May 19, 2017 · OPINION
Proposed carbon cap makes sense for state’s economy
Photo/University of Richmond
Dominion Energy’s coal-powered electric generating plant along the James River in Chesterfield County.
By Judy Lamana
We can’t solve the climate crisis on our own, but Virginia’s governor is doing his part by setting in motion a rulemaking to cap carbon emissions from electric utilities and at the same time enabling Virginia to trade carbon allowances across state lines, a model that has to date paid big dividends for green investment in many northeastern states.
The governor’s action intends to put Virginia on par with states already capping carbon emissions. And the whole could become greater than the sum of its parts as efficiently trading carbon allowances drives down the cost of CO2 reductions dramatically, something budget-conscious officials in Richmond will take to heart.
Note that the ink will still be wet on the draft regulation when Gov. Terry McAuliffe leaves office, meaning its up to the next administration to see the process through. If our next governor has Virginians’ best interests in mind, he’ll follow through with a strong regulation to reduce our carbon emissions.
Doing nothing leaves us in the dust in creating the 21st-century jobs we need in the commonwealth. There are already twice as many solar jobs as coal jobs in the country. People like solar energy. Some of us like nuclear power, too. There is no time to lose.
The writer is a member of the Warrenton Climate Change Group.
BJ · June 2, 2017 at 8:43 am
Traverse - "like they say, there’s a sucker born every minute." Well here's looking at you kid!
nonewtaxes - "snowflake" is old and tired. Can't you come up with something new seeing as how you are such an expert on everything??
Traverse · June 1, 2017 at 1:03 pm
Well Ron, glad we missed that one! Loquacious Jim, rambling on and on again… par for the course I suppose.
Pass the popcorn Mr. President, and let’s change the channel to something that actually matters… Global Warming… hehehe… like they say, there’s a sucker born every minute.
Jim Griffin · May 23, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Quite the contrary: I warned them that what they thought was harmless could kill them.
Calling me a snowflake displays ignorance. It is correct to remind all of the lethal nature of CO2 to those who suggest there is nothing wrong with it.
If you want to assign fault, even malicious intent, find it with anyone who foolish asserts in public that there is nothing wrong with CO2. It is possible there are some who might not realize it is lethal to humans, especially so "a developing fetus."
A warning was in order. I gave it. If snowflake implies lightweight, you've revealed yourself as one.
nonewtaxes · May 23, 2017 at 3:02 pm
Gee wheez jimmie. You think snowflake is an offensive term but its ok to tell someone to go kill themselves????
"If there's literally "nothing wrong with CO2" why not inhale it? I suggest you devote yourself to trying to do so. Get a tank of it, attach a mask and breathe in, deeply."
I quoted you here because snowflakes have an unlimited amount of deniability and usually a minuscule amount of responsibility.
"Agreed, CO2 good for trees. Trees good, scrub CO2 from air, cleansing it for humans and animals.
As a result, I hope we can agree on one thing: C02 not good for humans, animals"
Do you even understand what you say?
Observer · May 22, 2017 at 6:26 am
Griffin, go back to school and learn a thing or two, ok?
Jim Griffin · May 21, 2017 at 10:01 pm
Welcome back, martinkus. It wasn't the same without you!
Agreed, CO2 good for trees. Trees good, scrub CO2 from air, cleansing it for humans and animals.
As a result, I hope we can agree on one thing: C02 not good for humans, animals:
"Carbon dioxide in its gas form is an asphyxiant, which cuts off the oxygen supply for breathing, especially in confined spaces. Exposure to concentrations of 10 percent or more of carbon dioxide can cause death, unconsciousness, or convulsions. Exposure may damage a developing fetus."
martinkus · May 21, 2017 at 9:52 pm
Without C02, trees would not survive as C02 is critical for photosynthesis and the production of oxygen, which we humans require to survive.
Jim Griffin · May 21, 2017 at 11:01 am
If there's literally "nothing wrong with CO2" then why do our bodies exhale it? Our bodies exhale it because it is in fact bad for us.
If there's literally "nothing wrong with CO2" why not inhale it? I suggest you devote yourself to trying to do so. Get a tank of it, attach a mask and breathe in, deeply.
Perhaps your obituary will change the opinions of others if it mentions your experiment as your cause of death. To be perfectly clear:
"Respiratory failure also can occur if your lungs can't properly remove carbon dioxide (a waste gas) from your blood. Too much carbon dioxide in your blood can harm your body's organs."
martinkus · May 19, 2017 at 3:46 pm
I forgot to add that we need to regulate bovine emissions! Our friendly cows are bad like us humans! LOL
martinkus · May 19, 2017 at 3:44 pm
Solyndra worked out pretty well, didn't it? Why stop with industry, go after humans...after all we exhale C02 all the time and, at times, in huge amounts! A carbon tax on people!
Observer · May 19, 2017 at 1:01 pm
Oh, and am I right that Al Gore made most of his money by the carbon allowance scheme? Thanks for helping old Al to get richer.
Observer · May 19, 2017 at 12:59 pm
You know there is nothing wrong with CO2, right?
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
Friday, March 16
Students, parents and teachers dominate hearing on proposed, $335.9-million county spending plan
Friday, March 16
Weapons reported at schools, applicants for new campus security jobs, death certificate revenue and cost of proposed new county government positions
More Fauquier news
Thursday, March 15
1993 — Blizzard leaves 15-foot drifts, train hits car at Midland, Vint Hill job loss uncertain, county might import trash, county buildings need work