Posted on 01/16/2002 9:11:43 PM PST by anymouse
To: CSE Members and friends
From: Carol Jones
Re: Projected 35 Billion charged to taxpayers if Kyoto implemented in Texas
Action Item:
1. If you have not sent your electronic letter to Commissioner Huston at the TNRCC, please do so by clicking here
We believe that Commissioner Marquez at the TNRCC needs to hear from you too. Please call his office at 512-239-5515 and just tell the person who answers the phone that you are opposed to implementing staff recommendations on the global warming petition. You may want to review the message points below but also be sure to tell them that IF GLOBAL warming is real, implementing strategies in Texas will do absolutely nothing to impact that yet it would cost Texas taxpayers $35 BILLION. ASK FOR A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS!
See CSE's article on the attempt to implement Kyoto in Texas
See also an excellent article by Dr. Green at the Reason Foundation
2. Please attend the Friday (1-18-02) TNRCC meeting. Please contact me at 830-798-1134 or e-mail me at . Those attending will likely have opportunity to speak, if desired.
3. Call your state legislator and state senator. Tell them to weigh in and oppose this incremental implementation of a treaty that both Democrats and Republicans in the US Senate unanimously rejected.
4. Call the Governor's office and say you oppose this backdoor implementation of a treaty the US Senate rejected. Citizens' Opinion Hotline: 800-252-9600
Tuesday the TNRCC posted staff recommendations take some steps in the direction of implementation of the non-ratified Kyoto Protocol in Texas. This initiative is based on arguable science and will cost taxpayers 35 BILLION DOLLARS - all to appease radical environmentalists whose agenda is political, not environmental. And make no mistake - this will not appease them - as always they will be back for more and more until they get Kyoto enacted nation wide through state legislation.
Date, Time and Place
Mark your calendars for Friday, January 18th.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
9:30 a.m.
Room 201S, Building E
12100 Park 35 Circle
Austin, TX (Park 35 Circle is off I-35 North)
For a map, click here
Background
In August of last year (during the heat of the Presidential election) some radical environmental groups petitioned the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to implement measures to reduce CO2 to 7% below 1990 level in Texas - precisely what was called for in the so-called Kyoto Protocol, a global warming treaty that the US Senate reject 95-0.
The TNRCC decided to study the issue for a year and the study was released this week.
On January 18th the TNRCC staff will present the study and their recommendations to the three TNRCC commissioners for review.
Texas has no business implementing a treaty that was not constitutionally ratified by the Senate and which no other developed country has adopted.
In addition, the TNRCC should not have even spend taxpayer dollars to study an issue for implementation that has been unanimously rejected by the Senate - much less spending possibly billions more taxpayer dollars to implement it.
When you call you may find these message points useful:
Message points:
1. The Global Warming treaty implementation in Texas would make Texas the only state to implement the measures of the global warming treaty.
2. Implementation results in an energy tax in Texas which no other state will have assessed and would put us at significant economic disadvantage.
3. The science does not support the need for draconian action or any action!
4. Studies have shown that Kyoto would be devastating to the Texas economy.
5. This is a "back door implementation plan" by those who are working to end run the US Senate.
6. There should be No Implementation without Constitutional Ratification.
Additional points: Radical Environmentalists Fudge on Facts - but what else is new?
1. The petitioners would have you believe a reduction of Greenhouse Gas emissions in Texas will make a marked difference. This is not true. If Texas contributes 1/7th of the U.S. manmade CO2 - as the petitioners claim - this is less than 1/10th of 1% of the global total manmade CO2 emissions. This percentage of is already decreasing as Texas emissions decrease and developing nations with no restrictions increase their emissions.
2. The petitioners claim a buildup of gases in the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm. There are many scientists who dispute that global warming is taking place at all. There has been no statistically meaningful long-term change in statewide summer or winter temperatures in Texas during the last 100 years.
3. The petitioners state "the United States is required to reduce emissions of carbon by 7 percent below 1990 levels during the period from 2008 to 2012." This misleading statement implies the United States must comply with the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. In fact, the Bush administration has refused to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification and - even more telling - senators have voted 95-0 to oppose the treaty.
Remember writing a letter to TNRCC Commissioner Huston is easy. Just click here:
Please call the TNRCC Commissioners and the Governor's office and voice your opposition to implementation of Kyoto without ratification by the Senate and PLEASE, Please let us know what they tell you by emailing me e-mail me at .
How about let's organize a letter writing campaign to shut these idiots up?
Oh, I read it before I got upset.
TNRCC -aka- "TRAINWRECK" as it is known by its bureaucrat-employees, is an exacutive monster that releases new initiatives to self-perpetuate its own expansion. When -IS- the last time TNRCC requested that its funding be cut?
The willy nilly interchanging of "local pollution" and "global warming" is ludicrous, but expected for this bunch. The study talks of studies on global GHG, and then immediately applies that to "Local (Texas) Pollution control," without proving a measurable link. If Texas' CO2 output was INCREASED by gubbmint mandate to 10 TIMES its present value, could that even be detected in the GLOBAL atmosphere??? Probably not, but the TNRCC would not finance such a study for fear that it might be inconclusive just like the false positive studies of the enviro-panickers.
IOW, if all pollution is bad, less pollution is better...no matter the cost. WRONG!!!! If the cost-benefit ain't proven, and it is admitted that the GHG->Warming is not even conclusive, how can you keep a straight face and advocate reduction methods Draco would be proud of??
Want to see where the ozone problem really comes from in Houston, check out these ozone concentration animations, courtesy of "trainwreck" Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Try August 5th, 2001; it is quite obvious that the problem is the petrochemical refineries, not traffic.
I did that and found a marketing questionaire asking for a lot of personal information before I sent the email. Getting info for your marketing list isn't the way to get my help.
Simply put: There is no advantage to regulating CO2. By regulating the other pollutants there will be achieved a reduction in CO2. For example: By lowering the speed limit in the Houston attainment area there will not only be a reduction in NOx but also a reduction in CO2.
Contrary to what you may say, the State of Texas does do cost benefit analysis. Care to guess who is not required to do a cost benefit analysis? Care to guess who steps in should the state not achieve their requirements.
Decreasing speed limits is a way of reducing NOx emissions that play a role in the formation of ozone. In other areas of the State there may be no concern about violating the federal ozone standard(s) or contributing to the ozone precursor loading in a non-attainment area so there is no reason to lower the speed limit.
Try August 5th, 2001; it is quite obvious that the problem is the petrochemical refineries, not traffic.
Both are contributors to the formation of ozone, once you add in sunlight. Refineries are likely large souces of VOC's, and traffic is a large source of NOx. There are other sources of both, but each plays a role.
Not that this implies that GHG reductions in Texas are warranted or even a good idea.
I'll guess, I'll guess, Question 1: EPA (actually court upheld that in most cases a cost benefit analysis is not necessary in setting health based air quality standards - wish I had a reference at hand). If Texas chooses to implement CO2 reductions within the bounds of it's legal framework it has every right to without the Senate approving the Kyoto protocol.
Question 2: EPA, and other federal agencies. The big question is how much federal highway money does Texas collect, and what would happen without it?
While GHG emissions and "global warming" are generally a different subject than ozone non-attainment requirements (federal), the fact of the matter is that pretty much anyone has the opportunity to petition executive branch agencies for action. Whether or not the agencies take that action likely depends on the general political atmosphere and specifically the political clout of the petitioning group.
"What would happen without the Federal Highway Money? Around here 80% is going for mass transit. We did get a new bridge and some piddling money to improve a couple of interchanges. Nothing that will reduce congestion. Or emissions
"What would happen without the Federal Highway Money? Around here 80% is going for mass transit. We did get a new bridge and some piddling money to improve a couple of interchanges. Nothing that will reduce congestion. Or emissions
Thanks.
As a note to everyone else, even if rules are proposed you likely have rights under the administrative procedures act. There will be comment periods, public hearings, notices of action, rulemaking, etc. If you have facts on the subject make it count by filing them officially, so that they are on the record for future use if needed.
Carol has been following this sort of liberal tyranny for a while and sends out great e-mails when it requires FReeper action.
I have however encouraged her to post to a FR thread directly next time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.