Recently in Environmental Law Category

InsideEPA.com:

The House-passed climate cap-and-trade bill would prohibit EPA from using the PSD program to regulate GHGs, but Jackson has said that if Congress fails to pass a bill then EPA will use its air act authority to issue CO2 rules—though Jackson and other administration officials say their preference is for congressional action.

The view of the Firth and aversion to light pollution was more important than a center for worship and outreach to the community.

I'm sure they're disappointed, but I respect the democratic process. And besides, my brothers and sisters, the bonny view you're giving up doesn't hold a candle to this one.

MORE - A bit of Baptist history:

The early church leaders in Florida came primarily from Georgia and the Carolinas. The work was hard and dangerous. Early Baptists in Florida did not do as they wanted to, they did as they could. They faced difficulties with the environment and lived through rugged conditions. Ministers served churches at little or no pay. Missions giving was measured in pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters. In the early days of the convention, contributions were listed in the annual state report and many times a person was listed who gave two cents or five cents to missions.

Mixed emotions from environmentalists on Justice Sotomayor's appointment.

Also from Grist: Climate change songs suck. LOL! - finally something David and I agree on.

 Dana Milbank:

"I'm also a bicyclist," testified Kenton Pattie of Falls Church. "I've been racing for many, many years." Further, he said, "I swam this morning for an hour and a half right next to the Beltway, off of Braddock Road." Pattie presented some surprising evidence to the officials: "Studies that show the IQ score has gone down as a result of -- by four points for children who were exposed to nitrogen dioxide."

"Do you have a reference for that?" asked the moderator, Rosalina Rodriguez.

"I may have to look it up," Pattie answered.

"Was it specifically NO2 or was it all traffic pollution?" asked David Orlin, an EPA lawyer.

"I can't answer that, not for sure," the witness replied. "I found this off the Internet."

The officials took notes.

Participation would have been even lighter if the American Lung Association hadn't chosen to flood the zone. Of the 24 speakers, 14 were chapter heads, volunteers, low-level staff members or top officials with the association -- and each delivered roughly the same talking points: that the EPA proposal is too lenient.

Read more here.

-D

Excerpts from here:

A team of scientists with years of expertise in climate issues has written an open letter to Congress asserting the "sky is not falling" and there is no evidence man is causing global warming.

The new letter said the facts are simple: "The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

"The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST."

The [cap & trade] legislation would, however, "cripple the U.S. economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors," the scientists warned.

-D

I actually had a few minutes to scan the climatechangeCO2taxbill approved by the House yesterday. Fortunately Adobe has a search function!

Found this:

(b) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multifamily residences. The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for nonresidential buildings. The programs to implement the residential and nonresidential policies based on the standards developed under this section shall together be known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program. 

(c) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States to achieve maximum cost-effective energy efficiency improvements and significant improvements in water use and other environmental attributes.

So if you're a pastor building a new church you would have expected to meet tougher environmental standards. Or maybe you'd be a go-getter and would voluntarily meet the LEED standard for green construction.

What you probably wouldn't expect is that your fellow pastor with that 100 year old church will have to meet whatever standard the government sets for your building. And so will the houses and apartments of both your congregations.

What will that cost you? How about him? Will you make enough in energy savings to break even? Will it put that other church out of business? What will it cost your families, whose energy bills are also going to grow significantly?

No way to know because they haven't said just what those retrofit standards are yet. Just a law saying you will have to comply.

10 reasons for. Agree that reducing our need for foreign oil is good for Defense. I don't buy the climate-uncertainty-international-turmoil argument; if people really thought turmoil was important they would have supported Bush's GWOT. Green jobs R good, and the government is good at growing some industries. Look how many people are employed by DoD, including defense contractors. "Improving regulatory certainty" in English means everybody has the same speed limit. Fine if you're OK with 55 mph. Assuming GHG regulation is done deal, national standards are a good thing. Renewable performance standards will push conventional energy costs up while making alternatives more cost effective.

Add #11: Dedicating resources to understanding and protecting God's atmosphere is a worthwhile endeavor.

15 reasons against. Proponents say the law will "pay for itself" and actually create revenue for the Treasury in a decade (see Reason #3). LMAO! Proponents (the honest ones) are saying $100-200 a year cost per family. Antagonists are in the $3,000 range. Truth is somewhere in the middle. How much bang for the buck? After all the exemptions and free emission credits, it would be cheaper to give every man, woman and child $1,000/year cash and let them buy carbon offsets and CFLs. The bill will cut CO2, if for no other reason than it will depress the economy. But none of this will reduce GW. And if you're a fan of public sector growth and giving up your right to CO2-related bad behavior this is your ticket to ride.

Add #16: These rules will invade every area of our lives, including the operation of churches and charities.

As the saying goes: We report, you decide. (If you haven't already...)

Old Testament Ecology:

The bill is claiming to reduce carbon emissions by 17%. Is that all? We could just give free CFL lightbulbs to all of the 115 million US households (as projected by the US Census Beaureu) in 2010. Wouldn’t that save just about as much energy/carbon emissions?

A lot more than that, although govenment-funded CFL's would probably cost a couple hundred bucks each. Then there's the lead problem...

UPDATE: And then there's that climatechangeisreallyallaboutbiggovernment problem.

Key Democrats reached a deal Tuesday that its supporters hope will lead to House passage of the biggest environmental bill in decades, one aimed at slowing the gradual, destructive heating of the planet. Farm-state Democrats won concessions that will delay the Environmental Protection Agency from drafting regulations that could hamper the ethanol industry and will hand the Agriculture Department oversight of potentially lucrative projects to reduce greenhouse gases on farms.

UPDATE: Thanks to a little wacky legislative maneuvering, the capandtradeCO2tax bill is now 1,200 pages long.

UPDATE: Stop climate change for the children. OK. Especially if we can give them something better than a petroleum economy. Just don't saddle our kids with oppresive government and debt to do that.

Just for fun, here's the chart:

Daily Yonder has two interesting bits this week:

- SCOTUS overly Eastern, and overly Ivy. With the swirl of barbs and recriminations over Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s U.S. Supreme Court nomination centering on race, little attention is being paid to what is a glaring lack of representation on the high court: Rural America.

- Blue states ignorant of rural issues? Maybe, maybe not. Rep. DeLauro "votes with the left-leaning caucus of her party," notes Cattle Network. And "NAIS is a concept abhorred by small family farmers, about as conservative a group of people as you can find on the American political scene." So the new hero for many rural Americans is a Connecticut Yankee. How about them apples?

Can a Supreme Court and federal agencies (EPA, Interior) lead by a bunch of city folk and beltway politicians fairly represent rural ag and environmental issues? Do they even understand them? [Map source]

Senator Inhofe about 2 hours ago:

“While the House will pass the bill … in the Senate, they’re not going to be able to pass it,” Inhofe said. “You guys – it’s just not going to happen..."

Earlier thoughts here.

Law.com:

The mystery surrounding the very brief, per curiam panel decision in the New Haven firefighters' discrimination case is not the only mystery involving Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit. A major climate change lawsuit brought by eight states against five utilities has been pending decision for nearly three years before an appellate panel on which Sotomayor is the presiding judge.

"No one knows why the case has never been decided," said David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center.

And it's not for lack of trying to get information. Last September, the plaintiffs wrote to the circuit clerk about the pending appeal, and just a few weeks ago, another letter went to the clerk from a group involved in the case.

Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. (AEP) is one of three major climate change suits pending in the circuit courts of appeals — all had been dismissed in district court on political question grounds. The other two are Comer v. Murphy Oil Co. in the 5th Circuit and California v. General Motors Corp. in the 9th Circuit. "These are tort law cases that have been brought by states and a couple by non-governmental organizations or private citizens," explained Doniger. "Standing has not yet proved to be an obstacle, but there have been other obstacles like the political question ground."

In AEP, the district court rejected public nuisance claims brought by the state attorneys general against the power companies because of their greenhouse gas emissions. The court held that the case was non-justiciable because it required "identification and balancing of economic, environmental, foreign policy, and national security interests" of a "transcendently legislative nature." The case was docketed with the circuit court in September 2005; briefing was completed in March 2006, and argument was held June 7, 2006. The Sotomayor panel asked for additional briefing on the impact of the Supreme Court's climate decision, Massachusetts v. EPA., and that briefing was filed in July 2007.

Some lawyers who practice before the circuit court said the delay — three years from oral argument — is unusually long. The circuit disposes of cases on the merits an average of 17.6 months from notice of appeal to final disposition, according to statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and 0.6 months from hearing to full disposition.

I also wonder if there was a concern about her having to recuse herself if the case ended up at a Supreme Court with her in it. Does that suggest some political gamesmanship with the court system here?

Nawwww, that would never happen.