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?

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.

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?

"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.

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?

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!

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.

See http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6041360.ece

There 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?

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!  

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.

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.

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.

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