The Blue State

Supreme Court ruling elevates carbon emissions as '08 issue

The Iraq war, corruption and restoring faith in the political system will likely be the three main themes addressed in the 2008 general election race.  All of this has to do with American voters wanting a fresh beginning.  As Craig Crawford of CQ writes, thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling that rebuked the President on greenhouse emissions, the discussion about a new beginning could center around the concern over climate change, and how we leave our planet for future generations:

The decision, in one of the most important environmental cases ever toreach the Supreme Court, puts enormous pressure on politicians in bothparties — and especially on the presidential aspirants — to take globalwarming seriously. And with foot-dragging for its remaining 20 monthsthe administration’s likely response to the ruling, it will be up tothe next president to either heed the justices’ call to action orcontinue to do little and risk further court involvement. Also, the 5-4vote in the case shows how the next president’s judicial nominees couldpotentially shift the court’s view to either a stronger majority or areversal.

This still leaves the door open for people like Al Gore.  If the former Vice President enters the race, he could promise to appoint judicial nominees that tend to come down hard on oil companies and other big polluters.  Consider that versus if someone like Duncan Hunter were elected, who supports oil company subsidies, and gets campaign contributions from that sector as well.

UN Issues a GW Warning

UNPanel Issues Stark Climate Change Warning

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Climate experts issued their starkest warning yet aboutthe impact of global warming, ranging from hunger in Africa to a fast thaw inthe Himalayas, in a report on Friday that increased pressure on governments toact.

More than 100 nations in the U.N. climate panel agreed a final text afterall-night talks during which some scientists accused governments of wateringdown conclusions that climate change was already under way and damaging nature.

I am bewildered how the non-believers of Global Warming can still dismiss anyand all facts and information regarding this issue. I can understand them notbuying into the whole theory, and being skeptical, but at least be open mindedand objective and do a little research of their own.

Facts That The Gores Live Green

This post is the first of more to come as more informationbecomes available. This information was obtained through the CommunicationsDirector of the Office of Al Gore and Mrs. Tipper Gore.

Global Warming information is readily available and will bepart of future posts, but this is directed towards the people that can notsay  Al Gore without following it up with the word Hypocrite.

 

  As of April 1, the city of Belle Meade (the city withinthe city of Nashville) made it legal for the Gores to put solar panels on theirhouse.  We are just waiting for the zoning commission to OK their specificplan now.

Former Vice President and Tipper Gore have worked for thirty years to try tosolve the climate crisis.  Their efforts include:

  24 years of public service including Former Vice President Gore’s work tofind agreement on the Kyoto Protocol, the global warming treaty, which mandatescuts in global warming pollution.

  Helping to create the Academy Award winning documentary film and writing thecompanion book “An Inconvenient Truth” which has educated millions ofAmericans, as well as people around the world.  The Gores donated all oftheir profits from these efforts to a new non-profit organization, the Alliancefor Climate Protection, to continue their educational mission about globalwarming.

  Giving the slideshow, which serves as the basis for the book and film, over1,000 times in the U.S. and around the world.

  Helping to establish and serving as the lead trainer for The Climate Project, anon-profit organization that already has trained 1,000 people in the U.S. andoverseas on the slideshow that serves as the basis for “An InconvenientTruth.”  The trainees agree to give the slideshow in their respectivecommunities to help educate people about the climate crisis.  Mrs. Goresells her photography through Mitchell Gold Bob Williams with all proceedsgoing to fund The Climate Project.

   Donating more than $1 million to non-profit organizations dedicated to climatechange awareness efforts.   

Establishing two new companies—Current TV and Generation InvestmentManagement—both of which are carbon neutral. 

In addition, the Gores take many steps in their own life to reduce their carbonfootprint.  These include:

-Owning and driving hybrid-electric vehicles
-Purchasing green power (solar, wind, and methane gas through the local utility)to power their home.
-Undertaking a complete home renovation to retrofit their residence and homeoffices to become more energy efficient.  This has involved: installing newfloor radiant heating and solar venting systems, new efficient furnaces andwindows, thermostats, and light switches as well as compact fluorescent bulbs,and solar panels.  This renovation is scheduled to be completed by May2007.
-Living a carbon neutral life.


**What does it mean to live carbon neutral? The Gore’s participate in a carbonneutral program whereby offsets are purchased with organizations that work toreduce carbon emissions through renewable energy initiatives, such as thedevelopment of solar and wind power. These carbon-offset purchases are evaluatedby a third-party firm to ensure that the Gores have effectively neutralized theimpact of their own carbon emissions.

After all the Gore's do in order to live"Green", anyone that continues to call them hypocrites, either haveinvestments where admitting  Global Warming exists would hurt themfinancially, they extremely dislike the Gore's, or they are simplyignorant.   

What seems to be night after night, Sean Hannitygrills his guests on Gore and whether he is a hypocrite or not, and usually getsto his "yes or no" bullying. In the following videos (there are manymore) even guests that disagree with everything Gore says or stands for, refuseto agree with Hannity that he is a hypocrite. When he does have someone"bad-mouth" Gore, it's usually a made up sarcastic remark. Hannitywill often run the names of people that oppose Global Warming on the crawl.

Fox Smears Al Gore Part's1 & 2                                                                                                   

Oh Those Pesky Bees

When a friend of mine told me a few days ago that Honey Bees weredisappearing, like most people I wasn't very alarmed and because I hadn't heardabout it before, figured this isn't such a bad thing for picnicker's and anyone allergicto bee stings. Until I saw the mention of  it in TheNews Hounds FOX Report Slips in a Slap at Bee Concerns , apparently in Fox's"Around the World in 80 Seconds", the Disappearing Bee's got a fewseconds.

I decided to do a little looking into this to see what it means. Wellapparently it isn't a pretty site. In short there are a couple of parasites the trachealand varroa mites which are the culprits. One might think "I like honey,but I could do without it"...however, Honey Bees are responsible for onethird of the U.S. food supply. That sheds a different light on the issue.This is just another issue that may arise in a congressional bill that might be laughedat and dismissed as "pork Spending".

Here are a few links that explain this situation more in detail and worthreading (at least 1 or 2). NationalGeographic, TheNew York Times, PBS,SunHerald,ZMAG

I am sure that once this becomes more of an issue on the Hill, it will belumped in with the Tree Hugging Global Warming Kooks by the Republicans, but I am partial towards MY one third of the food supply.

Another Reason Co2 Standards are Important

This is just another reason for the importance to lower Co2 emissions,especially in the auto industry. U.S. auto sales are down while Toyota is makingrecord sales.

Reuters: U.S.Automakers Could See National C02 Standard.

Honda on Tuesday topped a Union of Concerned Scientists ranking of thenation's automakers whose fleets had the lowest emissions. Toyota Motor Corp.,maker of the iconic Prius gasoline-electric hybrid, ranked second.

Honda is rated as one of the top 10Green Giants

Supreme Court 5 to 4: EPA Violated the Clean Air Act

The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated theClean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissionsstandards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to globalwarming.

The Washington Post Reported: HighCourt Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions (This is a short article and worthreading)

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decidewhether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," JusticeJohn Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothingsuggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gasesas air pollutants," the opinion continued.

The Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that the ruling"repudiates the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on globalwarming," undermining the government's refusal to view carbon dioxide as anair pollutant subject to EPA regulation.

Now let's not forget what Bush said in his 2007State of The Union Address some of which we have heard in prior State of The Union Address's

It's in our vital interest to diversifyAmerica's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We mustcontinue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater useof clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power.(Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybridvehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel.(Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol --(applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agriculturalwastes. 

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us  to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us  be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront  the serious challenge of global climate change.

Mostof the extreme opposition of Global Warming, simply believe it is totally boulderdash,they do not even slightly entertain the idea. They throw out the handful ofnames of scientists that disagree (which most of them do not disagree with theentire issue, just with some of the theories)

Live Science has their take inan article SupremeCourt Rebukes Bush on Carbon Dioxide Policy and in another article theybreak down the reasons of skepticism on Global Warming WhyAmericans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming. There are otherlinks associated with these articles, and I would encourage anyone to grab a cupof coffee, tea etc and take some time to read these.

Major Supreme Court victory on greenhouse gas emissions

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Bush Administration's policy on greenhouse gas emissions.  The court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency "has offered no reasonedexplanation" for its unwillingness to regulate carbon emissions from cars, and that the agency can regulate them:

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take afresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuketo Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives theEnvironmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissionsof carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

This is a historic ruling by the Supreme Court.  This court battle began under Clinton.  The Clinton Administration filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Corp in an effort to force utilities to enact pollution control, especially pertaining to coal power plants.  Today, the  justices overturned a ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia -- saying that the lower court over-stepped its authority by not recognizing Environmental Protection Agency regulations of 1980.

In a nutshell, since the very beginning of the Bush years back in 2001, the Administration's excuse for not reducing greenhouse emissions was that they lacked the power to do so -- which is hypocritical when you take into account how Executive power has expanded in other areas.  Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for the majority, said the Administration's reasoning was "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance withlaw."

I bet you can guess which which justices dissented from the majority:

• Chief Justice John Roberts
• Samuel Alito
• Clarence Thomas
• Antonin Scalia

I am going to write much more about this today and tomorrow, and give you a glimpse at what this really means for the future of environmental law.

Bush violated forest rules

A federal judge ruled this week that the Administration illegally made its own rules for managing 192 million acres of federally owned land, while ignoring existing law.  Bottom line: Bush's forest rules have been canceled by the court.  The judge ruled that Bush was in violation because the Administration ignored three existing laws regarding drilling and logging:

• National Environmental Policy Act
• Administrative Procedures Act
• Endangered Species Act

So what did Bush's illegal rules allow? 

The new rule -- which gave economic activities as high a priority asmaintaining the forest's ecological health -- made it easier to conductdrilling and logging in national forests while weakening protectionsfor native fish and wildlife. It also accelerated the process forapproving forest management plans, which can drag on for as long asseven years, thereby cutting planning costs.. 

It turns out that a timber industry lobbyist helped craft Bush's illegal forest rules:

"These regulations were designed by a former timber industry lobbyist,"said Sean Cosgrove of the Sierra Club, one of the 15 environmentalgroups who sued. "They would have silenced the voices of citizens inlocal forest planning and allowed destructive projects to move forwardwith little oversight."

Now watch for the Administration to restart their quest against "activist judges."

Bush to Trim Some Pork, or Should I say "Endangered Species Meat"

Well those "treehuggers" are at it again, first they want to savethe Earth, now the animals? Well apparently the Bush administration won't have that,and to make an attempt at assuring the treehuggers won't get all "environmental"on them, they tried to bring it in under the radar as TheSalon reported in the article "Insidethe Secretive Plan to Gut the Endangered Species Act" 

In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to extraordinaryefforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the public. All copies of theworking document were given a number corresponding to a person, so that leakedcopies could be traced to that individual. An e-mail sent in March from anassistant regional director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff,asking for comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored theconcern with secrecy: "Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall, directorof the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this stuff leaking out tostir up discontent based on speculation."

It seems to me that weather you are a proponent of NaturalSelection or IntelligentDesign  this issue would be a major concern. With NaturalSelection, nature should choose "what goes and what stays", not abulldozer or large corporation, and if you are on the side of IntelligentDesign...well God would be handling the "choosing".

Naturally there are always two sides to everything, and there areextremes...the extremes might be "don't step on the ant"on one side and "if God didn't want us to eat the animals, Godwouldn't have made them taste so good" Obviously Bush thinks theytaste REALLY Good. Under the Bush administration, 57 species have been grantedendangered status....not bad right?, I mean that's a lot of species. Well hisFather felt 234 was a good number, Reagan 253 and Clinton 521

How they came up with Endangered Species Eligibility is beyond me:

One change would significantly limit the number of species eligible forendangered status. Currently, if a species is likely to become extinct in"the foreseeable future" -- a species-specific timeframe that canstretch up to 300 years -- it's a candidate for act protections. However, the new rules scale back that timeline to mean either 20 years or 10 generations (the agency can choose which timeline). For certain species with long lifespans, such as killer whales, grizzly bears or wolves, two decades isn't evenone generation. So even if they might be in danger of extinction, they would notmake the endangered species list because they'd be unlikely to die out in twodecades.

If you think about those timeframes, the new rule would be a bit on theextreme side, the news would have a new segment "What Went ExtinctToday" (I wonder what the Vegas bet line would be for something like that).Maybe we should take Bush's Red Crayon® away from him, he doesn't use it verywell.

Global warming to affect poorest nations the most

When you listen to people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck consistently discredit the general scientific consensus on global warming, you might ask yourself, "What will it take for these people to put science ahead of right-wing talking points?"  The answer is maybe a lot.  And by the time they do come around, if at all, it will not be until their beach-front Florida property is in jeopardy.  When they complain about losing money in real estate, they will still be a lot better off than some of the poorest nations in the world.

Rocky Mountain News:

Consider Bangladesh, a country of 147 million people packed into a mostly flat delta region slightly smaller than Iowa.

As the world warms, sea levels could rise 2 feet, or more, by 2100.

"Even a rise of one foot will put a huge amount of that entire country under water permanently," said geographer Susi Moser.

She is among National Center for Atmospheric Research scientistswho contributed to an upcoming international report on the likelyworldwide impacts of climate change.

"And these are not the same people who live in Laguna Beach,"said Moser, who works at NCAR's Institute for the Study of Society andEnvironment in Boulder.

"These are people whose entire livelihood depends on theagriculture in those coastal regions," she said. "Millions would bedisplaced."

Even with the diverse economy that we have here in the United States, we will be affected.  But just imagine what it will be like for countries whose economies rely on one or two natural resources for their well-being.