GREENHOUSE GASES-UPS AND DOWNS IN REGULATORY BATTLE

A lot of environmental goings-on to discuss this week:

EPA in court again over attempt to regulate greenhouse gases

    In 2007, the US Supreme Court upheld federal EPA’s authority to regulate “greenhouse gases”, including carbon dioxide, under the Clean Air Act.  On December 7, 2009, EPA proposed restricting carbon monoxide emissions on the basis that they are a hazard to human health and the environment. In addition to carbon dioxide, EPA classified 5 other greenhouse gases as such legal “pollutants” subject to Clean Air Act regulation: methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. 

    However, EPA now faces a new round of federal court challenges from the US Chamber of Commerce, the State of Texas and, most recently (February 16, 2010) the State of Virginia.  These suits contend that the EPA’s regulations, if actually enacted, would be disastrous for the economy and that EPA should allow for more public comment on such economic impact than the agency has previously received.

Three major companies pull out of greenhouse-gas regulation compact

     In another challenge to the effort to cap greenhouse gasses, British Petroleum, Caterpillar and ConocoPhillips have all announced they are withdrawing from “U.S. Climate Action Partnership” (or “USCAP”), a business-environmental coalition formed to lobby for such a cap.  Additionally, Billy Tauzin, head of the pharmaceutical industry’s major lobby in Washington (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), has announced he is stepping down after receiving caustic criticism for aligning the lobby with the White House’s major legislative proposals.

    Speculation is that, when passage of climate legislation by Congress seemed inevitable, corporate America wanted in on the deal to influence the particulars.  Now, however, with a changing political climate and the legislation moribund, agreeing to push new and potentially costly environmental legislation does not seem like such a good strategy to some companies. (On the other hand, may big companies, including Shell, GE and Honeywell do remain in USCAP and allied with the Administration).

    Some fault the Obama Administration’s go-for-broke strategy on health-care legislation, which (unsuccessfully as it turned out) used up a good deal of the President’s political capital and a whole year of time which could instead have been at least partially spent on passing  “cap and trade” (i.e., cap greenhouse-gas overall emissions and permit companies to buy and sell emissions credits within those limitations).  In any event, for the foreseeable future the magical moment for major global-warming legislation appears to have passed.

Phil Jones is not going to help getting climate legislation passed

    Professor Jones was the head of the Climate Research Unit (“CRU”) at the University of East Anglia (Great Britain), universally acknowledged to be the leading research center for advocates of the global-warming theory.  He is now at the center of a controversy  over whether the CRU faked data to make it appear that warming was occurring when in fact this was not happening.

    Professor Jones vigorously denies that any such foolery has occurred.  Nevertheless, in a recent interview with the BBC, he raised eyebrows around the world by noting that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming in the last 15 years (although he claims the long-term trend toward warming remains clear); that it remains possible the world has experienced other warming periods (such as in medieval times) not caused by man-made activity; and that he is sloppy with his record-keeping and has trouble keeping track of data that support his conclusions.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    Professor Jones’ tacit admission that there may be two sides to the global-warming is a tactical blow to the already-faltering attempt, noted above, to get climate-related legislation through Congress.

These articles originally apepared in my column for the Valley news Group of papers in the San Fernando Valley, California.

Comments

[qlqihynxjt]

[url=http://www.g592g6jcx711v03iw5x40z827ntvgid7s.org/]uqlqihynxjt[/url]
qlqihynxjt http://www.g592g6jcx711v03iw5x40z827ntvgid7s.org/
aqlqihynxjt

[north face cyber monday 2013]

Are you asking if Politics is a science with predictable outcomes of elections? Or are you asking if Science is a result of political aspirations?

[Johan]

See you at the Parkdale Horticultural Meeting tomorrow Gayla. I dont envy you the work up to the poeaentstirn I haven't started PP poeaentstirn for Portland yet got bogged down on paper & had to take a day. I tried taping a class I taught once what a joke it just doesn't translate yes you can put it over there' you can see in the picture where it is' yes over there' yes you can put it there too' here' yes right there' ok now yes they are over there' I almost went off the road laughing when I listened to it on my way home! It would be a lot of extra work to gear a talk to a podcast unless it was a casual conversation maybe between two people I think. The seed planting workshop was fun. I learned new things thanks!

[Narda]

It is hrubis combined with ignorance that drives ideologyNo, I don't think so, that could be if you refer to the servants (like charlatan Al) but not to the masters, for them it is just cold blooded calculated agenda.