(Cross-posted from Warming Law) 

As the Bush administration's environmental team returns from reluctantly endorsing a “road map” for future international climate negotiations, and prepares for a critical regulatory decision on concrete action here at home being initiated by California and other states, the expectations remain somewhat dimmed. While the Washington Post editorial board reviews the administration's history of foot-dragging and other negative machinations regarding California's key waiver request, reporter Juliet Eilperin's coverage of Bali includes one critical observation on its continued difficulty with strong emissions-reduction targets:

While the Bush administration made some concessions, it also scored a key victory by eliminating explicit language calling on industrialized countries to cut their emissions 25 to 40 percent, compared to 1990 levels, by 2020, a high priority for the European Union. Eventually the Europeans relented, settling for a footnote in the document's preamble that refers to a section in the 2007 scientific report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That section suggests that cuts that deep will be required to keep Earth's average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels.

There are several important points to take away from this telling footnote. First and foremost is the reality that for an administration recently caught down-playing science in its climate-related efforts– including the process by which it formulated the position on mandatory carbon limits that was knocked down in Mass v. EPA–  deliberately relegating a scientific finding by a group of Nobel laureates isn't exactly a confidence-booster. (Seriously, if you haven't read through Rep. Waxman's report already, do so!)

But even more important is the simple observation, as conveyed at Bali by the likes of Al Gore and by local officials themselves– and described at Gristmill by Professor Andrew Light– that the states have been moved to action in a way that completely contradicts administration naysaying and obstruction:

In his remarks, Gore repeated the promising news that had been at the center of John Kerry's message to the conference earlier in the week: The states are on the move. Regional state compacts have been launched in the Northeast, Midwest, and West on cutting greenhouse gases, which will commit over half the U.S. economy, and just under half the population, to significant cuts, amounting to responsibility for just under 40 percent of total U.S. emissions.

Reports from Bali indicate that this reality was critical in conveying that the U.S. as a whole is prepared to go further than the current executive leadership, and in forcing the limited movement that was ultimately attained. The world is truly watching what goes on at every level here, as we can easily deduce from learning that leading denialist Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is somewhat of an international anaethema, and from the State Department's own attempts to spin state leadership to its diplomatic benefit. And with the EPA set to rule any day now on California's waiver, which is absolutely critical to setting state targets in motion, that spotlight could not come at a better moment.

The official grounds for granting a waiver are plain. The state's application is sound, the precedent of dozens of similar grants of authority is on California's side, and the courts have consistently undermined any rationale that might be used in a denial ruling. Still, if that's not enough, the reality that a failure to follow through on the law will have international reverberations should be an additional source of reflection.

Viewed in this light, a positive decision would be a pleasant surprise, showing that even if the current administration isn't fully sold on rapid and mandatory actions, it's at least evolving toward a position of not actively standing in the way of those who would pick up the slack.

(Cross-posted from Warming Law)  

It's a shame that Roll Call operates behind a subscription wall, because Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who chairs the House's special committee on global warming, has a great op-ed there today summarizing where things stand moving forward from the solid energy bill framework that congressional Democrats hope to pass, “Global Warming At the Starting Gate.” One key highlight:

Seventeen states (representing over 46 percent of Americans) have adopted or will soon adopt global warming emissions standards for vehicles. The federal district court in Vermont recently held that federal law does not prohibit such measures. What remains to be seen this year is whether the Bush EPA will grant these states the waiver they need to enforce these tailpipe standards, or spurn their ambitious action.

In addition to loving Markey's framing of Congress' movement as a launching point for so much more, we cannot stress the point he makes above with any more emphasis. Given the trends in the courts (which Markey also notes) and the rising tide of action at all levels, the spotlight is now on the EPA regardless of what happens with the energy bill. Now that Congress has smartly resisted pressure to do anything that remotely borders on preemption, it's incumbent on the administration to follow suit.

Yesterday's veto threat on the energy bill doesn't exactly inspire confidence along those lines, as White House economic advisor Allan Hubbard's letter to Speaker Pelosi pretty much reiterates the industry's ideal outcome in its language regarding auto efficiency (emphasis ours):

Unfortunately, while assigning new requirements to the Department of Transportation, the proposed legislation leaves ambiguous EPA's role in CAFE regulations, and likely creates substantial amounts of regulatory uncertainty and confusion…Legislation should clarify that there should be consultation between the agencies, while clearly establishing a single fuel economy regulatory standard.

There is a remote theoretical possibility that Hubbard is asking for something less troubling than it would appear. And some reports indicate that this may partly be bluster to try and wring out more compromises or satisfy industry-based pressure (and possibly worse still, Cheney-based-pressure) on EPA's regulatory process.

Yet quite frankly, NO ONE should give the benefit of the doubt to an administration that, even as momentum has shifted against its long-standing arguments, has delayed and blustered at best while (rather pathetically) plotting intransigence at worst. The proposed energy bill, thankfully, gives EPA no excuses to shirk its responsibilities, either to California or to its own post-Mass v. EPA deliberations on greenhouse gas emissions. That shouldn't give it license to instead come up with twisted logic of its own.

The ball is EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's court, with rumors abounding that he'll be announcing GHG regulations in the coming weeks (hoping to give the administration something to brag about in international climate negotiations) and a vow that he'll rule on California's waiver by year's end. He'd best not drop it. 

(Great stuff. – promoted by David Dayen)

(Cross-posted from Warming Law, which focuses on covering and analyzing the fight against global warming from a legal perspective. My name is Sean Siperstein, and I run Warming Law as part of my work for Community Rights Counsel, a non-profit, public interest law firm that assists communities in protecting their health and welfare. Given the blog’s focus, a lot of what I write about ends up having to do with efforts by the administration and the auto industry to hold up California’s pioneering efforts in fighting global warming (here’s our full archive of posts about the EPA waiver application), and as such I’m (belatedly) taking up a suggestion to post select items here. Thanks for the opportunity to join the discussion; I really look forward to it!)

Reacting to last week’s lawsuit challenging the EPA’s failure to produce a timely decision on California’s waiver application to enforce its own auto emissions standards, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson cited– as he had many times before– the need to painstakingly evaluate thousands upon thousands of in-depth public comments on the waiver.

However, a quick look at Thursday’s lawsuit filing reveals that while the White House, Transportation Secretary Peters and the auto industry might have schemed to politicize that process, they nevertheless failed to significantly influence it (at least in a formal sense):

5. The comments submitted to USEPA overwhelmingly support the GHG Regulation. Of the approximately 98,000 comments referenced in the USEPA’s docket, more than 99.9% support the GHG Regulation. Only one automaker subject to the GHG Regulation [Editor’s note: General Motors] submitted any opposition to the USEPA. Two automaker trade groups submitted opposing comments.

This is noteworthy (and, frankly, laugh-inducing) because, as emails obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee indicate, a central purpose of the administration’s surreptitious lobbying effort was to encourage negative comments from governors and members of Congress. Indeed, the communications in question took place rather hurriedly over the weeks leading up to EPA’s June 15 deadline for public comment. 

In other words, if EPA does ultimately rule against California, it will actually have little analysis to stand on besides the against-the-grain rationale contained in the results of a bumbling effort to politicize the process.

And then, the conversation would inevitably turn not only to the legalistic flaws of such a decision, but the implication– as stated by Rep. Waxman in a September 24 letter to White House environmental advisor James Connaughton, citing “multiple emails that contain references to communications between EPA, the Transportation Department, and the White House”– that this lobbying campaign suggests that EPA had essentially made up its mind prior to reviewing public comments.

Johnson obviously didn’t help himself by claiming, when pressed by Waxman last week, that he didn’t know about the lobbying effort “to the best of my recollection.” He might do better, at the very least, to directly reassure the public and Congress that he’s been reading objective analysis such as the Congressional Research Service report noting the strength of California’s application. Better yet, after over two years of delay, he could just reaffirm the Clean Air Act’s embrace of federalism and grant the waiver. 

It was scheduled to happen the week of the SoCal wildfires, but events intervened.  Now, California is poised to sue the federal government over the EPA’s failure to grant a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Schwarzenegger and Brown plan to file a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Bush administration to decide whether to approve California’s landmark law requiring automakers to gradually reduce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.

“California has a long and proud history of leadership in reducing pollution and fighting for clean air for our residents,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement yesterday. “And we are upholding that tradition by filing a lawsuit against the federal government that takes a big step forward in the battle against global warming.”

Under federal law, California must receive an EPA waiver to implement emissions standards tougher than federal levels.

But even if they prevail in court, California leaders are pessimistic that they will secure the waiver from the Bush administration, which has been slow to acknowledge warnings that human-caused global warming is a serious threat to the planet.

“Realistically, we think the chances are slim,” said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board. “We’ve made the case on the merits. We’re right on the law. Somehow or the other politics will intervene. We just don’t know where or how.”

The strategy here has been to slow-walk the decision to avoid the negative consequences of disallowing broadly popular legislation.  It should be noted that the EPA has NEVER in its history failed to grant a waiver of this kind for tighter air pollution control laws.  There’s not even any standing for denying the waiver under the Clean Air Act, which only should occur if the regulations are not “technologically feasible.”  Considering that people are making 150mpg conversions in their garages, that’s just patently absurd.  Automakers in this country are killing themselves slowly by refusing to adapt to the needs and desires of consumers.  If they persist, states should be allowed to recognize the impact on their own air quality and demand a shift.

This is going to be a long fight, but eventually, we will get this law.

This morning, I once again awoke indoors in Beaumont, CA with a scratchy throat and stuffy nose.  We are miles away from any fire devastation yet are feeling the consequences.  ‘Snow’ floats down onto housing tracts and farms from Los Angeles to Phoenix.  An orange sky stretches seemingly forever north, south, east and west of Beaumont and the Inland Empire.  At first it reminded me of the Southern California fire storm that hit a few years ago after my partner and I moved to CA.

Then, I remembered that those fires reminded me of the environmental consequences of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  You have the odors that are unexpected and ill-defined.  You have the constant particulate matter in the air.  And you have difficulty breathing and shortly will have Bush, the Bush Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, a Republican Governor, and Republican local officials lying to the affected citizenry.

More below the flip…

During the days, weeks, months, and even years following the terrorist attacks, Bush and his cronies lied constantly to the people of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.  Christine Todd Whitman, former Governor of New Jersey, and EPA Director under Bush, came repeatedly to New York to assure that there was no deleterious effects from the fallout.  Gov. George Pataki, R-NY and Mayor Rudy Guiliani, R-NY chimed in similarly.  As the New York-area firefighters and other workers at Ground Zero now know, these people were Liars, Liars, and Liars.

The Federal Government has the responsibilty through Executive Order and Congressional mandate that U.S. citizens and residents be protected during a National Disaster.

In 1970, a U.S. Senate report on Section 303 of the Clean Air Act stated:

“The levels of concentration of air pollution agents or combination of agents which substantially endanger health are levels which should never be reached in any community. When the prediction can reasonably be made that such elevated levels could be reached even for a short period of time-that is that they are imminent-an emergency action plan should be implemented.”

In 1972, the Clean Water Act extended the scope of the National Contingency Plan:

“With the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972, the scope of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) is extended to cover hazardous substance releases in addition to oil spills.”

In February 1988, the Emergeny Planning and Community-Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) stated:

“A final rule is issued on the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).  The rule states a “community right-to-know” public notification must be issued whenever there is a spill of any carcinogen in concentrations over 0.1 percent.”

In 1992, The Federal Response Plan (FRP) is finalized and becomes Public Law 93-288.  The FRP provides”

“a process and structure for the systematic, coordinated, and effective delivery of Federal assistance to address the consequences of any major disaster or emergency declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.”

The FRP can be enacted by the President in times of emergency.  Once invoked, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates the efforts of any Emergency Support Functions (ESF) involved.  In the event of a hazardous materials release, the EPA is charged with overseeing the federal government’s response.  The Federal Response Team (FRT) and Regional Response Teams (RRTs) are charged with

“carry[ing] out their duties and responsibilities as put forth in the NCP [National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan] (see 1972) and agency implementing procedures.”

Given the loss of 1,700 or more homes, businesses, and other structures, the destruction of countless vehicles and storage containers, and the burning of about 500,000 acres of Southern California, I wonder how much hazardous material has been released into the air over Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada?  During the Santa Anas of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, October 21 – 24, 2007, the prevailing winds pushed a significant amount of the pollutants several hundred miles out over the Pacific Ocean.  Since the Santa Anas ceased, the prevailing wind currents have pushed the pollutants back ashore, across the San Diego and Los Angeles basins through Orange, Ventura, Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties and into Arizona and Nevada.  Apparently, the pollutants have even extended as far north as Silicon Valley.  Residents of Southern California are cautioned to stay indoors, to avoid exercise outdoors, and to wear masks outdoors.

Given the evisceration of the Environmental Protection Agency under Bush and his business cronies, I wonder to what extent, the EPA will be in the forefront to protect the health and lives of millions of people.  Given the history of lies from the Bush Administration and their incompetent and avaricious minions, I doubt that we can trust them at all in this arena.

Forest fires like those we see sweeping the Southland today are a collateral piece of damage from an environment that has grown more vulnerable through overdevelopment, neglect, and the continued harm from climate change.  There is no question that a hotter, drier climate makes the land more susceptible to wildfires which can expand and change direction in a split second.  We have had drought-like conditions all year in Southern California, which makes things worse.  The state has made efforts to reverse this pattern through strict regulation of tailpipe emissions, but has been stymied by a slow-walk from the EPA, who since December 2005 has refused to grant the waiver necessary to make this regulation law.  On Wednesday, California’s patience will run out, and they will sue the Bush Administration over this obstructionism.  The US Supreme Court has already ruled that states can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, now the EPA must relent and allow the states to govern their own regions in the manner they see fit.

This is more than an abstract concept.  We’re talking about lives and property and untold destruction.  And this lawsuit will hopefully spur Senate Environmental Committee Chair Barbara Boxer to move quickly at the federal level on a global warming bill that is not a massive giveaway to coal companies, but which takes definable steps to solve the problem.  Fortunately, there is real movement toward a carbon-neutral future and away from the delaying tactics and greenwashed “solutions” that have characterized the past decade.  The terrible fires today should be a powerful reminder of what we must do for a better environment in California and around the world.

(Nice action diary from the United Farm Workers. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

E-mail CA officials today!

A little over a week ago, the EPA approved the use of methyl iodide–a dangerous toxic, mutagenic pesticide. The EPA is refusing to listen to us and the dozens of prominent scientists who have repeatedly pointed out the dangers associated with this pesticide.

California is one of the largest users of fumigant pesticides. The state must give a separate approval to methyl iodide before this toxic chemical can be used. We asking for your immediate help to encourage California authorities to do the right thing and refuse approval of this deadly compound.

http://www.ufwaction…

By sending an e-mail today, you can help protect the tens of thousands of farmworkers who work and live in California along with consumers who eat the California-grown produce.

There is still time to pressure the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). The California’s state review of methyl iodide isn’t scheduled to be completed until late 2008. Up until this point, DPR has been cautious about use of this pesticide. A February 2006 letter that the California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) submitted to the EPA expressed serious reservations about the chemical’s high toxicity and the potential harm it posed to “workers and bystanders, as well as residents living near treated fields.” However, it’s very important that you give DPR immediate feedback, in order to let officials know you are watching their actions in light of the EPA’s disastrous decision. 

http://www.ufwaction…

As an October 11, Sacramento Bee editorial, entitled “New danger in the fields – State should keep methyl iodide out” points out, “While [methyl iodide] does not damage the ozone, methyl iodide is more acutely toxic than methyl bromide. It is so dangerous that chemists who handle tiny amounts of it in laboratory settings must first don protective hoods and double gloves and use specially sealed bottles and syringes to ensure none of the chemical escapes…The EPA ignored objections raised by 52 eminent scientists, including five Nobel Laureates for chemistry, who signed a letter last month advising the EPA not to register methyl iodide. ‘As scientists and physicians familiar with this chemical,’ they wrote, ‘we are concerned that pregnant women and the fetus, children, the elderly, farmworkers and other people living near application sites would be at serious risk if methyl iodide is permitted in agriculture.'” (For background information, click here to see last weeks’ UFW alert to the EPA)

Please E-mail Mary-Ann Warmerdam, Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation TODAY and tell the DPR to protect the public and the environment by not allowing this pesticide to be used.

http://www.ufwaction…

Sacramento Bee editorial

Letter to EPA by scientists

My post about Jane Harman’s remarks at a town hall meeting yesterday about the secret “torture memos” revealed this week by the New York Times is up at Think Progress, submitted through their Blog Fellows Program, which I can’t recommend enough.  Let me contextualize those remarks a bit more, and add some of the other interesting things Rep. Harman had to say.

I asked the question to Harman about the secret memos.  Earlier this week, the White House claimed that all relevant members of Congress had been fully briefed on the classified program sanctioning harsh interrogation techniques by the CIA.  At the time of the memos, Harman was a member of the “Gang Of Eight” routinely briefed on intelligence matters.  Harman was shaking her head as I asked the question if she was fully briefed, chuckling almost in disbelief.  Her answer:

We were not fully briefed. We were told about operational details but not these memos. Jay Rockefeller said the same thing, and I associate myself with his remarks. And we want to see these memos.

over…

Harman is now the third member of the Gang of Eight, joining Jay Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi, to reject the White House’s claim that they were fully briefed about these memos.  The Administration is lying, again, and it is now incumbent upon Congress to make every effort to obtain those memos and to enshrine into law a full repudiation of the arguments therein described.  The follow-up question I wanted to ask Rep. Harman, but could not, was how she would go about pressuring the White House to get those documents.  Obviously the vehicle for this is through the confirmation of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey.  Considering that these memos came out of the Justice Department, there should simply be no movement on his confirmation without an exchange of the memos.

Let me add some additional information about the town hall.  I wrote in my Think Progress post this tidbit:

Harman later revealed that she was speaking with an unidentified Republican in her office, who told her that if President Bush were to attack Iran, then even he would vote for impeachment.

You have to understand the environment of this town hall meeting.  The audience included the hardcore progressives that made up the core of the Marcy Winograd primary challenge to Harman in 2006; in fact, Winograd was on a panel right before Harman’s arrival.  These people were SCREAMING for impeachment; the first two questions were about this issue.  And Harman could do nothing but reiterate that Nancy Pelosi, not her, had taken impeachment off the table.  She went on to describe her no votes against the Clinton impeachment and how MoveOn.org was born out of the impeachment debate (odd of her to approvingly cite MoveOn, considering she voted to condemn their remarks in the “General Betrayus” ad).  But when she brought up Iran, she said “this little anecdote should make you smile,” and mentioned the above exchange.

Here are some of the other notable tidbits in Harman’s meeting.

• She recommended Jack Goldsmith’s “The Terror Presidency” as the best source for understanding how the Bush Administration attempted to expand executive power through neutering the Office of Legal Counsel.  She had the book with her.

• She reiterated that “intelligence was politicized again” on the FISA bill, referring to the fake terror attack hyped by the White House designed to get wavering Democrats to sanction warrantless surveillance.  It was a cold-blooded tactic, and it should be heavily publicized.  I thanked Rep. Harman for speaking out on this, and I hope that she’ll continue as well as encourage other members to corroborate her allegations.  Harman said she is working to change the new FISA bill, which will “probably be introduced this week.”  The goals are that any surveillance must be done through the FISA court, with a warrant, and with minimization protocols if a US national is involved.

• Harman spoke about her legislation to close Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus, and end the use of national security letters outside their initial purpose.  She spoke glowingly about the vote this week to put Blackwater contractors under the auspices of US law, and thanked both Rep. Waxman and Rick Jacobs, who produced Iraq for Sale, with their efforts to get the word out about Blackwater’s numerous abuses and how they fell into the “legal black hole” regarding their activities.

• She recommended the Seymour Hersh article about developments with respect to Iran, and said that she has invited him to speak to the Congress.  Harman was adamant in saying that “targeted sanctions are working” with Iran, and that the government should “stop the saber rattling” that could lead us to another catastrophic war.

• She trumpeted her contribution to the House energy bill, a measure to retire the incandescent light bulb by 2012.

• On trade, she made a disappointing statement.  Despite voting against NAFTA and CAFTA and claiming that she was proven right on those votes, she said that some trade deals are admissable with proper labor and environmental standards as well as trade adjustment assistance, and referring to the current Peruvian Free Trade Agreement that will come up for vote in a couple weeks, she said that “It was approved by Charlie Rangel.”  Uh-oh.  We know that this bill, crafted in the dead of night to appease corporate interests, does not go nearly far enough to ensure labor and environmental standards, and would be nothing more than NAFTA-light.

• Someone asked Rep. Harman about the Walt-Mearshimer book “The Israel Lobby” and AIPAC’s support for endless war, including war with Iran.  Harman, who has been linked in the past to lobbies like AIPAC, said “I’m not a member of AIPAC… I support a two-state solution where Palestine can thrive economically with borders that are defensible to Israel.”  She pretty much dodged the question.

• On the still-unresolved EPA waiver that would allow California to make their own rules on tailpipe emissions that contribute to global warming, Harman said that she signed on to a letter protesting the slow-rolling from the EPA and the Department of Transportation, and she added that Gov. Schwarzenegger should work harder to get DoT to “back off” (they’ve been accused of lobbying lawmakers to pressure the EPA to block the California law).

• Finally, Harman asked for education activists to call her office and tell her about the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.  While she said that Rep. Miller has claimed to her it has been improved, she said “I am prepared to oppose it” if the changes are not satisfactory.

Yesterday, the UN held a major conference on climate change (Bush was a no-show) and the Secretary-General called for immediate action to preserve the future of the planet.  In a separate event, the President will call for a consensus about the world’s highest-emitting nations that would allow each to set their own voluntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions instead of it being ordered by an international treaty.

Not a good idea, I know.  But let’s accept Bush’s logic for a moment (and only a moment, before you slip into dementia).  He believes that governing entities should be given latitude to make the climate change policies that they see fit, rather than having them signaled from on high.  Unless, of course, that refers to states in this country and the one on high is him:

The Bush administration has conducted a concerted, behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to try to generate opposition to California’s request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, according to documents obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform […]

A flurry of e-mails among Transportation Department (DOT) officials and between its staffers and the White House, released yesterday, highlights efforts that administration officials have made to stir up public opposition to the waiver. Rather than attacking California’s request outright, Bush officials quietly reached out to two dozen congressional offices and a handful of governors to try to undermine it.

One May 22 e-mail written by Jeff Shane, undersecretary of transportation for policy, outlined how Transportation Secretary Mary Peters orchestrated the campaign. Peters “asked that we develop some ideas asap about facilitating a pushback from governors (esp. D’s) and others opposed to piecemeal regulation of emissions, as per CA’s waiver petition,” Shane wrote. “She has heard that such objections could have an important effect on the way Congress looks at the issue.”

over…

Waxman has been investigating this issue for some time.  In fact, back in June, he even released a voice mail from a DOT staffer to a member of Congress asking them to oppose the EPA waiver for California.  But this new data is just more evidence of the total politicization of federal agencies, and the ideologically driven desire to stop all efforts to curb the production of greenhuse gas emissions.  It also happens to be completely illegal to use our tax dollars to mount such a behind-the-scenes campaign.

In a letter yesterday to James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) asked him to “repudiate these efforts.”

“If Secretary Peters has concerns about whether California’s application meets the legal standards set forth in the Clean Air Act, she should submit comments to EPA making her case,” wrote Waxman, chairman of the oversight panel, which negotiated for three months to have the documents released. “Instead of taking this action, however, she apparently sought and received White House approval to use taxpayer funds to mount a lobbying campaign designed to inject political considerations into the decision.”

The Governor is on a barnstorming tour, selling his own action on climate change to the UN (while conveniently forgetting to mention firing the head of the Air Resources Board because he was pushing too hard for emission reductions, or the three important environmental bills on his desk he has yet to sign).  He may want to speak up about this effort to undermine all anti-global warming efforts, which incidentally is coming from the standard-bearer of his own party.  Or he could keep giving speeches and savor applause.

Jerry Brown’s effort to sue automakers for the production greenhouse gas emissions through their vehicles, a holdover from Bill Lockyer’s tenure, has been thrown out of court.

In its lawsuit filed last year, California blamed the auto industry for millions of dollars it expects to spend on repairing damage from global-warming induced floods and other natural disasters.

But District Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco handed California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s environmental crusade a stinging rebuke when he ruled that it impossible to determine to what extent automakers are responsible for global-warming damages in California. Many culprits, including other industries and even natural sources, are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide.

“The court is left without guidance in determining what is an unreasonable contribution to the sum of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, or in determining who should bear the costs associated with global climate change that admittedly result from multiple sources around the globe,” Jenkins write.

The judge also ruled that keeping the lawsuit alive would threaten the country’s foreign policy position.

I didn’t know that judges were responsible for managing foreign policy decisions, but Jenkins also did say that it’s the responsibility of lawmakers and not the courts to “determine how responsible automakers are for global warming problems.”  To that end, another lawsuit that would allow lawmakers to do just that, to hold automakers responsible by mandating a curtailing of the greenhouse gas emissions their vehicles spew, has won a major victory (over):

A federal judge in Vermont gave the first legal endorsement yesterday to rules in California, being copied in 13 other states, that intend to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles and light trucks.

Ruling in a lawsuit against Vermont’s standards on those heat-trapping gases, the judge, William K. Sessions III, rejected a variety of challenges from auto manufacturers, including their contention that the states were usurping federal authority.

The ruling follows a decision by the United States Supreme Court in April that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide as air pollutants. The ruling in Vermont explicitly endorses the idea that California has the right to set its own regulations on the gases, and that other states, like Vermont, have the right to follow its lead.

The Vermont ruling merely follows the Supreme Court precedent, albeit to devastating effect.  The California case is pending, but it would be hard to see how the ruling could be any different.  Now it’s time for the EPA to allow the waiver that would enable the tailpipe emissions law to go into effect.  With even the White House Science Adviser acknowledging the man-made causes of global warming, it’s beyond time for the Cheney-Bush Administration to give states back the ability to manage their own air quality standards and contribution to climate change.  This lawsuit adds to the pressure on the EPA.

As a side note, last week Jerry Brown reached a settlement with Conoco-Phillips that would require the company to spend $10 million to offset the emissions created by their East Bay refinery expansion.

Brown told a news conference that the accord is believed to be the first time an oil refinery in the country has agreed to mitigate increased carbon emissions from an expansion project.

Brown is definitely using every option at his disposal in this fight.