Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Brown votes to end EPA ability to Regulate GHG

By

Yesterday, Senator Scott Brown voted for an amendment that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases or otherwise undertaking efforts to limit global climate change.

Four Democrats, Joe Manchin, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor and Ben Nelson voted with Republicans.  Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, praise God, voted against it to kill the amendment on a 50-50 voted.

Brown’s vote is what is at issue.  The vote comes only weeks after Brown was chuckling with David Koch.  Moreover, Massachusetts is at risk to see the impact of higher sea levels and more violent climate mood swings.

To repeat Scott Brown voted to STOP the EPA from engaging in any effort to regulate Greenhouse gases.  The EPA was ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007 to regulate GHG within the meaning of the clean air act.  This amendment, if passed, would have stopped the EPA, and possibly effectively overturned that Court ruling!

My apology for a lack of links.  Click here for the roll call.

http://tinyurl.com/3dubk2j

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. To repeat Scott Brown voted to STOP the EPA from engaging in any effort to regulate Greenhouse gases.  The EPA was ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007 to regulate GHG within the meaning of the clean air act.  This amendment, if passed, would have stopped the EPA, and possibly effectively overturned that Court ruling.!

    <

    p>I would imagine that the court ruling was not a constitutional issue, rather whether or not the law as currently written applied to green house gasses (as an aside does that include water?).  If the law was changed to say that it is not the intent of congress to include them, that is perfectly legal and constitutional, no?

    • Yes, as climate change deniers often point out, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.  But apparently Eabo and his ilk have never heard of rain.  Water, unlike CO2, accumulates as clouds and then falls back to earth as rain. It does not accumulate in the atmosphere as CO2 does.  

      • Yes water forms clouds and comes down as rain.  But it also accumulates in the atmosphere as a gas before it reaches saturation.  As the temperatures of the earth get warmer and cooler the amount of water it takes to saturate the atmosphere changes.  

        <

        p>Also you do realize that water is a byproduct of the burning of fossil fuels correct?

        <

        p>If we assume the 100% combustion of methane the stochiometric balance shows that for every one molecule of methane, CH4, you burn it requires two molecules of oxygen, O2, to produce one molecule of carbon dioxide and two molecules of water.  Doing a molar balance shows that 16 grams of methane takes 64 grams of oxygen to fully combust. This produces 44 grams of carbon dioxide and 36 grams of water.  

        • Gold star to anybody who can point to research on relative humidity levels. Sure, as the temperature goes up more water can fit in the air… so there is a positive feedback effect possible here. It gets warmer, more water is in the air, increasing greenhouse effects, etc.

          <

          p>We know that the amount of CO2 in the air is going up. It’s largely independent of temperature, though. We also know that as things get warmer we will naturally see more water in the air, regardless of whether that water evaporated off a pond or came out of my tailpipe.

          <

          p>So: Is there any evidence to suggest that we are outputting noticeable quantities of water vapor? Put another way: Controlling for temperature, is there any evidence the planet is getting more humid?

          <

          p>Please take these as genuine questions of curiosity. I’ve heard the political rhetoric of water vapor as a greenhouse gas – one side raising the issue, the other side poo-pooing it and saying CO2 is more important. So I’d like some evidence one way or the other.

          <

          p>Yes, EaBo, water vapor comes out of our tailpipes and smokestacks. Do you have any evidence that it stays in the atmosphere? Yes, as the planet gets warmer, more water vapor will be found in the air, but do you have any evidence that this wouldn’t happen anyway?

    • Eabo,
      No, it does not include water (not quite sure how water –a liquid could be a green house gas, btw).  The full summary of the court case is here.  The one sentence summary, quoted from the wikipedia link above is,

      Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

      <

      p>Although the originator of this diary did use a shorthand description so in fairness it could have spelled it out better.

      <

      p>There were actually 4 votes on Clean Air Act authority this week.

      <

      p>–Senator Mitch McConnell roll call (R-KY) offered an amendment mirroring Sen. Inhofe’s bill (S. 482) to block the EPA from cleaning up dangerous carbon dioxide pollution, overturn scientific findings regarding the threats posed by global warming, and block EPA and the states from cutting global warming pollution and saving oil through clean car standards.
      –Senator Stabenow (D-MI) roll call offered an amendment that would block the implementation of standards to cut global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other industrial sources for at least two years, and block states from cutting global warming pollution and saving oil through clean car standards.
      –Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) roll call offered an amendment which would block the EPA’s ability to set or even do research and gather stakeholder input on standards to cut global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other industrial sources for at least two years.
      –Senator Baucus (D-MT) roll call offered an amendment that would block the clean-up of global warming pollution from biomass facilities and also would permanently exempt even the very largest sources of global warming pollution from having to clean up their global warming pollution unless the source is also a very large source of other pollutants.

      In all fairness to Sen. Brown, he voted for the EPA’s authority to protect public health on Baucus and Stabenow and against the EPA’s authority to protect public health on Rockefeller and McConnell under the Richard Nixon signed Clean Air Act.

      It is, indeed, legal and constitutional, but I would argue, against his constituents AND against his beliefs as a state senator (I curse the day I didn’t cache his state senate accomplishments page on his campaign website, where he listed his vote for the Green Communities Act AND said the phrase climate change while touting his efforts to combat it, but here is an NYT story on his position) Not the source text, sorry.  So, has he changed his mind on the science?, maybe because he still believes that climategate was a real find? I’m not sure.

      My only other theory is that, as he clearly now represents a different constituency (the entire state vs. only Wrentham and the surrounding areas) his opinions on what his constituents want have changed, which would probably be a misinformed opinion, as most MA residents

      think[] that if the world has been warming, it has been due primarily or at least partly to “things people do” – with 80 percent in Massachusetts agreeing with this statement

      <

      p>Although I guess one could argue, and I can’t find the polling right now, that 80% think it is a problem, but less than a majority think the EPA should address the problem.

      <

      p>Assuming this, these people need some education, Here is a link to a press release linking to a report on the Clean Air Act’s success. But if you don’t want to take the EPA’s word for it, ask small businesses.

      <

      p>Ok, that is enough for tonight.  I have been working on a post on Sen Brown for awhile and I just spent a bunch of my material, but today was an important day to get it out.

      <

      p>Hope all are well,
      Ben

      • I thought us “deniers” were the ones who didn’t know science.  The first statement of your answer shows such a basic lack of scientific understanding that the rest of your answer is not even worth reading.

        <

        p>

        No, it does not include water (not quite sure how water -a liquid could be a green house gas, btw).

        <

        p>First off water has three states, and possible a fourth and fifth if you consider it in the plasma and supercritical fluid state.   Water you see is a molecule made up of the covalent bonding of two hydrogen atoms to an oxygen atom.  It has the remarkable property of in the range of earthly temperatures of being a vapor (gas), a solid (ice), and a liquid.  While colloquially we call the liquid “water” in fact it is still water while it is a gas, and still water while it is a solid.  We just use other colloquial names for it.

        <

        p>Second,  atmospheric water vapor (you know its still water) is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.

        <

        p>As an aside you do know that iron can be a liquid right, when it’s you know “melted”.  

        <

        p>I now know to take nothing EnvironmentMA says seriously.  That’s good to know.

        • As an aside, have you ever worked with supercritical fluids? Neat stuff. I did an internship with Phasex in Lawrence under Val Krukonis.  Supercritical fluids have the density of a liquid and the transport properties of a gas. It allows for the ability to selectively solubilize materials in a solid matrix.  Really cool stuff.

          • be they of the solid lattice structure stuff or the super- stuff near phase change areas.  Frankly, I’m not much of a chemistry guy at all.

            <

            p>It’s interesting in that lots of areas of research are interesting, just not the kind of interesting that has me printing out conference proceedings and curling up on the Rte 66 bus with the article and a pen kind of interesting.

        • Water vapor temporarily accumulates in the atmosphere.  And, yes, the amount required to saturate varies with temperature, which is why global warming causes more rainfall, at least in areas that are not arid.

          <

          p>Water vapor does not persist like CO2 does.  

          <

          p>Given that simple fact, the statement below is totally preposterous:

          <

          p>

          atmospheric water vapor (you know its still water) is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.

          <

          p>Citing water vapor as a green house gas is one of the intellectually dishonest tactics of the climate change deniers.

          <

          p>Have you never heard of rain (or snow)?

          • Here’s what NASA has to say.

            <

            p>

            Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

            Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

            <

            p>Water is the most abundant greenhouse gas.  And yes a small percentage of it is anthropogenic.  Please see my stochiometric balance below.

            <

            p>You show as much of a basic lack of fundamental science knowledge as Mr. Wright.

            • Wonderful, Eabo. I’m thrilled that you’re looking to reliable sources. And I do hope that you’re looking at the whole of NASA’s work on the issue of anthropogenic climate change.

              <

              p>http://climate.nasa.gov/

              <

              p>

              On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

              The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

                 On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

                 Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

                 A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

                 Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

            • http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear…

              <

              p>

              “Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

              The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

              Graph showing that the energy trapped by water peaks near the equator Based on climate variations between 2003 and 2008, the energy trapped by water vapor is shown from southern to northern latitudes, peaking near the equator.

              Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

              <

              p>

              “This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.”

        • I would call the gas “water vapor”.  I would call the solid “ice”.

          <

          p>But it is kind of interesting, now that I think about it.  H20 seems like one of the only things that we have a common names in all three classical states, probably because humans frequently encounter all three.

          <

          p>I’m pretty sure you’re actually responding to the tone of my first sentence.  Now that I am reading it again, it is not actually as civil as it should be.

          <

          p>I also know that you are not convinced that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon.  What do you think about Brown’s votes for against Stabenow and Baucus?

          <

          p>

          Second,  atmospheric water vapor (you know its still water) is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.

          <

          p>RE: Water Vapor.  My point about water vapor is simply, it is not found to endanger public health in MA vs EPA.  Yes, it is a green house gas, but it’s increase (beyond normal variations) is more a function of the warming we are causing by emitting more of other green house gases.

          <

          p>Apologies for the tone, but questions about the Senator’s stance still stand.  Let me know if you have any thoughts.

        • EaBo’s right on that, to be sure.  He’s also right that water is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.

          <

          p>But, let us remember, that water vapor has been in the atmosphere for, well, since life as we know it has existed.  It’s been fairly stable too.

          <

          p>Yet the total inventory of GHG’s in the atmosphere has been climbing since man started burning coal on a regular basis, and that growth has been growing.  There’s enormous evidence that man has added GHGs to the atmosphere at a statistically significant level, and that the mean temperature has also been rising at a statistically significant level.

          <

          p>That H2O is a GHG that has been in the atmosphere is not interesting.  What is interesting is that the NH4 and CO2 that has been emitted due to human activity has a statistically significant strong positive correlation with mean temperature increase.

          <

          p>

          <

          p>To put it another way, it doesn’t matter that nature has loaded the camel with lots of straw.  Humans are adding a bit of extra straw too, and that’s the straw which will break the camel’s back.  We don’t have to add that straw.  Let’s not.

        • at chemistry! But a red state herring is still a red herring.

          <

          p>I know in your Manichean world fair is fair, and if carbon emissions are to be held to account, water vapor should be too. But science doesn’t care about fair.

          <

          p>Water vapor is indeed responsible for the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect, however, is not all bad. It keeps us warm and makes the earth habitable. Water vapor isn’t the problem. When man-made greenhouse gases prevent the radiation of excessive heat from our planet, we have a problem.

          <

          p>Congratulations on your self-congratulatory dismissal of EnvironmentMA! That doesn’t change your basic intellectual bankruptcy or the problems of global warming or climate change.

        • Virtually all climatologists agree that atmospheric water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. Virtually no climatologists characterize it as a forcing factor.

          <

          p>Atmospheric water vapor is a feedback factor. Its concentration rises and falls in response to other factors. It is, of course, included in climate models; but as a feedback, rather than forcing, factor.

          <

          p>More detail is readily available for those who are interested.

  3. This is not an issue of unconstitutionality or not.  The Supreme Court said that Congress’s mandate to the EPA in the Clean Air Act covered greenhouse gases because they pose a threat to human health.

    <

    p>The amendment does not fly in the face of the Constitution (SCOTUS does not just settle Constitutional issue).  The amendment does not actually change the criteria for airborne threats to human health is just wholesale excludes GHG from consideration at all.

    <

    p>Is Congress entitled to make that change, of course.  I’m not saying Brown’s on board with a power grab.  Rather, I’m slamming him for siding with a political opinion based on moneyed interests and not science or the popular opinion of Bay State residents.

    • It’s bad enough they’re trying to deregulate greenhouse gases. Let’s stick with that point rather than OMG! They’re overturning a court case! That happens all the time. Most SCOTUS cases are not about constitutionality, but rather interpretation of laws in light of precedent. There are plenty of occasions (like here) where SCOTUS interprets the law, Congress says, “Wait, we didn’t mean that“, and goes on to “fix” the law.

      <

      p>If I were you, I’d eliminate that sentence. The rest of the news is bad enough without that sort of red herring distracting the discussion from whether or not “overturning a court case” is acceptable.

  4. Susan Collins, along with Olympia Snowe, are guaranteeing that they will either (a) become independent for their next election, (b) become Democrats for their next election, or (c) not be re-elected.

    <

    p>The Maine tea party are really, really right wing.  Far further right than the national tea party media reports.  Check out the changes they pushed through the GOP platform at a recent state convention.  There’s no way that Snowe nor Collins can get through a primary behaving as moderates, and there’s no way they can get through the general election behaving as right wing nuts.  They’re both trying to thread the needle, but I believe that they’ll fail.

    <

    p>Either they’ll change like Specter in party and voting style, or they’ll be replaced by Democrats.  This is different from Brown because the MA tea party isn’t nearly as powerful as the ME tea party.

    • Collins and Snowe are looking at the public backlash to LePage’s treatment of the Maine DEP and realizing what should ultimately be where we move as a society (and where we have been in the not so distant past).  Protecting public health and the environment is not a partisan issue.

      <

      p>While they sort-of-but-not-really track geography, Senate votes on the EPA authority and the Clean Air Act should be largely geographical, and much less partisan.

      <

      p>I have no idea what Sen. Brown is doing voting against federal efforts to create regulations that are already working and that he in many cases supported in Massachusetts.

      <

      p>If one buys the line that carbon trading programs like RGGI hurt business which isn’t true.  Then wouldn’t someone representing MA want to level the playing field with a national program?

      <

      p>I’ve mentioned before on this site that we (Environment Massachusetts) differ from many of the commenters here because we would love to endorse a Republican, we are and will always be non-partisan, but national politics currently isn’t at a place where that is likely.  

      <

      p>Clean Air and Clean Water should not be partisan issues.  Period.

      • we would love to endorse a Republican

        <

        p>When there were reasonable Republicans to vote for, I frequently voted for them.  Here in MA we had Leverett Saltonstall (before my time), Ed Brooke, Elliot Richardson, Silvio Conte (a great environmentalist), Francis Hatch.  I admired Dwight Eisenhower.  In Maine there was Margaret Chase Smith, who stood up against Joe McCarthy.

        <

        p>None of these people would be welcome in the Republican party today.

        <

        p>Recently, unfortunately, the Republican party has shifted massively to the right, and now seems totally out of touch with the average American and also with reality.  On environmental issues, they are willing to risk catastrophe in order to protect polluters’ profits.  This shift is tragic for our country, which needs a responsible opposition party.

        <

        p>

  5. Scott Brown has made abundantly clear through a pattern of votes that he refuses to take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. How is it ethical or moral to refuse to try to stop any effort to stop a crisis that we are causing?

    <

    p>I’m sure Senator Brown does not want to put things this way, but with this kind of vote he’s putting himself on the record as favoring environmental destruction.  It’s remarkable to see that this stance is politically and socially acceptable not simply in the United States of America but in Massachusetts as well.

  6. Scott Brown says one thing for MA consumption.  Then votes the Republican line.

    <

    p>But there’s a more immediate problem with him:

    <

    p>He claims he was molested by a pedophile as a kid.  Pedophilia is illegal.  It is also common knowledge that pedophiles don’t limit themselves to a single victim.

    <

    p>But Brown REFUSES to identify the alleged molester, so is protecting the criminal, instead of protecting others being molested.

    <

    p>Perhaps worse is a media which refuses to challenge him on that, so is ethically and morally complicit in protecting the criminal.

    <

    p>Yeah, say the concerned, but Scott Brown is really, really buffed.
     

Archives