Looks like Sen. Jim Ritchie is angling for the Energy Party’s nomination in the next election. Nice try, Jim, even though the release is light on specifics… (good thing I’ve linked to the actual bills below, which do contain some pretty decent ideas):
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 31, 2007
Contact: Kendall Robinson
[email protected]SENATOR JIM RITCHIE INTRODUCES "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR SC’S FUTURE"
Ritchie Seeks to Create a Sustainable and Energy Independent South CarolinaCOLUMBIA, SC – Today, Senator James H. "Jim" Ritchie, Jr. (R-13),
Majority Whip, held a press conference in the South Carolina State House
to announce a series of four bills, collectively entitled "Energy
Independence for South Carolina’s Future." Together, they address
our growing dependence on foreign energy, the rising costs of energy on
our state, the effects of a building’s indoor environment on its
residents, and protecting the beautiful environment for which South
Carolina has become famous.Joining him at the announcement were fellow colleagues who are
co-sponsoring the legislation and members from prominent state business
and conservation groups. Supporters and co-sponsors include:
- Senator Glen McConnell, Senate President Pro Tempore
- Senator John Courson, Senate Education Committee Chairman
- Senator Phil Leventis
- Senator Larry Martin, Senate Rules Committee Chairman
- Senator Wes Hayes, Senate Ethics Committee Chairman
- Senator Greg Gregory, Senate Fish, Game and Forestry Committee Chairman
- Senator Thomas Alexander, Senate Banking and Insurance Committee Chairman
- Senator Scott Richardson
- Senator Gerald Malloy
- Senator Vincent Sheheen
- Senator Chip Campsen
- Senator Ray Cleary
- Senator Nikki Setzler
- American Institute of Architects, SC Chapter
- Coastal Conservation League
- Conservation Voters of SC
- Palmetto Conservation Foundation
- SC Chapter of the Sierra Club
- SC Wildlife Federation
- U.S. Green Building Council, SC Chapter
Senator Ritchie said "together, these strategic initiatives will
create a South Carolina that is no longer defenseless against
unpredictable energy costs by establishing strong incentives for private
investors, sustainable construction and environmental standards for
state buildings and our public schools, and new alternative fuel goals
for our state’s transportation fleet.As a result, no longer will we determine a building project’s worth
merely by what it costs today; instead, we will also focus on how our
buildings affect the well being of the South Carolinians who work and
learn there, its effects on our environment, and the burden each
building’s energy costs imposes on taxpayers.""This package sets a new course for sustainable construction in South
Carolina. By adopting leading energy efficiency standards, we will
actually save the taxpayers money, reduce energy and water usage, and
improve the interior environment for employees and our school
children," Ritchie said."Energy Independence for South Carolina’s Future" is a series of
four bills, listed below:
S. 376: Energy Independence and Sustainable Construction Act of 2007
S. 362: Energy Independence and Sustainable Schools Act of 2007
S. 377: Energy Independence and Sustainable Investment Act of 2007
S. 368: South Carolina Alternative Fuels ActSenator Ritchie continued, "While this endeavor seeks to relinquish
the Middle East’s control over our energy needs and preserve South
Carolina’s natural resources for our children and grandchildren, it
ensures the proper balance between these goals and the well being of our
economy and the business community. When these bills become law, South
Carolina will be at the forefront of finding meaningful and balanced
solutions to conservation and economic growth. This will enhance South
Carolina’s future as a highly desirable place to live, work and raise
a family."Several influential associations have already pledged their support to
this initiative, and have written letters of support to members of the
Senate. To obtain a copy of these letters or for more information,
please contact Kendall Robinson at [email protected].
###
Related Posts
I think the Senator could have started by allowing us to choose which power company we buy from, but I bet SCANA’s PAC has contributed to him. Deregulation of power in SC was addressed 8 years ago and the General Assembly gave SCANA 6 years to get ready. Some 8 years later, and two years past the projected date we still have energy monopolies in this state. I guess diversification of choices requires too much thought. I would gladly buy from Duke before SCANA as they are much more comsumer friendly, not to mention the fifedoms-the co-ops.
Poster number 1….great post.
No meaningful reform on ANYTHING will happen until there is substantial lobbying reform. But like most things in politics, the important items are ignored in favor of the unimportant “hot button” issues.
Brad…I am behind you on this energy thing. But if it is gonna happen YOU have to drive it. Do not count on any “organic” assistance from anyone in state government. You can’t count on the left, as they have gone whacko on the “man made global warming thing” and are no longer helpful on more other issues. The right is not very interested UNLESS you can make it wholesome and a “social” issue that relates directly to them…like “will you send your son or daughter off to fight in the NEXT conflict in the middle east? If you would rather not, here is what we can do…..”
Good luck Brad…you have your work cut out for u.
Chris
While energy conservation and fuel efficiency are worthy things to consider in state government, I hope we don’t chase moonbeams and start wasting money putting state employees in Toyota Prius Hybrids. To date there have been NO studies that show the increased purchase price for a hybrid automobile is EVER recouped in reduced fuel operating costs. If private citizens want to buy these cars because it makes them feel good, fine. But let’s not allow warm fuzzy emotions and the desire to do something, ANYTHING, cause us to waste more precious state tax dollars. Again, for the hundredth time, we can NOT conserve ourselves out of energy dependence. That ship has long sailed. The only real answer is to open federal lands to drilling, relax bans on offshore drilling, and incentivize petroleum companies to explore, develop and extract new oil sources. Enviro-whacko objections notwithstanding, we have developed 21st century extraction techniques that are clean and safe. Oil companies don’t drill like they did in the 1940’s, and it’s time we acknowledged that and moved on with what we know we can do in an environmentally responsible way. Those who deny this simple truth are Luddites and flat-earthers, and are way more interested in advancing a liberal agenda than in energy independence. Ed
Ed you had me until you went off the deep end with an outdated drilling mantra. You are correct to say that a Prius will not pay for itself from gas savings. But that’s only true if you look only at todays pump price for gasoline. That is not the entire cost we pay for the stuff. If the full costs are considered then a Prius is a true bargain.
You have it exactly backwards. We really can conserve our way out of the energy mess we’re in if we get serious about it. What we can’t do is drill our way out. There is a finite amount of oil but a virtually infinite amount of sunlight and wind. I’m not a tree-hugger per-se. Nuclear is an option that must be considered along with conservation and other non-fossil fuel alternatives. But to think we can drill our way out of this mess is to deny reality.
It’s only the “whackos” who don’t recognize “man made global warming” as a reality today.
Ed is the posterchild for “pennywise and pound foolish.”
What makes conservation measures like the Prius worthwhile is the reduction in global warming emissions.
The economic costs of global warming (not to mention the evironmental costs of attempting to drill our way out of oil dependence) will dwarf the cost of developing new energy technologies.
Here’s a little bit of math. Let’s compare a Toyota Prius with a similiar sized Toyota Matrix. EPA city estimates are 60 and 29 respectively. Assuming 12,000 miles per year, @ $2/gallon it would take 15.8 years to recoup the $6,765 dollar difference in price. That’s not a particularly good investment. But @ $5/gallon (typical for Europe and Japan) it would only take 6.3 years. Now it’s starting to look like something to consider. If we could turn the Prius into a plug-in hybrid then the time to re-coup would be even less.
Right now it probably isn’t a worthwhile investment for someone interested only in cost savings to buy a Prius. But as the purchase price comes down and gasoline prices go up the logic shifts.
Gas doesn’t cost $6 a gallon here. And it won’t unless liberals are successful in adding ridiculously high taxes to the price in order to do social engineering. Global warming is a scare tactic used by left wing social engineers to attempt to gain more control over the lives of private citizens, and is fervently believed in by weak-minded hand wringers who have nothing better to do than truncate personal freedoms and advance a leftist agenda. While I agree that the earth may be warming a little, it cannot be shown that anecdotal ” oddly warm winters” are a result of this warming. Neither can it be shown that man has caused it, or that he can stop it, or even affact it significantly. Global warming is a religion that has its’ rigid doctrines and dogmas and requires the faith of its’ adherents, nothing more. Ed
Ed, I’m not even talking about global warming. I’m talking about energy independence. Right wingers have this religious notion that somehow God will replenish the oil fields so that all we have to do is drill more to find it. Jesus fed the masses with small quantities of fish and bread, but he never intended to feed everyone’s Hummer with a few drops of oil.
Bud, I went on my rant about GW because Ready to Hurl brought it up. She’s one of the hand wringers I was talking about. To her, apparently the decision about which vehicles the state should purchase doesn’t have anything to do with the clear economics of the thing…in her world we should just buy whatever will make us think we’re doing something to solve a nonexistent problem. Maybe she drives a Prius or owns Toyota stock, I don’t know. People who believe the global warming hoax generally either drive a ridiculous hybrid, or are complete hypocrites and drive a Lexus SUV that gets 4 mpg.
Ed, it looks like I’m in pretty company– 2,500 scientists. Of course, scientists are widely known to be ungrounded in reality, NOT.
Stop listening to Rush. It’s reduces your IQ.
—
Warming to Raise Seas for 1,000 Years
January 26, 2007 — By Alister Doyle, Reuters
OSLO — World sea levels will keep rising for more than 1,000 years even if governments manage to slow a projected surge in temperatures this century blamed on greenhouse gases, a draft U.N. climate report says.
The study, by a panel of 2,500 scientists who advise the United Nations, also says that dust from volcanic eruptions and air pollution seems to have braked warming in recent decades by reflecting sunlight back into space, scientific sources said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will publish its report, the most complete overview of climate change science, in Paris on Feb. 2 after a final review. It will guide policy makers combating global warming.
The draft projects more droughts, rains, shrinking Arctic ice and glaciers and rising sea levels to 2100 and cautions that the effects of a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will last far longer.
“Twenty-first century anthropogenic (human) carbon dioxide emissions will contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas,” the sources quoted the report as saying.
Make that “pretty good company.”
Forgive me for this tangent.
I understand from a report today that Andre SC2 Bauer’s plane crashed because it was not going fast enough. Was he overcompensating for prior indiscretions?
Yep, looks like it was pilot error (not to pick nits or anything):
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer should have aborted a slow takeoff that caused his single-engine plane to crash last year, injuring himself and a passenger, federal investigators said Thursday.
The National Transportation Safety Board said Bauer did not have enough speed during the May 23 takeoff and his plane stalled before hitting trees and power lines, coming to rest in a creek bed in northern South Carolina.
Bauer, 38, issued a statement, but did not address the crash. His spokesman, Rod Shealy, said Bauer was traveling and “does not want to nit pick.”…
Hmmm..I did not see in the document where it was decided he SHOULD have stopped. I saw were it said he DID not stop. There is a big difference…when a pilot is rumbling down the runway and he has trouble he has to decide…can I abort and avoid objects at the end of runway, or can I take off and avoid objects at the end of the runway? The question the pilot is trying to answer is…which is more likely to be successful?
Remember…this document is a narrative, not an editorial.
I was not there, but we have all had to make similar decisions while driving cars. It sure is easy to make that decision from the safety of your living room.
Brad…I really don’t see why you are interested in piling on concerning this. It seems to me you could you use a friend in the SC government somewhere…as it seems most of your pet projects are not doing well. Maybe building bridges would be better than harping.
I bet Andre could get most of that restructuring plan though the senate…but of course, you would not know. You never finished talking about speeding ticket long enough to consider dealing with the one guy that COULD make it happen.
Chris
Ya Brad, why are you focusing on the integrity and judgement of our public servants!?
Is that you, Rod? Why nit pick when you’ve got a fan club to pick nits for you?
chrisw, what’s Andre’s track record on getting any legislation passed– much less one as complex, controversial and far reaching as government restructuring?
Andre puts on his purple robe and counts the votes. He’s no Lyndon Johnson II.
The last we heard, Andre couldn’t even be bothered to have an opinion on the subject.
Ready,
Perhaps you should investigate a bit before you make those claims. Simply making a statement does not make it true.
I see why most of the bright people that used to post here are gone. There is nothing left but mean spirited partisans…that will never accomplish everything.
The newspaper prints and prints, but to what end. They ignore the dummies and crooks in politics, and they shred those that can be effective…leaving nothing behind but the status quo.
My involvement in politics is to move South Carolina FORWARD…not to moan and groan and be negative. This place is proving not worth any time at all
Ok chrisw, let’s move the state forward. Here are my suggestions:
1. Increase penalties for drunk driving. This should help reduce the carnage on our highways.
2. Increase the gasoline tax to fund better roads.
3. Increase the cigarette tax to offset rising property taxes and to fund health care initiatives. Not by a little but substantially.
4. Eliminate the highway commission. Allow the governor to appoint an executive director to serve at the pleasure of.
5. Remove the RR tracks from Assembly Street. (I had to through that in).
now see how easy that was….no bashing, no trashing.
And this conserative agrees with u.
Hurl, you can believe anything you want. Its’ a free country (for now anyway). By the way, the UN report on global warming came out this week. Even they did not have the courage and or the facts to be able to say unequivocdally that global warming is caused by man. I wonder why not? Do you not have any curiosity about this at all, or do you just suspend all disbelief and wander aimlessly along behind all the other cultists? ed
Just a couple of desultory rants:
Ed appears to stand logic and reality on their head. The mouthings of a drug-addicted, ex-disk jockey windbag count for more than the weight of scientific opinion about global climate change.
Chris, I’ve never flown a plane by myself, but I’ve been at plant control consoles where I had to make very fast decisions or get into deep trouble. Andre doesn’t know enough about flying to make even some basic decisions. Par for the course . . .
The story in the paper said the emergency brake (in Andre’s plane) was probably engaged. Now that seems pretty basic to me.
“possibly” partially engaged….
and both people actually IN the plane said it was not engaged…
you equate accelerating down a runway with standing at a control panel …
and somehow translate that into his ability to make executive decisions on the job…
the posters left on this blog site are a joke…
I don’t know anything about drug addiction or disc jockeys…I have formed my beliefe based upon what I observe, and my beliefs are my own, alone. I own what I believe, and I don’t follow the crowd like global warming cultists and weak-minded, hand wringing alarmists do. If it weren’t global warming for you people, it’d be something else to worry and fret about. You can’t watch the evening news and get a weather forecast for the day after tomorrow that you can depend on, and yet you get a warm winter or a hot summer or two under your belt and you are willing to believe agendized leftists when they make ridiculous forecasts about what will happen 50 to 100 years from now. These same boneheads told us it was global cooling just 25 years ago. C’mon! I don’t need Rush Limbaugh or anyone else to tell me that you’re a bunch of fools. Again believe whatever you want. I refuse to be stampeded or shamed into following a crowd over the edge. Ed
I humbly apologize for never thinking for myself. And I also apologize for upsetting your ideologically constructed, secure little world.
Steve,
Nice try, does not apply to me. Try again.
Just tired of the bashing and hate. I can’t handle it…my problem I know.
chrisw, I’m still waiting. Please educate the blog readers.
What legislation can Bauers take credit for getting passed?
True. Just as implying a statement is false doesn’t make it false.
I can’t recall a single post where you provided any support for Bauers role in “moving the state forward”– other than you like him.
Ed, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you’d know that long term weather forecasts are much more accurate than forecasts for the immediate weather.
But, hey, since you and Rush know so much about paleo-climatology, why don’t you give us a weather forecast for the next week. I’m betting that even short term forecasts by meterologists are, on average, far more accurate than your pull-it-out-your-hat forecast.
I don’t think that “warm winter or a hot summer or two” convinced the following scientists to warn in senate testimony about global warming:
(1) Ralph J. Cicerone, Ph.D.
President, National Academy of Sciences
“Prior to this position, I served as Chancellor of the University of California at Irvine, where I also held the Daniel G. Aldrich Chair in Earth System Science. In addition, in 2001 I chaired the National Academies committee that wrote the report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, at the request of the White House.”
(2) Professor Mario Molina
University of California, San Diego
Mario Jose Molina (born March 19, 1943) was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in elucidating the threat to the Earth’s ozone layer of chlorofluorocarbon gases (or CFCs). This Nobel Prize was shared with Paul J. Crutzen and F. Sherwood Rowland. Mario Molina became the first and only Mexican to ever receive a Nobel Prize for science. Until recently he was an Institute Professor in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at MIT.
Molina earned a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico in 1965, a postgraduate degree from the University of Freiburg, West Germany in 1967 and a doctoral degree in chemistry from UC Berkeley, California in 1972.
(3) James W. Hurrell, Director of the Climate and Global Dynamics Division (CGD) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.
“My personal research has centered on empirical and modeling studies and diagnostic analyses to better understand climate, climate variability and climate change. I have authored or co-authored more than 60 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and book chapters, as well as dozens of other planning documents and workshop papers. I have given more than 65 invited talks worldwide, as well as many contributed presentations at national and international conferences on climate. I have also convened over one dozen national and international workshops, and I have served on several national and international science-planning efforts. Currently, I am extensively involved in the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) on Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR), and I serve as co-chair of Scientific Steering Committee of U.S. CLIVAR. I have also been involved in the assessment activities of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a contributing author to chapters in both the third and fourth (in progress) assessment reports, and I have served on several National Research Council (NRC) panels. I am also a lead author on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s (CCSP) Synthesis and Assessment Product on Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere.”
(4) Sir John Houghton was co-chairman of the Scientific Assessment for the IPCC from 1988-2002. He was previously chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1992-1998), Chief Executive of the UK Meteorological Office (1983-1991) and Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Oxford (1976-1983). He is currently chairman of the John Ray Initiative, a Trustee of the Shell Foundation and Honorary Scientist at the Hadley Centre.
Ed, when your scientific research is recognized by a Nobel Prize or when you write a peer reviewed article disputing global warming, then I’ll take your “seat-of -my-pants” opinion seriously.
This UN conference of hand-picked believers in the theology of (White) Man-Made Global Warming, was the FIRST conference to reach such a “consensus OPINION”, even in advance.
There is so little thought put into this legislation that I have to assume it is no more than grandstanding. Unfortunately, lots of people spend lots of effort coming up with these socialist schemes, which exhibit a profound ignorance of economics and technology.
As an engineer who has designed and built some large skyscrapers, hotels and condominiums, I can assure the untutored do-gooders that energy efficiency and life-cycle costs of ownership have been a large factor in design since the oil price spikes of the early 1970s. If any technology would return “ten times the investment” that Senator Ritchie claims, it would be employed by the experts, without the need of force applied by those with no building experience.
Such life cycle cost of ownership is conspicuously absent from S. 368, which mandates all the buzzword fad vehicles – hybrid, hydrogen, bio-diesel – none of which are cost effective. That is why consumers don’t buy them unless the government is handing out big tax credits and fuel subsidies. This will make some car dealers, and their lobbyists, some more money. That’s all.
A much simpler solution is to downsize:
* Downsize state government and sell off about half the fleet.
* Employ a carpooling system, like one I developed for commuters from Greenville to Clemson in 1979, to reduce the number of state vehicles riding down the same highways with just the driver.
* Stop the population growth in the state, and stop building schools.
Round up the illegal aliens who fill up dozens of new schools.
Make a real effort to end the cycle of poor girls dropping out, getting pregnant multiple times by multiple men, and filling the schools with more future dropouts.
But that is tougher work than showboating with bandwagon feel-good legislation.