Rather than making any substantive criticism of a July 8 letter addressing the dangers of insufficient action on climate change, Kevin Williams made the grandstanding point that, yes, global temperature fluctuates within certain bounds ("Worry About a New Ice Age," The Mail, July 15). He dismissed global warming without any reference of any kind, presumably on the basis of his expertise applying weather models to predict the 3- to 10-day horizon of likely weather outcomes for a small portion of the planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization to provide the world with a transparent scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.
The IPCC receives contributions from thousands of scientists across the globe. As with all reputable scientific organizations, peer review is integral to the process. Differing viewpoints within the scientific community are reflected in IPCC reports. The fourth assessment report of the IPCC states that there is greater than a 90 percent certainty that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have resulted in "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century."
Mr. Williams is entitled to his opinion. It is my hope that as a scientist, he continues to develop his perspective and contribute to the debate. However, he is in the overwhelmingly minority as a skeptic on an issue of grave import to our future. He would be more responsible using his knowledge to enliven debate among those conducting serious studies of global trends and indicators, rather than using his pulpit as a television personality to influence the opinions of the unqualified.
The realities we may face as a result of our complacency are not subject to popular opinion, but have the potential to be mitigated through our actions.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor on the Environment and Energy
The "meltdown" that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) mentioned as the only possibility to derail Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court never materialized during last week’s hearing, and with approval a near certainty, a lot of observers are taking a closer look at what Justice Sotomayor might mean to the Court’s environmental jurisprudence.
Jennifer Koons published a wrap-up of the environmental scuttlebutt from the hearings on Friday at Greenwire. The piece touches on the key cases and questions surrounding them. The key lies in unpacking a comment made by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) when he asked how Sotomayor felt about the Court’s 6-3 reversal of her decision in Riverkeeper v. EPA.
Writing for the 2nd Circuit in Riverkeeper, Sotomayor found for an environmental advocacy group challenging a Bush-era EPA ruling. The EPA exempted Entergy from undertaking a full-dress cost-benefit analysis to evaluate whether the measures they are using to mitigate pollution are the "best" methods available, as required by the Clean Water Act.
On Riverkeeper, Specter said the case "involved the question which is very important to matters now being considered by Congress on climate control and global warming." It is hard to say exactly what Specter meant by “the question”? as it relates to global warming and is embodied in Riverkeeper. Is he just talking about agency deference? Or, cost-benefit analysis specifically? Or, about the provisions of the Clean Water Act as they apply to power companies, and how far the power of existing laws like CWA can be stretched to help in the climate change fight?
Jennifer Koons published a wrap-up of the environmental scuttlebutt from the hearings on Friday at Greenwire. The piece touches on the key cases and questions surrounding them. The key lies in unpacking a comment made by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) when he asked how Sotomayor felt about the Court’s 6-3 reversal of her decision in Riverkeeper v. EPA.
Writing for the 2nd Circuit in Riverkeeper, Sotomayor found for an environmental advocacy group challenging a Bush-era EPA ruling. The EPA exempted Entergy from undertaking a full-dress cost-benefit analysis to evaluate whether the measures they are using to mitigate pollution are the "best" methods available, as required by the Clean Water Act.
On Riverkeeper, Specter said the case "involved the question which is very important to matters now being considered by Congress on climate control and global warming." It is hard to say exactly what Specter meant by “the question”? as it relates to global warming and is embodied in Riverkeeper. Is he just talking about agency deference? Or, cost-benefit analysis specifically? Or, about the provisions of the Clean Water Act as they apply to power companies, and how far the power of existing laws like CWA can be stretched to help in the climate change fight?
The last is the best, because it implies that Specter sees not only the emergence of whatever regimes the the House and Senate can agree upon in conference once the Senate spits out their Waxman-Markey corollary in the fall, but also efforts to assert broader powers under existing law. What would it mean if the EPA decided to broadly interpret the powers that existing law provides as additional levers in putting fossil fueled power plants out of business? The EPA’s announcement - early in the Obama administration - that it had command-and-control authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act is the first sign of that trend. Indeed, the administration strategically announced that ruling to allow the potential power to serve as a sword of Damocles over industries that would much rather take a chance with working a bill through Congress to regulate carbon - and "work it" they did.
Clinton’s visit renews focus on environmental issue
The recent round of India-US talks this week, initiated by the visit of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, reached a few significant decisions on climate and environment.
The two nations have agreed on improved technological cooperation, especially on clean technology.
“It is possible that like-minded countries (would) join the cooperation later,” a government official said on condition of anonymity.
In a forum of major economies, a grouping of 17 countries formed to deal with climate change, India and other countries are negotiating the possibility of a similar cooperation on technology.
The India-US discussions also narrowed down on possibilities of India taking notes from the US’ regime of environmental governance and using these guidelines to tighten the country’s environmental regime.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh had earlier said the government is keen on setting up an authority to ensure monitoring of pollution regulations, which will be on the lines of the US’ Environmental Protection Agency.
The countries also agreed on beginning a second track of discussions on climate change, which would include non-governmental organizations and businesses.
A business-to-business exchange is slated for this November between US and India on energy efficiency.
Todd Stern, US’ special envoy on climate change, also met a coalition of NGOs on Tuesday.
The two nations have agreed on improved technological cooperation, especially on clean technology.
“It is possible that like-minded countries (would) join the cooperation later,” a government official said on condition of anonymity.
In a forum of major economies, a grouping of 17 countries formed to deal with climate change, India and other countries are negotiating the possibility of a similar cooperation on technology.
The India-US discussions also narrowed down on possibilities of India taking notes from the US’ regime of environmental governance and using these guidelines to tighten the country’s environmental regime.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh had earlier said the government is keen on setting up an authority to ensure monitoring of pollution regulations, which will be on the lines of the US’ Environmental Protection Agency.
The countries also agreed on beginning a second track of discussions on climate change, which would include non-governmental organizations and businesses.
A business-to-business exchange is slated for this November between US and India on energy efficiency.
Todd Stern, US’ special envoy on climate change, also met a coalition of NGOs on Tuesday.
Clinton’s visit renews focus on environmental issue
The recent round of India-US talks this week, initiated by the visit of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, reached a few significant decisions on climate and environment.
The two nations have agreed on improved technological cooperation, especially on clean technology.
“It is possible that like-minded countries (would) join the cooperation later,” a government official said on condition of anonymity.
In a forum of major economies, a grouping of 17 countries formed to deal with climate change, India and other countries are negotiating the possibility of a similar cooperation on technology.
The India-US discussions also narrowed down on possibilities of India taking notes from the US’ regime of environmental governance and using these guidelines to tighten the country’s environmental regime.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh had earlier said the government is keen on setting up an authority to ensure monitoring of pollution regulations, which will be on the lines of the US’ Environmental Protection Agency.
The countries also agreed on beginning a second track of discussions on climate change, which would include non-governmental organizations and businesses.
A business-to-business exchange is slated for this November between US and India on energy efficiency.
Todd Stern, US’ special envoy on climate change, also met a coalition of NGOs on Tuesday.
The two nations have agreed on improved technological cooperation, especially on clean technology.
“It is possible that like-minded countries (would) join the cooperation later,” a government official said on condition of anonymity.
In a forum of major economies, a grouping of 17 countries formed to deal with climate change, India and other countries are negotiating the possibility of a similar cooperation on technology.
The India-US discussions also narrowed down on possibilities of India taking notes from the US’ regime of environmental governance and using these guidelines to tighten the country’s environmental regime.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh had earlier said the government is keen on setting up an authority to ensure monitoring of pollution regulations, which will be on the lines of the US’ Environmental Protection Agency.
The countries also agreed on beginning a second track of discussions on climate change, which would include non-governmental organizations and businesses.
A business-to-business exchange is slated for this November between US and India on energy efficiency.
Todd Stern, US’ special envoy on climate change, also met a coalition of NGOs on Tuesday.
Bill may keep NC environment panel from new rules
A North Carolina state senator unhappy with a possible requirement that hog farmers test their streams for pollution wants to prevent an environmental panel from making regulations for the next two years.A Senate committee Tuesday approved a measure that would bar the Environmental Management Commission from adopting permanent rules until after July 1, 2011.Sen. Charlie Albertson of Duplin County is opposed to a proposal that would require large livestock operations to monitor streams running through their waste sprayfields.Speakers at the meeting said the bill went too far and would prevent the regulatory panel from creating rules to keep reservoirs and other bodies of water clean.The bill's next stop is the Senate floor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)