We Will Connecticut You Now

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Connecticut goes big with emissions-reducing goals

Posted at 1:50 PM on 06 May 2008

The Connecticut senate has unanimously passed a bill aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, becoming the fifth state to pass such legislation (after California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Washington). The bill would require Connecticut to reduce emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2001 levels by 2050. If, as expected, Gov. Jodi Rell (R) signs it into law, state agencies will be required to track emissions and come up with strategies for reducing them. "We're making a better environment, and we're building a new green economy," says bill sponsor Sen. Edward Meyer (D). "What fun to have a double winner in this regard." Indeed.

sources: Hartford Courant, The Day

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (4 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Phony Baloney

California's law has done absolutely nothing. Instead, greenhouse gas emissions have significantly increased since it went into effect. The only way to significantly lower these emissions is to radically change American behaviors that cause them, and few if any politicians are willing to tell people that, let alone for for it. Of course, the average American isn't willing to do it either, which is the heart of the problem in the U.S.

by Wolverine at 3:14 PM on 06 May 2008

so...what then?

I agree with what you've said to an extent ("the only way to significantly lower emissions is radically change American behaviors")... Unfortunately, I forsee significant emission reductions by the average American when and only when the almighty dollar forces it. :( This will either happen with business as usual whenever fossil fuels deplete to the point that renewables and energy-efficient appliances/cars etc. are the cheapest. Trivial, right?

I would like to add that the majority of our energy consuption and subsequent GHG emissions come from sources that the average consumer really doesn't have much control of...industry, agriculture, cement production, POWER PLANTS, gas flaring, etc. It's these carbon/methane/etc. emitting monsters that's causing the majority of emissions, and it's these that need to be controlled with policy. Granted, if everyone used less water in the shower, the utility companies wouldn't need to supply as much natural gas...you can make this argument for power plant electrical production as well...but i think they're weak arguments.

In my opinion, SIGNIFICANT change has to come in the form of gov't policy - emissions caps, carbon taxes, something!!! to essentially FORCE the price of GHG-emitting energy sources up. The idea being it would act as a catalyst for rapid emission reductions.

by solarwind at 9:50 AM on 07 May 2008

(cont.)

forgot to get to my point...i think these goals for emissions reductions are without a doubt a good start. They "get the ball rollin'" with the policy makers. After the goal has been set, they have to go back and figure out how to make it happen; w/o any established goals, there would be no time pressures and little political/social pressures, thus insignificant results.

by solarwind at 9:57 AM on 07 May 2008

Significance of significant change

solarwind can't be serious that consumers don't have control over emissions. One consumer of course not, but collectively consumers set the demand for gasoline, natural gas and electricity. Turn off the switch and powerplant emissions go down. It is as simple as that. (Utilities do not go on burning coal or uranium just to make electricty that they "throw away".)

Higher energy prices, whether from higher resource costs or carbon taxes will reduce consumption and reduce GHG, but there will be serious economic repercussions. How will the environmentalist - consumer advocate - progressive politico coalition hold out then? Looks shaky already with Hillary and Barak over retail gas tax!

by danallen at 12:59 PM on 07 May 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?