The way this is written, it is aimed at stopping fossil fuel use, not carbon dioxide release. To me, that is a shift in goals, from merely regulating carbon dioxide, and now regulating the use of fossil fuels altogether. Are these people completely unaware that you don't have to burn fossil fuels in order to obtain the energy content from them? Fossil fuels are used to make ammonia, why not find a way not to release carbon dioxide while doing it? There is a way. But the goal shifting may obviate that possibility and move on to eliminating fossil fuels in toto, which isn't necessary if you are only interested in "climate change".
Here's a quote:
Brown and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, had pushed a far-reaching proposal to cut petroleum use by half, boost renewable-electricity use to 50 percent and double energy efficiency in existing buildings. [emphasis added]
So, have the goal posts been moved?
Update:
I think this post is so important, at least in terms of understanding this blog, than just about any post that I've written. If you "get it", then you get the blog. If not, you may never get it.
I won't explain why, there are over 9000 posts that already explain why.
No comments:
Post a Comment