Public Comment on The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming Strawman Proposal - June 11
3 Pages
English
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

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

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer
3 Pages
English

Description

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 ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 13
Language English

Exrait

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