Russ Steele
Graig Miller writing at KQED Climate Watch has some thoughts on the next AB32 battle ground:
AB 32 will stand, for now, headed for full implementation in two years with all the trimmings, including a statewide, if not regional cap-and-trade program; an actual "price on carbon," for the first time in the West.
But this [Prop 23] was the battle, not the war. Carbon regulation is under attack far and wide. Climate legislation remains stalled in Washington (Ryan Lizza's piece for The New Yorker is a must-read). In this morning's press conference, President Obama seemed almost to bury prospects for a national cap-and-trade program. "Cap-and-trade was only a means to an end," he told reporters. "I'll be looking for other means."
In a few weeks, negotiators will gather in Cancun for another round of UN climate talks. Some believe this round will be the last of its kind, a final collapse of the UN "framework," as it's been known.
In California, the next battle may already be here, in form of Prop 26, which appears to have passed with a margin of about 53-47%. With its requirement of a two-thirds vote to impose "certain" government fees, it could pose a more permanent threat to the full implementation of environmental measures like AB 32. Those fees purportedly include "those that address adverse impacts on society or the environment, caused by the fee-payer's business." Sounds a lot like the permits that companies would have to buy, to balance their carbon emissions.
But Nichols, still feeling the afterglow from the Prop 23 defeat party, asserted in an email to Climate Watch this morning that:
"Prop 26 does not impair the scoping plan adopted in 2008 or any regulations developed under that plan. AB32 is on track, with renewed vigor thanks to the resounding defeat of Prop 23 by the voters."
Graig is right the carbon wars are not over, Prop 23 was only one battle and not it is time to regroup and move forward to the next engagment. The blogs challenging the AGW premiss are gaining ground and continue to bring AGW flaws to the public's attention, including the new Republican House members who will be investigating the AGW hoax in 2011. Here is one example, a peer-reviewed paper published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology points out that there little empirical evidence for AGW, and that “At best, the empirical evidence for human impact on climate change…is based on correlational research.” One of the first principles of science is that “correlation does not equal causation,” but as this paper shows, the IPCC essentially equates correlation with causation without consideration of alternative theories that could potentially falsify the AGW theory.
I think that Mary Nichols bravado will be challenged in the Courts. Stay Tuned, the next AB32 battle is just down the road.
