ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

CO2 climate sensitivity overestimated http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603

Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests. The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent. ------------- My comment: The problem is, we don't know the real extent of what we don't know.

Climategate 2.0 | Watts Up With That?

Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:

<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.

<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.

<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause

<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process

<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.

via wattsupwiththat.com

The above quotes from e-mails are from the blog "Watts Up With That?" Please also see the BBC take on this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562; the BBC falls all over itself trying to assure us that these unsavory e-mails about "the cause" are much ado about nothing.

Don't Stop Doubting - Latest Headlines - Investors.com

Climate: Just a few weeks ago, a formerly skeptical scientist made news when he changed his mind about global warming. If he looked at the new data a meteorologist has pulled up, he'd change it back again.

Richard Muller, a physics professor at the University of California, said that data from his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures (BEST) project convinced him that "global warming is real." "We see no evidence," he said Oct. 21, that global warming has "slowed down."

The alarmists, of course, leveraged Muller's statements to suit their agenda.

But Muller's is not the "consensus" position of the team. Judith Curry, a Georgia Tech climate researcher with more than 30 years experience who was also part of the BEST project, has said "there is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn't stopped." She looked at the same data Muller did and noted it shows global temperatures haven't increased since the late 1990s.

via news.investors.com

Obama Administration to Ban Asthma Inhalers Over Environmental Concerns

Remember how Obama recently waived new ozone regulations at the EPA because they were too costly? Well, it seems that the Obama administration is would rather make people with Asthma cough up money than let them make a surely inconsequential contribution to depleting the ozone layer:

Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere.

via www.freerepublic.com

The prescription-only inhalers will be 100% more expensive that the over-the-counter inhalers.

The EPA announcement of the Adminstrtaion's latest effort to make life better while also making it miserable can be found in the EPA's announcement at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/exemptions/inhalers.html

 

Global warming is hot [New, significant controversies popping up every day]

A new paper by lead author Dr. Nigel Fox of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) of the U.K.�s National Measurement Institution (synopsis available at eurekalert.org) warns all existing space data used in computer models to calculate the future impact of climate change are highly unreliable.

In a paper published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Fox, head of Earth observation and climate at NPL, notes: �Nowhere are we measuring with uncertainties anywhere close to what we need to understand climate change and allow us to constrain and test the models. Our current best measurement capabilities would require more than 30 years before we have any possibility of identifying which model matches observations and is most likely to be correct in its forecast of consequential potentially devastating impacts. The uncertainties needed to reduce this are more challenging than anything else we have to deal with in any other industrial application, by close to an order of magnitude. It is the duty of the scientific community to reduce this unacceptably large uncertainty, by finding and delivering the necessary information, with the highest possible confidence, in the shortest possible time.�

via www.freerepublic.com

You probably won't read about this uncertainty in the New York Times-- and I wouldn't look for an admission in one of Al Gore's speeches, either.

With "green" energy threatening to be a bust (e.g., Solyndra), one hasd to wonder how many people need to be put out of work before we realize we will be depednent on fossil fuels for a long, long time.

BBC News - Times Atlas 'wrong' on Greenland ice

Leading UK polar scientists say the Times Atlas of the World was wrong to assert that it has had to re-draw its map of Greenland due to climate change.

Publicity for the latest edition of the atlas, launched last week, said warming had turned 15% of Greenland's former ice-covered land "green and ice-free".

But scientists from the Scott Polar Research Institute say the figures are wrong; the ice has not shrunk so much.

via www.bbc.co.uk

NASA Scientist Assumes Extraterrestrials Are Progressive Environmental Nitwits In Agreement With Al Gore | Flopping Aces

Some important points of clarification
So here’s the thing. This isn’t a “NASA report.” It’s not work funded by NASA, nor is it work supported by NASA in other ways. It was just a fun paper written by a few friends, one of whom happens to have a NASA affiliation.

A while ago, a couple good friends of mine (Seth Baum and Jacob Haqq-Misra) approached me about a paper they were writing, and asked if I wanted to join them on it. The paper was a review of all the different proposed situations for contact with an alien civilization. I didn’t think this was particularly important. After all, I consider the likelihood of contact with an alien civilization to be low. It certainly wasn’t urgent, as I don’t expect this to happen anytime soon. But… it sounded like fun and I decided to join in on it. So we wrote the paper, but I have to admit that Seth and Jacob put in the vast majority of the work on it. One of the scenarios we considered in the review was the possibility that an alien civilization would contact us because they were concerned about the exponential growth of our civilization, as evidenced by climate change. This isn’t an entirely new idea; remember, this was a review effort. Indeed, Keanu Reaves recently played a similar alien in the movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” There were lots of other ideas we reviewed, but this was probably the most provocative.

Well, the paper came out a couple months ago. Today, for some reason, The Guardian picked it up, publishing an article about it with the following title: “Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientist: Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for NASA.” That then was picked up by The Drudge Report, with this headline:
“NASA REPORT: Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilizations…”

UH OH. Now that is a bit problematic.
So here’s the deal, folks. Yes, I work at NASA. It’s also true that I work at NASA Headquarters. But I am not a civil servant… just a lowly postdoc. More importantly, this paper has nothing to do with my work there. I wasn’t funded for it, nor did I spend any of my time at work or any resources provided to me by NASA to participate in this effort. There are at least a hundred more important and urgent things to be done on any given work day than speculate on the different scenarios for contact with alien civilizations… However, in my free time (what precious little I have), I didn’t mind working on stuff like this every once in a while. Why? Well, because I’m a geek and stuff like this is fun to think about. Unfortunately, there is not enough time for fun. Indeed, I felt guilty at times because this has led to a lack of effort on my part in my interactions with Seth and Jacob. Beyond adding some comments here or there, I did very little for the paper.

But I do admit to making a horrible mistake. It was an honest one, and a naive one… but it was a mistake nonetheless. I should not have listed my affiliation as “NASA Headquarters.” I did so because that is my current academic affiliation. But when I did so I did not realize the full implications that has. I’m deeply sorry for that, but it was a mistake born our of carelessness and inexperience and nothing more. I will do what I can to rectify this, including distributing this post to the Guardian, Drudge, and NASA Watch. Please help me spread this post to the other places you may see the article inaccurately attributed to NASA.

One last thing: I stand by the analysis in the paper. Is such a scenario likely? I don’t think so. But it’s one of a myriad of possible (albeit unlikely) scenarios, and the point of the paper was to review them. But remember – and this is key – it’s me standing for the paper… not the full weight of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. For anything I have done to mis-convey that to those covering this story, to the public, or to the fine employees of NASA, I apologize.

via floppingaces.net

Written by Shawn Domagal-Goldman of NASA’s Planetary Science Division who is apologizing for conveying the imrpession that the article mentioned was an official publication of NASA.

Mexico loses 80-100% of crops to freeze, US prices to skyrocket

The cold weather experienced across much of the US in early February made its way deep into Mexico and early reports estimate 80-100 percent crop losses which are having an immediate impact on prices at US grocery stores with more volatility to come.

Wholesale food suppliers have already sent notices to supermarket retailers describing the produce losses in Mexico and the impact shoppers can expect. Sysco sent out a release(pdf) this week stating the early February freeze reached as far south as Los Mochis and south of Culiacan, both located in the state of Sinaloa, along the Gulf of California. The freezing temperatures were the worst the region has seen since 1957.

via www.digitaljournal.com

The fluorescent bulb-a dimmer future than first thought?

              Beginning January 1 of this year, California began phasing out the traditional incandescent light bulb in favor of the fluorescent.  However, according to Dailytech.com, "[a] multi-million dollar program by the state designed to evaluate the actual results has concluded that energy savings were not as good as expected and that utilities were being over-rewarded for their performance."  See http://www.dailytech.com/Calif+Discovers+Fluorescent+Lightbulbs+Burning+Out+Faster+Than+Predicted/article20741.htm.  Pacific Gas & electric, for instance, has cut the estimated life of the fluorescent bulb from an original estimate of 9.3 years to 6.3 years.

            The disappointing performance of fluorescent bulbs comes after the State has spent over $540 million in promoting the bulbs by giving bonuses to manufacturers and energy providers that enacted rebate programs for consumer purchases of the bulbs.  So the big energy companies are pretty happy with the program, no matter the shortcomings of the technology.

            As for happy manufacturers, Dailytech.com points out: "The transition is a win for ...China.  Chinese manufacturers produced the vast majority of the 100 million CFLs installed in California since 2006."

This is also from my column in the Valley News Group of papers (see immediately preceding post).

Global Warming Solutions Act halted-by environmentalists

California's sweeping plan under AB 32 (The Global Warming Solutions Act)  to institute cap and trade and regulate "greenhouse gases" has been thrown out by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith. As SFGate.com recently reported: "The California Air Resources Board violated state environmental law in 2008 when it adopted a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases and again last year when it passed cap-and-trade regulations, a San Francisco Superior Court judge has ruled in a tentative decision."

            What is unusual about this case is that the attacks on the law came not from business interests or from conservatives nut from an unexpected source-- six "environmental justice" community groups and seven low-income individuals, represented by the San Francisco-based Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment.  These plaintiffs argued to the Court that the Air Resources Board's implementation of the "cap and trade" system envisioned by the Act was being implemented in an unfair fashion which would have the effect of polluting the air in relatively impoverished communities.

            The cap-and-trade system is designed to set an overall cap, or limit, on the amount of greenhouse gasses that industry can emit.  Within that limit, companies using less of these gases than they are permitted could sell "carbon credits" to companies that have reached their own limits but need to emit more as part of their industrial processes.

            Plaintiffs claim that the net effect of this system would be to allow high-polluting companies-- with factories often located in low-income areas--to continue polluting at high levels, thus allegedly continuing to befoul the local air even if, overall, carbon-gas emissions in the State are reduced.  The Court said that the Act cannot be implemented as intended by the Air Resources Board until there has been a full environmental study in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act.

            Business-interest critics of AB 32 tried and failed in this past November's election to place a moratorium on implementing; now it seems, somewhat ironically, that environmental groups are succeeding in doing what the business critics could not do.

From my column originally published in the San Fernando Valley, California group of newspapers Valley News Group (Valley Vantage, Warner Center News and Las Virgenes Enterprise).