The assertions that global warming will have dire consequences are dubious at
best, not to mention that cause-and-effect of CO2 and temperature is also
uncertain. So the legislature does have a sound basis for this action.
Who gives a rip about whether man-induced global warming is real or not? The
point is, Utah's air quality is TERRIBLE! We won't have to worry about our
descendants dying from global warming - we're all going to have lung and throat
cancer long before then.
By allowing the EPA regulate CO2, who are we hurting? Really...who is at such a
disadvantage due to the air being cleaner and resources being used more
prudently? Consider the alternative...who are we hurting by NOT regulating our
own waste? The answer is EVERYONE. It doesn't take scientific proof to see
that our valley is a pollution dumping ground in the winter. Regulation or not,
it'd be great to not have schools canceling outdoor recess because the air
quality is so bad. Something tells me that, left to its own, Utah is not going
to enact the necessary legal limits to help clear up its air. I'm all for
having the EPA come in and do it for us. If you don't want them in here, then
let's set our own standards!
The Legistlature is like the Emporer without clothes...please don't embarrass us
anymore by not really researching what is known to the rest of the world.
"...what is known to the rest of the world."Please read the post by
Sensible Scientist (12:48p) in order to get your facts straight (not my
post).As the 'Scientist' stated, the cause-and-effect of CO2, and
its impact upon global temperature change, is indeed still uncertain.
We'll all give a rip if the EPA gets their way. You'll be paying out the nose
for all their regulations. They need to stay out of Utah and let Utah take care
Regulating CO2 is NOT like regulating air pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant,
and is much more technically challenging and expensive to reduce from emissions.
Good regulations already exist for air pollutants -- that's why there was such
an uproar about Salt Lake's winter inversions."Who are we hurting?"
ALL of us, because treating CO2 as a pollutant will dramatically increase the
cost of electricity, gasoline, diesel, manufactured goods, food, and everything
that is transported.
If you are so stupid to think that regulation means cleaner air you are crazy.
This regulation is a stupid means to a stupid end. If wind Nuclear and solar
energy were cost efficient then we would have them but the fact is they are not
so we do not. solution let's make coal NG and other energy sources more
expensive. Do you also think that the land that lake powell was on was more
valuable as the Green River? Guess what a slam on hydroelectricity. Why would we
want Nuclear energy? here's a thought cause you don't need to find it somewhere
you can build it anywhere like in my district said the congress man. Now guess
what you regulate this Co2 emissions and what do you get $ for Goldman sachs a
campaign contributor. funded by consumers not businesses.WAKE UP
people. you've been dupped and hard.
Science is becoming all fiction. A mountain of climate legislation will have no
effect on the weather. It will, however, be a steady source of income to the
In Utah, regulating CO2 is the same as regulating Coal because it is the primary
source of CO2 emissions. Coal is the primary source of Mercury emissions in
Utah, the USA and the world and the major reason why it is not recommended to
eat fish more than 3 times a week. It is also a major source of sulphur dioxide
(acid rain) even though ineffective cap and trade methods have been unable to do
much more than get power companies to use coal that is lower in sulphur
content.All of this anti-EPA krap by our Mayberry politicians is
simply to preserve Utah's coal interests.Sensible Scientist: If the
relationship between temp and CO2 is uncertain, then as a "scientist" I
challenge you to provide a reliable quote from a study undertaken by a real
scientist (not a journalist) who isn't taking money from the oil/coal lobby to
back that statement. The reason why we all say that there is a
consensus on that subject is because it's actually true (here on earth, not in
OZ, Wonderland, or the Klingon Empire).
Here is a very small sampling of 114 years work showing that there is a direct
relationship of temp to CO2.Arrhenius, Svante 1896. Philosophical
Magazine 41, 237-76.Hulburt, E.O. 1931. Physical Review 38, 1876-1890.Callendar, G.S. 1938. Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 64, 223-40.Plass, Gilbert N. 1956. Tellus 8, 140-154.Mller, Fritz 1963. J.
Geophysical Research 68, 3877-3886.Manabe, Syukuro 1971. Man's Impact on
the Climate, W. I-I. Matthews, W. W. Kellogg, and G. D. Robinson, Eds.,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 249-264.Idso, Sherwood B. 1980. Science
207(4438), 1462-1463.Chou Ming-Dah, Peng Li, Arking Albert 1982. J. Atmos.
Sci. 39, 2657-2666.Gilliland, Ronald L. and Schneider, Stephen H. 1984.
Nature 310, 38-41.Hansen, James, Lacis A., Rind D., Russel G., Stone P.,
Fung I., Ruedy R., Lerner J. 1984. Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity,
Geophys. Mono. 29, 130-163. Am. Geophys. Union.Boer, G. J., G. Flato, M.
C. Reader, and D. Ramsden 2000. Climate Dynamics 16, 405—425.Hegerl
Gabriele C., Crowley Thomas J., Hyde William T., Frame David J. 2006. Nature