Obama points to Vermont as a model for carbon reduction
Source: Vermont Digger
The Obama administrations proposed crackdown on carbon emissions cited Vermonts environmental policies as an example for how coal states can achieved necessary greenhouse gas reductions.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday released details of a proposed regulation requiring states to come up with a plan to collectively cut the nations carbon emissions by 30 percent of 2005 levels by 2030.
Vermont does not generate electricity from coal and is the only state not required to come up with a plan (the District of Columbia is also exempt). The ruling targets coal-powered electric plants that are the nations leading source of carbon emissions, but it is intended to give states flexibility to find ways to cut carbon emissions.
The ruling cites Vermonts energy efficiency program as an example of how states can reduce carbon emissions. The states regulated efficiency utility, Efficiency Vermont, offers rebates and incentives for energy-efficient appliances, among other efforts.
<snip>
Read more: http://vtdigger.org/2014/06/02/obama-points-vermont-model-carbon-reduction/
7962
(11,841 posts)If the govt really wants to cut carbon, they'll get utilities to build more nuclear plants. Otherwise we're waiting on technology to catch up with policy
bananas
(27,509 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)TRoN33
(769 posts)They're polluting more often than ours. We don't have gas shale for fracking which is thankful and barely operated coal mines here in Vermont. We take care of our own Mother Nature very well. And we are also always in top three for most healthily and fitness. We are also the first state to say NO to nuclear power plant not more than two mile from my home.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)If somethings work in VT, which also is geographically small, why would they not work in a state that is both bigger and has more people? I suspect that difference with VT is the responsiveness of government and the respect for what really matters for quality of life. I suspect though that the answer may differ given the needs and what works in different areas. For example, few states could follow Washington State's heavy use of hydroelectrical power.
You might actually have a better case if you said HI, where the temperature is a near constant at a comfortable temperature. Heating and air conditioning are in total likely quite low compared to other places.
It sounds more like you having an agenda.
7962
(11,841 posts)Methane capture system. Works great and supplies power to a food processor as well. Smart clean way to generate power. But its not gonna work for the city I live in, which has nearly 100K.
Sure, we should continue to implement these types of tech, but if you just say "close all the coal plants" like some want, our power bills WILL go way up. And who will be hurt the most? The poor.
We're already forced to buy AC units with a "cleaner" freon and most AC folks will tell you they wont last nearly as long as the previous units. So again, you have to spend MORE money quicker. Refrigerators have the same issue. Cost more, shorter life, but save a little on power. Thankfully autos are longer lasting than they were 30 yrs ago. Thats a plus.
I dont have an agenda; its just that none of this makes a shitpot of difference when China and India and others continue to do what they want.
The Pope addresses climate change. The Cathollc Bishops send letter to EPA re climate change.
Obama acts on climate change because like Jake & Elwood, he's ...