In The News
Rolling Stone Round-Up
Friday January 15, 2010
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has a beef with Rolling Stone. The Senator is upset, not that he was included in our Climate Killers cover story, but that he wasn't named the Earth's top foe.
"I should have been number one," he said in a radio interview. "I guess Buffet has a lot more money so he went first."
[Rolling Stone should note that, strictly speaking, our package wasn't a ranking - although Warren Buffet does appear on the first page, while Inhofe rears his ugly mug a few pages later.]
Nonetheless, Inhofe also took his pity party to the Tulsa World: "My first response was I should have been No. 1, not No. 7. I am serious about that," he said. "I have spent now literally years on this thing, and it has been a long, involved thing."
"I should have been number one," he said in a radio interview. "I guess Buffet has a lot more money so he went first."
[Rolling Stone should note that, strictly speaking, our package wasn't a ranking - although Warren Buffet does appear on the first page, while Inhofe rears his ugly mug a few pages later.]
Nonetheless, Inhofe also took his pity party to the Tulsa World: "My first response was I should have been No. 1, not No. 7. I am serious about that," he said. "I have spent now literally years on this thing, and it has been a long, involved thing."
ENDANGERMENT 101, PART 2
Wednesday January 13, 2010
In Part 2 of ‘Endangerment 101,' we tackle the so-called "Tailoring Rule" (TR). What is it? That's a timely question, and the answer lies at the heart of the endangerment finding. The TR was unconsciously conceived on April 2, 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled on Massachusetts v. EPA. In that opinion, one searches in vain for any hints that the majority understood the regulatory maelstrom that inexorably ensues once endangerment is triggered.
Though EPA's "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings" concern "new motor vehicles" and "new motor vehicle engines" (pursuant to Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act), once CO2 becomes a pollutant "subject to regulation" under the CAA, EPA's regulatory reach extends well beyond cars to stationary sources-an inevitability apparently lost on the Massachusetts 5-and hence creates the economic and administrative necessity for the TR.
EPA will lord over the usual suspects-e.g., power plants, refineries, cement kilns, and other large manufacturing facilities. Any "major source" that falls into one of 28 categories and has the potential to emit 100 tons per year of CO2, or other establishments with the potential to emit 250 tons per year, will be covered. Those levels, mind you, are significant for such traditional pollutants as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. But not for CO2-and that's why if one builds or makes major modifications to nursing homes, schools, farms, big box stores, commercial buildings, or restaurants, to name a few, one will be forced to obtain (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) preconstruction and (Title V) operating permits from EPA or state permitting authorities. This "absurd result"-to use the legal term of art employed by EPA-makes manifestly clear that the CAA was never intended to regulate greenhouse gases, and it's why, among many other reasons, the Massachusetts decision was such a legal travesty.
Though EPA's "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings" concern "new motor vehicles" and "new motor vehicle engines" (pursuant to Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act), once CO2 becomes a pollutant "subject to regulation" under the CAA, EPA's regulatory reach extends well beyond cars to stationary sources-an inevitability apparently lost on the Massachusetts 5-and hence creates the economic and administrative necessity for the TR.
EPA will lord over the usual suspects-e.g., power plants, refineries, cement kilns, and other large manufacturing facilities. Any "major source" that falls into one of 28 categories and has the potential to emit 100 tons per year of CO2, or other establishments with the potential to emit 250 tons per year, will be covered. Those levels, mind you, are significant for such traditional pollutants as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. But not for CO2-and that's why if one builds or makes major modifications to nursing homes, schools, farms, big box stores, commercial buildings, or restaurants, to name a few, one will be forced to obtain (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) preconstruction and (Title V) operating permits from EPA or state permitting authorities. This "absurd result"-to use the legal term of art employed by EPA-makes manifestly clear that the CAA was never intended to regulate greenhouse gases, and it's why, among many other reasons, the Massachusetts decision was such a legal travesty.
Dems Comment On Cap and Tax Prospects in 2010:
Impossible to Pass - Drop Cap and Trade - Unlikely This Year
Wednesday January 13, 2010
Politico: Dems to W.H.: Drop cap and trade - Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year. "I am communicating that in every way I know how," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of at least a half-dozen Democrats who've told the White House or their own leaders that it's time to jettison the centerpiece of their party's plan to curb global warming. The creation of an economywide market for greenhouse gas emissions is the heart of the climate bill that cleared the House earlier this year. The creation of an economywide market for greenhouse gas emissions is the heart of the climate bill that cleared the House earlier this year. But with the health care fight still raging and the economy still hurting, moderate Democrats have little appetite for another sweeping initiative - especially another one likely to pass with little or no Republican support.
AP: Bingaman: Cap and Trade Bill Unlikely This Year - ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- The chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said Tuesday that it's unclear whether Congress will be able to pass cap and trade legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions this year. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said there's no consensus on what form a cap-and-trade system would take, but strong desire exists in both the Senate and House to pass other energy-related bills that would curb pollution blamed for global warming.
AP: Bingaman: Cap and Trade Bill Unlikely This Year - ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- The chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said Tuesday that it's unclear whether Congress will be able to pass cap and trade legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions this year. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said there's no consensus on what form a cap-and-trade system would take, but strong desire exists in both the Senate and House to pass other energy-related bills that would curb pollution blamed for global warming.
Inhofe Responds to Rolling Stone Article
Wednesday January 13, 2010
WASHINGTON - In a cover story on global warming titled "You Idiots!" Rolling Stone named U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe as one of the "planet's worst enemies.''
The Oklahoma Republican took issue.
"My first response was I should have been No. 1, not No. 7," said Inhofe, perhaps the most vocal global-warming skeptic in Congress. "I am serious about that. I have spent now literally years on this thing, and it has been a long, involved thing.''
Although the magazine did not actually rank its "Climate Killers" by number, it does appear Warren Buffett, the legendary investor from Nebraska who is one of the richest people in the nation, took the top spot.
Buffett was the first one profiled and, unlike the other 16 "polluters and deniers," he did not have to share a page.
Still, Inhofe conceded his profile said some "nice'' things about him.
The magazine described him as "one of the GOP's loudest and most influential voices on climate change."
Citing his headline-grabbing comments from the past, it states that Inhofe is far from being marginalized and continues to hold remarkable sway.
He is credited with leading an effort that helped cloud the future of a major climate change bill in the Senate and "diminishing America's bargaining position at the Copenhagen climate negotiations."
Inhofe is called "God's Denier" for the way he dismisses concern about rising sea levels.
The Oklahoma Republican took issue.
"My first response was I should have been No. 1, not No. 7," said Inhofe, perhaps the most vocal global-warming skeptic in Congress. "I am serious about that. I have spent now literally years on this thing, and it has been a long, involved thing.''
Although the magazine did not actually rank its "Climate Killers" by number, it does appear Warren Buffett, the legendary investor from Nebraska who is one of the richest people in the nation, took the top spot.
Buffett was the first one profiled and, unlike the other 16 "polluters and deniers," he did not have to share a page.
Still, Inhofe conceded his profile said some "nice'' things about him.
The magazine described him as "one of the GOP's loudest and most influential voices on climate change."
Citing his headline-grabbing comments from the past, it states that Inhofe is far from being marginalized and continues to hold remarkable sway.
He is credited with leading an effort that helped cloud the future of a major climate change bill in the Senate and "diminishing America's bargaining position at the Copenhagen climate negotiations."
Inhofe is called "God's Denier" for the way he dismisses concern about rising sea levels.
Oklahoma Papers Sound Alarm on Obama EPA Air Rule, Worry About Impact on Jobs
Tuesday January 12, 2010
As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Inhofe sounded the alarm on Obama Administration's recent proposed ozone standards, saying, "This action could impose severe restrictions on growth and economic development in cities and towns across the nation. We all support cleaner air, but here's where the Obama EPA and I disagree: it shouldn't come at the expense of people's jobs or the economy."
In particular, Senator Inhofe warned at least fifteen counties in Oklahoma-Adair, Caddo, Canadian, Cherokee, Cleveland, Creek, Dewey, Kay, Mayes, McClain, Oklahoma, Ottawa, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, and Tulsa-would face new restrictions on economic growth and development.
In particular, Senator Inhofe warned at least fifteen counties in Oklahoma-Adair, Caddo, Canadian, Cherokee, Cleveland, Creek, Dewey, Kay, Mayes, McClain, Oklahoma, Ottawa, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, and Tulsa-would face new restrictions on economic growth and development.
Oklahoman Editorial: Smog, drilling proposals need measured scrutiny
Tuesday January 12, 2010
MEMO to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department: The U.S. economy remains weak as a kitten, unemployment continues to be measured in double figures and a number of economists are worried last year's recession could be followed by another dip.
It's the unavoidable context to a pair of potential job killers proffered last week by EPA and Interior. EPA wants to toughen the government's standard for smog, while Interior is proposing stricter standards for oil and gas exploration on leased public lands.
In both cases, the rub is the eternal conflict between a universal desire for a healthier environment and the need for economic health - which also is critically important to Americans' quality of life. Obviously it's hard to eat well and afford necessities like health care without good jobs, and too often it seems environmental decisions are made without appropriately considering their potential collateral economic impact.
Sen. Jim Inhofe makes this point about EPA's proposal for a stricter smog standard - changing the allowable concentration of ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion, adopted by the Bush administration in 2008, to 60 to 70 parts per billion. The proposal "will keep unemployment high and put another Washington-based regulation in the way of economic recovery," said Inhofe, R-Tulsa.
It's the unavoidable context to a pair of potential job killers proffered last week by EPA and Interior. EPA wants to toughen the government's standard for smog, while Interior is proposing stricter standards for oil and gas exploration on leased public lands.
In both cases, the rub is the eternal conflict between a universal desire for a healthier environment and the need for economic health - which also is critically important to Americans' quality of life. Obviously it's hard to eat well and afford necessities like health care without good jobs, and too often it seems environmental decisions are made without appropriately considering their potential collateral economic impact.
Sen. Jim Inhofe makes this point about EPA's proposal for a stricter smog standard - changing the allowable concentration of ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion, adopted by the Bush administration in 2008, to 60 to 70 parts per billion. The proposal "will keep unemployment high and put another Washington-based regulation in the way of economic recovery," said Inhofe, R-Tulsa.
Watch: CBS Evening News - Copenhagen Summit Turned Junket?
Monday January 11, 2010
Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark on your dime.
CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there.
They were joined by 17 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner.
That's not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn't agree to an interview. Her office said it "will comply with disclosure requirements" but wouldn't give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an "opposing view."
"They're going because it's the biggest party of the year," Sen. Inhofe said. "The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar."
CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there.
They were joined by 17 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner.
That's not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn't agree to an interview. Her office said it "will comply with disclosure requirements" but wouldn't give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an "opposing view."
"They're going because it's the biggest party of the year," Sen. Inhofe said. "The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar."
ENDANGERMENT 101
Monday January 11, 2010
After a brief hibernation, EPW Policy Beat is back, this time grappling with EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA). We've commented on the finding before, and our view is straightforward: EPA's action (under Section 202(a) of the Act) is predicated on flawed science and will lead to a regulatory dragnet covering every corner of the economy, including schools, hospitals, nursing homes, commercial buildings, restaurants-and many more. On top of that, EPA's action will have an infinitesimal affect on global warming, as emissions from China, India, and other developing countries will easily negate any emissions reductions here at home.
So what next? EPA plans to finalize regulations covering emissions from new motor vehicles at the end of March. At that point, EPA either will decide that CO2 is a pollutant "subject to regulation" under the CAA, or choose to make that determination at a later date (possibly 2011). This is no mere arcane legalism-it will dictate when small businesses and thousands of other stationary sources will be subject to EPA's regulatory morass. We will ponder this issue another day. As for now, we thought it helpful (how presumptuous) to describe the basics of the endangerment finding, including its origins, its legal and scientific foundations, and its potential real-world consequences. In essence, it's EPW Policy Beat's "just-the-facts-ma'am" series on endangerment.
So what next? EPA plans to finalize regulations covering emissions from new motor vehicles at the end of March. At that point, EPA either will decide that CO2 is a pollutant "subject to regulation" under the CAA, or choose to make that determination at a later date (possibly 2011). This is no mere arcane legalism-it will dictate when small businesses and thousands of other stationary sources will be subject to EPA's regulatory morass. We will ponder this issue another day. As for now, we thought it helpful (how presumptuous) to describe the basics of the endangerment finding, including its origins, its legal and scientific foundations, and its potential real-world consequences. In essence, it's EPW Policy Beat's "just-the-facts-ma'am" series on endangerment.
Wall Street Journal: States Want Delay on Emission Rules
Monday January 11, 2010
A growing number of state regulators are urging the Obama administration to slow the rollout of proposed federal rules curbing industrial greenhouse-gas emissions, saying the administration's approach could overwhelm them with paperwork, delay construction projects and undercut their own efforts to fight climate change.
The concerns echo some criticisms that business groups -- including the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers -- have voiced about the potential consequence of new regulations, though the states generally don't challenge the legality of the proposed regulations, as some business groups have. Indeed, many state regulators continue to say they support the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to regulate greenhouse gases. Their concerns, they say, have more to do with how quickly such rules should be phased in, and how to pay for an expansion in regulatory oversight at a time when their budgets are in the red.
The concerns echo some criticisms that business groups -- including the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers -- have voiced about the potential consequence of new regulations, though the states generally don't challenge the legality of the proposed regulations, as some business groups have. Indeed, many state regulators continue to say they support the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to regulate greenhouse gases. Their concerns, they say, have more to do with how quickly such rules should be phased in, and how to pay for an expansion in regulatory oversight at a time when their budgets are in the red.
Daily Mail: The mini ice age starts here
Monday January 11, 2010
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world's most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions - based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans - challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 - and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
The scientists' predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.
Their predictions - based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans - challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 - and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
The scientists' predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.
