9 States expected to cut emissions

I wonder how much emissions would be cut if local goverments actually got serious about improving bike commuting.  I live in California which is supposedly supposed to by kinda bike friendly but I don't see it.  The bike lanes will be going along and then just end at a overpass or on ramp.  Being a bike newbie, I am still nervous about getting into traffic.

I wonder how many people would commute if they required all large office buildings to have showers? But then again I wonder how much energy we would save if they required the office buildings to turn off some of the lights at night.

However, I can't complain about my commute. Its from the bedroom to the next room which is my office. My traffic jam entails getting around my very fat black lab.

I work in the pollution control industry (design emissions control systems for power plants) and just wanted to clear up some ambiguity here.  The federal government DOES regulate power plant emissions, and recently passed a number of new regulations that will force power plants to significantly reduce SO2, NOx, particulate, and mercury emissions in the next 5-15 years.  Utilities and engineering firms in the US are going to be hard-pressed to find the resources to complete the design/construction of these controls by the imposed federal deadlines. 

This article is specifically talking about the emissions of CO2 from power plants.  There is a lot of data that contradicts the claim that CO2 is directly linked to global warming, and therefore our current administration (whether wrong or right - I'm not advocating any opinion here) has chosen not to support regulations on CO2 at this time.  It is likely that federal regulations will be introduced in the future, when the technology to reduce these emissions is more highly developed.

I don't have a problem with states deciding to regulate their power plants above and beyond what the federal government calls for (it keeps me employed!!), just be warned that regulations like do result in a higher utility bill for all of us, and aren't always based on hard science. 

Just my 2 cents.  I hate it when everyone walks around acting like the government doesn't regulate power plants - if they didn't, I wouldn't have a job!

Yeah, essentially the conservatives felt Kyoto could have too much of a negative impact on the economy.  I don't know how much of that is true and how much is exaggeration, because I haven't followed it too closely (i.e. haven't seen any real projected numbers on what it would cost).  It is likely that it would have a significant impact on power generation prices.

In the industry, I think most utilities and engineering companies are expecting the government to pass *some* sort of CO2 legislation within this decade.  We already have utility customers asking us to evaluate CO2 reduction technologies for them - I think it will happen eventually, but it won't be as strict as Kyoto.  These 9 states are probably anticipating that and figure they might as well clean up their air sooner than later, and please democratic voters while they're at it.

I agree with you - I wish there was a point where people would reduce dependance on fossil fuels as prices rise, but it doesn't seem to happen...  There are a lot of renewable energy technogies being developed, but I don't think any of them will become mainstream until the fossil fuel shortage becomes a crisis.  I think that will come sooner for the oil industry than for the power industry - there's a lot more coal left to burn...

I vote for more bike lanes too