Stuff I wrote over at the work blog on an intriguing effort to control greenhouse emissions in New Mexico via the state’s Environmental Improvement Board. Basically, the argument is that the EIB already has the legal authority to do it, and no additional legislation is needed. Interesting approach.
jfleck at inkstain
A few thoughts from John Fleck, a writer of journalism and other things, living in New Mexico
Say that the EIB can enact GHG reduction without new legislation.
If that reduction drives Intel, Kirtland, or Sandia out of the state, is that a good thing?
Will the regulations apply to cows, a large producer of methane, or to gases releases from oil fields?
Will it apply to car exhausts and barbeques (a strong but very local point source)?
There seem to be lots of unintended consequences if the rules are not carefully done. Much rule making is not carefully done.
Could an organization, or a barbuequer, claim that their point source of GHGs, while producing a lot of GHGs locally (within five feet of the source) does not produce detectable GHGs anywhere else and so should not be regulated?
Could an organization claim that regulation of GHGs is a federal duty not a state duty and so the regulation is not valid until the EIB and the EPA agree on what the regulation should be?
If there is a point source of GHGs in Arizona and the wind takes these GHGs into New Mexico, can the EIB regulate the point source in Arizona?
In the spring in New Mexico, prevailing winds take most of the GHGs out of the state (for example, see the smoke plumes from forest fires in New Mexico). Who has regulatory authority on these emissions?
These are just a few thoughts that might be interesting to have clarified at the meeting tomorrow. Have fun.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081230165231.aspx
A proposed tax by the EPA of $175 per cow for Green House Gas Emissions.