Download AOSS_480_L19_Policy_Law_20080318

Climate Change: The Move to Action
(AOSS 480 // NRE 501)
Richard B. Rood
734-647-3530
2525 Space Research Building (North Campus)
[email protected]
http://aoss.engin.umich.edu./people/rbrood
Winter 2008
March 18, 2008
Class News
• A ctools site for all
– AOSS 480 001 W08
• This is the official repository for lectures
• Email [email protected]
• Class Web Site and Wiki
–Climate Change: The Move to
Action
–Winter 2008 Term
Next 4 lectures
• March 20: Paul Higgins (climatepolicy.org)
• March 25: Jasper Kok (Alternative energy)
• March 27: Ben Santer (Fingerprinting
climate change: Is there a smoking gun?)
• April 1: 15 minute interim report on
projects.
Readings on Local Servers
• Assigned
– Supreme Court: Massachusetts versus EPA
– Sigman: Liability and Climate Policy
• Of Interest
– Massachusetts Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court
– US Govt Response to Massachusetts Petition
• Foundational Reading
– University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2007)
Lectures coming up
• http://www.snre.umich.edu/events
Outline of Lecture
• Uncertainty and Divergence of Policy
Development
– Motivators, catalysts for policy
• Spatial scales and time scales
• Law / Litigation
– Massachusetts versus EPA
Climate Change
Science: Knowledge and Uncertainty
Knowledge from Predictions
Motivates
policy
Uncertainty of the Knowledge
that is Predicted
Policy
1) Uncertainty always exists
2) New uncertainties will be revealed
3) Uncertainty can always be used to keep
policy from converging
What we are doing now is, largely, viewed as successful. We are reluctant to
give up that which is successful. We are afraid that we will suffer loss.
Summary moment
• It is sensible to look at governance and policy to
address climate change
– It’s a “greater good” problem
– It relates to natural resources and waste from the use
of natural resources
– It impacts economic and national security
– There is precedence in environmental management
• There is a need for a “carbon policy” to govern
our emission of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere.
– Credible evidence of potential “dangerous” climate
change.
Motivators for Policy
• More is needed than scientific knowledge
to motivate the development of policy.
– A policy accelerator or catalyst is needed to
promote convergence on policy.
• Apparent benefit
• Excess risk
Climate Change
Science: Knowledge and Uncertainty
Knowledge from Predictions
Motivates
policy
BENEFIT
1) Uncertainty always exists
2) New uncertainties will be revealed
3) Uncertainty can always be used to keep
policy from converging
RISK
Uncertainty of the Knowledge
that is Predicted
“POLICY”
What we are doing now is, largely, viewed as successful. We are reluctant to
give up that which is successful. We are afraid that we will suffer loss.
Climate Science-Policy Relation
CLIMATE SCIENCE
UNCERTAINTY
PROMOTES / CONVERGENCE
OPPOSES / DIVERGENCE
KNOWLEDGE
POLICY
Energy Security-Policy Relation
ENERGY SECURITY
UNCERTAINTY
PROMOTES / CONVERGENCE
OPPOSES / DIVERGENCE
KNOWLEDGE
POLICY
Economics-Policy Relation
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
UNCERTAINTY
KNOWLEDGE
POLICY
Exponential Discount
120
PROMOTES / CONVERGENCE
Dollars
100
(1) percent
80
(2) percent
60
(3) percent
40
(5) percent
20
0
1
OPPOSES / DIVERGENCE
3
5
7
9
11
Years
13
15
17
19
21
Energy-Economy-Climate Change
ECONOMY
ENERGY
CLIMATE CHANGE
THESE THREE ARE BIG
WHAT ARE THEIR ATTRIBUTES? ______________________________
HOW ARE THEY RELATED?
______________________________
We keep arriving at levels of granularity
WEALTH
LOCAL
TEMPORAL
NEAR-TERM
LONG-TERM
GLOBAL
SPATIAL
Small scales inform large scales.
Large scales inform small scales.
A moment with time scales
ENERGY
CLIMATE CHANGE
ECONOMY
0 years
25 years
50 years
75 years
100 years
Energy-Economy-Climate Change
ECONOMY
ENERGY
CLIMATE CHANGE
POLICY ENVIRONMENT
WHAT IS THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH OPTIMAL
RESULTS CAN BE ACHIEVED?
Energy-Economy-Climate Change
• Because of the global reach of Energy,
Economy, and Climate Change, solutions need
to be woven into the fabric of our behavior.
• Solutions need to be able to evolve from the
near-term to the long-term.
• Solutions need to address both local and global
attributes of the problem.
• Solutions are impacted by wealth
• There is no one solution; we need a portfolio of
solution paths.
Market-based solutions
• A leading policy mechanism is an
environmental market which places
valuation on carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and its impact on natural
resources that are sensitive to the climate.
• Valuation (currency) becomes the
common unit of transference, how we
“talk” to each other.
F1A
F2A
F iA
FUEL SOURCES
F2c
F1c
GDP
ENERGY
PRODUCTION
Common Unit
of Transference
Cost  $
.
ABATEMENT
A1
POLLUTANT
F ic
A2
Ai
COST GAP
Elements of environmental pollutant market
SHARES OF
POLLUTANT CREDITS
What about the carbon market
Aside from markets, what else permeates society?
• Law
In the past year
• The picture of polar bears in the sea
motivated a lot of discussion about the
Endangered Species Act ...
• but,
legal approaches have a difficult path,
cause and effect, who are the damaged and
damaging parties, what laws are relevant ...
So what are the legal pathways?
•
•
•
•
Public nuisance
Clean Air Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Federal policy of pre-emption
– Less stringent federal regulations rather than more
stringent state regulations
• Like tobacco liability litigation
• Like gun liability litigation
• Endangered Species Act
National Environmental Quality Act (1969)
• Purpose
• Sec. 2 [42 USC § 4321].
• The purposes of this Act are: To declare a
national policy which will encourage productive
and enjoyable harmony between man and his
environment; to promote efforts which will
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment
and biosphere and stimulate the health and
welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of
the ecological systems and natural resources
important to the Nation; and to establish a
Council on Environmental Quality.
What are the obstacles?
• Political Question / Judicial Competence
– Court being asked, essentially, to make policy
• Standing
– The ability to show particular, or personal
harm.
• Causation
– Demonstration that a particular, say, power
plant or manufacturer has caused the harm
An interesting set of papers
• The complete issue of University of
Pennsylvania Law Review (Vol, 155, 2007)
– Intersection of climate science, economics,
and law.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2007)
A case that received a lot of attention
• Connecticut versus American Electric
Power
– Public nuisance
– Determined that court was being asked to
address what was essentially a policy
question.
• Senator Imhoff a principal in having the case
thrown out
A case that continues to attract attention
• Massachusetts versus US Environmental
Protection Agency
– Clean Air Act
A case that continues to attract attention
• Relevant text of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act” "The
Administrator [of EPA] shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards
applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or
classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which
in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
• Section 302(g) of the Clean Air Act defines "air pollutant" as "any air
pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any
physical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise
enters the ambient air." 302(h) states that "effects on welfare"
include "effects on soils, water, crops, . . . wildlife, weather . . . and
climate . . .”
California and Clean Air Act
• When the Clean Air Act was written
California was given the ability to make
more stringent standards.
– States can choose either the California
standard or the less stringent national
standard
(A motivator for federal policy is often the
existence of many state and local
policies.)
Supreme Court Decision
• Supreme Court found in favor of Massachusetts
– Had argued that they were threatened by sea level
rise.
• There was standing.
– Had argued that carbon dioxide was a pollutant.
• Supreme Court said carbon dioxide is a pollutant based on
the definition in the Clean Air Act.
– EPA did have the regulatory authority to regulate CO2.
EPA Arguments
• That to control carbon dioxide from cars was an
issue of efficiency, which was the sole domain of
the Department of Transportation.
• That for the EPA to act would be a piecemeal
approach to the problem, against the President’s
wishes.
• That taking action on cars would have no real
effect because of other sources of CO2,
including China.
• That there was a political history that precluded
EPA from acting.
Since then
• EPA has not, formally, taken action, and
even their own lawyers have been quoted
in the press as saying that EPA is not on
solid legal grounds for doing nothing.
– A political decision.
Since then
• California Attorney General Petition to EPA
– “Global warming threatens California's Sierra
mountain snow pack, which provides the state
with one-third of its drinking water. California
also has approximately 1,000 miles of
coastline and levees that are threatened by
rising sea levels.”
Where does litigation sit in the climate problem?
• Motivator for the development of policy.
• Law works on short-term and local scales.
– Does not, often, extend to long-term and
global scales.
• Deliberative, case-by-case
Where does litigation sit in the climate problem?
• Liability?
Next 4 lectures
• March 20: Paul Higgins (climatepolicy.org)
• March 25: Jasper Kok (Alternative energy)
• March 27: Ben Santer (Fingerprinting
climate change: Is there a smoking gun?)
• April 1: 15 minute interim report on
projects.