U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
The last time Gov. Martin O’Malley tried to set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Maryland, steelworkers from the sprawling Sparrow’s Point mill poured into the statehouse to protest. Union leaders and industry lobbyists cornered their senators, arguing that the legislation would put thousands of jobs in jeopardy, and they succeeding in killing the 2008 bill.
On Friday, O'Malley announced a new plan for GHG targets. This time, the legislation puts economic concerns first and it gives the manufacturing industry a seven-year pass.
That might not be ideal, but it’s probably the best Maryland’s climate advocates can get in this economy. Officials say the legislation was a compromise that included industry and environmental groups including Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Maryland League of Conservation Voters, Environment Maryland, Sierra Club, and Clean Water Action. As O’Malley put it:
For our prosperity, for our current and future generations, and for the health of our state, which is so vulnerable to rising sea levels, we must take action on climate change now—not later. Maryland can't afford to be left behind.
The proposed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2009 would require Maryland to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below 2006 levels by 2020. That equates to a 4 percent drop from Maryland’s 1990 levels.
The state is already on pace to get halfway to that mark through recent laws that regulate power plant and auto emissions, order a reduction in energy consumption by 15% percent by 2015, and strengthen the state’s renewable energy portfolio. To finish the sprint, the new legislation would order the Maryland Department of Environment to come up with a raft of GHG-reducing regulations and programs by 2012. The MDE's primary targets will be the transportation and energy sectors, which account for about 70 percent of the state's GHG emissions. However, the legislation ties the department’s hands in the realm of industry by exempting manufacturers from new state regulations until at least 2016.
Manufacturers (accounting for about 4 percent of the state’s GHG emissions) would still be regulated by any new federal legislation or anything implemented by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the 10-state Northeast and Mid-Atlantic cap-and-trade system.
MDE spokeswoman Dawn Stoltzfus noted one compelling argument against stricter state requirements for manufacturers in Maryland is that they would put the state's manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage compared to neighboring states, and that could have detrimental effects on the Maryland economy. A strong federal carbon cap is necessary to created a level playing for industries and workers nationwide, added Chesapeake Climate Action Network spokeswoman Anne Havemann:
Maryland can take a big step by passing this bill, but our one state can only do so much. After the passage of this bill, we’ll be setting our sights on Washington and look forward to working with Maryland’s influential federal leaders to champion much-needed climate legislation.
The Maryland bill specifies that new regulations related to GHG reduction must ensure no loss of manufacturing jobs, a net economic benefit to the state economy, and no adverse impact on the reliability or affordability of electricity and fuel. Maryland officials don’t expect that to be a problem. The MDE anticipates that the transition to a low carbon economy could be a $2 billion boon to the state through energy efficiency, conservation and new green jobs by 2020. A study by the International Center for Sustainable Development estimated the state’s plan could create between 144,000 and 326,000 jobs over the next 20 years.
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network declared O’Malley a “clean energy hero” for the new legislation. Environmental strategist Terry Tamminen, who advises California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on climate issues, also praised Maryland officials for their effort:
Job preservation may seem to come first, but clearly the rights of individuals will come last.
"The state is already on pace to get halfway to that mark through recent laws that regulate power plant and auto emissions, order a reduction in energy consumption by 15% percent by 2015."
Order a reduction in energy consumption by 15%? The only way this will happen is by force of law, simply put, coercive tyrannical power. Is there any doubt, as Americans, we have lost our freedoms which set our society apart from every other society on earth, past and present?
Once the Rule of Law was violated, once it was acceptable to read into the Constitution something other than a literal meaning, American Exceptionalism was placed in jeopardy. The very freedoms which made us great, are cast aside for state servitude, central planning, despotism.
How can a government order (demand, mandate, direct, insist upon) a 15% reduction in energy consumption regardless of date or time? How is this at all Constitutional?
The Maryland legislature with this law, has ordered a reduction to the standard of living for private sovereign Maryland citizens. Less lighting, less home heating/cooling, less food refrigeration, less clothes cleaning, less electronic media utilization (television, radio, internet) and less freedom of assembly (individual personal transportation by automobile).
Everything Marylanders use, that isn't produced on their own property, is at some point transported by truck, train or ship. Imagine your grocery store with 15% less of everything on the shelves. The gas station with 15% less fuel available, Domino's with 15% less pizza to sell. This bill is ordering a 15% reduction to Maryland's economy.
What about waste water reclamation, do we want 15% less of that? Hundreds of thousands of pounds of organic (everything on earth is technically organic -- if its on earth, it is from earth) chemicals are used annually to pull solids out of water, neutralize pathogens,and balance acidity/basicity before the water is returned to tributaries. Chemicals and solid waste taken from waste water treatment plants are transported by truck. Don't forget, to move water, electricity is required to operate massive pumps. Daily water treatment in gallons per day measures in the billions of gallons in the US.
Do we want 15% less clean safe drinking water? Same process, more stringent standards, same demands for chemicals, transportation, energy.
"[Frederick] Bastiat ... emphasized the unintended consequences of government policy (he called them the “unseen” consequences). Friedrich Hayek credits Bastiat with this important insight: if we judge economic policy solely by its immediate effects, we will miss all of its unintended and longer-run effects and will undermine economic freedom, which delivers benefits that are not part of anyone’s conscious design." http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Bastiat.html
The ability of legislatures and policy makers to acknowledge what is seen and what is not seen separates good law and policy from bad.
Thomas Sowell discusses the Open-Ended fallacy in his book Economic Facts and Fallacies. Everyone wants a clean environment, but how clean is clean enough? When do we realize that we've paid too much in terms of economic activity and individual freedoms and liberty? Our environment is much cleaner than 1970, and certainly much cleaner than the dawn of the industrial revolution. The economic law of diminishing returns will at some point render additional effort and resources directed at environmental conservation ineffectual.
Is it just me, or did the financial crisis take away all the attention which global warming had in the years before? Looks like people are no longer interested in the environment if they aren't financially secure. And no wonder the government is taking such a step. I was looking at the statistics and hiring of recently graduated adults has decreased dramatically during the last couple of years. I myself am finding it hard to keep a job. Full time positions for entry level people as just too hard to find. Even the ones posted in specialty search engines for student jobs are being targeted by too many people.