Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Study finds White House manipulation on climate science
Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor
The White House has misled the public on climate science, a congressional report says.
—
At least since 2003, and especially after hurricane Katrina hit, the White House has broadly attempted to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters, as well as editing scientists’ congressional testimony on climate science and key legal opinions, according to a new report by a House committee.
“The Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policy makers and the public about the dangers of global warming,” said the report, which is the result of a 16-month probe by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues.”
To some observers, the House investigation, which drew on 27,000 documents gathered from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the US Department of Commerce, is notable as the most comprehensive assessment so far of alleged manipulation of climate science by this White House. It includes previously unknown elements – such as a 2003 incident in which it says top presidential environment adviser James Connaughton personally helped edit the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft legal opinion that denied the agency had authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. (That EPA position was reversed by the US Supreme Court in a ruling this spring.)
(12 December 2007)
Judge says California can regulate greenhouse gases from cars
Ken Bensinger, Los Angeles Times
The decision is a setback for automakers, which argued that only the federal government could set standards that would affect fuel economy. The state now needs an EPA waiver to proceed.
—
In a major defeat for automakers, a federal judge in Fresno ruled Wednesday that California could set its own standards on greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles. But the state still needs permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement the rules.
“Both EPA and California . . . are equally empowered through the Clean Air Act to promulgate regulations that limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, from motor vehicles,” U.S. District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii said, citing recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal court in Vermont. Automakers had argued that only the federal government had such power.
The decision is the second time this year that courts have rebuffed the auto industry’s attempts to forestall regulation of tailpipe emissions by states, which have grown impatient with the Bush administration on the issue of global warming.
(13 December 2007)
Proposal for center to coordinate energy, climate change research
David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle
The University of California may soon become home to an ambitious, $600 million institute that would coordinate energy and climate change research at schools and labs throughout the state, supported by money from your monthly electric bills.
The proposed California Institute for Climate Solutions would bring together universities – such as UC Berkeley and Stanford – better known as rivals than partners.
Each school and national laboratory involved already has scientists and engineers hunting for sources of energy, more efficient ways to use power and other means to fight global warming. Now their efforts would be coordinated by a central administration hosted by UC.
The project’s substantial price tag would be paid through Californians’ utility bills. A typical homeowner could pay an extra 30 cents per month as a result.
(12 December 2007)
A Precious and Painful Vision of the Future
Al Gore, The Nation
… Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken–if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.
Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, “We must act.”
The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different future–a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency–a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst–though not all–of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.
However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”
So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.
As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.
(10 December 2007)
Nobel Prize speech. Related from NY Times: Gore Urges Bold Moves in Nobel Speech
CBS Evening News Asks the Candidates about Global Warming
CBS News via Clean Energy Watch (Sierra Club)
…For the series “Primary Questions: Character, Leadership & The Candidates,” CBS News anchor Katie Couric asked the 10 leading presidential candidates 10 questions designed to go beyond politics and show what really makes them tick. Below is the full transcript to the question: “Do you think the risks of climate change are at all overblown?”
(11 December 2007)
