Articles by David Roberts

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: