New Jersey Takes The Lead On Controlling Dangerous Emissions
First, it was Michigan taking the lead on Great Lakes protections.
Now New Jersey vaults ahead of the other states, even California, to act against greenhouse gas emissions in the wake of the Bush administration's failure to act.
On these issues, Wisconsin has some laudable, but more modest goals and initiatives.
The linked story explains the difference between the California approach, and New Jersey's:
Imagine the reaction from the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce if our state was willing to take bold steps like these:
"California, the world's eighth largest economy, recently enacted a tough greenhouse gas law. Like New Jersey's, it also mandates an emissions cut by 2020.
"But its long term goal of cutting emissions 80 percent by 2050 is a target, not a hard mandate.
Environmentalists said the New Jersey law is tougher than California's because its 2050 target is enforceable."
50% of NJ power is Nuclear.
NJ residents pay on average $37.50 more per MWh than WI residents ($111.70 vs. $74.20).
47% of CA power is gas.
CA residents pay on average $38.90 per MWh than WI residents ($113.10 vs. $74.20).
Over the next decade the US should dramatically cut all pollutions including green houses gases but we need to understand how emissions reductions will impact energy prices and the impact on low-income and the middle-class.
We should also clearly understand the impact of higher energy costs on jobs and the economy.
The Midwest has a very different energy portfolio than East Coast and West Coast states. Greenhouse gas reductions will impact the Midwest and South more dramatically than either coast.
Moving toward 1990 carbon levels is possible but how will it effect our economy? How will it effect the poor?
Post a Comment