Tag Archives: Climate Change

CLIMATE CHANGE news

Posted on by
3

Image via ecstaticist on Flickr.

  1. The melting of ice, that’s occurring in Greenland and in the rest of the Arctic at alarming rates, is thought to eventually trigger a five feet increase in sea level rise by the end of this century, and this projection is “dramatically higher than earlier projections, an authoritative international assessment says.”
  2. Some teenagers are suing the U.S. government. They are claiming that the federal government is failing to protect the Earth for future generations. The suit is relying “on the public trust doctrine, which dates to Roman times,” and the doctrine was carried over into English common law and thus, American common law. The doctrine, as applied to navigable waters, was articulated in Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 452-53 (1892) (emphasis added):

    [T]he state holds the title to the lands under the navigable waters of Lake Michigan, within its limits in the same manner that the state holds title to soils under tidewater by the common law we have already shown, and that title necessarily carries with it control over the waters above them, whenever the lands are subjected to use. But it is a title different in character from that which the state holds in lands intended for sale. It is different from the title which the United States hold in the public lands which are open to preemption and sale. It is a title held in trust for the people of the state, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference of private parties. The interest of the people in the navigation of the waters and in commerce over them may be improved in many instances by the erection of wharves, docks, and piers therein, for which purpose the state may grant parcels of the submerged lands; and so long as their disposition is made for such purpose, no valid objections can be made to the grants. It is grants of parcels of lands under navigable waters that may afford foundation for wharves, piers, docks, and other structures in aid of commerce, and grants of parcels which, being occupied, do not substantially impair the public interest in the lands and waters remaining, that are chiefly considered and sustained in the adjudged cases as a valid exercise of legislative power consistently with the trust to the public upon which such lands are held by the state. But that is a very different doctrine from the one which would sanction the abdication of the general control of the state over lands under the navigable waters of an entire harbor or bay, or of a sea or lake. Such abdication is not consistent with the exercise of that trust which requires the government of the state to preserve such waters for the use of the public. The trust devolving upon the state for the public, and which can only be discharged by the management and control of property in which the public has an interest, cannot be relinquished by a transfer of the property. The control of the state for the purposes of the trust can never be lost, except as to such parcels as are used in promoting the interests of the public therein or can be disposed of without any substantial impairment of the public interest in the lands and waters remaining. . . . The state can no more abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested, like navigable waters and soils under them, so as to leave them entirely under the use and control of private parties, except in the instance of parcels mentioned for the improvement of the navigation and use of the waters, or when parcels can be disposed of without impairment of the public interest in what remains, than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of the peace.

  3. Since crop production is connected to climate, there is evidence that climate change is driving higher food prices, so “wilting yields may have contributed to the current sky-high price of food, a team of U.S. researchers reports online May 5 in Science.”
  4. A report warns that the expansion of renewable energy “will be costly and policy changes will have to be enacted to ensure that renewable energy can achieve its potential in helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” To expand renewable energy and reduce our enormous carbon footprint, the U.S. government must expand policies and laws that spur renewable energy development and research. Curbing fossil-fuel subsidies would certainly help level the playing field.
  5. Yesterday, House Republicans “unanimously voted down a motion from Democrats to consider legislation to end subsidies to oil companies.” Giving rising gas prices, this could be important ammunition for the Democrats in next year’s election. Also, expanding offshore drilling will not curb rising gas prices. However, it appears that a majority of Americans support more offshore drilling.

POLITICS: Republicans attack policies and regulations that promote energy conservation, address environmental degradation, and protect the public’s health

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans are using the state of the economy and the debate over the national debt to attack the EPA, to rollback environmental regulations, and to rollback policies that address overconsumption, pollution, and our addiction to oil. Republicans aren’t considering the best interests of the American people or the welfare of the public when they imprudently decide to attack policies that attempt to address issues threatening U.S. national security. Climate change, pollution, and our reliance on dwindling, dirty fossil fuels are all issues that the federal government must address to secure our future. Instead, the majority of Republicans don’t consider climate change, energy security, or environmental degradation as issues that must be addressed in order to preserve national security and to protect the public welfare. For example, House Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, “added language to the Continuing Resolution that would block any attempt by the Obama Administration to enforce rules under the Clean Water Act, undermining the EPA’s ability to administer these programs.” Another House Republican, Michele Bachmann, recently “introduced legislation that would eliminate federal light bulb standards passed in 2007 that are expected to have the effect of phasing out some incandescent bulbs in the next few years.” Republicans also want to defund the EPA, and Tea Party Republican Rand Paul recently blamed the Department of Energy for his toilet problems. Another Republican Tea Partier, Marco Rubio, a junior Senator from Florida, “hopes to use the budget debate happening now in the Senate to block new pollution controls for Florida waterways.” Since Republicans [are] reversing a series of in-house green initiatives undertaken by Democrats” at the U.S. Capitol, their regressive efforts aren’t limited to rolling back major U.S. environmental regulations. Given the GOP’s shenanigans, I’m baffled that they can even get elected into a majority.

On the Net & Resources:

  1. House Panel Approves Bill Stripping EPA’s Power to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
  2. House Subcommittee Moves To Block EPA Funding On Emissions
  3. Light bulbs in spotlight as senators lambaste US efficiency standards
  4. Rand Paul Blames Energy Department for Faulty Toilets, Among Other Things
  5. House Republicans Open a Major Budget Battle, Proposing Deep Cuts Into Energy, Environment and Climate Spending

CLIMATE POLITICS: Outgoing Republican congressman warns his party about the consequences of climate-change skepticism

Posted on by
1

Political cartoons by Clay Bennett

Bob Inglis, a Republican congressman of South Carolina, “is often described as a casualty of the ‘Tea Party-ization’ of the GOP.” Recently, the congressman, in addressing his colleges, warned his party of the negative side effects from rampant climate-change skepticism and of “missed economic opportunities in clean energy development.” Via NYTimes.com:

Mr. Inglis used an analogy comparing the climate to a sick child.

“Your child is sick,” he said. “Ninety-eight doctors say treat him this way. Two say no, this other way is the way to go.”

By taking the minority viewpoint that carbon emissions are not a problem, “you’re taking a big risk with those kids,” he said.

On clean energy development, Mr. Inglis warned his Republican colleagues that China was preparing to “eat our lunch.”

“They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century,” he said. “We may press the pause button for a few years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button.”

Other Republicans on the subcommittee stood by their doubts on climate change. Among those questioning the validity of climate science was Ralph Hall of Texas, the leading candidate to take the House Science and Technology gavel in next year’s Congress.

Sherwood Boehlert, a former Republican U.S. Representative from New York’s 24th District, also rebuked his Party’s denial of climate change. Via Think Progress:

In a Washington Post op-ed yesterday, former Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (NY) articulated his confusion as to why “so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong.” Allowing for debate over policy, Boehlert said he finds the GOP’s “dogged determination” to deny the actual science “incomprehensible”:

Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.[...]

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.[...]

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution.


CLIMATE POLITICS: Energy Committee chairman candidate claims God promised no more catastrophic climate change

Posted on by
Reply

It’s bad enough to blend politics and climate change, but U.S. Representative John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois who’s seeking a chairmanship on the Energy and Commerce Committee, takes climate change denialism to another level. In the video below, Mr. Shimkus highlights everything that’s wrong with the GOP, and he illustrates how people use religion to impose their own biased and uninformed beliefs onto the rest of society. To declare that humans can’t destroy the Earth, because only God can, is foolish, ignorant, selfish, and unreasonable. Via Informed Comment.

CLIMATE POLITICS: Under Republican leadership, Texas has decided to ignore upcoming federal greenhouse gas emission rules

Posted on by
2

Image via melancholic optimist on Flickr

In Texas, the Republican Party is taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its obligation to regulate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, held that the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (footnotes omitted):

On the merits, the first question is whether § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it forms a “judgment” that such emissions contribute to climate change. We have little trouble concluding that it does. In relevant part, § 202(a)(1) provides that EPA “shall by regulation prescribe … standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [the Administrator's] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Because EPA believes that Congress did not intend it to regulate substances that contribute to climate change, the agency maintains that carbon dioxide is not an “air pollutant” within the meaning of the provision.

The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air … .” § 7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.” Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical … substance [s] which [are] emitted into … the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.

SCOTUS also determined that the EPA can’t ignore science or its statutory obligations:

Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” § 7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

Despite SCOTUS’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, Texas, under Republican leadership, is “refus[ing] to meet new federal greenhouse gas emission rules that go into effect in January.” More via the Los Angeles Times:

Texas is staking out a role as the anti-California.

With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, powerful Texans such as Rep. Joe L. Barton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have vowed to check the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to use its existing authority to curtail greenhouse gases.

An even more ambitious challenge is coming directly from the Texas state government and leading Texas politicians. State Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott, with the support of Republican Gov. Rick Perry, has filed seven lawsuits against the EPA in the last nine months.

In some ways, Texas’ attack was bound to be bigger and bolder than it might have been from other states. After all, Texans proudly trace their lineage back to the defiant stand of Texas patriots at the Alamo and the days when Texas was an independent republic under the Lone Star flag.