Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

California regulators back Lisa Jackson

By Juliet Eilperin

A troika of California regulators -- state leaders of efforts to regulate greenhouse gases -- are coming to the defense of EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

The head of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Energy Commission and the state's Public Utilities Commission wrote California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, defending EPA's right to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

"We believe that EPA is proceeding in deliberate and legally defensible fashion to meet the demands of administrative necessity and to avoid the absurd results that some critics fear," they wrote.

In an interview, CARB chairman Mary D. Nichols said that while she and other state regulators are still hoping Congress passes climate legislation, the timeline for climate regulation Jackson outlined this week shows EPA can curb greenhouse gases in a way that will not prove burdensome.

"We wanted to make sure that our two senators were aware of the fact that our concerns are being heard by EPA," Nichols said, noting that Jackson indicated the agency will target big greenhouse emitters before small ones, and won't start until 2011.

When it comes to lawmakers, Nichols added, "We need them to move, but we also need them to be supportive of EPA moving at the same time."

By

Juliet Eilperin

 |  February 25, 2010; 5:16 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Murkowski pushback | Next: Climate speed race

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



The measured data shows that the global temperature changed between 1970 and 2010 virtually identically with the way it changed between 1910 and 1950, a growth of about 0.65C in each 40 year period. In the recent period there were massive CO2 emissions, in the early one very few.

An independent site which aggregates many temperature databases is for instance

www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/mean:36/plot/gistemp/from:1900/mean:36/offset:%20-0.14/plot/uah/from:1900/mean:36/offset:0.04/plot/rss/from:1900/mean:36/offset:0.08

and you can also check the ground and satellite temperature data from each source.

The data shows clearly no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures - this is a matter of measurements, not of opinion. I am a mathematical physicist, but all one needs to compare the two portions of the graph is an eighth grade graph reading skill.

Phil Jones of CRU has admitted that much to the BBC.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm and
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

The 2007 Arctic ice cap melt (the ice has since almost returned) was similar to a well documented one in 1922. The Nov 2, 1922 Washington Post had the headline

Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt

(check the archives for ice melt 1922).

While CO2 levels have not shown any sign of changing the measured temperatures of the real world, they have pushed the temperatures within models way way up. The site
www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
has live links to about 600 published projections due to a few degrees in climate change, from acne, barbarization, brains smaller, through Earth to explode, melt, tilt, spin faster, spin slower, extinction of half of all animal and plant species by 2050 (this one from the journal Nature), fish bigger, fish smaller, fashion disappearing, all the way to witchcraft executions, world in bankruptcy, crisis, flames, war.

If we spend the current $2 billion/year on climate change study, we are bound to get in return lots of models and lots of predictions.

You shouldn't take anyone's word for any of this - please check each line by yourself. If you do that, you are part of science rather than just invoke its name.

All of that shows to any unbiased person what the climate did in response to higher CO2 levels (not much) and what the models are worth (also not much).

Posted by: adrianoc | February 28, 2010 3:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lisa Jackson is a political appointee who, if she wasn't so well connected, would probably be stocking at the local WalMart.

And you wonder why California is broke beyond repair?

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 28, 2010 2:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The California Air Resources Board is run by a bunch of extremists who make a good living from being so. California closed four perfectly good nuke plants because of these short-sighted kooks.

We need more nuke plants, we need more natural gas plants, we need more solar plants (like the one in Riverside that produces 24 hours a day), we need more clean coal plants like the one in North Dakota, we need electric cars.

Why? So we can cut our oil import bill. Our economy will save trillions of dollars to invest right here, instead of transferring these trillions to foreign governments that despise us anyway.

Energy independence is the key to our security. Brazil had a decades long drive to be energy independent. And they've done it. So can we if we can defeat the environmental extremists and the greedy oil companies.

Posted by: mongolovesheriff | February 27, 2010 1:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The move to decouple from carbon is likely to cause great loss of national wealth. The bedrock below many areas is not porous and will not store carbon as the rock is crystalline; i.e. igneous or metamorphic and not porous like sandstone oil reservoirs. California is the state most sensitive to environmental issues and a state economically unstable with high unemployment and a low state bond credit rating. States with large reliance on carbon based infrastructure are likely to suffer the worse from efforts to regulate an odorless, colorless, non-toxic gas.

The global warming that melted the glaciers could not be linked to manmade gases.

Not all states have geothermal geyser deposits like California, nor wind swept plains like North Dakota, nor hydroelectric dams like Idaho. The cost of scuttling carbon infrastructure might cost the nation its greatness. Eastern states might be more adversely affected with rapidly rising energy costs.

Building a single nuclear reactor is so much window dressing and so little action. Talk is easy. Assisting businesses is more difficult.

Posted by: rainsong | February 25, 2010 8:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company