Energista - Climate Change - Comments

Now that's what I call mad science!

nickmark — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:41:11 -0600

See also the article in the Spring 2007 issue of the Wilson Quarterly (<a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=231274">"The Climate Engineers"</a>) comparing current suggestions to past schemes to control the weather (and the hubris thereof...)

Environmental Blogs

nobody — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:24:01 -0500

Hello,

We have added your web address to our database of environmental blogs. Please come by and check out your link and see the location of other environmental bloggers near you as well as across North America. It's very cool.

Hope to see you soon!

http://mylinkmaps.com/map/environmentalblogs

MCCAG

nobody — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:38:45 -0500

All the meetings are open to the public, so please come.

More information

darrell — Tue, 01 May 2007 13:19:20 -0500

There is what looks to be a pretty good website for the MCCAG that makes available a lot of the documents they see.It remains to seen just what impact the group will have on state policy but there is some promise. There are a number of long time advocates and experts on Climate Change who were appointed but there are also a number of omissions. I'd also like to point out that the Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM) have a representative on MCCAG in Boise Jones.

whoops

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:23:48 -0500

forgot to log-in - that comment is mine.

farmers

nobody — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:20:01 -0500

Rane & I had a class debate on this issue - part of the problem is also the water provided for irrigation by the dams. Many of the areas in the NW do not receive enough rain to support agricultural endeavors, thus they rely on irrigation. It is a complicated issue, so I agree with you, Joe, that it makes sense to take it on a case-by-case basis. I wonder whether it is an issue that will have a successful compromise, though, since the participants seem sharply divided and have been for years.

Allotment vs. Auction

nickmark — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:44:44 -0500

As I understand it, the primary problem with Europe's carbon market has been that allowances were issued directly to polluters (that is, utilities) based on historical emissions levels, rather than being auctioned. It may also be that there were too many issued, but since your baseline was free, there's little incentive to reduce emissions anyway.

CCX V GHG Cap and Tax

christopher — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:21:49 -0500

I'm not sure what you mean by a GHG "Cap and Tax" option. There are generally two options - a carbon tax or a cap and trade program.

Caps are best for making sure GHG emissions do not exceed some arbitrary amount whereas the tax generally discourages carbon emissions by putting a price on it. The higher the price, the fewer the emissions.

For MN, there is no agreement yet as to what would be best but due to people's resistance to that three letter word starting with a 't,' the cap and trade has been assumed to be the more politically feasible.

In Europe, when they set up the cap and trade, they issued too many emissions allowances from what I understand. This made it really easy for everyone to emit lots of GHGs. I don't know who benefited from that, but I think we all lost.

The main issue with CCX is that it is voluntary to join. Despite Bush's support, voluntary approaches will not cut GHGs by the amount needed to slow climate change.

CCX Cap and Trade vs GHG Cap and Tax

nobody — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:09:03 -0500

Can you explain the difference between CCX's Cap and Trade versus a green house gas 'Cap and Tax' option? How come this option is not on the table in Minnesota, or is it? From what I have heard of the EU experience with cap and trade, some utilities made windfall profits because of how the exchange was set up.

Bush: man is contributing greenhouse gases

Joe — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:03:33 -0500

It looks like Bush is still looking for excuses to stall action on GHG despite the ruling. He said that any actions taken must not slow economic growth or be offset by rising emissions in China or India. It will be interesting to see how his stance filters down to the EPA.

impact to be determined...

michellew54 — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:46:36 -0500

I heard at least 70 cases around the country were stayed pending resolution of this case. Even if the EPA itself does not act, the impact may be felt in a more dispersed and localized manner. If I hear of anything interesting, I will try to update.

EPA Moves on CA Waiver

christopher — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:43:37 -0500

Sure enough, the EPA is already moving forward on California's request to regulate GHGs under the CAA. The next step it is a public comment period and hearing.

Illinois joins CCX

James — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:46:11 -0500

here is a press release that confirms when a state joins the CCX it only covers state run facilities and other 'opt in' options, and not, say the number of private cars a new transportation project takes off the road

Or...???

Noah Kunin — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:03:25 -0500

...or too expensive to refute.

surprising decision

michellew54 — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:06:17 -0500

I thought there was a good chance the Court would rule for the Petitioners on the standing issue, and also the second, that the GHGs fall under the Clean Air Act definition of an "air pollutant" which could therefore be regulated under the Act. What surprised me, however, was that the Court did not defer to the EPA and rule that it had discretion to not regulate. Quite the victory for the petitioning states, I think.

Of course, as christopher points out, this does not mean the EPA will suddenly issue regulations for CO2. As the court stated on pg 36 of the Slip Opinion:

Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.

So essentially the EPA either has to prove GHGs aren't causing global warming or come up with a good reason why EPA won't try to figure out that they do. The latter is going to be hard to accomplish, since another section of the Clean Air Act (section 103(g)) requires the EPA to conduct research regarding CO2. The Court also notes that if the EPA believes the scientific uncertainty "is so profound" (pg. 37) that no judgment as to CO2's contribution to global warming is possible, then they should say so. Sounds like an interesting challenge the Court has presented to the EPA - give us your best excuse and make it realistic and reasonable, or...???