Washington Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Evergreen State.
Welcome to Washington Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 02-23-2009 1:38 PM by nperea. 8 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (9 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    • admin
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-19-2008

    2009 House Bill 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

    Introduced in the House on January 28, 2009

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 02-03-2009 1:19 AM In reply to

    Re: 2009 House Bill 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

     " makes findings that early participation in greenhouse gas emission programs that are market driven will bring the best results and sets forth various procedures and conditions for the state’s participation in regional and federal “cap and trade” programs."

    Can anyone translate this into English?  All I get from it is Seattle has smog and higher taxes.

     

    DK

     Recall Gregoire. http://www.idiotorliar.com/ and, vote the bat-rastards out

    I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
    - John Wayne in the Shootist.

  • 02-03-2009 12:15 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 House Bill 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

    To be re-named the "Job Elimination Act of 2009" - Let's shut down local industry such that they can sell their carbon emissions elsewhere. Will the last one working please turn out the lights?

  • 02-03-2009 4:28 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 House Bill 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

     This is just another way of providing income to the increasing "green" businesses.

  • 02-06-2009 8:32 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 House Bill 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

     Translation:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions have nothing to do with smog or pollution.  It has to do with a misguided attempt to eliminate CO2, which is as necessary for life as air or water and has been mistakenly blamed for Global Warming or "Climate Change".

    1)  CO2 accounts for less than 3% of the "greenhouse" gases (mostly H2O) which keep our earth habitably warm.

    2)  Most of that 3% comes from natural sources such as the oceans.  Very little is impacted by man.

    3)  Penalizing businesses for CO2 production (Cap & Trade) will not lower the temperature of the earth a bit--nor is that desirable.

    4)  If Washington is "on the forefront" of Cap & Trade, many businesses will flee or avoid our state. 

  • 02-10-2009 5:48 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 House Bill 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

    I will start with this.

    You all will find the most difficult information to get from any place on the internet or for that matter anywhere else, is, FUEL CONSUMPTION AND (so called) greenhouse gases that JET AND TURBINE ENGINES produce.  I may at a later date post some specific information concerning this. Here is a bit of trivia, did you know that 2 747 airplanes taking off from Sea-Tac will produce much more pollutants than the largest container ship does.  But for some strange reason data is hidden, and no one ever brings up the massive polluting effects of turbine engines, and the massive fuel consumption.

    If there really is a problem with these gases here is the place to prove it. Mandate that all jet engines cease and be scrapped.  As there are engines that can be made to replace them that will save about 2/3rds the fuel, and along with that 2/3rds the pollutants.  You have to remember there are no catalytic converters or other such controls on jets.

    It still strikes me a funny and very immature that all that support a global warming/ climate change agenda, always at all costs ignore the very things that can be the true cause of said problem.  Have we all noticed its cool ????  Well dah, the sun is not active anymore, when it was highly active like having a major flare every other day, it was warm. 

    And another interesting bit of stupidity is when I here it is hotter than normal or cooler than normal, wetter/dryer etc.  So why isn't what ever the temperature is, not considered as normal?  How can anyone place a yard stick on any natural occuring thing?  That is like saying my cat only meowed 2 times today, and something is drasticly wrong because most of the days he meows 3 times.

    If anyone is really interested there is alot of good scientists that have proven the green house gas theories wrong.

    And by these bills we can see its a money agenda and nothing more. As the big boys with the money will still be climbing into their gallon a second jet planes, and you and I will have to park our cars, and freedoms.

  • 02-10-2009 6:02 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 House Bill 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

     5salive - I agree with you and you make sense to me, but please read this.  i posted this on the corresponding senate bill:

    Environmentalists AND opponents to the Global Warming Theory PLEASE READ.  You are both at fault and it's ruining our state's livlihood..

    Our state legislators really need to get some perspective on this green house gas reduction crusade they are on.  The question that needs to be asked of them is "what is the ultimate goal in trying to reduce green house gas emissions?"  It sounds over-simplified, but really it needs to be asked.  Even if they succeeded in ELIMINATING carbon emissions, how will we even know if it had any impact whatsoever?

    Will we all of a sudden notice that it's cooler outside?  Will we see the polar ice caps start to grow again?  Will we be able to go outside and tell that the air is cleaner and now we can breathe?  Or will we simply be able to say that we feel really good about ourselves because we've done what we think is helping with global warming?  And if we ever arrive at this day in time, was it worth it to stifle business and economic development?

    On the other side of the issue - all of you angry people out there still trying to argue that global warming is a myth or that people are crazy for believing in global warming or that it is not a man-made phenomenon - PLEASE STOP!  It's a pointless argument!  you very well could be right.  I might even agree with you, but the fact is that you will never prove it and you will never convince those that believe, that it's not true.  You will spend all your energy, time and money arguing over it.... trying to prove your point and in the end all you will be left with is MORE ANGER and less power.  While you are arguing over the existance of global warming, environmentalists are passing laws to get their way while completely ignoring the impacts they have on business and state spending.

    Whether or not global warming is real or not - IS NOT THE POINT.  The solution - and the only solution - is to stop burning fossil fuels.  In doing so we will 1) get rid of the gas emissions that environmentalists want eliminated and 2) we will acheive independence of foriegn oil.  EVERYONE WINS. 

    And to all of you who like to hate the oil companies.  You need to stop.  If any of us hope to ever become independent of oil, we are going to need the cooperation of the oil companies.  Yes, you heard me.  They are not just going to roll over and die because we don't want to use oil.  They are too big, rich and powerful to just walk away from the game.  We need to start thinking of them as ENERGY companies, not oil companies.  They have the infrastructure, the money and the resources to create alternative forms of energy and they will need to be the owners of new energy.  This might infuriate some of you, but it's the truth.  You can either spend your life hating them, or working with them on a solution.

    we don't need laws FORCING business and individuals to reduce emissions and we don't need to argue over the validity of global warming.  We need cooperative solutions from the public and private sectors on how to effectively make our world operate on CLEAN and RENEWABLE energy.  We need solutions to effectively convert existing cars over to clean energy and not just brand new cars.  We need to create ways to convert the semi-trucks that transport our goods, over to clean energy as well as airplanes.  We need these things so that we don't have to wait until everyone out there can own a new Chevy Volt before we get clean air and oil independence.

    I know some of you are saying it can't be done, but we need to stop saying "can't".  we put people on the moon, build retractable roofs on baseball stadiums so millionaires don't get wet while they play baseball, we build skyscrapers like they are lego kits, we have satelites in space that can see you sitting on your couch at home.... we CAN do this.

  • 02-23-2009 1:30 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 House Bill 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

    Dear: npere

    Prior to reacting to your comments let me provide you with the following disclosures.

    1) I believe that the climate is changing, primarily due to factors not influenced by humans.

    2) I believe Cap & Trade is bad and do not support it.

    3) I'm concerned about air quality.

    4) I'm believe our dependence on fossil fuels is a great weakness for our country.

    5) I'm a redneck from Eastern Washington.


    Having put my "cards" on the table I appreciate where I think your coming from. Bottom line both sides of the Global Warming/Climate Change are deeply entrenched in their respective camps and I don't see any great mass conversion by either side. With I agree with you continuing to argue either point seems to lead to, well, just more arguing!

    I too agree with you the oil companies have the finances, infrastructure and ability to be a part of the solution and we should consider that as we formulate our opinions of the oil companies. In addition, I agree with you that we should encourage those companies to look at alternative forms of energy and as you said consider the POWER companies.

    Specific to the Cap & Tax.....uh I mean Cap and Trade. The systematic requirement for business to lower their greenhouse emissions over time and having to pay a tax or pay for credits in a system where the government is the "broker" of such trading transactions is bad juju.

    • Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to$300 billion.
    • Greenhouse Gas Emissions will be a $2 Trillion Dollar world wide Market Opportunity by 2012 according to the United Nations.
    • If the allocation of carbon credits (or distribution of carbon allowances) is based upon current carbon pollution – the Pacific Northwest (PNW) gets terribly disadvantaged because we are hydro based. This would mean in low snow pack years when our PNW utilities have to buy power on the open market from coal burning plants we would not only have to pay the higher market rate for the power but also pay the new carbon penalty or permit allowances and thus increasing the cost to PNW businesses unfairly.

    • CLICK HERE for a link to a chart illustrating that Washington State is the 2nd lowest emitter of CO2 per Megawatt Hours produced. 
    • The Department of Ecology would be a bigger player in the control it currently has over state-wide business and is pushing for this legislation. When asked to quantify Caps going forward, they were not able to yet supported the CAP & Trade legislation.
    • The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) is comprised of some western states and Canadian Providences who are either "participants" or "observers". CLICK HERE for the map on their website. Unfortunately, it's not current as of today due to the fact that a "participant" state within the initiative (unfortunately is wasn't Washington) has pulled out of the WCI, with another state currently considering the same.
    • While in Olympia last week to specifically speak with lawmakers face to face on this issue, repeatedly I heard grave concern over this legislation, with one lawmaker stating that this would be the worst piece of legislation every passed in the history of our State. While I realize someone can quote a lawmaker with a 180° view, it still makes me feel a bit better to quote him anyway.

    Okay, I think I'm done for now...

     

     

  • 02-23-2009 1:38 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 House Bill 1819 (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

     Thanks Kranky_99 - good to see someone else has some perspective.  we as a country are crying out for "bi-partisanship", but people are still voting down party lines and think that there is a "right way" and a "wrong way".  We all need to start thinking outside the box a bit.

    Climate change issues are the biggest issues on the table right now in our state and it's a bit scary that our legislators are trying to use punishment as a method to get to a solution to clean air and oil independence. 

Page 1 of 1 (9 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems