Do future generations have rights to a stable climate?

Recalibrating the Law of Humans with the Laws of Nature: Climate Change, Human Rights, and Intergenerational Justice

High ambition deserves a lofty title. The paper is the product of the University of Iowa's Centre for Human Rights and the University of Vermont's Environmental Law Centre having jointly started an initiative to seek legal protection for future generations. If today's unborn have rights, why not tomorrow's? If the yet to be born have rights we have a duty to respect these rights.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

No Ball! Climate denialist retracts lawsuit

If you have ever wondered how little integrity a professional anthropogenic global warming denialist must have to ply their trade, this is instructive.

From Kevin Grandia of Desmogblog:

Thought you might be interested in this. It is a follow up to a story from about a year ago in which a retired professor, Tim Ball, filed suit against a professor of environment at the University of Lethbridge over a letter to the editor that appeared in the Calgary Herald. Since then, Dr. Ball has continued to be used as a source of climate science by popular media, including the UK Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and CNN Glenn Beck's "Climate of Fear" special.

Here's the link to the story: http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit

Ball Bails on Johnson Lawsuit

14 Jun 07

The self-styled Canadian climate change expert, Dr. Tim Ball, has abandoned his libel suit against University of Lethbridge Professor of Environmental Science Dan Johnson. Ball dropped the suit without conditions, but also without acknowledging that Johnson's original comments were accurate and were reported in good faith.

"This is great news," Dr. Johnson said today, "but it still leaves a cloud over my name that I would like removed. Even though I can now demand that Ball pay what the court calls 'taxed costs,' that won't begin to cover the actual legal bills, to make up for lost time or to repair the damage that Ball has done to my reputation."

Ball, a spokesperson for two industry front groups fighting against climate change regulation, sued Johnson and the Calgary Herald over a letter the paper ran on April 23, 2006. In an earlier Opinion Page article in which Ball attacked the qualifications of renowned climate change author Tim Flannery, the Herald described Ball as "the first climatology PhD in Canada and … a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years."

Johnson wrote a Letter to the Editor challenging those details. He noted that when Ball received his PhD (in Geography) in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology and it is important to recognize them and their research." Johnson also pointed out that Ball had been a professor for a much shorter time (Ball later admitted eight years), during which Ball did "not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere."

Ball filed suit, asking for damages of $325,000 plus costs.

But Calgary Herald satisfied itself as to the accuracy of Dan Johnson's letter, and rose in defence. In a Statement of Defence filed with the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, the Herald dismissed Ball's "credibility and credentials as an expert on the issue of global warming," saying: "The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

In the face of this rebuff, and of the earlier Statement of Defence filed by Dan Johnson, Ball discontinued his lawsuit.

Since his retirement from the University of Winnipeg in 1995, Tim Ball has worked as an industry-supported climate-change campaigner, sowing doubt about the science of global warming. He first associated himself with a Calgary-based group called the Friends of Science, which the Globe and Mail reported in August of 2006 was funded primarily by the oil and gas industry. Ball then moved to the chairmanship of a new group called the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which the Toronto Star reported in January 2007, is a creation of the Toronto-based energy-industry lobby firm the High Park Group.

"I never intended any specific damage to Tim Ball's reputation," Dan Johnson said today. "But climate change is a critical global issue and I thought it was important to set the record straight. If people want to argue the science, I'm all for that, but Tim Ball was claiming expertise and specific credentials that he does not have. That needed to be corrected."

Johnson said he is now considering whether to accept basic costs or to seek special costs, adding, "I also deserve an apology. I think the nation deserves an apology."

Johnson said he would like to thank and acknowledge James Hoggan and the team of DeSmogBlog.com for offering considerable assistance in putting together his defence.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Global Warming Watch picked up by Reuters

Upon randomly checking my BlogBurst workbench I discovered that one of my posts in early April was picked up by Reuters UK. It's a buzz for this blogger, and explains the recent spike in traffic . As I am experimenting with Clipmarks' clip-to-blog function, I clipped the first few paras.

clipped from uk.reuters.com Bush forced to regulate carbon dioxide from cars POSTED: Monday, April 02, 2007 FROM BLOG: Global Warming Watch - This blog is currently heating up at an average of 0.2°C per decade. Come back often. The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com. In enormous news for the mitigation of global warming, the US Supreme Court has forced their federal government to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars. The directive forces the Bush Administration into a major policy u-turn: :::[CNN] In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Global Warning Climate Change Media Bush CO2

Bush forced to regulate carbon dioxide from cars

In enormous news for the mitigation of global warming, the US Supreme Court has forced their federal government to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars. The directive forces the Bush Administration into a major policy u-turn: :::[CNN]

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

The EPA had previously argued that the tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases were out of its jurisdiction. A coalition of 12 states and 13 environmental organisations, frustrated with Bush Administration inaction and obstruction on global warming, took the EPA to court:

The court had three questions before it.

--Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

--Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

--Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

Justice Stevens' says his position "involves no judgement on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem". The decision clears the way for the state of California to gain EPA approval for its own programme to limit tailpipe emissions. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms.

This is world-changing. California was the first state to introduce laws requiring catalytic converters to eliminate toxicity from fuel emissions, in 1975. This had implications for the rest of the world as it embraced the change. An additional benefit was the phasing out of high-octane leaded petrol that masks the effect of catalytic conversion.

Global Warning Climate Change Environment CO2 Kyoto Energy

UK politics now just a climate change auction

I started blogging about global warming, I dunno, about 14 months ago. Mainly out of a sense of frustration born of the media and greater public attitudes towards climate change. The media reported a 'debate' on global warming, while science reporters (and I) knew there was no question in the climatology community that it was happening. Big time.

It was an awful time. The media gave 50% of time to the reporting the facts of global warming, and 50% of the time to skeptics making a living from disputing these facts on decidedly unscientific grounds. Thinking like, "It's sheer arrogance and utter hubris to think that man can affect the climate", became reported as if this was reasonable logic. I would not have believed it, other than the fact that I had just witnessed an uncritical media swallow all the stories the White House spun, whole, and end up embedded in a UN unsanctioned military adventure trying to relive the Ted Turner Gulf War I glory days. Any Orwellian bullshit was possible. I was staring at a future that that I had been warned about in fifth form English literature. So I blogged, inspired after reading Flannery's The Weather Makers.

But by now the harsh reality of Iraq rented the cosy fabric of this mediaverse, and all sorts of light is streaming in. An Inconvenient Truth has woken the globe to global warming, and The Stern Report gave a financial framework for us to contextualise the problem within. Al Gore has an Oscar and Tim Flannery is the Australian of the Year. Hard to believe.

And now UK politics is a law and order, war on terror, national security, climate change auction. The Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are scrapping it out to take the green crown ahead of the Climate Change Bill tomorrow. Hot button issues are green house gases, green taxes, nuclear power, renewable energy and recycling. The truth is the winner.

We live in interesting times. :::[The Independent: Which political party is the greenest?]


Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Energy

Coal mining: Court rules in climate change considerations

This is the biggest thing to happen in global warming in Australia, so here it is verbatim: :::[ABC News]

Court finds climate change relevant to coal mine approval

A Newcastle environmentalist says a court ruling today means the New South Wales Government must take climate change into account when considering whether to approve new coal mines.

Peter Gray went to the New South Wales Land and Environment Court to challenge the environmental assessment for the proposed Anvill Hill coal mine in the Hunter Valley.

He argued the assessment was inadequate, because it did not take into account the impact that burning the coal would have on climate change.

The court voided the Government's decision that the environmental assessment was adequate.

Mr Gray is claiming victory, but says the ruling will not stop the mine from going ahead.

"It's certainly a setback for the process, I think it means a fresh look has to be taken at the mine," he said.

"The Government needs to consider the impacts that it will have on climate change so I do think it's a strong strike against Centennial Coal.'

The political and commercial repercussions of the Land and Environment Court ruling are being quickly felt as both the NSW and Federal Governments scramble to make sense of it. What, they didn't see the science coming? Not even the movie? But business has been asking for price signals on carbon for a while now. Now we know why.

That was late Monday. This is COD Tuesday:

The New South Wales Government says a court ruling on a coal mine proposed for the Hunter Valley could have significant implications for a range of industries, including mining.

and in federal politics, flushed from the gains of the Victorian Greens over the weekend,

Greens leader Bob Brown has attacked the Federal Opposition for voting against a motion to cap coal exports from Newcastle.

and scurrying from the light,

Federal Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell says a proposed amendment to federal environment laws to reflect a New South Wales Environment Court ruling is not a solution to climate change.

This blog is heating up at a rate of 0.2 degrees a decade. Come back often.

Global Warning Climate Change Environmental Law CO2 Coal Mining Earth Australia Kyoto Energy

Carbon dioxide in the dock

In a week's time Massachusetts and allies, a coalition of state and nonprofit groups, get their day in court to sue the EPA for refusing to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emitted from motor vehicles and other greenhouse gases. :::[Gristmill]. After losing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently, Massachusetts has convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to consider two specific questions:

Massachusetts v. EPA

#1. "Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under [the Clean Air Act]", and
#2. "whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in [the Clean Air Act]".

Put simply, the certiorari are to decide whether the EPA has the duty to regulate carbon as a pollutant and, if so, do they have a right to not do their job properly? The EPA will be arguing that they have the right to choose the defintion of what a pollutant is?

Ohh boy. This is exciting. The first oral arguments will be heard at 10:00 AM on November 29th, and Gristmill's Justin Pidot will be slicing and dicing the transcripts as they become available.

I wonder what disinformation campaign about the role of excess CO2 the CEI will come up with this time around? I am still stuffing my entrails back into my sides after their "Carbon Dioxide: They call it Pollution, We call it Life" TVC effort did the rounds on commercial television in the US. Are they really going to take this Supreme Court assault lying down? Is their funding drying up?

Other blogs on: global warming climate change massachusetts epa clean air act