Regulate global warming now, urge attorneys general

On the eve of an Obama administration, pressure is mounting to use the 1990 Clean Air Act to crack down on global warming emissions. The law already covers ozone, nitrogen oxides, particulates and other health-damaging substances. But the Bush administration says it is "ill-suited" for controlling carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and 13 other attorneys general on Monday called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use the 1990 act. "It has a proven track record of effectively dealing with complex air pollution problems...and it has done so without harming the economy," they wrote in a letter to the agency.

Using the Clean Air Act would likely be the fastest way for the United States to crack down on its global warming emissions. Barring that, it will be up to Congress to pass a new law to regulate climate-related pollution -- an effort that will entail a lengthy political wrestling match. Last spring, the U.S. Senate failed to pass a bill, as industry lobbyists outfoxed environmentalists.

"After eight years of foot-dragging, it is time for the EPA to reverse its shameful inaction on global warming," said Brown, a likely gubernatorial candidate who has made global warming one of his signature issues.

The California Air Resources Board, which also signed the letter, is expected to adopt its own comprehensive plan next week for slashing the state's planet-warming emissions -- the first state to do so. If the EPA were to regulate global warming under the Clean Air Act, then California could apply for a waiver that would allow it and other states to adopt even stricter rules than the federal government might pass -- an effort sure to rouse vigorous opposition from coal, cement and other heavily-polluting industries.

-- Margot Roosevelt

Photo: California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown. Credit:  David McNew /Getty Images

Comments

[Thomas Gray]

Carbon diox­ide is a naturally occurring component of the air, but is also the ubiquitous and unavoidable by-product of fossil fuel combustion, which currently provides 85 percent of America's energy. Thus, any effort to substantially curtail such emissions would have extremely costly and disruptive impacts on the economy and on living standards.
we all have learned that higher fuel cost quickly eat into disposable income that is also under attack via credit / taxes / food / almost everything manufactured and with the league of environmentalist activist having gained control over the EPA and about to """ tax all energy """ get ready to pay more for any manufactured or energy intensive or energy related, commodity, electricity, transportation ,heat ,ect, ect

As the earth economy must decline with our shrinking energy supplies, the auto makers must take their decline percentage also, but what they want is for tax money to pay the difference. All industry must take their decline percentage also '''''without'''' tax money paying the difference.

CLIMATE CHANGE has been occurring since the earth was formed, pointing out the various changes in the climate and their results does not prove anything except that the climate is doing what it's supposed to do CHANGE. The proposed cure for climate change is to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, meaning industry must shut down. transportation must stop. This will put millions of people out of work in the hope that MAYBE the climate will change for the BETTER ??? ''''''You people are in la la land''''''. These people that you are proposing to cast into unemployment poverty and misery will probably when they realize what the environmentalist activist via their government is doing to them will rebel and demand that this insanity stop, and or worse.

Climate change is real,,, man made global warming may or may not be true but it is the burning of FF by ALL mankind that must stop to make any difference and how can any man or group of men know that the difference would be for the """better""" ' IF ' it were possible to do.

My belief is corrupt men invented this GLOBAL WARMING problem scare to make money and gain power over our government with an urgent lie. Nature is brutal,,, most of the U.S.A. must have affordable electricity or both old and young will die from the cold of winter of course california's anti energy activist just don't seem to care about the rest of the country where it gets VERY cold, only their agenda.

[Joe Zeise]

Of course the Attorneys General are hyping the AGW scare, it is a litigation gold mine.

Us rational people consider the following:
1) Ice core data - temperature drives CO2 (thru 650K yrs and many glacial- interglacials)
2) Last 150 years of non-correlation (54% a flip of a coin) between temperature and CO2
3) Last 10 years of flat and/or falling temperatures with rising CO2
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SmoothedMonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg
4) Jim Hansen climate models blaming CO2 for temperature rise – Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by not adequately modeling the most abundant GHG, water vapor, and by not seriously considering clouds.
http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb9dc18834010535b4046b970b-pi

We say CO2, you warm cuddly molicule, we need you, we love you, we want more of you to help our civilization be sustained and thrive.

[David Pettit]

The Obama transition team agrees that using the federal Clean Air Act to deal with greenhouse gas emissions is the quickest way to start down the path to emission reductions that we need to be on. I think we can look forward to early action on this after January 20.

[Emily Belmont]

I wonder how many of these denialist trolls are actually on the payroll of Exxon. They seem to be quick on the draw, always spouting the same discredited arguments to cloud the waters and ensure continued fossil fuel burning - as if they do nothing all day but sit at their computers, spout nonsense, and collect an oil check.

[Glenn Samuels]

We are going to find that the result of this regulation is as scary as the War on Terror has been on our country. "Payroll of Exxon", that is so ridiculous, I am much more worried about the people that are on the enormous payroll of the Global Warming teet. If you are a researcher that is the best way to get funding for ANY scientific research. To believe in man-made global warming you must believe that one extra molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air is causing the 1 degree F of warming the earth has had this century. The effects have been for the most part beneficial to our planet. Can you imagine if the plane was one degree colder, sure the glaciers would be longer but mankind would suffer greatly. I use oil to heat my house, gasoline to drive my car and they want to place some huge tax on it, and give it to WHO? No Me. They even want to tax cows up to $175 for farting Methane? Can you believe it, check NT Times yesterday.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/farmers-panic-about-a-cow-tax/

Here are tons of studies, http://www.ourchiropractic.com/climate-change/ . Instead of a few "skeptics", we have the opposite, a very few extremists trying to lead the masses. I am all for Obama, but this could be his downfall.

[Mark Schaffer]

Glenn Samuels needs to read the IPCC reports before continuing to spout nonsense. He and others can do so here: http://www.ipcc.ch
If any readers want to see what an authentic consensus looks like peruse the following:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

[Reed Hopper]

Mr. Brown seems to feel that any greenhouse gas regulation is good no matter how uncoordinated the effort. The fact of the matter is that the Clean Air Act was never intended as a global warming statute, nor would it be prudent to use it as such. By its very nature, climate change requires a broad and coordinated approach. Not just locally, but internationally.

Unilateral, ad hoc regulation, as Mr. Brown advocates, is often counter productive. In light of the current financial crisis and the potential for economic havoc (including lost jobs and higher costs) that would follow federal regulation of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, going through the democratic process is both warranted and needful.

Reed Hopper
Principal Attorney
Pacific Legal Foundation