Read This: It's time to take to the streets to fight global warming

On Monday, writer and activist Bill McKibben, NASA scientist James Hansen and a host of other folks will resurrect some Civil Rights and Vietnam-era tactics to demand action on global warming. In what's being called the Capitol Climate Action, they plan to block access to the Capitol's own antiquated, carbon-belching, coal-fired plant.

The action's FAQ reports:

In general, our intent is to block off access to the Capitol Power Plant by surrounding the entrances, peacefully refuse to leave when asked, and safely disrupt its operations for the day. If by doing so we risk arrest, so be it. We will reflect the growing global movement that is not quietly asking for, but demanding, climate justice.

McKibben argues that it is more important than ever to take to the streets.

Barack Obama was a community organizer -- he understands that major change only comes when it's demanded, when there's some force noisy enough to drown out the eternal hum of business as usual, of vested interest, of inertia.

Hansen explains here.

Today's Sobering Read: It's already too late on climate change

To anyone who has been paying attention to the science of climate change, today's news about a distressing report from climate researchers at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Switzerland and France isn't, um, exactly NEW. As I've interviewed scientists for various pieces on climate change, they've been telling me this for quite some time.

The report's not-so-new news is that it's already too late to stop some of the nasty consequences of our ever warming climate. The problem, as one researcher says, is that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of a toxic waste.

"I think you have to think about this stuff as more like nuclear waste than acid rain: The more we add, the worse off we'll be," NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon told reporters in a conference call. "The more time that we take to make decisions about carbon dioxide, the more irreversible climate change we'll be locked into."

This is why the foot dragging of George Bush's administration hurt all of us in a deeply profound way as writer/activist Bill McKibben noted in his conversation with me. This is also why McKibben, scientist James Hansen and others are now arguing that CO2 emissions must be limited far more than anyone has suggested before.

Bill McKibben sings the Climate Change Blues

My interview with environmentalist Bill McKibben is up on the Progressive web site and also out in the magazine's dead tree edition. McKibben is a fascinating, driven and somewhat gloomy fellow. Talking to him was both exhilarating (as he looked forward to a post-fossil-fuel era) and downright terrifying as he talked about how far we have to go to get there. In honor of the soon-to-be inauguration of Barack Obama, here's one quote about our outgoing prez:

The Bush Administration was precisely the wrong thing at the wrong time

McKibben's climatological bottom line? The human race must change now, as in right this minute, or face a truly lousy future.

Kansas Coal: "How a deep-pocket special interest can seek to bend the legislative process"

By Diane Silver

Bending the process while "doing an end run around regulation" is how the Wichita Eagle's WE Blog describes Sunflower Electric Power Corporation's $2.5 million carrot and stick.

The Incredible Kansas coal plant resurrection

By Diane Silver

I've never seen a corporation take such total control of the Kansas Senate before and pay so little attention to the opinions of the people. This afternoon Sunflower Electric Power Corp. succeeded in ramming a bill through the state Senate to resurrect the two huge coal plants it wants to build in western Kansas.

The final vote was a decidedly veto proof 33-7. That is six more than the total number of votes needed to override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' promised veto.

What's even worse is that the bill is a "gut and go." This means the Senate gutted a bill passed by the House and inserted the coal plant language. Technically speaking, this bill has already passed the House, even though House members never voted on this issue. The bill could be rushed through a conference committee, get a quick vote in the House and be sent to the governor before you or I could blink.

What's even worse than that (yes, really) is the fact that this bill keeps the Kansas Department of Health and Environment from using global warming as a rationale for blocking new coal plants. In short, the Kansas Senate just told KDHE to ignore its duty to protect the citizens of this state and to just shut up and sit in the corner.

Any attempt at creating environmental regulations or at coming up with a comprehensive energy policy was dumped from the bill.

The House is currently working on its own version of the Sunflower-gets-whatever-it-wants legislation. That may be passed, or the House could simply agree with the Senate.

If there was ever a time to call your legislator, this is it.

This bill is Sunflower's baby, but the utility isn't the only Daddy of this weird love child. This legislation was born of two western Kansas lawmakers who lead the Legislature, Senate President Steve Morris and Speaker Melvin Neufeld. Other folks and businesses in the region also support the coal plants, but not as many as one might think.

The real issue, in my mind, is what happens next -- not just to this bill, but afterwards. This is an election year. Will Kansas voters care? Will they throw these bums out?

Here's the Kansas City Star's first take on the vote, an Associated Press story, and the live blogging of the vote by the Climate and Energy Project.

BREAKING: Poll shows that Kansans overwhelmingly reject coal plants

By Diane Silver

Even in Kansas -- even in western Kansas -- people don't want to see new coal plants built. That's the word from a poll of 1,007 Kansans that was released today.

By a two-to-one margin, the poll found that Kansans support the Department of Health and Environment's rejection of two coal plants planned for Holcomb in the western part of the state.

Even those living in the 1st Congressional District, which takes in all of western Kansas, support rejection of the coal plants by a slim majority.

These findings could potentially have huge implications.

For Kansas, this could mean that the expected legislative attempt to resurrect the coal project may be dead on arrival. This is especially important because both houses of the Legislature are led by lawmakers from the west. Both House Speaker Melvin Neufeld and Senate President Steve Morris have vowed to take action to bring the coal plants back to life.

These poll results make it much harder -- if not impossible -- for Neufeld and Morris to claim that Kansans actually want these plants. The poll makes it darn near impossible for the two to claim that even their own constituents want the plants.

However, I think the implications of this poll go beyond the Sunflower State. The poll shows a keen awareness and concern about global warming in, of all places, out - in - the - middle - of - nowhere and terminally conservative Kansas.

Even out here, people get it.

You can download details of the poll , which was done by Cooper & Secrest Associates of Alexandria, Va., for The Land Institute, a Salina-based organization.

UPDATE

More on the poll and legislative reaction.

Denying coal plant won't hurt wind power

By Diane Silver

The claim that Kansas' denial of a huge, new coal plant near Holcomb will hurt the future of wind power took a hit this weekend.

The companies pushing for the coal plant say blocking coal would stop the construction of transmission lines for wind turbines.

Although not everyone at the 5th Kansas Electric Transmission Summit agreed, the Salina Journal reported that "many experts" said nothing is going to stop the surge to wind power.

The Salina Journal reports (emphasis added):

(T)he message from many of the experts was that wind development in the Midwest, especially Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, is growing explosively -- with or without new coal-fired power plants -- and the next order of business is to figure out how to ensure that the electric grid is fortified to serve needs for the foreseeable future.

More coverage is at the Lawrence Journal-World.

Meanwhile, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius joined with two Republican governors and one other Democratic governor in pledging to work on clean energy at the state level.

The head of NASA doesn't think we need to deal with the problem of climate change

By Nancy Jane Moore

In an interview on NPR's Morning Edition, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin grudgingly acknowledged that global warming exists and that scientific evidence has "pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade."

But then -- and I have taken the quote directly from NPR's online transcript because I'm still finding it hard to believe I heard him right -- he said:

I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings -- where and when -- are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Now if we were talking about naturally occurring climate change, Griffin's point would be worth debating. If, for example, another ice age were imminent, due to the natural fluctuations of Earth's climate, should we try to prevent it, or should we figure out how to live with it? The argument that it's arrogant for us to change the natural climate to make it more comfortable for us is a rational one -- particularly if one assumes that we don't know everything we need to know about climate, which is probably true. I might not agree with it -- depending on the day I could take either side of such an argument -- but it's certainly worth talking about.

But we're not talking about natural shifts in the Earth's climate. We're talking about the dramatic and rapid changes brought on by human technological advances of the past 150 years. We're already changing the climate, just not on purpose. It is the height of arrogance to take the position that we don't have to consciously address how modern human life is affecting the planet.

Of course, I don't know what Griffin would say in response to the point that human-caused climate change is a different issue from naturally occurring change, because that idiot Steve Inskeep didn't bother to ask a follow up question challenging Griffin's "arrogance" comment. (Inskeep is a constant reminder of what a mistake NPR made in shoving Bob Edwards out to pasture. Edwards would have asked the right follow-up question. Inskeep never does.)

So I'm asking: Dr. Griffin, isn't it equally arrogant to ignore the effect of human beings on Earth's climate?

Of course, it's probably arrogant (or optimistic) of me to hope that Griffin will read our blog and answer in the comments section. But maybe some reporter will ask him the question the next time he's interviewed.

Rachel Carson: Still controversial after all these years

By Nancy Jane Moore

Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin planned to introduce a bill to honor Rachel Carson on May 27, which would have been her 100th birthday.

But right-wing Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma put a hold on the bill, calling Carson's work "junk science."

You'd think Coburn, a doctor, would know better; surely he had to have mastered some aspects of science to get an M.D. But according to Congresspedia, he has also called global warming "just a lot of crap." I certainly wouldn't want a doctor who displayed such scientific ignorance -- I wouldn't trust him to think carefully about his diagnoses or the medicines he prescribes.

I'm sure there is more to be said on the subject of pesticides and their effect on the environment than Carson said in her groundbreaking book, Silent Spring, first published in 1962 and now available in a special anniversary edition. And if Carson were still with us, I'm sure she would be saying it. But there's no "junk" in the science showing that pesticides and other chemicals put together by humans have an effect on the environment and that many times those effects are dangerous to human health, not to mention comfortable life on Earth.

Carson was the first strong voice to point out that we need to pay attention to all the effects of what we do -- not just the immediate reaction. It's depressing that 43 years after her death we have people like Coburn still arguing that humans can bully their way across the planet, doing whatever we choose, with no effect.

Instead of debating whether or not global warming exists or that certain chemicals used in pesticides create more problems than they solve (the science is pretty settled on those things), we should be bringing good science and good economics into a real discussion over the best ways to handle feeding the world and keeping both people and the environment healthy at the same time. There's plenty of material for an expansive debate on that issue.

Of course, Silent Spring was controversial when it first came out. And the attacks on Carson were predictable, as this quote from Time magazine, as published on Wikipedia, points out:

Carson was violently assailed by threats of lawsuits and derision, including suggestions that this meticulous scientist was a "hysterical woman" unqualified to write such a book. A huge counterattack was organized and led by Monsanto, Velsicol, American Cyanamid -- indeed, the whole chemical industry -- duly supported by the Agriculture Department as well as the more cautious in the media.

Rachel Carson would probably be appalled to discover that people are still raising ignorant arguments over her science. But, on the other hand, the controversy makes it clear how important her work really was. If she hadn't made an important contribution to our understanding of the environment, no one would be bothering to block an innocuous resolution honoring her life.

With luck, the controversy will provide wider recognition for Rachel Carson and her work than the resolution would have.

Monday Reads: Iraq, the Democratic closet, global warming & blogging against theocracy

By Diane Silver

It's been another busy day here at In This Moment. The good news is that I've not only been slaving over a money job, but I've been researching a series of posts I hope to put up within the next few days.

My goal with those upcoming posts is to come closer to understanding Americans For Prosperity, an anti-tax, anti-spending organization that has been successfully influencing Kansas politics for the past few years. I want to get my facts right, so stay tuned for further developments.

Meanwhile, here are some national items that caught my eye.

Wisconsin civil servant Georgia Thompson may have spent months in prison for no other reason than the fact that she worked for a Democratic governor. At least, that's the claim the New York Times made today in an editorial, which noted that Thompson's case may well be another layer on the politicalization of the U.S. attorneys offices.

The Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit seemed shocked by the injustice of her conviction. It took the extraordinary step of releasing Ms. Thompson from prison immediately after hearing arguments, without waiting to issue a ruling. One of the judges hinted that Ms. Thompson may have been railroaded. “It strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin,” Judge Diane Wood told the lawyer from Mr. Biskupic’s office.

Oh darn... I missed this weekend's blogswarm against theocracy. I would have loved to have participated. Thanks to Talk To Action for pointing it out. I agree with Talk To Action's Frederick Clarkson: Go forth and read!

There's a great article over at Alternet today where Laura Flanders rightfully berates Democrats for hiding from cultural issues like gay marriage. Excerpted from her book Blue Grit, the article notes:

The truth is that Democrats, progressives, and fair-minded Republicans will never be anti-gay or anti choice or anti-racial justice enough to quiet their opponents. The only people left with any doubt about where Democrats stand on cultural issues are those whose lives are at stake. Those inconveniently irreverent and striving real people -- whom pundits dare not mention by name but allude to with the code name "culture" -- those Americans are the Democrats' base, whether the party likes it or not
....

The LGBT movement has a word for a frame that's built around the fear of being honest: a closet. And there's only one exit: coming out. People who are clear about who they are, and who clearly respect themselves and their beliefs, attract respect. Consider Lupe Valdez, a fifty-seven-year-old lesbian Latina who was elected Sheriff of Dallas in 2004. Valdez is the first woman, first gay person, and first Hispanic ever to be Sheriff of Dallas, and the first Democrat to hold the job in twenty-five years. A former prison guard and federal agent, the 5'2" daughter of migrant workers was opposed by the unions representing many of those working in the sheriff's department. She was outspent three-to-one.

At the last minute, her opponent, the favored candidate, raised alarms about her acceptance of campaign contributions from Washington-based Gay and Lesbian Victory fund. How did she win? People in Dallas were ready for a change. Their Republican sheriff, a twenty-year incumbent, had just been indicted on charges of corruption. Valdez cast herself as an agent of change and made her sexuality work for her, rather than against: "I'm not like anybody in here. I'm the element of change. I'm a lesbian" she said. A third of those who voted for her were cross-overs, voters who didn't vote a straight Democratic ticket. Now Valdez is the only woman among 254 sheriffs in Texas.

Salon.com reports that the military is so stretched that injured troops are being shipped back to Iraq. Meanwhile, The New York Times notes that the surge in Iraq has yet to produce much in the way of great results.

The New York Time's Paul Krugman had a great column on Republican's "little lies," and how they can be as effective as the Big Lie, for example, that got us into war in Iraq. Krugman's argument is that the GOP is attempting to slime Speaker Nancy Pelosi with a ton of little lies.This is behind the Time's paywall, so here are some excerpts.

First, there were claims that the speaker of the House had demanded a lavish plane for her trips back to California. One Republican leader denounced her "arrogance of extravagance" -- then, when it became clear that the whole story was bogus, admitted that he had never had any evidence.

Now there's Ms. Pelosi’s fact-finding trip to Syria, which Dick Cheney denounced as "bad behavior" -- unlike the visit to Syria by three Republican congressmen a few days earlier, or Newt Gingrich’s trip to China when he was speaker.

Ms. Pelosi has responded coolly, dismissing the administration's reaction as a “tantrum.” But it’s more than that: the hysterical reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.

Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy -- which is why there is growing pressure on Democratic politicians not to do anything, like participating in Fox-hosted debates, that helps Fox impersonate a legitimate news organization.

But Fox has had plenty of help. Even Time's Joe Klein, a media insider if anyone is, wrote of the Pelosi trip that "the media coverage of this on CNN and elsewhere has been abysmal." For example, CNN ran a segment about Ms. Pelosi’s trip titled "Talking to Terrorists."

The G.O.P.'s reversion to the Little Lie technique is a symptom of political weakness, of a party reduced to trivial smears because it has nothing else to offer. But the technique will remain effective — and the U.S. political scene will remain ugly — as long as many people in the news media keep playing along.

And last, but certainly not least, Daniel Gilbert from The Huffington Post figures out how to get folks to take Global Warming seriously. Here's a hint: It involves gay sex and/or folks biting the heads off kittens.

--------

Photo: Dallas Sheriff Lupe Valdez

The Supreme Court gets it: The U.S. must address global warming

By Nancy Jane Moore

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related.

So begins the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that the Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to address automobile emissions.

Finally -- a branch of government that understands the U.S. can't just ignore global warming! With luck -- plus the current weakness in the Bush administration and strong sentiment in the Democratic-controlled Congress for dealing with climate change -- EPA will stop trying to come up with reasons why it shouldn't regulate emissions and just adopt some rules.

The firm decision -- authored by the court's oldest member, Justice John Paul Stevens (who also wrote the court's anti-torture ruling in the Guantanamo case) -- prevailed by five votes to four: Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer rounded out the majority, while Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia each wrote dissents on separate points, both of which were joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The court made three important decisions. First of all, it found the plaintiffs -- states, local governments, and private organizations -- have standing, meaning that they can actually bring a suit. (If you want more information on standing, check out this post and this post on Balkinization.) Massachusetts (one of 12 states suing along with D.C., New York City, Baltimore and American Samoa) can sue, the court said, because as a state, it has the responsibility to take care of the area under its control. And, the court said, coastline loss by Massachusetts is a sufficient injury to allow the state to sue EPA if the agency isn't doing its job of protecting the environment.

Rejecting EPA arguments that regulating greenhouse gases from car emissions wouldn't make any real difference because they are only a small part of the problem, the court said:

While it may be true that regulating motor-vehicle emissions will not by itself reverse global warming, it by no means follows that we lack jurisdiction to decide whether EPA has a duty to takes steps to slow or reduce it.

Secondly, the court said -- unequivocally -- that the Clean Air Act covers carbon dioxide from car emissions. "The statute is unambiguous," Stevens wrote. And the fact that the U.S. Department of Transportation is charged with regulating car mileage standards does not keep EPA from regulating car emissions.

Thirdly, the court dismissed EPA's arguments that regulating emissions would interfere with the administration's "voluntary" programs addressing global warming, including negotiations with other countries to reduce their emissions. Such policy reasons, the court said

have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. In particular, while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws.

In other words, the president doesn't get to pick and chose which laws he's going to enforce. It's about time someone explained that to Bush, the man who would be king.

Climate Change: We all fiddle while the world burns

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told the world Feb. 2 that evidence of global warming is "unequivocal." Their "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF) of their report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, pointed out not only that the change in global climate is due to human activity, but also that even if we make necessary changes now, the human race will still have to deal with the environmental repercussions for centuries to come.

According to The New York Times, the Bush administration said it "embraced" the findings and noted that it had "played a leading role" in climate research. However, The Times also noted that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman rejected the idea that the U.S. should adopt a national limit on carbon emissions. According to The Times, Bodman said, "We are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world, so it's really got to be a global solution."

In its next paragraph, The Times said:

The United States, with about 5 percent of the world’s population, contributes about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other country.

The Times clearly thought this was the most important story on Feb. 2. The lead headline on The Times online all day Friday was:

Science Panel Says Global Warming Is 'Unequivocal'

But The Washington Post didn't give it the same play. Its lead story for most of Feb. 2 was the Iraq War. Late in the day, that was topped by "President Reaching Out To House Democrats." Global warming played second fiddle to those stories.

The Times made the right call, but The Post coverage shows just how big a problem there is in dealing with climate change. And once both had covered the IPCC report, climate change issues drew substantially less coverage. The Post did run a story on how the U.S., China, and India -- the world's heaviest polluter coupled with the two most populous nations -- declined to participate in a new environmental body suggested by France.

Global warming is the most important issue facing the world today, but even major newspapers rarely give it adequate attention. They are much more comfortable covering war and politics than in dealing with the crisis that is going to define the 21st Century.

To some extent, this is inevitable. Climate change is a long term problem, but war and politics always provide immediate crises -- breaking news. Both the news business and the human mind respond more quickly to trouble at hand than they do to trouble down the road.

And, in truth, the catastrophic results of the Bush administration's failed invasion of Iraq has created another long term crisis that will affect much of the world. But even chaos in the Middle East pales by comparison to the problems the human race will suffer from climate change, particularly if we don't get a handle on solutions soon.

Meanwhile, the world's two largest energy companies, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, earned record profits in 2006 -- $180 million/day, according to The Times.

The Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out back in January that Exxon is using Big Tobacco's tactics to undercut global warming research.

Incidentally, the UK publication, the Guardian, pointed out on Feb. 2 that the American Enterprise Institute has offered $10,000 to any scientists or economists who can undercut the IPCC report. The Guardian said:

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It seems that every report we see on climate change shows that the problem is even worse than we thought. But wealthy Big Oil -- with the usual short-sightedness of big business driven by short term profit -- keeps trying to muddy the waters. And the Bush administration -- which is virtually a subsidiary of Big Oil -- keeps making sure the U.S. does nothing to contribute to the solution.

Meanwhile the press -- and the rest of us -- are distracted by the Iraq War, by current politics, and by Bush's campaign to convince us that terrorism is the bigger crisis.

And so we continue doing nothing to address the most important issue facing the world today.

Scientists say ExxonMobil is using junk science to muddy the waters on global warming

By Nancy Jane Moore

ExxonMobil is funding front organizations that use junk science to argue that global warming is not a problem, the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a report issued Jan. 3.

In fact, the UCS said, Exxon's campaign strongly resembles Big Tobacco's major disinformation campaign that contradicted overwhelming evidence about the risks associated with cigarettes. Exxon is even using some of the same people, the report says.

In their press release for the report, the UCS says Exxon:

• raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
• funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
• attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
• used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

Campaigns that manipulate information to protect a company's business interests are a modern fact of life. I suspect most companies do it, in one way or another. And, unfortunately, most of us go along with this: It appears to be a sad truth of modern corporate life that people who are generally quite moral in their personal lives don't raise strong objections when their company does something that they know is wrong. (If you have ever worked for a large company, you are probably uncomfortably aware of just how easy it is to convince yourself that you can't stop bad decisions anyway, so why should you put your job at risk.)

But Exxon's efforts are particularly heinous, because we must make some serious immediate changes to prevent long term disaster from human-caused climate change.

It's difficult enough for human beings to wrap their brains around the idea that we are affecting the climate. As Daniel Gilbert points out in his witty book about how the human mind works, Stumbling on Happiness, we are very good at appreciating the danger of immediate attack -- like a charging tiger -- but lousy at understanding risks where the potential disaster is years down the road.

Global warming is just that kind of problem: By the time we see unmistakable signs, it's going to be way too late to stop it. We have to use our intellectual skills to understand the problem, because our instincts aren't so finely tuned that they react to long term dangers. That's why we need good science -- and we also need to educate ourselves and our children so that we can understand good science.

Funding junk science and using corporate power to encourage journalists and policymakers to treat crackpots with the same respect as the real experts undermines our efforts to truly understand what is happening to our planet. The process is difficult enough when we don't have to wade through distortions. ExxonMobil and the others who are cynically creating uncertainty must be stopped.

You can link to a pdf copy of the full report, "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to 'Manufacture Uncertainty' on Climate Change," from the UCS press release.

The Union of Concerned Scientists also has a nice FAQ section on global warming.

More on the Supremes and global warming

By Nancy Jane Moore

Today's Washington Post has an editorial emphasizing the importance of the global warming case -- Massachusetts v. EPA -- that will be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

I'm often frustrated by Post editorials, but this is one case where we agree: EPA should be regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act as part of an overall plan to address human causes of climate change. The Post says:

The question of how to handle global warming is the chief environmental issue of our era. Yet the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to assume regulatory authority over greenhouse emissions.

The editorial also points out the tricky legal issue of whether the states have standing to bring suit, since proving injury may be difficult. The trouble with global warming, of course, is that by the time it gets bad enough to create easily proved damages, it will be too late to fix it.

The Supreme Court could decide to duck this case on standing grounds, instead dealing with it. As The Post observes:

That would be frustrating and unfortunate. Nowhere is this administration's resistance to action on global climate change more aggravating than in its persistent refusal to use the legal powers already at hand. What an irony it would be if its lawless inaction survived judicial review because the problem is too big.

We wrote about the case and provided links to the parties' briefs here. A transcript of the oral argument will be made available here on the Supreme Court website on the day of the argument.

The Supremes take on global warming

By Nancy Jane Moore

The effort to make the US wake up and start dealing with global warming hits the Supreme Court on Nov. 29.

On that date, the court will hear oral argument on whether or not the US Environmental Protection Agency should regulate car emissions that are contributing to climate change -- specifically carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons. EPA, which has been noticeably less aggressive in pursuing its mandate to clean up the environment during the Bush years, in 2003 denied a 1999 petition seeking such regulation, saying that the Clean Air Act does not permit it to regulate air pollutants associated with global warming.

Outraged by this ruling, a number of states -- led by Massachusetts -- and major environmental groups sued to change the policy. With one judge dissenting, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with EPA, and the petitioners asked the Supreme Court for review.

Here's the issue in a nutshell as described by the petitioners in their brief on the merits (PDF):

Physical or chemical matter that is emitted into the ambient air is an "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7602(g). The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "shall" set standards for air pollutants emitted by new motor vehicles when, in the Administrator’s judgment, they "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1). "Climate" and "weather" are components of "welfare." 42 U.S.C. 7602(h).

Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are physical and chemical matter. They are emitted into the ambient air by motor vehicles. A prodigious amount of scientific evidence indicates that they are changing our climate. Several parties asked EPA to regulate these chemicals under section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act because they are "air pollutants" that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare."

EPA denied the petition. Its decision rested on two fundamental errors of law. First, EPA concluded that it had no authority under section 202(a)(1) to regulate air pollutants associated with climate change, and that therefore the chemicals at issue here are not "air pollutants" within the meaning of the Act. Second, the agency decided that even if it had such authority, it would not exercise it, on account of various ad hoc policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1). The same mistake dooms both legal conclusions: EPA distorted two statutory terms ("air pollutant" and "judgment") and ignored a third ("welfare") in order to inject its own policy preferences into a statute that does not embody them.

EPA's misguided legal conclusions diverted it from the serious scientific inquiry at the heart of section 202(a)(1).

This might be the most significant case before the high court this term. At issue is whether our agency charged with taking care of the environment is going to take global warming seriously or not. EPA's decision in this matter shows how an administration opposed to the true mission of a government agency can corrupt it. I'm sure many career EPA employees are horrified at the agency's refusal to regulate in this area, but they have no clout.

The federal government focused on technical legal arguments in its response brief (PDF): They said the petitioners lack standing -- meaning that they claim Massachusetts and the other parties haven't shown they'll be injured by EPA's refusal to act:

Petitioners have failed to carry their burden of establishing that they will be harmed by the specific agency action they challenge -- EPA's decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles within the United States, which involves only a tiny fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions -- or that their anticipated injuries would be materially alleviated by the judicial ruling they seek. Moreover, petitioners' theory of causation and redressability depends on predictions by their declarants that EPA regulation will set in motion an elaborate sequence of events involving independent choices by non-federal actors, including foreign governments.

Those predictions are far too speculative to establish Article III standing.

They also argue that EPA was reasonable in determining that it doesn't have authority in this matter. And any authority it might actually have is discretionary, not mandatory.

Several states and a number of motor vehicle manufacturer associations intervened in the case. Nine states -- Michigan, Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah -- joined together in a response brief on the merits (PDF) that presents a separate argument. They point out that the states are required to meet EPA-set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) within their borders and argue:

The Act, however, does not contain any provision for States to reduce air pollution from sources outside of the United States. Therefore, if international sources of air pollution are contributing to a State's inability to meet a NAAQS, it would be impossible for that State to meet the national standard because of the lack of authority to limit such emissions.

They go on to argue:

Section 202 does not, however, allow EPA to set emission standards that would be an exercise in futility where the sources primarily generating the air pollution are outside the United States and where emission reductions from within the United States will have no meaningful effect on protecting public health and welfare.

This is an interesting argument and could carry some weight, though given the seriousness of the issue, I would suggest that states with a significant foreign pollution problem would be well-advised to do everything in their power to control pollution sources they can regulate.

And I would respect their point more if the states that were raising it were not tied so heavily to either the automobile manufacturing industry (Michigan) or the oil industry (particularly Alaska, Ohio, and Texas). One wonders whether their concern is driven more by protecting those businesses than by an argument that they can't clean things up because of pollution from foreign sources.

It is obvious to anyone who drives in the US that car emissions are a significant factor in air pollution. Given the many other improvements to cars over the past 15 years, I have no doubt that the automakers can make reasonably affordable cars that pollute much less if they are forced to do so.

And despite the ravings of James Inhofe, the science-challenged senator from Oklahoma who thinks global warming is a myth, human-caused climate change is the most important issue facing the world today. Under the Republican-controlled Senate, Inhofe has chaired the Environment & Public Works Committee, which is one of the reasons that the federal government has done virtually nothing to address global warming. Fortunately, with the return of the Democrats to power, this situation will change. I don't know how much progress they'll be able to make, but at least the key Senate committee will not be in the hands of an idiot who is refusing to look at real science. See the Real Climate blog for actual information from climate scientists on global warming.

Here are the states, cities, territories, and organizations that have joined with Massachusetts in challenging the EPA position:

California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, New York City, Baltimore, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technology Assessment, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

In addition to the states who signed onto the brief, those government entities and organizations supporting EPA are:

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, National Automobile Dealers Association, Engine Manufacturers Association, Truck Manufacturers Association, CO2 Litigation Group, Utility Air Regulatory Group, and the State of Idaho.