More News

It seems that efforts to address climate change and global warming have befuddled Gazette columnists — both on the right and the left.

The former, Blair Lee ("Session review: Part I," April 17), apparently chose not to allow facts to interfere with his cynical — and typical — view of Maryland politics. The latter, Allan Lichtman ("Maryland's mediocre session," April 17), dismissed Maryland's becoming only the sixth state in the nation to set mandated carbon reduction goals as simply a "feel-good measure."

The just-passed Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act of 2009 mandates a 25 percent reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 and seeks reductions of at least 80 percent by 2050. With international efforts stalled because of the unwillingness by the Bush White House to commit to reductions, a select number of states have filled the void created by the federal government. Maryland has now joined this small group. And despite the commitment of the Obama administration and a just-unveiled congressional proposal, many expect a hard-fought battle in Washington by Republicans and some Democrats from coal states that oppose serious mandated reductions.

Foreign governments frequently ask, "Where is the U.S. effort?" Now, the most accurate reply is that "It's happening in the states."

Columnist Lee writes off the recently passed bill by saying the bill "exempts manufacturers, which is like exempting liquor stores from underage drinking laws." Reductions in manufacturers were, indeed, restricted to regional or national regulations — and not state — during the first phase (2016), but a simple phone call to Maryland's Department of the Environment would have revealed that manufacturing contributes only 4 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in Maryland. But that would have been too easy. And besides, it would have ruined a nice turn of phrase. Was Mr. Lee being dismissive to protect his journalistic flair or does he secretly sympathize with the deniers of global climate change on the right? Maybe it's time he joins the debate and places substance over style.

Mr. Lichtman, whose views and writing I generally appreciate, chose a different tack. He dismissed the effort because it wasn't enough and it didn't detail how the reduction would take place. As to the latter, reduction plans don't simply fall from the sky. Rather than be prescriptive, the legislation allows the scientists and other experts to develop the plan over the next 18 months. In terms of going far enough, the question becomes, "Compared to what?" The 25 percent and 80 percent reductions (the first mandated, the second aspirational) come close to those numbers suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So far, only five states have adopted such standards and opposition was so strong to the Maryland effort, it took three years to overcome.

If we could pass a bill that called for a 100 percent reduction, it would be wonderful. Unfortunately, existing science and technology couldn't deliver the goods. There are not enough solar panels or wind energy or energy conservation measures that would even get us anywhere close. Carbon sequestration is still sometime off, which leaves two options: turn off the coal-fired power plants — and turn off the lights — or open up growing efforts for expanded nuclear power.

As someone who would like to shut down coal-fired power plants tomorrow, it's simply not feasible. They are the main energy source and the populace of this country would rebel.

A transitional step might be to stop the building of additional coal-fired power plants (which I support). But if you're unconvinced whether achieving a 25 percent reduction was difficult, and, indeed, it was, you can't imagine the battle that would ensue on stopping all new coal-fired power plants.

As someone who has pushed the ideological envelope for many years, I would join Mr. Lichtman in pushing further. I don't, however, embrace his ideological purity in dismissing a very meaningful success achieved by the state's environmental advocates.

Paul G. Pinsky, a Democrat from University Park, represents District 22 in the state Senate. He was the lead Senate sponsor of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Act (2009) and the Healthy Air Act (2006).