TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I wish to give my strong support to your effort to limit carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) producing forms of transportation. This must be done as quickly as possible as we are now facing our final chance to put any kind of brake on a complete climate failure. I strongly support both intracity and intercity forms of public transportation that would accomodate this. This means public subsidy for these types of transit and a long overdue decrease in the subsidies provided for highway and bridge construction and maintenance. Certainly electric light rail and intercity rail would qualify for this subsidy but also the replacement of fossil fuel powered buses with electric buses should also qualify. Perhaps even more stimulating to this transition would be the replacement of rider fares with free ridership funded by all levels of government through the same mechanisms that have funded the highway industry for decades. Free ridership not only would stimulate increased use of public forms of transport but would also produce an economic equality benefit.
We know this would come at a considerable cost but if the cost of a complete breakdown in the climate as we know it is factored, these subsidies will save far more than just dollars.

Cutting gasoline will become a matter of life or death. We will keep using it as long as it's cheap and convenient. That's human nature. We MUST make it more expensive, so people will choose ways to NOT use it. This is life or death for our children's children. Implement this or a simpler carbon tax, and use the revenue progressively to help those hurt most by it, by returning the money straight back to them. Do not use the money for pet climate projects. Because the most effective and fairest measures are chosen by each of us individually.

We need cleaner transportation options to be sure future generations are healthy as well as the environment.

This Cap and Trade just penalizes the poor by not only increasing their heating costs and transportations costs but also their energy costs as a whole.
There was a town in Texas (Georgetown) that went to complete renewable energy and the residents electric bills went up to astronomical rates.
Our electric utilities are already wanting their rate payers to fund the cost of building EV charging stations when there are not many people who will use them. Electric cars create a carbon footprint also. There have been studies done.

As far as switching cars to electric you are just switching one form of carbon for another. Power companies are not grabbing lightning bolts out of the air for your electricity. The more electric used the more carbon they will produce. Renewable energy is not able to replace the amount of energy we use.
You would be far better off getting people to use public transit. Penalize people for driving huge non efficient vehicles. Invest in renewable energy to help supplement other sources of power.

Certainly "we" have the brains to come up with a doable, comprehensive plan, and then "we" need to convince the politicians on both sides to be sure funding is in place... it's becoming a cliché but time is running out and we won't have second chance...we fix the problems we've helped create or the problems will fix us.

Throughout Fairfield County,the school buses are prevelant on our back roads and towns..and they also emit the most toxic black fumes..our children are breathing in those fumes and those fumes are polluting our air.Connecticut needs to phase out the old school buses with clean and green technology!

I would like to give comments regarding Maine’s involvement with the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) as well as the three specific question areas of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

As a former Saco city councilor, current chair of the Saco Economic Development Commission, active board member of the Saco Main Street organization, Saco representative on the BSOOB Transit Committee and a small business owner with a degree in Engineering Technology, I believe I am well qualified to speak to this issue.

I commend Governor Mills and her attention to matters surrounding climate change and the potential harmful effects that rising CO2 levels have on the environment. However, I do not believe that CO2 alone, not to mention human or animal activity on CO2 levels are the most significant causes to climate change.

Please consider this amazing fact from Earth Sky, posted on May 22, 2019 titled: Magnetic North Is Shifting Fast...

“We already know that the magnetic pole moves. Both poles have wandered ever since the Earth existed. In fact, the poles even flip over, with north becoming south and south become in north.”

Also consider that the physical mechanism able to potentially explain the connection of Earth’s magnetic field to climate change is still an open issue.

From the Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris: “No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geo magnetism, or possibly other factors , can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries. Intensive data acquisition is required to further probe indications that the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change at certain time scales.” Source: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, ticket 3-4, p 328-339 (2007).

And this research article titled: New perspectives in the study of Earth’s magnetic field and climate connection, S.A. Campuzano, A. DeSantis, F.J. Paton Carrasco, M.L. Osete, E. Qamili (2018)...”There is a 90% confidence level that the magnetic field does impact the climate system including sea level rise.”

Now let me focus on the three questions in regard to the MOU.

Question 1: Setting starting levels and the trajectory for a regional cap on CO2 emissions from transportation fuels would be a variable construct that may prove unreliable if magnetic shifts are actually the larger issue at hand. Science must continue to focus attention on CO2 levels, but with a broader perspective. I believe a regional cap is difficult to target given the broader context. The question should be, “Given that current transportation fuels are a limited source, what research and innovation are being done now to find and implement alternatives to cleaner fuels and transportation needs?” This type of data and development is more concrete and effective. I know that research has been done on the harmful health effects that these fuels have on the population, but I cannot find the data to support these claims in the TCI, MOU or the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) nor can I find relevant information for the claims made to support the TCI. I believe these documents have overly dramatized the concerns in an effort to push policies that will make our poorer populations even more destitute when they are taxed accordingly.

Question 2: If we reframe Question 1 to be as suggested, then Question 2 becomes irrelevant. However, goals could be set to help R&D methods and implementation. Communities in the region would possibly welcome the NEMS information when considering the changes to over all transportation needs. For instance, I know that our new electric buses in Biddeford, Saco and Old Orchard Beach will be a welcome addition, but it remains to be seen if the very cold temperatures that occur frequently in our region will allow them to run at all during below freezing temperatures. This would be a major inconvenience to those who rely on mass transit. Also, as we in Saco consider our work force needs and the higher density housing clusters in our urban core, what will be the impact of the transportation being desired? I can tell you that the BSOOB Transit Committee is just barely scratching the surface of this issue, and yet we envision some amazing progress that only our communities can come together to solve. What a shame it would be to tax everyone indiscriminately in an effort to pool funds that a much larger and more populated region and Maine would be competing for. Municipalities would still need to increase certain fees and costs locally to pay for any shortfall from a TCI “grant”.

Question 3: Stability mechanisms for emissions and pricing should not be considered given the context that CO2 levels are only one factor among many. Nothing remains stable for long and we are fools to believe even 50% in these projected models.

As Maine’s population ages, their income becomes less resistant to price increases. I saw first hand when I served as a city councilor how the elderly were the first people to complain when the property tax rate would increase. They cannot afford higher costs of living.

Let’s work on a system of information sharing instead, and learn about what other communities are implementing when local business, government and citizens take their vision of better communities into their own hands...Yes, we are doing it ALL THE TIME! AND IT IS WORKING.

The United States saw the largest decline in energy related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis according to the International Energy Agency, down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.

Governor Mills and our state representatives must not enter into this TCI. It is a financial risk that our citizens cannot be allowed to bear.