Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Science à la Joe Camel
Laurie David, Washington Post
At hundreds of screenings this year of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the first thing many viewers said after the lights came up was that every student in every school in the United States needed to see this movie.
The producers of former vice president Al Gore’s film about global warming, myself included, certainly agreed. So the company that made the documentary decided to offer 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) for educators to use in their classrooms. It seemed like a no-brainer.
The teachers had a different idea: Thanks but no thanks, they said.
In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other “special interests” might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn’t want to offer “political” endorsement of the film; and they saw “little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members” in accepting the free DVDs.
Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film’s theatrical run is long since over. As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide, and is required viewing for all students in Norway and Sweden.
Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place “unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.” One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.
That’s the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.
It’s bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.
Laurie David, a producer of “An Inconvenient Truth,” is a Natural Resources Defense Council trustee and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org.
(26 Nov 2006)
Global Warming Goes to Court
Editorial, NY Times
The Bush administration has been on a six-year campaign to expand its powers, often beyond what the Constitution allows. So it is odd to hear it claim that it lacks the power to slow global warming by limiting the emission of harmful gases. But that is just what it will argue to the Supreme Court tomorrow, in what may be the most important environmental case in many years.
A group of 12 states, including New York and Massachusetts, is suing the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to properly do its job. These states, backed by environmental groups and scientists, say that the Clean Air Act requires the E.P.A. to impose limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by new cars. These gases are a major contributor to the “greenhouse effect” that is dangerously heating up the planet.
The Bush administration insists that the E.P.A. does not have the power to limit these gases. It argues that they are not “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. Alternatively, it contends that the court should dismiss the case because the states do not have “standing,” since they cannot show that they will be specifically harmed by the agency’s failure to regulate greenhouse gases.
A plain reading of the Clean Air Act shows that the states are right.
(28 Nov 2006)
Related from Christian Science Monitor: As globe warms, can states force the EPA to act?.
Landmark climate change ruling puts heat on industry
Anne Davies, Sydney Morning Herald
THE climate-change impacts of new industries, including burning coal extracted from NSW mines, will have to be considered by the State Government following a landmark judgement yesterday.
The court victory for a 26-year-old environmental activist, Peter Gray, has put another hurdle in the way of Centennial Coal’s giant Anvil Hill coalmine, planned for the Upper Hunter. While the decision, delivered in the Land and Environment court, does not block the mine’s development entirely, Justice Nicola Pain ruled that a crucial step – the director-general of planning’s acceptance of the environmental assessment – was flawed and invalid.
The Government will now have to take account of the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the mine’s output – even though 80 per cent will be exported.
…According to the Government’s own secret assessment, which came to light during the case, the 10.5 million tonnes of coal from Anvil Hill, when burnt, would produce 12.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – equivalent to doubling the number of cars on NSW roads to 8 million.
Mr Gray, the activist from Newcastle, said after the ruling: “I’m over the moon. It’s a huge win for the people of NSW and the people of the globe. We’ve seen the NSW Government try, quite literally, to defend their right to ignore climate change, but the court has ruled that this is not an acceptable approach.”
(28 Nov 2006)
Carmakers say California’s greenhouse rules would endanger SUVs
Michael Taylor, SF Chronicle
The auto industry said Monday that lawsuits over vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions could eventually force manufacturers to eliminate big SUVs from the market in California, an assertion denied by environmental attorneys and the state air quality board.
“If we lost (in court),” said Dave Barthmuss, General Motors’ spokesman for environmental and energy affairs, “certain vehicles could not be offered for sale — vehicles that consume more fuel than others. There would be fewer SUVs and we might not be able to offer them for sale in California. It could spell the end of the big SUV in California.”
(28 Nov 2006)
