After Copenhagen it was thought less likely that Obama would be able to get climate change legislation through Congress. But he had a fallback position in that he could use the EPA to regulate CO2 and other GHGs as air pollutants.
Now the EPA is subject to legal challenge, with the State of Texas mounting one of 16 challenges to the EPA’s “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health.
And the Texas attorney general was in full flight using the ‘facts’ of the CRU emails affair and more recent Climategate incidents. The contention is that the IPA relied on the science of the IPCC and as everyone now knows that is shonky.
“With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy,” said Greg Abbott, Texas’s attorney general.“Prominent climate scientists associated with the IPCC were engaged in an ongoing, orchestrated effort to violate freedom of information laws, exclude scientific research, and manipulate temperature data.
“In light of the parade of controversies and improper conduct that has been uncovered, we know that the IPCC cannot be relied upon for objective, unbiased science – so EPA should not rely upon it to reach a decision that will hurt small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and the larger Texas economy.”
The Telegraph doesn’t help matters by asserting that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit’s research was at the heart of IPCC findings, followed by these two ‘facts’:
Leaked emails indicated that the freedom of information act was breached and that data was manipulated and suppressed to strengthen the case for man-made climate change.
A series of exaggerated claims, factual mistakes and unscientific sourcing have subsequently been uncovered in the 2007 IPCC report – such as the alarming but unjustified warning that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035.
The “exaggerated claim” was of course the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, which appeared in the second Working Group report which covers the impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists not the first which covered the physical science basis of climate change. There was a perfectly valid 45-page section in WG1 and the Himalayan thing didn’t make it into the Summary for Policy Makers.
BTW the glaciers are still melting.
The “factual mistake” is where the WG2 report said:
“The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”
(the exact sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency) when it should have said:
“55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”.
Of course nothing of that changed the seriousness of the prospect of sea level rise on little bit.
The “unscientific sourcing” referred to the WWF report on the Amazon being cited rather than the original peer reviewed report – a trivial mistake fraudulently beaten up into a major scandal by a journalist who has form.
The science reported in the IPCC report was real science.
Thus the right to pollute is being sternly defended in the land of the free. Pity it’s not just screwing their future. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule, but at the very least action to mitigate bclimate change will be slowed down.
As far as I can make out the sequence leading to the EPA endangerment finding goes like this.
In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants, and hence the EPA had a head of power to regulate them. The EPA under Bush did nothing about it.
In April 2009 the EPA issued the proposed findings and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments.
In December 2009 the EPA issued its final finding (more here).
From that last link you’ll find a link to the EPA’s Technical Support Document to the Findings dated December 2008. The authors drew mainly from recent synthesis reports. The list of their main sources includes the three IPCC Working Group reports, plus 25 other documents, mostly from the US Climate Science Program (CCSP), the National Research Council, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the EPA itself. Thus apart from the IPCC the EPA document relies largely on the results of American research funded by the Bushites.
Down thisaways we sorted out that commie kennedy and we can damn well sort out these pinkos as well..now pass me that pearl handled Buntline Special.
That would be IPCC not IPPC … in the text above Brian …
Thanks, Fran. Fixed, I think.
The US is installing wind and solar power and setting up efficiency requirements for new cars. Not sure how much the Senate can/will block but it would be hard to argue that the oil strapped US should do nothing to at least improve car efficiency?
At least direct action is a bit harder to tell the big lie against compared with ETS.
There’s also a reference to the IPA relying the science of the IPCC. I think that would be a first.
Another report identifies many of the parties suing the EPA.
This article suggests that the law suits as such are not much of a threat.
Obi Wan has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting any sort of climate change based legislation passed.
Only Defeatocrats with solidly safe seats are going to risk their seat on this given the swing that is currently on against them in the polls. Many previously thought safe seats are now questionable.
Very few are going to die in a ditch over this.
And without the US, China, India et al doing anything, we Aussies shouldn’t bother either.
Bad luck Brian. I suggest Temazapan and a lie down.
Never, Razor!
Environment 360 looks at the US Chamber of Commerce legal challenge to the EPA.
The EPA Boss is already pulling her horns in. Coal state Dems are angry as hell. If the Dems don’t act to cut the EPA off at the knees on this then they know they are toast. Suck it up princesses.
Do you have a source for that interesting information, Razor?
Politico.com
Razor, I can’t find the specific story at Politico.com, but here’s a post from Climate Progress, which puts a rather different complexion on what’s happening.
The NYT has a story on the EPA chief brawling with Senator Inhofe.
The Federal Times coverage tells us what is going to happen:
Looks to me like it’s going to happen, albeit slowly.
But not as quickly as first envisaged and that is before the legal challenges get heard fully. She felt the need to write to Senators and to slow down the commencement – that is pulling your horns in.
When and what was “first envisaged”, Razor? When weren’t the EPA’s proposed regulations tailored in size and rollout period, not to mention restrained by budget and realistic program development times? Lisa Jackson has “pulled her horns in”, or simply assured senators it wasn’t going to be happening immediately in any case?
Nick, quite so. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Obama have both said they want to use legislation rather than regulation, still do, but in Jackson we have an EPA chief who takes her responsibilities seriously.