What I found really interesting though was a comment posted last night,

The University of California (and the CSU system as well) should step in and nip this in the bud.   UC and CSU should put school-boards (in-state and out-of-state) on notice that science classes that fail to present the scientific consensus (or present pseudoscientific denial arguments) regarding global warming will not fulfill UC/CSU admissions requirements. Science classe that present material from web-sites like wattsupwiththat and other sources of pseudoscience should absolutely not be counted toward UC/CSU admission.   

The Pace Law Blog just published this piece with good advice on how to gauge the benefits of your attendance at these events:

Each participant ought to ask themself the question: is my participation going to lead to the equivalent of one Lincoln Navigator being taken off the road for the next year?

Today the DOE released GHG emissions figures for 2010 – the numbers are higher than anyone expected. A whopping 512MMT’s went up, our gift to future generations. It is a huge jump in total emissions. Bigger, in fact, than any of the numbers used in the 2007 IPCC 2007 scenarios. You can find the data here.

Wal-Mart continues to post stable profits and overall sales…But Wal-Mart’s U.S. business, which accounts for some 60% of  of its $419b in annual revenue… is expected to notch a ninth consecutive quarter of declining sales at stores open at least a year…”

Don’t get me wrong, I think there are serious consequences for cities that entertain big box establishments like Wal-Mart, and the Wall Street Journal is definitely not a green fan, yet it strikes me that this article points to serious deficiencies in accounting for sustainable practices in market capitalization. The fact that Wal-Mart has managed to introduce such significant changes aimed at sustainability and maintain their prices should be of more value than those enterprises that achieve price reductions, but through unsustainable practices.

This is from a recent analysis I completed on the progress regions are making toward the 2050 GHG emissions target.

The plaintiffs were largely environmental justice groups., who had made it clear before AB 32 was signed that they were opposed to a cap and trade. Somewhat surprisingly given their historical opposition to any market mechanisms at all, EJ groups instead supported a carbon tax. These groups have argued that emissions trading can be gamed by polluters, doesn’t provide a venue for public participation, and would result in pollution burdens disproportionately borne by low income and minority groups. Their pollution burden would be increased when, for example, power plants, which are often located in EJ neighborhoods, purchase additional offsets or allowances rather than directly reducing GHG emissions.

On Tuesday (3/22), Ann Carlson (UCLA Law) wrote a thoughtful post on the final decision, but it’s a post that sort of misses the point. While an argument (or many arguments) could be made for cap and trade or carbon taxes, the essential issue underlying the lawsuit is one of  ends vs means. The Court’s ruling is about “means”  – that the ARB didn’t adequately (or perhaps at all) analyze alternatives to cap and trade.

It’s unlikely that ARB’s “end” decision to implement a cap and trade would have changed even if they had analyzed alternatives. Cap and trade preparations were rolling along long before the Scoping Plan was completed; once the Governor had signed his order that cap and trade was his preferred policy (shortly after AB 32 was signed), efforts began to set up a regional trading program.

From my viewpoint, in terms of the rulemaking process, neither the ARB nor the EJ groups progressed much beyond their initial positions. The ARB didn’t give more than a nod to market mechanisms other than cap and trade, while at the same time the EJ groups haven’t really participated in those decisions central to the design of a good cap and trade program.

In many of these EJ-related disputes, a common underlying theme is out of sync timing. Most significant public policy decisions with potential environmental impacts require public participation processes. The way these processes are frequently structured, intended or not, result in very few feedbacks between the groups appointed to examine equity-related issues and the key decision-making processes. Or, as in the case of cap and trade, regardless of the process, the ultimate decision is already pre-determined. Over the next few weeks, I’ll walk through some recent and current examples.

62nd Legislature HB0549.01

HOUSE BILL NO. 549

INTRODUCED BY J. READ

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT STATING MONTANA’S POSITION ON GLOBAL WARMING; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE."

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Public policy concerning global warming.

(1) The legislature finds that to ensure economic development in Montana and the appropriate management of Montana’s natural resources 11 it is necessary to adopt a public policy regarding global warming.

(2) The legislature finds:

(a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana;

(b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable

            impacts on the environment; and

(c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it.

(3) (a) For the purposes of this section, "global warming" relates to an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s surface.  It does not include a one-time, catastrophic release of carbon dioxide.

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Codification instruction. [Section 1] is intended to be codified as an

integral part of Title 75, chapter 2, and the provisions of Title 75, chapter 2, apply to [section 1].

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and approval.

– END -