Comments about ‘My view: Misguided environmental policies are hurting Utah's economy’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 4 2010 12:03 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Conjecture

I read a lot of conjecture and speculation but no facts about how regulation will be handled. It only shows that the autor has a deep seeded fear of change and a misstrust of government.

Well I believe we can govern ourselves as the founding fathers invisioned. Not a weak government that crumbles to the individual sqweeky wheels but a good government that allows us to do more, better and bigger than we can do alone. That's my America, that's what I swore to defend.

Timj

Similar complaints were made about the Clean Air Act (probably by this very same Chamber of Commerce)--the CAA was too expensive, disputed science, won't make much of a difference, etc.--and yet we know that as a result, Utahns live significantly longer because of it.
The Chamber of Commerce cares about business interests, not people.
And apparently they don't speak for the Utah ski industry either...

gp

Thanks for your comments. All true. Too bad, the EPA has swung out so far to the left. It is in the direction of destroying our economy.

Litigate or innovate

This reminds me of some historic blunders of the past -- putting all your efforts into litigation, or suing to stop the inevitable from happening versus pursuing innovation to keep a step ahead of trends and competitors.

Take the music industry. It saw downloadable MP3s stealing its CD sales. But instead of jumping on the bandwagon to innovate into MP3s, it chose to litigate again music file sharing to preserve CDs. While they were busying paying lawyers instead of engineers, guess who stole their industry? Apple with its iPod and iTunes. Too bad for Sony and other dominant players in the music business! They're all suffering, but Apple's doing just fine, thanks!

I see the same thing happening to Utah. We'll pour money into useless attorneys to stop the inevitable of CO2 restrictions when we should be capitalizing on our rich geothermal resources (some of the best in the nation!) to generate electricity. We'll fight to preserve our 150-year old coal industry, which has been losing jobs due to dwindling coal supplies and automation for decades... while other states like Texas and Wyoming are booming in renewables.

Utah, once again, will be late to the table.

Davis

More coal fired and nuclear power plants. More Ethanol and flex-fuel vehicles. These should be mandatory... they are in the Republican Party Platform.

Myopia

CO2 is not directly "toxic" to humans until it reaches an atmospheric concentration of about 5%.

For CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas and affect global climate, however, a much lower concentration is all that's needed. That's what is happening now.

You have to ask yourself a couple of questions before you can evaluate the financial implications of environmental regulations:

What options are available that make it possible to comply with the regulations, and,

What are the consequences of non-compliance?

In the case of regulating atmospheric CO2, there are many options available, and the opportunities for technological innovation, which is always America's greatest economic asset, are substantial.

Conversely, failure to act means prolonging our dependence on foreign oil, foreign credit and military entanglement on foreign soil. It also means that as our nation's population increases we'll have increasingly more difficulty ensuring that we have clean air and water - plus rapid global climate change.

Given a choice between significant economic stimulation through technological innovation to reduce CO2 emissions, or the "toxic" downward spiral of foreign oil dependency, debt, military conflict and environmental damage, I think our choice is clear.

Dee

It's too bad that you simply make things up and use fear tactics (all business will have to get applications and will cease to operate while they are waiting!) instead of just dealing with the facts. The facts are that every economy in the world that has de-carbonized has seen an explosion of growth. You're like a guy who wants to keep using a typewriter even though a PC is right on your desk.

Geezer

EPA is going about greenhouse gas regulation very realistically in its new "clean cars rule," proposed jointly with the Department of Transportation. It regulates greenhouse gases and gives us dollar savings at the gas pump by increasing the fuel economy of cars. The auto industry is supporting it. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by nearly 2 billion barrels just in vehicles sold in five model years. That's good for Utah's economy.

Utahn

All believe that we should be responsible stewards of the environment. Liberals however are bent on destroying the economy in the process with regulatory burdens that will put companies out of business. Common sense rather than political ideology should drive the debate.

wise up

Well, having driven almost ALL business out of the country for economic reasons, and having almost NO industry left in this country, (thanks to the erstwhile environmentalists and epa), I say let them finish us off. Or perhaps it would make sense to reign them in before they do, if it isn't too late. Between climate 'disorder', (rocky's new term), and the epa, we can either wise up or lose what little is left of our 'economy'. The epa is our own 'hitler'.

CO2 oh No!

Look out...N is coming, then O, then H2O. Before long, every element will be deemed a toxin. Regulate, regulate, regulate. Love it. I'm sure that helps our economy. To you who don't get it...business is people...get it? Hurt business...hurt people. Its that simple.

Exercise in Futility

It's pointless for EPA to embark on a huge, costly regulatory program to reduce US CO2 emissions while "developing" countries like China, Brazil, India, etc are embarking on development programs that vastly increase their CO2 emissions. China is already the world's largest producer of CO2 emissions and the largest automobile market. Autos sold in China face no such CO2 emission limits as recently enacted by EPA. But that is the nature of government bureaucracy - useless paper (permits, regulations, etc) always takes precedence over common sense and reality.

Behind the times....again

It typically takes Conservatives about 20 to 40 years to catch on to what is happening. They were against Civil Rights, but now have a Black leader of the RNC. Their spokesman in the early '60's, Ronald Reagan, said that Medicare would be the end of American Democracy, but now they carry signs saying "HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE". The EPA was going to make industry collapse, but now we all enjoy cleaner air. So, now Lane says that Carbon legislation is going to be the end of all of us. Conservatives have a horrendous record on accurately forecasting the impact of legislation and I think this is another case of being blind today and loving it tomorrow.

dlharman

I'm sorry but economic prosperity has always come through growth. There are industries to be developed and products to be made from new standards.

I'm not a fan of bigger government, but it's clear that when faced with issues of higher priced fuels, environmental impact and the loss of national energy self-sufficiency, Utahns chose to address these issues by driving bigger cars and deploying more 1800's technology power plants that use coal.

Man-up and take the blame for your own short sightedness.

lead, follow or get out or way!

I thought it had to do with Utah's persistant policy of burning cheap dirty coal,
more SUV and trucks than any other State,
urban sprawl,
the local's denial of man-made pollution,
and last place in the country to begin recycling.

Utah used to be progressive and a national leader
in the pioneer days.

Now it's the "me too" state - 30 years behind.

He's right

Sending $600 a year for every man woman and child to the middle east oil cartels that fund terroism is a mistake in policy.

Put up some windfarms and buy the Nissan Leaf. Now that's patriotic. Now if only an American company would build an all elctric car.

Linus

I learned in grade school sixty years ago that humans and animals breathe in air (composed of various gasses) and use some of the oxygen and breathe out waste gasses (including carbon dioxide). No one told us that carbon dioxide was poison.

We also learned that plants thrive on carbon dioxide, and increase the percentage of oxygen in the air. Isn't it obvious to all that an increase in the carbon dioxide content in the air is a boon to vegetation, including the crops we depend upon?

Phony science is being used to impose government control of all aspects of our lives. I'm getting a little bit tired of it. And I'm getting even more tired of all you libs who buy into phony science.

wenmmers

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas (the most prevalent greenhouse gas); Utah is the second driest state. If we are trying to reduce greenhouse gases, perhaps we can demand it be a function of water vapor AND carbon dioxide. Since we have very little water vapor we should be able to emit (or sell the priviledge to emit) more carbon dioxide than other states (imagine what could happen if we were to have it indexed to per unit area!). We could even demand a net carbon credit since we need to pull more water vapor out of the air than we can contribute. Hawii and Florida won't be able to emit any carbon dioxide since they have high humidity (because nothing says logical more than taxing something completely uncontrollable like climate).

Lagomorph

Linus | 11:13 p.m. April 4, 2010:
"I learned in grade school sixty years ago that humans and animals breathe in air (composed of various gasses) and use some of the oxygen and breathe out waste gasses (including carbon dioxide). No one told us that carbon dioxide was poison."

Context is everything. Manure is good on strawberries-- in the field, but not at the breakfast table. Same with CO2. Location and concentration are relevant. CO2 may not be acutely toxic (as Myopia 7:49 pointed out above), but can have significant effects on lifestyle and economics nonetheless. Pollutants don't have to be toxic to be regulated. E.g. sediment in water (total suspended solids) is regulated, but is not inherently toxic.

re:Linus | 11:13 p.m.

Linus | 11:13 p.m. April 4, 2010
I learned in grade school sixty years ago that humans and animals breathe in air (composed of various gasses) and use some of the oxygen and breathe out waste gasses (including carbon dioxide). No one told us that carbon dioxide was poison.

We also learned that plants thrive on carbon dioxide, and increase the percentage of oxygen in the air. Isn't it obvious to all that an increase in the carbon dioxide content in the air is a boon to vegetation, including the crops we depend upon?

Phony science is being used to impose government control of all aspects of our lives. I'm getting a little bit tired of it. And I'm getting even more tired of all you libs who buy into phony science.
------------------

And since you were in grade school --

We've lost over 20% of the planet to de-forestation and grasses while steadily increasing emitting that CO2.

Do yourself a favor and look up the atmostphere of Venus and check out it's surface temperature due to greehouse effect.

to comment

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