However, the refusal of the EPA to act in a certain way was (and I believe wrongly, even for them to have considered it) ruled on by the Supreme Court of the US.

As you no doubt know by now, the EPA was sued over its refusal to regulate “greenhouse gasses” (which I call GhG) As usual, the news botched it up, since it’s specifically for, “regulating vehicle emissions for carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons” (or CMNH) Never mind that they meant to petition the EPA on chloroflurocarbons, and it only applies to vehicle emissions.

For those of you that might not be familiar with the 5-4 decision, here it is in summary:

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court (5), in 3 parts
1. States had the right to sue the EPA over the decision not to regulate CMNH.
2. The Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate CMNH.
3. The EPA must re-evaluate the contention it has the discretion to not regulate CMNH.

The dissenters(4), in 2 dissents
1. Dealing with the complaints spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive.
2. The court should not substitute its judgment in place of the EPA’s.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

The point of all this being that the EPA and the USDA are already doing a great many things in the area of technology, emissions, and sequestering. We don’t need a treaty with Japan, (nor a panel of the UN) telling us what to do. (We probably absorb more CO2 with all the vegetation we have in the Conus and Alaska than we create anyway?) Certainly nothing along the lines of Russia, China and India put together (regardless if they’re participating in KP or not) I’d wager a guess most nobody that signed it is doing anything. (If I was paranoid, I’d think the entire point of KP was to get some amount of control over the United States on our policies)

KP is bogus; Bush refused to join it, but that was to be expected: the Senate under Clinton rejected an attempt by Byrd to pass a vote (‘98 I think) to join KP by 95 to 0. (Which I guess means he didn’t even bother to vote on it, was dead by then, or voted no. I don’t know) They would have not ratified it regardless of what Bush did (which was the right thing, ignore it)

Roger, when your book comes out, they are all going to be blown away, it’s going to be great. Deltoid and RC and all those have their days numbered, that’s for sure.

You write, “While I’m also no expert on U.S. constitutional law, I suspect that the legal authority to regulate CO2 emissions derives from the same source which allows the EPA to regulate thousands of other substances.”

OK…what part of the Constitution do you think that is?

You also write, “As an aside, I find your arguments about whether or not the U.S. is ‘decarbonizing’ unconvincing and largely irrelevant. If the U.S. is decarbonizing it likely has more to do with the changing nature of its economy — exporting manufacturing jobs to Asia and increasing the proportion of knowledge-based and service-oriented jobs — and less to do with using less carbon intensive fuels as a matter of course.”

It is not just the *U.S.* that is decarbonizing. The entire world is decarbonizing. As I wrote previously, here are *worldwide* anthropogenic increases in CO2 emissions:

Here are the approximate decadal increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions:

1950 – 1960 –> 57%
1960 – 1970 –> 58%
1970 – 1980 –> 29%
1980 – 1990 –> 15%
1990 – 2000 –> 6%

You also write, “This basically means that we can probably expect absolute global CO2 emissions to increase for the foreseeable future.”

What is your definition of “foreseeable future?” (How many years do you consider to be the “foreseeable future?”)

Finally, you write, “Your question about the absolute effect of U.S. emission reductions on AGW impacts in the distant future is also inappropriate…”

I didn’t ask a question, so much as I made an assertion. No “forseeable” (i.e., politically practical, to the extent that they can actually be passed by Congress) U.S. regulations on CO2 emissions will have any practical effect on world temperature in the 21st century, in that the temperature reduction due to U.S. regulations will be less than 0.1 degree Celsius.

See my third comment on May 25, at 7:29 PM.

Mark

You write, “I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I cannot answer your question.”

1) Can you search the Internet for a copy of the Consitution and its amendments? If not, here is a copy:

Constitution and its amendments

2) Can you read?

If you can do both those things, then you CAN answer my question, which I have now asked three times. Which part of the Constitution (and its amendments) do you think authorizes the federal gov’t to regulate GHG emissions?

You continue, “However, the question sounds like one of those ridiculous arguments about income tax: “the constitution doesn’t give the gov’t authority to tax us, therefore I’m not going to file my income taxes.’”

Most people agree that the federal government is authorized to collect income taxes because of the Sixteenth Amendment:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Perhaps if you educate yourself by actually reading the Constitution and its amendments, then your opinions won’t be so ignorant and obviously false.

I wrote: “Wouldn’t reducing our emissions by 80% from current levels cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations to begin declining?”

You responded, “No. Cutting emissions to around 2 GtC/year will lead to stabilization of atmospheric CO2 at around 500-550 ppmv. If you are interested in educating yourself about this, pls see Fig. 6-1 and associated discussion in the IPCC TAR synthesis document.”

OK, I’ve looked at Fig 6-1 and the associated discussion in the IPCC TAR synthesis discussion. I don’t see any explanation of *why* reducing emissions by 58% relative to present wouldn’t stabilize CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, if 58% of current emissions are showing up in the atmosphere.

Can you explain why, if 58% of current emissions are showing up in the atmosphere, reducing emissions by 58% relative to current values won’t stabilize atmospheric concentrations?

While we’re at it, you previously wrote that we would need to reduce *GHG* emissions by 80% (see your comments of May 25, at 10:30 PM). As you probably know, “GHGs” include methane as well as CO2. Do you really think we also need to reduce methane emissions by 80%?

Mark

Sorry I probably should have been clearer with my question. I didn’t mean to suggest that ALL countries adopt stabilization as a first step; only Annex B would. This would still be consistent with the FCCC’s “common but differentiated responsibilities principle”, which as you note is itself based on normative and pratical considerations. My question was why were the specific targets selected, e.g. 6% below 1990 for Canada, 8% EU, 0% for New Zealand, etc? Was there any kind of consensus at the time that these targets were achievable?

The concept of fairness is very tricky IMO when applied to AGW. On the one hand one could argue that emission allowances should be allocated on a per capita basis. After all, what gives an American or European the “right” to emit ten times more than an Indian or an African? On the other hand, reducing American/European emissions to a theoritical average limit (i.e. total atmospheric capacity / total population) would have very serious economic consequences if implemented too quickly which would probably leave everyone worse off.

Of course, over the long term what will have to happen is some sort of convergence to this equal emissions per capita point. To be clear, I don’t think that this means that ‘actual’ emissions per capita will converge; instead industrialized countries will purchase the “right” to emit from developing countries. The real question IMO is how quickly this convergence will happen — what the targets and timetables will be — and how much wealth will be transferred to developing countries as a result, i.e. how much will industrialized countries actually reduce their own emissions and/or increase sink capacity.

BTW I haven’t *finished* your book yet — been pretty busy getting the garden up to snuff — but have enjoyed it so far .

You asked: “I’ve never heard an anwser, but I’ve always wondered why/how the particular targets of Kyoto were selected — why wasn’t stabilization for all countries chosen as the first step?”

You still haven’t read my book, have you? The reason that industrialized countries were tapped first in the KP is for both practical and normative reasons. First, industrialized countries have more resources to throw at the problem. Developing countries are unlikely to sign on to any agreement with uncertain costs that could negatively affect their economic development. Second, industrialized countries are responsible for most of the climate change we’ve realized to date. From a fairness point of view, it was judged reasonable that industrialized countries take the first step.

In this sense, the structure of the KP was essentially a xerox copy of the extremely successful Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately, there are enough differences between ozone depletion and AGW that what worked for ozone has not worked for AGW.

Regards.

While I’m also no expert on U.S. constitutional law, I suspect that the legal authority to regulate CO2 emissions derives from the same source which allows the EPA to regulate thousands of other substances.

Now this is probably where your “Aha!” moment comes in and you say “but CO2 isn’t toxic or harmful like these other substances so the government has no authority to regulate”.

To which I would reply that the bulk of the evidence to date suggests that there will likely be significant impacts if CO2 emissions continue to increase. Now you may disagree and argue that the the scientific evidence suggests otherwise or is inconclusive. It is true that the causal link between CO2 emissions and AGW is more complicated than other pollutants (e.g. acid rain, ozone depletion, dioxins/furans, lead, etc.) But I would suggest that you would have a very difficult time convincing a judge that a GHG regulation was unconstitutional/baseless on the grounds that AGW is an unproven theory whose harms can’t be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

As an aside, I find your arguments about whether or not the U.S. is ‘decarbonizing’ unconvincing and largely irrelevant. If the U.S. is decarbonizing it likely has more to do with the changing nature of its economy — exporting manufacturing jobs to Asia and increasing the proportion of knowledge-based and service-oriented jobs — and less to do with using less carbon intensive fuels as a matter of course. Coal has, and will continue to be a very, very cheap source of energy even with control technologies for criteria air contaminants. Absent the GHG-reduction motive, it’s tough to see why its use on a global basis will decline significantly over the next several decades.

Put another way, while countries in the west may be switching to less polluting technologies in response to concerns from their citizens about air quality effects, there isn’t any reason to expect developing countries to skip coal and go straight to more expensive options like natural gas and/or nuclear. This basically means that we can probably expect absolute global CO2 emissions to increase for the foreseeable future. To talk about emissions on a global per capita basis isn’t really useful because it is such a coarse statistic that lacks explanatory power. As others have already noted, energy consumption per capita is decreasing simply because population growth developing countries is outpacing growth in developed countries, not because of some virtuous drive to clean energy.

Your question about the absolute effect of U.S. emission reductions on AGW impacts in the distant future is also inappropriate IMO as it seems to suggest that regulations which don’t immediately solve the problem aren’t worth the effort (and may be unconstitutional?). In fact virtually all environmental legislation in the U.S. and the rest of the industrialized world uses a phased, gradualist approach; typically for the very sensible reason that abrupt change is usually too costly for the regulated community, i.e. a balance needs to be struck.

Now a more useful discussion IMO is whether or not 7% below 1990 levels by 2012 is an appropriate target or not. Is it too ambitious/costly? I’ve never heard an anwser, but I’ve always wondered why/how the particular targets of Kyoto were selected — why wasn’t stabilization for all countries chosen as the first step? Maybe Andrew, Roger, or others could shed some light on this. In my very limited experience, I’ve found that these sorts of things are often decided in a very arbritrary fashion by the political machinery and wonder if this was the case during Kyoto in 97′. On a somewhat related note to the original question about the constitutionality of GHG regulations, is anyone aware of any legal challenges involving Kyoto and other regulations/treaties, e.g. is anyone at the WTO level using Kyoto obligations as a defence for tariffs?

A few thoughts.

I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I cannot answer your question. However, the question sounds like one of those ridiculous arguments about income tax: “the constitution doesn’t give the gov’t authority to tax us, therefore I’m not going to file my income taxes.” People making that argument end up jail. Similarly, I’m quite certain the gov’t can and eventually will regulate GHGs.

You wrote: “Wouldn’t reducing our emissions by 80% from current levels cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations to begin declining?”
Answer: No. Cutting emissions to around 2 GtC/year will lead to stabilization of atmospheric CO2 at around 500-550 ppmv. If you are interested in educating yourself about this, pls see Fig. 6-1 and associated discussion in the IPCC TAR synthesis document.

I agree that research on all aspects of climate change are woefully underfunded … including CO2 removal.

You asked: “Why do you conclude “We need to reduce emissions of all countries”? Why can’t we, for example, increase uptake?”
That’s certainly something we should investigate. If a technological solution arises that allows us to remove CO2 from the atmosphere w/out serious side effects, then we should pursue that. Such a method does not now exist, and it’s not clear it ever will, so it is my judgment that we should begin GHG emissions reductions, while continuing to do research on other approaches.

You asked: “why can’t we wait 30-50 years, and see if CO2 emissions don’t go down through normal technological and economic evolution?”
I think we’ve already been over this. If we institute regulations and emissions go down by themselves, then the regulations will cause no harm. Example: I always wear my seatbelt; gov’t passes law mandating I wear my seatbelt … such a law has zero effect on me.

However, if emissions don’t go down by themselves, the regulations will be a prudent safety net (e.g., the law does have an impact on those that don’t wear their seatbelt). In my judgment, we need to be risk averse when dealing with the safety of the planet.

Regards.

You write, “My views that the gov’t can regulate GHG emissions comes from my observation that the gov’t has been doing it for decades. Why do YOU think the gov’t suddenly cannot regulate GHGs?”

I didn’t ask you why you think the federal gov’t can regulate GHG emissions. I asked you what section of the Constitution you think authorizes the federal gov’t to regulate GHG emissions. Again, what section of the Constitution do you think authorizes the federal government to regulate GHG emissions?

As far as your question, to my knowledge there is no section of the Clean Air Act, or any of its amendments, wherein Congress authorizes the President (via the Environmental Protection Agency) to regulate CO2 emissions. So I’d be curious, after you identify the section of the Constitution that (you think) authorizes Congress to regulate CO2 emissions, if you could also identify the section(s) of the Clean Air Act or its amendments that (you think) authorizes the President to regulate CO2 emissions. Or do you think it’s some other piece of legislation, other than the Clean Air Act and its amendments, that authorizes the President to regulate CO2 emissions?

“But reducing our emissions by 80% will lead to atmospheric CO2 abundance to about level off.”

Wouldn’t reducing our emissions by 80% from current levels cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations to begin declining? After all, as I pointed out in my previous comments, according to James Hansen, only about 58% of CO2 emissions show up as increases in atmospheric concentration (with the other 42% being absorbed by the biosphere).

BTW…there’s also the fact that atmospheric methane concentrations are *already* stable. So wouldn’t reducing them by 80% would cause atmospheric methane concentrations (the second most important GHG) to drop very rapidly. Or don’t you agree?

Regarding increasing uptake of CO2, what amount of research money money do you think is being spent on increasing uptake, rather than decreasing emissions? My guess is that the percentage of time and money devoted to increasing uptake is less than 10 percent of the time and money devoted to decreasing emissions. What percentage do you think is currently being spent on increasing uptake, and what percentage do you think is appropriate?

Finally, you write, “There are literally thousands of articles published every year that shows that CO2 is causing AGW. Do you really want a list?”

No, Andrew. If you read my comments and questions carefully, you’d see that I asked nothing remotely close to that question.

I asked whether you thought that reducing U.S. emissions of CO2 would have any practical effect on 21st century temperatures. We seem to agree that the U.S. alone reducing emissions won’t have a practical effect.

You conclude with, “We need to reduce emissions of all countries.”

Why do you conclude “We need to reduce emissions of all countries”? Why can’t we, for example, increase uptake? Or why can’t we wait 30-50 years, and see if CO2 emissions don’t go down through normal technological and economic evolution? (Note: And methane emissions are already declining, such that we can expect to see a decrease in *atmospheric concentrations* of methane even in the next 0-20 years.)

Mark

A few responses.

My views that the gov’t can regulat GHG emissions comes from my observation that the gov’t has been doing it for decades. Why do YOU think the gov’t suddenly cannot regulate GHGs?

When I say “make the climate stable,” I mean with respect to human emissions. Other modes of variability, such as changes in solar output or orbital variations will continue to change the cliamte. But reducing our emissions by 80% will lead to atmospheric CO2 abundance to about level off. There’s lots of literature out there on this … I’m surprised someone as knowledgable about the topic is apparently unfamiliar with that field of study.

I agree that if there’s a way to increase update of CO2 to offset CO2 emissions, then we should consider that as an alternative to reductions.

I wrote: “Your argument, as I understand it, is that such reductions will occur naturally. If so, great — any GHG-reduction regulations will therefore not cause any consternation. ”

You responded with two alternatives that are inappropriate. The better analogy is this: I drive at 65 mph. The gov’t passes a regulation that lowers the speed limit from 80 to 70 mph. That has zero impact on me.

Thus, if CO2 emissions decrease rapidly and without any gov’t intervention, which I believe you’ve argued, then putting in limits on CO2 emissions will have little impact on our society. However, if you’re wrong and CO2 emissions do not decrease by themselves, then the regulations will provide an important safety net.

Thus, I stand by my statement that prudence dictates we implement GHG emissions regulations. Perhaps they’ll be unnecessary … perhaps not.

You write: “My point was that GHG regulations–particularly U.S. GHG regulations–will have no practical effect on temperatures in the 21st century. Do you disagree? If so, based on what evidence?”

There are literally thousands of articles published every year that shows that CO2 is causing AGW. Do you really want a list?
If we reduce global CO2 emissions by 80%, which will lead to a leveling off of atmospheric CO2, then the human component of warming will cease. I agree that reducing US emissions alone is foolish. We need to reduce emissions of all countries.

Regards.

You write, “First, several decades of history suggests that the US Govt. does have the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs.”

My actual comments were much more directed towards Lisa Dilling’s statement that, “A President could indeed make a mark in history with a nationwide, binding emissions trading system. The key word is binding– voluntary doesn’t cut it.”

I thought that statement implied that the President could act independently of Congress to set up a mandatory emissions trading system.

But now that we’re on the subject,…which part of the Constitution do you think authorizes the federal government to regulate emissions of GHGs?

You also write, “Second, the world needs to reduce GHGs by about 80% (from today’s emissions) in order to stabilize the climate.”

That’s an intriguing theory. At the risk of losing any chance of future membership in the “Non-Skeptical Heretics Club,” I have some questions regarding that theory:

1) Human emissions of GHGs were about 80% reduced from today’s emission up until roughly 1945 (or perhaps a bit later, considering methane):

http://www.vitalgraphics.net/_images/lac/large/1.jpg

If reducing emissions by 80% will make the climate stable, why wasn’t the climate stable prior to 1945? Or do you think world climate was stable before 1945? (If so, what about the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age…to mention just a few periods of temperature changes?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

2) James Hansen estimates that approximately 58% of CO2 emitted by humans remains in the atmosphere (see slide #4):

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf

So why do the reductions have to equal 80%?

3) Why do the reductions have to be in *emissions*. Humans currently emit about 25 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. To “stabilize” the situation, why couldn’t uptake of CO2 be increased by 20 billion tons per year of CO2?

You continue, “Your argument, as I understand it, is that such reductions will occur naturally. If so, great — any GHG-reduction regulations will therefore not cause any consternation. ”

Let’s look at some analogies:

1) You wear your seatbelt all the time, right? Well, then, it should cause you “no great consternation” if the police stopped you briefly on your way home from work each day to check that you’re wearing your seatbelt, right?

2) You brush your teeth before bed each night, right? Well, then, it should cause you “no great consternation” if the federal government asks you to have someone in your family take a digital photo of you brushing your teeth, and send it in to the Department of Health and Human Services (Dental Care Division) each morning. Right?

Then you write, “But if you’re wrong and GHG emissions do not magically decrease on their own, then the a global regulation regime will play an important role in stabilizing the climate.”

Heh, heh, heh! What gives you the idea that the people of India and other developing countries will allow their governments to deliberately make energy less affordable?

“By that logic, I conclude that implementing global GHG-emission regulations is a prudent action.”

I don’t follow your logic. Could you answer my questions about your theory on the 80% reduction in emissions? Would you experience “no great consternation” if the government checked your seatbelt wearing and tooth-brushing (considering you do both anyway)? Why do you think the people of India and other developing countries will allow their governments to deliberately make energy less affordable?

You conclude with, Third, your last argument is a false choice. The choice is not between GHG regulations and your other options. We can and should pursue multiple options until we see which ideas will work out.

My point was that GHG regulations–particularly U.S. GHG regulations–will have no practical effect on temperatures in the 21st century. Do you disagree? If so, based on what evidence?

Mark