Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Alan Klein]

As per my previous post, this is factually incorrect.  EPA has to obey all parts of the Administrative Procedures Act regarding Agency rulemaking.  They must provide a justification for the proposed rule and provide ample time for interested parties to comment.  When they publish the final rule they must address all the received comments in going forward with the rule.  It's also not uncommon for there to be changes in the final rule based on comments received.  The same thing goes when they are changing an existing rule and this is where the Pruitt EPA is in a boatload of trouble.

Certainly the EPA can use cost to the economy as one of the standards when making a decision.  If they can't then the law should be changed to allow them to do that.  After all, everything costs.  Cutting back on car emissions may be prudent at face value.  But if it damages the auto industry by going to far and jobs are lost, the EPA could or should be able to use that information to decide how far to go.  I believe they can and do that now.  Maybe we should spend the money on more cancer research rather than more miles per gallon.  Shouldn't elected officials be responsive to such concerns? 

[Alan Goldhammer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/06/06/these-photos-of-the-district-under-water-illustrate-our-future-with-sea-level-rise/?utm_term=.66ae0c8bacf3&wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1

Some great photos of Washington DC after the recent rain storms that dumped over 10 inches of rain.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Certainly the EPA can use cost to the economy as one of the standards when making a decision.  If they can't then the law should be changed to allow them to do that.  After all, everything costs.  Cutting back on car emissions may be prudent at face value.  But if it damages the auto industry by going to far and jobs are lost, the EPA could or should be able to use that information to decide how far to go.  I believe they can and do that now.  Maybe we should spend the money on more cancer research rather than more miles per gallon.  Shouldn't elected officials be responsive to such concerns?

Some of it is dependent on the particular statute that is used by EPA for regulation.  For example they absolutely have to do a cost/benefit analysis in the regulation of pesticides that takes the impact on not using the pesticide on agricultural output.  The difficulty is that there are a variety of different statues all with different mandates for EPA.  The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards are a joke.  This is one area that I think the economics of a gas tax ought to be used.  We have not raise gas taxes to keep up with inflation and there is not enough to pay for the necessary road/bridge repair these days.  If gas taxes were to rise in keeping with inflation, car buyers would examine the economics and make their own decision on whether to by a small or big car.

[Alan Klein]

Some of it is dependent on the particular statute that is used by EPA for regulation.  For example they absolutely have to do a cost/benefit analysis in the regulation of pesticides that takes the impact on not using the pesticide on agricultural output.  The difficulty is that there are a variety of different statues all with different mandates for EPA.  The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards are a joke.  This is one area that I think the economics of a gas tax ought to be used.  We have not raise gas taxes to keep up with inflation and there is not enough to pay for the necessary road/bridge repair these days.  If gas taxes were to rise in keeping with inflation, car buyers would examine the economics and make their own decision on whether to by a small or big car.

Your original post made it seem that as long as climate change was really, that's all was necessary to institute new regulations.  So now you're acknowledging that the EPA can and must use other criteria like cost-benefit analysis regarding climate change issues?  They don't only have to institute regulations just because the climate is changing and even if it was damaging the environment?  They have to incorporate these other criteria?  So the argument of whether Pruitt is right or wrong about climate change is moot. 

This is why I feel the EPA, Trump and Pruitt are making a mistake.  Instead of arguing that climate change is not real and being caused by humans, they should address the issue on the pros and cons of the costs to implement any changes and the unfairness in the Paris Agreement allowing China and India to do nothing.  They should point to how even Europe is not meeting it's Paris promises.  They are never going to convince the majority of people who believe something is going on.  But they could convince people who believe climate change is real that the cost benefit and fairness to America to implement changes are not worthy to do.  That's a better argument then "nyah, nyahing" whether it's even real.

[Alan Klein]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/06/06/these-photos-of-the-district-under-water-illustrate-our-future-with-sea-level-rise/?utm_term=.66ae0c8bacf3&wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1

Some great photos of Washington DC after the recent rain storms that dumped over 10 inches of rain.

Maybe the flood will clean out the stench that's in Washington DC.  Nice shots.  I like the guy fly fishing in the flooded mall. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Your original post made it seem that as long as climate change was really, that's all was necessary to institute new regulations.  So now you're acknowledging that the EPA can and must use other criteria like cost-benefit analysis regarding climate change issues?  They don't only have to institute regulations just because the climate is changing and even if it was damaging the environment?  They have to incorporate these other criteria?  So the argument of whether Pruitt is right or wrong about climate change is moot. 

The reason it is complicated is because of the different statutes.  I think some of the coal fired plant regulations are under the Clean Water Act (acid rain) and some under the Clean Air Act (particulate matter).  There is not a specific statute for regulating climate change.

This is why I feel the EPA, Trump and Pruitt are making a mistake.  Instead of arguing that climate change is not real and being caused by humans, they should address the issue on the pros and cons of the costs to implement any changes and the unfairness in the Paris Agreement allowing China and India to do nothing.  They should point to how even Europe is not meeting it's Paris promises.  They are never going to convince the majority of people who believe something is going on.  But they could convince people who believe climate change is real that the cost benefit and fairness to America to implement changes are not worthy to do.  That's a better argument then "nyah, nyahing" whether it's even real.

That would mean arguing based on science and neither Pruitt or Trump want to do that.

[Alan Klein]

...
That would mean arguing based on science and neither Pruitt or Trump want to do that.

Not science.  Economics.  That's something most people don't even discuss when it comes to climate change.  How much?  How should it be spent? Where's the money coming from?  What other important programs would have to be cancelled because there's only so much money to go around?  ($900 billion deficit this year more than a trillion next year).


Whenever I think I need something personally, I often change my mind when I consider the costs.  We should be doing that in public policy as well. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

I read through all that was said about the Pruitt situation and not one you guys mentioned the Freedom Of Information Act that was used by the plaintiff to sue the EPA. It's a brilliant strategy and might just get Pruitt to keep his mouth shut from here on out. I'm just concerned the current administration might abolish the act seeing how much work Pruitt claims will be involved in providing those documents.

As I understood the article any government official makes the claims Pruitt has said about not finding enough consistent scientific consensus and evidence to support Global Climate Change then there has to be documents to support such claims and Pruitt must provide them under the FIOA.

Maybe this will teach Pruitt to carefully choose his words when it involves questioning scientific evidence provided by his own scientists.

Here's George Carlins take on worrying about the environment I found quite funny... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj2KZGwubq8&t=

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Not science.  Economics.  That's something most people don't even discuss when it comes to climate change.  How much?

I've pointed out the risks of having to spend more on repairs than would be needed to partially prevent or prepare for the increasing costs.

Here's another take on it.

"Researchers predict economic downturn if fossil fuel investment goes unchecked

Low-carbon technology could get fossil fuel producers' assets "stranded.""

"An economic downturn on the level of the 2008 recession is coming if we keep investing in fossil fuels, researchers say. If fossil fuel-producing countries like the US, Canada, and Russia don't guide their economies away from oil, gas, and coal, then low-carbon technology could render at least some of those investments worthless. According to a paper in Nature Climate Change, approximately $1 trillion to $4 trillion could be lost from the global economy, even taking into account the fact that the Trump administration has hit the brakes on a lot of climate change policy in the US."

And guess who's going to pick up the tab for that?    YOU!

So hiding behind the cost is only an excuse for inaction by deniers.
Realists understand that the cost will only go up further the longer action is postponed.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... And guess who's going to pick up the tab for that?    YOU!l..

ME!? I am already trembling in fear because “a paper” and “researchers” predicted doom and gloom.

[LesPalenik]

I recall that Al Gore said that the polar ice caps could melt by 2014, not that they will. The cold and warm spots are constantly shifting. In Greenland, the great melt is on.

The decline of Greenland's ice sheet is a familiar story, but until recently, massive calving glaciers that carry ice from the interior and crumble into the sea got most of the attention. Between 2000 and 2008, such "dynamic" changes accounted for about as much mass loss as surface melting and shifts in snowfall. But the balance tipped dramatically between 2011 and 2014, when satellite data and modeling suggested that 70% of the annual 269 billion tons of snow and ice shed by Greenland was lost through surface melt, not calving. The accelerating surface melt has doubled Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise since 1992–2011, to 0.74 mm per year. "Nobody expected the ice sheet to lose so much mass so quickly," says geophysicist Isabella Velicogna of the University of California, Irvine. "Things are happening a lot faster than we expected."

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I recall that Al Gore said that the polar ice caps could melt by 2014, not that they will...

I could become a millionaire in a few years, not that I will

[LesPalenik]

Ikea just announced that by 2030, all their products will only consist of renewable and recycled raw materials. That's in addition to their 52 solar projects just in USA with a total generation of more than 42 MW. Their latest store in Wisconsin boasts one of the largest rooftop solar arrays in the state. The new solar array consists of a 1.63 MW system and is built with 4,716 panels. It will produce approximately 2,046,000 kWh of electricity annually for the store, which is equivalent to reducing 1,678 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the emissions of 326 cars or providing electricity for 228 homes yearly.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Further about doom and gloom peddlers and their strategies (bold mine):

Donald Trump won the popular vote among people 45 years and older. Many in these ranks have followed grass roots environmentalism since it began, following publication of Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring," in 1962. Over time they've learned that celebrated environmental experts make false and wildly exaggerated predictions. A prime example is Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, a longtime environmental icon and author of the 1968 book "The Population Bomb."

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," Ehrlich confidently predicted in a 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years."

He assured readers of The Progressive in 1970 that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off."

If the environmental movement's so-called experts had been correct, nearly all animal species would be extinct today, as S. Dillon Ripley, longtime head of the Smithsonian Institution, predicted. As Nigel Calder and Kenneth Watt had it, the Earth would likely be in another ice age today. According to geochemist Harrison Brown, copper, lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver would now be gone. Likewise, Watt and U.S. government analysts predicted that U.S. oil and natural gas reserves would be depleted by now. Instead, we're drowning in the stuff.

The late Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989, "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. ... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Source of the above: https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-inconvenient-truth-about-al-gore-and-the-climate-experts/

[LesPalenik]

I could become a millionaire in a few years, not that I will

As mentioned above, things are changing quickly, you just have to change the location. Right now, Venezuela is the country with the most millionaires.

[RSL]

Right. Last time people were that wealthy they were living in the Weimar Republic.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Damn! I just remembered! I WAS not a millionaire, but a billionaire once!

[Alan Klein]

I read through all that was said about the Pruitt situation and not one you guys mentioned the Freedom Of Information Act that was used by the plaintiff to sue the EPA. It's a brilliant strategy and might just get Pruitt to keep his mouth shut from here on out. I'm just concerned the current administration might abolish the act seeing how much work Pruitt claims will be involved in providing those documents.

As I understood the article any government official makes the claims Pruitt has said about not finding enough consistent scientific consensus and evidence to support Global Climate Change then there has to be documents to support such claims and Pruitt must provide them under the FIOA.

Maybe this will teach Pruitt to carefully choose his words when it involves questioning scientific evidence provided by his own scientists.

Here's George Carlins take on worrying about the environment I found quite funny... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj2KZGwubq8&t=

Tim, We did discuss FOIA in previous posts.  I had two reasons why I didn't think it was enforceable or adviseable.  First, Pruitt gave a public opinion on TV.  His statement was not official EPA policy any more than Trump's tweets are official US policy.  Are we going to force every congressman, senator, president and government official to produce records to support what's on their minds or what they say on FOX or MSNBC?  On the other hand, when the EPA changes official procedures that effect people in real life, then people can sue the EPA.  Then, the EPA would have to furnish papers to the courts supporting rule changes.  Of course, it's perfectly acceptable now to use FOIA to request any information regarding rules and policies.  But an official shouldn't have to support his personal statements every time he says what's on his mind.  That's turning FOIA into a political game of "gotcha". 

Second, you don't want to use FOIA to force politicians or government officials to support their public opinions.  Pretty soon, they will stop talking to newspapers, TV stations, etc about what they think to avoid nuisance FOIA requests.  Democracy will suffer because we will know less about what our government is thinking and doing, not more.  The proper approach is to have other people who have differing views express their views publicly.  That way the public is informed of the contrarian views on a particular issue and we can believe what we want to believe. 

Enjoyed that Carlin link.  Miss him.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

We may all need this in the future.

Or this:

[Alan Goldhammer]

Ikea just announced that by 2030, all their products will only consist of renewable and recycled raw materials. That's in addition to their 52 solar projects just in USA with a total generation of more than 42 MW. Their latest store in Wisconsin boasts one of the largest rooftop solar arrays in the state. The new solar array consists of a 1.63 MW system and is built with 4,716 panels. It will produce approximately 2,046,000 kWh of electricity annually for the store, which is equivalent to reducing 1,678 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the emissions of 326 cars or providing electricity for 228 homes yearly.

Walmart has been installing solar panels on their stores throughout the US.