Global warming bill killed
It began as the most ambitious environmental legislation of the Maryland General Assembly session: a global warming pollution control bill that sought the toughest limits on greenhouse gases in the U.S.
But in the end, the Maryland Global Warming Solutions Act was voted down by the House Economic Matters Committee last night by a margin of 18-2. The bill, which would have required a 25 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, had earlier passed the Senate. But the approved senate version had a a "poison pill" amendment that would have rolled back the regulatory authority of the Maryland Department of the Environment and required multiple future votes by the General Assembly before the state agency could take any steps to reduce pollution.
Among those voting last night to kill the weakened Senate version of the bill were leading Democrats, including Del. Dereck Davis, chairman of the House Economic Matters Committee, and Del. Brian McHale of Baltimore, a strong union supporter.
State Del. Kumar Barve, the house sponsor of the bill and a Democrat from Montgomery County, said the intense opposition by industry and unions in the end proved too much. The committee was also flooded by a series of very complex bills -- including a proposal to provide BGE customers with electricity rate relief.
"It was overwhelming and I think there were people saying it was too complex....let's worry about it next year," said Barve, the House Democratic leader, who vows to bring back a similar bill in 2009. "There were union members all over protesting it...We've got nine months to put it together and bring it back."
He added that not all was lost. Another bill passed to require Maryland power companies to buy 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind turbines by 2022. And a bill passed that will set up government programs to encourage people to use 15 percent less electricity by 2015.
Dawn Stoltzfus, deputy director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, said it was better to see the bill defeated in its gutted form than passed with the Senate amendment. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Nathaniel Exum, would have rolled back the authority of the MDE, which already has the power to issue rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
"Everybody was against it," she said of the Exum amendment, which was carried over into the House bill. "It was unfortunate."
Overall, Stoltzfus said the union opposition to the bill carried a lot of influence in the General Assembly, which is dominated by Democrats. "We think they (the lawmakers) lost their nerve -- the unions had lots of people down here lobbying," alongside the industry lobbyists, she said.
Steelworkers and other unions were worried that the bill would impose fees on the burning of coal, which would raise the price of paper, steel and other products in Maryland -- meaning that they couldn't compete with products made in states or countries that lack global warming regulations. Industry lobbyists also asserted the new regulations could screw up the sale of the Sparrows Point steel mill in Baltimore County to a Russian conglomerate, which has promised to boost production at the plant.
The members of the House Economic Matters Committee who voted to kill the weakened Senate version of the Global Warming Solutions Act (with the Exum amendment):
Dereck E. Davis, chairman
David D. Rudolph, vice-chair
Aisha N. Braveboy
Brian J. Feldman
Jeannie Haddaway
Hattie N. Harrison
Richard K. Impallaria
Sally Y. Jameson
James J. King
Ruth M. Kirk
Carolyn J. Krysiak
Mary Ann Love
Brian K. McHale
Warren E. Miller
Joseph J. Minnick
Donna Stifler
Herman L. Taylor, Jr.
Michael L. Vaughn
Mary Roe Walkup
The committee members who voted in support of the weakened bill were:
C. Sue Hecht and Roger Manno
The committee members not present for the vote:
Emmett Burns and James Mathias
Comments
I consider this a great victory for thinking people everywhere.
Global warming is still just a theory, and it has been refuted by scientists everywhere.
Al Gore, the nation's largest proponent of global warming initiatives, is notorious for misrepresenting the facts.
Most of those pushing for such initiatives stand to benefit economically and/or politically from the shift to 'green' business.
We should all favor clean air and energy efficiency, but pushing for it under the guise of the scientifically contested 'global warming' theory amounts to pure manipulation.
I hope to continue to see politicians stand against the well financed push for such initiatives.
Let's put our trust in science and capitalism, not Al Gore.
Posted by: Global Warming Is Still Only A Theory | April 8, 2008 3:07 PM
What fact is Al Gore notorious for misrepresenting?
Science is 90% certain of human caused global warming. If you are going to trust science, go with that, not with the 10% uncertainty.
Capitalism is going to lose big if it chooses inaction in regards to global warming. It is capitalistically important to control the externalities, such as CO2 output.
It's almost irony that someone would attempt to claim that science is on their side while accusing the opponents of being part of a global leftists conspiracy. Especially when there is a lack of evidence of such.
Posted by: Markus | April 9, 2008 8:57 AM
"Science is 90% certain of human caused global warming." I would sure like to see some proof of that. I realize the IPCC says 90% but they don't represent science to me. They don't even come close in fact. They represent the people who think they are above being questioned maybe. They represent the people who think they are "real scientists" and everybody else somehow doesn't count. But represent science? Maybe to others but certainly not to me.
Posted by: Tom | April 9, 2008 1:35 PM
Is global warming, or climate change, even a problem? Satellite measurements show no warming of the earth since 1998, and since 2001, the earth has show a slight cooling trend. And, in the 20th century, the period of maximum increases in CO2, 1940-1975 showed a cooling trend. And, the period of 1975-1998 showed accelerating warming correlated with sunspot activities. Seemingly CO2 has nothing to do with warming, and it does not explain why all the other planets have warmed and cooled in the same pattern as the earth, but the solar theory does.
Actually, what we are seeing is a well intentioned effort by politicians in the UN who formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and by national, state, and local governments who are duped by pseudo-scientific nonsense into supporting the efforts of the far-left politicians and radical Environmentalists fighting against free enterprise. Even scientific associations, science magazines, and, most certainly the entire press community are supporting the illusion that man is guilty of altering the climate and that we must give up our free capitalist ways (evil) and adopt socialism (good) in order to solve this problem. This is made evident by the fact that the socialist Kyoto protocols in effect in Europe to reduce CO2 emissions have, by and large, been a total failure. Only England and Germany are in compliance for reasons other than Kyoto. But, the US has voluntarily reduced its CO2 emissions, far more than Europe, with its technology-driven capitalist solution. Now, what has the result been? Europe, through the IPCC is demanding that the US abandon its successful program to adopt the European approach which is a failure. This was the thrust of the Bali conference in 2007. So, socialist failure is better than capitalist success? It would seem so.
This is not a scientific issue at all. The UN IPPC has shown repeatedly that it falsifies data, runs faulty computer models, and issues press releases warning against cataclysms which their own scientific experts disagree with. Many scientists who felt they would have a voice in the panel based on science have resigned from the IPCC in disgust. And, not surprisingly, the IPCC refuses to remove their names from the list of experts supporting the theory that cutting CO2 emissions will change the climate. Many IPCC members are on Senator Inhofe’s list of 500 scientists who disagree with this theory.
They feel the theory of climate change caused by the sun’s variations in energy output, and cosmic radiation has predictive value based on sunspot activity, and the CO2 greenhouse gas theory has never predicted anything correctly. The IPCC group would lose its purpose if they adopted the solar theory. Because, obviously, no one can do anything about the sun’s variations, so the only solution is to adapt to climate change -- and there is no need for trillions of dollars in taxes and controls, and a huge bureaucracy.
This is the money driver: so far, forty billion dollars in research funds supporting thousands of “researchers,” prospectively hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in carbon trading, and, even more money for governments, and, of course the UN panel sees the UN running a worldwide system of UN taxation which could make it a world government.
The IPCC has been dead wrong on every prediction, so who could possibly believe this theory? Those who believe it want the radical left socialists and Environmentalists to run our lives, or profit by it, and those who don’t know any better.
Posted by: Arthur E. Lemay | April 10, 2008 2:46 AM