Four the Future - December 31

Part two of a two-part climate change focus: what's being done because of global climate change. You can find part one here. Go ahead and take a look, I'll wait. Go on.

• Obama drops plan to limit global warming gases (Federal Response, Part One)
  Source: Washington Post; November 3, 2010
  Summary: Due to political reasons, the Obama administration has dropped its proposal to regulate greenhouse gases through a cap-and-trade system. The proposal passed the House, but it was blocked in the Senate. Obama claims there are other ways to get the job done.
  Opinion: This is not a Democratic/Republican thing, or else it would have passed when the Democrats had a supermajority. This is a matter of whether the US legislative branch has enough statesmen to actually do their job. The answer is clear. But hopefully, the people in this next story will give Congresscritters some backbone....
  
• Climate scientists fighting back (Climatologists' Response)
  Source: Spokesman-Review; November 8, 2010
  Summary: Though traditionally scientists attempt to stay out of the political fray, many have decided that the threat of climate change is too great to be left to the politicians. Originally of the opinion that the truth would win out, they have seen two decades go by without sufficient action. They are now changing their strategy. The American Geophysical Union announced that 700 climatologists will be available to speak as climate experts to ensure that the threat is being conveyed accurately.
  Opinion: It's unfortunate that truth is not a respected commodity in politics, so it was inevitable that people with more credibility than politicians would be necessary to straighten this out. You'd think it wouldn't be that hard to find people more credible than politicians, but that's not actually how people think. Mostly, people believe people who tell them things that confirm their preconceptions. But, that's a topic for another time, and another blog....
  
• As nations dither on climate change, big cities step up (Cities' Response)
  Source: McClatchy; November 23, 2010
  Summary: Much of the world’s economic activity occurs in cities, so some large cities want to start playing a role in dealing with climate change rather than wait for their national governments. Consequently, several cities joined in the UN climate change talks this month.
  Opinion: This is effort is not new. Former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels initiated the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement that allows cities to commit to the goals of the Kyoto Treaty. As of December 20, 2010, there were 1044 cities ( map) which have signed on, including Spokane and Sandpoint. However, having the cities asserting themselves at the international level is new, and a sign that the US federal government is making itself irrelevant through inaction.
  
• Poor countries join the rich in agreeing to monitor emissions (International Response)
  Source: McClatchy; December 11, 2010
  Summary: The UN climate change talks were successful, but stopped short of a full treaty. All countries, including the major powers, approved what is known as the Cancun agreements. The agreements commit nations to cutting emissions, includes monitoring of the greenhouse gas emissions of emerging nations, such as China, and creates a Green Climate Fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change, $30 billion to start, and $100 billion annually beginning in 2020. The agreement buoys hope for a treaty at the next climate conference next year in Durban, South Africa.
  Opinion: It would be helpful for me if anyone could tell me the difference between an agreement and a treaty. I’m not sure how an agreement could commit a country to a task if it's not solemnized as treaty. I’ll put it on my to-do list, but if you happen to know, please let us all know!
  
• EPA to set pollution limits on power plants, refineries (Federal Response, Part Two)
  Source: McClatchy; December 23, 2010
  Summary: The EPA is adopting standards which will reduce allowable carbon emissions from new and heavily renovated refineries and fossil fuel burning power plants. This new regulation is made under the authority of the Clean Air Act. The new regulation does not affect current plants. Existing plants (about 500 coal-fired plants and 150 refineries) are unaffected until states adopt their own regulations under EPA guidelines to be published in 2015 or 2016. The current set of proposed regulations will be issued in 2011 and put into effect in 2012.
  Opinion: The Bush administration argued that the EPA did not want to regulate carbon emissions, but in 2007 the US Supreme Court said that it was required to determine whether carbon emissions were a threat before it could decide to do nothing about it. Two years later a proposed finding and a final ruling found that that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that they had reached unprecedented levels due to human activity. With that finding, the EPA was obligated to issue regulations to treat them as pollutants. Which just goes to show that elections matter (as to whether science is respected or not).