So says this article from Friday’s Daily Press.
The governor will enter his final year in office with a renewed stress on the environment. Back-to-back events Thursday on Capitol Square offered a glimpse at the issues, and how he intends to address them.
First, Kaine announced an incentive program aimed at major Virginia military installations, which encompass more than 275,000 acres in the state. Then he attended the final meeting of the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change to thank members for their work.
At least it’s something green.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Yeah, and I bet all those fisherman on Tangiers Island are really excited about next years crab season (snark).
I wonder about Kaine’s commitment to the environment when he green-lights another coal fired plant, (using mountaintop removal to drive it), or when he pushes for uranium mining in the Commonwealth.
Climate change is a by-product of some of those activities. People need to wake up.
Can’t wait to get Kaine out of office!
Sorry, but any politician whose first priority is anything other than economic growth doesn’t belong in office under current circumstances.
i agree people in office should make environmental issues a priority
The military installation program is cool, but Kaine needs to back full implementation of the bipartisan Climate Commission’s recommendations if he has any hope of salvaging an environmental legacy. His “we’ll see what we can do” comments here don’t make me optimistic.
If we don’t deal with the Bay pollution, there won’t BE any crabs to harvest.
No one favors pollution, especially someone like me who fishes in the bay and eats what he catches. But Kaine trying to take on anthropogenic global warming as governor of Virginia can only hurt the people of Virginia and can do no good.
Even if you accept the notion that the climate is being changed by human activity, which I don’t, take a look at the numbers.
The Greenhouse Effect is a necessary part of the temperature balance of the Earth, without it, we would be covered in ice several miles thick. Along with cloud cover, solar output, albedo and other factors, the Greenhouse Effect drives the Earths climate cycles within a narrow range.
Over 70% of the Greenhouse effect is form water vapor. Of the remainder, CO2 is only one of several gases that contribute, along with Methane, SO2 from volcanoes, Fluorocarbons and Oxides of Nitrogen. CO2 altogether accounts for 14% of the Greenhouse Effect. Of that, the total human contribution is less than 1% of the Greenhouse Effect, most CO2 in the atmosphere comes form soil and the oceans in response to their temperatures. (Note that this creates a positive feedback loop, as rising temperatures release more CO2 form these sources.)
Humans cannot live without producing some CO2, so of the <1% of the Greenhouse Effect caused by human activity, the absolute most under control of governments worldwide is <0.4% with the total US contribution at less than 0.08%. Trying to steer the climate by regulating US production of CO2 is about the equivalent of trying to steer an aircraft carrier through a hurricane by dragging a hand in the water on one side or the other. Kaine trying to do it by wrecking Virginia’s economy is down to dragging the tip of his pinky in the ocean.
So, how about concentrating on the kinds of pollution that really matter, like municipal sewerage in our waterways, instead of futile attempts to tinker with problems beyond our understanding and greater in scope than we can affect.
Don Tabor,
I am sure that you will admit there is climate change going on. I understand your skepticism about whether or not man is the cause.
But consider this. Perhaps CO2 is a contributing factor. And then perhaps we can do something about it. If we try to do everything possible to limit CO2 emissions but come up empty handed then I guess there is nothing left to do but fall to our knees and pray to God.
While most everything you say about sources of greenhouse gasses is correct, you need to understand that the problem is the slight increase in CO2 emissions over time. Small increases every year add up to major increases over the decades.
Carbon is safely locked up in fossil fuels so that they do not react with the environment as a greenhouse gas. By burning fossil fuels to release the energy we unlock the carbon so that if forms CO2 which contributes (according to the theory) to global climate change. While the environment on our planet can deal with most greenhouse gasses, it can not deal with the small, measured, constant increase man is causing to be introduced.
I am unwilling to just stick my head in the sand and wait for climate change to go away. Many people think reducing CO2 emissions will help and I am willing to give that a try. If that fails I can fall back on plan B which is to fall to my knees. But I am unwilling to ask God to do for me something that I should be able to do for myself. How does the saying go? God helps those who help themselves.
Let’s attempt to limit CO2 emissions and see if that works. If that fails we can always ask for God’s intervention. Who knows, perhaps God will even be willing to help us out a little bit if he sees we’re already attempting to change our evil ways.
I know introducing religion into an argument irritates many of you. However I feel that the path we should follow can be supported by arguments that include or disclude the existence of God. I prefer to include Him (Her?) in my thinking.
I know you want to do something, but action without understanding has grave consequences.
Yes, we release CO2 into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels, but it came from the atmosphere to begin with. Fossil fuels are the remnants of ancient plants which used CO2 as food. The CO2 we release today also feeds plants, and nature converts that CO2 into french fries, zebras and plywood, among other things. Its a cycle. The amounts we release are large, but the residual increase is small.
If we decide we must “do something” and drastically reduce CO2 release just to see if there is an effect, it will take centuries to know if it made a difference, during which time, millions will starve due to economic inefficiency. There are consequences to limiting energy use.
In fact, when these consequences are considered, even if Human Global Warming adherents are correct, the cure will be worse than the problem.
Don Tabor,
Really? Are we feeding the poor today? Can we better feed the poor if climate change makes this effort more difficult?
It might take “years” (or maybe even decades) to see if our CO2 limitations have any effect. But I doubt it will take centuries.
Are we feeding the poor?
Do you buy clothes, furniture or shoes?
The poor of the world make their living on the American consumer. Who do you think gets hurt most if the US economy goes into a prolonged recession? We may have to tighten our belts for a while, but when we decide to make our tennis shoes last another season, children go hungry in the third world.
When we make stupid economic decisions in the US, there are grave consequences across the world. We have hurt them enough with this stupid housing bubble and its collapse already. The overall efficiency of the world economy is what has raised much of the rest of the world out of famine and epidemic since the 50’s. Famine today is largely a result of political disruption, as in Zimbabwe today, rather than actual shortage of food, but that has not long been the case, and if we screw up our economy chasing environmental fantasies, true famine could well come back.
We live at the top of the pyramid and what we do affects everyone beneath us. The sweatshop jobs we campaign against represent a generational leap in prosperity for those who hold them. They are a base from which their next generations can build, but if we bankrupt them so we can feel good about our carbon footprint, we should do so with full understanding of the consequences of those choices on the rest of the world.
Don Tabor,
We were talking about the environment.
Let me quote you:
“When we make stupid economic decisions in the US, there are grave consequences across the world.”
When we make stupid environmental decisions, there are grave consequences across the world. Even if we do not like it, we must fess up that our environmental decisions have economic repercussions.
Ever heard about global warming?
How about creating “poor” people? Thats what we have done with misguided policies regarding the Bay. Take a look at the fishing industry, crab in particular. We have devastated a livelihood frankly. No bailout for those folks!!! Then again we did the same thing to tobacco and allowed the entire I95 corridor in NC that was once a mecca of textile/manufacturing jobs to be pinked slipped through trade policy hey so whats next people? Pick your next target for complete destruction and then complain more about jobs going overseas or unemployment. Coal? If that happens in the last twenty years Virginia will have seen its waterman, tobacco farms, and its coal heritage devastated under the guise of big brother protectionism; you know like seatbelt laws. The last bastion of significance in the economy in Virginia will be defense related industries and brace yourselves people…they are the next target along with Coal perceived to be expendable, thats right people those jobs are evidently thought to be expendable as well I guess.