The September 30th Seattle Opinion Editorial Pro and Con I-2066 illustrates the lengths to which the paper will go to abide any attempts to reduce CO2 emissions. A previous post concluded, any benefits from reducing emissions was limited to reducing the states 0.117% of the planet’s total. That even these benefits would be dwarfed by the CO2 coming by jet-stream from China.
The “Pro” argument is that I-2066 gives voters the chance to protect naturlal gas as an energy choice.for our state. The “Con” argument begins with the obvious “most people want two basic things: affordable energy bills and a comfortable, safe, temperature no matter the weather outside”. Yet concludes I-2066, requiring energy companies to offer natural gas, “puts those things in jeopardy".
Yet Sec.2 (2) of the initiative includes the following:
Every gas company or largecombination utility shall provice natural gas to all persons and corporations in their service area even if other energy sources may be availalbe
Thus it’s unclear why it would “raise the cost upfront and long term costs of new housing, gut energy efficiency standards that keep energy costs bills low” or any of the other dire warning in the "Con" argument. Even more dubious is their purported concern about those paying to fund the initiative when that funding is dwarfed by those opposing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment