Five Posts
May 5, 2007
Comment:
Pay Attention, This Could Be on the Test
Posts:
https://bward.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/how-to-cut-the-carbon-trading-or-taxes/
https://bward.wordpress.com/2007/03/29/counting-carbs/
https://bward.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/the-supreme-court-rules/
https://bward.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/fight-climate-change-as-a-security-measure/
The Supreme Court Rules!
April 10, 2007
Supreme Court Greenhouse Gas Decision Extends Beyond the Tailpipe
“The United States Supreme Court, on April 2, 2007, ruled in Massachusetts, et. al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency , 549 U.S. ___ (2007) that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants and may be regulated in new motor vehicles by EPA…Traditionally, in order for a party to maintain a suit in federal court a litigant must demonstrate that it has: (1) suffered a concrete, and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, (3) that a favorable decision will redress that injury….The majority…concluded that Massachusetts did satisfy Article III standing requirements. With respect to concrete harm/injury, the Court found that Massachusetts had demonstrated that its coastal lands were being impacted by rising seas. As to causation, the Court noted that EPA did not dispute the connection between man-made GHG emissions and global warming, and therefore that “at minimum, . . EPA’s refusal to regulate such emissions ‘contributes’ to Massachussetts’ injury.” With respect to redressability, the Court stated that the relief sought by Massachusetts – regulation of GHG emissions from new motor vehicles – need not relieve every injury suffered. Rather, the majority concluded that it is enough that the relief sought will at least reduce the risk by slowing the pace of GHG emissions.”
This decision expands the category of regulatable emissions to include greenhouse gases. While most of the newsbytes relating to the decision have focused on tailpipe emissions, regulation of automobiles will not be the only result. The door is now open for the regulation of industrial GHG emissions.
The fact that the potential risk of loss of Massachusetts coastline was held as an imminent, concrete and particularized injury opens the door for all sorts of interesting arguments. The second and third standards seem to be even bigger streches. The percentage of worldwide GHG produced by American automobiles is between 3-5%.
Counting Carbs
March 29, 2007
A 300-mile journey: planes, trains, or automobiles?
This is the subject of a recent blogpost on New Scientist.
How do you decide? What factors enter into your decision-making process? For most of us, cost is a factor, but let’s assume the difference is negligible. Obviously, time is also a factor. The trip takes a little over an hour by plane, and between 6-8 hours by train or car. The difference is significant, especially if your time is valuable (who’s isn’t?). Considering only these factors, the decision is an easy one.
Is the decision actually this simple? Or do other factors carry weight in the process? How about global warming? The plane (even if all tickets are sold) emits far more GHG per person than either alternative. Does the climate change problem concern you enough to sacrifice some comfort?
If you answered no (shame on you) you’re not alone. Greenpeace offered ticketed-travelers flying from London to Newquay (about 280 miles) free train tickets. One person out of fifty-one accepted the offer…and this is in the UK! Wasn’t Al Gore’s movie released over there?
Fight Climate Change as a Security Measure?
March 28, 2007
Yes, says David Miliband, UK Environment Secretary.
He draws a connection between the fight against climate change and natural resource conflicts.
“Mr Miliband, in a speech to the global environment campaign group WWF, said tackling climate change was “our best hope of addressing the underlying causes of future conflict in the world, and is as significant for foreign policy as it is environment policy”.“
Well, I like where his heart is, optimism is certainly a useful attitude when attempting to tackle such an enormous problem. These sound to me like the words of an environmentalist overestimating his issue’s importance. While I agree that a successful campaign against global warming would increase future prospects for cooperation, I think it would be foolish to assume that it is our best foreign policy hope, or that it would curtail future conflicts. In light of the growing consensus concerning climate change, it is reasonable to expect undesirable consequences from global warming (even if it is successfully halted.) In other words, the environmental and natural resource conflicts to which Mr. Miliband refers will likely continue to take place even after global warming is stopped.
Al Gore’s Rx for Climate Change
March 24, 2007
From ABC News:
“March 21, 2007 — Former Vice President Al Gore — a politician turned crusader against global warming — returned to Capitol Hill today, asking lawmakers to consider their place in history when rising to the challenge of fighting what he calls a “climate crisis.”
Among Gore’s comments was this gem:
“Twenty of the 21 hottest years ever measured in the human record have been in the last 25 years. The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘I read a science fiction novel that says it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire you don’t speculate that the baby is flame-retardant.“
I think Melvin (Jack Nicholson) says it best in “As Good as It Gets.” (from reelways.com)
I like his intentions, but it’s all in the delivery. I think climate change needs a new face. Is Obama available?
An Interesting Perspective on Climate Change
March 6, 2007
Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd’s and a past British chief of defence, said the evidence for global warming had become “pretty overwhelming”.
“No one in the insurance industry seriously doubts that climate change is taking place,” he told an Australian British Chamber of Commerce lunch in Sydney yesterday. “For the insurer there are few greater concerns right now.”
Lord Levene says it is no coincidence that the 10 warmest years on record have all been since 1990.
“Glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising,” he said.
Lord Levene said 2005 was the worst year on record for natural disasters for property insurers, with claims of $A107.86 billion worldwide.
Hurricanes such as Katrina and Rita in the United States accounted for $A85.76 billion of this total. But 2006 was a far more benign year.
Lord Levene said some insurers had started pricing the risk of rising sea levels into premiums for property insurance for customers in coastal regions.
It’s normal to speak of the monumental monetary costs of combatting global climate change. Ask the chairman of one of the world’s largest reinsurance markets, and you will hear about the cost of maintaining the status quo. I don’t think this is limited to the insurance industry. If the cost of risk allocation (insurance) is increasing then it is implied that risk is also increasing. What are the monetary values of these increases in risk to other industries? It seems clear that the potential harm from global warming is so severe that it calls for the use of the precautionary principle.
It’s About Time
March 6, 2007
The only part I find surprising is that it took until now. Domestic concern about environmental issues has been much higher in European countries than anywhere else over the last 50 years. It’s promising to see the ‘issue framing’ move from ‘symptom-focused’ to ’cause-focused’.
Western Regional Climate Change Initiative
February 27, 2007
The aim of the program may be to help businesses reach emission-reduction goals, but do the businesses want it? It seems to me that regional carbon initiatives aren’t meant to help businesses at all; in fact, they are aimed at forcing the hands of businesses in reducing emissions. In my opinion, states that enter into such regional agreements place their businesses at a comparative disadvantage to competitors in non-member states and abroad, effectively creating an incentive for businesses to relocate. What these states should do is press the federal government to take action at the international and national levels.
Global Warming and the Global South
February 26, 2007
Should Global Warming be addressed by an International Regime?
If So, what (if any) is the appropriate role for the countries of the ‘Global South’ in an international climate change regime?
Differently situated individuals answer these questions differently. This is how I assume the issue looks from each perspective.
North-Realist
Generally, a realist would oppose an international regime, but I think there may be more moderate realist position that would support international action. Reliance on voluntary unilateral emission reductions will lead to a collective-action problem. An international regime reduces the realist’s concerns about comparative advantage. No matter how the realist answers the first question, I think the realist answer to the second is no. The realist sees the participation of the global south as unnecessary (their emissions are dwarfed by the North’s), and as a weakening factor in an international regime. From the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC-1992), Article 4 paragraph 7:
“The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”
This language clearly describes the South’s motivation. The realist would likely oppose Southern participation citing that an international climate change regime should be targeted only at the global warming problem, not at eradicating poverty or promoting development.
North-Liberal
A liberal will generally perceive the potential for effective cooperation and support an international regime. I think a liberal would stress the importance of Southern participation, arguing that failure to include developing countries would create ‘pollution havens’ where industries could move to avoid regulation.
South-Realist
My assumption is that a realist viewing these questions from the Southern perspective would support an international regime, but would not want developing countries to be involved. I assume this because global warming is a threat to all nations, especially small island and less-developed states; but global warming has been almost entirely caused by the Global North. Responsibility for solving the problem should rest with those who created it.
South-Liberal
The liberal position from the Southern perspective would probably be supportive of an international regime, and would advocate developing country participation. The argument might be something like: the Global South does not want to follow the North’s “path of polluted development”, so developing countries should receive development-funding and technology-transfer to allow them to develop in a sustainable way.
We’ve Got Our Woodstock
February 19, 2007
As Professor Klunk has pointed out, our generation has our Vietnam. Now, thanks in part to Al Gore, we’ll have our Woodstock too.
Live Earth, a concert series whose goal is “to mobilize action to stop global warming”, is slated to begin July 7th, 2007 (7-7-07) and include events on every continent. Report from Reuters.
My initial reaction was something skeptical like: “There’s no way to battle a global crisis like organizing a hippie jamfest.” I assume that it will accomplish little more than providing an opportunity for young people to groove out to some tunes while using recreational drugs. The accuracy of this assumption will be seen.
I found a reason for optimism in the list of confirmed musical acts in the events’ Wikipedia (a bastion of truthiness) article. The list includes U2, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bon Jovi, Lenny Kravitz, and Snoop Dogg. While I still think the most effective action would be something like Rio (UNCED- 1992), I think a highly publicized event such as this can do a great deal to attract the attention of the 18-35 crowd, a group which will be central to any successful effort to control global warming.
Global Climate Change Blog 