we still have an energy problem, it's clear that we must find alternatives to fossil fuels, the sooner the better
That's the problem - you take fuels off the table before another is ready economically and worse you remove the option to explore in our own backyard. Drilling ANWAR, off shore, coal etc are something we have right now in abundance - any dollar spent on this is money diverted from the middle east and into our own pockets. Yet you use GW as the primary argument against using our resources - all while we continue to buy the same carbon from someone else - crazy.
As for alternatives - last I heard Kennedy was opposed to them - so it's not a right versus left thing - both parties have been obstacles.
My issue - this should be a US policy to promote alternatives - it is - and private industry should work to develop them - they are. Government money should not be spent creating artificial carbon credit programs and passing stupid laws like they do in WA state like engine displacement taxes and other stupid "mile reduction" plans. They cannot seem to understand people need to commute, they only work to limit miles driven via taxes - that's their only plan.
It's always a bunch of penalties based on the GW farce - where's the plan to switch energy and to what?
seattlepi.nwsource.com
Legislature moves to cut greenhouse emissions
Gregoire is expected to approve package
By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER
The Legislature on Wednesday committed Washington to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in "green economy jobs."
Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to sign House Bill 2815, which the Senate approved 29-19.
"Change is going to take place, and we need to prepare for it," Sen. Rosa Franklin, D-Tacoma, told her colleagues before Wednesday's vote.
"The green-collar jobs, the green economy, it will be the new economy," she said. "If we do not prepare for it, we will be left behind."
Others were less certain of the potential benefits to the state.
"Will we end up stifling the economy, stifling people in Washington state?" asked Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup.
He favored increased investment in developing pollution-cutting technology, as opposed to setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
Proposed House and Senate budgets include up to $1.58 million for state agencies to begin putting many aspects of the legislation into action. But neither has the $250,000 needed to start work on the piece that invests in green job development. The two chambers and the governor will negotiate a final budget in the coming days.
The legislation also prepares the state for participating in a regional climate initiative that will be fleshed out this summer.
The Western Climate Initiative, a coalition of seven states and two Canadian provinces trying to cut emissions regionally, will negotiate a regional, market-based approach for cutting carbon dioxide. It likely will be a cap-and-trade system that sets emissions limits and allows polluters to barter for the right to pollute above those limits. State lawmakers must approve the system before Washington participates.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are believed to trap heat and raise global land and ocean temperatures. Locally, the warming is expected to raise sea levels, reduce drinking water supplies, increase the risk of forest fires and insect populations and warm rivers and streams, further threatening local salmon.
Opponents warned that reducing emissions could hammer the state economy, eliminating jobs and raising consumer prices on countless items and services.
In the days before the vote, lobbyists representing the oil and gas industry raised concerns about a section of the legislation that sets goals for reducing the amount of miles traveled per resident, which could squeeze gas sales.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gases in Washington, because electricity is generated mostly by low-emitting hydroelectric dams. To cut emissions, the number of cars and trucks on the road will have to drop.
The legislation calls for miles-traveled reductions of 18 percent by 2020, 30 percent by 2035, and 50 percent by 2050. The bill doesn't say specifically how that would be achieved, but calls for state agencies and local governments to bring strategies back to lawmakers.
In debate on the Senate floor Wednesday, those opposed to the goals said it would be difficult for rural residents to cut their driving to health care, schools and jobs. Those in support said individual drivers would not be assigned limits, but that reductions would be measured by the state overall.
greencarcongress.com
Washington State Legislators Propose Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Excise Tax
8 February 2008
Six Washington State legislators have introduced a bill (Senate Bill 6923) that would establish a passenger vehicle greenhouse gas excise tax, the amount of the tax to vary based on the EPA combined fuel economy ratings for each vehicle.
Proceeds of this tax would be used for the design, construction, and operation of transportation facilities and services that provide alternatives to the use of single-occupant vehicles and for programs that encourage the use of these facilities and services. Allowable uses of these revenues would include—but would not be limited to—transit, high-capacity transportation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transportation demand management programs.
The transportation sector is Washington state’s largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, with emissions from road transportation accounting for approximately one-third of the states total GHG emissions.
The legislature finds that the global warming costs associated with automobile emissions are not 19 included in the existing costs of using a vehicle. Additionally, the legislature finds more alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel are needed to significantly reduce automobile vehicle miles traveled.
The legislature finds that a greenhouse gas tax is an effective way to 4 embed some of the global warming costs of automobile emissions into the cost of using a vehicle, and at the same time provides resources to fund transportation alternatives
Although a tax based on a direcet measure of greenhouse gas emissions would be preferable, the legislators opted to use fuel economy as a proxy measure. For vehicles without an established EPA fuel economy rating, the bill proposes using engine displacement to define the tax amounts.
Proposed Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Excise Taxes
Fuel economy rating Tax
= 10 mpg $240
11 mpg $220
12 mpg $200
13-14 mpg $180
15-16 mpg $160
17-18 mpg $140
19-21 mpg $120
22-26 mpg $100
27-34 mpg $80
35-48 mpg $60
49+ mpg $40
Taxes Based on Engine Displacement
Displacement (L) Tax
4.0L or more $240
3.0L to < 4.0L $180
1.5L to < 3.0L $200
13-14 mpg $120
< 1.5L $80
|
