Questions:
Q1. Last fall, in order to address the financial crisis, the government
invested hundreds of billions of dollars in banks and financial
institutions. This initiative is known by the acronym TARP. Do you
think the TARP investments were a good idea?
Yes - 31%
No - 54%
Don't know/ No Response - 16%
Q2. If a bank has the financial strength to pay the government back,
should they be allowed to do so immediately?
Yes - 86%
No - 11%
Don't know/ No Response - 4%
Q3. As healthy banks repay this money to the government, should taxpayers
expect a return on this investment?
Yes - 75%
No - 19%
Don't know/ No Response - 6%
Q4. If you knew that taxpayers were going to get a return on their TARP
investment, say 10%, would you be more or less supportive of the TARP
program?
More - 64%
No -23%
Don't know/ No Response - 13%
National Media Inc. periodically commissions surveys in its ongoing research and analysis of the public policy issues of the day. This poll was conducted in coordination with GfK Custom Research, North America.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Last night the U.S. Senate had the opportunity to allow banks who are financially sound to repay their TARP money, but failed to do so," said Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and commentator. "This is counter to the American public's desire and some of the better respected experts and elected officials on this issue."
Additionally, 75 percent of those polled believe taxpayers should expect a return on their investment when the funds are repaid. If informed of a hypothetical return -- 10 percent was used in the poll -- 65 percent of respondents are more likely to support the TARP program (Actual return will vary based on valuation of the warrants that Treasury hold in each TARP bank. Analysts have stated that returns could be as high as 15 percent.)
"The data shows that policymakers would have gotten more support for the TARP if it had been more clearly understood that the taxpayers would get a return on their investment," said Castellanos. "One of the most controversial acts of the financial crisis could have been politically more palatable to taxpayers if they'd understood the TARP was designed to produce a return on investment, not just throw taxpayers' money to the wind."
TARP Perception Survey Questions:
Q1. Last fall, in order to address the financial crisis, the government
invested hundreds of billions of dollars in banks and financial
institutions. This initiative is known by the acronym TARP. Do you
think the TARP investments were a good idea?
Yes - 31%
No - 54%
Don't know/ No Response - 16%
Q2. If a bank has the financial strength to pay the government back,
should they be allowed to do so immediately?
Yes - 86%
No - 11%
Don't know/ No Response - 4%
Q3. As healthy banks repay this money to the government, should taxpayers
expect a return on this investment?
Yes - 75%
No - 19%
Don't know/ No Response - 6%
Q4. If you knew that taxpayers were going to get a return on their TARP
investment, say 10%, would you be more or less supportive of the TARP
program?
More - 64%
No -23%
Don't know/ No Response - 13%
National Media Inc. periodically commissions surveys in its ongoing research and analysis of the public policy issues of the day. This poll was conducted in coordination with GfK Custom Research, North America.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Congress to Vote on 'Cap-and-Trade' Legislation by Summer
/PRNewswire/ -- Two weeks after President Obama challenged Congress to send him a bill that "places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy," House and Senate leaders responded with an ambitious timetable for new "cap-and-trade" legislation, including a final Senate vote by the end of summer.
Under a cap-and-trade system a "price" for emitting pollution into the atmosphere is established but companies are able to freely trade their greenhouse gas emissions in an open market. Burning coal or natural gas to generate electric power becomes more expensive - and renewable sources of energy like wind and solar that much more competitive.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) chair of the Energy & Commerce Committee, said he intends to have a cap-and-trade bill ready by late June. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promised comprehensive energy legislation including cap-and-trade laws will be put to a vote this August.
For wind power developers, cap-and-trade legislation is expected to lead to even faster growth in an industry already coming off its best year ever in 2008. Argus Research confirmed its buy rating on AES (NYSE:AES) . AES operates Buffalo Gap, one of the largest wind farms in Texas. Monday analysts at Argus stated AES "continues to have strong growth prospects."
CNBC guest analyst Francis Gaskins has a buy rating on NACEL Energy (OTC Bulletin Board: NCEN) which has four wind projects underway in Texas. Gaskins' research note indicated NACEL "represents a unique opportunity for investors interested in exposure to the sector," and puts a $4 valuation on the Company.
The imminent passage of cap-and-trade laws likely means more solar PV manufacturers will acquire or develop their own power projects. Monday First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR) bought OptiSolar's pipeline of utility scale projects. Rival SunPower (NASDAQ:SPWRA) announced its own plans for new solar power projects in Florida and California last year. Following First Solar's purchase Lazard issued a buy on the Company and raised its target price to $145.
-----
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Under a cap-and-trade system a "price" for emitting pollution into the atmosphere is established but companies are able to freely trade their greenhouse gas emissions in an open market. Burning coal or natural gas to generate electric power becomes more expensive - and renewable sources of energy like wind and solar that much more competitive.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) chair of the Energy & Commerce Committee, said he intends to have a cap-and-trade bill ready by late June. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promised comprehensive energy legislation including cap-and-trade laws will be put to a vote this August.
For wind power developers, cap-and-trade legislation is expected to lead to even faster growth in an industry already coming off its best year ever in 2008. Argus Research confirmed its buy rating on AES (NYSE:AES) . AES operates Buffalo Gap, one of the largest wind farms in Texas. Monday analysts at Argus stated AES "continues to have strong growth prospects."
CNBC guest analyst Francis Gaskins has a buy rating on NACEL Energy (OTC Bulletin Board: NCEN) which has four wind projects underway in Texas. Gaskins' research note indicated NACEL "represents a unique opportunity for investors interested in exposure to the sector," and puts a $4 valuation on the Company.
The imminent passage of cap-and-trade laws likely means more solar PV manufacturers will acquire or develop their own power projects. Monday First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR) bought OptiSolar's pipeline of utility scale projects. Rival SunPower (NASDAQ:SPWRA) announced its own plans for new solar power projects in Florida and California last year. Following First Solar's purchase Lazard issued a buy on the Company and raised its target price to $145.
-----
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)