Greenhouse gas emissions dip in Minn., but future is uncertain

  • Article by: BILL McAULIFFE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 22, 2013 - 8:55 PM

They fell 3 percent from 2005 to 2010, but with an uptick at end.

  • 34
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
minn12Jan. 22, 13 9:09 PM

Of course, all this legislation and money spent when there is ZERO actual proof of so-called 'greenhouse gases' and 'global warming'. Even the article is forced to state such gases are 'SEEN AS the chief cause of the warming climate..'. Walked outside lately? We're currently in the deep freeze. Not to mention there is now proof that the alleged 'global warming' ended a couple dozen years ago. So-called 'global warming' is the greatest hoax of the century. And please note: there are reputable scientists on BOTH sides of the issue, so therefore GW is NOT a scientific fact. It remains only an unproven theory. The earth has always warmed and cooled in cycles, based mainly on solar activity. 'Greenhouse gases' ain't got nothing to do with it.

20
18
theruntJan. 22, 13 9:59 PM

Reputable scientists? Like the illustrious debunker Fred Seitzs, who was Chairman Emeritus of the “George C. Marshall Institute,” which received $630,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005? Or S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., who acknowledged being a paid consultant for several oil companies (including ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, Sun Oil and Unocal?) Or Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., who admits that he charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services? Or Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist?" Oh, but wait. Lomborg did an about face and recently said, “It is a very good thing that President Obama accepts that global warming is real and man-made; his predecessor’s reluctance or inability to recognize the issue was an embarrassment.” A lot of skepticism has been fueled by reports from the Heartland Institute, which received a total of $40 million between 1985-2008 from just three oil interests: ExxonMobil, Koch Foundations and Scaife Family Foundations.

14
16
lars1074Jan. 22, 1310:02 PM

Seven billion people using large amounts of energy and the loss of large parts of tropical rain forests and northern old growth forests has no effect on the climate?

14
16
serfdumbJan. 22, 1310:31 PM

Minnesota's greenhouse gas emissions fell about 3 percent from 2005 through 2010, but it's uncertain whether that trend will continue. - Whether or not it continues, it doesn't matter. Much like your electric company making less because of conservation, they will demand more of your money becuase THEIR profits are reduced. It is all about making your money theirs. If they can't take it one way, they will steal it another. Good luck.

13
10
obamafone4meJan. 22, 1310:38 PM

therunt - The government has spent billions of our tax dollars buying scientist to support their cause. Private industry has spent millions. Are you aware that billions are greater than millions?

17
12
serfdumbJan. 22, 1310:38 PM

Seven billion people using large amounts of energy and the loss of large parts of tropical rain forests and northern old growth forests has no effect on the climate? - Nope dude. I lay money on our government killing us far before our planet decides it's tired of us and causes us to go extinct. When it happens, the elite will finally get their own. Nice!

13
10
serfdumbJan. 22, 1310:41 PM

“George C. Marshall Institute,” which received $630,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005? - That is nothing compared to what Obama has given to the Green Energy companies that don't exist any longer. They had less of a life than the May Fly in MN. But, it is the thought that counts. At least Obama meant well. It wasn't his money, wo who cares.

16
11
obamafone4meJan. 22, 1310:49 PM

"the Heartland Institute, which received a total of $40 million between 1985-2008 from just three oil interests: ExxonMobil, Koch Foundations and Scaife Family Foundations". The US government has spent 13 billion since the 1980's to get scientist to support it's theory.

16
9
armybratJan. 22, 1310:54 PM

Climate science research is almost exclusively funded by governments around the world. Between 1989-2009, the U.S. government alone spent $79 billion. To keep the money flowing, it was necessary to have a compelling "story" of a pending apocalypse to justify that sort of investment.

And posters are outraged by private industry spending millions?

14
10
garagewineJan. 22, 1311:45 PM

"Or Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist?" Oh, but wait. Lomborg did an about face and recently said, “It is a very good thing that President Obama accepts that global warming is real and man-made; his predecessor’s reluctance or inability to recognize the issue was an embarrassment.”----Lomborg never claimed to believe that the earth wasn't warming, so there was never an "about-face". He has argued, quite consistently, that current climate change policies (e.g. Kyoto Treaty) cannot and will not reduce emissions in a cost-effective manner, and that other types of global policy interventions (e.g. reducing HIV/AIDS) would be more cost-effective in the near term. He has been at least partially vindicated in his stance by the fact that none of the original signitories to Kyoto have met their emissions reduction targets. They must be even more red-faced by the fact that the U.S., who was not a signatory, has already made considerable progress in reducing emissions.

11
7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT