Denver girds itself for battle against AGW, even as...

Okay, sorry, I can't resist one more example of the "proof by anecdote" that so annoys me when used by the CoGW. On June 8 the morning low in Denver was 31 (KMGH TV). This is only the third time since recordkeeping began that the city experienced a freeze in June. This event also goes in the record books as the latest freeze ever recorded there.

In response to this record cold, the city government is considering a series of measures that will lower carbon emissions by the equivalent of a half million cars (Rocky Mountain News, June 11):

The ambitious goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4.4 million metric tons by 2020, the equivalent of eliminating two small coal-fired power plants or taking 500,000 cars off the road.

[...] Much of the city's plan involves finding ways to encourage energy conservation by mandating efficiency standards for new construction and setting standards for older homes that would be enforced when the home is sold.

The city also would give incentives for car pooling and the use of hybrids and other low-polluting vehicles, possibly by giving them priority in parking.

To cut back on use of landfills - methane gas from landfills is a major contributor to global warming - the plan would encourage recycling and charge residents for the amount of trash they throw away.

Denver may ask voters to approve higher rates for "excessive" use of electricity and natural gas. The plan also floats the idea of using insurance premiums to penalize people who drive long distances.

Sounds like Denver is seeking to make the city a much better place to live and do business by making it much more expensive to live and do business there. I suppose they could go a little further and ban poor people, because they're much more likely to drive carbon-belching autos.

Sorry, that was a little too cynical. Some of the policy proposals are not unreasonable... if they were in response to an actual crisis -- the fact of which I remain unconvinced.