Propelled by a big economic stimulus package and aggressive bank lending, China’s economy grew by 7.9 percent in the second quarter compared with a year ago, the government said on Thursday, a surprisingly strong showing during the global economic downturn.China’s growth spurt is also presenting a new set of challenges, including questions about the sustainability of the growth and worries that record bank lending could result in wasteful spending and a large jump in nonperforming loans.
Still, while most other major economies are contracting and suffering through the worst economic crisis in decades, China appears to have turned a corner, analysts say.
The gross domestic product figures, released by the National Bureau of Statistics in Beijing, suggest that the country’s stimulus policies are working and that the government will most likely achieve the 8 percent full-year growth target it set early this year, analysts say.
After a sharp slowdown this year, when the pace of growth dipped to 6.1 percent, down from 13 percent in 2007, China’s economy has rebounded.
“This is a stunning recovery,” said Andy Rothman, an economist based in Shanghai at the brokerage firm CLSA. “And it’s also not just the government money fueling the recovery. The private sector is also recovering, and that’s the key.”
Growth in the second quarter was driven by strong auto and property sales, a rebound in manufacturing and huge infrastructure spending, which is propping up global commodity prices.
“Demand for steel has rallied strongly in the last six months,” said Jim Lennon, a steel analyst at Macquarie Securities based in London. “Many Chinese steel producers are now operating at full capacity. The Chinese are the only growth market for steel.”
With exports still suffering a major slowdown, falling this year more than 20 percent from a year ago, they have not been a major growth driver this year, and that is a significant change from other years.
Many countries are relying on government-financed stimulus projects for growth this year. But China has turned to its state-owned banks, which have already made more than $1 trillion in loans through June, more than doubling lending from all of 2008. The most important step the government took late last year was to remove the credit controls it had put in place in 2007 and to tell banks to increase lending, Mr. Rothman said.
“This recovery is much more reliant on bank lending,” said Wang Tao, chief China economist at UBS Securities. “In the last few months, the bank lending has been massive — beyond anyone’s imagination.”
The dynamics of the economy have begun to shift slightly this year, away from the once-booming coastal provinces and toward less developed regions in central and western China.
But some analysts remain skeptical of China’s statistics, questioning whether the government is releasing overly rosy figures and masking serious troubles in the economy. They point to weak electricity consumption figures and a sharp drop in foreign investment as indications that growth may not be as strong as reported in official data. Also, the country does not report official unemployment figures, so it is difficult to gauge how workers are faring .
But many economic experts insisted there were more signs of strength than of weakness, and that record bank lending is filtering through the economy and helping drive growth.
“This is probably the only major economy in the world where manufacturing employment is rising,” said Mr. Rothman at CLSA.
Most analysts are now forecasting strong growth for the second half of this year, at close to 9 percent above a year earlier. But there are risks emerging, too.
Property prices are skyrocketing again in some parts of the country. And Shanghai’s stock market is up about 75 percent, after a huge drop last year.
Some experts say the stock market has been propped up partly by state-owned companies that are once again speculating on stocks rather than investing in their businesses.
The government and economists are also worried about asset price inflation and the possibility that aggressive lending from state-owned banks will result in a wave of nonperforming loans in the coming years.
“They are the two biggest worries for the government,” said Ms. Wang at UBS Securities. “It’s impossible to make so many loans in such a short period and not have problems.”
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Busting climate myths
majority of Americans continue believe that climate change is correctly portrayed or even underestimated in the news media, buIt's a vocal 41 percent, and they draw on a stock set of arguments to attack the credibility of scientists, politicians and environmentalists who claim that humans are spurring dangerous climate change. Like me, you may wonder where these arguments come from and whether they have any validity.
The most common argument, and the one I will focus on in this first of several installments, is that many credible scientists dispute the theory of anthropogenic (or human-caused) climate change asserted by U.N. scientists in the 2007 IPCC report that found that humans were almost certainly causing the climate to change.
This argument forms a part of any remotely reasonable rebuttal of climate change, because, most would agree, no one other than a qualified scientist can offer a credible argument on the point. A given dissenter may point to a claim that sun spots are causing climate change or that the climate simply isn't changing, but unless the argument originally came from to a qualified scientist, it's no more credible than citing Nostradamus, your neighborhood bartender, or "some guy."
The office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, has aggressively advanced this argument, most recently releasing a report finding that nearly 700 scientists believed any efforts to stem climate change by changing human behavior were premature, because the science was still shaky at best.
The Center for Inquiry, a group advancing scientific study of human beliefs and culture, has taken up the question: What makes a qualified scientist?
They ought to have a degree, preferably a Ph.D. in a field related to the climate, and they ought to be publishing in peer-reviewed journals on topics related to climate. Of the 687 people Inhofe listed as credible dissenters, the Center for Inquiry found:
• Fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists. • Just 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. • Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.
It also bears repeating that Inhofe's office claimed this his group of 700 outnumbered the 52 authors of the IPCC report. This claim itself showed a serious disregard for science and the fair use of statistics. 52 scientists wrote the IPCC report, yes, but they were explicitly summarizing the work of more than 2,000 scientists who contributed research.
But let's say that 69 of Inhofe's scientists were legit. Does that mean anthropogenic climate change is little more than a hunch? No. First, we would have to see what exactly their objections were. And, secondly, it's normal and acceptable for there to be some disagreement among scientists. Doubts and questions lead to research, and more research leads to a better understanding of the problem at hand. No one claims that we know everything to know about climate change. But we do know that we're playing an important role in causing it, and that it will likely lead to very bad outcomes.
We also know that acting to slow climate change won't break the world's economy—on the contrary. And it will also reduce other forms of pollution, including soot, that have been linked to serious health problems and lower IQs. a record high 41 percent believe risks are exaggerated.
The most common argument, and the one I will focus on in this first of several installments, is that many credible scientists dispute the theory of anthropogenic (or human-caused) climate change asserted by U.N. scientists in the 2007 IPCC report that found that humans were almost certainly causing the climate to change.
This argument forms a part of any remotely reasonable rebuttal of climate change, because, most would agree, no one other than a qualified scientist can offer a credible argument on the point. A given dissenter may point to a claim that sun spots are causing climate change or that the climate simply isn't changing, but unless the argument originally came from to a qualified scientist, it's no more credible than citing Nostradamus, your neighborhood bartender, or "some guy."
The office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, has aggressively advanced this argument, most recently releasing a report finding that nearly 700 scientists believed any efforts to stem climate change by changing human behavior were premature, because the science was still shaky at best.
The Center for Inquiry, a group advancing scientific study of human beliefs and culture, has taken up the question: What makes a qualified scientist?
They ought to have a degree, preferably a Ph.D. in a field related to the climate, and they ought to be publishing in peer-reviewed journals on topics related to climate. Of the 687 people Inhofe listed as credible dissenters, the Center for Inquiry found:
• Fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists. • Just 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. • Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.
It also bears repeating that Inhofe's office claimed this his group of 700 outnumbered the 52 authors of the IPCC report. This claim itself showed a serious disregard for science and the fair use of statistics. 52 scientists wrote the IPCC report, yes, but they were explicitly summarizing the work of more than 2,000 scientists who contributed research.
But let's say that 69 of Inhofe's scientists were legit. Does that mean anthropogenic climate change is little more than a hunch? No. First, we would have to see what exactly their objections were. And, secondly, it's normal and acceptable for there to be some disagreement among scientists. Doubts and questions lead to research, and more research leads to a better understanding of the problem at hand. No one claims that we know everything to know about climate change. But we do know that we're playing an important role in causing it, and that it will likely lead to very bad outcomes.
We also know that acting to slow climate change won't break the world's economy—on the contrary. And it will also reduce other forms of pollution, including soot, that have been linked to serious health problems and lower IQs. a record high 41 percent believe risks are exaggerated.
Battle Over Health Care Leaves 'Blood in the Water' for Climate Bill
President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats have spent the better part of this year juggling legislation on health care and climate change.
The two monster initiatives would be significant accomplishments if either one could pass, let alone both. But for now, each remains a long way from the finish line as Republicans and some Democrats push back against bills that have big price tags and questionable public support.
Obama will try to reclaim control over the story line tonight with his fourth prime time press conference since taking office in January, part of a media campaign to keep momentum going on the top pieces of his legislative agenda.
It won't be easy. Advocates for the two bills wonder if the combined pitch has zapped away each item's own strength. And there is also the Republican Party, which is working to score political points by packaging the entire Obama agenda as a grab for big government.
"It doesn't scare me at all," Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said yesterday when asked about the GOP attacks against the health care and climate bills. "There's blood in the water on everything you do here," she added. "We've got a whole party that is trying to do one thing, and that is bring the Democrats down. And that's what they do. So almost everything we do, there's blood in the water."
Sources tracking the two debates count several similarities between the climate and health bills. Both have been moved back and forth at the top of the congressional schedule this year. Both have had deadlines for floor action surrounding a recess (July 4th for the House climate bill, the August break for health care).
Both have some of the same political dynamics, including increasingly dire warnings about the costs of action and inaction. Both feature some of the same key players and committees, from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
And both appear on track to dominate the fall calendar on Capitol Hill, where Democratic leaders can expect to get some version of the same question over and over again about which bill would they rather see cross the finish line first.
"That's a -- what is it called? -- a Hobson's choice," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday after being asked to pick between climate and health care. "I won't have to do that."
Looking for Obama's signal
Going forward, some senators say the White House will be instrumental in deciding which bill should have the top billing.
"I think so much depends on where the administration is going to be pushing and spending their political capital," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "What we're seeing right now from the White House is a very aggressive push on health care. Will they split their time in September and be pushing some folks on health care and some folks on climate change? I don't think you can do that. I think you've got to pick and choose."
David Axelrod, Obama's top political adviser, insisted in a June interview that there is no competition between the two top-tier items.
"Obviously, health care is in high gear right now, and we want to move that forward," he said. "But both of these are going to have a lasting impact on our future competitiveness, on our future as a country. So they're two valued children. We're not going to put one above the other."
But Obama and his Democratic allies have had to make decisions about which bill to move on first.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went with climate. She scored a nail-biter of a floor victory last month that required help from eight Republicans while forcing some of her own moderates to take difficult votes.
Indeed, many in the Democratic caucus wanted Pelosi to start first with health care, arguing that it remains a higher priority for the American public.
"I think it's the wrong time for a cap and trade," Rep. Artur Davis, a candidate for Alabama governor in 2010, told E&E in May. "I think health care is achievable. It's doable. And when I move around my district, and my state, and people ask me what is Congress going to do to fix health care. They don't frankly ask me what Congress is going to do to fix climate change."
Frank Maisano, a lobbyist for the electric utility and petroleum refinery industries, said Pelosi and the House Democrats also gave encouragement to their opponents by forcing the floor debate before the July 4th recess.
"The bludgeoning the climate bill took on the House side, to get the squeaky vote that it got, that was the first cut in the fighter that put a little blood in the water," said Maisano, a principal at Bracewell & Giuliani, a Washington, D.C., law firm.
For many House Democrats, one of the biggest concerns as they voted on the climate bill was whether the Senate would sidestep the issue altogether and leave them vulnerable on a measure that won't ever become law.
Boxer tried to give House Democrats cover before the vote by promising a markup in her committee before the August recess. But she has since backed away from that schedule and now won't be introducing legislation until early September.
One of her explanations for the delay: Too many senators in the middle of the climate debate are focused on health care.
'Why Obama's numbers are going down'
As for health care, committee votes on both ends of the Capitol started earlier this month. And like climate, the legislative process has seen its share of fits and starts. The uncertainty over the health debate has prompted sources on and off Capitol Hill to calculate how a loss could influence the climate bill.
Given the power of centrist Democrats on both issues, some say that rejection of health care could embolden them to push for changes on climate bill that drive the left overboard. Republicans with a taste of victory could also use the win as a springboard to topple other pieces of Obama's agenda.
"It makes it more difficult," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said last week when asked about the prospects for global warming if faced with a defeat on health care. "But I think they are two separate issues. Maybe two different fates. I hope they both pass."
"I think it can float both ways," explained Chelsea Maxwell, a former aide to retired Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) who helped write last year's climate bill. Whoever wins, she said, would feel emboldened to push for a victory on the other issue.
Maisano said that a loss on health care -- or the resolution of the issue altogether -- would shift attention entirely back to climate change. "That'd be good for folks who want to push this and want to put momentum on people," he said. But it also could come with downsides.
"If you shined a bright spotlight on this issue, there's some things people wouldn't like to see," Maisano said.
On the hunt for political points, Republicans have taken to lumping all of Obama's agenda together, from health care to global warming to the $787 billion stimulus package the president signed in February.
"That's why Obama's numbers are going down," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio). "Because the people are saying, 'We're in the soup and this guy is talking about health care reform that's going to increase the cost of health care in this country.' Everyone knows that it will. He wants to go ahead and get involved in a cap-and-trade program that's going to increase everyone's utility rates. They know they're going to go up and they're saying, 'Are those guys in Washington crazy? Don't they understand this?'"
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Democrats are "without adult supervision" when it comes to health care, and he sees similarities to the climate debate. "I think cap and trade is not much further along as far as being thoughtful than health care is," he said. "I think they're both certainly in jeopardy, and certainly both deserve a whole lot more thought than what we've seen so far."
Murkowski said she is not so sure how Democrats and Obama can keep up the pace come the fall, when both bills are likely to still be moving through the congressional meat grinder.
"I think they know they've got to let everyone have a breather," she said. "You've got two very, very significant issues back to back, and I think there has to be a consideration on how you advance that from the political perspective."
Yet even some of the very moderate Democrats who Obama still needs to court -- on health care and climate change -- say that all is not lost for the president's agenda.
"Each is a standalone bill," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). "But they're both competing for the same time frame. So, one has to obviously watch that. But if there's a will for legislation here, there always seems to be a way."
The two monster initiatives would be significant accomplishments if either one could pass, let alone both. But for now, each remains a long way from the finish line as Republicans and some Democrats push back against bills that have big price tags and questionable public support.
Obama will try to reclaim control over the story line tonight with his fourth prime time press conference since taking office in January, part of a media campaign to keep momentum going on the top pieces of his legislative agenda.
It won't be easy. Advocates for the two bills wonder if the combined pitch has zapped away each item's own strength. And there is also the Republican Party, which is working to score political points by packaging the entire Obama agenda as a grab for big government.
"It doesn't scare me at all," Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said yesterday when asked about the GOP attacks against the health care and climate bills. "There's blood in the water on everything you do here," she added. "We've got a whole party that is trying to do one thing, and that is bring the Democrats down. And that's what they do. So almost everything we do, there's blood in the water."
Sources tracking the two debates count several similarities between the climate and health bills. Both have been moved back and forth at the top of the congressional schedule this year. Both have had deadlines for floor action surrounding a recess (July 4th for the House climate bill, the August break for health care).
Both have some of the same political dynamics, including increasingly dire warnings about the costs of action and inaction. Both feature some of the same key players and committees, from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
And both appear on track to dominate the fall calendar on Capitol Hill, where Democratic leaders can expect to get some version of the same question over and over again about which bill would they rather see cross the finish line first.
"That's a -- what is it called? -- a Hobson's choice," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday after being asked to pick between climate and health care. "I won't have to do that."
Looking for Obama's signal
Going forward, some senators say the White House will be instrumental in deciding which bill should have the top billing.
"I think so much depends on where the administration is going to be pushing and spending their political capital," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "What we're seeing right now from the White House is a very aggressive push on health care. Will they split their time in September and be pushing some folks on health care and some folks on climate change? I don't think you can do that. I think you've got to pick and choose."
David Axelrod, Obama's top political adviser, insisted in a June interview that there is no competition between the two top-tier items.
"Obviously, health care is in high gear right now, and we want to move that forward," he said. "But both of these are going to have a lasting impact on our future competitiveness, on our future as a country. So they're two valued children. We're not going to put one above the other."
But Obama and his Democratic allies have had to make decisions about which bill to move on first.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went with climate. She scored a nail-biter of a floor victory last month that required help from eight Republicans while forcing some of her own moderates to take difficult votes.
Indeed, many in the Democratic caucus wanted Pelosi to start first with health care, arguing that it remains a higher priority for the American public.
"I think it's the wrong time for a cap and trade," Rep. Artur Davis, a candidate for Alabama governor in 2010, told E&E in May. "I think health care is achievable. It's doable. And when I move around my district, and my state, and people ask me what is Congress going to do to fix health care. They don't frankly ask me what Congress is going to do to fix climate change."
Frank Maisano, a lobbyist for the electric utility and petroleum refinery industries, said Pelosi and the House Democrats also gave encouragement to their opponents by forcing the floor debate before the July 4th recess.
"The bludgeoning the climate bill took on the House side, to get the squeaky vote that it got, that was the first cut in the fighter that put a little blood in the water," said Maisano, a principal at Bracewell & Giuliani, a Washington, D.C., law firm.
For many House Democrats, one of the biggest concerns as they voted on the climate bill was whether the Senate would sidestep the issue altogether and leave them vulnerable on a measure that won't ever become law.
Boxer tried to give House Democrats cover before the vote by promising a markup in her committee before the August recess. But she has since backed away from that schedule and now won't be introducing legislation until early September.
One of her explanations for the delay: Too many senators in the middle of the climate debate are focused on health care.
'Why Obama's numbers are going down'
As for health care, committee votes on both ends of the Capitol started earlier this month. And like climate, the legislative process has seen its share of fits and starts. The uncertainty over the health debate has prompted sources on and off Capitol Hill to calculate how a loss could influence the climate bill.
Given the power of centrist Democrats on both issues, some say that rejection of health care could embolden them to push for changes on climate bill that drive the left overboard. Republicans with a taste of victory could also use the win as a springboard to topple other pieces of Obama's agenda.
"It makes it more difficult," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said last week when asked about the prospects for global warming if faced with a defeat on health care. "But I think they are two separate issues. Maybe two different fates. I hope they both pass."
"I think it can float both ways," explained Chelsea Maxwell, a former aide to retired Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) who helped write last year's climate bill. Whoever wins, she said, would feel emboldened to push for a victory on the other issue.
Maisano said that a loss on health care -- or the resolution of the issue altogether -- would shift attention entirely back to climate change. "That'd be good for folks who want to push this and want to put momentum on people," he said. But it also could come with downsides.
"If you shined a bright spotlight on this issue, there's some things people wouldn't like to see," Maisano said.
On the hunt for political points, Republicans have taken to lumping all of Obama's agenda together, from health care to global warming to the $787 billion stimulus package the president signed in February.
"That's why Obama's numbers are going down," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio). "Because the people are saying, 'We're in the soup and this guy is talking about health care reform that's going to increase the cost of health care in this country.' Everyone knows that it will. He wants to go ahead and get involved in a cap-and-trade program that's going to increase everyone's utility rates. They know they're going to go up and they're saying, 'Are those guys in Washington crazy? Don't they understand this?'"
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Democrats are "without adult supervision" when it comes to health care, and he sees similarities to the climate debate. "I think cap and trade is not much further along as far as being thoughtful than health care is," he said. "I think they're both certainly in jeopardy, and certainly both deserve a whole lot more thought than what we've seen so far."
Murkowski said she is not so sure how Democrats and Obama can keep up the pace come the fall, when both bills are likely to still be moving through the congressional meat grinder.
"I think they know they've got to let everyone have a breather," she said. "You've got two very, very significant issues back to back, and I think there has to be a consideration on how you advance that from the political perspective."
Yet even some of the very moderate Democrats who Obama still needs to court -- on health care and climate change -- say that all is not lost for the president's agenda.
"Each is a standalone bill," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). "But they're both competing for the same time frame. So, one has to obviously watch that. But if there's a will for legislation here, there always seems to be a way."
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
ENVIRONMENT: Kevin Williams and climate change
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)