I think that Revkin rightly focusses on the real culprit – buck-passing by politicians who lack political will: “The politicians know that it’s too dangerous for them to define it. They toss it off to the scientists and the scientists say that’s not our decision.” Actually this says too much, because inaction is actually a policy that has been determined at the highest levels of our government with the support of the fossil fuels industry.

Roger, it seems that you advocate a collective “tough love” by scientists, who should essentially boycott commenting on questions such as what is the right level of CO2 emissions or concentrations. I have noted before (on the intelligence thread, where apparently your considered respnse was lost in the ether) that such an approach hardly seems practical within the science community, and leaves you bashing those who have the least responsibility for making policy.

Perhaps you can better lay out how the scientific community can get organized – such as through promulgation of voluntary codes on discussing climate change policy – and what you think are the prospects for the efficacy of such efforts? Just flogging the scientists hardly seems productive.

Thanks for the link to the Revkin interview. I think he is indeed eloquent, and right on target. And probably right to take scientist’s a little bit to task for sometimes giving in to the “seduction”.

Best,
Scott

Some people think they know the answer to this question others, others legitimately disagree. I find the question itself ill-posed, as I argue in my paper “Misdefining Climate Change”?

Andy Revkin of the NYT spoke on this topic eloquently in a recent interview. His comments are worth reading:

“Ultimately, the choices that confront us are values choices. The question of avoiding dangerous climate change revolves around the word dangerous, and the word dangerous is fundamentally a values-laden word. It’s not a scientifically delineated term. We’ve been in this bollix since 1990. The negotiations leading to the Framework Conventional on Climate Change, never define the word dangerous because no one wants to touch it. The politicians know that it’s too dangerous for them to define it. They toss it off to the scientists and the scientists say that’s not our decision. We just tell you how much warming is going to happen, how much sea level will rise, and you figure out what level is unacceptable. So it goes round and round. Until society really gets a clearer sense of what this boils down to is a decision about what is our responsibility to the next generation and what is our responsibility to our neighbor. And in this case our neighbor could be Bangladesh on this little village called Earth. Until then we’re not really going to make progress on the issue. . .

I think several things have to happen. I think scientists need to be much clearer. Even though they know that they can’t answer the question of dangerous, they are still are very seduced by the idea that they can. I think what could benefit the whole discourse is for the scientists to say ‘we can’t define this for you’. And scientists haven’t really done that yet. Scientists still sometimes don’t say, ‘Here’s the science. Here’s what I as a human being think what’s right and wrong, based on my experience as human being and my values.’ If there were more clarity along those lines I think there would be a lot more progress because it would force the issue back onto the average person. The other problem that you get there is it perpetuates stasis because there is an expectation that science somehow will come up with a magic formula that will make this all easy. And it’s not going to happen that way.”

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005455.html

So as suggested by this comment, I simply reject the premise of your statement. _Science_ cannot answer this question.

Do I think we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Yes. For many reasons that make sense for addressing short-term concerns. The fact that reducing emissions also reduces the probability of unwanted or abrupt climate shifts only adds to the merit of short-term justifications. But I see the short-term justifications being definitive by themselves. See my recent congressional testimony on this point.

Thanks!

The answer to Hank’s is immutably yes, although there may be no net damage.

It’s good to clarify “CO2″ vs. other anthropogenic effects though.

“do we know that the level of CO2 increase, including feedbacks” “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare”?

Scott – I agree that the question, in both moral and legal terms, is do we know that the level of CO2 increase, including feedbacks thereto, currently qualifies CO2 as a pollutant. If, on the other hand, the warming expected from CO2 is only on the order of that warming which has historically been beneficial to mankind (as all of it has) then it’s not a pollutant. I suggest we get serious about research in the area, as opposed to knuckling under to companies looking to profit from the fear of climate change like this one:

http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-generation-bios.pdf

Oh, wait. That’s the page about Al Gore being an officer. I meant this page:

http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-white-paper-hightlights.pdf

(Just a little “Equal Time”)

Further to Scott’s very capable comments, the case is simply about how CO2 fits into the EPA’s responsibilities under the Clean Air Act, as well as whether the states have standing to sue the EPA. It is NOT about what climate change policy SHOULD be, but merely about whether the existing regulatory framework applies.

The question at issue here is a legal one, not a science or policy or common-sense one. The Clean Air Act definition is unambiguous and all-encompassing:

“The term ‘air pollutant’ means any air pollution
agent or combination of such agents, including any
physical, chemical, biological, radioactive…
substance or matter which is emitted into or
otherwise enters the ambient air.”
[Section 302(g) ]

This does not mean that EPA has to regulate every substance that enters the ambient air, only that they have authority to do so when such agents

“cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare.” [Section 202(a)(1)]

This provides the legal answer to your question about what level at which it becomes a pollutant. If CO2 causes or contributes to global warming, and global warming “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”, then CO2 is a pollutant that must be regulated.

I hope this helps clarify the legal issues slightly.

Best,
Scott

The question is, what is the level at which it becomes a pollutant? To say it’s a pollutant (not to mention the convolution with other anthropogenic global warming causes like arable land destruction) at any level of industry or fossil fuel use is an argument a Luddite would make…

And also: “Massachusetts seems to be arguing two things. First, there is no upper bound on how much legislative authority Congress can abdicate, or alternatively, there is no limit on how much legislative authority the Court can usurp.
Second, they are arguing that the Executive branch has a nondiscretionary duty to arrogate to itself Congress’ authority to legislate.”

To the contrary on both points:

(1) On whether Congress gave the authority: this is actually one of the three main questions before the court, and it has been argued by EPA since at least their original denial of the petition for rulemaking that Congress did not give them the authority to regulate CO2 as an air pollutant.

It does not seem likely EPA will get very far: even Justice Scalia said several times that CO2 was, according the Clean Air Act, an air pollutant. Several experts are predicting that EPA will lose 9-0 on this argument.

(2) On what Mass. is arguing: they are actually arguing nothing of the kind. Rather, they are making a very narrow, very specific administrative law argument about the text of the Clean Air Act law and how much discretion it gives EPA. They argue that EPA did not follow this law, because in exercising its discretion not to regulate GHGs, EPA relied on considerations that Congress did not allow it to consider.

The argument here is complex and many sided. Of the three questions argued (standing, authority, and discretion), many experts seem to concur that it is likely that this is where the case will be decided, and that it could go either way. It probably depends on Justice Kennedy.

Regards,
Scott