The primary reason EPA head Stephen Johnson rejected California's waiver request is that the state did not face "extraordinary and compelling conditions" as defined under the Clean Air Act. The idea is that CO2 affects the entire atmosphere equally, so California didn't face any particular dangers from it.
Turns out, not only is that shoddy legal reasoning, it's straightforwardly false, at least if a new study out of Stanford holds up. Forthcoming in Geophysical Research Letters, research by engineering professor Mark Jacobson finds a direct causal link between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increased morbidity from air pollution.
In other words: CO2 makes traditional air pollution -- ozone, particulates, carcinogens -- more deadly. It follows that states with the worst air pollution have more to fear from climate change.
As it happens, California faces particularly bad air pollution problems. In fact, that's the whole reason there's a provision in the CAA allowing waivers for California.
California's latest request for a waiver is perfectly, almost paradigmatically, in line with the requirements of the act. Seems Johnson has no case.
Poverty near the “high hazard” coal ash sites
EPA affirms California’s right to set tougher automobile emissions standards
Comments View as Flat
josullivan58 Posted 9:13 am
07 Jan 2008
The Bush administration's EPA won't win but,
can delay the final decision until 2009 and so not have to grant the waiver on their watch.
The Bush administration has always been vehemently opposed to environmental regulation. If they can't stop the waiver they will delay it until 2009. This way they can spin it as a victory for Bush.
Bush and Co. did just this with listing polar bears as endangered species. So much for this year's greener president. The NRDC has a post up about it, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/awetzler/justice_delaye ...
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:37 am
07 Jan 2008
Heat?
One of the biggest killers in the world is simply heat, as in a heat wave over 100 degrees: it kills off the elderly. This makes me wonder a little, but let's go on.
The premis is the CO2 causes warming as en effect, which in turn causes other pollutants to have a higher production rate, which in turn is a cause for higher incidence or mortality and morbidity. OK.
But heat doesn't form ozone, UV does. Increased heat actually lowers the amount of available gaseous water in the atmosphere although it increases precipitable water, which tends to wash out pollutants when it rains. I would love to see the original report because some of this sounds funky to me. Sometimes second-hand information leaves much to be expected ...
Onward through the fog
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 3:37 pm
07 Jan 2008
See the original report
There's a link on the page mentioned.
Also, see Jacobson's website, which has a lot of high-quality material, including that earlier study on ethanol E85 versus gas.
-John Mashey
Permalink
meander Posted 2:35 am
08 Jan 2008
And another new study showing EPA is wrong
In response to the EPA's denial of waiver (which I see as purely a stalling tactic), the California Air Resources Board (the state agency with the mandate to implement the climate change legislation that the EPA is blocking) did some calculations comparing the California plan with the national fuel economy standards in the federal energy bill (PDF). California's plan leads to significantly more reductions of CO2 equivalents:
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 4:13 am
08 Jan 2008
And here is another
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/draft/ES.pdf
This is from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. It highlights increased cancer risks related to traffic to and from the ports in San Pedro, Long Beach.
Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 4:55 am
08 Jan 2008
More from NRDC
At NRDC's Switchboard Blog, there's a funny post about CARB's study:
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink