Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
March 28, 2008
1. Top Items -
Warming felt more in
EPA chief bides time on court's emissions order
Shelving his agency's findings that greenhouse gases are a danger, he says he'll open a long public comment period. -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Warming felt more in Western U.S.
By Margot Roosevelt,
The American West is heating up faster than any other region of the
For the last five years, from 2003 through 2007, the global climate averaged 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than its 20th century average.
During the same period, 11 Western states averaged 1.7 degrees warmer, the analysis reported.
The 54-page study, was released Thursday by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization -- a coalition of local governments, businesses and nonprofits. It was based largely on calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The report reveals "the growing consensus among scientists who study the West that climate change is no longer an abstraction," said Bradley H. Udall of the
Carbon dioxide pollution from vehicles, power plants and other industrial sources is a major contributor to global warming. The Environmental Protection Agency is under court order to address cutting greenhouse gases, and Congress is considering legislation to curb them.
The consequences of Western temperature increases, the report said, are evident in a rash of heat waves.
Likely to accelerate
The
Globally, warming varies according to region -- with more heating over land than over oceans. In
"Temperature rises have been much larger and more noticeable in the Western states," said Kelly T. Redmond, regional climatologist at
According to Udall, the data suggest that the trend will accelerate -- with the West warming about 1 1/2 times faster than the global average. Martin Hoerling, a NOAA meteorologist, has predicted that the West could heat up as much as 5 degrees by mid-century. In
"If we don't want this problem to get really bad, we need to pass a climate bill with teeth," said Theo Spencer, a project manager at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group that funded the Rocky Mountain Climate analysis. "Western senators need to take the lead, considering what's at stake in their states."
Legislation in the works
A bill to slash greenhouse gases nationwide, sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), is expected to reach the Senate floor by June. A recent tally by the newsletter Environment & Energy Daily counted 44 votes for the bill so far.
As many as 10 Republican senators from Western states are leaning against the bill, according to the newsletter, which based its research on interviews with lawmakers, staff, industry and environmental groups.
In the absence of federal action, states are moving ahead.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-climate28mar28,1,3755212.story
EPA chief bides time on court's emissions order
Shelving his agency's findings that greenhouse gases are a danger, he says he'll open a long public comment period.
By
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has shelved his agency's findings that greenhouse gases are a danger to the public, and on Thursday told Congress that he will initiate a lengthy public comment period about whether such emissions are a risk before responding to a U.S. Supreme Court order.
The move means there is virtually no chance the Bush administration will act to regulate greenhouse gases in response to the high court's decision in the time left in office.
The decision by the Environmental Protection Agency infuriated Democratic lawmakers, and attorneys who won the landmark case before the high court last spring.
"This is a transparent delaying tactic and a major reversal of EPA's position," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills). "The Bush administration is recklessly abandoning its responsibility to address the global warming crisis."
"It's outrageous," said Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder, one of the lead attorneys on the case, who said he would ask the Supreme Court next week to order the EPA to act within 60 days.
The EPA administrator's position of prolonged evaluation mirrors that advocated by a coalition of industry groups and conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation. The groups emphasized to the White House and lawmakers that the Supreme Court had set no deadline by which the EPA needed to act -- and that during an economic downturn, seeking comprehensive public comment and a "go-slow" approach would be far better.
EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar countered criticism of the decision by saying, "No matter what is shouted or screamed from the rooftops, this is truly a historic moment. No administration has taken this step to evaluate this new pollutant."
The Supreme Court ruled in April that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA was required to evaluate whether carbon dioxide was a risk to public health and welfare, and if so, to impose regulations on polluters, in particular automobiles.
EPA staffers told The Times they had concluded that such greenhouse gases were a major threat to water supply, crops, wildlife and other aspects of public welfare, and their finding was forwarded to the White House for review in December. In addition, under orders from Johnson, the staff last fall completed a draft regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
But on Thursday, Johnson wrote to key members of Congress outlining an exhaustive public-comment approach to the Supreme Court decision that he said would better address what harm greenhouse gases may cause, based on thorough study of all industry sectors -- not just vehicles -- that emit such gases.
"This approach gives the appropriate care and attention this complex issue demands," wrote Johnson. "Rather than rushing to judgment on a single issue, this approach allows us to examine all the potential effects of a decision with the benefit of the public's insight. In short, this process will best serve the American public."
Vickie Patton, senior counsel with Environmental Defense, and a former EPA attorney under President Clinton and President George H.W. Bush, harshly criticized Johnson.
"As glaciers disintegrate, EPA's response is delay, deny and obfuscate," she said. "EPA career staff has developed policies that are ready to go. They're awaiting a simple signature [from Johnson], but instead he's walking away."
Johnson's action came after Edwin Meese III and fellow attorneys at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, spent months sending detailed legal analyses and memos to "everyone we could think of" at the White House and in Congress, said Michael Franc, the foundation's vice president of government relations. Meese was attorney general under President Reagan.
The heart of their objections was that although the Supreme Court ruled on automobile emissions, the decision as worded could apply to every major smokestack industry and small business, including restaurants and apartment buildings.
White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel declined to comment on what role White House officials played in the EPA decision, or on the input it received from the Heritage Foundation and others. "We commend Administrator Johnson's decision," Stanzel said.
EPA spokesman Shradar said Johnson had acted independently. #
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-greenhouse28mar28,1,4863847.story
No comments:
Post a Comment