235 GtC 2007-2030 here (column “Total”):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/excel/figure_66data.xls

15 GtC from US petroleum use 2007-2030 here (under transportation, row “Total”):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeotab_18.pdf

The data is expressed in tons carbon dioxide, so need to be divided by 3.664 to gets tons carbon.

Thanks!

It’s a little like calling computer users point sources of Windows operating systems;-)

See this analaysis:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., and M. M. Betsill, 1997: Policy for Science for Policy: Ozone Depletion and Acid Rain Revisited. Research Policy, 26, 157-168.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-153-1997.11.pdf

Thanks!

Your reference to CFC’s being primarily a point source problem is incorrect. Individual car AC’s, refrigerators, aersol spray cans, and fire extinguishers are as distributed as you can get. There are similarities and differences between the problems of stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change, but surely the distributed nature of the pollutants that cause them is one of the similarities.

Best,
Scott

Thanks. As I have learned in the school of hard knocks subtle humor does not translate well on a blog;-) No worries . . .

To answer your question: “Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the EPA CANNOT regulate a sector if it cannot measure a ‘discernable’ impact of a particular measure?”

No. I am not saying “cannot”. I’m just not sure how much sense it makes to regulate a substance if the regulations can have no discernible effect on impacts.

You also ask: “Are you suggesting that the lawsuit would have a greater chance of success if it focused on CO2 in general, rather than CO2 from a particular sector?”

No. Any US lawsuit has to be focused on agencies with jurisdiction in the US. What I am suggesting is that any such piecemeal approach has some obvious logical problems. Work that I have cited here before about why cities and states are taking what looks like piecemeal approaches suggests that those actions are motivated by other reasons with climate change being a side benefit (even if justified by climate change). I think that federal gov’t action will occur for the same reasons. See my recent testimony for discussion.

Thanks!

Thanks. I agree with you that our interpretation of the law is not what matters, but nonetheless we can certainly still discuss it here. The people whose views matter are Clarence Thomas, David Souter, et al. But lets not forget that questions of law are a matter of interpretation, not formulaic application.

I would argue that there is no air pollution precedent that is directly relevant to this case. Of course, the foundation of legal argument is precedents, so competing sides will of try to argue their views in the context of precendents, which may or may not fit. I assume that the people you have been talking to are mainly from your side of the issue. But surely the other side probably thinks they have a good case also. My views on the lack of good precedent is why I think that this issue requires legislative action.

One reason that I think that there is no precedent is the long-term, global nature of the problem in the context of extremely distributed sources of carbon dioxide, which is the original reason for my post. Ozone depletion was by contrast a point source issue. This issue may never come up in the SC, nonetheless, I do think it is worth discussing, if nothing else to clarify my own thinking about the issue.

Let me say that I don’t have strong feelings about the case one way or the other. I don’t think that it is as significant as you or the CEI does (I could easily be wrong), and whatever the outcome I doubt it will much change the policy landscape of the climate issue (I could be wrong;-), though it will obviously have considerable political ramifications.

Were I on the Court, I’d personally send this issue right back to Congress, quite apart from the merits of the case, for reasons I’ve already discussed.

Thanks!

Again, it’s not a matter of your views vs. my views, it’s a question of what the law is.

I am no expert on the law, but am reliably informed by those who are that the right interpretation of the CAA 202 standard (according to settled law, so it won’t likely be an issue in this case) is exactly what it seems to be: It asks (a) Can the pollution in question (CO2 and GHG’s in this case) “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”? and (b) do the emissions in question “cause or contribute to” this pollution?

My understanding is that Marlowe is right, and that interpreting this the way you suggest (do the individual emissions themselves contribute to… endagerment?) is contrary to precedent and would upend vast areas of established air pollution regulations.

That is why we did not discuss it in the brief: because it wasn’t relevant (so we were told) to the legal issues at hand.

Again, everybody who supposedly knows (ie. not me or any of the scientists) is anticipating the legal battleground of this case to lie elsewhere: first, on whether GHG’s are “pollutants” within the meaning of the CAA, and second, just how constrained is the administrator’s judgement in determining whether the “reasonable anticipation of endangerment” standard is met.

But as everyone will acknowledge, predicting the Supreme COurt is a tricky business. I certainly am not going to try and predict what they will do here.

See you,
Scott

The conspiracy suggestion was playful not serious, apologies if came out that way . Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the EPA CANNOT regulate a sector if it cannot measure a ‘discernable’ impact of a particular measure? Frankly I find this hard to believe, since this would preclude the EPA from regulating all kinds of small pollution sources that individually don’t contribute much to smog, for example (or at least not in a statistically significant discernable way). Maybe dumping waste into the ocean/great lakes is a better example (although I don’t know if/how this is covered by the EPA)…

Let me ask this another way. Are you suggesting that the lawsuit would have a greater chance of success if it focused on CO2 in general, rather than CO2 from a particular sector?

Also, I’m not sure I understand how “localizing and temporalizing the climate issue on shorter-terms” contributes to a better public understanding or more effective policies on climate change (given the time lag and the assymetrical nature of the costs/benefits). If anything, I would suggest that it would do the opposite — by showing how small impacts would be in the short-term and on a local scale, emphasing short-term and local only reinforces the existing bias we all have to do less now and more later…

At any rate I’m going to actually read the link you provided now , so feel free to chastize me if it’s explained there.

cheers,

Thanks for your participation.

On “contribute to” you are right I should have included it (20-20 hindsight, sorry), but I actually do not see it as making a difference to the point I am making in this post.

(And please, no more of the conspiracy theories. Everyone knows that Prometheus readers are plenty smart and intentional efforts to mislead will only backfire. Please give me and our readers a little credit and allow everyone here to make a mistake every so often without immediately jumping to criticize motives. Thx!)

If climate models cannot distinguish between the impacts of of 235 GtC and 220 GtC (I’ve since learned that automobiles use about 65% of petroleum in the US, so this number would be more like 225 GtC) in their realizations, then there is no basis for arguing that automobile emissions “contribute to” climate impacts, other than the obvious statement that in sufficent quantities in the atmosphere greenhouse gases generally have an impact (which if you read is exactly what the scientists’ brief was very careful to say, they do not at all discuss the relative role of auto emissions, itself an interesting omission).

Let me put this another way. If there is no basis for arguing that regulation of US automobile emissions of carbon dioxide will have discernible effects, except as part of a broader international regulatory approach that reduces emissions far beyond what is under EPA’s jurisdiction over automobiles, then I would not expect that action would be taken on this one particular regulatory issue. Again, these are my views, others will have different views.

Call this a Catch-22 or chicken-and-egg problem, and I’d agree. But recognize that it is this logic (present not just in the EPA lawsuit) that led me to argue for localizing and temporalizing the climate issue on shorter-terms in my recent Congressional testimony:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2466-2006.09.pdf

Thanks!

Thanks for including the full clause of section 202(a)(1). I can’t help but wonder why Roger left it out in his earlier comment. Is it because “contribute to” is clearly vital to its interpretation and pokes a pretty big hole in the logic of Roger’s post? Seems pretty sneaky to me. A more charitable interpretation might be that the professor was simply giving a lesson that shows the importance of checking source material and not simply relying on selective quotes by others…

It seems to me that there are some other issues here.

1) Can CO2 be captured as “pollution”? if not, then one could argue that the rest of the clause doesn’t apply and the CAA can’t be used to regulate CO2. Not a very strong argument IMO, but one that has been made in the past and has been made in other jurisdictions. In Canada, for example, there bas been some debate about whether or not CO2 could be regulated under CEPA for the same reason (i.e., is it considered a pollutant).

2) “endagers public health or welfare”. IMO this is the more interesting question, and the one that is most open to debate. What metric does one measure impacts on health? increased deaths from heat less decreased deaths from cold? While this is a bit of a no-brainer for the less developed countries that will be impacted by climate change, I’m not sure that the same applies for the U.S., which is the test that the CAA applies to.

Talking about “welfare” is even more nebulous in this context IMO because there isn’t a standard common usage definition that everyone will agree upon. Having had some experience drafting environmental legislation, one of the things that I learned was how important it was to only use language which had a common understanding that was not subject to multiple interpretations and to define other terms that might be subject to interpretation. Maybe others would disagree?

Just some thoughts. And despite what criticisms Roger, I still appreciate you taking the time to post on this topic.

Cheers,

Thanks. This conversation highlights the importants of judicial discretion and — dare I say it — politics in court decisions. I have no idea how the SC will rule, but clearly there are a legitimate diversity of views on what the best course of action by the SC.

If is is any consolation, it is interesting to note that your perspective and that of Marlo Lewis of CEI (see the other thread on this topic) are entirely compatible. You seem to disagree on what side you’d come down on but agree on the logic and significance of the ruling.

Who says there is no room for compromise on climate issues?;-)

In any case, you are invited back to share you views on the lawsuit once decided, however it turns out.

Thanks!