Connecticut Governor Signs GHG Reduction Bill; State Must Evaluate LCFS
11 June 2008
Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell has signed a bill requiring reductions in the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 2001 levels by 2050.
Similar measures have been enacted in California, Hawaii, New Jersey and in Washington state.
In addition to establishing a schedule by which Connecticut must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, HB 5600, “An Act Concerning Global Warming Solutions”:
Requires the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to publish a baseline inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and to recommend actions to achieve the necessary reductions;
Requires the DEP to evaluate the potential of low-carbon fuel standards (LCFS) for motor vehicles and home heating fuels to achieve net carbon reductions;
Establishes a Climate Change Impacts Subcommittee to recommend to the Governor and legislature ways the state can adapt to and help mitigate global warming; and
Authorizes DEP to work with other states and Canadian provinces to develop a cap-and-trade program to achieve greenhouse gas limits.
Resources
King Canute of England demonstrated that he had no power to hold back the tides, but we cannot asume that this recent effort by Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell was done with a similar result in mind. The governor should have done something real like forbidding houses over 1000 square feet and cars that get less than 50 miles per gallon. How many residents of the state will be told to leave, and how many infants, children and adults will be allowed to die for lack of money for food and health care from unemployment or low pay or greater expenses due to high fuel and food costs. Neither the governor nor the legislature has any concept of the importance of energy to the well being of a state. These officials are propagating the falsehood that there is a magic way of reducing CO2 releases and keep an economy functioning. These officials are pandering to false opinions in order to get elected. With such a law in place the state should be required to immediatly build many Nuclear power plants at government expense and all imports of electricity terminated. All low carbon fuels, including hydrogen, must be made from cheap carbon fuels to be low cost at all. Are the carbon costs of items imported into the state from China and elsewhere also to be counted. The US has exported much of its CO2 producing industries and many falsly believe that the US is not responsible for these emmissions; that China is doing them. Bio-fuels were used in England until laws had to be made to protect some forests for shipbuilding...HG...
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 11 June 2008 at 03:45 PM
The governor should have done something real like forbidding houses over 1000 square feet and cars that get less than 50 miles per gallon.
Why?
If new construction or registrations were penalised by an incremental increase over the years..maybe
But such freedoms are fiercely defended in the western world, especially in USA he wouldn't last 5 seconds.
I suggest that wind generation could meet the hydrogen requirements for transportation, initially spiking the current generation of gaseous and liquid fuels or hydrolysing for stabilising and refining bio fuels.
There are so many applications for this resource, that displacing other transport fuels, as important as it is may not be the best use in the short term.
Therefore the life expectancy and desirability of this type of machine is without question.(aesthetic considerations aside)
Moving from toxic fossil fuels to toxic radioactive strategic military fuels doesn't make any sense.
The socio-political times and past experience with corporate and political irresponsibility are enough hindsight for the cautious.
And if we cant learn from the past what can we know of the future?
There would seem little merit in having all our eggs in such an explosive basket.
If the doe and others that represent the national interest can gamble on advances in technology to increase performance of existing dirty technology - clean coal, next gen nukes, H economy etc then why is wind power described as old irrelevant and limited , cant do the job or be integrated ?
We don't need the amount of car plants we have at present we do need clean energy sources, put 1+1 and come up with 2.
with clean energy sources slow incremental gains will provide the energy to build the new economies effectively start the self assembly process.
This is exactly the way that astronomers , NASA, futurists and other practical people would approach a problem.
If you find yourself digging a deeper and deeper hole, its time to step back and reevaluate.
Rather like the millionaire who on falling on hard times would rather starve to death than cook at home.
Posted by: Arnold | 11 June 2008 at 04:42 PM
Ho... Hum.
Posted by: | 14 June 2008 at 03:34 PM