The Badger Herald

NEWS

Dems tackle global warming

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Nick Penzenstadler:

For whom the bell tolls (November 29, 2007)
New apartments for West Wash? (November 20, 2007)
One-and-out: Kumar will not seek 2nd term on Dane County Board (November 15, 2007)
Displaced Carroll residents call university, bookstore helpful (November 13, 2007)
Carroll Street fire displaces students (November 12, 2007)

by Nick Penzenstadler

Friday, February 16, 2007

Democratic Wisconsin legislators introduced a bill Thursday aimed at taking a hard line against global warming with carbon-dioxide emissions.

State Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, and state Sen. Mark Miller, D-Monona, announced a major legislative initiative to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

"Today, we announced the introduction legislation to combat global warming — the solution is similar to [a California law] signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger," Black said. "The bill is almost identical to the California law."

Black said the responsibility for action against global warming falls to state legislators after the Bush administration "downplayed political consensus" and hasn't joined with worldwide standards.

The United States has avoided signing a worldwide program to reduce emissions that could drastically aid global warming, according to Black.

"The federal government has failed to take action with climate change, even though 164 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol," Black said. "The threat is too great for us to sit on our hands — it's the job of the states to lead."

However, Adam Holland, a University of Wisconsin law student, said Bush made his decision to not sign the agreement based on economic reasons.

According to Holland, protecting the environment is always the goal, but he said a realistic time frame is necessary.

"The worry is always that we are cutting back too quickly — that we could damage the economy," said Holland, who is a member of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society. "I think the Democrats are more aggressive, even if it does hurt the economy."

Black said the bill, though, is built with the opportunity of "market mechanisms" for cost efficiency.

"The bill takes a flexible approach, allowing market-based action," Black said. "[It suggests] conservation of energy, use of bio-fuels, new pollution controls and that all major sources of carbon dioxide be monitored and then have enforceable standards."

Black said the legislation will complement other statewide programs, such as Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle's Task Force on Global Warming, to explore various solutions.

Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said the Legislature has other priorities that it should focus on this session.

"I think there are more important issues, like the state budget," Suder said. "Some legislators have other priorities."

Suder also said it was ironic the bill was proposed on a bitterly cold day in Wisconsin.

Black said although the bill doesn't point out specific problem areas, the largest single source is coal-burning facilities.

UW has already initiated several environmentally friendly programs like the We Conserve campaign through Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group, which was also invited to the announcement.

"Like the Charter Street plants, we do have some dirty technology, but we're working to reduce the impact we have," WISPIRG coordinator Lauren Crane said.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 9:36am):

"The federal government has failed to take action with climate change, even though 164 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol,"

And so how many are NOT already cheating?

Will India and China ever be covered?

PS. I wonder if the farmers will be able to return to Greenland if it finally gets as warm as it was over a thousand years ago?

Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 2:33pm):

I love when these state legislators think they a) know a single things about climatology; b) think they have the solution for a problem that may or may not be man-made; c) believe that when we are standing in 2020, emmission levels will have in fact been cut to 1990 levels.

The whole fallacy with Kyoto and these silly state bills is that there is zero enforcement. So what is the penalty Wisconsin will impose upon itself if it does not reduce emmissions? In the Kyoto Treaty, if a country breaches its commitment it has to promise to make it up in the following measurement period (plus a 30% penalty). But at the end of the day, if any country refuses to do so, there is nothing other Treaty participants can do about it.

It is so politically and culturally popular to be on the global climate bandwagon that it has really denegraded our ability to seriously attack this issue, assuming there is one. I, for instance, used to be on this bandwagon until reading a number of publications that do a great job of pointing to CO2 increases as a cause for recently high temps but fail to explain past increases in global tempurature, such as the 1920's & 30's and the time when Greenland was warm enough to house Viking colonies. What caused these increases and why are we so certain that CO2 is the cause of the current increase and not just a natural cycle?

Unfortunately, you won't get these answers from scientists or the government because it is not in their interst to do so. What is the best way for scientists to raise money for research grants? Study a major "problem". So why not create a "problem" with climate change and sit back and wait for the politicos to dole out tax dollars to fund such research?

Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 11:19pm):

Global Warming will never be solved, so just give up, and, to the people who are living now, it wont effect you so just live your life.

dealer (February 26, 2007 @ 9:23am):

2007 gmc prices

Anonymous (March 22, 2007 @ 1:28pm):

I'm kind of amazed at the previous comments. This is a real problem and it will not go away on its own. People say we're smart, we'll adapt to the warmer temperatures. But the thing is, we're smart, why should we wait to adapt? Why should we put it off, why shouldn't we start doing something about it while it's more manageable?
And about the vikings: yeah, it'll be nice for Greenland to be farmable, but at the cost of the rest of the world not being? And it's not like global warming will stop when Greenland is temperate.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.