Missoula News

Montana Legislature

Missoula Democrat Introduces Greenhouse Gas Plan

By Dan Testa, 3-10-07

Concluding the hearing for her bill Friday to cap Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions, Rep. Betsy Hands, D-Missoula, compared the failure of the federal government and world organizations to deal with global warming to a family reunion full of lazy people.

At such a reunion, the pileup of used paper plates, napkins and cups would start small as no one bothered to clean up after themselves. But that pileup would eventually grow to an unavoidable problem and ruin the party, she said.

“Who is responsible for cleaning up?” Hands asked the House Natural Resources Committee.

House Bill 753, modeled after similar legislation in California, would bring Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The bill’s price tag is over $200,000 a year to beef up staffing at the Dept. of Environmental Quality to study the source of Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions and develop a plan for reduction.

Hands said anticipating federal caps on carbon emissions would ultimately benefit Montana’s economy by keeping future energy development from being rendered obsolete.

“You’ll actually see that carbon caps are coming,” Hands said. “I, for one, do not want to see us caught with our pants down.”

Encouraging the development of coal-fired power generators in eastern Montana is a central issue of this session. Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s administration plans to unveil his energy plans in coming weeks and Republicans are blasting the governor for what they call a late roll-out of those plans.

A line of people, most of whom identified themselves as Missoulians, stretched out the door to speak to in support of the bill.

“The verdict is in, our planet is getting warmer, it’s having negative effects and humans are helping to cause it,” said former Billings Mayor Chuck Tooley, who was trained to speak to groups about global warming by former Vice President Al Gore. “This bill allows Montanans to choose what plan is best for Montana.”

But spokespeople for the oil, coal, timber and energy industries said the bill would unnecessarily restrict energy development and the effect on the environment would be negligible due to Montana’s relatively small carbon output.

Mark Lambrecht, a lobbyist for PPL, quoted Schweitzer as saying “Montana’s global carbon dioxide contribution is squat.”

“It is simply inappropriate to apply a plan for California to Montana,” Lambrecht added. “Climate change should be addressed on a national and international basis.”

Bud Clinch of the Montana Coal Council said any benefits to reducing Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions would be cancelled out by pollution from power plants being built at a rate of several-per-month in emerging Asian economies.

“If we shut all emissions off in Montana, does anyone think it would make a negligible difference?” Clinch asked. “None of this stuff on carbon sequestration means a damn if we don’t bring China into the fold.”

Some opponents also questioned whether global warming is a scientific reality or a political fad, referring to a Time Magazine article from the 1970s predicting an imminent ice age.

“It is politically incorrect right now to not agree with the concept of global warming,” said Haley Beaudry, a manager at Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, adding that scientific consensus on global warming “simply does not exist.”

Speaking as an informational witness, Helena geologist Joe Michaletz said while global temperature is rising, science has not yet conclusively proven the cause to be man-made.

“The bill will have no quantifiable or measurable effect on global warming solutions,” Michaletz said. “The science is in its infancy and does not provide a solid basis for legislation.”

But Hands and Missoula Democrat Ron Erickson defended the bill, saying opponents’ arguments amounted to recommending doing nothing at all.

“So what if Montana is a small contributor,” Hands said. “We are a contributor.”

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.