The renewable energy future – LA Times. “As Los Angeles creaks through its driest year on record and nervously awaits its next explosive wildfire, many wonder if global warming is already taking a toll.” Duh. Anyway, a pretty good article on the prospects for renewables in California.
Evidence of global warming surrounds a skeptic – Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Another good dissing of Lomborg, focusing on forest loss in the West. No matter what Steve says, I say you can’t have too many!
Forest nations want billions for not logging – The Sydney Morning Herald. A multibillion-dollar plan to protect forests and reduce global warming is to be backed by an alliance of nations that are home to more than 80 per cent of the world’s tropical rainforest.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Kari:
Oops. You still have a link to a post which isn’t there any longer.
Hopefully, you’re learning how important censorship is to the task of creating a progressive society.
And Mr. Becker may be onto something with his call to action…. blogging is not an end in itself. Now you have at least one post which begins to tell your increasing readership what individuals can and should be doing.
To Mr. Becker, I’d principally be careful that less restrictive federal regulation make absolutely clear that, under the Commerce Clause, it is not intended to occupy the legislative field, thus preempting more aggessive state measures. Without that, federal half-measures will actually interfere with more proactive state efforts.
Steve — I agree with your concern about preemption. Last week, I attended a conference of about 100 mayors who’ve made commitments to climate action. Preemption of state and local authority by federal law was a big concern. I think that federal goals, standards and statutes should set floors, not ceilings, and states and localities should be allowed to continue as the laboratories of leadership on this issue. Thanks for your comments.
Bill Becker
I meant to say, that federal regulation not be seen as “intended to FULLY occupy the legislative field.” In that event, more aggessive state regulations are seen as undercutting Congressional policy under the Supremacy Clause, allowing years of litigation before state measures can be effectively enforced.
Federal acts labled as so-called “compromise legislation” often carry a fair chance of being viewed as fully preempting the field. The courts have often said Congress can avoid creating problems on questions of complete versus partial preemption by stating whether or not it intends to fully preempt the field and bar more aggressive state legislation, but Congress sometimes deliberately remains silent on the issue, leaving it to “the courts to sort out.”