Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah Legislature: State Senate committee urges EPA to cease regulating greenhouse gases’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Feb. 20 2010 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Sensible Scientist

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.

Misses the point

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.

Who Are We Hurting?

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!

Please stop

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.

Re: Please stop (1:29p)

"...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.

Anonymous

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 of herself!

Sensible Scientist

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.

dumb as a box of rocks

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.

brejol

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 scientific community.

dlharman

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).

dlharman

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 440, 1029-1032.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments