Public Comment on The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming Strawman Proposal - June 11

Informations

• Publié par: Loruj
• Nombre de lectures: 13
• Langue: English

Extrait

Public Comment on The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming

Comprehensive Strawman Proposal

Received on June 11, 2008

Comments from

Page

Mark M Giese

1

Davis, Liz

1

Nicholas Utphall

1

Robert Fizzell

2

T.J. Morice

2

From: Mark M Giese

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:12 PM

To: DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS

Subject: low carbon fuel standard

A comment on a low carbon fuel standard.

This would mean that there would be

a limit to how much carbon is in the fuel, but also factor in the carbon used

in extracting the fuel, processing the fuel, and getting it to the market.

A low carbon fuel standard will help ensure that we develop the best bio-

fuels from a global warming standpoint but also for our water quality.

It would encourage the development and commercialization of hybrid electric

vehicles.

It's one of the only ways to address the disproportionately high greenhouse

gas emissions from tars and oil.

It is important to look at the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of fuels

even if not all of the reductions come in Wisconsin.

Thank you.

--Mark M Giese

Racine WI

From:

Davis, Liz

Sent:

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:52 PM

To:

DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS

Subject:

low carbon fuel standard

I am writing in support of a low carbon fuel standard. It is so important to provide motivation that will help

produce bio fuels, improve water quality and promote the use of hybrid cars. Thank you for your

consideration.

-Liz Davis

From:

Nicholas Utphall

Sent:

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:53 PM

Page 1 of 3

To:

DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS

Subject:

low carbon

I'm for a low carbon requirement, as recommended by Clean Wisconsin. We in Wisconsin are

disproportionately responsible for this pollution to our environment, and this standard would help.

Thank you!

Nick Utphall

Madison, WI

From:

Robert Fizzell

Sent:

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:23 PM

To:

DNR GLOBALWARM TF COMMENTS

Subject:

Addressing Global Warming

In addressing Global Warming, it is critcal to consider the fact that

energy conservation

is the most effective method

of reducing greenhouse emissions.

Beyond this, a first step is to make a serious commitment to developing

alternative energy sources

that do not

involve combustion. While it is understood that these solutions will take a long time in development and

implementation, that is no excuse for not beginning. In fact, it is all the more reason to start such development early.

While

electric vehicles

will currently draw on the old energy system for their electricity, their development now will

establish the infrastructure for continued development with alternative sources later. Futrthermore, for most uses of

automobiles, even electricity from the old system contribute less greenhouse gasses. Finding a developer for electric

cars to occupy the Janesville GM plant would be a great step for our economy and for the environment.

In considering alternative fuels, Wisconsin can be more oriented to the future if it will move rapidly from the use of

food crops for biofuels. It is important to look at the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of fuels even if not all of the

reductions come in Wisconsin. A low carbon fuel standard will help ensure that we develop the best bio-fuels from a

global warming standpoint but also for our water quality. An alternative fuels laboratory at one of the Wisconsin

universities would, again, address both the economic condition and global warming.

====================================

Robert Fizzell

Beloit, WI

====================================

From:

T.J. Morice

Sent:

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:57 PM

To:

Sayen, Nick W - DNR

Subject:

Global Warming Task Force Comments

Mr. Sayen,

After scanning earlier versions, the summary from WMC and discussing thing in an overview fashing wth

some of the committee members, I must commend the work done but do have a question/concern.

Although the Advanced Biomass & Biofuel Commercialization & Utilization portion is good for

development and I'm enthused at the inclusion of bioenergy heat here and the inclusion of thermal

energy under the electric generation workgroup, there is still a lack of equality. This plan for electric use

will provide for production tax credits and renewable energy credits for electric generators using biomass,

Page 2 of 3

while those facilities utilizing biomass for heat does not. I'm wondering why there wouldn't be a similar

consideration for this 1/3 of our energy consumption in the state?

I would also want to verify the defination of biomass to ensure it includes processed/refined biomass as I

didn't see that in what I read.

I would welcome comments and/or explanations.

Tony “T.J.” Morice

Page 3 of 3