TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

This is a bipartisan (multi-partisan) multi state push to reduce fossil fuels in the region (and as a result, reduce greenhouse gas pollution).
This is the way to do it, en mass and in collaboration with our neighbors.
Of course it's sometimes hard to do the right thing, but I believe this region wide approach to drastically reduce the fossil fuels used in our transportation system is the way to do it.
I won't be able to attend the public hearing on TCI coming up in Manchester Center on January 30th but it is important that my voice is heard.
Now is the time to make commitments.
Thank you
Steven Stone

My first observation (as an initiate) is the MOU is only partly a memorandum of understanding. When it comes to the description of the program design, this document appears to be more a memorandum of obfuscation. While it may be necessary to be somewhat broad and unspecific, most everything in the paragraphs containing the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth appearances of the words "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED," is moderately to utterly incomprehensible. Given that these four paragraphs appear to be the "business end" of the proposal, it seemed important to make sense of them, so I referred to a video on the TCI website:

https://vimeo.com/331091117/defadf2a7f

The video was not particularly effective at translating the language in the aforementioned four paragraphs into meaningful understanding of any intended program design. This is not to say the program design won't work - it is only to say that the video does not explain the program design much better than the MOU itself.

That said, in the video, there is a slide which appears at 7:01, and remains frozen on the screen until 8:57 (a mind-numbing two minutes). It appears this slide is aimed at depicting the intended effect of TCI.

If, as shown in that slide, it takes TCI twenty years to effect a ≈60% reduction in carbon, then TCI is a failure. According to most climate science available today, we don't have twenty years.

Vermont should absolutely join TCI to help address the global climate emergency. The small additional cost of fossil fuel resulting from joining TCI will likely be a fraction of what Vermonters typically see when fuel prices fluctuate due to changes in the cost of oil due to world events. Additionally, by investing the funds raised through TCI into initiatives designed to promote fuel savings, Vermonters will save lots of money and local economies will be strengthened by reducing the amount of money that leaves the state to purchase fossil fuels.

I certainly understand the desire for all public servants associated with the TCI to act with the best of intentions and I appreciate your willingness to serve the public to the best of your abilities. I ask you to please consider that I am a PhD Chemist with decades of experience and knowledge about the effects of CO2 concentrations on climate change. I have applied to the IPCC as an editor for the Assessment Report 6, I have spoken about the chemistry behind CO2 driven climate change all over the country, and I have a level of expertise in this area that stems from decades of research, educational training and experience.

I am commenting here to make sure that you are made aware that main stream media accounts of CO2 and climate change are not accurate. It is a scientific fact that CO2 both absorbs and radiates infra red energy. The extent that this particular attribute of CO2 influences global temperatures is still a matter of considerable debate - despite what you are being told and what you read in the media. Climate change predictions rely on secondary feedbacks to account for the vast majority of predicted warming. These feedbacks are controversial amongst those of us who look at the issue with complete intellectual honesty. The feedbacks may lead to more warming, but they may not. When we hear statements like the science is settled and 97% of scientists agree that CO2 causes warming, these statements are only true for the RELATIVE impact of CO2 on temperature and climate. The absolute influence of atmospheric CO2 concentration is absolutely NOT settled, NOT quantified and NOT well understood. How the impact of CO2 concentration on temperature compares with periodic changes in ocean circulation, solar activity, and geothermal fluctuations is still very much a matter for debate. The coming decades may see warming due to increasing CO2 concentrations, but they may also see cooling due to ocean and solar effects despite rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. There is absolutely not a scientific consensus on this point, and when people try to extend the scientific consensus from a relative impact of CO2 to an absolute impact, they are being disingenuous.

Given this situation, I ask you to abandon plans to limit CO2 emissions. Doing so only limits the ability of our society to live prosperous lives. The societal benefits from this initiative are insignificant, but the societal detriments are very significant. I see a high likelihood of unintended consequences that end up doing far more damage to the environment than business as usual CO2 emissions. For this reason I urge you to abandon this plan.

Rail! Let's build an efficient, economic, less-polluting network of trains (light rail included) to connect people and goods throughout Maine. How crazy is it that it took a private organization, TrainRiders Northeast, to bring Amtrak to Portland and Brunswick? Why isn't state government supporting this highly successful effort and expanding the concept? In my own memory we had rail service all over the state, with connections to Canadian rail.

Instead of tearing up tracks - even for good causes like "rail trails," we should be restoring rail transportation. Private cars, even electric ones, are really a curse. Private cards are dangerous, highly polluting, anti-social, obviously inefficient (hauling a ton of steel and plastic to carry in most cases one person). We need to wean ourselves off them. Let's create local bus systems that can connect with train stations, buses that could pick up and drop off passengers where needed. We already have some of this. RAMP IT UP.

This is going to raise gas prices and hurt Mainers.I oppose Governor Mills supporting the Transportation Climate Initiative as it is going to increase the price of gasoline and oil prices which in turn affects prices of transporting food and other goods. Mainers need tax relief and I am very disappointed in Governor Mills as she promised that taxes would not be increased yet she increased the state budget by $800 million.These electric vehicles do not purchase fuel and are not paying road use taxes that are imposed on road fuels. I don't think is a good idea to keep subsidizing electric vehicles. Why should we subsidize other peoples choices? Electric vehicles are not as enviromentaly friendly as most think. Batteries alone are expensive produce hazardous byproducts when manufactured. are hazardous and expensive to dispose of, and are a bigger hazard to first responders. We need to take in consideration the number of senior citizens, low income citizens and families that are already strapped with tax burdens.

This policy goes against the law of phisics, Maine economy cannot support this initiative. Please reconsider

We, the citizens, resoundingly voted against the gas tax. Raising taxes without legislative approval is wrong.