Bill urges state to fight global warming trend

AUGUSTA – A heated international debate moved to the Maine State House on Thursday, as lawmakers considered a bill that could require substantial reductions in air pollution and energy use in hopes of mitigating the impact of global climate change.

The bill would require that Maine businesses reduce their emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.

The Bush administration and a majority in Congress oppose setting mandatory standards for reducing the greenhouse gases that result from the burning of fossil fuels. The climate change debate in Washington has stalled, and so states, including Maine, are taking the issue into their own hands. More than half of state legislatures are considering global warming bills this year.

Rep. Ted Koffman, D-Bar Harbor, has sponsored a bill to require the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to create a greenhouse gas registry and a climate action plan, then reduce the amount of harmful gases released by 75 percent over the long term, with lesser short-term goals set for 2010 and 2020.

Everyone who spoke at Thursday’s packed public hearing agreed the phenomenon of global warming exists. The process by which air pollutants change the atmosphere and trap an increased amount of heat is now supported by a majority of the world scientific community. The debate over the human role in this phenomenon, too, has been essentially resolved, speakers said.

Dueling scientists and policy experts debated the impacts of the greenhouse effect at Thursday’s hearing, however.

Two respected researchers, National Academy of Sciences member Robert Kates, a retired scientist who lives in Trenton, and Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia and the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, painted very different pictures of how global warming might affect Maine.

Kates spoke of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, extreme weather and the potential for increased disease and drastic changes in the landscape. Michaels discounted scientific projections, arguing that temperature increases will be minimal in most parts of the globe.

Presented with a sea of line graphs and statistical data, several committee members requested that a workshop be scheduled to teach legislators about climate science before the bill is debated.

Opponents of the bill also brought in a spokeswoman from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a pro-business think tank, who explained her vision of a market-based means of addressing global warming. Environmental improvements will follow wealth, so the best means of addressing global climate change is with grants to business, particularly those that encourage the development of new, cleaner technologies, she said.

The Bush administration has made a similar argument in its advocacy for voluntary environmental improvements.

Neither President Bush nor former President Clinton would agree to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that has been signed by most of the industrialized world, arguing that the treaty unfairly favors developing nations.

The governors of New England states and premiers of Atlantic Canadian Provinces have created their own agreement, however. Koffman’s bill is less ambitious than Kyoto, instead echoing the goals set by regional leaders.

A spokeswoman from Guilford of Maine’s parent company, Interface Fabrics Group, spoke in favor of the bill, calling the goals “reasonable” and saying that her company’s three textile mills in Maine already have exceeded the goals voluntarily though an efficiency program.

Several environmental groups, as well as a spokeswoman from Physicians for Social Responsibility also spoke in favor of Koffman’s bill.

The Maine Chamber of Commerce and the Maine Petroleum Association opposed the bill, however, citing a negative financial impact and a lack of necessity.