1. The Bush Administration chose to litigate to
prevent the EPA from implementing CO2 emissions controls. April 2,
2007 The Supreme Court “rebuked the Bush administration” .. “for
refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with
environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon
of global warming.” (Science, Environmental Defense,
Washington Post) Global Warming Skeptic Argues U.S. Position in Suit Eli Kintisch The U.S. government has enlisted an outspoken skeptic of global warming in a legal fight with environmental groups over U.S. funding for overseas energy projects. The move has angered several prominent climate researchers, however, who say the government's arguments fly in the face of scientific consensus about both the causes and possible consequences of global warming. On 29 April, a federal district court in San Francisco will hear a case (Friends of the Earth v. Peter Watson) about whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should apply to projects supported by the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The act requires the government to assess actions that could alter the environment. The plaintiffs in the case, which include several environmental groups and four western U.S. municipalities, argue that the federally supported projects--including oil drilling, pipelines, and commercial power plants--contribute to global warming, which in turn affects U.S. economic interests and its citizens. That connection is essential to establish their legal right, or standing, to bring suit. "Impacts ... will include sea level rise, ... disturbances of ecosystems, ... [and] an accelerated reduction of water storage in winter snowpack." --Michael MacCracken, in brief for plaintiffs To counter that claim, the Justice Department argues that "[t]he basic connection between human induced greenhouse gas emissions and observed climate itself has not been established." It buttresses its case with a 41-page statement from David Legates, head of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, Newark. Legates begins by attacking the evidence for the 0.6°C rise in temperature in the 20th century cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland, in its 2001 report and by the plaintiffs. The proximity of temperature gauges to cities, he says, has artificially elevated reported temperatures. He also points to natural variability as an important factor, citing a 2004 study that suggested solar variability may have contributed up to 0.25°C of the recent warming. As for future impacts, he says surface temperatures in Greenland are falling, coral bleaching is a beneficial response to stress, and the impact of droughts has been relatively benign in the 20th century. Legates says a Canadian climate model that plaintiffs cite to show potential changes in surface temperatures and moisture across North America is "extreme" and "overstated." The plaintiffs counter with a 45-page brief from climate researcher Michael MacCracken, former head of the Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. In an interview, MacCracken called the Legates document "an attempt to go back and reargue the IPCC." Core findings of the IPCC, he says, have been repeatedly confirmed, including the 0.6°C increase in the last century. The urban heat effect has been discounted and cannot explain the warming oceans, says Thomas Wigley, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. Legates's arguments on solar variability are "standard skeptic crap" that has been discredited, Wigley declares. "Significant questions still remain as to [whether] this ... rise in air temperature can be attributed to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas concentrations." --David Legates, in brief for government MacCracken says Legates's assertion that Greenland is cooling is "wishful thinking," pointing to vast melting around the landmass documented in the recent Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Severe droughts are on the increase, says IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth of NCAR. As for Legates's criticism of the Canadian model, MacCracken notes that relevant government agencies have approved the 2000 U.S. National Assessment in which the model was put to use. "It's a selective use of studies and half-truths," Trenberth says about Legates's arguments. In an interview with Science, Legates says he's standing his ground. He questions whether the IPCC represents a true consensus, claiming "a lot of dissenting views." He defends the studies he cites and attacks the Arctic assessment, which he says ignores natural Arctic cycles. Connecting emissions overseas to stateside impacts is simply tenuous, he maintains, adding that the plaintiffs are being selective in choosing the most dire projections. Previous legal attempts to force the government to report carbon dioxide emissions under NEPA, by linking those emissions to climate impacts, have failed. But a 2003 ruling in a suit over natural gas turbines found the failure to disclose CO2 emissions "counter to NEPA." Earlier this month a federal appeals court heard arguments in a suit that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2 emitted by motor vehicles. Environmental Defense 10/25/2006 Bush Administration to File Brief in Supreme Court Today Seeking to Prevent Meaningful Action on Global Warming New Analysis Shows Benefits of Leadership on Global
Warming (24 October 2006 – Washington, D.C.) Last night, the Bush administration filed a major legal brief in a historic Supreme Court case about global warming (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120). The brief argues that global warming pollution may not be addressed under the nation’s clean air laws (see brief at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/content.cfm?contentID=5565), taking a position opposite 18 states, leading climate scientists, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, several former EPA administrators, including Carol Browner, William Reilly, Douglas Costle, Russell Train, the National Council of Churches of Christ, Entergy and Calpine Corporation, and numerous health and conservation organizations. New analysis by Environmental Defense, a party in this case, shows how the nation’s clean air laws have delivered historic benefits for the American people while our economy has briskly expanded. It also shows that if dangerous air pollutants like lead and sulfur dioxide had been regulated under the Bush administration’s current approach to global warming instead of protected under the nation’s Clean Air Act, the pollution in the air today would be devastating. "It is deeply disappointing that the Bush administration is preventing efforts to protect the nation against the urgent problem of global warming that threatens human health and welfare," said Vickie Patton, a senior attorney at Environmental Defense and a former attorney in the EPA's General Counsel’s office. "For over three decades the nation's clean air laws have protected American’s health while our economy has grown. The United States government should be using the nation's time tested clean air tools in the fight against global warming, not derailing legal protections." Complete article Here Washington Post High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions Staff Writers By Robert Barnes and Juliet Eilperin The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming. "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," the opinion continued. The issue at stake in the case, one of two yesterday that the court decided in favor of environmentalists, is somewhat narrow. But environmentalists and some lawmakers said it could serve as a turning point, placing new pressure on the Bush administration to address global warming and adding to the political momentum that the issue has received because of Democratic control of Congress and a desire from the corporate community for a comprehensive government response to the issue. The Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that the ruling "repudiates the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on global warming," undermining the government's refusal to view carbon dioxide as an air pollutant subject to EPA regulation. Washington Post Special Report (Excellent group of articles including links to complete IPCC proceedings and report -wlw) Read complete Post coverage on climate change Here on the science and politics surrounding the threat of human-induced climate change. To comment or receive news notices contact Talking
Stick Here |
Photographs by TalkingStick and Sue H.
Text & Graphics by Talking Stick @2003-2006
Disclaimer: This www site is a personal publication maintained as an unofficial source of information and opinion. Information from and referral to various sources is provided for the interest of those who visit and should not be interpreted to invariably represent official positions of the owner , or collectively outside contributors.. Commentary and essays authored by the owner usually are identified as representing personal opinion Anyone wishing to offer material for inclusion .may contact the owner by e-mail: Talking Stick
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may contain or reference copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.