Environmental Law Prof Blog

Wishful Thinking About Oil Bubble

Good reading: Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times poked a hole in the wishful thinking that the increase in oil prices over the last 5 years from $25/barrel to $125/barrel is just a speculator induced bubble.  NY Times link  The reality is that oil prices are rising and will continue to rise, especially as we start to seriously tackle the global warming problem.   It is appalling that McCain and Clinton would support a gas tax holiday to insulate Americans, who generally consume twice as much oil as similarly developed countries, from the consequences of their oil gluttony.

CO2 Levels Rising Faster than Expected

NOAA data indicates that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has reached new heights.  NOAA greenhouse gas index link  CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest levels experienced during the last 650,000 years.  The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was over 2.1 ppm.  In the 1960s, the growth rate was less than 1 ppm.  By the 1980s, the growth rate had increased to 1.5 ppm.  But since 2000 the annual rise has increased to an average 2.1ppm. This increasing rate of growth in CO2 concentration may indicate that forests and oceans are no longer effectively absorbing CO2 -- this suggests continuing CO2 emissions will have a greater impact on mean global temperature than predicted by existing climate models – requiring deeper cuts in emissions than those recommended by the IPCC to prevent dangerous levels of global warming.

 

Agricultural Law Blog Post on Renewable Fuel Standard

On Tuesday, Josh Fershee posted a critique of the US renewable fuel standard (RFS), which mandated expanded use of biofuels, including ethanol.  Agricultural Law post  He criticized the RFS on the grounds that cellulosic fuels are more green, and the RFS acan be met with ethanol from corn and other non-cellulosic sources.  In addition, Fershee noted that the studies indicating that fuel crops were greener than gasoline did not consider whether the fuel crops would replace rangelands or forest lands already sequestering carbon.  He opines:

A better ethanol policy would include requirements and incentives linked to new or emerging technologies that don’t create new competition for other already viable (e.g., corn) crops with established markets or lead to cleared tropical forests or savannas. Policies should instead promote only ethanol derived from growing high-diversity prairie hay grown on degraded lands, for instance, or from corn cobs.

I agree, but I would go further.  The policy should restrict ethanol to cellulosic fuels that are not produced on lands converted from food crops.

Another Denialist Hypothesis Shot Down: Global Warming is Not Caused by Sun Activity

A recent study by Sloan and Wolfendale examined the hypothesis of Svensmark that increased cosmic rays from sun activity were reducing cloud cover and thus causing global warming.  The Sloan and Wolfendale paper concluded that, when both high level and low level cloud cover are considered, there is no correlation between sun activity and cloud cover.  Sloan and Wolfendale paper

Bread

I went to purchase some bread for a student potluck last night.  The store's bakery had posted apologies about the price of bread, citing the rise in wholesale wheat prices.  I knew  prices were going up -- to be expected when the falling value of the dollar encourages exports, I thought.  But I was shocked to pay almost $ 4 for a loaf of bread.  So I began to wonder -- why?  Is the effect of biofuels showing up already in food prices?  What's happening?

Here's what I found in my brief review on how much bread I paid for bread.  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Food Price Index during the last month is about 50% higher for all foods than a year ago -- led in large part by even greater increases in meat and grain prices, including rice, corn and wheat, "supported by a persistent, tight supply and demand situation''    Bloomberg report   Unlike crude oil, wheat prices have not yet hit inflation-adjusted highs -- that honor is left for the period of Soviet Union's desperate wheat purchases during the 1970s. But they have increased 50% in the last 6 months. 

The NY Times reported that the world’s wheat stockpiles have fallen to their lowest level in 30 years, and stocks in the United States have dropped to levels unseen since 1948. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that world wheat production will rise this year to nearly 664 million tons, from about 655 million tons — not enough to replenish stocks and push down prices. In December, the organization noted that high international grain prices were causing food shortages, hoarding and even riots in some places.  The NYT reports:

The United States Department of Agriculture’s 10-year forecast, released Tuesday, sees the wheat shortage as temporary. Stockpiles were predicted to fall this year to 312 million bushels, from 456 million bushels, before rebounding to about 700 million bushels by the end of the decade.Higher prices “will encourage additional acreage and production,” the report said. Wheat plantings will rise to 65 million acres in the 2008-9 season, from 60.4 million this year, the Agriculture Department said, though it predicted the number would then fall because of competition from other crops. NYTimes story

So, we can expect a year or so of relief from these prices.  And then?  "Competition from other crops" -- does that mean biofuels?  I'm still looking for an answer, so stay tuned.

Mashey on the Campaign to Deny Anthropogenic Global Warming

Here's an updated copy of John Mashey's informal paper on the denialist campaign.  Mashey on the Monckton, Schulte and Oreskes

Is There a Silver Lining for the Environment in the Economic Slowdown? -- Katrina Kuh

Weathering the storm of bad economic news over the past few months has been trying.  I've found myself quickly reaching for the tuner nob at the first mention of "marketplace report" or anything akin thereto to avoid the latest in the unrelenting stream of dire economic updates.  Throughout, I have tried to comfort myself by imagining that a recession would carry with it a silver lining -- a reduction in GHG emissions.  Experience suggests that a sure route to dramatic GHG reductions is economic downturn (see the former U.S.S.R.) and, conversely, that explosive economic growth frequently spikes GHG emissions (see China).  Indeed, the fact that the Bush Adminstration climate change strategy, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214.html, focuses on reducing "greenhouse gas intensity" (the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output) as opposed to overall GHG emissions seems driven by a recognition of the close connection between economic output and GHG emissions.    

Ultimately, however, I haven't found much comfort in the idea that a recession could reduce domestic GHG emissions.  I suspect that this is so because in my heart of hearts I think that any short-term reduction in GHG emissions caused by a recession would likely be outweighed by the increased GHG emissions that will result if a recession derails the adoption of meaningful domestic GHG-reduction measures. 

A recession would likely pose at least two problems for the adoption of a meaningful domestic program to reduce GHG emissions.  First, a recession makes it less likely that a federal measure requiring deep GHG reductions will be enacted.  In the past week, both EPA, see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html, and the American Council for Capital Formation, see http://www.accf.org/nam.html, have released analyses of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill that forecast that the bill will have negative eonomic impacts.  Putting aside arguments that these analyses overstate costs and undercount benefits, opponents of federal climate change legislation are going to have a receptive audient to their claims about the devastating economic impacts of climate change legislation in the context of a recession.  During a recession, these opponents don't have to win on their argument that climate change legislation will hurt the economy doesn't have to prevail -- all they need to do is sow a seed of doubt.  Second, even assuming that votes could be found to pass a perceived-to-be-costly GHG-reduction measure against the backdrop of recession, I fear that concerns about the economy would result in a very weak measure.  Finally, a recession could also play havoc with the baseline caps that have already been incorporated into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Lieberman-Warner bill because any cap calculated prior to a recession will be bloated with "hot air" during a recession.  And a recession could imperil the flow of financial support to renewable energy research and development. 

So for now I'm left looking for a silver lining to the bad economic news.  If you think of anything, let me know.

The Games EPA Plays

Regwatch reported on Friday that EPA is delaying greenhouse gas emission regulations by publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking:

As Reg•Watch recently reported, EPA staff had drafted preliminary documents describing the dangers associated with greenhouse gas emissions. This so-called endangerment finding would set in motion a series of regulatory actions.  Staff also drafted a regulatory proposal that called for limits on vehicle emissions. In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, Rep. Henry Waxman☼ (D-CA) wrote, "According to EPA staff, the proposal to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles was 'about 300 pages;' and had 'extensive analysis about ... the costs and benefits.' " According to Waxman, Johnson was "personally involved in the decision making." He signed off on the document finding greenhouse gas emissions endanger public welfare and endorsed his staff's proposal for a reduction in vehicle emissions.  Yesterday, Johnson announced his intent to publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which will do nothing more than gather comments on the issue of greenhouse gas regulation. Critics are calling the move a stall tactic. Indeed, it appears as though the White House pressured EPA to abandon its draft regulation, despite the diligent efforts of EPA staff. Instead, the Advanced Notice will provide all interested parties an opportunity to rehash arguments which are already well-documented and which EPA fully understands.

Given EPA's track record, the ANPR means that EPA will finalize regulations somewhere between 5-7 years and never, if simply allowed to play its standard games.  Of course, these are not standard games -- but apparently White House inspired games.  And White House involvement gave rise to Waxman's oversight hearing and the lawsuit filed by states and NGOs to require EPA action to comply with Massachusetts v. EPA. 

So, inquiring minds want to know, does a ANPR satisfy the requirement for EPA to act.  Who knows?  Only time (and the Supreme Court) would tell.  However, we'll never know because Congress and a new White House will act long before the courts have a chance to tell us.  Without a doubt Congress in national GHG legislation will attempt to avoid application of the rest of the Clean Air Act to GHGs such as carbon dioxide.  It will be a bit of a delicate exercise though because many other GHGs are already regulated under 112 as hazardous air pollutants or under Title VI as ozone-depleting substances.

The provisions regarding CAA applicability and preemption of state and local law will prove to be some of the most interesting and intricate legal issues in tailoring the GHG emissions cap-and-trade legislation.  This is one reason why some straight-forward command & control regulations might make sense.  For example, ban operation of any new fossil-fuel burning electric generating plant without carbon capture and sequestration or equally effective carbon removal.  That avoids any problem with NSR, NSPS, or MACT.  Then, apply a cap and trade system to accomplish the equivalent of the lead phasedown for existing plants.

Schneider Visit to Willamette Almost Live

Streaming video of Dr. Steve Schneider, former IPCC chair and co-recipient of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, visit to Willamette earlier this month is available now. Repaired: video link!   Schneider is an extremely humorous and pragmatic guy -- who definitely believes that we've waited far too long to make meaningful efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Huh?: The Bush Administration Response to Massachusetts v. EPA and the Rule of Law

It is quite fashionable for American politicians and pundits to suggest that somehow the United States has a unique role in spreading the rule of law throughout the world.  The response of the Bush administration to the Supreme Court's decision certainly calls into question the United States' qualifications as an epitome of diligent observance of the rule of law.  Almost one year ago, the Supreme Court held that EPA's denial of the petition was arbitrary and capricious and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  It concluded, as it always does, "It is so ordered."   EPA dutifully prepared an "endangerment" finding on the petition and forwarded it for White House review.  The White House is simply sitting on the finding, now suggesting that somehow the new CAFE rules excuse it from complying with the Court's mandate.  And now EPA has been forced to dodge and weave in oversight hearings on the Hill and decline to provide documents to Congress concerning its response.  Even if one does not regard the Bush administration's current attempt to avoid the clear import of the Supreme Court's decision as blatantly illegal or unconstitutional, the interplay between EPA, the White House, and Congress in the past year in response to the Supreme Court should be required reading for any student of law or government.

If you're interested in raising the issue, you might start with:
Massachusetts v. EPA decision  (the most relevant excerpt is posted below)
House Oversight Committee's letter to EPA's Administrator Steve Johnson
Hearing held by House Select Committee on Global Warming

EPA has refused to provide the documents that would establish the role of the White House and EPA's political management in drafting the endangerment finding required to comply with the Supreme Court's decision. e-NewsUSA Report on EPA Refusal 

Other excellent substantive blog postings include:
Center for American Progress - Robert Sussman
Hill Heat
Warming Law

J

 

Pertinent portions of Massachusetts v. EPA
April 2, 2007

...
The scope of our review of the merits of the statutory
issues is narrow. As we have repeated time and again, an
agency has broad discretion to choose how best to marshal
its limited resources and personnel to carry out its delegated
responsibilities. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842–845
(1984). That discretion is at its height when the agency
decides not to bring an enforcement action. Therefore, in
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821 (1985), we held that an
agency’s refusal to initiate enforcement proceedings is not
ordinarily subject to judicial review. Some debate remains,
however, as to the rigor with which we review an
agency’s denial of a petition for rulemaking.
There are key differences between a denial of a petition
for rulemaking and an agency’s decision not to initiate an
enforcement action. See American Horse Protection Assn.,
Inc. v. Lyng, 812 F. 2d 1, 3–4 (CADC 1987). In contrast to
nonenforcement decisions, agency refusals to initiate
rulemaking “are less frequent, more apt to involve legal as
opposed to factual analysis, and subject to special formali-
————ties, including a public explanation.” Id., at 4; see also 5
U. S. C. §555(e). They moreover arise out of denials of
petitions for rulemaking which (at least in the circumstances
here) the affected party had an undoubted procedural
right to file in the first instance. Refusals to promulgate
rules are thus susceptible to judicial review, though
such review is “extremely limited” and “highly deferential.
” National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Assn of
America, Inc. v. United States, 883 F. 2d 93, 96 (CADC
1989).
EPA concluded in its denial of the petition for rulemaking
that it lacked authority under 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1)
to regulate new vehicle emissions because carbon dioxide
is not an “air pollutant” as that term is defined in §7602.
In the alternative, it concluded that even if it possessed
authority, it would decline to do so because regulation
would conflict with other administration priorities. As
discussed earlier, the Clean Air Act expressly permits
review of such an action. §7607(b)(1). We therefore “may
reverse any such action found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law.” §7607(d)(9).
VI
On the merits, the first question is whether §202(a)(1) of
the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it
forms a “judgment” that such emissions contribute to
climate change. We have little trouble concluding that it
does. In relevant part, §202(a)(1) provides that EPA “shall
by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the
emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of
new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in
[the Administrator’s] judgment cause, or contribute to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1).

Because EPA believes that Congress did not intend it to
regulate substances that contribute to climate change, the
agency maintains that carbon dioxide is not an “air pollutant
” within the meaning of the provision.
The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean
Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes
“any air pollution agent or combination of such agents,
including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter
which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient
air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the
definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever
stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated
use of the word “any.”25 Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical
[and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted
into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.26
Rather than relying on statutory text, EPA invokes
——————postenactment congressional actions and deliberations it
views as tantamount to a congressional command to refrain
from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Even if
such postenactment legislative history could shed light on
the meaning of an otherwise-unambiguous statute, EPA
never identifies any action remotely suggesting that Congress
meant to curtail its power to treat greenhouse gases
as air pollutants. That subsequent Congresses have eschewed
enacting binding emissions limitations to combat
global warming tells us nothing about what Congress
meant when it amended §202(a)(1) in 1970 and 1977.27
And unlike EPA, we have no difficulty reconciling Congress
’ various efforts to promote interagency collaboration
and research to better understand climate change28 with
the agency’s pre-existing mandate to regulate “any air
pollutant” that may endanger the public welfare. See 42
U. S. C. §7601(a)(1). Collaboration and research do not
——————conflict with any thoughtful regulatory effort; they complement
it.29
EPA’s reliance on Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
529 U. S. 120, is similarly misplaced. In holding that
tobacco products are not “drugs” or “devices” subject to
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation pursuant
to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), see 529 U. S.,
at 133, we found critical at least two considerations that
have no counterpart in this case.
First, we thought it unlikely that Congress meant to ban
tobacco products, which the FDCA would have required
had such products been classified as “drugs” or “devices.”
Id., at 135–137. Here, in contrast, EPA jurisdiction would
lead to no such extreme measures. EPA would only regulate
emissions, and even then, it would have to delay any
action “to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to
the cost of compliance,” §7521(a)(2). However much a ban
on tobacco products clashed with the “common sense”
intuition that Congress never meant to remove those
products from circulation, Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S.,
at 133, there is nothing counterintuitive to the notion that
EPA can curtail the emission of substances that are putting
the global climate out of kilter.
Second, in Brown & Williamson we pointed to an unbroken
series of congressional enactments that made sense
only if adopted “against the backdrop of the FDA’s consistent
and repeated statements that it lacked authority under
the FDCA to regulate tobacco.” Id., at 144. We can point to
no such enactments here: EPA has not identified any congressional
action that conflicts in any way with the regula-
—tion of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles. Even if
it had, Congress could not have acted against a regulatory
“backdrop” of disclaimers of regulatory authority. Prior to
the order that provoked this litigation, EPA had never
disavowed the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and
in 1998 it in fact affirmed that it had such authority. See
App. 54 (Cannon memorandum). There is no reason, much
less a compelling reason, to accept EPA’s invitation to read
ambiguity into a clear statute.
EPA finally argues that it cannot regulate carbon dioxide
emissions from motor vehicles because doing so would
require it to tighten mileage standards, a job (according to
EPA) that Congress has assigned to DOT. See 68 Fed.
Reg. 52929. But that DOT sets mileage standards in no
way licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities.
EPA has been charged with protecting the public’s
“health” and “welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1), a statutory
obligation wholly independent of DOT’s mandate to promote
energy efficiency. See Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, §2(5), 89 Stat. 874, 42 U. S. C. §6201(5). The two
obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think
the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations
and yet avoid inconsistency.
While the Congresses that drafted §202(a)(1) might not
have appreciated the possibility that burning fossil fuels
could lead to global warming, they did understand that
without regulatory flexibility, changing circumstances and
scientific developments would soon render the Clean Air
Act obsolete. The broad language of §202(a)(1) reflects an
intentional effort to confer the flexibility necessary to
forestall such obsolescence. See Pennsylvania Dept. of
Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U. S. 206, 212 (1998) (“[T]he
fact that a statute can be applied in situations not expressly
anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate
ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth” (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Because greenhouse gases fit well within
the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,”
we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate
the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles.
VII
The alternative basis for EPA’s decision—that even if it
does have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse
gases, it would be unwise to do so at this time—rests on
reasoning divorced from the statutory text. While the
statute does condition the exercise of EPA’s authority on
its formation of a “judgment,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1), that
judgment must relate to whether an air pollutant
“cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare,” ibid. Put another way, the use of the word “judgment
” is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text.
It is but a direction to exercise discretion within defined
statutory limits.
If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air
Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious
pollutant from new motor vehicles. Ibid. (stating
that “[EPA] shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards
applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any
class of new motor vehicles”). EPA no doubt has significant
latitude as to the manner, timing, content, and coordination
of its regulations with those of other agencies.
But once EPA has responded to a petition for rulemaking,
its reasons for action or inaction must conform to the
authorizing statute. Under the clear terms of the Clean
Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it
determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to
climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation
as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion
to determine whether they do. Ibid. To the extent that
this constrains agency discretion to pursue other priorities
of the Administrator or the President, this is the congressional
design.
EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory
command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons
not to regulate. For example, EPA said that a number of
voluntary executive branch programs already provide an
effective response to the threat of global warming, 68 Fed.
Reg. 52932, that regulating greenhouse gases might impair
the President’s ability to negotiate with “key developing
nations” to reduce emissions, id., at 52931, and that
curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect “an inefficient,
piecemeal approach to address the climate change
issue,” ibid.
Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority
to evaluate these policy judgments, it is evident they
have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions
contribute to climate change. Still less do they
amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a
scientific judgment. In particular, while the President has
broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not
extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws. In the
Global Climate Protection Act of 1987, Congress authorized
the State Department—not EPA—to formulate United
States foreign policy with reference to environmental matters
relating to climate. See §1103(c), 101 Stat. 1409. EPA
has made no showing that it issued the ruling in question
here after consultation with the State Department. Congress
did direct EPA to consult with other agencies in the
formulation of its policies and rules, but the State Department
is absent from that list. §1103(b).
Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the
uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change
and concluding that it would therefore be better not to
regulate at this time. See 68 Fed. Reg. 52930–52931. If the
scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA
from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse
gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say
so. That EPA would prefer not to regulate greenhouse
gases because of some residual uncertainty— which, contrary
to JUSTICE SCALIA’s apparent belief, post, at 5–8, is
in fact all that it said, see 68 Fed. Reg. 52929 (“We do not
believe . . . that it would be either effective or appropriate
for EPA to establish [greenhouse gas] standards for motor
vehicles at this time” (emphasis added))—is irrelevant.
The statutory question is whether sufficient information
exists to make an endangerment finding.
In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for
its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or
contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore
“arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance
with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do
not reach the question whether on remand EPA must
make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns
can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes
such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844
(1984). We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons
for action or inaction in the statute.
VIII
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and
the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

Today's AMS Seminar addresses relative contributions of GHG emissions, solar radiation, and cosmic rays to global warming

American Meteorological Society's Environmental Science Seminar Series

Solar Radiation, Cosmic Rays and Greenhouse Gases: What's Driving Global Warming?

What are the relative contributions from the sun, cosmic rays, and greenhouse gases, to the observed warming in the late 20th century and what are their expected contributions during the 21st Century? How does this compare to natural climate variability of past centuries and millennia? What is the principle driver or drivers of global warming in the 20th and 21st centuries? How are cosmic rays different from solar irradiance? Are there direct measurements of solar irradiance changes over the last 30 years or so? If so, what do these measurements show? What are the signals of this solar variability in the Earth’s atmosphere, and how do climate models reproduce these? Are we likely to observe additional changes in solar irradiance in the future and what might such variability have as an effect on climate? How is the ozone layer affected by solar activity changes and how does it influence surface weather and climate?

Today's seminar with Dr. Judith Lean, Senior Scientist for Sun-Earth System Research, Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC and Dr. Caspar Ammann, Research Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO answered those questions.  According to the Program Summary  which is available below, climate reconstructions suggest there has been a small, but persistent, climate response to solar variability on both a global/hemispheric scale as well as in some regions. Solar forcing and volcanic activity appear to have driven the majority of global/hemispheric climate variations over the past Centuries. But from about the mid-20th Century onward, the sum of these natural factors is no longer consistent with the observed warming. Only anthropogenic forcings, such as greenhouse gas increases and emissions of aerosol particles, can explain the observed temperature record. This explanation is even stronger when the vertical structure of the trends is included in the explanation. The panelists suggest that future natural solar variations will be insufficient to counter global warming that we can anticipate from future increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.

The next AMS Seminar is scheduled for April 7, 2008. Tentative Topic: Adapting to Climate Change: What Happens to Our Energy and Transportation Infrastructure?

S

eparating Solar and Anthropogenic (Greenhouse Gas-Related) Climate Impacts

During the past three decades a suite of space-based instruments has monitored the Sun’s brightness as well as the Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures. These datasets enable the separation of climate’s responses to solar activity from other sources of climate variability (anthropogenic greenhouse gases, El Niño Southern Oscillation, volcanic aerosols). The empirical evidence indicates that the solar irradiance 11-year cycle increase of 0.1% produces a global surface temperature increase of about 0.1 K with larger increases at higher altitudes. Historical solar brightness changes are estimated by modeling the contemporary irradiance changes in terms of their solar magnetic sources (dark sunspots and bright faculae) in conjunction with simulated long-term evolution of solar magnetism. In this way, the solar irradiance increase since the seventeenth century Maunder Minimum is estimated to be slightly larger than the increase in recent solar activity cycles, and smaller than early estimates that were based on variations in Sun-like stars and cosmogenic isotopes. Ongoing studies are beginning to decipher the empirical Sun- climate connections as a combination of responses to direct solar heating of the surface and lower atmosphere, and indirect heating via solar UV irradiance impacts on the ozone layer and middle atmosphere, with subsequent communication to the surface and climate. The associated physical pathways appear to involve the modulation of existing dynamical and circulation atmosphere-ocean couplings, including the El Nino Southern Oscillation (El Nino/La Nina cycles) and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation . Comparisons of the empirical results with model simulations suggest that models are presently deficient in accounting for these pathways.

The Sun's Role in Past, Current and Future Climate Change

Correlations of instrumental or reconstructed climate time series with indices of solar activity are often being used to suggest that the climate system is tightly coupled to the sun. Yet correlations have to be used with caution because they are not necessarily synonymous with cause-and-effect relationships. Therefore, it is critical to understand the physical mechanisms that are responsible for the signals. Independent tests can then be applied to validate or reject a hypothesized link. Spatial structures that are related to the processes that translate the solar influence into a climatic response can serve as such a test. A particularly powerful example is obtained by looking at the vertical extent of the solar signal in the atmosphere. While the 11-year solar cycle can be found and the signal is consistent with the expected physical response throughout the atmospheric column, the underlying trends in temperature, however, are inconsistent with increased solar activity. These differences in trends correspond to the response to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Another way of evaluating the consistency of a sun-climate relationship can be gained from extending the time scale from the most recent solar cycles back over the instrumental period and further into the historical past. However, solar forcing is not the only factor affecting climate, and thus other influences should not be neglected. Examples of the danger of over-interpretation of a purported solar link arising from superposition of multiple forcings are the famous Maunder Minimum (a period in the second half of the 17th and the early 18th Century when hardly any sunspots appeared on the solar surface), and the early 20th century where a general but small increase in solar activity coincided with changes in greenhouse gas concentration. The sun probably played some role in both of these cases, but the occurrence or absence of volcanic eruptions and other influences might have been just as important.

Nevertheless, climate reconstructions suggest that a small, but persistent, climate response to solar variability exists on the global/hemispheric scale as well as in some regions. Solar forcing and volcanic activity appear to have driven the majority of global/hemispheric climate variations over the past Centuries. But from about the mid-20th Century onward, the sum of these natural factors is no longer consistent with the observed warming. Only anthropogenic forcings, such as greenhouse gas increases and emissions of aerosol particles, can explain the observed temperature record. This explanation is even stronger when the vertical structure of the trends is included in the explanation. Therefore, one can also predict that future natural solar variations will most likely be insufficient to counter the changes that we can anticipate from future increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Biographies

Dr. Judith Lean is Senior Scientist for Sun-Earth System Research in the Space Science Division of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC. She has served on a variety of NASA, NSF, NOAA and NRC advisory committees, including as Chair of the National Research Council (NRC) Working Group on Solar Influences on Global Change and, most recently, the NRC Committee on a Strategy to Mitigate the Impact of Sensor De-scopes and De-manifests on the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft. A member of the AGU, IAGA, AAS/SPD and AMS, she was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union in 2002 and a member of US National Academy of Sciences in 2003. She is the recipient of a number of NASA research grants, in collaboration with other SSD and US scientists, and is currently a Co Investigator on the SORCE, TIMED/SEE, SDO/EVE and GLORY/TIM space missions. A US citizen since 1992, she has a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Physics, 1982, from the University of Adelaide, Australia and B.S. (with Honors) from the Australian National University (1975). The focus of her research is the Sun’s variability and its impact on the Earth system, including climate change and space weather. She has published over 100 peer-reviewed papers in journals and books, and delivered over 250 presentations documenting her research.

Dr. Caspar Ammann is a research scientist, in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. He has a M.S. degree in Geography and Geology from the University of Bern, Switzerland and a Ph.D. in Geosciences from the University of Massachusetts. His primary research is focused on the climate of past centuries and millennia, and how the current changes compare to this natural background. He has reconstructed past climates as well as volcanic forcing from proxy (e.g., ice cores, corals etc..) records and then simulated climate variability and response to forcings in state-of-the-art coupled Atmosphere-Ocean-General Circulation Models. Currently, Dr. Ammann’s research awards include an National Science Foundation Collaborations in Math- and Geosciences multi-institution program award to develop new Bayesian Hierarchical Models to reconstruct climate from proxies with different resolution and uncertainties and a project to improve regional impact studies based on better representation of forced, natural climate variations. He is a collaborator in several efforts to understand the effects of natural forcings on past Arctic climate and to improve model representation of the external forcing from the sun and volcanoes. He is also the organizer of the IGBP-PAGES Paleoclimate Reconstruction (PR) Challenge to assess spatial reconstruction methods and a member of the NASA Living with a Star, Targeted Research & Technology Scientific Steering Committee. Dr. Ammann has authored or co-authored more than 30 peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and books, and made over 200 scientific presentations to peer-scientific, professional and student, as well as public audiences.

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/ESSSRegister.html

Kansas Governor Kills Coal Fired Power Plant

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed legislation that would have revoked the power of the Kansas environmental agency to reject air permits based on greenhouse gas emissions.  The legislation was an attempt to reverse that agency's decision to deny a permit for a $ 3.6 billion project to build two 700 MW coal-fired electric generating plants because of its CO2 emissions.  Governor Sebelius reasoned that federal legislation regulating GHG emissions would be implemented with a few years and that Kansas should not build facilities making it more difficult to comply with those regulations.  She is apparently a rising star in Democratic politics, having given an eloquent response on behalf of the Democratics to President Bush's 2008 State of the Union address.  If she didn't live in the Midwest and if she had some foreign policy experience, I'll bet that Obama would be considering her as a running mate.

The Big Tobacco Comparison

Welcome to Katrina Kuh from Hofstra Law who has agreed contribute to the blog.  Here's her first piece on a topic that has crossed my mind more than once since ExxonMobil's funding of organizations who promote denialist global warming reports became an issue.  Certainly the effect has been no more benign than Big Tobacco, but it's not necessary a good analogy.  Professor Kuh's analysis follows:

In their recently-filed public nuisance suit, the plaintiffs in Kivalina v. ExxonMobil et al. allege a civil conspiracy by select energy defendants to distort public perceptions about the causes and effects of climate change.  In its description of the conspiracy, the Complaint suggests similarities between the energy defendants and Big Tobacco.  See Kivalina Complaint ¶¶ 192-93.  This follows on the heels of a number of reports and articles likewise drawing comparisons between major energy companies (Big Energy) and Big Tobacco.  E.g., Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science (January 2007).  The tobacco comparison thus seems to be catching on as a way to frame the climate change narrative.  However, is this comparison (1) apt and (2) useful in the context of climate change?  Are energy companies (really) to climate change as tobacco companies are to smoking?

There are compelling similarities between the energy industry's response to climate change science and the tobacco industry's response to research showing that smoking is harmful.  "Greenwashed" ads alternating images of oil rigs and natural vistas call to mind the rugged, healthy-looking Marlboro man; industry-funded "reports" and adverts about climate "science" call to mind tobacco company ads with doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking.  And there seems to be evidence that at least some energy companies used a number of the same strategies (and even sometimes the same advocacy groups, e.g., TASSC) as Big Tobacco in conducting so-called "information" campaigns.   Moreover, there is a similar specter of political capture - both Big Tobacco and Big Energy generously fill the coffers of influential politicians.

However, the comparison between Big Tobacco and Big Energy becomes strained when you move beyond the narrow issue of how the industries responded to science presenting a threat to the industry and consider more broadly the industries and the social problems at hand.   Cigarettes are expendable with respect to our way of life; fossil-fuel energy (at least for now) is not.  Stopping cigarette production on a dime would have bankrupted some major corporations and tobacco farmers; stopping fossil fuel energy production on a dime would bring our lives to a halt and cripple a massive economic infrastructure.  Although Big Energy may well be blameworthy in its efforts to unnecessarily prolong the use of fossil fuel energy, the mere fact that the industry continues to generate energy from fossil fuels (even with knowledge of climate change) simply isn't as culpable as the tobacco industry continuing to sell cigarettes knowing that they cause cancer. Moreover, unlike the tobacco industry, there is an opportunity (perhaps necessity) for energy companies to help implement responses to climate change.

Wholesale conflating of Big Energy and Big Tobacco may also have some unintended adverse consequences.   Painting Big Energy as a Darth Vader-like enemy could complicate efforts to involve the energy industry in responding to climate change.   It may also make it harder to induce GHG-lowering behavior changes by individuals.  In the context of climate change, we cannot indulge the environmental policy cliché that the problem can be solved by running herd on a few large ("evil," i.e., energy industry) polluters.  A meaningful response to climate change is going to require a far broader response with far greater impacts on individuals.  Moreover, if those who produce fossil fuel energy are evil then it's a short leap to paint energy consumers as complicit - in effect, energy consumers become the storm troopers to the Big Energy Darth Vader.  If individuals hear a message that they must adopt GHG-reducing actions (driving a hybrid, buying a fluorescent bulb) as atonement for "bad" behavior, that risks trading the halo effect for a pitchfork effect and engendering resistance and rejection.

Highlighting political failures (and the extent to which they may have been contributed to by industry disinformation campaigns and political contributions) can be helpful to insure healthier policy discussions going forward; comparisons to the tobacco experience in that limited context may well be appropriate and useful.  However, advancing a narrative with Big Energy cast broadly as the new Big Tobacco overstates the case and could have unfortunate consequences.   --  Professor Katrina Kuh, Hofstra Law

Drink Water for Life

This article is written by Denise Olivera, Columbia School of Journalism, about the Drink Water for Life Challenge originated by 1st Congregational Church, U.C.C. of Salem, Oregon.  The article was covered by the Great Reporter newsservice link The congregation pledges to give up some of its lattes, sodas, etc. during Lent and give the money to our Pure Water Fund.  In celebration of Lent, spring, or World Water Day, please chose to follow this lead.

DOT Downplays Transportation Report on Climate Change Impacts and Prevents Press from Interviewing the Author

HT to Lance Olson Climate Change Yahoo group:

The Government Accountability Project reported today on a major study on climate change impacts released on Wednesday by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.Gulf Coast Transportation study   This study reported on the likely impacts of global climate disruption on transportation infrastructure in the Gulf Coast region.  GAP indicates that the  report release was buried by the DOT, and officials have been blocking journalists from speaking with the report's lead author.

Specifically the report, Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, analyzes how Gulf Coast roads and highways, transit services, oil and gas pipelines, freight handling ports, transcontinental railroad networks, waterway systems, and airports are likely to be harmed by heat waves, extreme precipitation events, sea level rise, increased hurricane intensity, and storm surge damage associated with climate change. The report outlines why changes must be incorporated in transportation planning now in order to avoid serious future problems.

Three hours after the report was posted online Wednesday, DOT issued an uninformative and misleading press release on a separate Web site. The press release lists only one contact - a DOT press official. Reporters who have tried to interview the report's lead author, Federal Highway Administration official Michael Savonis, have been explicitly told by DOT officials that the author and the press cannot communicate with each other. As lead author, Savonis should be allowed to brief and respond to press inquiries.

The Buzz on Climate Legislation

According to E & E, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will send House Speaker Pelosi a report from the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming with legislative proposals to address climate change on or before the House Energy and Commerce Committee holds a markup on a major piece of climate legislation.  Markey was selected by Pelosi as chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Pelosi created  when the Democrats took control of Congress last year.  Markey's committee lacks legislative authority, but has held more than 30 hearings on climate change and energy issues.

Markey's staff reportedly has been meeting with alternative energy firms, labor groups, finance specialists, and others seeking legislative ideas.  Markey's report is expected after House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell releases his draft climate legislation in mid-April. Dingell (D-Mich), of course, has been protective of the automobile industry -- for example, he attempted last summer to preempt California's GHG emission standards for motor vehicles.   If displeased with the bill ultimately reported by Dingell, Pelosi could seek a special rule making Markey's legislative proposal(s) the basis of floor debate, in lieu of Dingell's bill.  If Dingell bill's is overly protective of narrow interests or insufficiently stringent, that sort of end run just might happen.

Crude oil surpasses $ 108

Crude-oil futures surpassed $108 for the first time, before closing above $107 a barrel.  The gloomy economic outlook in the United States increases the prospect that the Fed will cut interest rates again, creating an even weaker dollar.  The euro was trading at $1.5358, near its record high. A weaker dollar pushes oil prices up as it makes dollar-denominated oil less expensive to buyers holding other currencies.

Plug in to NRDC's Blog

There's a little something for everyone here -- but some of the most prominent environmental lawyers in the world are blogging here.  NRDC Blog

The Disinformation Campaign Continues: Utilities Say EEI Exaggerates Costs to Address Climate Change

According to Greenwire, eight utility executives, including PG & E, FPL, and Entergy, wrote Edison Electric Institute seeking changes in EEI's report on the cost of implementing pending   climate change legislative proposals.  "It appears that EEI has been circulating this material as an effort to scare senators from moving forward with the Lieberman-Warner legislation," Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch wrote the Miami Herald in an e-mail. "In a polite, corporate way, the power execs appear to be wood-shedding EEI CEO Tom Kuhn" (John Dorschner, Miami Herald, March 6).

Loan Program for Rural Power Plants Suspended on Climate Change Grounds

HT Bill Buzbee on UO envlawprofessor list - from Greenwire:

The federal government is suspending a major loan program for coal-fired power plants in rural communities, saying the uncertainties of climate change and rising construction costs make the loans too risky.

After issuing $1.3 billion in loans for new plant construction since 2001, none will be issued this year and likely none in 2009, James Newby, assistant administrator for the Rural Utilities Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said Tuesday.

The program's suspension marks a dramatic reversal of a once-reliable source of new coal plant financing. It follows the announcement last month that several major banks will require plant developers to factor in climate change when seeking private funding (Greenwire, Feb. 4).

At the time of the suspension, at least four utilities had been lined up for loans totaling $1.3 billion - for projects in Kentucky, Illinois, Arkansas and Missouri. A project in Montana was denied funding last month. Two more were recently withdrawn: last October in Wyoming and earlier this week in Missouri (AP/International Herald Tribune, March 5)

Pulitzer Prize Anyone??? Only if you write by March 12th

Well, no prize, but...You can become a Pulitzer Center Citizen Journalist!!! 

• Pick an issue. Issues list   "Should US environmental standards apply when multinational companies develop the petroleum resources of fragile ecosystems such as Peru's Amazon forest?" should be of particular interest. Extraterritorial application of US environmental standards

 

• Read the corresponding coverage at Pulitzer’s website. Your article should draw on information from the Pulitzer Center articles; but you may also include include original reporting of your own or firsthand experiences. The goal is to provide fresh insight in a compellingly written article.

• Share your perspective on the issue and write your best article at Helium by March 12th.

Settled Science

Willamette University's March Dempsey lecture will feature Stephen H. Schneider of Stanford                    speaking on "Global Warming: Is the Science Settled        Enough for Policy?"   I understand that his answer is yes.  But I'll let you know more next week.

Petition Filed Seeking CEQ Guidance on Climate Change Analyses Under NEPA

On Thursday, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Sierra Club filed a formal legal petition with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) seeking to assure that climate change analyses are included in all federal environmental review documents.  Petition The petition builds on the success of environmental groups in recent cases where federal courts found that climate change issues need to be considered during environmental impact review.  Rather than continue to address this on a piecemeal case by case basis, the petition seeks to create systematic review of climate change in NEPA documents.

 

Specifically, the petition requests CEQ:

• Amend the definitions of "significantly" and "effects" as well as the provision on environmental consequences to assure NEPA implementing regulations require climate change effects be addressed in environmental assessments and environmental impact statements; and

• Issue guidance to assure that climate change effects be addressed at each stage of the NEPA from categorical exclusions to the ROD.

• Issue a handbook to guide agencies in this process

 

Expert commentary on the Exxon Valdez Argument -- Prof. Amy Wildermuth on the Court's "affinity for the trinity"

Professor Amy Wildermuth, University of Utah, worked on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in the Exxon case and has offered these extensive comments on the argument. Wildermuth reaction In sum, her commentary agrees with my conclusion that the Court is quite interested in a possible limit of two-to-one--"an affinity for the trinity" that she asserts can be traced back to prior cases.  She points out, however, that no common law court has ever adopted that kind of ratio limit; instead, it has been exclusively legislatures that have adopted such limits.  She also raises the interesting question of whether the base for any such ratio might be reevaluated in light of Justice Kennedy's citation of the general criminal statute that uses "gross loss" as its base.

Election 2008 -- The Candidates Speak in Their Own Words -- Part III:John McCain

During the last year, Foreign Affairs published a series of pieces on the 2008 presidential election, allowing candidates to frame their foreign policy in their own words. Foreign Affairs Election 2008 I am reviewing those pieces for discussions of global environmental issues, including climate change.  I find this a particularly useful approach because it allows candidates to move beyond sound bites and into the substance of what they believe. 

I expect to look at all of the current candidates: Democratic and Republican.  Today's post is John McCain.

Here's the foreign policy of John McCain with respect to the environment (especially global warming) in his own words:

SECURING ENERGY AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT

America's dependence on foreign oil constitutes a critical strategic vulnerability. America accounts for 25 percent of global demand for oil but possesses less than three percent of the world's proven reserves. Most of the world's known reserves are in the Persian Gulf, in the hands of dictators or nationalized oil companies. Terrorists understand our vulnerability: had it succeeded, the attempted suicide attack on a Saudi refinery in February 2006 would have driven the world price of oil above $150 per barrel. The transfer of American wealth to the Middle East through continued oil purchases helps sustain the conditions under which extremism breeds, and the burning of oil and other fossil fuels spurs global warming, a gathering danger to our planet.

My national energy strategy will amount to a declaration of independence from our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to their troubled politics. This strategy will include employing technology to achieve new efficiencies in energy extraction and consumption, enforcing conservation, creating market incentives to encourage the development of alternative sources of energy and hybrid vehicles, and expanding sources of renewable energy. I will also greatly increase the use of nuclear power, a zero-emission energy source. Given the proper incentives, our innovators, scientists, entrepreneurs, and workers have the capability to lead the world in achieving energy security; given the stakes, they must.

I have proposed a bipartisan plan in the U.S. Senate to address the problem of climate change and ensure a sustainable future for humankind. My market-based approach will set reasonable caps on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, provide industries with tradable emissions credits, and create other incentives for the deployment of new and better energy sources and technologies. It is time for America to lead the world in protecting the environment for future generations.

The Orchestrated Campaign to Deny Human-Caused Global Warming

Little more than a week ago, I posted a portion of John Mashey's paper on the orchestrated campaign to deny that humans are causing significant global warming.  The entire paper is now published here as a service to those who are trying to understand why the US has been such a laggard on global warming and the challenges that a new president will face in trying to enact an adequate system to reduce GHG emissions.   Download Mashey paper on the denialist campaign

Election 2008 -- The Candidates Speak in Their Own Words -- Part II:Hillary Clinton

During the last year, Foreign Affairs published a series of pieces on the 2008 presidential election, allowing candidates to frame their foreign policy in their own words. Forei