Boulder’s one thing. Boulder’s small. Boulder’s landlocked.

But affixing a carbon tax-like program to a heavily-populated port city like San Francisco is a whole different animal. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District wants to charge businesses a fee of 4.2 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide. The draft regulation imposing the new fees would go into effect on July 1, 2008.

According to a fact sheet put out by the BAAQMD (PDF here), it would take stock of how much emitted greenhouse gases were reported over a year, and charge the fee before allowing a facility to re-apply for a permit to own and operate equipment that emits pollutants.

One example provided in the initial coverage of the proposal by the San Jose Mercury-News gives is that a Shell oil refinery in the affected area would be charged $186,475 a year for its carbon dioxide emissions.

That’s a lot of money, and even a huge corporation like Shell will take notice of it. But they’ll likely fight it, too. And they won’t be alone. (more…)

Today’s Daily Camera features two editorials by associate editor Clint Talbott on Boulder’s latest greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

In Open that Database!, Talbott supports and amplifies my earlier request for the complete emission inventory database from the city. (Thanks!) Regarding the city’s claim that this database is proprietary, he wrote:

“In diplomatic terms, Gahran objected to the denial, arguing that the full inventory is a public document. She is right. The data upon which the city will measure the progress of its tax-funded emissions program is clearly a matter of public concern. It should be treated as a matter of public record.”

As I noted this morning, we seem to be making progress toward getting access to that inventory — not direct access at this point, but the city is will to supply data in answer to specific questions. That’s a start, and it’s my impression that the city intends to work with us on that in good faith.

However, I still intend to push for direct access to the database. I explained that in a comment I posted to Talbott’s first editorial… (more…)