Tuesday, June 10, 2008

"Rell Signs Law Setting Caps on Emissions"



When I read the above titled article in the Courant I didn't think it really had anything to do with biking in Hartford but the more I thought about it, it really does.
For many of us, this is one of the major reasons we bike to work, school, the grocery store, the bar, etc. So what could be more important than legislature that will (hopefully) further encourage alternative (read: bike) transportation? Not much.

The article is quoted below or can be found here. Be sure to check out the comment section. If you are at all like myself it will baffle, amuse, frighten, and enrage you.

As a teaser here is my favorite comment:
"Finally!! Somebody is putting a cap on all those CO2 emissions coming from the State Capitol. Great idea. Oh, wait, this has nothing to do with gas bag politicians, just another attempt at causing an economic depression over the lies of anthropogenic global warming. Leftists love their pet phrases so they can all sound so hip; the newest one being "carbon footprint" . Yes, everybody is concerned about their "carbon footprint". Or so they say. What nonsense. Remember in the '80s when all the leftists were afraid Reagan was going to have the world nuked, the pet phrases of the era were "nuclear freeze" and "nuclear winter"? Well, Reagan put an end to the Soviet Union w/o a shot being fired. The leftists, sad that the evil U.S. won that round, had to pocket their "nuclear winter/ freeze" mantras for another era. But now that Iran is finally getting a nuclear weapon, it might be a good time to dust off the "nuclear winter/freeze" phrases. It's a lot closer to reality than man made global warming. That said, it's not to late for a special session to stem gas emissions from the state capitol and order that all elected officials drive hy-breds, instead of their gas guzzlers. Right Mr. Blumenthal?." - Alfred E Newman Esq. Wallingford, CT

Great eh? Well here is the article....

"As the U.S. Senate debated its global warming bill this week, Connecticut took a major step of its own toward addressing the issue.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Monday signed into law an act that sets mandatory caps on the emissions scientists say are warming the globe. To meet those goals, residents could see many changes in their daily lives over the next few decades, from the price they pay for electricity and the ways they commute to work, to the sources of energy they consume in vehicles and homes.

Exactly what those changes will be is up in the air: The law directs state agencies to produce an inventory of the state's emissions and take other measures to promote energy efficiency and set up incentive programs and regulations to encourage businesses and residents to do more to control greenhouse gas emissions.

The state already has a plan in place to address climate change. But the new law gives it some teeth by making the emissions cuts mandatory.

The law requires Connecticut to cut its output of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases 10 percent below 1990 levels over the next 12 years, and 80 percent below 2001 levels by 2050. The caps are even more ambitious than what is being proposed in national legislation sponsored by independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia.

"By capping greenhouse gas emissions, we will reduce our carbon footprint, conserve energy and improve air quality in Connecticut while leading the way for the rest of the nation," Rell said in a statement.

Now seriously, don't click to read more, go click on this link and check out the comments!

1 comment:

Rich said...

I usually only read the comments of Courant articles if they're about biking or Hartford urban renewal, but wow.

My favorite comment:
"There is no census on global warming yet it's already been accepted as fact without any debate.

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old and we have only been recording weather data for 100 years. It's impossible to determine any climate change with such limited data."

Firstly, I think they mean "consensus."

Secondly, I will give the commenter credit for correctly stating the approximate age of the earth. The other choice usually stated is 6000 years, like it says in the bible.

Thirdly. Yep, there's no possible way to determine climate change prior to the invention of the thermometer. Certainly not geological records. Certainly not geophysics.

There is NO dispute in the scientific community that we are undergoing a period of global climate change. The dispute is if it is indeed human-caused or human-enhanced. While the current global temperature rise does match with natural cyclical data, a large majority of scientific bodies have concluded that the evidence of human-induced warming is compelling. The main debate among actual scientists (not Right-Wing Ralphie from Wallingford, CT who can make up anything on a comment board) is whether the CO2 history is a cause or an effect of the corresponding temperature rises. Regardless, the CO2 levels right now are several times what they have ever been.

Politicians are usually the LAST ones to any party, and this is no different. The concept of climate change isn't made up by politicians who want to rob your precious gold. The absolute answer is inconclusive, and probably will remain so until it may be too late. One side looks at it as "they're sucking our money!" I tend to look at this as an enormous opportunity to advance the alternative energy and transportation industries and an open door for our economy. Hate the outsourcing of jobs? This is our chance to take the lead and innovate new developing technologies, rather than sulk that our SUVs cost a lot now that gas isn't 75 cents a gallon.

Do the "they're after our money!" people really want to gamble with our posterity's future? I don't.

This did a good job of reminding me of how many stupid people are really out there in our society. Sometimes you need that kick in the face to motivate you.