Five Posts

Comment:

Pay Attention, This Could Be on the Test

Posts:

http://bward.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/how-to-cut-the-carbon-trading-or-taxes/

http://bward.wordpress.com/2007/03/29/counting-carbs/

http://bward.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/the-supreme-court-rules/

http://bward.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/fight-climate-change-as-a-security-measure/

The Supreme Court Rules!

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%.

It’s About Time

EU leaders should this week make the most ambitious commitment ever to tackle climate change, the EU Commission’s president said on Tuesday, but officials admitted that the devil is in the detail.

The 27 member states are keen to forge a united front when they meet in Brussels on Thursday and Friday and to place the European Union in the front line of the fight against climate change.

With temperatures, oil prices and the EU’s dependency on overseas oil supplies increasing, “the status quo is not an option,” president of the bloc’s executive body Jose Manuel Barroso told a news conference in Brussels.

The countries’ leaders are expected to agree on cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and up to 30 percent if emerging economies, particularly China and India, join them, German EU presidency sources said in Berlin.

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

The governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington state agreed that they would develop a regional target to lower greenhouse gases and create a program aimed at helping businesses reach the still-undecided goals.

“In the absence of meaningful federal action, it is up to the states to take action to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country,” said Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat. “Western states are being particularly hard-hit by the effects of climate change.”

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

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

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.

Iraq Opportunity Costs

These are two stories from Newsvine from this week:

“President Bush will ask Congress for close to three-quarters of a trillion dollars in defense spending on Monday, including $245 billion to cover the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and other elements of the “global war on terror,” senior administration officials said yesterday.”

“As of Saturday, Feb. 3, 2007, at least 3,096 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,480 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military’s numbers.“

Now I’m not a political scientist, nor am I an economist; but I do understand the idea of opportunity cost.  American lives are being lost, and vast amounts of American money are being spent.  What, exactly, are the American people receiving in return?  OK, OK, I won’t discount the importance of an American presence in the Middle East.  As the #1 importer of Middle Eastern oil, we certainly have interests to protect.  But wouldn’t that money be better-spent developing strategies to get the US off foreign oil?  If it was a high-priority issue for the administration, it could be done; the technologies exist.

The point I’m trying to make is that for every dollar we sink into Iraq, we could be investing in our energy future as opposed to our energy present.  Not to mention the lives that would be saved by such an alternative.   

Climate Change

This morning (Friday, Feb 2 – Paris) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment Report (Summary for Policymakers).  The report is a bearer of bad news.  Temperature increase, sea-level rise, melting glaciers and icecaps…you name it.  In its Third Assessment Report (2001), the IPCC used the word “likely” (IPCC lingo for 66-90% certainty) to describe the connection established between human activities and climate change.  In this year’s report, the IPCC estimates a 90% certainty, using the phrase “very high confidence” “very likely” (>90% certainty).
In related news, Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing much-needed attention to global climate change.
My question is:  With the “virtual consensus” that has developed among climate scientists in recent years, how can members of the general public remain skeptical?  Is it just that people choose to ignore?
I don’t mean to take anything away from Al Gore; I think his efforts will one day be seen as integral components in the fight against global warming.  It just seems to me that far too much effort is being spent on convincing people that the problem is real.  In my opinion, there is virtually no room for well-informed skepticism…but skeptics will remain.
I tend to think that some (right/left) political tension is healthy, but on this issue, I think the tension should be over how to solve the problem rather than over whether a problem exists.

Carbon Sequestration in the Valley

This Morning’s Stockton Record had a report about a CO2 injection project under consideration in Thorton (NW of Lodi).  The proposed plan is to pump CO2 into an empty natural gas reservior.  If successful, the project could serve as an example of another tool in the fight against global warming.

Getting Started…

Well, here’s to a good semester.  I hope it is meaningful and enlightening for all who participate.