Climate Politics

Global warming in the Supreme Court

It's the first Tuesday in November. Election Day. As in years past, today I am a patriot. I feel hopeful that democracy will bring out the best in this nation's citizens and that tomorrow (or late tonight, huddled in front of my low-quality TV) I will witness political change and renew my belief that our politicians will pave (or plant) the way to a better future.

When I think about tomorrow's leaders, I hope (almost desperately) they will have the courage to tackle global warming. The courts are unlikely to be an adequate substitute.

For the past six years, our federal government has refused to do much of anything. The most daring step taken may have occurred in 2005, when the Senate passed an amendment to the Energy Policy Act expressing its "sense" that Congress should do something. This "sense" did not remain in the law's final version, and we have yet to see it translated into action.

In light of this systematic, breathtaking political failure, environmentalists have brought global warming into courtrooms across the country. This is new territory for the judiciary. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never so much as mentioned global warming or greenhouse gases in any of its decisions. However, the Justices are about to get their chance. On November 29th, as the dust settles from today's election, the Justices will hear Massachusetts v. EPA, which has pitted state against state (eleven states join Massachusetts, nine join EPA) and split the business community in two.

This climate hero may be more of a Forrest Gump

I've been waiting for someone to write this article.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is rightfully lauded for kicking off the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which now has 326 mayors committed to helping their cities meet Kyoto emissions targets. It's a BFD, and Nickels will earn a small place in history for it.

Still. It's always been my sense that the initiative was cooked up by clever and persuasive staffers in the mayor's office, and that Nickels was, in Forrest Gumpian fashion, in the right place at the right time. I don't think he's really taken a concern about global-warming emissions to heart.

Carbon offsets that go to developing world forests rule

Here's an uplifting article by Rhett Butler over at Mongabay. It enables my personal eco-fantasy. It's titled, Avoided deforestation could help fight third world poverty under global warming pact. $43 billion could flow into developing countries:

When trees are cut greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere -- roughly 20 percent of annual emissions of such heat-trapping gases result from deforestation and forest degradation. Avoided deforestation is the concept where countries are paid to prevent deforestation that would otherwise occur. Funds come from industrialized countries seeking to meet emissions commitments under international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol. Policymakers and environmentalists alike find the idea attractive because it could help fight climate change at a low cost while improving living standards for some of the world's poorest people, safeguarding biodiversity, and preserving other ecosystem services. A number of prominent conservation biologists and development agencies including the World Bank and the U.N. have already endorsed the idea. [Even the United States government has voiced support for the plan.]

The article also arrived just in time to support my argument presented here. Don't you just love it when you find people who share your point of view?

And I’ll Blow Your Case Down

U.S. Supreme Court hears opening arguments in Clean Air Act case Fans of respiration held their collective breath yesterday as the Supreme Court began hearing a case about Clean Air Act violations. The case addresses claims by Duke Energy and other companies that the U.S. EPA got lawsuit-happy in the Clinton era, trying to force […]

Flip flops on ethanol

Today, Charlie Pierce wrote this:

Someone please show me a single act of public political courage undertaken by John McCain since he won the New Hampshire primary in 2000 that he hasn't hedged, trimmed, or walked back completely. The Bush campaign trashed his wife and daughter, and he's spent the years since trying to get a job as the pool boy in Crawford. He gave a brave speech about the danger of political preachers, but he'd walk on his knees across broken glass to get himself blessed by Jerry Falwell's direct-mail people. But yesterday might well be the purest day of opportunistic sycophancy in the history of the Straight Talk Express. First, he jumps on the idiotic controversy du jour, lining up with the usual chickenhawk suspects to trash his "good friend" and fellow veteran John Kerry. But he does so at this thing, an event in support of a man who recently threw the term "cut-and-run" at Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs in Iraq. Ho-ho. Now that's some straight-talkin' for you. Presidential fever produces odd symptoms in people, but none of them as odd as what's happened to McCain. His ambition has made him a coward.

But Pierce forgot something.

Signs of hope in the elephant party

In a week's time, the political climate in America will change -- or so the experts tell us. Pollster Charlie Cook, the "Oracle of Washington," calls this a "wave" election, compares it to 1994, and predicts Republicans will lose "at least 20 to 35 seats, possibly more." In the L.A. Times, conservative historian Niall Ferguson compares this election to 1958. That year, a two-term Republican president found himself stuck with an unpopular war and a sluggish economy. The GOP lost 48 seats, setting the stage for a dynamic new Democratic president in 1960, and Democratic domination of the Congress for the next 20 years.

If the election goes as these pollsters predict, November 7th will be "the end of George W. Bush's presidency as he has known it," reported the Washington Post.

Will prospects improve for environmental protection? Probably. But much will still depend on the Republican Party.

McNerney is giving Pombo a run for his money

A year ago it was virtually unthinkable that Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) — right-wing darling, fundraiser extraordinaire, champion of polluting industries, and enemy No. 1 of the environmental community — could be unseated by any Democrat, much less one with zero political experience to his name. But now, a week and a half before Election […]

Here So Suin’?

Courts see “boomlet” of climate-change-related lawsuits Climate-change-related lawsuits are the new black. At least 16 cases are pending in federal and state courts in which plaintiffs seek to hold automakers, oil companies, and electric utilities liable for environmental devastation wrought by global warming. “To me, Katrina was a clear result of irresponsible behavior by the […]

A new essay

What follows is a new essay by Bill McKibben, addressing -- in the context of reviewing five new books -- just how close we are to ecological catastrophe, and what reasons there are for hope.

The essay will appear in the Nov. 16 edition of the New York Review of Books. The NYRB editors gave Tom Engelhardt's excellent TomDispatch permission to publish it in advance; he in turn gave me permission to run it here. Thanks to Tom and to the NYRB editors.

Don't miss this one.

Enviros hope to make gains with gubernatorial races in key states

With Election Day just over two weeks away, Muckraker brings you part two of our roundup of gubernatorial races with important green angles. Last week, in part one, we chronicled the hottest campaigns along the Eastern seaboard. This week, we’re briefing you on a few of the must-watch races in the Midwest and Pacific regions. […]