Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
Mr. Tracinski at TIADaily.com had a very interesting commentary on the recent decision to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant but not water vapor. While I think that his end conclusion that this could be the beginning of the end of a representative government are likely overblown, his logic and discussion is worth reading and considering.
I originally found this article at RealClearPolitics so please click over there if you want to read every sentence. Here are the highlights that I found interesting.
We all expect that there will be a contest in Congress this year over global warming and a “cap-and-trade” bill limiting carbon dioxide emissions. After all, the government cannot impose sweeping new controls on our lives without extensive public debate and a vote in Congress that must gain the support of a clear majority of the representatives of the people.
Should the governance of pollution be left to the states or should it be governed by the federal government in a single standard? Many times in the past, the EPA has allowed the states (primarily California) to regulate at least portions of their pollution output, primarily in deference to regional challenges in the quality of air for breathing. In the past several years the Bush administration has pushed back on this but now it appear that the Obama administration is going to reverse this trend. He appears to be ready to allow 14 states including California to set their own emissions standards.READ MORE
July 12, 2008 – Wall Street Journal
The Bush administration continues to struggle with what to do with global warming and carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant resulting from the burning of several fossil fuels. This has caused the EPA to try to figure out what to do with this new authority without destroying the economy.
As with most issues that revolve around Washington DC, this one is embroiled in politics with both major Presidential candidates chiming in.
The Bush administration published a government blueprint to reduce the U.S. output of global-warming gases, but at the same time rejected the document out of hand — saying it relied on “untested legal theories” and would impose “crippling costs” on the U.S. economy.
The Detroit News – December 4, 2007
I can’t figure out wether this is incompetence on the part of the House and Senate, convenient forgetfulness, or excuse making on the part of the Administration.
A few days ago, I wrote on the compromise that would have allowed an increase in the CAFE requirements for automobiles. You can read that post at:
It appears that the White House is threatening a veto of the bill that would increase fuel standards to 35 mpg by 2020. The bill evidently doesn’t cover some nuances that the Administration feels are necessary and is going to throw it back to the Hill and tell them to get this fixed. How did the Congress forget to include this stuff? Is the President just trying to find a convenient way to get out of signing it?READ MORE
Washington Post – October 19, 2007
This is the first time in the US that a power plant was rejected due to concerns regarding its output of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. I don’t understand all of the laws in this area but I suspect that this decision would not have been possible had the Supreme Court not ruled that CO2 was a pollutant.
I am not going to make a lot of comments on this article except to ask two questions that are not adequately answered in this article:READ MORE
This is the fourth of a 5 part series reviewing the comments of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) in regards to “An Inconvenient Truth” (AIT).
ERROR 27 – Shame on Mr. Gore for citing this example! He is trying to link malaria with global warming. There were many malaria outbreaks in Nairobi prior to human induced global warming could be a factor. Mr. Gore’s statements here are pure sham and is probably the biggest reason that I dislike this film as a documentary.READ MORE
Wall Street Journal – September 18, 2007
Many people have been following the case in California where the state was suing a group of automobile manufacturers for damages that were tied to global warming. The contention of the state was that auto manufacturers were creating a product that was causing global warming and since global warming had caused damage to certain regions of the state, the auto guys should have to pay up.
This case has been dismissed by Judge Martin Jenkins.
In my opinion, this is a good thing. Not so much for reasons of global warming but for precedence in the court system. This is a policy related issue and not a judicial issue. The courts should not get into declaring what industry has partially caused what part of global warming. This slippery slope could have resulted in thousands of tort lawsuits and eventually the consumer would bear this cost.READ MORE
In the News – April 6, 2007
Great blog article that lists references for both sides of the global warming argument. This is fantastic. Everyone should read this and follow the links if you are interested in reading both sides of this complicated issue. I will summarize the references but make sure that you click through and find the complete reference.
My only complaint about this list is that it didn’t include this blog: http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com as I think we are extremely balanced in our study of this issue.
- An Inconvenient Truth
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
- US Global Change Research Program.
- Friends of the Earth International.
The news is rampant this morning regarding the Supreme Court decision yesterday that carbon dioxide is a substance that can be regulated by the EPA.
This is a verbatim repeat of an article this morning in the WSJ Online morning newsletter. This is the first time I have ever reproduced an article on this blog and I am only doing it because few of you (perhaps none) will be able to access the complete article. I suggest that you go to www.wsj.com to subscribe so that you can read this article from the original source.READ MORE
Breitbart.com – April 2, 2007
This is a quick article discussing the recent US Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The Supreme Court has declared that the Envrionmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants and therefore must regulate its production. It is interesting to note that from a layman’s perspective it appears that Judge Stevens has just legally declared that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming and humans are the reason.
The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House. “Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant’ we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles,” the court ruled.