States Set to Sue the U.S. Over Greenhouse Gases

dnormant writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that more than a dozen states are gearing up to sue the Bush administration for holding up efforts to regulate automobile emissions. "The move comes as New York and other Northeastern states are stepping up their push for tougher regulation of greenhouse gases as part of their continuing opposition to President Bush's policies. On Wednesday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration is to issue regulations requiring power plants to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, part of a broader plan among 10 Northeastern states, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to move beyond federal regulators in Washington and regulate such emissions on their own."

Comments

One problem with this plan

[Dachannien]

Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration is to issue regulations requiring power plants to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions We're being taxed and surcharged into oblivion, and we're passing the savings on to you!

Re:One problem with this plan

[Simple-Simmian]

Yea all these "charges" are passed on to the consumer. Folks like Spitzer may be able top afford it, I can't California (where I live) Should be breaking ground on 50 Reactors today. That will clean up the air in a huge way and allow us to remain a economic power house. All moves to clean up the air are good and badly needed but only if you are not cutting off the nose of every regular guy like me in the process and putting us into poverty.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Jeremi]

All moves to clean up the air are good and badly needed but only if you are not cutting off the nose of every regular guy like me in the process and putting us into poverty.

Why should there be an exception for "regular guys like you"? To the extent that you are contributing to the problem and enjoying the benefits of the power produced, it seems only logical that you should be required to help fund the solution. With any luck, requiring power companies to pay for the costs of the pollution they create (and presumably pass that cost on to their consumers) will motivate both the power companies and the consumers to switch to cleaner (and hence cheaper) methods of power generation... which is of course exactly what we want to have happen.

Re:One problem with this plan

[dosius]

It's not a free market when you can't walk with your feet. Around here there is ONE electric company, ONE natural gas company, ONE phone company, ONE cable company. You don't have choice.

(BTW, Upstate New York. We get fucked up the ass hard because of those dinks down in the big city.)

-uso.

Re:One problem with this plan

[alan_dershowitz]

We're being taxed and surcharged into oblivion, and we're passing the savings on to you! You're already being charged for pollution, in fact everyone is, in the costs of having to deal with the problems of pollution. What sucks is that a company can socialize the costs of pollution while privatizing the benefits. Currently I pay less as a polluter by not having to build a new plant, while everyone pays for the pollution cleanup. On the other hand, assessing a penalty according to the amount of pollution coming out of any particular plant has the twin effect of disincentivizing pollution and more fairly distributing the costs of dealing with that pollution (providing the assessed taxes are used for that purpose, which they should be.) This is cheaper and fairer, unless you are looking at it from the perspective of a heavy polluter.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

With any luck, requiring power companies to pay for the costs of the pollution they create (and presumably pass that cost on to their consumers) will motivate both the power companies and the consumers to switch to cleaner (and hence cheaper) methods of power generation... which is of course exactly what we want to have happen. Luck has nothing to do with it. That's the same sort of naive thinking that comes up with ideas like this. As long as the power company can recoup most/all of the added expense from the customer, they won't have any impetus to switch anything at all.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Kenrod]

This is a bad thing? Companies being forced to pay the full price of the pollution they cause and users being forced to absorb that price on the sticker of the choices they make. That's the free market at work.

It's a good thing if examined in a vacuum (assuming the ludicrous notion of CO2 being a pollutant, or that you could accurately figure out the damage caused by climate change within trillions of dollars).

When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't have a free market. You have the US destroying their competitiveness (and their ability to innovate) while doing little to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").

Guys like Spitzer are always the first to attack private business. A better solution would be to offer tax incentives to companies that want to replace coal plants with clean power sources, including nuclear. But you won't see Spitzer proposing that because it's a truly innovative idea. Suing the Feds and attacking business is the easy way out.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll not be laughin' when Bush claims the lawsuit, if allowed to be open to the general public, would impose a national security risk.

Re:One problem with this plan

[porcupine8]

How does it act as a disincentive when they can pass the cost directly to the consumer with no worry of losing business??

Re:One problem with this plan

[Original Replica]

As long as the power company can recoup most/all of the added expense from the customer, they won't have any impetus to switch anything at all.

Do you have the option on your power bill to purchase "clean energy"? Now if there is some oversight of the power company that prevents them from passing the pollution costs on to people purchasing the electricity from solar and wind farms, then you have a strong economic incentive for the consumer which is the fastest way to create any large scale change. If if doesn't hurt people in the wallet, then everything will stay status quo.

Re:One problem with this plan

[iluvcapra]

Except suddenly nuclear, wind and solar will have a competitive advantage over coal, oil and gas; there's no luck involved. Energy providers have to compete to provide the lowest cost per kWH, and if carbon costs money, energy producers have incentive to cut it.

Free CO2 in the air is gonna cost somebody a lot of money someday. Collecting a fixed amount for it at the time of origination is a way of containing the risk, since climate change is liable to be more expensive and less predictable.

Re:One problem with this plan

[emok]

If the cost of energy increases, consumers have a greater incentive to conserve. It happens all the time with gasoline prices: when the price rises, people drive less and buy more fuel efficient autos.

You could argue that consumers aren't currently paying for the total cost of energy anyway, since the government is often responsible for cleaning up pollution.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

What part of the country do you live in that has competition for power? Everywhere I have ever lived (including on Long Island, to remain ontopic), if there was going to be Nukeclear, solar, or wind power (barring personal power generators), it would have to come from the same provider already polluting.

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

And how the hell did I slaughter the word "nuclear" even worse than Texans do?

Re:One problem with this plan

[geminidomino]

If the cost of energy increases, consumers have a greater incentive to conserve. It happens all the time with gasoline prices: when the price rises, people drive less and buy more fuel efficient autos. You must be joking... the roads are crawling with SUVs and other vehicles that consider 24MPG to be EXCELLENT gas mileage.

Re:One problem with this plan

[kf6auf]

First of all, companies will maximize profits. When they have to build a new plant, they will build the one that provides what they need for the cheapest amount even if they can supposedly pass on the added expense to the consumer. The problem is that as rates go up, people will use less electricity from the grid (whether by running air conditioners less or buying rooftop solar for homes or businesses), and reduce the profit of the companies.

Second, with sanctioned monopolies, they often cannot raise prices without showing the government that it is necessary, and choosing the build expensive plants when they could be building cheaper ones is not going to convince people that they are trying to keep costs down.

Finally, you're not looking at the electricity industry correctly because demand for electricity peaks based on the time of year and the time of day. Plants with low variable costs always operate whenever they can while plants with high variable costs only operate when there is high demand. By taxing pollution, they are raising the variable costs of plants based on the pollution they generate. This means that plants that pollute more will have to charge more and therefore be on less. Furthermore, this will mean that the return on investment will be lower for high-pollution plants and so in the long run more low-pollution plants will be built.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Coryoth]

When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't have a free market. You have the US destroying their competitiveness ... while doing little to solve the problem on a global scale On the other hand it is rather hard to ask India and China to do much of anything in the way of reducing emissions, or making polluters pay the costs, if you don't do anything yourself. Either you just spiral down into a lose lose situation for everyone, or someone decides to stand up and take the first step. As long as the US, which is by far the largest source of CO2 on a per capita basis, is doing nothing to curb emissions it is rather hard to put much pressure on China to step up to the plate. If the US is serious about being a world leader then they'll be brave enough to step up and do what is right, rather than cower with paranoia.

Re:One problem with this plan

[iluvcapra]

In this glorious deregulated California market you can specify green power, just don't complain about the rolling blackouts (which hit you regardless of where you buy your electricity.) :P In theory power grid deregulation was supposed to allow you to choose where you got your electricity from, but in practice it meant "as long as you bought it from Enron."

OTOH, It's not just about choosing who runs their lines to you. If you install solar panels on your roof, you'll essentially be buying around 50% of your power from yourself (carbon-free), depending on where you live and how much power you use during the day, though the initial cost is still pretty high. Same goes for a ground-loop air-conditioner, good insulation, really any technology that helps keep the energy you buy on your property. THAT stuff is where the big incentives should be.

Re:One problem with this plan

[nomadic]

because of those dinks down in the big city

Those "dinks'" tax dollars are carrying you. Upstate receives a lot more in benefits than you pay out in taxes. And the laws regarding the makeup of the legislature insure that each upstater gets more of a voice in state politics than each city dweller.

Re:One problem with this plan

[alan_dershowitz]

How does it act as a disincentive when they can pass the cost directly to the consumer with no worry of losing business?? I can think of a few reasons, but keep in mind that I am not an expert in this area.

* Businesses are large consumers of energy, and they definitely consider power costs when they decide where to locate. Excessive power costs can prevent power company growth.
* As populations grow, outlying townships/suburbs/whatever will decide to incorporate. At that point they could choose instead of that power company, to form a municipal power company or join a co-op.
* The city can decide to dump the power company and form a municipal power utility. I am not sure how this works legally, but my community has put this to a vote a few times over the years.
* Additional plants are being built all the time, at which point profit margin comparisons come into play. The more you charge to cover expenses, the less you can take for profit because there is an upper limit to how much you can charge before there is a human cost and the community fights back.

Re:One problem with this plan

[bberens]

Reading comprehension FTW.
Thus, the cost of power goes up, the pollution doesn't go down. Thus, the "Everyone else" keep paying for it anyway. Where are the free market republicans when you need them? When the price of a service or good goes up, people will buy less of it. Energy consumption is not magically different.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Original Replica]

then we deserve what we get -- which is the end of our superpower status.

Looking at the greatest threat to our super power status right now, I would have to say that a severe reduction on fossil fuel reliance would benefit us greatly in the global superpower sense. If we have an renaissance of green tech in America two important things will happen: 1. We will have a new major tech export, reestablishing the strength of the dollar. 2. When oil loses it's supremacy then Middle Eastern countries will be economically and politically powerless until they transform into more globally harmonious cultures.

Re:One problem with this plan

[scatters]

Reuters would seem to disagree with your second statement; ranking the US as the fifth highest per capita emissions. I'd have no problem believing that the US has the highest total emissions, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

http://www.reutersinteractive.com/CarbonNews/73074

BTW, thanks for raising the quality of this thread.

Re:One problem with this plan

[Score Whore]

You need to get off the CO2 bandwagon. It's not CO2 that is a problem. It's any high concentration of greenhouse gases. European ethanol emits more NOX than they thought it would by a factor of 2 (like 4% instead of 2% of the fertilizer they put on the crop makes its way into the fuel) and thus that little bump causes more greenhouse gas problems that just burning straight oil would. NOX being 300 times more of a greenhouse gas than carbon. I point out European because that's the article I read.

Re:One problem with this plan

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure how you can consider a monopoly market a free market. This scheme might work if someone could easily buy cheaper electricity from another source but chances are, most of them are locked into a single public utility.

Something I don't think your considering is that electricity is a regulated utility, not a commodity. Well, it is considered a commodity within the market itself but not as far as people outside the market is concerned. and as being a utility, there is a general need for it above and beyond a desire. Firefighters and police are utilities too, you might like to go without them but you can't get around paying for them and not having them.

With electricity, for the average person, it is a necessity. I know people who have had the state take their children away because the electric was turned off more then 2 days. So acting like anyone could do without it similar to how they did it in the old days is a bit absurd. When there is a need like this, there cannot be a free market at all. There can be the resemblance of a free market, but on average, it is only a portion of the mechanics that would be free. Not the entire market anyways.

Now I have to question the intents of raising fees on a utility like this when they very same people imposing the fees know full well how people are dependent on it. It is like spending 10 years to convince the public that smoking is addictive and bad then funding new projects on tobacco taxes because it offends very little people at once but they know the addictive nature will keep revenue coming in. If they were going to take the money collected and develop cleaner, more efficient production processes and then use it to equipt the power companies, I would see it another way. But just like the tobacco taxes, this will go to other projects and never see anything close to cleaner air if it is allowed to go through.

The majority of people are taxed to death. It isn't really that taxes are so high, it is more the the costs of everything else is high and people are nickeled and dimes to death by every pet project and unneeded item the state has. If any and all fees are allowed to be passed on to the consumers separated from the normal fees on the bills, I'm willing to be that anyone approving this won't be in office long after the first year when people realize how bad it will effect them.

It used to be that we said In russia, the communist tell you how much of something you can do or use. Now russia is free and it is going to be on the east coast, they tell you how much you can use. And of course this only benefits the rich who can afford to pay the extra where the poor are stuck with no options. Well, there is a saying. Something about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Maybe it is time for more poor people.

Re:One problem with this plan

[heinousjay]

On the other hand, no one wins when the utilities go bankrupt. I know it's all fun to stick it to the man, but every last one of you on here depends on him to do your daily do.

Re:One problem with this plan

[jklappenbach]

I don't think it can be stressed enough that our greatest strength will come from our greatest perceived weakness. How do you think we can possibly compete in an international market where most competing economies are pennies to our dollar in terms of relative scale? Certainly not making textiles or steel, or even automobiles. Our strategic strength is our sense of individuality and freedom. With the current attack on civil liberties, one might get the idea that the current administration would have you believe otherwise. But a review of the history of invention and discovery that has originated from our country, just over the last 100 years, should put things back into perspective. We have produced the airplane, the telephone, the computer, walked on the moon, the internet, and on and on. What I'm getting at is that our self expression, freedom of thought, and innovation are our greatest strengths. When applied to energy, our capacity for innovation promises to remake our economy from one of the greatest energy dependents to a leader in energy production. This should be our target for the future. The best way to spur this on in a short time table is to encourage innovation through economics.

Besides, if you think modest increases in energy costs will be "cutting off the nose of every regular guy", imagine what the complete annihilation of every major coastal city will do for our economy if glacial meltdown occurs within 100 years as projected from global climate change studies. In fact, I don't even think we have 100 years...

Re:One problem with this plan

[TapeCutter]

I'm not saying plants don't take carbon from the atmosphere, what I am saying is that it won't scale without doing incredible environmental damage (that has nothing to do with GHG). Not to mention that making fuel from food on a large scale is morally disturbing if you really are intrested in the poor.

The reason I don't agree with carbon credits for trees is that nations will claim plantations are trees, ero replacing native forrest with palm trees will garner even more profit than it does now. Also it is not simply a matter of calculating C02 extraction potential from the size of the plant, there are a miriad of other factors and in some circumstances plants can produce more C02 than they consume. All this uncertainty and potential profit will lead to people doing exactly what you accuse Gore of doing.

I think your wrong about Al Gore, he is not proposing a 'tax' rather he is promoting the IPCC's proposal of a 'rationing' scheme for emmisions, ie: auction the right to pollute by the ton and limit the amount of tons emitted globally to match what the biosphere can physically absorb (~2.5Gt/pa). The idea is commonly known as "cap and trade", unfortunately it looks like the powerfull polluters such as US, India, Russia & China want the "cap" based on GDP (as opposed to the actual physical limit that exists in nature).

BTW: Gore doesn't carry the same political baggage here as he does in the US and you are entitled to an opinion.

Re:One problem with this plan

[cliffski]

"which is the end of our superpower status"

if you lose your status through economic means, trust me, that's the good way. I'm from England, and we fought a lot of wars as we lost ours, so did the French, the Italian/Romans, the Greeks and pretty much everyone that was a major world power.
Empires don't last, their fall is inevitable. if you can let go of yours without losing thousands or even millions of lives, you did well.
Sensible nations act like the swiss, they stay out of wars, and trundle along happily as other peoples empires come and go.

Re:One problem with this plan

[BBandCMKRNL]

What part of the country do you live in that has competition for power? Actually, you answered your own question in your reply to yourself. Some markets in Texas are degregulated and you can buy your power from one of several producers.

Municipal owned utilities, such as in Austin and San Antonio, were exempt from deregulation and they tend to have the lowest consumer retail power prices in the state.

Re:One problem with this plan

[N3WBI3]

If the people want the government to solve our energy problems through tax incentives, and they vote accordingly

We are *NOT* a mob rule nation and we should not endow the federal government with the power and habit of punishing us to 'solve our problems'. Later on in the end it, with regards to our civil liberties, it will bite us in the butt. This is not a 'tax incentive' this is a tax punishment! This is like calling income taxes 'revenue' or 'investment' its a nice play on words but its not accurate. We need to invest more in education, its for the kids means 'The 10K per kid per year were spending is not enough so were going to take more of youre money and hope, for once, well do better with it this time'

Im all for regulation in regards to the environment and real fines for breaking regulations.. It may seem like semantics today but the long term differences are significant.

Six Month Notice

[eldavojohn]

I submitted this story a while ago for California. Something I found interesting from that article is at the bottom:

California is required to announce its intention to sue the federal government six months before it does so. I assume this is true of all the states so you should note that this isn't something that's going to happen today unless they announced it six months ago.

Re:Six Month Notice

[PopeRatzo]

The move comes as New York and other Northeastern states are stepping up their push for tougher regulation of greenhouse gases as part of their continuing opposition to President Bush's policies.

Notice how the writer dismisses the efforts as being part of the states' "continuing opposition to President Bush's policies"? It couldn't be because they are sick of nothing being done about greenhouse emissions. No, it has to be liberal vs. conservative, Right vs. Left, Good vs. Evil, The USA vs. Bush. It just goes to show miserable the state of reporting is today. Instead of looking for the truth, every issue has to have "two sides", and every problem has to be framed as some sort of 50/50 battle. Fortunately, the real numbers don't break down that way. By far most Americans believe that greenhouse emissions caused by humans are causing global warming. Most Americans want the War in Iraq to end now and the troops brought home. Most Americans believe George Bush has done a terrible job. But the Media insists on portraying everything as an evenly balanced fight.

It's because the Media has been mau-mau'd to death and is now afraid to look for the truth. Whenever they try to get to the heart of a matter, they are attacked for being "liberal".

I can understand that the Right has beaten the Media to death, but it doesn't excuse them losing their courage completely.

The good news is I have a feeling the BS isn't working as well as it used to. More and more, people I encounter from all walks of life and all ends of the political spectrum are ignoring the talk radio goons and Fox News and can see through the crap. Despite their best efforts, the assault on the middle class in America is bringing a lot of former political enemies back together.

Re:Six Month Notice

[rrkap]

As for states suing the Feds to force auto manufacturers to decrease emissions, why don't they just do it themselves? California has strict emission control policies. Why can't the rest of these states.

That isn't how air quality regulations work. Under the Clean Air Act, setting auto emissions standards is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government. However, because California had stricter emissions standards in place when the Clean Air Act was first passed, California (and only California) was granted a waiver to set its own standards which can be adopted by other states if they choose. This waiver doesn't apply to vehicular CO2 emissions. California (with other states) has already won a suit saying that EPA must grant such a waiver, however EPA has not done so. Thus, they are suing again, this time asking the court to order EPA to do so immediately.

As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.

Re:Six Month Notice

[AK Marc]

Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree.

What, five of them?

Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.

Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.

This was before the news that violence has been reduced 70% since the surge.

I haven't heard that. Perhaps it was hidden by the Liberal Media Conspiracy. Could you tell me the number of US soldier deaths in that time frame compared to before, as well as Iraq civilian deaths? "Violence" is a term that has some ambiguity. The piles of dead bodies are hard to hide.

Re:Six Month Notice

[c6gunner]

Notice how the writer dismisses the efforts as being part of the states' "continuing opposition to President Bush's policies"? It couldn't be because they are sick of nothing being done about greenhouse emissions.

Exactly, it couldn't! That's why you'll never see democrat dominated states suing a democrat president. It simply wouldn't happen.

My guess? Now that Iraq is starting to look better, they need something new to hammer Bush with, lest he actually start to make gains in his approval ratings.

Fortunately, the real numbers don't break down that way. By far most Americans believe that greenhouse emissions caused by humans are causing global warming. Most Americans want the War in Iraq to end now and the troops brought home. Most Americans believe George Bush has done a terrible job.

Most Americans think Oswald didn't assasinate JFK. Almost half of Americans think UFO's visited the earth. And the vast majority of Americans beleive in God, Heaven, Angels, Miracles, Hell, and the Devil, and not in a figurative sense.

You know what? Most people are fucking stupid. There's a reason why "most Americans" don't get to make policy.

I can understand that the Right has beaten the Media to death, but it doesn't excuse them losing their courage completely.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh God...

*wipes tear*

Thanks, man, up to that point I thought you were serious :) Now I realize you're just a really gifted parodist. You rock!

Re:Six Month Notice

[ArcherB]

Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree.

What, five of them?

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

Also, JunkScience.com is offering $125,000.00 to anyone who can PROVE that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.

Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.

Sorry, but Republicans do not rule the world.
From HERE:
Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

and HERE:
In a paper issued Jan. 3, 2007, UCS accuses ExxonMobil of funding "front groups" opposed to the climate-alarmist agenda of groups such as UCS and of former Vice President Al Gore. The company, said the UCS report, had distributed $16 million to 43 advocacy groups from 1998 to 2005 "to confuse the public on global-warming science."
Let's leave aside the fact that $16 million over eight years can't match the $2 billion that the federally funded Climate Change Science Program spends each year on global warming, or even the $4 million annual budget of just one of the many well-funded global-warming advocacy groups, Strategies for the Global Environment (the umbrella organization for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change). Moreover, the UCS document is hardly an investigative breakthrough. ExxonMobil itself publishes its philanthropic contributions to nonprofit organizations online.

And HERE is where the state climatologist in Oregon gets fired for questioning global warming:
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist...

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

Then there is THIS one where a scientist was fired for correcting bad data:
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed on March 12 from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains...
Cliff Mass, a professo

Re:Six Month Notice

[Red Flayer]

Not only is your knowledge of the US legal process off, but your knowledge of history is

Exactly, it couldn't! That's why you'll never see democrat dominated states suing a democrat president. It simply wouldn't happen.

First off, the states don't sue the president...

Second, some democratic states have sued the federal government when a democrat was president. Washington State, for example, sued in 1998 to force the EPA to clean up a superfund site... who was president in 1998?

Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Erioll]

Up in Canada where the Kyoto wealth transfer plan (that's what it is, make no mistake) was ratified, we had a quite simple statement told to us: if we stopped every train, plane, and automobile in the entire country tomorrow, we STILL wouldn't meet the Kyoto targets (which is something like 30-40% below where we are now).

So yes, cars are a part of it, but they are NOT the "things holding you up" here.

And if somebody could provide links on this, I'd be grateful.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[Original Replica]

I think to get improvements in the 30-40% range you need to make serious changes on all fronts. Buildings seem to be the largest consumer of energy, at least in the US, I'm assuming the same is true for Canada.

current energy use in buildings represents 39 percent of all energy use in the U.S. -- more than industrial or even transportation usage. It concludes that by 2020 building energy use can be reduced by 14 percent and total national energy use could be cut by 5.6 percent through the implementation of short-term, realistic energy policies.http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/factoid11.htm

But I think the more drastic changes that will help meet Kyoto targets are in the area of where power comes from. When the wealth redistribution costs to a country outweigh the cost of installing solar panels on every rooftop, then there will be change in that country. The same holds true for making more efficient cars or mass transit or wind farms, they will only ever be "the norm" when they cost less than just burning more fossil fuels. That Kyoto-carbon-tax is helping to push that day a little closer.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[ppanon]

A huge portion of Alberta's carbon consumption comes from burning gas to heat water and extract oil from tar sands. I heard some rumours of research on using nuke power to supply the heat for the tar sands project but I guess our equivalent of the DoE has been reluctant to give the go ahead. The oil companies involved in tar sands projects also aren't too keen on the idea because natural gas is a heck of a lot cheaper to burn compared to running nuke thermal plants.

Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions

[AK Marc]

The morons suing in these states should be taken out and shot, or at the very least disbarred and jailed for treason.

Yes, because a state fighting to improve air quality (and make no mistake, the poor air quality in many states is not controllable by that state, but the one next door) is treason, while the gross abuses of the constitution, like the 55 mph speed limit, national drinking age, and nearly everything controlled as "interstate commerce" is simply ignored. If states fighting for their rights to clean air is treason, I'd hate to see what you'd do to a woman that wanted to vote.

It's usually the other way around...

[Dzimas]

The telling thing is that the various northeastern states are pushing the Bush administration for tighter emission regulations. Usually, it's the other way around - local politicians seek to fend off draconian federal policies that might cripple local industry. The amazing thing is that they're suing the EPA itself, and my professional experience is that many scientists associated with the EPA are incredibly concerned about the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment. They're forced to keep quiet and follow the mandate passed down by a perplexingly out-of-touch executive team in the White House.

Bwahahahahaha!

[MightyMartian]

Is there any special meta-meta-mod points out there for reading this with "Chevron... the power of human energy" above it? I wasn't aware humans consumed petroleum-based hydrocarbons and shit out CO2.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[SydShamino]

Rivers in most states eventually flow into a different state, too, but that doesn't mean that states can't restrict or ban water pollution. The CO2 can be defined a pollutant as soon as it leaves the vehicle, while it is still wholly contained within the state of the car (or power plant or factory) that emitted it.

Now if they tried to apply this ruling to vehicles merely crossing through their state, as opposed to those registered to drivers in that state, with state license plates, then yes, I agree that the courts could intervene. Pretty soon belching trucks from Mexico will be all over the US, and I bet there's nothing any state can do about those.

hmmm

[nomadic]

Now watch all the states-rights conservatives suddenly jump to the other side of the divide and argue the federal government should get its way.

Show Pony

[pwykersotz]

Oh yes, this is sure to work. Get a few legislators in a minority of states to sue the president's administration. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this! This is a stunt, and a ridiculous one at that. Why not put energy into doing something real instad of wasting time like this? It won't even get people on the side of the activists...people who agree with the suit are already driving hybrids and eating out of their back garden, people who don't aren't going to even care.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

[GruntboyX]

I am all for improving the environment, but this is only going to come at the cost of public. The power companies are only going to have to install more equipment to filter emissions, in drastic cases they will have to spend lots of capital to implement renewable technologies. This will result in the PUC authorizing a rate increase, because lets face it, This stuff isn't free. In the end, the average joe will pay for higher power. Since everyone shares the same goal of reducing carbon emissions i doubt anyone will complain /sarcasm

Arrrrgh!

[rindeee]

This kind of crap drives me batty. Qualifier: I'm not a hippie. I don't like the Prius. I vote conservative (do NOT confuse this for Republican). Anyway, if you want to make a difference, park your damn car and ride your bike. Don't own a bike? Take a months worth of gas money and buy a really REALLY nice one. Live too far to commute? You probably don't (you'll get used to the distance), but if you really do, move closer to work. Winter too harsh? Buy studded tires (as in studded car tires for snow and ice) for you bike and wear winter riding clothes. We in the US are a bunch of whiny, bitchy cry-babies. We want to fix things by making others do something about the problem of our own causing (make the engines pollute less, not me). I'm all for efficient engines and such, but alternatives already exist. Each one of us has the ability to make changes TODAY that will have an enormous impact. Not only that, but I AND the hippies will be happy. I'll have the pleasure of not seeing bazillions of dollars go to oppressive middle-eastern countries that would just assume we all die and some communist jackass in South America, and hippies will stop crying about inconvenient truths and whatnot and go back to eating $8 double-dip cones at Ben and Jerry's. Keep your car, but use it only when you really need to, not when you're too lazy not to.

Re:Arrrrgh!

[WillAffleckUW]

Amusing. The party of "State's Rights" arguing against the right of states to make their own tougher regulations.

Ironic.

Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, bear with me since I'm not from the US and as such I'm probably biased as well as unfamiliar with some things. But having said that I cannot help wonder.. Whenever I see some detectives on TV or talk to friends who happen to be American I'm always confronted with the issue of the states. To me the closest thing resembleing this are Germanies "Bunds" (Bundesrepubliek Deutschland).

If I'm not mistaken you can have different laws across states. One state can have a more closer or looser regulation on gun control. And ofcourse this is also fed by the classic car chases where the culprit races to the state border and once he gets across he's basicly home free. So different states, different laws, different approaches on how to run things.

Now having said that I cannot help wonder here. If you're so worried about the environment why don't you simply put your efforts into "cleaning up" your particular state instead of (more easily ofcourse) blaming it all on one man and start the (to me:) typical selfish American approach of sueing? To me this looks like the classic example of "I wasn't hired to do that" and so you also don't take any responsibility for your own actions and instead start blaming others over it. Like that woman in the McDonalds; appearantly she wasn't aware that coffee should be hot and as such McDonalds was responsible when the stupid -censored- spilled her coffee. How was she supposed to know coffee would be hot?

I'm not a fan of the Bush administration at all. To me this is the worst president the US has ever got and it saddens me that so many people don't even seem to realize this (yet?). Still, I think you're going too far by simply blaming everything, including your own shortcomings, on him. There is a difference (to me) between "Bush threatens the free world" (which, IMO, holds much truth) or "Bush ate my hamster" (I could be mistaken but iirc he isn't visiting Europe... or is he?!!) :-)

Re:Typical sue-ing mentality ?

[tfoss]

If you're so worried about the environment why don't you simply put your efforts into "cleaning up" your particular state instead of (more easily ofcourse) blaming it all on one man and start the (to me:) typical selfish American approach of sueing? The problem with this logic is that even if I manage to make my state pristine in terms of energy use/pollution control/etc, the state next door can still spew all the pollutants it wants into the air I will be breathing. This was a classic issue for the acid rain issue a couple decades ago, where the polluting states were not the ones reaping the negative environmental consequences. But even more to the point in this case, the issue is that certain states want to require lower limits on allowable emissions, but the federal gov't is not allowing them to. In this case, the states are *trying* to clean up themselves, but are being circumvented by the federal govt. It is these kinds of impasses that are actually very appropriate for legal venues, and using the 'lawsuits are bad' heuristic is often inappropriate, as in this case.

To me this looks like the classic example of "I wasn't hired to do that" and so you also don't take any responsibility for your own actions and instead start blaming others over it. I don't think that is the case here. This is a "we're trying to do something, but are being blocked from doing it" situation.

Like that woman in the McDonalds; appearantly she wasn't aware that coffee should be hot and as such McDonalds was responsible when the stupid -censored- spilled her coffee. How was she supposed to know coffee would be hot? I wish everyone who cites that case as an example would actually look into the details of it. McD's coffee is not just hot, it is kept hot enough (190F) to cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. It is 20-30 degrees hotter than most other restaurants serve. During the years prior to that case there had been 700 complaints to McD's about the coffee causing burns (which McD's settled for $500,000). The company testified that they were aware of the danger and chose not to change, nor warn about the risks associated even though most customers are unaware of how serious and how quickly burns would occur. The woman tried to settle for $800 for medical bills (she was in the hospital for 7 days with third degree burns on her inner thighs, groin, and butt) but McD's refused. This case is not nearly as clear cut tort as everyone seems to believe. There are plenty of outrageous and unreasonable cases in our litigious country, but this is not a very good example of one.

To me this is the worst president the US has ever got and it saddens me that so many people don't even seem to realize this (yet?) His approval rating is somewhere in the low 30s to mid 20s...I think people have finally figured out that he is a disaster. He might very well achieve the lowest rating ever, eclipsing even Nixon. The problem is that in our system of govt, the only time the populace could've done anything about it happened 3 years ago. Normally the lame duck president still has some need for public approval, either to support his party, or set up his VP for the nomination. Bush doesn't seem to care about the party, and Cheney isn't running for jack, so we get to see what an executive with nothing to lose who thinks he's doing god's will can accomplish in a presidential republic for the next 15 months. I fear for this country.

-Ted

Re:Why is this even on Slashdot?

[Todd Knarr]

No, it's about the states wanting to write those laws, and the administration saying they can't because the Feds haven't.

Nice.

[JustNiz]

I'm REALLY pleased to see this.
Its a great indicator that the American people are more responsible, intelligent and honest than their leader.

Why the Global Warming debate is important

[Teancum]

From both a liberal as well as conservative viewpoint, is precisely lawsuits like this.

For those of a conservative viewpoint, this is precisely the kind of thing that has been the worst of nightmares regarding the debate, where this is an attempt to broaden the power of the federal government and to enact legislation through judicial case law rather than through a body like the U.S. Congress.

From a strict constitutionalist viewpoint, state regulations are precisely what was envisioned by the founding fathers for issues like this. When faddish things like Global Warming (and concern about Global Warming is a fad right now, at least from a political perspective) come up, they should be debated by individual states and citizens of those states.

If left to develop on its own, without somebody crying "fowl" and demanding federal intervention, this "laboratory of American states" is precisely what is envisioned by the founders to see how political ideas like regulation of industries for CO2 gases was intended to develop. Legislation based upon the current wind of political thought was something the early founders of the American Republic feared the most, and it was intended to be a long and difficult process for a good reason, particularly when it governed the actions of individual citizens in relationship to each other, such as this sort of regulation is doing.

From a politically conservative viewpoint, you can still suggest environmental legislation. There is common ground that can come from this sort of debate and help us to genuinely protect the environment. But you need to frame it from a conservative viewpoint in terms of stewardship, liability, and responsibility. Cut the emotional garbage out about rising sea levels, rising temperatures, and a fear of the future. If you produce pollution, you need to clean up your own messes and be nice to your neighbors. You also shouldn't be wasteful of those resources that God has given to you, because ultimately you will be held responsible for your actions before HIM. Even if you dismiss God as a human construct, there is still the more vague "being held responsible by humanity as a whole" that still applies on some sort of level. I certainly don't mind government regulation that helps to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and lowering of a trade deficit.

I also realize that some of this is about legislation that has already been through the meat grinder of Washington D.C., and these states are "merely" asking for those laws to be enforced. A problem here is that the legislation was deliberately vague, and the actual enforcement of these laws left to such broad interpretation, that nearly anything could be suggested in terms of what they really meant or how they can be put together. This lawsuit is a political move to force these national regulations (which arguably may not even be constitutional) to conform to a specific viewpoint that runs counter to the current presidential administration. A U.S. President shouldn't have even had this sort of authority delegated to him in the first place, but of course those pushing in support of this lawsuit already knew that, didn't they? So why should it be moved to the authority of nine men in black robes?

It is poor law and shouldn't have been enacted in the first place, no matter how lofty the goals were made. Going to the courts is just going to make an awful law even worse. It would be far better to go to the national legislature (aka Congress) and get new legislation passed that deals with this issue, if that is the ultimate goal.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[Valdrax]

While the federal government routinely, and with the blessing of the Supreme court, passes laws that blatantly violate the commerce clause ...

Logical error. The government does not pass laws that violate the commerce clause if the Supreme court says they don't. That's how our government works.

Besides, I think you need to read up on Massachusetts vs. EPA. This suit is probably going to be very similar considering that it was over much the same thing. MS v. EPA was an attempt to force the government to perform its duties to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant in absence of Congressional instruction to or not to do so.

The new lawsuit will be a similar attempt to compel the EPA to perform its mandated duties to grant CA and other states permission to create stricter regulations than the Congressionally mandated minimums. The EPA has dragged its feet for years in signing off on this, claiming that they didn't think they had the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Fortunately, MS v. EPA has cleared that up.

Assuming that the SCOTUS doesn't decide to reverse itself unexpectedly or attempt to wiggle out under jurisdictional issues such as interfering with the powers of the executive or such as the doctrine against getting involved in political decisions, it's probably a slam dunk case.

Then again, I'm not as familiar with the CAA as I'd like to be. The decision might be a discretionary power of the EPA at which point the SCOTUS would simply pass the buck.

A major problem I haven't seen mentioned yet

[andytrevino]

The reason why Spitzer and this group are suing the government is that the Feds have established pollution control standards and Spitzer wants them made more restrictive. I am normally in favor of states' rights, but the issue in question here is more of a standards debate for me -- were each state given the ability to mandate their own efficiency requirements for cars, the result would be a broad range of such standards and car companies would have to meet the most efficient denominator, with a drastic (skyward) impact on the price of cars. The federal government sets the national standard, and now you don't have the purchasing power of 4 million Oregonians determining that the rest of us have to pay a premium for a super-efficient hybrid car we can't afford.

The single biggest problem I have with this bogus lawsuit is this: it's the government suing the government, with all the included lawyer fees. Let the tax dollars fly. With a lawsuit at this level, as well, those fees will not be trifling, and who will pay them but the lowly taxpayer. Residents of the states filing suit are taxed twice on this -- first by their states for their legal fees, and second by the federal government for its defense. Those of us living in states who aren't signed on only get to pay for a lawsuit we disagree with once at the federal level.

Residents of these states who support this: the proper way to get the EPA to change its guidelines is to have your federal legislators introduce legislation to change those guidelines. Then, those politicians get to convince a majority of their house of the legislature to sign on, which is absolutely necessary for a change with such a huge impact as changing EPA efficiency requirements. This underhanded lawsuit crap is the same tactic that generates so much scorn for SCO, the MAFIAA and other legal trolls -- why is it now okay?

One of the purposes of the Attorney General's office is to protect the rights of the consumer. The rights of the consumer are NOT being trampled in this situation. Everybody in America has the opportunity to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle. The government's purpose in the matter should be to establish a baseline of efficiency on which people who can afford it, and innovation by car companies, can improve.

Re:A major problem I haven't seen mentioned yet

[tfoss]

One of the purposes of the Attorney General's office is to protect the rights of the consumer. I think the rights of citizens are supposed to come before rights of consumers.

The federal government sets the national standard, and now you don't have the purchasing power of 4 million Oregonians determining that the rest of us have to pay a premium for a super-efficient hybrid car we can't afford. Yup, but the federal government hasn't changed CAFE standards substantially in more than two decades. And as noted in TFA: If implemented, the measure would first affect 2009 models; automakers have said it would make it harder to sell the largest and least fuel-efficient sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks in states that adopt the rules. So the 8 mpg H2s would take a sales hit in New York and California. Bummer.

Residents of these states who support this: the proper way to get the EPA to change its guidelines is to have your federal legislators introduce legislation to change those guidelines. Actually the Supreme Court said the EPA is *supposed* to regulate greenhouse gases, and the states in question are trying to get the EPA to allow them to enact greenhouse gas standards. The EPA has been dragging its feet since the ruling 6 months ago, so the lawsuit is to try and force the EPA to do, or allow states to do, what the Supreme Court said the EPA should do.

-Ted

Re:A major problem I haven't seen mentioned yet

[An Onerous Coward]

were each state given the ability to mandate their own efficiency requirements for cars, the result would be a broad range of such standards and car companies would have to meet the most efficient denominator, with a drastic (skyward) impact on the price of cars.

What you're basically saying is that, you're in favor of states' rights, except when they make it more difficult for corporations to make money.

The "problem" you cite (individual states forcing higher standards on the country as a whole) is actually a blessing. California's hard-assed energy efficiency requirements have made all sorts of big appliances more energy efficient (and I defy you to show that they've added significantly to the cost of your fridge).

But that's not the way it would play out in this case. At least when it comes to the transportation sector, the states involved in the suit want to jack up the CAFE standards for their own states. CAFE standards describe properties of the auto fleet as a whole, not individual cars. Car companies wouldn't have to build a separate, more fuel efficient Hummer for California; they simply wouldn't be able to sell as many Hummers in California (as a proportion of the overall fleet). The real expenses come when manufacturers are forced to have two separate manufacturing processes for a given product, which is why so many just give up and make all their products according to the most stringent standards. Instead, these laws give them the option of complying by increasing the number of smaller cars they sell in California, which wouldn't require any change to any individual car or manufacturing process.

You seem to be forgetting that, the last time CAFE standards were raised, American auto manufacturers threw a hissy fit, claiming that the new regs were huge burdens and would put them out of business. If anything, 1980-1984 (the years when the CAFE standards went into effect, and started ratcheting up) marked the recovery of the American auto industry from the doldrums of the 1970's. Our country has fuel efficiency standards that are half those of the EU or Japan, and lower than China's. Raising the standards would help our car companies compete in some huge foreign markets.

One of the purposes of the Attorney General's office is to protect the rights of the consumer. The rights of the consumer are NOT being trampled in this situation. Everybody in America has the opportunity to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

Pop quiz: Which logical fallacy are you committing here? Just because one of the purposes of X is to do Y, that doesn't mean that X can't have other purposes. The Office of the Attorney General is tasked with conducting the legal affairs of its government. Nothing requires that an AG office to have a "consumer rights" justification for every suit they bring.

Here's how it went down: in the last round of litigation, these states looked at the laws governing the EPA, which gave them the job of controlling the emission of pollutants. The EPA claimed that CO2 was not a pollutant, so they didn't have to regulate it, and could forbid state governments from regulating it as well. The states' position was that CO2 was clearly a pollutant, and that the EPA needed to grant the states a waiver to regulate it if they weren't going to do it themselves.

The Supreme Court sided with the states. Despite this, the EPA has been dragging its heels on actually issuing the waivers the states need. So the states are taking them back to court.

This is where your "analysis" of "the proper way to get the EPA to change its guidelines" falls down. The states aren't trying to force a change in the EPA's guidelines; they're simply asking the EPA to enforce the law as it exists now. If it weren't for the ability to bring suits exactly like this, there would be almost no way to compel the executive branch to follow the laws of the legislative branch. According to your "proper" system, the only way to effect change at the EPA is to have the legislators change the EPA's guidelines. But how does that help when the EPA isn't living up to existing guidelines?

Your rule against "the government suing the government" is senseless.

A little bit teched in the head, eh?

[WindBourne]

Yes, it will raise the price. That happened back in the 60's.

1. And when we forced the lead to not be in paints or used in gas, that also raised prices.
2. Likewise, it raised car prices when we first forced cars to get above 5 mpg.
3. Or when we said no dumping of pollutants in the ground (love canal?).
4. Or how about when we stopped manufactuering plants from polluting in the air.

Or we can accept minimal controls, and keep your prices real low.
If you are looking for really low costs, consider moving to one of these lovely places:
* Linfen, China;
* Haina, Dominican Republic;
* Ranipet, India;
* Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan;
* La Oroya, Peru;
* Dzerzinsk, Russia;
* Norilsk, Russia;
* Rudnaya Pristan, Russia;
* Chernobyl, Ukraine; and
* Kabwe, Zambia.

Re:Unconstitutional?

[JWW]

The wafting of CO2 over the border is not "commerce" its just a gas moving. Thats a weak argument.

In all honesty the States should control emissions standards from power plants. All powers not expressly granted to the Feds in the constitution were relegated to the States. Of course the federal government continually oversteps its bounds here. The EPA included, in my opinion.

There is no reason for the states to be suing the feds. Also, this whole lawsuit thing is utter bullshit. Until significant effort is made in this country is made to replace coal plants with nuclear plants all of this posturing over coal power plants is just petty politics.

C'mon Spitzer, do something real! Start building nuclear plants in New York to replace the coal plants and then shut the coal plants down!! THAT is what its going to take to stop global warming. Taxes, regulations, and fees don't have a damn thing to do with it!!

Re:Give the man a see-gar!

[jc42]

Somebody had done a study on the impact of cow farts on greenhouse gasses once, ...

Actually, although cow farts are great for humorous comments on the issue, it's been known for some time that cattle produce most of their greenhouse gasses (methane and CO2) from their front end. The methane mostly comes from their complex stomaches, which are marvelous digesters for plant material, but also produce significant quantities of methane as a byproduct. Their large intestines do produce methane, as do ours, but in lesser quantities.

Another fun story on the topic was the study a few years ago that identified the other major source of atmospheric methane: termites. They also digest cellulose, using bacteria similar to those in cattle, and they produce lots of CO2 and CH4 as byproducts, too. They're small, but you wouldn't believe how many termites there are in the world. Imagine a trillion little termites, each continuously burping and farting while chomping their way through wood and other plant material. Try not to grin at the thought.

It turns out that large grazing animals and termites each produce roughly 1/3 of the atmospheric methane, and the remaining third is from zillions of small sources. Human agriculture and industry are high on the list, but a very distant third to ungulates and termites.

As for CO2, though, all animals produce it by necessity, proportional to their metabolism. But we've been augmenting this by mining the planet's storehouses of hydrocarbons (coal, oil, natural gas) and burning it. The amount is pretty well understood, and easily explains the roughly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last couple centuries (primarily the last half century). Production and consumption of CO2 was more or less balanced until recently, but we've radically upped the production without doing much to increase CO2 consumption. It really doesn't take great genius to understand what this might lead to. It just takes a lot of scientific sleuthing to document the details to the level that we've done in recent decades.

Nice idea but wrong approach.

[Solr_Flare]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving the emission situation, but there are two major problems with the approaches by lawmakers. First, as others have stated, cars only account for a very small portion of the emission problem, but they are also the most visable. Thus, cars are frequently targeted by lawmakers to make it appear like they are doing something about the problem, when in fact they are really doing very little at all.

The second problem is there is *no* real solution to the emission situation unless we change the fuel source we use to power our vehicles. No solution at all. Why? Because improving emissions on vehicles results in either: A) a reduction in performance by a vehicle, which results in higher fuel consumption, which makes the majority of the changes moot. Or B) Improving fuel efficiency, which results in people driving more often because it's cheaper. Again making the majority of the changes moot.

Quite frankly, outside of a massive investment by this country on the scale of projects like the interstate system and electrifying everyone's homes, or a sudden and surprising leap forward in technology, nothing is going to change significantly for some time to come. Money spent on improving emissions in the short term would be better spent on educating the populace so they make more informed decisions/alter their habits, and serious investment in long term alternatives like Fuel Cell technology.

Re:Senate

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Who do you think elects the members of the Senate? Or do you mean that you wish to nationalize the election of my senators? Yeah, no Once upon a time, prior to the 17th Amendment in 1912, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, not popular the popular vote in the state. The Senate was to be the chamber that protected the concerns of the states to balance out the whims of the House. These men were often referred to as "Statesmen" and were generally the least political and most civil legislators in Congress. That is why it is up to the Senate to ratify treaties, approve political appointments, etc...

Why don't you and the rest of Middle America secede and do whatever you want with your coalition of mediocre states? The Northeast and the West don't want you, and while I imagine you want us so that your country can have an economy, Where do you plan to get your food, electricity, steel, cars, etc from? I've got nuclear, coal, wind, solar and hydro power within 50 miles of me. There's a dairy farm with 150 cattle across the street. There's thousands of acres of corn, potatoes, beans, wheat, etc grown in my county. The salt the northeast uses to melt the ice off their roads comes from a mine on the other side of my county.

You can sit there in your smog filled city feeling smug about yourself, but the fact is, you need us more than we need you. We're self-sufficient as far as the necessities of life go. Have a nice riot when you guys figure out that you can't grow enough food to feed yourselves and can't get enough electricity to provide your air conditioning, heating and subways. I'm sure your centers of commerce will thrive under those conditions.

Please, Confederate States of America, rise again and leave the Union. Take President Bush and Guantanamo Bay with you when you go. You won't be missed. /cough just remember, there's not much value of a terrorist attack on a silo. Foreigners who dislike Americans have a mental picture not of some hillbilly in Kansas, they picture the decadence of NYC or LA.

You have imaginary scientists!

[zahl2]

For one, junkscience.com is run by a non-scientist who used to do it-isn't-so-bad-for-you PR for tobacco companies. Many of the basic facts and theories used are accurate, but the conclusions drawn are misleading unless you've just had an actual class in the stuff and can see just what he's scientifically leaving out.

As to the prize? Carnivals offer "prizes" too. I'm sure you win them all the time.

Let's see what else you point to:

A "petition" which turns out to be a list of names, without and indication of where these people got their degrees, where they are currently working, and if they have any actual peer-reviewed (ie other scientists) papers published.

There isn't any indication of how to get on this list, or if you get paid money to allow your name to be used, but there is an interesting disclaimer at the bottom:

Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

But nowhere on the site do I see any indication of where they actually receive their money from. Perhaps they are self-funding, since the top-level portion of the site is a link farm, with searches on "females" and "nuclear bomb shelters". If I don't just go to the top domain page, I find out this is sponsored by "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine". Maybe someone can tell me if they are reputable.

But oh, even better!

Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with MS or PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate.

It seems like 1/3 are MD. I like how they don't explicitly note BS degreed people. So apparently, if I could figure out how, I could join this esteemed list. Even though in my 4 years of undergrad physics, I never once took a class that had anything to do with climate or weather. And I'm sorry, but having a physics degree doesn't give me instant knowledge of even "the summary for policymakers" section of the UN's climate report, the IPCC, or even guarantee I've read it.

Re:What a load!

[An Onerous Coward]

Despite whatever you might believe, or whatever hyperbolic excesses might or might not have been uttered by B-list celebrities, acid rain was a serious problem. You seem to think that, because the world still stands, and because fresh-faced children are still able to skip through meadows covered with wildflowers, that the danger of acid rain was illusory.

But the reason you don't hear such doom and gloom over acid rain these days is because we started regulating sulfur dioxide emissions. SO2 is actually one of the big regulatory success stories, and good evidence that such regulations don't significantly harm industry. When the regulations were being proposed, the energy lobby claimed it would cost industry $1200 for each ton of SO2 prevented. It turned out to be closer to $100.

I'd STILL shut off the power to New York

[tjstork]

Cause God forbid we place some standards on our industries' environmental impact

Were that true, I would agree with you, but you don't understand the people up there. If New York wanted clean power, they could build plenty of it. The state is mountainous and windy, there's ample tidal and offshore power, and plenty of rivers and oceans to build nukes on. The Northeastern USA has plenty of places to site solar, water, wind, and nuclear, all of which have no carbon impact.

But, no one there wants any power plant of any kind built near them, so, rather than retire older, inefficient infrastructure, they just raise taxes (either legislative, or via lawsuit) to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing changes, except that the taxpayer gets screwed.

The classic example is off the coast of Massachussetts. None other than the likes of Ted Kennedy and Walter Conkrite and the braintrust of the Democratic Party are fighting tooth and nail to keep a windmill project being built in the water a few miles away from them. Mind you, this could power the whole area they are living in. But, they don't want it near them.

Seriously. Just look at the power grid. The northeastern USA is a bunch of old coal plants, a bunch of gas turbines, a smattering of nukes and a couple of hydro facilities, and very little of it is newer than 1970. All the coal plants were built in the 1950s and OLDER. The hydro stuff dates back to the 1920s, although, they did drop in more efficient blades into one to make it better - but only after using the existing set for almost 80 years!

As soon as you try and build something in the northeastern USA, you get a bunch of people suing you, saying, not in my back yard. Then, they bitch about not have electricity. It has to come from somewhere, and they just want to -steal it-, and make somebody else do the dirty work of having the solar fields and windmills and what not. It's imperialism, pure and simple.

Re:Hell no! (Formatting is our friend ;)

[N3WBI3]

"yeah, the red states have been relying on that philosophy for decades. Funny thing, though, hasn't really worked overall. "

Are you kidding, the past 10-20 years has seen growth in the south far out pace growth in the north both in terms of population and wealth.

In 1971 NY had 41 Electoral votes the about the same same as the sum total (42) of GA (12), NC (13), AL (9), SC (8). In 2004 NY had 31 compared to 47 for the four states listed above.

of the kids in my family (7) 4 moved away from NY for better employment opportunities (in NY if you don't live down state your in trouble). Thw moved to the south TX / SC, one moved west CA, and one moved the the mid west MN.

"The funny thing is you're going to suffer, too. I wonder how much you're going to be complaining about limiting pollution when it reaches you."

No the way this will affect him is because when auto makers start making changes for higher emission standards in the NE they are not going to make a second set of cars for the south.. He will have to buy the same, more expensive, vehicle that you do..