ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

More Problems for Weary Global-Warming Advocates

   

This has not been a good month for advocates of the theory of global warming.

    After a slew of articles concerning the fact that the Earth has not been warming for the last eleven years plus the fact that the trend now seems to be toward cooling, a Court in the UK has dealt yet another blow to the proposition that belief in global warming is a “science.”

 

    Ironically, this setback occurred in a case actually won by an advocate of the global warming theory.  The advocate had been dismissed from his employment after complaining that his company’s policies were insensitive to preventing global warming—and the Court held the dismissal improper because the company had discriminated against the advocate’s religious/philosophical views:

When it comes to climate change, just have a little faith!

In an unusual case in the United Kingdom, it has been ruled that climate change beliefs should be afforded the same legal protections as religious freedoms.

… When Mr. Nicholson began to gripe and express his environmental sentiments, he was later dismissed. He took his former employers to court, contending that the same laws that protect religious freedoms protected his “philosophical belief about climate change and the environment.”

Daily Tech. com http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16721

“Global Warming Afforded Same Legal Status as Religion in UK”

    Thus, by relegating belief in global warming (or, as it is now conveniently called, “climate change”) to a philosophical/religious belief rather than a scientific belief, the plaintiff in the UK case has won his battle but has helped enshrine in law the notion that the belief is essentially based on faith, not evidence.

    Further buffeting global warming advocates comes this report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

NOAA: U.S. Posts Third Coolest-Highest Precipitation for October on Record November 10, 2009

The October 2009 average temperature for the contiguous United States was the third coolest on record for that month according to NOAA’s State of the Climate report issued today. Based on data going back to 1895, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services provided by NOAA.

The average October temperature of 50.8 degrees F was 4.0 degrees F below the 20th Century average. Preliminary data also reveals this was the wettest October on record with average precipitation across the contiguous United States reaching 4.15 inches, 2.04 inches above the 1901-2000 average.

   

Even politicians seem to be getting the message-

   

Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf says the White House focus on deficit reduction could easily kill the cap-and-trade effort. “I think this means cap-and-trade has to go to the backburner,” he said.

Politico.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29471.html “After spending binge, White House says it will focus on deficits” By Mike Allen & Jim Vandehei

Thus, Al Gore’s mantra of “An Inconvenient Truth” is increasingly becoming “Inconvenient Data” for global-warming advocates.  George Will, Newsweek, November 16, 2009, http://www.newsweek.com/id/221608:

 There is much debate about the reasons for, and the importance of, the fact that global warming has not increased for that long [11 years]. What we know is that computer models did not predict this. Which matters, a lot, because we are incessantly exhorted to wager trillions of dollars and diminished freedom on the proposition that computer models are correctly projecting catastrophic global warming. On Nov. 2, The Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball reported some inconvenient data. Soon after the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—it shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Thinking Man's Thinking Man—reported that global warming is "unequivocal," there came evidence that the planet's temperature is beginning to cool. "That," Ball writes, "has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect."

SB 827 IS LAW

    Governor Schwarzenegger has signed the bill into law (on Sunday, October 11).  See post below for a discussion of the bill.

AQMD-RELATED RELIEF IS ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK

SB 827 is on the Governor’s desk

    Readers may remember that, recently, I wrote about the problem for many businesses and government entities as a result of a State Court ruling holding that the AQMD’s issuance of “offset” credits violates the California Environmental Quality Act, or “CEQA” and imposing a moratorium on the issuance of such credits.  Since such credits are, as a practical matter, required in order for such places to operate under California pollution laws, and since with the moratorium the only place to obtain such credits would be on the open market at incredibly expensive prices, the continued operations of several thousand facilities within the AQMD jurisdiction was threatened.

    I also noted that Senator Roderick D, Wright (D-Inglewood) had introduced legislation that would, despite the Court ruling, provide at least interim relief (while the long-term effects of the Court ruling are sorted out) by re-authorizing the AQMD offset credit allowance.  The legislation has passed both houses of the Legislature and now awaits the Governor’s signature.

    As you may be aware, however, the Governor has threatened not to act on the approximately 700 bills awaiting his decision by a Sunday, October 11, 2009 deadline unless the Legislature first deals with the State’s water supply crisis.  So the fate of SB 827 is far from certain as this column is published.

This post is adapted from a portion of my most recent weekly column for The warner center News, The Valley vantage and The Las Virgenes Enterprise, a group of local papers published in the San Feranndo Valley, California.

EVEN BBC IS NO LONGER SURE ABOUT "GLOBAL WARMING"...

Although political correctness has held that the debate over global warming is over (man is warming up the planet), increasingly there is evidence that we are actually in a period of global cooling.

The only thing really warming up may be the continued debate over this evidence. In an article entitled "What happened to global warming?" published on October 9, 2009 by the BBC, the BBC's climate correspondent notes:

 For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

...

...last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

    The man-made-global warming advocates, the article points out, are still convinced of their science; but the author indicates the issue is no longer free from doubt.

AQMD (AND BUSINESSES) TIED UP IN KNOTS

“The Gordian Knot is a legend associated with Alexander the Great. It is often used as a metaphor for an intractable problem….”  Wikepedia.

            Call it a “Gordian Knot”, a “Catch-22” or whatever else your favorite phrase may be for a problem with no seeming solution: the South Coast Air Quality Management District (and, as a result, a good deal of area business) is caught up in a seemingly intractable problem.

            Within the SCAQMD jurisdiction (covering several Southern California counties, including Los Angeles County), a business cannot run equipment that causes air pollution without obtaining a permit from the AQMD.  In many instances, such a permit cannot be issued without the business securing Emission Reduction Credits-i.e., credits that “offset” the amount of “new” pollution business’ machine is adding to the atmosphere.  To assist the business, therefore, AQMD has stored up its own “internal” credits, or offsets, which are available for the business’ use.

            Recently, however, a State Court has ruled that the way AQMD has been issuing these “internal” offsets violates the California Environmental Quality Act, or “CEQA”.  Therefore, a permit moratorium exists until AQMD figures out how to comply with CEQA.  During this moratorium, the internal AQMD offsets are no longer available to the business—which means that the permit the business needs to run the equipment cannot be issued unless the business goes out into the market and purchases the emissions credits.

            But there is a limited market for such credits, and they can be very expensive.  A recent AQMD “Fact Sheet” says that “Credits on the open market are unaffordable, with estimated costs of $234,000 for a gas station, $1.6 million for a tortilla fryer and oven, and $115 million for a landfill gas to energy project.”

            So the average business can’t operate without a permit-- but cannot get a permit because of the moratorium on AQMD-issued credits-- and cannot purchase credits in the market because they are too expensive.  The result, per the AQMD’s “Fact Sheet”—“more than 1,200 permits are on hold, with potentially over 3,000 existing permits representing over 2,000 facilities in further jeopardy, which will have to be revoked.”  And there you have it—regulation in California has reached such a ridiculous height that many businesses within the AQMD’s jurisdiction will simply not be able to operate no matter what they try to do. 

            You wonder why the State has 11.5% unemployment with the number rapidly climbing?

            To attempt to cut through this Gordian Knot, State Senator Roderick  D. Wright (D-Compton, Gardena, Inglewood, South Bay) has introduced Senate Bill 696.  This legislation, if enacted, would allow AQMD to issue at least a limited amount of internal “offset” credits to permit smaller businesses, essential public services and certain power generation to go forward without CEQA compliance—i.e., effectively reversing the State court to some extent.

            SB 696 would not apply to all manufacturers; but enactment of the legislation would at least be a start to reversing the disastrous regulatory course the State is on in the middle of a deep recession. Of course, given the State’s Budget problems, who knows when the Legislature will actually gat around to paying serious attention to this bill.

            To learn more about SB 696, you can read the bill by going to http://www.sen.ca.gov/, clicking on “Legislation” and putting in the number of the bill.

 

This article was originally published as one of my weekly columns for The Valley Vantage, Las Virgenes Enterprise and Warner Center News papers.

No surprise- big business often likes regulation

I am always amazed by 'reformers" who think that more government control is the way to curb business influence over public policy.  In fact, more government control usually simply means that the regulators become the captive of big business, to the detriment of smaller business.

Thus, yesterday's story in The Sacramento Bee elicits no surprise, at least from me.  Per the Bee,

The chairman of California's Fair Political Practices Commission,Ross Johnson,said widespread overseas travel by top state climate and energy officials on the tab of nonprofits funded by industry "raises very serious questions of propriety."

***

...more than two dozen top climate and energy officials, at least 19 legislators, more than 30 business executives and a handful of spouses and partners have participated in such trips since 2006. Much of the financial support for the trips comes from energy and utility companies that are major greenhouse gas emitters.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman, the two greatest enemies of the free market are academicians and businessmen.  Large companies ultimately sign on to proposed government regulation because they are convinced they can engineer loopholes into the regulations and, indeed, use the regulations as barriers to competition. 

You wonder when "progressives" will ever learn that giving more power to their beloved government regulators quite often really means giving more influence to the progressives' nominal nemesis, big business.  

You can read the complete Bee article at http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2070986.html.

SUPREME COURT ISSUES LANDMARK SUPERFUND DECISION

  Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. United States, issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 4, 2009, makes 2 landmark changes (or at least clarifications) in Superfund jurisprudence:

    First, for someone to be liable as an "arranger" under the law, that person must have an "intent" to dispose of the hazardous substance at issue; and,

    Second, while Superfund liability is presumed to be joint and several, a Responsible Party can defeat joint and serveral liability if that party can show there is a "reasonable basis" to apportion liability (i.e., to make liability only several).

    The Court's Slip Opinion opinion is at the link above.

    From today's Washington Times

Carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels recorded their largest drop in 19 years last year, the federal government's chief clearinghouse for energy information reported, adding new fodder to the debate in Congress about how -- or whether -- to reduce greenhouse gases.

   

SATELLITE TRACKING SHOWS ARCTIC ICE AT 7-YEAR HIGH

    From the IARC-JAXA Information System website:

    "The IARC-JAXA Information System (IJIS) is a geoinformatics facility for satellite image analysis and computational modeling/visualization in support of international collaboration in Arctic and global change research at the International Arctic Research Center in corporation with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)."

The website's graph of the Arctic ice extent shows that 2009 represents a 7-year high in such extent.  To see this graph, go to this page.  

 

HOW CAN WE RELY ON THESE PREDICTIONS?

    The Associated Press  reports today on a recalculation by the University of Bristol (Great Britain) of the sea-level rise from a warmer planet.

     Just a couple of years ago, you will recall, global-warming gurus confidently predicted that the Earth's seas would rise 16-19 feet because of melting ice.  Now, however, University researchers have concluded that

the entire [Antarctic ice] sheet would not collapse, with parts of it remaining grounded on the continent. Thus, they said, sea level rise would be only about 3 meters, or just under 10 feet.

     So, in just a few short years the consensus prediction of a nearly 20-foot rise in sea levels has been nearly halved.  Moreover, per the Bristol study, the 10-foot rise will take 500 years to occur.

     So, the government (more accurately, opportunistic politicians), big business (have you noticed all the "green" commercials on TV lately?) and the more extreme environmentalists are asking us to curb our lifestyles based on unreliable forecasts of doom and gloom.  Even accepting the Bristol study as accurate (in a couple of ore years, will there be yet another revision?), to avoid a 10-foot ocean rise over 500 years should we all be plunged into an even deeper recession, or even a depression, now through such nutty schemes as California's AB 32 or the federal government's brilliant decision to declare carbon dioxide (i.e., the breath we exhale and that plants need to breathe) a "pollutant"?

     The clarions of doom and gloom about global warming will eventually be recorded by history as climate ideologues, not as rational thinkers.  Indeed, even now, have you noticed how many of these ideologues are changing their warnings from ones about "global warming" to warnings about "climate change"? 

     Since human intervention totally aside, the climate has been,is and always will be, "changing", these claims can never be disproved.  Thus, belief in "climate change" is more like a religion than a scientific movement; if we are going to make public policy based on this new religion, let's at least admit that we are doing so.