Will the Republican Congress Succeed in Reversing EPA Authority over CO2?

Spoiler alert: NO.

That was easy, huh? OK, blog post over. You can go back to watching online pet videos now. :)

But, seriously, Republicans will certainly rattle some sabres in the halls of Congress in the coming months/years, strut about, showing off their new Senate majority, and howl at glass-shattering decibel levels about reversing each and every last one of Obama's accomplishments while in office (and maybe some he had out of office...they'll probably get so animated they'll set up committees to investigate the validity of a few of his bowling trophies, or something). All of this pointless bluster will merely meet with the veto smackdown each time, so the legislative drama will be a tremendous waste of America's time. As I mentioned yesterday, however, do not fool yourself that this blowhard boondoggle-athon will serve no point at all. It will in fact do the GOP's major sponsors the favor of preventing further emissions controls and buying them more polluting time.

No, the specific showdown over CO2 authority will happen for real in the courts. If conservatives have any hope of gutting EPA regulation, it won't be through enactment of new laws in Washington. It will be by waving legal challenges to what Obama has already drafted under the noses of federal judges. Certainly, Republicans in Congress will play a part in these proceedings, if by doing nothing more than shaking their pom-poms vigorously for the EPA's opponents in these cases, but the actual petitioners will come in all shapes and sizes. I've blogged about them before, and perhaps it goes without saying that they are a bunch of self-contradicting, science-denying clowns.

Here's a great breakdown in video form of how EPA regulatory powers may fare in federal court by professors Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus of the Harvard Law School. Despite previous victories, the EPA may be in for quite a struggle. Freeman puts it this way at one point in the video.

"Based on the UARG case [the case I mentioned in the previous blog post linked to above]...it wasn't all bright spots. There were a few dark moments, and in the opinion there are warning shots. It's hard not to view them as that; that look like they are designed to make EPA sit up and take notice."

Have a watch.

Forget EPA and Keystone, Election Results Grant Time We Don't Have to Polluters

Needless to say, if you care about climate change, you can't be terribly happy about what went down on Tuesday. Phil Plait posted an excellent rundown of what a GOP-controlled House and Senate could mean for the climate and science in general.

"But this vast, gaping polarization of American politics is toxic, especially where it comes to the crucial issue of global warming. Here, a Senate GOP majority can have an extremely destructive effect."

And Ben Adler over at Grist wrote a similar assessment.

"This is not good news for the climate...The Republicans have two top energy-related demands: stop EPA from regulating CO2 and approve the Keystone XL pipeline."

As much as I agree with these two opinion pieces, like many if not all election diagnoses and follow-ups, there's a critical conclusion which is not being drawn here. Phil mentions it, but fails to recognize it as the truly insidious threat to any hope of reversing the adverse effect our emissions have on the climate.

"What does [a GOP Senate majority] mean? Well, in the short term and for many issues, not a lot. This previous Congress will go down in history as the least effective ever, since all it really did is block White House initiatives."

Quite the contrary, this pointless political tail-chasing and continued inaction means everything, as far as global warming is concerned, anyway. Republicans will waste precious time we don't have grandstanding for their scientifically-illiterate base on issues they know will most likely get vetoed (Obamacare, reversing EPA regulation of CO2, the Keystone XL pipeline, etc.), without hope of a two-thirds overturning vote, and the real winner will be the fossil fuel industry, which will be awarded a de facto license to go on polluting and reprieve from cutting emissions during the next few years of ineffectual, meaningless wrangling in Washington. It should surprise absolutely no one that, coincidentally, these corporations are one of the Grand Old Party's greatest sources of funding.

As depressing as these election results and the impending political inertia may seem, there is still a faint beacon of hope shining far off in the distance, which continues to brighten and spread throughout the land. And it's the idea that, in spite of pathetic ineptitude on the part of politicians, businesses will rise to the occasion, anyway, and see great opportunities for growth, cost-cutting, and profit in greening their operations and combating climate change. Here's Andrew Winston, author of The Big Pivot: Radically Practical Strategies for a Hotter, Scarcer, and More Open World, to explain why caring for the environment and a thriving economy are not only completely compatible, but, in fact, inevitable partners.

Hansen Walks Fine Political Line; Near Liberal Riot toward End o_O

James Hansen's climate change advocacy stems from the inarguable fact that he really does care about present and future generations, plain and simple. Whether or not they agree with him, and whatever ulterior motives they try to attribute to other advocates like Gore and Suzuki in order to change the subject and avoid addressing the real issue, our warming planet, I think deniers can at the very least admit that, when it comes to Hansen, there is no deception whatsoever — not even cards being played tight to the chest — perceived or otherwise. He holds nothing back, and talks straight from his impressive mind and his deep heart, switching between the two fairly effortlessly.

I agree with 99% of what he says in the video below, including this...

"The solution does need to come from the conservative side."

I'm even mostly in agreement with this part of the talk, where he once again touts the benefits of nuclear energy, while laying much of the blame for the off-and-on political moratorium in this country at the feet of liberals.

"Unfortunately, beginning with Jimmy Carter and then Bill Clinton, they terminated research and development on advanced generation nuclear power, which, uh, was a big mistake. And it's, it's hard for liberals to admit that...because we burned India and China's share of the, of the, uh, carbon budget, we should help them with [advanced nuclear] technology. Instead, we've kind of withheld the expertise that the US has in those technologies."

That's a fair point, and I get what he's trying to do here. He is trying to open a door through which conservative deniers, who, by virtue of their own obstinate dismissal of the legitimate science, have been frozen out of the conversation, can re-enter the public exchange, holding their heads up. I'm not so sure how keen they'll be to share nuke tech with China, or even India, but the "blame Carter and Clinton" aspect will have attraction for them, I'm sure. It's a compelling approach, one that regular readers of this blog (all 2 of them) will notice is not exactly praised and championed around these parts very often, but I will admit it does offer some hope of producing concerted political effort on this particular issue (not so much on the larger, root problem of science denial, though). However, it requires Hansen walk a fine line, and continually revitalize reasons why those who accept the scientific consensus still deserve more blame than those who deny it. Personally, I would fail utterly at this balancing act, so I will take a pass and instead continue to bludgeon deniers mercilessly with the truth. And I did notice that Hansen himself slips up a little, and allows a bit of irresolution to bubble to the surface every now and then (emphasis mine)...

"Well, no, the conservatives don't want the government to get bigger. That's what they're afraid of...The truth is the conservatives and the Republicans, the majority of them, do not deny the science...And it turns out what they're afraid of is that this will be used to increase taxes, and to increase regulations, and intrusion of government into people's lives. That's what they're afraid of. That's why they then deny the science."

Now, we can debate the validity of the particular assertions he makes here (i.e.: whether or not the Right really wants less government, or simply wants a bigger, more intrusive government that marches to its own ideological drumbeat) until we are blue in the face (or red...get it?). The point I'm concerned with here, the rather telling bit, is Hansen claims one minute that conservatives do not deny the science, and then in the next breath implies they do deny the science publicly, but their real "behind closed doors" concerns absolve them of any blame for policy inaction. He seems to have an internal inconsistency and conflict...a lingering doubt, if you will...in his own mind, and therefore in the argumentation he is trying to put forth as well, that he needs to work out.

Still, this is not some deceptive tactic on his part. I believe he truly feels this is a helpful stance which will bring about a result we all need and can support: reduced emissions via bipartisan agreement. It's just not always gonna be easy to adhere to and sell, which brings me to the last point I wanna make before finally posting the video...

Sheesh, does the man have patience in surplus, or what?. Watch the somewhat heated exchange his position elicits toward the end of the Q&A session, and how Hansen tries to handle it affably. He's a champ.



Also, check out the YouTube channel which uploaded this video for an...interesting digression into another topic (or many) altogether. :)

Oh, and what is the only bit Steven Goddard, Lord of Cherry-Picking, chose to take from an extensive, informative talk? The one little smidgeon of information that appears to agree with his harebrained denial of climate science, of course. And even then, he screws up Hansen's point royally. Nope, sorry, Little Squeakathon Stevie, Hansen does NOT say, "the methane global warming scam is nothing but BS." Your listening comprehension is nothing but BS.

By the way, it doesn't seem likely that Goddard'll let my comment post. It's still in moderation limbo. Though I suppose he's busy getting schooled by Gavin Schmidt, et al, because he's too dense to understand a warming world may cause the atmosphere to hold more moisture and therefore increase precipitation in some areas, including snow in winter, but cause it to melt sooner/faster in spring.

(Update: The comment was allowed to post. :) We'll see how it goes over. Somehow, in trying to get a screen capture of the comment for my own blog, and trying to submit it over at Goddard's, I managed to include a typo and omit the word "to" before "commenting." Grrrrrrrrrrr. No response to my point about the missing source, however.)

Do Republicans Enjoy Sounding Stupid?

"Well, I'm a scientist. I believe in peer-reviewed science, you know, but I don't see any peer-reviewed science that proves there is any, you know, man-made catastrophic climate change."

- Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.)

First of all, Dr. Benishek, let's get something straight here. Being a medical industry professional and a surgeon does not automatically make you a scientist. It does, however, most likely make you a well-paid technician. So unless you have participated or are participating presently in some form of peer-reviewed medical research, you cannot make the claim that you are a scientist. And, really, if your participation is all in the past, then you are not a practicing scientist, and arguably nothing more than a science commentator or communicator at this point with the earned title attached to your name. Secondly, even if you just stepped out of a lab where you discovered a cure for cancer, that does not mean you now get to casually determine which scientific consensus the rest of us are allowed to embrace. And, finally, even were you a climate scientist, that still does not qualify you to dismiss the science underpinning the dangers of anthropogenic climate change.

Most of the time, when someone actually is a scientist, he or she does not need these simple notions explained to him or her. However, it seems like whenever you put that "R" after a politician's name, the explanation becomes obligatory.