Uncategorized

Aspen and E.O.

Excellent post over at Joel Makower's about the Aspen Ideas Festival, with specific emphasis on E.O. Wilson, whom, by the way, I'll be interviewing in October. So start thinking of questions.

The Supreme Court’s carbon-dioxide case

In October, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in a case of extraordinary significance: whether or not the feds can regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. While enviros (and a dozen states) have been trying to push the case to SCOTUS for a while, they are nonetheless nervous. The court has been substantially made over with the recent additions of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, but nobody's entirely sure how exactly it's changed. Muddled decisions like the recent one on the Clean Water Act do not portend victory, or even clarity. (More on this from Carl Pope.)

Two questions are at issue. Quoting from the appeal (PDF):

1. Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1).
2. Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under section 202(a)(1).

In other words, can the EPA regulate CO2, and if it can, is it required to. That's simple enough, but I've not seen much in-depth analysis of what the ramifications various rulings might be. In the unlikely event the court rules that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2, and must use that authority, it would be epochal. But what about various splits?

Tipping points

RealClimate has a great post up on climate "tipping points," a notion that has been used and abused with great frequency lately by laymen and journalists -- including yours truly. It goes into detail picking apart positive feedbacks, tipping points, and points of no return.

The most valuable bit for me was clarifying what James Hansen has in mind when he says that we have ten years to fundamentally change course:

U.K. conservatives and global warming

As google-using cheater tfahrner revealed below, the long excerpt in this post comes from a speech yesterday by U.K. Tory leader David Cameron. If you haven't yet, give it a read.

I couldn't believe it. If a U.S. politician gave this speech ... well, they'd be a Democrat, and the media would ignore it, and I'd probably never hear about it. But if I did, I'd faint. I can't really find a single thing to criticize. The focus on energy decentralization leaves me woozy. The refusal to give nuclear special dispensation makes me swoon. I mean, damn.

Of course, I don't know all that much about U.K. politics. Cameron could be a total gasbag for all I know. This could be an all-bark-no-bite kind of thing. And of course conservatives are out of power there and don't have the capacity to do much even if they wanted.

But the point -- as made at length by Mark Hertsgaard -- is that Britain's conservative party now recognizes concerted action on climate change is non-negotiable. Without it, the party is doomed:

Hell comes to frogtown

A new report from leading conservation experts suggests that a third of all amphibian species are at risk, and calls for an urgent rescue to save frogs, newts, and other amphibians from extinction. Disease, habitat loss, and climate change are the major culprits -- amphibians are "delicate sentinels of environmental change." But frogs must carry some of the blame themselves. Frog celebrities have been poor role models: Mr. Toad's reckless driving and compulsive behavior have led some to call his life a "wild ride," and Kermit the Frog's heroin thin physique has raised suspicions of anorexia and drug use. While the Amphibian Survival Alliance is doing its best to aid the crisis, I offer a few survival tips for our frog friends:

Food vs. fuel

Interesting: "Shell Says Biofuels From Food Crops 'Morally Inappropriate'"

(via EB)

What does it mean to say global warming is ‘natural’?

It has recently come to my attention that there's some difference of opinion on exactly what climate skeptics mean when they say that global warming is "part of a natural cycle," or more simply, "natural," as opposed to anthropogenic.

My assumption has always been as follows: The amount of CO2 produced by human activity is trivial as a climate forcing. It's not causing the rise in global average temperature. The rise in global average temperature is simply part of a swinging between hot and cold that happens over centuries, and will happen no matter what we do. (Alternatively, recent warming is caused by an increase in solar radiation.)

The main practical outcome of the view that global warming is "natural" is that we can't do anything about it (except adapt). I think that's the whole point. But apparently not everyone agrees.

Does that jibe with what y'all think? Or are there other interpretations?

Evolution and global warming: satan’s satanic satanism

Via Tim Lambert, Panda's Thumb brings word of creationists joining the fight against, um, reality (in the form of global warming):

Bush’s new line on global warming

As global warming becomes a more and more salient political issue (thanks, Al!), Bush gets asked about it more often, and is forced to defend his (lack of) policy. Predictably, he's saying some pretty stupid things.

Consider this, from an interview with People:

Do you think Gore is right on global warming?
I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate. It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline.

First, no, there's not a debate. And if there were ... how does one "solve" a debate? And if it were epistemologically possible to "solve" a debate, how would you do it with a series of subsidies to industry?

Anyhoo. Here he is on Larry King Live last night:

Atlantic @ Aspen

Via Ezra, I stumbled on the Atlantic @ Aspen blog, a chronicle of Atlantic staffers' attendance at this year's Aspen Ideas Festival, "a 'summer university' featuring discussions, seminars, and tutorials with some the most provocative thinkers, writers, artists, businesspeople, and leaders from around the world."

Three posts jumped out.