<< Back to main
These reports conclude that the negative impacts of climate change will outweigh any benefits and that these negative impacts will place immense strains on public sector budgets. Further, the effects of climate change will likely result in higher prices, reduced incomes and job losses.
Clearly, delaying action on global climate change will be the most expensive policy option we could choose.
Given the potential that global climate change has to disrupt economic security, food security, water security, national security and our very future I have come to realize that turning down my thermostat, decreasing my driving, eating a plant based diet, and recycling is far from enough. As an individual I will do all that I can, but addressing large sources of greenhouse gas emissions is critical. The proposed rule is an important, though far from sufficient, step toward ameliorating the effects of global warming.
The costs of pollution, though often hidden from our view, are immense – to individuals, to nations, and to the planet. We have very little time left to address this problem before it becomes insurmountable. The time is now – we must act swiftly and decisively to safeguard the futures of our children and grandchildren.
By requiring use of best available control technologies to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of major emitting facilities we can address a significant portion of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Further, requiring use of best available control technologies will not only help slow global warming but will also help establish the U.S. as a moral model in the effort to address global climate change.
I am fully in support of the proposed rule and thank the EPA and the current administration for taking action. Please note, however, that I am opposed to designating carbon capture and sequestration as a best available control technology. CCS is a strategy akin to closing the barn door after the horse has left.
Global Warming Call to Action
Posted 11/19/2009 9:48pm by Christine Pado.
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
November 19, 2009
Today I joined nearly 100 climate activists and testified at an EPA hearing in Chicago support of what is commonly known as the "Big Polluters" rule - the EPA's first step in controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Below is the text of my testimony and a link to follow that you can use to register your support of the rule during the public comment period.
Please take action today - we do not have a moment to lose.
It's easy - click on the link to find an e-mail that you can customize.
https://secure2.convio.net/sierra/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=3219&JServSessionIdr003=ir7s5041z3.app20a
https://secure2.convio.net/sierra/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=3219&JServSessionIdr003=ir7s5041z3.app20a
*****
Good afternoon. My name is Christine Pado and I am here today, as a concerned citizen, to add my voice in support of the Big Polluters rule. As a mother of two young adults I am deeply concerned that if not addressed immediately and effectively, the impacts of global warming will seriously compromise the quality of life for my children and any grandchildren I may be blessed with.
Though I have long been aware of the threat of global warming it was not until very recently that I became fully aware of the critical nature of the threat. Now that I am aware of the grave nature of threat posed by global warming I must take action. That is why I am here today.
Though I have long been aware of the threat of global warming it was not until very recently that I became fully aware of the critical nature of the threat. Now that I am aware of the grave nature of threat posed by global warming I must take action. That is why I am here today.
In researching my testimony I found that the evidence regarding global warming mounts day by day but that the evidence has been clear for some time.
The EPA reported, in its 2009 Inventory of Greenhouse gases, that in 2007 U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases included a staggering 6.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. Nearly 42% of these carbon dioxide emissions resulted from the generation of electricity. Generators of electricity rely on coal for over half of their total energy requirements meaning that 1.3 billion metric tons of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in 2007 was attributable directly to the burning of coal.
2007 also saw the release of 585 million metric tons of methane. This amount of methane has a 100 year global warming potential of 12.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. One-quarter of the 2007 methane gas generation resulted from enteric fermentation – or feed digestion by cattle – and another quarter of the methane gas release was generated by landfills.
Multiple reports conclude that the economic impacts of climate change will occur throughout this country and the world - though they will disproportionately impact those people who have the fewest resources.
The EPA reported, in its 2009 Inventory of Greenhouse gases, that in 2007 U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases included a staggering 6.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. Nearly 42% of these carbon dioxide emissions resulted from the generation of electricity. Generators of electricity rely on coal for over half of their total energy requirements meaning that 1.3 billion metric tons of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in 2007 was attributable directly to the burning of coal.
2007 also saw the release of 585 million metric tons of methane. This amount of methane has a 100 year global warming potential of 12.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. One-quarter of the 2007 methane gas generation resulted from enteric fermentation – or feed digestion by cattle – and another quarter of the methane gas release was generated by landfills.
Multiple reports conclude that the economic impacts of climate change will occur throughout this country and the world - though they will disproportionately impact those people who have the fewest resources.
These reports conclude that the negative impacts of climate change will outweigh any benefits and that these negative impacts will place immense strains on public sector budgets. Further, the effects of climate change will likely result in higher prices, reduced incomes and job losses.
Clearly, delaying action on global climate change will be the most expensive policy option we could choose.
Given the potential that global climate change has to disrupt economic security, food security, water security, national security and our very future I have come to realize that turning down my thermostat, decreasing my driving, eating a plant based diet, and recycling is far from enough. As an individual I will do all that I can, but addressing large sources of greenhouse gas emissions is critical. The proposed rule is an important, though far from sufficient, step toward ameliorating the effects of global warming.
The costs of pollution, though often hidden from our view, are immense – to individuals, to nations, and to the planet. We have very little time left to address this problem before it becomes insurmountable. The time is now – we must act swiftly and decisively to safeguard the futures of our children and grandchildren.
By requiring use of best available control technologies to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of major emitting facilities we can address a significant portion of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Further, requiring use of best available control technologies will not only help slow global warming but will also help establish the U.S. as a moral model in the effort to address global climate change.
I am fully in support of the proposed rule and thank the EPA and the current administration for taking action. Please note, however, that I am opposed to designating carbon capture and sequestration as a best available control technology. CCS is a strategy akin to closing the barn door after the horse has left.
Thank you for the opportunity to register my comments.
0 Comments »
