THE HOT HOUSE

September 06, 2007

Why won't the naysayers reveal themselves?

Apparently, there's no shortage of global warming naysayers who are heated up by The Hot House, but don't want their names attached to any comments they send my way.

Here's the latest one I've received, apparently in response to the "Heat Waves" posting:

"This article reminds me that the press in the US is still looking at ten-year old science and believing Al Gore's silly predictions.

In 1990, we had the Kyoto accords which the US never ratified. The California laws (AB32)and the mind-set of the press and Government is a slightly dressed up but more demanding version of Kyoto.

Now, what happened with Kyoto? It just did not work. There are only a handful of coutries who reduced emissions, but the great majority of countries found that it would cripple their economies by raising the costs of energy to reduce consumption of carbon emitting plants and automobiles. And, here in Europe the Goverments issued so many carbon permits that the per ton price went from 20 EUR to just a few centimes. Kyoto is a disaster and California is planning to do exactly the same.

In 1990, we did not know as much as we do today. The press has ignored virtually all the new scientific evidence which is now available. Why is this? Well, if you read the report of the US Senate Environment and Public works committee, you will discover that the majority of Climate Scientists no longer believe that man is causing Global Warming, and, if fact, the earth has not warmed since 1998.

And, most telling, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (considered the most authoritative expert source on this subject) has retracted studies which have been proven wrong. The IPCC is a political, not a scientific group.

So, if the majority of Climate Scientists say man is not causing warming, Kyoto is a miserable failure, why is your Newspaper so ignorant of the facts and so determined to assist those who would cripple our economies by spending trillions of dollars for absolutely nothing."

Funny, I hadn't realized that a majority of scientists say man is not causing global warming, and that the Earth hadn't warmed since 1998.

How did I miss this news item?

Perhaps because it is....utter baloney?

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 05:15 PM | Comments

August 10, 2007

Reaction to items on Jerry Brown, CEQA

In a recent item, I questioned why Attorney General Jerry Brown wasn't using CEQA to challenge state agencies on their climate impacts, as he is doing with local agencies.

Coming to Brown's defense is Sean Hecht, director of the UCLA Environmental Law Center, who notes that the Attorney General is tasked with representing state agencies. Therefore, he notes, the AG is legally bound not to sue, or threaten to sue, agencies he is charged with representing.

Writes Hecht in an email:

"Although the AG is a separately-elected constitutional officer of the state with independent powers, his first duty is to represent state agencies as their lawyer. Where those two roles conflict, the resolution, as a matter of state law and legal ethics, is in favor of not taking a position in conflict with that of the state agency. So the AG can’t sue, or threaten to sue, or even publicly denounce as contrary to law the actions of client agencies under the Governor.

"There is a California Supreme Court case, People ex rel Deukmejian v. Brown, on the subject: “the Attorney General cannot be compelled to represent state officers or agencies if he believes them to be acting contrary to law, and he may withdraw from his statutorily imposed duty to act as their counsel, but he may not take a position adverse to those same clients.” 29 Cal.3d 150, 172 Cal.Rptr. 478 (1981). (And yes, that’s the same Brown, in the opposite role – AG Deukmejian sued Gov. Brown in that case, and the court said the AG can’t do that.)

"I suspect some deputy attorneys general, and the AG himself, are well aware of the appearance of hypocrisy, or at least awkwardness, in this arrangement in cases where state agencies don’t follow laws that the AG attempts to enforce against local governments, but there’s nothing they can do about it. Not only that, but where state agencies are accused of violating CEQA and other laws, the AG is tasked in some cases with representing the state agency in that case. (Typically, this task is undertaken by a wholly different set of attorneys than those who enforce CEQA.) Presumably if those agencies are asking the AG for confidential legal advice ahead of time, the AG’s office will tell the agency what they believe the law to be, but the agency doesn’t have to follow its outside lawyer’s advice – and in most cases the AG isn’t even consulted until or unless someone sues the agency claiming it violated the law.

"Neither the AG’s office, nor the current AG, nor any of the deputies who work there can be blamed for this—though it is certainly odd. In the end, I believe the norms and legal requirements of CEQA generally filter up to state agencies as well, as most CEQA enforcement is undertaken by private parties, rather than the AG, anyway."

I stand corrected, and disappointed. It would really be fun to see Jerry Brown sue the pants off of Caltrans and DWR.

In a related item, blogger Bill Bradley says that Republicans are playing into Jerry Brown's hands by raising the CEQA issue. See his reasoning here.

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 02:47 PM | Comments

August 07, 2007

Why doesn't Jerry pick on state agencies?

A reader posts this question in response to my previous posting:

"It seems to me there's a bit of hypocrisy in Brown's choice of targets as well. While state agencies, like Caltrans, go merrily about their way oblivious to the AB 32 mandate, the local planning agencies (many of whom get enormous pressure from Caltrans to include freeway improvements in their plans) are forced to account for GG emissions in their CEQA documents now. Could it be that Brown fears enforcing the statewide mandate against agencies with statewide reach?"

Its a reasonable point, and not just because of Caltrans. If Jerry Brown were a purist in seeking early mitigations against greenhouse gases, he'd have something to say about the California Department of Water Resources, which moves water around the state using electricity supplied by a partially state-owned, coal-fired power plant in Nevada.

Of course, if Jerry did that, he might have to accept some responsiblity for California being a part-owner of the Reid Gardner power plant near Las Vegas.

According to DWR, California contracted for power with Reid Gardner in 1979, when Brown was governor. More on the power contract can be found here, in a story by The Bee's Judy Lin.

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 05:40 PM | Comments

July 25, 2007

Not-so-Hot House

Readers of this blog are getting restless.

One sent me this message today:

"Where's the blog? Do I need to wait 100 years... by then things will be cooking for sure... right? Remember Dawn and Delta... they were really an advance scouting party checking out the new inland sea that will form as sea levels rise by twenty plus feet!"

Geez, I hadn't thought of that Delta and Dawn angle. I'm really getting slack. And short of words.

There's a reason. I am the only editorial writer at The Bee this week. All my collegues on vacation, on leave or have left for better-paying jobs. So I've had to abandon the blogosphere to serve as the lone voice of The Bee.

And it's not like there is a shortage of material: Those crazy Senate Republicans are holding up the budget in an attempt to stop Jerry Brown from filing CEQA lawsuits that mention the words "climate change." The Air Resources Board meets tomorrow to decide on regulating diesel emissions from construction equipment, and the governor's Market Advisory Committee is briefing the air board Friday.

There's also lots of scuttlebutt involving forestry protocols, personnel at Cal-EPA and ARB, economic analyses of early action measures, etc. Stay tuned, and in a week or so, The Hot House will heat up again.

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 02:49 PM | Comments

May 17, 2007

Hot comments welcome

The host of the Hot House is not very handy, so it has taken some time to enable the comments tab on each item on this blog. But thanks to some of my tech-savvy colleagues, we have fixed that glitch.

So if you want to post a response, don't be shy. Click on the "comments" tab below each item and fire way.

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 05:02 PM | Comments

May 09, 2007

Hot stuff: Readers respond

The Hot House seems to be living up to its name. I wrote a column Sunday examining the smokescreens that certain industries and the Bush administration have spread to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Readers responded in force. Many believe that global warming is a fraud and, apparently, haven't read Miss Manners' book on email etiquette.

“Idiot.”
“A pot calling the kettle black.”
“Enabler of what will come to be known in the near future as the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind.”
“Who is Stuart Leavenworth and why does he write garbage?”

Frankly, I'm not sure how to respond to some of these doubters. If they don’t believe the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the Royal Society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other institutions that have concluded that man-made emissions are warming the atmosphere, there’s nothing I can say that will persuade them otherwise.

On the other hand, a few readers raised some valid points and questions. If you keep reading, you can see my responses to their questions, plus the entire, unedited collection of reader comments. Enjoy.

Continue reading "Hot stuff: Readers respond"

Posted by Stuart Leavenworth at 03:12 PM | Comments

April 18, 2007

Bio of Stuart Leavenworth

I've worked at daily newspapers for more than 20 years, and have covered environmental issues since 1990.

My first encounter with atmospheric propaganda came in 1990, when an industry-funded group called the Global Climate Coalition sent me a small globe encapsulated in a cube of clear plastic. On the side of this ice cube was the message: "It's cooler than you think."

Just for the record, I'm not an atmospheric scientist, economist, lawyer, banker, engineer or anyone else who has devoted his life to understanding the carbon cycle, market trading of emissions, international treaties or bovine burps. Yet I know enough about all those subjects to be dangerous.

Currently, I'm an associate editor at the Sacramento Bee's editorial page, where I comment on a range of topics, mainly involving state policy. I also offer commentary on Friday mornings on Capitol Public Radio, while trying to carve out time to ride my bike.

Photo by Tran Viet Thanh, shot in the hills near Bac Ha, in northwest Vietnam.

Posted by lash at 10:35 AM | Comments