The first article details what was at stake when the EU decided to create mandatory industry cuts on CO2 emissions. Then there is a comment that articulates the ‘Sustainability’ aspect of the issue.
The Second article details the EU plan to cut emissions and the several countries that are cutting emissions.
Third, the Financial Times writes a concise breakdown on a case that went before the Supreme court today. “Hearing a case that could have a big impact on emission politics in the US Congress and beyond, judges listened to a Bush administration official defend the notion that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should stay out of greenhouse gas regulation. They also heard from the state of Massachusetts, which insists that its coastline will be threatened unless the EPA steps in.”
These first three articles set up the fourth, which shows how naive Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Alito will publicly present themselves in order to defend entrenched interests who are making massive profits form the current economic system.
Scalia sounds as if he has never seen a systemic model analysis and how it operates. He asks “When is the predicted cataclysm?’’ He was trying to shape the discussion as if the scientists needed to present an argument that was proof positive that a doom’s day was imminent. That, he knows is not possible, nor is it even the main intent of the case. The damage of global warming is ongoing.
Scalia is smart enough to know that what is being presented is nothing short of a revolution of ideas. The case that was being presented was a warning about the future and is a recommendation to follow a different path. The path is away from free-market capitalism towards a new system of a sustainable economy which includes government oversight on industry standards.
Roberts and Alito would hope that their comments were being made in a vacuum. “Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles addresses just one aspect of an issue of global dimensions. The argument by those pushing for EPA action on vehicle emissions might or might not be valid, but it ‘’assumes everything else is going to remain constant,’’ Roberts observed.” Well, Roberts observation is flat wrong because the world is not going to remain constant and he sounds silly to suggest that it will. He sounds as if he has never looked at a systemic model either. He also hopes that the rest of the people in the room can ignore that the world does actually respond to such problems, including the fact that our friends in Europe have made dramatic changes in their policy. It is beyond ironic that the very same day Roberts made his comment Europe made carbon emission cuts in line with the Kyoto Treaty; it is a sad tragedy that our high court would portray themselves as naive to the subject.
Alito was trying to make the case a non-starter since it didn’t provide a ‘silver bullet’ cure to the problem. “But Justice Samuel Alito, who with Roberts seemed most skeptical of the states’ position, said that even in the best of circumstances, the reduction in greenhouse gases would be relatively small.” Alito also knows that the problem we are trying to solve is systemic. No silver bullets. A series of changes is what we need and getting the EPA to act is one step. As predicted Roberts and Alito are in place to defend the special interests that the Bush administration represents.
We get to wait until July 2007 for the Supreme Court to make it’s final verdict. Between now and then the EPA can keep ignoring what they have known since 1970, that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant that threatens public health and the EPA must regulate it.
The best way to circumvent the Supreme Court and get the EPA to act properly? Elect Al Gore in 2008 by more than a hand full of electoral votes.
Remember the date: it’s decision day on Earth
The Times November 29, 2006
James Cameron
Today one the most important decisions about the planet’s future for years to come will be made.
José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, will announce the caps on emissions that it will impose on its member states from 2008 to 2012. Around the world, from California to Australia, from New York to Japan, politicians, businesses and opinion formers are watching to see whether we Europeans have the conviction to make the system that prices carbon and punishes polluters work properly.
Those who want to create their own carbon-pricing schemes are keen for the system to work but will lose political momentum if it doesn’t. Those who want to do nothing will celebrate its failure.
The EU member states have in several instances abdicated the responsibility of arguing for the essential deep reductions in the amount of carbon produced. Sometimes they have called duplicitously for greater action on climate change while submitting plans that would lead to no reductions and further profit their industry champions at the planet’s cost. Now we have the real data, we know who misled us last year. There is a rational case for reductions across the board of anything from 10 to 20 per cent off the plans that have been submitted. The plans of some countries are so flawed that they must be sent back and reworked. The Commission will have to be resolute.
By ensuring there are fewer permits than are needed, the EU will force companies to reduce emissions — and put a price on pollution. By creating a scarcity, through setting demanding targets, companies will have to cut their emissions or buy reductions achieved by someone else.
The carbon market aligns public and private interest powerfully: investors are rewarded if they allocate resources efficiently to reduce emissions. Sorting out climate change should not be regarded as an economic opportunity as well as a necessity.
As the Stern report tells us, there is little cost to our economies from doing what we know we have to; there is no serious effect on competitiveness from the modest price for carbon we have, or expect to have. But the costs of inaction are enormous.
There are some who think that individual countries, like ours, will make little difference, whatever we do. But we will make a difference. Taking the right decisions now and adding a long-term signal that there will be more to come will channel huge investment where it needs to be. A tonne of carbon taken out of the atmosphere is a tonne of carbon, whether in Burton-on-Trent, Bordeaux, Berlin or Beijing.
Then there was this comment made to the UK Times post Remember the date: it’s decision day on Earth:
The Carbon Pricing scheme is not just about global warming (if the worst scare stories are to be believed then we can have no effect anyway), it is also about trying to stem the accelarated use of the precious resources of the planet. We are close to nearing the threshold whereby we go into “the red” and start useing the worlds resources at a greater than sustainable level, leading to possible land and resources wars that could be the end of the civilisation. By investing in renewable and sustainable schemes like the carbon pricing system and nuclear fusion we can help to prevent our armegeddon and expand the technological and economic power of Europe in the process. Besides which, just because others do not wish to address environmental issues does not mean we should not.
Josh Vinden, Milton Keynes/Leicester, UK
EU emissions caps tighter than expected
By Andrew Bounds in Brussels
Financial Times
Published: November 29 2006 13:16
The European Commission on Wednesday called for tougher than expected cuts to Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions, slashing the caps of nine of 10 countries whose trading plans it assessed.
Stavros Dimas, environment commissioner, wanted a further 7 per cent reduction to the caps governments planned for the 2008-12 period, which is also 7 per cent below the level of carbon produced in 2005.
“Today’s decisions send a strong signal that Europe is fully committed to achieving the Kyoto target and making the EU emissions trading scheme a success,” he said.
“The Commission has assessed the plans in a consistent way to ensure equal treatment of member states and create the necessary scarcity in the European carbon market.”
Mr Dimas said the same standards would be applied to the plans that had yet to be submitted.
The changes would put the EU on course to fulfil its pledge to reduce its emissions by 8 per cent from 1990 levels by the year 2012.
However, the cuts to plans covering 42 per cent of total EU emissions were less than the 10 per cent many green campaigners and businesses said was needed to give the scheme credibility and investors security.
Only the UK plan was approved, so long as installations in Gibraltar were included.
Germany, the EU’s biggest emitter, was told to reduce its cap by a further 6 per cent. The Commission also told it to close a 14-year exemption for new coal-fired power stations, which it considers constitutes illegal state aid.
Lithuania was asked to make the biggest cut, from a proposed 16.6m tonnes of carbon to 8.8m. In 2005 it produced 6.6m. Sweden, Greece, Slovakia, Latvia, Ireland, Malta and Luxembourg must all reduce their caps.
Ireland must limit its reliance on achieving emissions cuts from investments in projects in the developing world – cheaper than doing so at home – to 21.9 per cent.
The Commission is still assessing plans from big emitters such as Poland and France. It has started legal proceedings against Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy and Spain for failing to submit their plans on time.
The Greens in the European parliament welcomed the Commission’s tough stance but warned that deeper cuts were needed for the future.
“EU reliance on external credits for achieving our climate targets means these cuts will be postponed. Not only does this undermine EU credibility in international negotiations, it also delays crucial investment into clean technologies.
“It is also clear that the EU will not meet its Kyoto target without very strict measures on emissions from private households and transport, which are not included in ETS,” said Satu Hassi, a Green MEP.
Supreme Court clashes over climate change
By Patti Waldmeir in Washington
Published: November 29 2006 21:00 | Last updated: November 29 2006 21:00
emissions.
Hearing a case that could have a big impact on emission politics in the US Congress and beyond, judges listened to a Bush administration official defend the notion that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should stay out of greenhouse gas regulation. They also heard from the state of Massachusetts, which insists that its coastline will be threatened unless the EPA steps in.
Environmental activists, frustrated by the failure of Congress or the Bush administration to act on global warming, brought the issue to the Supreme Court with the case Massachusetts v EPA. The court heard oral arguments in the case yesterday but will rule only sometime next year.
Massachusetts brought the suit, backed by California, New York and several other states, to try to force the EPA to regulate exhaust emissions from new cars. The EPA says it does not have the authority to regulate such emissions, under federal law. Even if it did, the EPA says, it would refuse to do so because of continuing uncertainty in the science of global warming and because unilateral US action could reduce America’s bargaining power in international negotiations on reducing emissions.
A federal appeals court issued a splintered ruling in the case, with the two judges in the majority – who upheld the EPA’s refusal to regulate – disagreeing on their reasoning. One found that Massachusetts had no right to bring the lawsuit, and the other found that the EPA had the authority to refuse to regulate.
Wednesday’s arguments focused largely on the issue of whether Massachusetts could bring the case in the first place, with several conservative justices arguing that Massachusetts had not proved the danger to its coastline was imminent enough to merit the suit, or that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that could be achieved by limiting exhaust emissions – some 2.5 per cent of total US greenhouse emissions – would be significant enough to give them the right to sue.
“It depends what happens across the globe,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, noting that any reduction in US emissions might be overcome by a rise in emissions caused by China’s rapid economic development. Several liberal justices supported Massachusetts but the pivotal swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, did not reveal where he stood.
The court appeared similarly divided on the issue of whether the EPA had the authority to refuse to regulate or whether its reasons for doing so were valid.
Supreme Court Takes Up Global Warming Case
November 29, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:04 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court stepped gingerly into the national debate over global warming on Wednesday, asking how much harm would occur if the Environmental Protection Agency continues its refusal to regulate greenhouse gases from new vehicles.
In the first case about global warming to reach the high court, a lawyer for 12 states and 13 environmental groups pressed the justices to make the government act, saying the country faces grave environmental harm.
Inaction is like lighting ‘’a fuse on a bomb,’’ said James Milkey, an assistant attorney general for the state of Massachusetts.
Opening up an hour of arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, ‘’When is the predicted cataclysm?’’
It’s not cataclysmic, but rather ‘’ongoing harm,’’ Milkey replied.
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, representing the Bush administration, cautioned justices that EPA regulation could have a significant economic impact on the United States since 85 percent of the U.S. economy is tied to sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Garre also argued that EPA was right not to act given ‘’the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change.’’
Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles addresses just one aspect of an issue of global dimensions.
The argument by those pushing for EPA action on vehicle emissions might or might not be valid, but it ‘’assumes everything else is going to remain constant,’’ Roberts observed.
Several justices questioned whether the states and environmental groups have met their legal burden to show they will be harmed by continued EPA inaction. Petitioners to courts must meet that threshold before the merits of a case may be addressed.
‘’We own property, 200 miles of coastline, that we’re losing,’’ Milkey said, trying to allay justices’ concerns.
But Justice Samuel Alito, who with Roberts seemed most skeptical of the states’ position, said that even in the best of circumstances, the reduction in greenhouse gases would be relatively small.
Milkey replied that even small reductions would be meaningful, pointing out that very small rises in the sea level would inundate significant portions of low-lying coastal land.
The Bush administration argued in court papers that the EPA lacks the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Even if it had such authority, the EPA still would not use it at this point because of uncertainty surrounding the issue of global warming, the administration said.
Global climate change is ‘’a controversial phenomenon that is far from fully understood or defined,’’ trade associations for car and truck makers and automobile dealers said in a court filing signed by former Solicitors General Theodore Olson and Kenneth Starr. They backed the administration position.
Twelve states, mainly along the nation’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts, three cities, a U.S. territory and 13 environmental groups are arguing that the EPA ignored the clear language of the Clean Air Act. Under the 1970 law, carbon dioxide is an air pollutant that threatens public health and the EPA must regulate it, they said.
Michigan, home of the U.S. auto industry, and eight other states are backing the EPA.
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. It is the principal ‘’greenhouse’’ gas that many scientists believe is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, leading to a warming of the Earth and widespread ecological changes. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars.
A federal appeals court in Washington, in a fractured decision in 2005, upheld the administration’s position. The Supreme Court is expected to rule before July 2007.
A separate case involving the EPA’s claim that the Clean Air Act similarly does not give it authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants also is making its way through the federal courts.
Together, U.S. power plants and vehicles account for 15 percent of the world output of greenhouse gases, said David Doniger, counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group involved in the Supreme Court case.
An association of electric utilities, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, opposes greenhouse gas regulation. But two individual power companies, Calpine Corp. and Entergy Corp., are on the other side.
Entergy said it has to be able to make plans 25 years in advance and that the EPA’s current rules will not ‘’stand the test of time.’’
The case is Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 05-1120.
If anyone knows the three Supreme court justices quoted above please point them to the special section in the The Financial Times called Climate Change with its tagline "Climate change is one of the most serious issues facing the planet. Scientific evidence shows that temperature changes are likely to have profoundly negative consequences for human society, the global economy and the world’s natural systems. This poses risks and opportunities to which investors and companies must respond". They can also read this from the Former Future President of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment