samadhisoft.com

NY Times Editorial – 5 Aug 2006

Tony Blair, the British prime minister, who worries about global warming more than any other world leader, has finally found an important American ally: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. This week, the two agreed to collaborate on cleaner-burning technologies and to explore an emissions-reduction program that would combine mandatory controls on greenhouse gases with market incentives to reduce the costs of compliance.

Mr. Blair said he was not end-running his good friend President Bush. The governor was less diplomatic, saying that the administration and Congress had shown no leadership on the issue. In any case, the White House was a conspicuous no-show. No surprise there: the meeting of politicians and corporate executives, convened to discuss climate change, served only to dramatize how badly Washington lags both Britain and California with its program of voluntary reductions and Hail Mary technologies.

And California is about to get a lot tougher. Later this month, the Legislature will vote on two ground-breaking bills. One would set binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions with a goal of reducing them to 1990 levels by 2020 — an ambitious undertaking by any measure.

The other is a strikingly original bill that would bar long-term contracts with any out-of-state utility that failed to meet strict standards for pollution. A coal-fired plant in Wyoming, for instance, could sell power into California only if it found ways to dispose of most of its carbon dioxide, instead of merely venting it into the atmosphere. A bill like this would not only help California meet its targets but could also help jump-start clean-coal technologies that will be essential to reducing carbon dioxide emissions in countries like China and India.

For good measure, the Legislature will entertain two more warming-related bills, and Californians will be asked to vote in November on a ballot initiative that would raise $4 billion to promote alternative fuels.

All of this is may be too ambitious even for environmentally conscious Californians. But a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that two-thirds of the state’s voters supported an aggressive attack on global warming. And while Mr. Schwarzenegger’s re-election chances will clearly benefit from appealing to these voters, this is a genuinely bipartisan effort of the sort that has completely eluded Congress.

Moreover, California has long enjoyed taking the lead on environmental issues and bringing other states with it. Four years ago, Mr. Schwarzenegger signed the so-called Pavley bill aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars. Though the law has been challenged by the automobile companies and the Bush administration, 10 other states have adopted similar legislation.

Original: ➡

Note: to read articles on the NY Times website, you’ll need an ID and Password. You can obtain these for free by going through their sign-up process once.

By Lora A. Lucero, AICP

On June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear next term the “global warming” case brought by the state of Massachusetts and others against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Without a doubt, all eyes should be focused on this case, certainly the bellwether for how the Justices will respond to environmental challenges for many years to come. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have both joined the Court this term, creating a new team with a very scant track record from which to make predictions.

The American Planning Association decided to join the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the City of Seattle to urge the Court to accept this case for review. Why? As local officials and planners, we will be the first responders for the variety of disasters that climate change may create, such as the deadly heat waves that strike with special force in urban areas and the storm surges that threaten heavily populated coastal municipalities. Local governments have a special responsibility to protect, rescue, and rebuild after natural cataclysms of the kind that are likely to increase as the earth warms. They also must grapple with the daily effects of climate change: unreliable municipal water supplies caused by droughts or flash floods and heat-induced air pollution that violates federal standards. Click here to read our amicus brief, prepared by Tim Dowling of the Community Rights Counsel.

What’s at stake in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? The Clean Air Act requires the EPA administrator to set standards for emissions of any air pollutant from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines “which in his judgment causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” [§202(A)1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC §7521(A)(1)]

Nearly 50,000 citizens submitted comments to EPA regarding the 1999 petition to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In response, EPA declined to reveal its view as to whether greenhouse gases are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare. Instead, it articulated a reading of the Clean Air Act that contravenes the exceedingly broad definition of “air pollutant.” When the EPA administrator decided not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, some 30 parties — including 12 states with a combined total population exceeding 100 million people — appealed to the D.C. Circuit for review. That court issued a badly fractured ruling, with one judge affirming the EPA’s decision on standing grounds, another affirming on policy grounds nowhere mentioned in the Clean Air Act, and a third authoring a lengthy and blistering dissent. The dissenting judge wrote: “Indeed, if global warming is not a matter of exceptional importance, then those words have no meaning.”

More… ➡

Research credit to: Kate G.