The Guardian online asked me for an opinion piece on the recent ozone decision at EPA. It begins:

Why is it that, in the Bush administration, the desires of well-heeled polluters always trump the analyses of government scientists? The answer is that the top political appointees – and the president himself – personally weigh in on the side of industry.

No surprise to anybody who read Chris Mooney’s excellent book, but it is somehow reassuring, in a pathetic sort of way, to know that the old saying is true: “Plus §a change, plus c’est la mªme chose.” Pardon my French.

I do think it is stunning, even for Bush, that the President himself personally intervened to stop the EPA from trying to modestly slow carbon dioxide emissions growth.

You can read the whole piece here.

I like the LAT. They do some of the best reporting on environmental issues. So I’m reading a pretty good piece on how EPA Administrator overruled his science advisers on the recent ozone ruling (more on that in a later post) — and come to this remarkable paragraph that shows how the President himself actually intervened to weaken the EPA regulations:

President Bush intervened at the 11th hour and turned down a second proposal by the EPA staff that would have established tougher seasonal limits on ozone based on its harm to forests, crops and other plants, according to documents obtained by The Times. Federal scientists had recommended those growing-season limits as a way to keep vegetation healthy and capable of trapping carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

No, no, a thousand times, no!

Can’t the LAT do better than “linked to global warming”? The media use the word “linked” to deal with as yet uncorroborated or unproven allegations, as in the NY Times recent blockbuster: “Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring” [and you thought I'd never find a way to get that story into Climate Progress, ye of little faith].

Carbon dioxide has been proven conclusively to help warm the globe — there is no serious scientific dispute of that. Why do you think scientists and everyone else calls it a “greenhouse gas“? Why do you think your own story calls it a “greenhouse gas”?

Time for the Times to stop soft-pedaling climate science.

[Note to L.A. Times: I really really hope assume you know greenhouse gases cause global warming. So were you afraid to say, "... carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that causes global warming" because that means you are acknowledging that global warming is a real phenomenon and caused by humans? If so, that is perhaps even lamer.]

Sign up here for an interactive, Web-based debate Tuesday, March 18 at 2 p.m. EST, sponsored by The EnergyCollective. Some of the questions to be addressed by the panelists will be:

• What are the major differences between remaining candidates’ positions on energy and climate change?
• What will probably be part of the Democratic and Republican platforms?
• Are there areas of agreement between the leading candidates, and if so, what is the likelihood of relevant legislation in 2009?
• What role, if any, will taxes, incentives or regulation play in the leading candidates’ positions?
• Under what scenarios could the candidates change their positions as we get closer to a general election?

PANELISTS:
Jeff Anderson
Energy and climate change advisor to the Edwards’ campaign.

Joe Romm
Blogger at ClimateProgress.org, author and advisor to the Center for American Progress

Scott Sklar
Expert on energy and renewables and president of The Stella Group

Moderator:
Mark Lazen
Managing Editor
The EnergyCollective
Social Media Today

[If you get enough of me here (and who doesn't?) tune in for my friend Scott -- he is one of the most knowledgeable people in the country on all things renewable.]

I can’t imagine anyone believing we would see 60 Senate votes this year for an unwatered-down climate bill.

The center-right folk want big compromises, like a poison pill safety valve (see below). But Sen. Boxer (D-CA) has little motivation to gut her legislation, since next year will probably bring more Senate Democrats and definitely bring a president who wants to take action, rather than one who has done everything in his power to block action and destroy the climate.

E&E News has a good article on this titled, “Lieberman-Warner floor strategy bothers some Senate swing votes” (regs. reqd):

Several senators holding critical swing votes on global warming legislation say they are disappointed with Democratic leadership’s plan to pull the bill from the floor if any “weakening” amendments are added to the bill.

“That doesn’t sound like a very encouraging way to start,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Murkowksi cosponsors a cap-and-trade proposal with Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that takes a less aggressive stance on curbing heat-trapping emissions compared with the climate legislation due on the floor this June from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.).

Among other things, Murkowski favors a “safety valve” provision in the Bingaman-Specter bill that places a price ceiling on the costs to industry for its carbon dioxide prices. “I think there’s some components in Bingaman-Specter that I’d like to see in Warner-Lieberman, and if they consider that ‘weakening,’ that’s going to make it tough,” Murkowski said.

On Wednesday, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) outlined a floor strategy for the Lieberman-Warner bill “leveraged” by the prospects of a more friendly president and Congress in 2009. Boxer pledged to push for Senate passage this year, but she also gave an ultimatum if the bill was changed against her wishes.

“I’ll know it when I see it on the floor,” she told reporters when asked what qualifies as a “weakening” amendment.

A safety valve should be a deal-breaker. Then, of course, there is nuclear power:

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) voted against the Lieberman-Warner bill at the end of a December markup in the EPW Committee. But he also sent signals that he would be interested in supporting the measure if it included a significant nuclear title that created new rules on loan guarantees and improved confidence in waste storage.

In an interview yesterday, Isakson said he planned to offer a number of floor amendments that promote the expansion of new nuclear power plants — something Boxer no doubt opposes. “Nuclear is a strengthening amendment, not a weakening amendment,” Isakson said.

Maybe yes, maybe no. When Sen. McCain (R-AZ) squeezed nuclear into his climate bill, he lost 5 votes.

E&E News has an interesting breakdown of the likely votes in the Senate. Let me start with the fence sitters:

Read more

Part 1 described the background leading up to the March 27th California Air Resources Board meeting that will decide the fate of Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs) in a dozen or more states.

Because the 1970 Clean Air Act allows only two sets of regulations in the U.S.: the EPA’s, and California’s (which must be stricter than the EPA’s), California may be regulating for your state, even if you don’t live in California. Roughly a dozen states routinely adopt California’s stricter standards, and sometimes as many as 18, and collectively these states can represent as much as half of the U.S. population. Since non-Californians may not be familiar with making their opinion known outside of their own state, this post explains how you can let California regulators know what you think.

First, the Air Resources Board (CARB) takes comments at its website. These comments are printed and given to each board member prior to the meeting. You may also FAX or write to CARB. A FAX, postcard, or letter addressed to Chairwoman Mary Nichols will reach the entire board.

Second, a phone call to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger helps, since the Governor appoints many of the board members. The Governor’s phone number is 916-445-2841. Press 1, then 5, and then 0 and you will be transferred to an operator to leave your opinion about this “hot issue.” Alternatively, FAX or write using the Governor’s FAX and postal address, or use his web contact form.

Californians should also let their Assemblymember and State Senator know their opinion.

– Earl K.