Warming Law

Weekly Round-Up: Game Over in Kansas

--The Kansas coal battle is over for now, legislatively speaking, as the industry's legislative allies have decided against trying to override Governor Kathleen Sebelius' latest veto. The battle now shifts to state courtrooms, where the industry has filed suit.

--Members of Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe's climate change commission are asking the public for support and input, and making a case we very much like to do so:

With the federal government at a standstill on the issue, it's up to the states to become legislative laboratories for their parent legislature to learn from, and the commission is one of Arkansas'first experiments, said state Rep. Kathy Webb, D-Little Rock, who is a member of the commission. She said the presidential candidates have made commitments to take action on global warm- ing, and she thinks that at its next session Congress will address the issue.

Webb and Petty agreed that if Arkansas wants to be one of the states handing out advice to the federal government when it's making policies on environmentalism, the state Legislature and citizens must work together to help the commission succeed.

--Californians, of course, have been advising the federal government for years (and, where necessary, suing it) on climate policy. Local initiative continues to march on despite the lack of federal support, with nine Bay Area counties agreeing to impose fees on businesses for every ton of carbon they emit.

One Small Step: CA Waiver Bill Passes Out of Committee

This morning, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted to advance S.2555, which would reverse EPA's waiver denial and allow California (along with 13 other states) to set its own tailpipe emissions standards for greenhouse gases. The bill moves to the Senate floor by a bipartisan vote of 10-9, with Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) breaking with fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, only to be cancelled out by the support of Senator John Warner (R-VA).

This is a fairly modest bill that aims to quickly fix a blatantly wrong-headed decision that likely won't hold up in court, and theoretically should garner broad support across partisan lines based on that reality and shared federalist principles. But as even Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) admitted while moving her bill forward, the likelihood of overcoming a potential filibuster by opponents, let alone a threatened presidential veto, is not good so long as powerful voices like automakers and the United Auto Workers remain full-throttle in their opposition.

Still, today's vote does help the measure's proponents frame the debate for the next president, whom they are optimistic will reverse course and allow California to move forward. 

Waxman v. Johnson: More of This Please

We've been tied up the last couple of days with some exciting developments that will lead to Warming Law's definite benefit and improvement, so apologies for the light posting. But we definitely wanted to acknowledge that yesterday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a 20-page memorandum on the White House's role in the EPA's California waiver denial, and has proceeded to angrily confront embattled EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson over this and other extra-legal actions today.

We'll have more on Waxman's findings tomorrow, but for now we wanted to note that the framing of this debate has been crystal clear, something that has been a pet peeve of Warming Law's in the recent past. Take for instance, the following from the memo's introduction/thesis:

The President has an obligation under the Constitution to take care that the laws of theUnited States are faithfully executed. In this case, the applicable law is the Clean Air Act, whichrequires that California's petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles bedecided on the merits based on specific statutory criteria. It would be a serious breach if thePresident or other White House officials directed Administrator Johnson to ignore the recordbefore the agency and deny California's petition for political or other inappropriate reasons.

That sounds about right, more or less.

Napolitano Stands Tall, Minnesota Falters, and Other State Climate News

--As predicted, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has vetoed legislation that would have prevented state agencies from participating in regional climate agreements and overturned the enactment of California's clean cars program. But don't expect a Kansas-style battle here: while industry groups have depserately lobbied for this and some supporters would like to attempt an override, the bill's main sponsor has stated that trying would be "an exercise in futility."

--Less good is the news from Minnesota, where a state Senate committee yesterday halted a push to enact the California auto emissions standards, at least for this year. A combination of auto industry lobbying, and the (astroturfing-driven) opposition of ethanol and agricultural interests, was responsible. Sponsors vow to try again next year, at which point California's waiver denial by EPA-- cited by some in Minnesota as a reason to stall action-- might well have been overturned by the courts, Congress, or a new administration.

--Wisconsin officials are citing climate change impacts as one of the factors they plan on scrutinizing in depth (others include cost effectiveness) before allowing an expensive coal-burning plant to be built. The consideration of similar factors in Iowa, reported on in last week's roundup, is cited as an example being followed here.

--And finally, California Attorney General Jerry Brown continues to make strides with his efforts to limit the climate-change impacts of large-scale development projects. Late last week, Brown reached an agreement with a rapidly-expanding San Diego airport.

Insulted EPA Files "Pathetic" Response to Mandamus Petition

Late yesterday (very late, we are told), the EPA filed its formal opposition to the Massachusetts v. EPA plaintiffs' mandamus petition, which asked the court to order an endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions within 60 days, in response to the agency's unreasonable delay of over a year after the Supreme Court's opinion was handed down. The court initially set a deadline a week earlier, but EPA (shockingly, we know) asked for an extension.

EPA argues that it is reasonable for the agency to delay an endangerment finding-- described as a "preliminary step" and "clearly beyond the exceptional remedy of mandamus relief"-- until it can also complete the vehicle-emissions standards that would be automatically triggerred by the Clean Air Act, and which were the subject of the original petition way back in 1999. The agency also argues that it acted reasonably in suddenly ditching the endangerment finding and auto-emissions rules it had finished drafting late last year, writing that "EPA has reasonably decided to adjust those plans in response to external events (such as the enactment of fuel economy legislation by Congress in December 2007 and the receipt of several petitions under other CAA provisions) and further administrative consideration." The allegation that these excuses adjustments were made in bad faith and with manifest impropriety are dismissed as "reckless and baseless."

David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's Chief Climate Counsel, tells us via email that this response amounts to a "total nothingburger." He also seconds our sense that EPA's rationale is sadly familiar, noting (emphasis added) that:

EPA/DOJ have now repeated, in 29 pages, the same lame excuses for inaction that Steve johnson offered in his 3-page March 27 letters to Congress: this climate stuff is all terribly complicated...so everyone is going to have to wait while EPA thinks about this some more. Remarkably, these are nothing more than updated versions of the same excuses EPA relied on denying the original petition in the Mass. case back in 2003, and were categorically rejected by the Supreme Court. These excuses do not become any less pathetic by dint of either repetition or additional filter."

DOI's Polar Bear Listing: Turning a Pit Bull into a Poodle

Posted by Tim Dowling

Over at the Georgetown Law Faculty Blog, environmental law scholar extraordinaire Lisa Heinzerling has this post discussing the Department of the Interior's listing of the polar bear as a threatened species.  She explains that while the Endangered Species Act  is "sometimes called the 'pit bull' of our environmental laws" due to the robust protections it requires for endangered and threatened species, the Interior Department's decision yesterday to list the polar bear attempts to defang the Act through "interpretive somersaults" by purporting to limit the impact of the listing on greenhouse gas emitters.  By ignoring its own rules, the Interior Department basically ensures that "the listing will not require anybody but trophy hunters to change their behavior to protect the bear."  Professor Heinzerling concludes that through these accompanying limitations on the reach of the Act as applied to polar bears, DOI "turns the pit bull into a poodle."

Her analysis is well worth reading.  Check out the full post.

Senator Boxer Moving Bill to Overturn California Waiver Decision

The Detroit News is reporting that as early as next Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will consider Senator Barbara Boxer's bill, S.2555, that would reverse the EPA's thwarting of California's GHG emissions standards.

The looming spectre of congressional action has been a key motivator behind the auto industry's desperate lobbying of late, seeking to stop additional states from adopting the California rules. Nonetheless, Boxer's bill has been fairly dormat since it was introduced in January. So why act now?

The answer might lie in the realm of legislative support. Boxer's bill now has 27 cosponsors, and last week it earned itsfirst endorsement by a Republican member of the EPW Committee, Senator John Warner of Virginia. With his support secured, Boxer would be able to pass the bill out of committee even if she loses one member of her own party-- commitee members Max Baucus (D-MT) and Thomas Carper (D-DE) have yet to take a position on the bill.

More importantly, Warner's support could be a big help on the Senate floor, and provides strong symbolism as a major ally of Senator McCain's who has decided to actively side with California (McCain has expressed support for California, but has yet to endorse the Boxer bill).

EPA Waiver Challenge: More Delay

On May 12, EPA filed a motion to transfer California's challenge to EPA's waiver denial from the Ninth Circuit to the D.C. Circuit.  This is EPA's second attempt to nix the Ninth Circuit appeal.  (It previously moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the Dec. 19, 2007 letter from EPA informing California of the waiver denial was not final agency action subject to appeal.) 

California's opening merits brief had been due today, May 14.  This latest motion, which automatically stays the briefing schedule, is expected to push things back 2-6 weeks, depending how long it takes the court to decide the motion.

Janet Napolitano and the Chamber of Inconvenient Truths

Yesterday, Arizona lawmakers set up a likely showdown with Governor Janet Napolitano over global warming, though they conveniently don't see it that way. In passing legislation to overturn the state's enactment of California's clean cars standards--  the result of an executive order that Napolitano issued back in 2006, and a lengthy evaluation process by state officials-- legislators claim that they're only standing up to excessive executive power. They fault Napolitano for not consulting them both on this matter and before she signed the state up for the Western Climate Initiative's regional cap-and-trade effort last summer. 

Napolitano, who is likely to veto the bill, asserts that her action is perfectly normal under state environmental law, and her allies have highlighted the suspect timing and rationale provided by their fellow legislators. The bill's proponents have been quite defensive in response:

"Maybe we are a day late and a dollar short in doing it," [Sen. Jake Flake, the bill's author] conceded. "But it's important that we do do it and don't wait forever."

[...]

"This isn't about greenhouse effect, this isn't about the environment," [House Speaker Jim Weiers] said. It's about legislative authority to review these kinds of policies, not "an agency head or a governor behind closed doors." he said.

While legislators argue that a heavy lobbying push by the auto industry and other aligned groups was irrelevant to their acting now, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce finds itself simultaneously on the defensive, though its problem simply seems to be with the truth. The organization conveniently chose yesterday to release a poll literally designed to portray public concerns over the governor's actions, and was quickly called out on it by the state media:

[T]he questions in the survey, paid for by the business community, may have influenced the answers.

For example, one question asks whether people would be willing to pay an extra $3,000 for cars and trucks to meet the new emission standards. More than 60 percent said "no."

Figures from the California Air Resources Board, which first adopted the rules Arizona is mimicking, put the cost at less than $1,100, not $3,000.

And Hamer acknowledged there is a financial benefit to buying the cars manufactured to the new standards because their higher fuel efficiency will reduce the need to buy gasoline — a point never mentioned to those questioned in the survey.

"I don't believe it really matters in terms of all the details," he said.

Cities Deliver an Energy Smackdown! and More State Climate News

--We wish we'd had more time to blog about Juliet Eilperin's excellent feature story from last Sunday's Washington Post, which documented state and local efforts to tie growth efforts to mitigating global warming impacts. David Roberts wonders why presidential candidates don't mention these ambitious efforts more on the stump; meanwhile, the Drum Major Institute calls attention to other local government initiatives, such as a reality TV show called Energy Smackdown! being produced by several Massachusetts cities.

Also, Smart Growth America's Steve Davis, responding to a quote in Eilperin's piece from California AG Jerry Brown, waxes optimistic that the real estate market is beginning to shift in favor of more walkable, lower-emitting "places where gas prices can't hold [consumers] hostage."

--The Sierra Club has threatened to sue unless the permits for eight new coal-fired power plants are not reviewed, in the aftermath of a federal court ruling that invalidated EPA's weak mercury rules. While the threat might revolve around more traditional air pollution, coal plants are the source of 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and one of the plants targeted, Duke Energy's proposed Cliffside expansion in North Carolina, is also targeted in Appalachian Voices' NEPA suit against the DEpartment of Energy. On a related note, Joe Romm makes the case for a moratorium on new coal plants over at Gristmill.

--Connecticut legislators have approved a new law, mirrored on measures that have passed in California, New Jersey and other states, to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

--New Hampshire also appears set to join other northeastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a path-breaking emissions-trading program for large power plants that will go into effect in early 2009.

Auto Industry to Arnold: Let's Make Nice, At Least Outside the Courtroom

Automakers continue to doggedly pursue every legal angle they can for holding up California's clean-cars efforts, but they've decided to sit down with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and consider ways to work together on reducing GHG emissions. The upshot: industry leaders concede that the ground has fallen out from under them, both in legal battles and in the court of public opinion:

The auto industry executives had requested the meeting, which appeared to begin laying the groundwork to soften post-Bush regulations. On emissions, the auto companies are losing clout in Congress and face three leading presidential candidates weighing in on California's side.

“There will be a new conversation” in Washington, McCurdy conceded. However, that must include other sources of emissions, from railroads to oil refineries to utilities, he added.

[...]

Schwarzenegger suggested to reporters that automakers have known changes were coming since 2002, when the state passed the law.

“I told them ... while you're whining you should be creating new technology,” he said.

Automakers might know their legal odds are slim, but that's not stopping them from threatening new lawsuits. On Tuesday, Arizona became the latest state to formally adopt California's tailpipe emissions standards, with regulators completing a process initiated by Governor Janet Napolitano. The reaction:

Following the panel's decision, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers lobbyist Knox Kimberly hinted at possible legal action.

"I think there's a very strong argument to be made in the courts," Kimberly said. "My guess, based on what has happened in the other states, is someone will sue."

Arizona legislators aligned with the industry's position had previously complained about not being consulted by Napolitano, and are mounting a legislative effort to overturn the regulatory process.

They're Finally Done in Kansas...

...well, almost done. Kansas' state legislature adjourned last night, exhausted but having tucked language to authorize two new CO2-burning coal plants into an economic development package. The exhaustion, though, seems to be winning out and dooming this final industry-backed effort.

Governor Kathleen Sebelius will likely veto the bill-- which actually garnered fewer votes than previous stand alone bills, as some seconded the governor's concerns that the bill violated the state constitution. And there doesn't seem to be much appetite for overriding her when the legislature formally closes out its session with a one-day, normally ceremonial meeting later this month:

Most Republicans and Democrats agree that the new bill is veto bait for the governor.

[...]

Wichita-area Democrats said it’s time for the House Republican leadership to stop holding vote after vote on coal.

“They’re beating down a dead horse,” said Rep. Delia Garcia, D-Wichita. “Hopefully they’ll get the message and stop acting like adolescents.”

Also yesterday, the state Senate refused to vote on a House resolution that would have authorized the full legislature to sue Sebelius over the plants. In other words, if Sebelius decides to issue another veto, this battle might finally be coming toward an end.

Gingrich, McCain and the Push for Climate-Unfriendly Judges

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in the midst of a campaign to cast himself as a serious voice for meeting the challenge of global warming-- see Joe Romm and David Roberts for some skepticism on this-- is wading into the climate and energy debate big time with his latest strategy memo to fellow Republicans. Several of these proposed congressional gambits relate directly to the climate crisis, and he promises that next week's newsletter will contain an alternate proposal to contrast with the climate change bill that the Senate will debate next month. But another one of today's proposals-- one that exists in a broader context-- should not go unremarked upon:

Remind Americans that judges matter. Senate Republicans should mount an ongoing fight (including a filibuster of other activities if necessary) to get the American people to realize that liberals want to block all current judicial appointments in order to maximize the number of left wing radical judges they can appoint if they win the White House...

Gingrich's proposed aggressiveness on judges isn't happening in a void. John McCain is working hard to placate internal partisan critics on the issue, while prominent activists simultaneously work to make sure that the Republican platform contains a virtual litmus test for committed judicial "conservatives." More immediately, and in line with Gingrich's sense of urgency, yesterday's Washington Post reported that the White House is dissatisfied with the Senate's moves toward approving a handful of consensus-choice judges, and antsy to get several controversial nominees onto the bench. Longtime readers should recognize one of the names immediately:

White House aides are not complaining about the apparent plan to approve Agee, White and Kethledge, but they are also not squealing with delight, either. Bush's other nominees, such as [DC Circuit nominee Peter] Keisler, have been waiting for months with no sign that the Democrats will even hold nomination hearings. The White House would almost certainly prefer the Senate approve two different conservative jurists for the 4th Circuit, Robert J. Conrad Jr. and Steve A. Matthews-- both of whom were nominated nearly a year ago.

Yes, that's the same Steve A. Matthews whose nomination raised serious questions about his views on key climate-related jurisprudence such as Mass. v. EPA. Keisler's nomination is critical simply because he is nominated for the same DC Circuit that hears many key regulatory cases, and was reversed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned ruling. With the stakes this high-- future of the planet and all-- and the Bush administration's intransigent behavior on related matters growing worse by the day, some due diligence and serious questioning would likely have to take place before the Senate considered moving these nominees forward.

Meanwhile, be on the lookout for potential fireworks as Gingrich envisions-- particularly if judges do end up emerging, as Senator McCain put it in his remarks today, as "one of the defining issues of this presidential election."

Sebelius Wins Again...But Big Coal Blackmails a "Hail Mary"

As most readers are probably aware, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius has held off a third attempt to reverse her administration's rejection of two coal-fired plants, with the Kansas House failing to override her veto of industry-backed legislation by four votes (Sebelius' previous vetoes were sustained by a slimmer margin). House leaders have now threatened to sue Sebelius-- a symbolic move admittedly aimed at countering threats that a veto override wouldn't be enough to guarantee the plants' construction-- but they haven't given up the ghost either.

The implications of this fight remain national in scope, so Sunflower Electric's allies in the House are refusing to go down without kicking and screaming, holding open the narrow possiblity of turning the tide (though the exhausted state Senate might pull the plug by ending their legislative session early this week). On Saturday, before adjourning they created "Hail Mary" legislation by attaching their bill to an economic development package for the state's most populous county.

Republican Rep. Judy Morrison, who voted against the plants, calls industry's latest gambit "the worst bill I've ever seen" and simply "blackmail;" meanwhile the Hutchison News reports that at least one previous supporter of the plants is opposed to the new legislation. Sebelius is likely to veto the bill should it ever cross her desk, and tells the Wichita Eagle that the maneuver might not even hold up in court:

Sebelius said attorneys in her administration already have told her that the latest bill would violate the constitution's one-subject rule.

"By calling the building of coal plants economic development doesn't make them economic development," she said. "Just on that basis, we will give it a very close look."

The Land Institute's Climate and Energy Project continues to be your go-to source on this issue, doing an amazing job of live-blogging the legislative session, and catching other legislative maneuvers of note (such as House Speaker Melvin Neufeld also holding hostage budget funding for Wichita-area legislators who voted against the plants). Readers looking for play-by-play updates would do well to check in with them over the next several days.

Mary, Mary: The EPA's Buggin'

Normally, yesterday's sudden ouster of EPA Midwest regional administrator Mary Gade-- a political appointee and active Republican who reportedly clashed with Administrator Stephen Johnson and other superiors over the cleanup of chemical pollution-- wouldn't merit a response from a blog as narrowly focused as Warming Law. But then again, most EPA regimes haven't shown the all-around disrespect for the law that might well have played out here, following the same pattern we've been seeing with regards to global warming.

Robert Sussman, a former Deputy EPA Administrator, explains this broader significance well:

If Mary stood up for her career staff and pushed for strong action to abate contamination, she was only performing her job under the environmental laws as she saw it. It is hard to believe that Mary, an astute and succesful lawyer in private practice with a long track record of implementing the federal contamination laws, would overstep legal boundaries. If her only sin was zeal in protecting the public, firing her was wrong and will send a troubling message to EPA employees all across the country who are trying to do their jobs. Clearly, it’s up to Steve Johnson to explain why he fired Mary and up to Congress to investigate the circumstances.

Therein, friends, lies the rub. The Bush EPA's legal problems transcend oft-heard (though not at all inaccurate) cries of politicization, upending traditional agency practice and creed, and bad policy choices, and boil down to an opportunistic disrespect for the rule of law. Sussman, to his credit, has been making the same point. If his present suspicions are correct, this latest move raises the stakes even more.

The Wonk Room is now reporting that next Wednesday, a furious Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (himself a former US Attorney) will be raising this matter at an oversight hearing looking at the "politicization of the EPA." From the looks of the witness list, its focus is on the undermining of science and public health. That's not to be minimized in and of itself, but in order to truly get to the heart of the matter and take it to a place beyond the sheer political scheming at work lately, the Senator and his fellow EPW committee members would do well to place some additional emphasis on damag done to the rule of law.

Yet Another Silver Lining, Courtesy of NHTSA This Time

California officials were rather steamed last week after the Bush administration announced new fuel economy rules that claim to preempt state action limiting auto emissions-- going so far as to threaten yet another lawsuit over NHTSA's efforts to rewrite the congressional record. But as per today's Clean Air Report (subscription req.), California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols noticed that there might be a silver lining to the rules:

Nichols said during an April 23 press conference that the state will sue NHTSA if it adopts the preemption language in the CAFE rules. However, she added that the language may actually bolster the state's lawsuit against EPA for denying the state last year a Clean Air Act waiver to implement its own vehicle GHG regulations...

Nichols said that because NHTSA and DOT appear to be claiming sole responsibility for regulating GHG emissions from vehicles through fuel economy standards, it may rebut an argument EPA is making in the lawsuit over the waiver denial that the environmental agency may still develop its own GHG regulations for vehicles.

"This is . . . certainly something we will be taking to court, in our litigation against EPA over their denial of our waiver to pursue the Pavley regulations, because part of the EPA's position in the lawsuit is that they might get around to setting emission standards," Nichols said. "Now, we have another agency . . . saying no, EPA will not set emission standards because we, the DOT, will take it all over and set fuel economy standards and that will be it."

We're absolutely SHOCKED that, in the same waiver-denial defense that inadvertently documented how global warming endangers human health and welfare, EPA may have ended up contradicting yet another administration legal position. Then again, when you're part of an administration that seems to be making this stuff up as it goes along, it's kind of hard to maintain rock-solid consistency...

California officials also told Clean Air Report that the CAFE preemption language might not have any legal effect if it ends up in an appendix to NHTSA's final regulations, citing the precedent of 2007 rules that included similar language in their preamble.

Blame California! And Other State (And International!) News

--The idea that state action in the U.S. would have reverberations beyond our borders continues to gain demonstrative weight, courtesy of British Columbia moving to adopt California's clean-cars standards. Numerous Canadian provinces had endorsed California's actions, but British Columbia-- which also intends to join several U.S. states in the Western Climate Initiative's forthcoming carbon trading program-- is the first to act on them.

--Ironically, back in California, some Republican state legislators are gearing up for budget negotiations by demanding several regulatory changes, including a one-year delay on implementing the state's landmark GHG reduction law. The Sacramento Bee notes that last year's environmentally-tinged budget standoff did result in some concessions to this crowd. It fails, however, to add that they failed to restrict Attorney General Jerry Brown's efforts-- under the aegis of a decades-old state environmental law, and in anticipation of the targets set by the aforementioned carbon-capping law-- to make land-use planning a tool for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

--Florida Governor Charlie Crist is now set to sign the comprehensive climate bill that we mentioned in last week's roundup. Environmental groups, while excited by much of the bill, are concerned about one provision that was tacked on at the last minute:

The Senate adopted the House version of the bill, which included a requirement that the Legislature approve any plans by a state agency to adopt California's stringent auto emission standards.

Critics of the measure, including some environmental groups, said waiting for ratification would slow Florida's efforts to aggressively curb greenhouse gas emissions, as mandated in executive orders signed by Crist at a climate change summit last summer in Miami Beach.

[...]

Sen. Burt Saunders, R-Naples, the Senate bill's sponsor, countered the measure was not ``the end of the story in terms of vehicle emissions.''

''This is an issue the Legislature will be debating down the road,'' Saunders said.

More on Inhofe and Science

Apropos to yesterday's item about Senator Inhofe's reaction to a federal judge's polar-bears smackdown of the Bush administration, Desmogblog catches the Senator's press blog hailing a new scientific study on weather patterns, which they claim shows that global warming will "stop." Of course, as the De-smoggers go on to explain, that's not entirely the case, and Inhofe's staff would have done well to read entire articles on the study (let alone the paper itself).

Desmogblog has also been doing a bang-up job exposing the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares," finding that many of its "honorees" are outraged at their out-of-context inclusion, while others cannot likewise complain due to their apparent status as deceased or simply made up. Lovely.

As we've written before, the arguments advanced by the likes of Heartland, S. Fred Singer and Inhofe really have no standing left, either factually or in a court of law, with their erstwhile allies moving on to a strategy of unreasonable delay rather than outright denial. Instances like this show why.

EPA Dances Around Request to Curb Greenhouse Gases from Refineries

This afternoon, E&E News (subscription req.) is reporting that the EPA-- responding to a court order-- has issued new regulations to reduce air pollution from petroleum refineries. But there's a catch: EPA also has denied environmental groups' request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the refineries, and in so doing, stands accused of dramatically reinterpreting the Clean Air Act:

EPA explained that it was working on a new global warming policy in response to last year's loss in the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA -- a case that started when the Bush administration denied a petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

The agency also opened itself up to controversy today by saying it did not need to set any greenhouse gas limits for the industry now because it previously had opted against establishing such standards.

Environmentalists said they plan to sue EPA in federal appeals court over that reasoning. "It's enormous," said David Bookbinder, an attorney at the Sierra Club. "They're taking the position the agency has no obligation to look at or review any other pollutant."

Bookbinder said he was not surprised by EPA's decision, adding that he did not expect the issue to be resolved until after the Bush administration leaves office. "I don't want these chuckleheads writing the regulations for CO2," he said. "What scares me is the chunk of collateral damage done to the Clean Air Act." 

EPA's response to the public comments, filed by the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project, is explained between pages 92 and 104 of the new rule. We're first taking a close look at EPA's wording ourselves, and will chime in with further comments as needed.

But as a matter of simple analysis, it does behoove us to note that this is far from first time that EPA has used its own unreasonable delay on the Supreme Court's Mass. v. EPA mandate as an excuse...

James Inhofe: Defender of Science?

Courtesy of the Washington Post, Senator James Inofe (R-OK), noted climate change "skeptic" who denounces leading scientists as alarmist, on yesterday's polar bear ruling:

"It's unfortunate that the debate has become more about timelines than actual science," said Inhofe spokesman Matthew Dempsey. "What has become clear . . . is that listing the polar bear as a threatened species is not about protecting the polar bear but rather advancing a particular political agenda."

Of course, Judge Claudia Wilkins cited extensive science in declaring the administration's delay on the listing violated the law. Science like that cited by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA, who is calling again for a halt to oil drilling plans in the Chukchi Sea that further endanger the bears' habitat, both directly and as a result of increased climate impacts:

“It is imperative that Secretary Kempthorne does not put the rig before the bear,” said Markey. “The Bush administration must suspend all actions on finalizing the Chukchi oil leases until they have determined what protections the polar bear needs in such a vital habitat.”

Polar bears are totally dependent on Arctic sea ice for survival, and the rapid warming of the Earth is destroying their ice habitat. In the most thorough study to date, Interior Department scientists, including the team leader who appeared before the Select Committee, determined that under current trends, disappearing sea ice would result in a two-thirds drop in the world population of polar bears resulting in the disappearance of polar bears from Alaska by 2050. One of the population centers considered under the “greatest” threat is the Chuckchi Sea habitat, according to the study.