The Department of Ecology Has Started Figuring Out How to Cap Carbon Emissions Because the State Legislature Couldn't

Comments

1
Every day I go out on our streets and highways.

I can smell and taste the pollution.

Sulfur, Nitrogen Compounds. Burning rubber and plastic. Glycol coolants.

Carbon Monooxide is there, is 250x more likely to bind with hemoglobin than oxygen. Can't smell or taste, but how tired you can feel after long driving.

And look where the tail pipe of the car in front of you is. Yep.

Pulmonary, cardiac problems. Cancer. Who knows, autism.

Isn't living in a gasoline created gas chamber the Invisible Gorilla of daily life?

8th Oct

National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day

http://www.fchea.org/h2fcday
2
I'm all for the idea that if the legislature won't pass a carrot and the stick method, that big polluters will only get the stick.
3
In what deluded world do you think that any impact (cost) to these industries won’t be passed directly through to consumers in the form of higher prices?
4
Cap on. Trade off.

We're at 400ppm CO2 in 2015, our hottest year on Earth. Trading our future for more pollution? Bad business.

We all breathe in the same sky... filling with crud. We all need the same forests... going up in flames. The same snowpack water... Where'd it go?

In October, Seattle kids return to court to ask Ecology to follow Washington law which directs the agency to set emission targets for "climate stability", a path back to 350ppm CO2. This cap rulemaking only targets a handful of polluters using obsolete goals effectively slamming shut the door on stability. As the judge ruled in June, any further delay harms these kids. The children's lawsuit will proceed simultaneously if the judge agrees with top climate scientists who submitted briefs in the case.

Yes, with regulation and trees it's still possible to cool the planet. 3.04 trillion trees standing on Earth, let's make it 4!
5
@3 see even post 1 that thinks we're already getting hit with the costs, besides the big bill of climate change. The carbon producers are taking a free ride on our health and the planet. Damn free riding cost avoiding scum. ;)

Granted, a proper carbon tax would provide relief to low income consumers. But the legislature (both parties) would need to pull their heads out of their asses.
6
Taxations based on carbon may be necessary, but generally speaking taxing based on scientific theories is a slippery slope.
7
Higher prices for consumers?!? Mercy, won't someone fetch Auntie Catalina her smelling salts? They're in my reticule, on the breakfront...

I thought that the magic of capitalism, through the miracle of competition, would eliminate such things. You know - people innovating their way out of the carbon problem by finding less carbon-intensive ways of doing things. Do you mean there's a flaw in the free market?
8
@7: Yes, there is a flaw - such as the government infused crony capitalism as evidenced by Solyndra.
9
Really, Raindrop? You're going to single out poor old Solyndra (which was a victim of the Chinese dumping crappy solar panels on the US as much as anything else) as "Crony Capitalism"? What about Mother Boeing and her Dear Friend General Electric? What those companies get away with makes Solyndra look like some change dropped in a fountain.