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.
Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation
Comments
View as Threaded
josullivan58 Posted 9:13 am
07 Jan 2008
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
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
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
* By 2020, California is committed to implement revised, more stringent GHG emission limits (the Pavley Phase 2 rules). These increase the stringency of the current rules and would reduce California GHG emissions by 33 MMTs [million metric tons] of carbon dioxide, 74 percent more than the 19 MMTs from the federal rules in 2020.
...
* The cumulative benefits of our standards have also been estimated (See Figure ES-1). Between 2009 and 2016, the California standards will prevent emissions of 58 MMTs of CO2. This is almost three times the 20 MMTs expected if only the new federal CAFE standards were implemented. By 2020, the full California rules would prevent 167 MMT of CO2 emissions, more than twice the 76 MMTs reductions of CO2 expected if only the federal standards were implemented.
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 4:13 am
08 Jan 2008
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
Facts Are Stupid Things
CARB found that in California, the state's standards reduce global warming pollution more than twice as much as the federal standards in 2016. Looking at cumulative reductions from 2009 through 2016, California's standards cut heat-trapping gases three times as much as the federal standards. ...
Well, let's go back to EPA administrator Johnson's fuzzy math.
Slips of the tongue happen (even in a written letter). But even after being called on his mistakes, Johnson didn't take the opportunity to correct himself. Instead, Johnson had his spokesman repeat his bogus 2020-vs.-2016, 35-vs.-33.8 comparison when the state and environmental coalition took him to court on January 2nd.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink