Clear and present endangerment

EPA says greenhouse-gas emissions a threat to public health 25

danger signPhoto: cocovanThe Environmental Protection Agency today said it has determined that planet-warming greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare. The long-expected finding, set in motion two years ago by a Supreme Court ruling, moves the Obama administration one step closer to regulating carbon dioxide emissions from a number of sources across the country. But it leaves unanswered questions about how the agency will go forward and which industries will be most affected.

The EPA reached the decision last month, and earlier this week the agency’s determination cleared White House review. Today’s announcement, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said, will “trigger the beginnings of regulation of CO2 for this country.”

Industry groups are wringing their hands about what it will mean to have greenhouse gases regulated under the Clean Air Act, and enviros are chomping at the bit for the agency to get to work. While groups across the spectrum would prefer that Congress pass a new climate bill to address the matter, in the absence of that, the EPA is compelled to start regulating with the laws already on books.

“There’s no time left to waste,” said David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center. “We want the EPA to do what it can under the existing Clean Air Act, because that’s what the law is today ... We have a problem ahead of us that we’re long overdue in dealing with.”

What now?

There will be a 60-day public comment period on the EPA finding itself (here’s how to comment), after which it will be entered in the Federal Register, the government’s official publication for rules and regulations. The agency would then be legally required to start regulating CO2 emissions, though the EPA can decide the timing, sequence, and scope of any regulations.

The EPA could regulate a wide range of polluting entities, but the agency is likely to focus first on two main sources of pollution: cars and stationary pollution points like power plants and major industrial sources, including chemical and cement manufacturers. “The EPA must go forth and regulate,” David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, told Grist. “Those would come at the front of the regulatory train.”

Environmental experts working in the field, including Bookbinder, expect that the EPA will go after automobiles first, since they’re perceived as the lower-hanging fruit. The agency is already expected to render a decision by the end of June on whether or not to grant California a waiver so it can set emissions standards for automobiles that are tougher than the federal standards. The California rules call for a 30 percent reduction in global-warming emissions from new vehicles by 2016.

Regulating auto emissions is complicated by the fact that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is already charged with setting new standards for cars and light trucks, under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) system. NHTSA is working on fuel-economy standards for the 2012 year, which are due out before March 31, 2010. It’s expected that the EPA and NHSTA will work together to devise a single standard to govern cars, and that could come as early as August, environmental experts predict.

Automakers, surely, would like to see a uniform standard for the entire country.

“We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles need to be reduced,” said Charles Territo, a spokesperson for the Auto Alliance, an industry group representing a number of major car makers. “At the end of the day, what’s most important is that we have a single, national standard that is achievable, but that is aggressive, and cost-effective.”

He chafed at the idea of cars getting the regulatory crackdown first, noting that they account for 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions—substantially less than emissions from stationary sources. “There has to be a comprehensive, multi-sector policy in place that recognizes that if CO2 is to be regulated, that it needs to take into account all sources,” said Territo. “We’re already regulated. This industry has more experience with carbon dioxide regulation than any other. Through the CAFE program, we effectively have been capped since 1975.”

After cars, the other big target will be power plants and factories. Coal-fired power plants alone account for 40 percent of emissions. Environmental law experts are predicting that rules for these major point sources could come within 12 to 18 months. Bookbinder predicts the EPA will begin its work on stationary sources by the end 2009, with a notice of proposed rules, and regulations in place in early 2010.

Industry’s tack

Any CO2 regulations coming out of EPA will likely be met by a flurry of lawsuits from the regulated industries, meaning it could take a lot longer for those regulations to take effect. The endangerment finding will “set the stage for an economic train wreck and a constitutional crisis,” wrote the Competitive Enterprise Institute and seven other “free market” groups in a letter sent to EPA’s Jackson on Wednesday.

“If you were too comprehensively regulate greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act, that would impose a substantial cost and insufficient flexibility for the regulated community,” said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which lobbies on behalf of power companies like Southern Co. and Duke Energy Corp.

Segal and others representing the industry side suggest that regulation through this system will inevitably lead to regulation of every emission source imaginable. “It would draw in every apartment complex, every hospital, every school, every church. It would transform the Clean Air Act into a major revamping of American society, from small businesses to nonprofits. ... I don’t think the authors of the Clean Air Act ever intended for it to be used in that fashion.”

Jackson rejected this idea recently, noting, “It’s a myth that we’re at a horrible fork in the road, where the EPA is going to regulate cows, Dunkin’ Donuts, Pizza Huts, and baby bottles.”

And despite his own suggestion that this could mean the EPA has to cap emissions from your local food pantry, even Segal is optimistic that the Obama administration will take a more cautious approach to regulation. “It seems clear to me that the administration will do what they can to limit the damage of an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act,” he said, pointing to Obama’s recent comments at a press conference that concerns about impacts on consumers should be taken into account in cutting emissions.

For now, Segal is giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, waiting to see if the EPA will craft a regulatory scheme that can “adequately contain costs.” “Everybody deserves the opportunity to develop what their regulatory policy is going to be, and then we’ll participate in that vigorously,” said Segal. “And if at the end of the day it doesn’t yield something that’s reasonable, we’ll have to exercise the full range of legal options.”

What about Congress?

Of course, the 800-pound gorilla in the regulatory room is Congress. Nearly everyone—from the deepest greens to the industry lobbyists—agrees that it would be better to have new, carbon-dioxide-specific legislation guiding how the country makes emissions reductions. But there’s no promise that Congress is going to be able to get that legislation passed through both chambers anytime soon. House Democrats are already at work on a bill that they expect to pass this summer, but chances of the Senate getting climate legislation approved this year aren’t nearly as strong.

A bill passed out of Congress could choose to leave a large degree of the regulation to the EPA, or could spell out the rules of the game quite specifically. The climate bill the Senate debated last year left a good deal of regulatory prerogative to the agency, while the draft bill the House is currently working on lays out more specific guidelines. The House bill includes emission standards for coal-fired power plants that would supersede any EPA regulation. The bill would limit emissions for plants that come online between 2009 and 2014, and new plants permitted after Jan. 1, 2015 would need to emit less than 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of output.

Rather than wait for Congress to act, it appears the EPA will move forward with its own rules, even though its actions may eventually be superseded by a new law. “Until Congress acts, EPA is going to go full steam ahead. That’s the bottom line,” said Bookbinder. “They have a legal duty, and they know they have a legal duty. And it will certainly create some pressure on Congress.”

But even Jackson has said the agency would prefer action from Congress. “The best solution, and I believe this in my heart, is to work with Congress to form and pass comprehensive legislation to deal with climate change,” said Jackson in a speech at the Aspen Environment Forum last month. “We hope to avert a regulatory thicket where governments and businesses spend an inordinate amount of time fighting. We are not looking for a doomsday solution.”

NRDC’s Doniger casts aside the notion that the Obama administration is using the Clean Air Act threat as a tool to coerce Congress into action, as some have suggested. Instead, he says the agency is simply acting as the current law requires. “From the president on down, people in the White House really are committed to making progress on curbing global-warming pollution,” said Doniger. “They want a new law, but they’re not just going to run in place and do nothing under the existing law. They’re going to carry it out.”

Regulations from the EPA would surely increase the pressure on Congress. Both legislators and various lobbying interests want the opportunity to create a new law, at least in part because they think it stands a better chance of being malleable. Lawmakers could shape it according to their desires (for better or worse), and companies would at least have the opportunity to offer their input on what rules should look like.

Meanwhile, world leaders continue to work toward a new, international climate treaty that they hope to have ready by the end of 2009. The climate talks in Copenhagen in December loom as a target date for the Obama administration to have something—anything, really—to show for themselves in terms of progress on global warming.

In the absence of a climate bill out of Congress, action from the EPA might be the best sign of progress the White House can offer the international community. An endangerment finding and some proposed regulations for cars and power plants would help establish the administration’s negotiating credentials, whether or not the regulations are final at that point, according to Sierra Club’s Bookbinder.

“The president will have done as much as possible in the 10 months between his inauguration and Copenhagen,” said Bookbinder. “I think the rest of the world is smart enough to say, OK, he’s off and running. He’s heading in the right direction, and Congress is going in the right direction. We can do business with this guy.”

Check out more reactions to the EPA’s finding.And where was mention of the California waiver in today’s news?

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 10:48 am
    17 Apr 2009

    I've been watching this one ... looks like motor vehicles are first and then they'll work to industrial sources such as coal-fired electric generation stations to cement kilns ... about time!
    The question I'be always had is how and when you set emission caps for the industrial side.  Preferably, you'd set a cap AFTER the maximum allowable rates (for example in pounds per million BTU) are set in stone. A simple example might help.  Let's say your historical CO2 emissions are a million tons of CO2 a year.  So you'd get an allowance of a million tons, and maybe a future cut of 20 percent.  You can increase efficiency a little here and there no problem.  Now comes an EPA rule that says you can only emit half a million tons by "x" date.  Ugh-oh!  You just "blew the cap."  The old system allows you 800,000 tons and the EPA system allows you 500,000 tons, an overage of 300,000 tons. In this admittedly stupid example, a bunch of people just lost a bunch of money, especially if they were paying for credits and allowables at 5 to 10 dollars a ton.  Millions just on my silly example!  Anybody have a clue how to prevent this?

    Permalink

  2. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 11:52 am
    17 Apr 2009

    Thank the gods.  The beginning of sanity. A lovely milestone.  Go go go...

    Permalink

  3. randino Posted 12:16 pm
    17 Apr 2009

    When it comes to regulation of CO2, this will be seen as an Emancipation Proclamation for the environment. Flawed, limited and not close to enough, but a very, very big step. As far as Obama is concerned, I have just been paid back for all the drudgery of the fall. As far as the rest of us? Keep on pushing!

    Permalink

  4. Scott G Posted 6:57 am
    18 Apr 2009

    Of course comprehensive legislation is what we're really hoping for-- but this can only help, I think. I just hope future legislation caps what needs to be capped in the right place, ie: not at the pollution end. Too messy, and too much like what the above-mentioned Segal has in mind.

    Permalink

  5. firstgrip Posted 9:00 am
    18 Apr 2009

    Every improvement will also has side effects on the other side. Every decision made will have pain on either sides. There is no all round solution.

    Permalink

  6. Blogger92672 Posted 2:25 pm
    18 Apr 2009

    It's about time the EPA took this step, and I say let the law suits begin. The greens have generated hot air for years by asserting that CO2 is a threat to health (give me a break, carbon is the fundamental element in all living organisms) because it is causing the Earth to warm. (Let's forget the fact the Earth stopped warming a decade ago, and today, more and more scientists are jumping from the global-warming-politcial-driven ship.) Well, now, because industries and thereby people are going to be caused economic harm through taxation and regulation, there will be the basis to file lawsuites. And guess what: for the first time, the greens will have to provide proof of carbon-causing-warming in a court of law, and open their experts to cross by other experts. Then, perhaps we can start to have a true debate about this issue, as opposed to only hearing one side in the MSM. Yep, I say: bring it on!

    Permalink

  7. josullivan58 Posted 6:56 pm
    18 Apr 2009

    There will be lawsuits about the endangerment finding, but they are just a delaying tactic.The EPA even under Bush never denied the effects of global warming gases. In the Supreme Court EPA v Mass the EPA said there was global warming and it was harmful but chose not to regulate for reasons not in the Clean Air Act. Science will not be a big issue in litigation.The litigation will focus more on the regulations themselves which will not be made for quite some time.

    Permalink

    1. Blogger92672 Posted 9:35 am
      19 Apr 2009

      To JoSullivan: A couple of points: While the EPA as a whole during Bush did not necessarily deny the effects of global warming gases, there was, and still is, a wide difference of opinion within the EPA – just as there is among physical scientists worldwide – about the issue. And in EPA v. Mass (5-4), the Court was primarily concerned with whether the EPA had the right (and was the right agency) to regulate tailpipe gases that may be the cause of global warming… and went on comment that so-called green-house gases (assuming, of course, they were causing adverse affects) could be viewed as an air pollutant.
      So now, surprise surprise, the EPA (with the new administration calling the shots) has determined just that…. greenhouse gases are a serious problem and should be regulated. Now, the fun begins as Congress starts to debate the issue and the American people can start to see where this is really going: enormous tax increases on energy… and the size of this tax bill will be beyond enormous. Up until now, global climate change has been all talk in this country, but no real action. Once real money is “on the table,” everything changes.
      Sooner or later, the folks are going to want to know if science really has proof that the world is going to end unless we fork over billions (maybe trillions) so the idiots in Washington can try and reduce carbon while spending the money on everything else. And here, with monetary damages being inflicted upon industry and all of us, the Courts will be major battlegrounds (after all, this is America!). The fact is: science does not have proof. If anything, the proof is going the other way now… or perhaps it’s the fact that our sun is at its lowest energy level in a 100 years. (Maybe in five years, we will be congratulating the Chinese on their foresight of building coal plants to increase greenhouse gases to help keep the Earth warm!)
      BTW, whatever happened to the hole in ozone layer that was going to shallow the Earth? Or to SARS? Or to Bird Flu which was shortly going to wipe out half the population of the world? …the list goes on and on. I say, keep politics out of science – it is always a recipe for disaster.

      Permalink

      1. maladapted's avatar

        maladapted Posted 2:53 pm
        19 Apr 2009

        Heh, heh -- you've got stones, posting those tired denier talking points on this venue, I'll give you that.  Deniers llike you give yourselves away though, by demanding "proof" before you're willing to internalize the true cost of your lifestyle.  "I don't want to pay more for anything, so AGW can't be true!"   Unfortunately, you and your fellow deniers will probably succeed in postponing any meaningful abatement efforts until Miami is underwater.   Human nature just isn't up to this challenge, and you're a perfect example. 

        Permalink

      2. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

        Christopher S. Johnson Posted 3:25 pm
        19 Apr 2009

        Blogger 92672 you can start with these very mainstream reliable sources and then come back for a grown-up conversation, NASA:  http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes    “Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human  expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps  heat radiating from Earth toward space.”   NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)  http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm    “Climate research conducted over the past several years indicates that most of the  global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed  increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.”     AGU (American Geophysical Union)  http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml    “The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of  the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the  extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation,  and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not  natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of  greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”      And on, and on, and on.  Universities, Global Panels, Space Programs,  Government science programs, and privately funded institutions – over, and  over, and over again, explain this situation to the public.    Literally thousands of reputable warnings.  

        Permalink

  8. Blogger92672 Posted 6:16 pm
    19 Apr 2009

    Imagine that, demanding proof of something before presenting people with policies that will cost billions upon billions of dollars. So yes, call me whatever name you like... denier, skeptic, or whatever. Of course, I am in very good company – I could give you the names of at least 700 other deniers – let’s call them “dissenting scientists –leading scientists from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, Princeton University, MIT, University of Colorado, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA and so on. Every year, as the evidence against man-made global warming mounts, or as the earth cools even as CO2 levels continue to rise, the list grows. Buy hey, why bother... the greens live in an echo chamber that has more to do with politics than science.My problem is not climate change – the Earth has always been in periods of warming and cooling, and we are not going to change that, no matter what we do. My issue is when science becomes politicized, and then public policy demands money and actions to carry out its mission of affecting outcomes for its own purposes... and the science gets left beyond. Is not human history is littered with this?But on a positive note: we received some very good news recently: The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report issued a report at last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington that noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades…. [and that] sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.” Wow! The ice sheets in Antarctica have actually been growing in aggregate (even as CO2 levels are been increasing!) In other words, Miami is going to be safe! This is good news... right?

    Permalink

    1. maladapted's avatar

      maladapted Posted 4:47 pm
      20 Apr 2009

      "I don't want to pay more for anything, so I'll believe anyone who tells me I don't have to, and ignore anyone who says I do."

      Permalink

      1. Blogger92672 Posted 5:25 pm
        20 Apr 2009

        Maladapted, good to hear from you. Listen, if you generally followed that advice, you would be right about 80% of the time, and have more money in the bank. And if you followed that advise when listening to US politicans, you would be right 99.99% of the time, maybe 100%. However, if you are inclined to listen to any advice from the United Nations, and then open your checkbook.... well, I have a great Baja condo deal for you!

        Permalink

    2. maladapted's avatar

      maladapted Posted 7:27 pm
      20 Apr 2009

      "Miami is going to be safe!"If you believe that, I've got a great deal on some Miami oceanfront property for you.  A sound long-term investment!  I wonder how many of those 700 "dissenting scientists" are buying oceanfront property? 

      Permalink

  9. josullivan58 Posted 5:40 pm
    20 Apr 2009

    I really shouldn't feed a certain type of commenter, but here goes."The ice sheets in Antarctica have been actually been growing in aggregate (even as CO2 levels are been increasing!) In other words, Miami is going to be safe! This is good... right?"No, you are confused. Sea ice is already floating and so doesn't alter sea levels when it melts or freezes. Terrestrial ice is what counts. The cited text from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research refers to sea ice not terrestrial.

    Permalink

  10. Blogger92672 Posted 8:40 pm
    20 Apr 2009

    Nope, not confused. You're right, the report does refer to sea ice. But so do all the drastic predictions concerning shrinking and breaking sea ice in the western Antarctic, a fact which the MSM fails to mention. On balance, sea ice is growing in the Antarctic and this is good news because sea ice holds glaciers in place, which is terrestrial ice. But this begs the far bigger question: why is ice growing in Antarctica at all (with rising CO2), and why is the Attic experiencing re-icing recently? Why has the Earth been cooling for a decade, and is forecast by many scientists to continue this to do maybe one or two more decades?! Climate is so complex, subject to so many variables - solar changes, atmospheric dust, shifting wind and ocean patterns, volcanic activity... and on and on. The science is far from settled, and we have so much to learn. CO2 is only a very small component in the equation, and its contribution to global change is still very uncertain. How this become a political issue is behind me, and how we can expect to affect climate outcomes by regulating carbon and throwing billions of dollars we don't have at this is nonsense.But more good news! If you know someone looking to dump oceanfront property somewhere because they are building an Ark and getting ready for sea levels to unindate us, I have buyers!Hey, we have to have a sense of humor right... and it is okay to have differences of opinion, at least I think so!

    Permalink

    1. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

      Christopher S. Johnson Posted 4:20 pm
      21 Apr 2009

      Blogger you are incorrect again. The concerns with the West side is about land based ice (the stuff that would affect Miami). And your right that there are concerns about the sea ice holding it in place. In this case, in the West, there is significant melting, unlike central and Eastern areas.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6041360.eceThere are different things happening in different areas. The continent is too big and too cold.And discussing only Antarctica to validate or invalidate global warming claims is slight of hand joke.Besides, isnt this the OLD path of a saboteur?  I thought you guys were on the "yeah its happening but its not from us" line.Are you from a time machine?

      Permalink

  11. Avelhingst Posted 7:39 am
    21 Apr 2009

    What a lovely discourse!Anyrate: Regulation of CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel sources is, in my humble opinion, far far far overdue.  However, the EPA is NOT the agency for the job, despite the fact that anthropogenic global climate change will cause harm to many persons and nations (and IS causing harm as I type).The real solution for all nations is to penalize the use of fossil carbon to generate CO2, period.  I fear that the EPA will only penalize the production of CO2 gas without any consideration of source... let us say that hypothetically, instead of making the diesel in a tractor's tank more expensive and making it more cost effectove for farmers to institute diesel-saving alternatives of many different types, the EPA could regulate such things as plowing, or cultivating, or fertilizing fields (since plowing incorporates organic matter and oxygen in the soil, increasing respiration [CO2], or cultivation, which could do the same, or fertilizing, as increases in metabolism in the soil also leads to respiration), or for gods' sakes, fining owners of livestock such as sheep, goats, pigs, cattle, and horses because they MIGHT FART for chrissakes...The solution that this nation needs must be crafted in the legislature, not through a punitive regulatory agency, but it must come soon.  Perhaps the threat of EPA regulation will get even the most obstinate senators and representatives off of their fat, cushy asses and down to the floor to do some real honest lawmaking.

    Permalink

  12. josullivan58 Posted 3:11 pm
    21 Apr 2009

    "But this begs the far bigger question: why is ice growing in Antarctica at all (with rising CO2)," See http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html

    Permalink

  13. Blogger92672 Posted 4:57 pm
    21 Apr 2009

    C Johnson: I was only using Antarctica as an example because this story was in the news the other day. And JoSullivan: great article you referenced.... among other things, it debunks some of my comments, but may support my bigger point: climate change is so complex, we still have much to learn. In this case, the ozone hole and winds play a major role.You may find this hard to believe, but I am very active in environmental causes -- as an active member of the Surfrider Foundation (an environmental group based in my home town), we fight development along the coast. While we usually lose most battles - geez, take a look at Southern Cal these days -- we recently won a major victory in stopping a tollroad that would have destroyed one of our most valuable surfing beaches -- Trestles. As a surfer year round, I can tell you that our waters have cooled a lot in recent years. (I don't care how scientists may measure it, it is COLD these days.) When I was younger, I can remember much warmer water, especially in summer when hurricanes would come farther north. Not in recent times.... it is as if our beaches have swifted about 200 miles north Again, my point is, climate and micro-climates are complex, and always amazing. I believe environmental causes, some more narrow than others, are all being overshadowed by the politics of carbon. And, if it turns out the warming theory is bust in the next 5 years, a lot of credibility will be gone.Peace! ....and let's pray the weather gods will send a major swell from the Southern Ocean our way this summer!  

    Permalink

  14. josullivan58 Posted 6:44 am
    22 Apr 2009

    For an interesting viewpoint from a conservative law professor read Adler's post on the Volokh Conspiracy. Its a level-headed examination of the issue.
    EPA Issues Endangerment and Contribution Findings
    http://volokh.com/posts/1240072108.shtml#contact

    Permalink

  15. Storm Dragon Posted 6:05 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    Blogger92672's comment about colder water off the Southern California coast in recent years arouses my interest.  I live on California's central coast myself, and my observations agree, to a certain extent, with Blogger's.   During the last couple of years, the Eastern Pacific hurricanes have not come very far north, and there has been little "tropical weather", (hot, humid, summer weather with clouds moving up from the south, and occasional thundershowers).  As weird and counter-intuitive as it may seem, I can imagine how melting ice at the North Pole could contribute to the colder ocean off California by dumping more cold water into the California Current, and, at least in the short term, cooling the California coast.  What do the rest of you think?  Is this a credible scenario, or a completely wacky idea?Some people consider the term "global climate change"  to be rather weak and wimpy when compared to "global warming"  Personally, I consider it to be more accurate and descriptive.

    Permalink

  16. Avelhingst Posted 2:29 pm
    28 Apr 2009

    During the last couple of years we on the Pacific Rim have been experiencing a La Nina event, marked by pronounced cooling in - you guessed it - the Eastern Pacific. The California Current's coolness comes mostly, as you may know, from coastal upwelling driven by the effect the prevailing tradewinds have on the surface of the ocean... so, perhaps stronger winds - the method by which the globe distributes heat - could also be drawing more and more cold water up from the deep. 

    Permalink

  17. Blogger92672 Posted 5:51 pm
    28 Apr 2009

    I have always loved the "elephant in the room" idiom, and this whole man-causing-climate-change-war-on-carbon-let's-tax-it crusade has a big one: the simple fact our sun is in a major cooling trend. Recent quotes: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees forecaster David Hathaway of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.So why does everything feel colder? So why have temps been dropping for decade? Well, maybe, just maybe, it's because our sun, which is the source of ALL warming on Earth, is cooling at a rate that is starting to alarm scientists. In fact, if you really want to get depressed, read what leading Russian scientists (and others) are saying about the coming Age Ice. Yes, it's just a theory, but unlike man-causing-global warming, one can actually offer proof the sun is in decline, the fact it warms the Earth and temps have been dropping. Thus, right at the time our pin-headed politicians get around to debating how much to tax carbon and when, the sun decides to turn off the lights (so to speak).Gee, if temps were to keep dropping, do you think the pols would ever be able to eliminate a new major tax once it starts? No way. When it comes to climate change, we still have so much to study. I say, keep politics out of it, and let the scientists be free to find the facts.  

    Permalink

    1. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

      Christopher S. Johnson Posted 11:44 pm
      28 Apr 2009

       Blogger said, "I say, keep politics out of it, and let the scientists be free to find the facts." We have, and they said this: NASA:  http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes    “Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human  expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps  heat radiating from Earth toward space.”    NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) : http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm    “Climate research conducted over the past several years indicates that most of the  global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed  increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.”      AGU (American Geophysical Union) : http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml    “The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of  the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the  extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation,  and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not  natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of  greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”     And finally, on your "decade of cooling" stuff that is soooo tired (do you know where you are?):  Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin   
       

      Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement