Joseph Romm Responds to James Hansen
I'm still not sure what I think of this. Some of it is an attack by linking a position to one's enemies which is neither here nor there on the question itself and a bit dodgy in terms of style points. He dances around the EPA item in this way. Sounds to me that it's a lack of (political) will on the Obama EPA part rather than a lack of ability to implement things independently of congressional oversight.
That's certainly what many of the proponents of the "cap-and-trade" are saying to spur it's passage among non-believers and skeptics. "Don't let the evil scientific based EPA call the shots!"
He may be right that it's better than nothing but I'm still not completely convinced of that.
NASA's James Hansen Recycles Myths in His Pointless Attack on U.S. Climate Change - Huffington Post - 10 Jul 09
"The global economy is indeed a Ponzi scheme, but this is the first piece of legislation by any major country that makes a serious effort to end that Ponzi scheme. Hansen then lists 'a few of the bill's egregious flaws':
* It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
No. The EPA doesn't have the 'ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.' EPA might well use its recent endangerment finding to get that ability (partially and eventually), but it hasn't asserted that regulatory capability yet.
More importantly, the CAA authority is most readily translated into regulating emissions from new power plants. Regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants would take a long time, engendering a great deal of litigation. As John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said, 'it would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation.'
Moreover, for a man who wants to 'phase out coal emissions over the next two decades,' as Hansen does, this is a pretty pointless complaint. The Obama EPA was certainly never going to use the endangerment finding to do anything like that.
This 'EPA can solve the problem on its own' myth is so commonplace that I will do separate post next week addressing it. I certainly agree with NRDC that the bill should be changed to allow EPA to retain its CAA authority, but I wouldn't list this among the bill's top 4 flaws, let alone put it first."
That's certainly what many of the proponents of the "cap-and-trade" are saying to spur it's passage among non-believers and skeptics. "Don't let the evil scientific based EPA call the shots!"
He may be right that it's better than nothing but I'm still not completely convinced of that.
NASA's James Hansen Recycles Myths in His Pointless Attack on U.S. Climate Change - Huffington Post - 10 Jul 09
"The global economy is indeed a Ponzi scheme, but this is the first piece of legislation by any major country that makes a serious effort to end that Ponzi scheme. Hansen then lists 'a few of the bill's egregious flaws':
* It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
No. The EPA doesn't have the 'ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.' EPA might well use its recent endangerment finding to get that ability (partially and eventually), but it hasn't asserted that regulatory capability yet.
More importantly, the CAA authority is most readily translated into regulating emissions from new power plants. Regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants would take a long time, engendering a great deal of litigation. As John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said, 'it would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation.'
Moreover, for a man who wants to 'phase out coal emissions over the next two decades,' as Hansen does, this is a pretty pointless complaint. The Obama EPA was certainly never going to use the endangerment finding to do anything like that.
This 'EPA can solve the problem on its own' myth is so commonplace that I will do separate post next week addressing it. I certainly agree with NRDC that the bill should be changed to allow EPA to retain its CAA authority, but I wouldn't list this among the bill's top 4 flaws, let alone put it first."