Judge requires feds to submit climate research plan, impact assessment

My My, Is It 2007 Already?

The Bushies are big stinkin' lawbreakers, a federal judge ruled this week. A 1990 federal law requires the U.S. government to provide a scientific report every four years on climate change and its effects on the environment, the economy, and public health, but the Bush administration chose to ignore its 2004 deadline for such a report. Green groups sued, and U.S. District Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled in favor of timeliness, demanding the required impact assessment by May 31, 2008. The laggardly administration also owes a plan to guide federal climate research, which is due every three years and hasn't been submitted since 2003; Armstrong asked that it be submitted by March 1, 2008. To the Bushies' argument that they determined "only recently that the initiation of a process to revise the research plan has become necessary and advisable," Armstrong responded, "News flash: you're not above the law." In legalese, of course.

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko, 22 Aug 2007

straight to the source: USA Today, Associated Press, 22 Aug 2007

straight to the source: Bloomberg News, Karen Gullo, 21 Aug 2007

straight to the source: ABC News, Clayton Sandell, 21 Aug 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (2 comments)

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

Climate Change and the other environmental issues

"...pollution, biodiversity loss, waste, resource use, and habitat protection used to be the focus for enviros, but they're less visible of late. Some argue that these challenges can all be addressed under the umbrella of climate change, as it's a huge topic that touches just about everything else."

Commenting on the above, I think most of us understand we are in a web where, indeed, everything is connected. However, connecting climate change to over-population (both crucial environmental issues) probably doesn't begin to get us moving on funds for internal and international health and family planning funding. Connecting mountain top removal for coal to global climate change may not get us to write Congress to stop that practice.

In spite of that, I believe everyone working on environmental issues should be aware of the whole picture, even while focusing on his/her own particular cause.

Global climate change has gotten the attention of the country and the world as no other environmental issue has. I doubt the insurance companies have been so aware in their entire history! So, let's continue on all fronts and keep the dots connected.

"If a woman is socialized to believe in her own oppression, that would not meet the condition of freedom." Ayaan Hershi Ali

by Katarina at 7:57 AM on 28 Aug 2007

climate change and U.S. law

For those who are interested, the American Bar Association (ABA) has just published "Global Climate Change and U.S. Law," a 784-page multi-author book edited by Michael B. Gerrard. The book sells for $59.95 (minus a discount for ABA members). It will be updated by a web site.

After a summary of the factual and scientific background, the book begins by addressing the international and national frameworks of climate change law, including clean air regulation, civil remedies and the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on many domestic actions. The book then describes emerging regional, state and local actions, and includes a 50-state survey. Next is coverage of issues of concern to corporations, including disclosure, fiduciary duties, insurance, and subsidies. The book ends with an examination of the legal aspects of various efforts to reduce emissions, including voluntary programs, emissions trading programs and carbon sequestration.

More details and ordering information can be found at this site:

http://www.abanet.org/abastore/index.cfm?section=main& ...

by cullenhowe at 7:38 AM on 29 Aug 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?