[Vision2020] SEC Megaloads Public Forum Reminder

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 12:55:15 PDT 2011

I was pleased, actually shocked, to discover Moscow Mayor Chaney make
the following statement in the Tues. June 14 2011 Moscow/Pullman Daily
News pg. 8A, in an article referencing the Sustainable Environment
Commission and the mega-load debate, given I thought regardless of the
moral, scientific or legal responsibilities, that it was politically
problematic to introduce greenhouse gas emissions as a consideration
regarding the mega-load issue on the level of city government, with
some in the city council and the city at large doubtful of the need
for large greenhouse gas emission reductions viewing this as
economically damaging and scientifically questionable:

"New information--additional information--may cause them to change
their position or make a different recommendation," Chaney said,
adding the city maintains a 20- percent reduction goal for greenhouse
gas emissions by 2020.  "Environment is at multiple scales.
Greenhouse gases are not restricted by a jusisdictional border."

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Nobel Prize nominee who lost to Al Gore,
addressing the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:


NASA climate scientist James Hansen, in his acceptance speech for the 2010
Sophie Prize:


"But our governments have no intention of solving the fossil fuel and
climate problem, as is easy to prove: the United States, Canadian and
Norwegian governments are going right ahead developing the tar sands,
which, if it is not halted, will make it impossible to stabilize
climate. Our governments knowingly abdicate responsibility for young
people and future generations.
This city of Moscow 20 percent by 2020 reduction goal for greenhouse
gas emissions is based on a 2005 baseline, if I recall this

What is very important for a science based solution to global warming
is to face the scientific facts of the level in reductions of
emissions required to reverse the problem, without succombing  to
comfortable illusions about "progress" in emissions reductions
("greenwash") that in fact will still result in radical climate

A rather simple analysis of global greenhouse gas emissions will
quickly reveal that a 20 percent reduction below a 2005 baseline will
not prevent continuing increases in atmospheric CO2 level, and thus
continuing increases in the extent of anthropopgenic climate change.
This is due in part to long CO2 atmospheric lifespan and the fact that
2005 global greenhouse gas emissions were already very far above
acceptable emission rates that would stop atmospheric CO2 from
increasing in level.

The Earth Policy Institute advocates an 80 percent reduction in
emissions below a 2006 baseline to address global warming, though if I
understand correctly, this 80 percent reduction goal includes impacts
on atmospheric CO2 other than just fossil fuel burning related
emissions, such as stopping deforestation, planting trees and managing

Quote below from website given:

"When political leaders look at the need to cut carbon dioxide
emissions to curb global warming, they ask the question: How much of a
cut is poltically feasible?  At the Earth Policy Institute we ask a
different question:  How much of a cut is necessary to avoid the most
dangerous effects of climate change?"


Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 6/15/11, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

> City Council Chambers (Moscow City Hall, second floor)
> 7:00 PM today (June 15, 2011)
> Seeya there, V-Peeps.
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
> - Author Unknown

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list