New Jersey governor signs toughest U.S. carbon law

steveox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
7,499
Location
Way Down South
EAST RUTHERFORD, New Jersey (Reuters) - New Jersey on Friday became the first U.S. state to mandate sharp greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 in an effort to fight climate change.

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, signed a law on Friday making the state the latest to bypass the Bush administration by setting mandatory regulations to fight emissions of gases scientists link to global warming.

"We want to send a message to Washington. Wake up, get with the program and start doing something about greenhouse gases," Corzine told reporters at Giants Stadium on the eve of former Vice President Al Gore's international Live Earth concerts.

The Global Warming Response Act mandates economywide cuts of greenhouse gas emissions by about 16 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 in the country's most densely populated state.

Scientists say heat-trapping emissions need to be cut by that much to prevent the worst effects of global warming including deadly storms, flooding and droughts.

U.S. states have taken action on their own and in regional groups because the federal government has not yet passed mandatory regulations on the emissions.

Bush opposes mandatory cuts of the gases, favoring voluntary goals.

The U.S. Congress is mulling several bills that would cut output of the gases by employing market mechanisms to trade the right to pollute. But whether a bill will pass before Bush leaves office in 2009 is a matter of keen debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070706/pl_nm/climate_emissions_nj_dc

This is a step in the Right Direction. States have to make their Own Laws Not depending on the Federal Goverment to do it.
 
Werbung:

DrWho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
141
Location
Tardis
EAST RUTHERFORD, New Jersey (Reuters) - New Jersey on Friday became the first U.S. state to mandate sharp greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 in an effort to fight climate change.

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, signed a law on Friday making the state the latest to bypass the Bush administration by setting mandatory regulations to fight emissions of gases scientists link to global warming.

"We want to send a message to Washington. Wake up, get with the program and start doing something about greenhouse gases," Corzine told reporters at Giants Stadium on the eve of former Vice President Al Gore's international Live Earth concerts.

The Global Warming Response Act mandates economywide cuts of greenhouse gas emissions by about 16 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 in the country's most densely populated state.

Scientists say heat-trapping emissions need to be cut by that much to prevent the worst effects of global warming including deadly storms, flooding and droughts.

U.S. states have taken action on their own and in regional groups because the federal government has not yet passed mandatory regulations on the emissions.

Bush opposes mandatory cuts of the gases, favoring voluntary goals.

The U.S. Congress is mulling several bills that would cut output of the gases by employing market mechanisms to trade the right to pollute. But whether a bill will pass before Bush leaves office in 2009 is a matter of keen debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070706/pl_nm/climate_emissions_nj_dc

This is a step in the Right Direction. States have to make their Own Laws Not depending on the Federal Goverment to do it.

This is what happens when politicians get a hold of some junk science. "Do not feed the bears" would be good advice to tell the scientists about politicians. But just like the tourists at the park like to be entertained by the bears who act out for marshmallows the scientists like to be entertained by research dollars. It's all harmless fun until someone gets hurt.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
EAST RUTHERFORD, New Jersey (Reuters) - New Jersey on Friday became the first U.S. state to mandate sharp greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 in an effort to fight climate change.

Reducing greenhouse gases is a good idea, but it has nothing to do with climate change.

States have to make their Own Laws Not depending on the Federal Goverment to do it.

I agree with you here.
 

DrWho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
141
Location
Tardis
Reducing greenhouse gases is a good idea, but it has nothing to do with climate change.


The major greenhouse gases are a natural part of our atmosphere. Why should we reduce them? i.e. water vapor, CO2, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide.

Remember they have useful purposes in the sky.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
The major greenhouse gases are a natural part of our atmosphere. Why should we reduce them? i.e. water vapor, CO2, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide.

Remember they have useful purposes in the sky.

I understand this, but I was referring more to CO2 pollution.
 

DrWho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
141
Location
Tardis
I understand this, but I was referring more to CO2 pollution.

Interesting, because while some people might have some complaints about a few of these the CO2 is one of the least problematic. The only people I know of complaining about CO2 are the global warmers. If you have no problem with global warming then why is CO2 a problem? CO2 is not a pollutant.
 

Hobo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
703
Location
Move around
Carbon is one of the building blocks of all life on earth. Not one shred of evidence that Carbon, in any form, is causing global warming. Some evidence suggests that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has spurred the growth of vegetation, particularly trees. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57484728/nature-still-sucking-up-considerable-carbon-dioxide/

In football terms, cap and trade is just a long "hail Mary" pass. Someone believes that by spending money we can somehow stop global warming.
 
Werbung:

palerider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
4,624
I understand this, but I was referring more to CO2 pollution.

More CO2 pollution is kind of like more O2 pollution. CO2 isn't a pollutant in concentrations anything like what we are seeing today or in the past 500 million years for that matter. We know that 7000 ppm didn't trigger any "runaway" warming or cause mass extinctions.

I am all for reducing pollution, but if money is to be spent in the reduction, then it should be spent reducing something that is actually harmfull.
 
Top