Beacon Hill's Snails' Pace on Energy

Following the Beacon Hill progress or lack thereof regarding energy legislation in the Commonwealth, one can't help disappointment in the uninformed comments on elected officials and the lack of real progress:

Some objected to parts of the bill that would allow utilities to use ratepayer funds for financial incentives to develop electrical generation from coal gasification.

.

State Sen. Marc R. Pacheco, D-Taunton, who has proposed other legislation to cap and gradually reduce global-warming emissions, said legislation on the state level cannot replace better energy policy on the national level. He blamed the Bush administration for failing to develop alternative energy.

.

“If the oil men vacate the White House, we may have an energy policy that makes sense for the future of America, and what makes sense is to become independent of foreign oil and fossil fuels and getting us into a position where we can become competitive again,” Mr. Pacheco said.

.

“It is an environmental issue and an economic issue.” He said the state should support production of biofuels such as ethanol and other alternatives as supported in the legislation, but he criticized what he called “subsidies for coal” in the bill. “I’m going to have to swallow it, I guess, because it is one piece of a bill that has so many good pieces,” he said. Telegram

.

Senator Pacheco, let's not blame Washington for the failure of the Commonwealth to take more aggressive action. Where is the leadership when it comes to Cape Wind and other wind projects?

The following represent words of James Hansen (link to total comments at end):

I testified to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.

Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next president and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.

Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.

Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.

The shocking conclusion, documented in a paper2 I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Shocking corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation. CounterCurrents