Candidate Survey & Background
Information
|
|
Go to the Online Survey
[Download
in Word] |
|
Go to
Background Info
[Download
in Word] |
|
June 2008
Dear General Assembly Candidate:
Your positions on Connecticut's current environmental
issues are very important to the Connecticut League of Conservation
Voters. Each year, we endorse candidates running for state office
who have demonstrated leadership on environmental issues and who
pledge to make the environment a high priority if they are elected.
Clean air, water, wildlife, energy, smart growth,
farmland and open space are important to the electorate in every
district. Many of these and other environmental issues were debated
in the legislature in 2008 and likely will be back in 2009. Our
survey focuses on a select few.
Your response to our Candidate Survey is part of
our endorsement analysis. We also consider responses to
interviews, input from environmental leaders and for incumbents,
your rating on our Environmental Scorecard. We will publicize your
responses if we endorse your candidacy.
This year we are conducting our survey online.
For each environmental issue, our survey
includes links to background information compiled from environmental
advocates’ websites and other public documents.
Please be sure to complete the survey no later
than July 9, 2008. If you have questions on any of the issues, please
call us at 860.236.5442 so we can connect you with people who have
the most up-to-date expertise. Thank you!
Click here to take the survey.
|
Background Information
for 2008 Candidate Survey
|
|
DEP Funding
Bottle Bill
Face of Connecticut
Medical Waste Disposal
Riverfront Protection
Transportation and Mass Transit |
Enhancements to Inland Wetlands and
Watercourses Act
Municipal Green Fund
State Department of Energy
Energy & Global Warming
Toxics |
|
|
|
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
In 2008,
many environmental advocacy groups coalesced to ensure that the
Department of Environmental Protection is adequately funded.
Environmental advocates requested $5 million for Department of
Environmental Protection operations as one step toward increasing
general operating funds from .02% to .04% of the general fund - an
exceedingly modest amount compared to other agency budgets.
During
the 2008 legislative session, the Appropriations Committee passed a
budget bill that would have increased DEP’s overall budget by $3
million for staffing and operations with funds from the general
fund. This amount was the minimum to get the agency on track to
carry out the state's environmental goals as embodied in the state’s
law and policies. The economic downturn led the legislature to
abandon its revised budget, leaving the Department of Environmental
Protection continuing to be woefully understaffed and underfunded.
For More Information, see
Dreams
Deferred? An Assessment of the Cost of Attaining Connecticut’s
Goals for State Parks and Environmental Protection Recent, by
the Council on Environmental Quality.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Bottle
Bill
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
One of the priorities of the Department of
Environmental Protection's 2006 draft Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP)
is to update Connecticut’s beverage container deposit law, enacted
in 1978. With the goal of increasing recycling, environmental
advocates have also been working to add water bottles, and
containers for other non-carbonated beverages, to the state
recycling deposit program.
30-Year
Old Beverage Deposit Law Needs to be Updated
Originally a litter control measure, the successes of
the “bottle bill” have been far-reaching. Connecticut’s law helped
create a flourishing “after-market” for aluminum and PET
(polyethylene terephthalate) plastics nationwide.
DEP’s
Solid Waste Management Plan Endorses Expanding the Beverage
Container Deposit Law
The SWMP proposes to update the beverage container
deposit law to include the sports drinks, bottled water, iced teas,
and other non-carbonated beverages that were not marketed in 1978.
If these beverage container types are not included, more and more
recyclable material will be tossed into the garbage and local
municipalities will have to pay for cleanup and disposal.
The SWMP also recommends that the state escheat
unclaimed deposits as abandoned property. Unclaimed bottle deposits
should be treated the same way as bank accounts whose rightful
owners cannot be located. Unclaimed deposits amount to about $25
million a year. In effect, these unclaimed deposits, which are kept
by the beer and soda distributors, are a state-initiated subsidy for
these companies.
Environmental Advocates Generally Support:
-
Requiring deposits on non-carbonated beverage
containers;
-
Increasing the outdated five-cent deposit;
-
Increasing and equalizing the handling fees
wholesalers pay to retailers and redemption centers to process
empty bottles. These fees have not been increased in twenty
years, making it practically impossible to create new redemption
businesses; and
-
Returning unclaimed bottle and can deposits to
the state.
Advantages of Expanding the Scope of Redemption Recycling
Over 1.5 billion bottles and cans of
carbonated beverages are sold annually in Connecticut alone. Of
these, nearly 70% are returned for deposit.
-
Without redemption recycling, municipalities and
the state must fund widespread litter cleanup, disposal, and
materials processing, including ever-increasing waste
transportation costs.
-
The deposit system ensures a steady stream of
clean recycled material to end users.
-
Because the deposit system is privately funded,
recycling is not interrupted when government budgets are cut.
The beverage container deposit incentive system pays for itself.
-
Municipal budgets are limited and recycling
competes with everything else a town must fund, including
schools, road maintenance and senior citizen centers.
-
Effective solid waste management is in itself
sound public policy, but the implications for climate change
that are influenced by our solid waste choices make it that much
more imperative. We must aggressively pursue options that
maximize energy conservation and resource conservation and
minimize the emissions of greenhouse gases. Requiring deposits
on noncarbonated beverage bottles will induce more people to
redeem them, increasing recycling rates and thus reducing the
costs to municipalities (and their taxpayers) for solid waste
disposal.
Soft
Drink Association & Other Opponents Want the State and Towns to Bear the
Cost of Recycling and Litter Clean Up
The National Soft Drink Association, grocery stores
and the wine and alcoholic beverage industries have fought a
relentless battle against expanding the reach of
Connecticut’s redemption recycling law. Instead of absorbing the
costs of managing their container waste, they would prefer that
taxpayers bear the burden via curbside recycling programs or with
increased fees for waste removal. Grocers complain that they should
not have to bear the burden and mess of redemption centers.
The redemption recycling program can alleviate budget
pressures for municipalities and towns and will help raise
Connecticut’s recycling levels to suggested Solid Waste Management
Plan levels.
For more information, see
Connecticut
Recyclers Coalition.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Face of CT
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
A coalition of groups introduced the
Face of Connecticut
campaign to help Connecticut preserve open space, retain its rural
character, keep its waterways clean and revitalize its urban
centers. The Face of Connecticut Campaign calls for new policies,
as well as comprehensive and consistent funding by the state to
support action in four areas that will preserve the unique qualities
of Connecticut’s diverse landscape for generations to come.
Some Face of
Connecticut provisions passed in 2007 and 2008.
Funding
for the Face of Connecticut is Essential
Provisions for funding the Face of Connecticut
have yet to be adopted. The Face of Connecticut Fund will embody
the state’s commitment to invest over the next ten years in
preserving Connecticut’s distinctive landscapes, historic villages
and urban centers.
The Fund will receive and disburse funds consistent
with principles of responsible growth and the safeguarding of our
natural and manmade landscapes and historic assets. The Fund will
operate according to specific directives to preserve our state’s
natural and cultural heritage for future generations.
The Face of Connecticut campaign is seeking $100
million lump sum annually for the next ten years. Part of the $100
million includes existing funding that has been provided in recent
state budgets to programs and projects critical to the Face of
Connecticut campaign. The remainder of the $100 million is
essential to properly finance existing programs, to meet community
needs and to implement critical new programs. The Fund will offer
loans that will help to grow its own reserves and act as a rapid
response entity to address urgent needs.
The Fund will appear before the Bond Commission once
a year for funding, but can also accept donations from federal,
corporate and individual donors.
A minimum of 65% or $65 million will be used to fully
fund the following existing programs, which either receive bonding
or are funded through earmarks:
-
Department of Environmental Protection – $25
million
Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Matching Grants
Program
Recreation and Natural Heritage Trust Fund
-
Department of Agriculture – $20 million
Farmland Preservation Program
Joint Town-State Farmland Preservation Program
-
Commission on Culture and Tourism, Historic
Preservation Division, & the CT Trust for Historic Preservation
– $20 million
Historic Preservation Planning Fund
Historic Landscapes Fund
A minimum of 35% or approximately $35 million will
fund new programs to fill gaps in existing state programs through
grants and loans to agencies, qualified non-profits and/or
municipalities. The new programs, which will be administered by a
12-member Steering Committee consisting of agency heads and
appointees of the Governor and leaders of the Connecticut General
Assembly, will consist of the following:
-
Historic Villages and Urban Centers
Municipal Planning Grants – Grants to municipalities to pay for
expert assistance with land use and historic preservation
planning, including help with updating Town Plans of
Conservation and Development and revising land use and historic
preservation regulations to meet the objectives of Responsible
Growth and town Plans of Conservation and Development. Urban
Parks Grant Program – Fund projects to create, renovate, and
enhance urban parks; Livable Communities Grant Program – Grants
for local initiatives that create links between land
conservation, affordable housing and/or historic preservation.
-
Distinctive Landscapes
Greenways and Active Recreation Fund – support the development
of greenways and public recreational facilities; Locally
Significant Farms Fund – Provide funds for the purchase of
development rights or fee acquisition of small, locally
important working farms that contribute to education, food
security and/or economic development within their communities
and/or the region; and for a forgivable loan program for
beginner farmers for land acquisition and infrastructure
investments in return for operating and stewarding a locally
important working farm.
-
Projects of High Importance
Rapid Response Funds - Distributions to existing agency programs
based on demonstrated need; Low interest loan program - Provide
low interest loans to municipalities and non-profits to assist
in purchase of endangered open space, farmland and historic
buildings, including restrictive covenants.
For more information, see
www.faceofconnecticut.com;
Public Act No. 08-174;
Public Act No. 07-131;
Benefits to Municipalities.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Medical
Waste Disposal
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
Many drugs and other chemicals enter the environment
following ingestion and excretion, application by the user, or
application to domestic animals. Rivers and the Long Island Sound
are the ultimate recipients of these chemicals.
Although wastewater treatment plants effectively
treat solid waste, many pollutants, such as pharmaceuticals and
household products, may not be removed as effectively. For example,
United States Geological Survey studies across the nation have found
that pharmaceuticals exist in a very high percentage of the rivers
that were tested. The full effects on the environment are often
unknown.
Approximately 85% of the drugs used in a typical
hospital are routinely sewered or landfilled. A typical hospital
uses an estimated 2,000 to 4,000 pharmaceutical products.
Chemotherapy agents are often sent to a regulated medical waste
incinerator due to radioactivity. Federal regulations allow more than 100 toxic
chemotherapeutic agents to be sewered or landfilled. The EPA issued
new guidelines on Feb 20, 2008. These guidelines suggest individuals
should dispose of unused drugs by either mixing them with
undesirable substances (like kitty litter or coffee grounds) and
depositing them in the garbage, or bringing the drugs to a community
pharmaceutical take-back program. The guidelines continue to advise
flushing certain controlled substances down the toilet.
Sewage treatment plants receive residential,
commercial, industrial, and hospital wastes through sanitary
sewers. Connecticut’s nine sewage treatment plants discharge up to
35 million gallons of treated wastewater into the state’s rivers
every day. On balance, these facilities do a very good job of
meeting the limits set for them for bacteria nutrients, and other
common pollutants found in solid wastes, but they were not
constructed to remove pharmaceuticals or the constituents of many
personal care products from the waste stream.
Environmental Effects of Medications in Water
The effects of these substances on the environment
are under study internationally. At low levels of exposure, the
following problems have emerged. (Keep in mind that Connecticut
residents are less susceptible to impacts from substances in public
drinking water supplies, because we are the one state that does not
allow water that has received a discharge to be offered as
potable.) Even low levels of these chemicals are problematic:
-
Antibiotics in water supplies are cause for
concern because the most frequently used antibiotics are
becoming less effective as the infections they are designed to
combat become resistant. Resistance increases with heightened
exposure to the drugs.
-
Research has linked certain endocrine disrupting
chemicals to testicular cancer, urinary tract birth defects, low
sperm counts, and premature onset of menses in people who
regularly drink water containing these compounds.
-
Research has shown that pharmaceuticals such as
Prozac, a commonly described antidepressant, can interfere with
the reproductive cycle of freshwater mussels.
-
The naturally-occurring and synthetic estrogen in
birth control pills and hormone replacement therapy drugs has
been implicated in hindering larval lobster development, shell
growth, reproduction and can make them more susceptible to the
bacteria that cause shell disease.
-
Synthetic estrogen can mimic or blocks hormones
and can disrupt normal body functions, evidenced by male fish
being taking on female sexual characteristics downstream of STPs.
-
Low doses of nonylphenol have profoundly adverse
effects on oysters, causing disruption of sexual development,
and lowering survival of offspring in the next generation.
What We
Can Do
Connecticut can take a variety of actions to reduce
the problem:
-
Prohibit the disposal of medications by
hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions to wastewater
treatment facilities
-
Enact legislation to authorize a pilot take-back
program for pharmaceuticals that would allow citizens to return
unused medications to pharmacies or allow hospitals to return
unused medications to pharmaceutical manufacturers for reuse or
proper disposal. (Presently, hospitals may return unused and
unopened drugs to manufacturers for credit, but once drugs are
opened, they become a regulated substance by the Drug
Enforcement Agency and must be disposed of as medical waste.)
-
Require large sewage treatment facilities to
monitor pharmaceuticals being discharged into surface waters and
groundwater. Similarly, the Department of Environmental
Protection should consider permit limits for pharmaceuticals and
personal care products (PPCPs) in sewage treatment facilities.
-
Sewage treatment plants should be adapted to
filter out new types of contaminants, including pharmaceuticals.
-
Adopt pharmaceutical take-back programs for safe
disposal of expired and unwanted medications as the legal method
of disposal.
-
Alter Federal Drug Enforcement Administration
rules that prohibit transfer of narcotics, even if being
discarded, without the presence of law enforcement officials.
-
Update the rules developed in the 1970’s
governing disposal of pharmaceutical wastes to identify and
regulate newly developed hazardous and highly toxic drugs.
-
Educate consumers about the environmental hazards
of pharmaceutical products and their proper disposal, perhaps
through labeling.
For more information, see
CT Department of Environmental Protection fact sheet.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Riverfront Protection
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
The environmental community advocates addressing the
degradation of water quality in the state’s rivers and streams by
requiring a protective buffer where possible. Buffers prevent
polluted runoff from entering rivers. The goal of legislation
proposed in 2008 was to provide for 100-foot vegetated buffers along
rivers and streams statewide, with exemptions for built-up areas,
redevelopment and agriculture.
The environmental community intends to submit
legislation to protect riverfronts again in 2009. Proposed
legislation will:
-
Apply to riverfronts along fresh-water perennial
streams.
-
Conserve natural vegetation along river banks
insofar as possible within a 100-foot corridor on each side of
the river by requiring a permit for many activities within the
corridor.
-
Be administered under the Inland-Wetlands and
Water Courses statute.
-
Provide exemptions for as-of-right uses, such as
agriculture, identified in the Inland-Wetlands and Water Courses
statute, which are administered under that statute.
-
Encourage redevelopment of brownfields and other
distressed areas.
-
Allow single-family homes, driveways, and septic
systems on small lots, filed with town clerk as of 10/08 and
buildable, so long as located as far from riverfront as
feasible, lawn is limited to construction area and driveways are
permeable;
-
Allow single-family homes, driveways, and septic
systems on lots that are legal as of October 2008, if their size
or shape would make it extremely difficult to protect the
corridor, so long as the riverfront is affected as little as
possible.
-
Permit a variety of ancillary uses within the
corridor.
-
Provide inter-town consistency by stipulating
that any activity requiring a permit and not an “as of right”
use must protect 95% of the vegetated riverfront area, and all
such activities must be located more than 50’ from
riverfront/wetlands boundary and must be located outside of
important wildlife habitat.
-
Protect the waters of the state from further
degradation caused by cutting and covering over the natural
buffers on river banks.
The Home Builders Association was particularly
hostile to the 2008 bill and several legislators contended that it
was a regulatory taking of property. Chief defenders of the bill
noted that Massachusetts instituted a 200-foot buffer, twice as much
as proposed for in Connecticut. This did not stop development, but
would put the buffer into a “regulated” area, subject to local
zoning decisions.
For more information, see
http://www.riversalliance.org/legislation.cfm
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Transportation & Mass Transit
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
Enhanced public bus transportation throughout
Connecticut can lead to enormous economic, social, and environmental
benefits that are complementary. Public transportation provides an
alternative to single-occupant automobile travel which is causing
ever-increasing congestion on our roadways. Bus transit can offer
viable options for improved access to jobs, while benefiting the
environment and the economy. Importantly, enhancements to bus
transit are most often possible with significantly shorter
implementation timeframes than capital-intensive transportation
investments and are more adaptable in response to the changing
demands of the public.
Making Connecticut’s transportation systems more
efficient and intentionally inter-connected will help manage overall
traffic congestion, reduce environmental impacts, and reap economic
benefits.
“Multimodal” connections, such as those between
trains and buses, make it easier to use alternatives to the private
automobile. Public transit can enhance the efficiency of the
overall transportation network as people make fewer individual trips
by car, resulting in fewer cars on the roads.
Reduced traffic congestion and fewer vehicle trips
reduce pollution. Similarly, clean vehicle technology will further
reduce particulate and greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, transit
advances the principles of Responsible Growth and Transit Oriented
Development initiatives designed to reduce sprawl.
Compared to single occupant auto use, high-occupancy
public transit saves energy, particularly gasoline. Increased
transit service supports the goals of the Connecticut Climate Change
Action Plan, including the goal of doubling ridership levels
statewide by 2020 and a corresponding reduction in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) below the 2020 baseline.
For more information, see
www.cfenv.org (go to programs >
global warming > transportation);
Moving Forward: Report & Recommendations of Connecticut’s
Transportation Strategy Board.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Inland
Wetlands
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
Wetlands soak up water in heavy rains and hold it in
the ground. This water can then recharge wells and streams in hot,
dry weather. Connecticut has already lost approximately 75 percent
of its original wetlands, and the recurring cycles of flood and
drought make it clear that we cannot afford to lose any more.
Legislation proposed, but not enacted, in 2008 would
have:
-
Explicitly stated that the purpose of wetlands
law is to protect wetlands, thereby helping local wetlands
commissions carry out their work;
-
Let commissioners give weight in their
decision-making process to credible evidence, such as
recommendations from water utilities; and
-
Confirmed that burden is on the applicant to
prove that his or her project will not harm water resources.
This proposal had deep and wide support, including
that of numerous environmental organizations, the Connecticut
Association of Inland Wetlands Commissioners, and the DEP. It was
opposed by the Home Builders Association of Connecticut. Advocates
expect the 2008 bill to be brought back in 2009 with even more
public support.
Court
Decisions Gut Authority and Purpose of Inland Wetlands Commissions
The need for the 2008 bill arose as several court
decisions over the last six years determined that wetlands
commissions do not have the authorities that most commissioners and
others had assumed that they had. For example, the Inland-Wetlands
and Watercourses Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§22a-36 to 22a-45) speaks to regulating
wetlands in a protective manner and balancing protection with
economic growth. It does not, apparently, fully commit the state to
wetlands protection. The 2008 legislation specifically declared it
state public policy to prevent inland wetlands and watercourses from
being spoiled and destroyed.
Also, courts have begun to shift the burden of proof
in a permit application from the applicant to the commission, and to
require commissions to find experts to testify to every aspect of
the application. Existing law states indirectly that the burden is
on the applicant, but the 2008 legislation stated this principle
directly and explicitly.
The 2008 legislation also afforded to commissioners
some specific examples of the kind of credible evidence they can
consider when evaluating the permit. This is a commonsense
interpretation of what sort of evidence is credible if not legally
and technically “expert.” The examples include 1) scientific
evidence and expert opinion; 2) direct observations of the proposed
regulated activity; 3) environmental reviews, policy letters, and
guidance documents provided by, or on behalf of, an environmental
review team or the Department of Environmental Protection; 4)
written comments or oral testimony submitted by the public health
commissioner, or by or on behalf of, a water company responding to
written notice it received according to law.
For more information, see
http://www.riversalliance.org/legislation.cfm.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Municipal
Green Fund
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
Property taxes underwrite most municipal conservation
expenditures, such as land acquisition and protection, diesel
retrofitting of municipal vehicles, stormwater management and sewage
treatment facilities for clean water, brownfield remediation, and
energy conservation initiatives such as “green buildings” and
alternative transportation. Thus conservation projects compete with
education, infrastructure, and other administrative municipal
projects for property tax revenues.
Environmental advocates propose enacting “Municipal
Green Fund” enabling legislation that would allow, but not require,
municipalities to raise money through a local conveyance tax for
conservation purposes. Each municipality would have to adopt the
new law for it to take effect.
The Community Investment Act, passed in 2005, levies
a $30 fee on land record filings and dedicates $26 of the fee to
fund farmland, open space, historic preservation and affordable
housing. While a positive step in the right direction, this current
level of funding is inadequate to the task. Furthermore, the fees
are administered by the state through existing programs that often
favor projects where local matching grants are available. As a
result, many less wealthy communities fail to meet the local
matching requirements and lose out to wealthier communities.
Property taxes provide limited opportunity for increased funding
levels for conservation. A Municipal Green Fund transfer fee of up
to 1% would let municipalities raise funds to leverage additional
private, state and federal grants for important regional
conservation projects in the range of $300 million.
The homebuilding and realtor interests claim that a
land acquisition conveyance tax makes housing unaffordable for
lower-income buyers. To limit the effect on the less affluent, it
has been proposed that the first $100,000 of value on a real estate
conveyance be exempt from the fee. It has also been proposed that
municipalities could use some Municipal Green Fund monies to
purchase real estate for affordable housing to meet this need.
The proposed Municipal Green Fund fee is fair to
communities because it would be a voluntary choice by the town to
adopt such a fund and it would be a fee on real estate buyers. The
buyer uses local land and services, and thus benefits from Municipal
Green Fund projects that enhance a community.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Recreating a State Department of Energy
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
From roughly 1974 to 1977, Connecticut had a
"Department of Planning and Energy Policy." At its height, the
state energy office employed 88 people in varied aspects of energy.
It brought the topic of energy into the mind and actions of
Connecticut citizens. Through a general reorganization in 1977, it
was merged into the Office of Policy & Management.
According to the Hartford Courant’s report on a survey conducted by
the Institute for Social Inquiry, 80% of the people surveyed said
they thought the energy crisis was “serious” or “very serious” in
1980. But by 1984, only 50% of the people surveyed still saw the
energy crisis as "serious" or "very serious." (In 1981 -1982, oil
rose to $40 per barrel. The price plummeted in 1984.) With the drop
in oil prices, the value of the Energy Office was diminished and its
staff was reassigned.
In October 2002, the Legislative Program Review and
Investigations Committee undertook a study entitled "Energy
Management by State Government." Significantly, the Committee
observed that “No single individual or governmental entity has
overall responsibility for energy policy in Connecticut; more than a
dozen state governmental bodies have specific energy-related
responsibilities. In addition, numerous types of private businesses
play important roles making energy products and services available.
Federal entities also are important participants in setting energy
policies.”
Some advocates propose resurrecting a centralized
Connecticut Department of Energy, mostly to assume the duties of the
Energy Division of OPM and some duties of the reconstituted
Connecticut Energy Advisory Board, coordinating energy policy and
implementation.
Some
advocates believe there should be two major energy entities: The
Department of Public Utility Control that would deal specifically
with regulated electric and gas utilities, and a new Department of
Energy to handle general coordination of policy and oversee all
other energy functions not under the purview of the DPUC. There are
many other views on how to address energy issues.
For more details on the interrelated topics of energy and global
warming, see the next section.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Energy & Global
Warming
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
2001 was a landmark year for global warming. That was
the year the world’s main scientific advisory body, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued its report
confirming that the earth had warmed significantly over the last 50
years and that human activities explained much of the recent rise in
temperatures. 2001 was also the year the United States announced it
would no longer participate in the binding international agreement
to reduce global warming pollution, known as the Kyoto Protocol.
Since 2001, the science of global warming has become
increasingly clear and urgent, and Connecticut and the New England
states have emerged as internationally recognized leaders in
creating solutions to global warming.
Connecticut’s challenge is to implement solutions to
global warming that will reduce our contribution to the problem,
move us beyond our dependence on fossil fuels, and set an example
for other states and the nation to follow.
The global scientific consensus is that burning
fossil fuels—oil, coal, and gas—intensifies the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas
that contributes significantly to global warming by trapping the
sun’s heat. Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are
unprecedented in human history, and a September 2006 NASA study
indicated that the earth’s temperatures are nearing the highest
level in the last 12,000 years, and closing in on the hottest in the
last million years. The negative effects of global warming will be
felt in Connecticut, as in the rest of the world through heat-related
illnesses and deaths, insect-borne diseases and coastal flooding.
Financial costs are rising as a result of an increasingly unstable
climate. The Reinsurance Association of America reported that
insurers paid $57 billion for weather-related losses in the first
half of the 1990s compared with $17 billion for the entire previous
decade, and $58 billion in claims in 2005 alone. Connecticut, which
has over $400 billion in insured coastal assets, is the sixth most
exposed state in the nation, and climate-related damage could risk
our economic future.
New England responds to global warming: Faced with
inaction at the federal level, states have taken the lead. In 2001,
the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian
Premiers (NEG/ECP) agreed on a broad Climate Change Action Plan for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The plan projects greenhouse gas
emissions will be reduced in the region to 1990 levels by 2010, 10%
below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 75-85% in the long term, levels
that scientists believe are necessary to stabilize the climate.
Further, the Climate Change Action Plan identifies the aspects of
global warming which are within the region’s control to influence.
In Connecticut, transportation and electricity
generation are the largest sources of carbon dioxide, with heating
and industrial activity accounting for much of the remainder. More
than 75% of New England’s electricity comes from non-renewable
sources such as coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power. The heavy
reliance on increasingly scarce and expensive fossil fuels threatens
Connecticut’s environmental and economic stability.
To begin to address this problem, in 2004, the
Connecticut General Assembly passed global warming legislation (PA
04-252), making the regional global warming goals Connecticut law
and directing the state agencies to develop near- and long-term
plans for meeting the goals. Pursuant to this act, on February 15th,
2005 the Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change released a
comprehensive Connecticut Climate Change Action plan with 55
policies for reducing global warming pollution.
In December 2005, Governor Rell committed the state
to take part in a seven state program, called the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), to cut carbon dioxide pollution
from power plants throughout the northeast. Under RGGI, power plants
are allowed to meet the reduction requirements by either reducing
their own emissions, or by buying pollution credits from a facility
that makes reduces carbon emissions more than it is required to.
The urgency of meeting the state’s targets is
underscored by the recent scientific findings regarding the current
pace of warming. While Connecticut has completed the necessary
planning and analysis to hit the 2010 target, emissions continue to
rise, and many of the key measures of the Climate Change Action Plan
have yet to be carried out.
The state and federal governments, as well as
community organizations, the scientific community and businesses
have acknowledged that global warming exists and it needs to be
addressed.
Connecticut corporations, such as United Technologies
Corporation, General Electric and Pfizer, seizing the economic
opportunities that arise from being the first to bring innovative
technologies to the marketplace, are leading the charge to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions while increasing their own profitability.
Even though clean and efficient technologies continue
to improve, global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels
in all their applications. Thus, no single solution can prevent the
negative effects of global warming. The longer we wait, the more
costly it will be to make deep reductions in carbon emissions.
Opponents to taking action stress that since
Connecticut is a small state with limited ability to solve a global
problem, we should wait for action at the Federal level. Fortunately
Connecticut recognizes that a small state can play a significant
leadership role by setting an example for other states and the
nation to follow. Our successes will help demonstrate the
feasibility of reducing greenhouse gases and bring about Federal
action much sooner. Only if Connecticut reduces its own contribution
to the problem will it have the moral standing to ask other states,
Washington D.C., and even other nations to reduce theirs. States
have traditionally led the Federal government on environmental
policy. Global warming is no different.
To meet the goals set by the Connecticut Climate
Change Action Plan the governor and legislature must:
-
Create energy efficiency programs for natural gas
and heating oil customers.
-
Participate in the northeastern governors’
initiative to reduce carbon pollution from power plants.
-
Double the recycling rate and reuse material to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from waste handling, transport
and disposal.
-
Reduce “black carbon” soot from diesel engines.
-
Mandate that ratepayer money go to cost-saving
energy efficiency programs before spending money on expensive
new power plants or other supply sources.
For more information, see
http://www.ctclimatechange.com.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Toxics
back to top |
Overview
Note: This information was compiled from various environmental
advocates' websites and other public documents.
Toxic chemicals have become widespread in our air,
water, food, schools, workplaces, everyday products, fish and
wildlife, and ultimately, our bodies. Scientific studies are
increasingly indicating that toxic chemicals contribute to an
epidemic of diseases and disorders.
More than one third of the US population is suffering
from a range of chronic diseases, including cancers, asthma,
infertility, learning and developmental disabilities, birth defects,
and neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinsons disease.
Most people have over one hundred chemicals in their
bodies. The chemicals in this “toxic soup” interact with each other
in the environment and our bodies, creating unpredictable damage. In
addition, preventable illnesses and disabilities impose staggering
costs on our economy and overburden scarce health care resources.
The European Union has already updated their standards and is
requiring the phase out of many of the most hazardous ingredients in
consumer products.
We can replace toxic chemicals with safer
alternatives. State government can help Connecticut businesses
change to a healthy economy based on safer production, safer
products and safer jobs.
Connecticut, a frequent leader on environmental
health policy and a major trade partner with Europe, can maintain
its competitiveness through innovation and leadership in the
development of products and practices that protect public health and
environmental quality.
Many states are proposing, and two states have
already passed, legislation to establish a pragmatic, gradual
approach to reducing health impacts from many toxic chemicals we are
exposed to in everyday life.
Note: This information was compiled from
various environmental advocates' websites and other public
documents.
back to top |
|
Copyright © 2008
Connecticut League of Conservation Voters
553 Farmington Avenue, Suite 201, Hartford, CT 06105 860.236.5442
ctlcv@ctlcv.org |
|
