|
Friday, June 29, 2012
Chilling Out? EPA Wins Greenhouse-Gas Verdict, but will Debate Cool off?
Major drama surrounded a pivotal court decision handed down in the last few days by that arbiter of many high-profile cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
 |
|
NASA |
| One for the planet? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 26 upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide endanger public health and likely have been responsible for global warming over the past several decades. |
What’s puzzling in the view of this particular news bureau, however, is why the issues involved in this decision are so politically charged.
We’re talking about the appeals court’s decision upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide endanger public health and likely have been responsible for global warming over the past several decades.
It’s been all over the news, but here’s one account: Decision on Greenhouse-Gas Rules Is Victory for Obama, Blow to Coal Industry.
There it is again…politics, not science, about a decision that one would hope is more about science than politics.
OK, call me naïve. I get that it’s not just about saving the planet and being “green.” EPA’s foes in this court case are talking about the economy and jobs in taking the agency to court. EPA regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions will hurt industries such as coal and petroleum, force carmakers to design vehicles that will be more fuel efficient and lower polluting, and add to pressure for more energy-efficient buildings.
That last item makes this discussion of the court decision of interest and relevance to architecture, design, construction, and facility management. Thus, we have a stake in matters of greenhouse gases and climate change in these professions, whatever side of the debate we align ourselves on (or if we’re somewhere in the middle).
Not long ago, some readers of D+D News voiced a different opinion, asking why we chose to report on a major scientific study that essentially said drastic change is needed, and fast, to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions if climate change and a “catastrophic breakdown” of the planet are to be mitigated. (See Research Report Warns of Cataclysmic ‘Tipping Point’ for the Planet.)
Again, the discussion among the readers who commented echoed the political coloring of this climate-change issue. Some called the science about climate change “hysteria” based on suspect data. Others retorted that the doubters unfairly crucify the authors of these dire forecasts in an effort to preserve the “status quo.” This kind of “denial” leads to the vilification of those pointy-headed fearmongers in their ivory towers.
Meanwhile, we remain puzzled by all the furor and the political coloring of the issue.
Are we naïve as charged? Guilty, although I would hope we get the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Let’s chill out (pardon the expression, considering the topic) and try to think clearly about this. Let’s ask:
• What’s wrong with trying to do the right thing for the planet? The design and building community is giving a great deal of attention to energy efficiency and sustainability. Where’s the downside? Even if climate change science is simply “hysteria,” there are other, valid reasons to reduce pollution and energy use, like good stewardship of our natural resources and addressing the problem of increasing acidification of the oceans.
• Aren’t the economy and jobs driven by a myriad of forces, not just regulatory policy based on harsh or hands-off environmental dictates? We’ll hazard a guess that sustainable design and construction, and other “green” concepts, are and can continue to be major drivers of business innovation and growth—the kind of high-tech business and industry the developed economies need in the global arena.
The Court of Appeals decision in all likelihood won’t make this debate go away. But the Clean Air Act, the basis of the EPA’s position in seeking to address greenhouse gases, reflects the will of the people. Or so we learned in school when taught about the role of the three branches of government in constitution class.
Many of you may not agree, but that’s the other great thing about this country and its constitution. You are free—and in this venue invited—to have your say.
More items for
Building Envelope
Tagged categories:
Energy efficiency;
Green building;
Sustainability
|
Comment from Scott Miller, (7/2/2012, 9:59 AM)
|
The reason it gets so political is because no one likes to be forced to do something they think makes no or little sense. I think you are right that even if global warming turns out to be misguided hysteria it does make sense that we try our best to keep our enviroment clean to a point. If we have 95% clean air and in order to get it to 97% clean we would double current cost then it does not make sense. But their are plenty of people pushing for such. It is easy to do this when you do not have to make it happen yourself. This would also put the U.S. at a distinct disadvantage with other countries and does truly cost jobs. How about we do it the true Anerican way and let free enterprise work to come up with new ways to make things more efficient. If we have plenty of jobs people will have more money and will be willing to pay for products that are better for the enviroment even if they cost more. Which then will prompt more companies to come up with similiar or better products.
|
|
|
Comment from John Fauth, (7/2/2012, 12:08 PM)
|
Why does this subject engender politicalization? Because politicians are motivated to be seen as "doing something" to fix every problem, big or small. If it's well intentioned and has a budget, there's no need to evaluate it for efficacy. What is the "right" thing to do? Expend copious amounts of wealth and employment with dubious legitimate results, just so we can pat ourselves on the back for "doing the right thing"? To what end, beyond making a chosen lot feel good about themselves? How can anyone remove the politics from using regulatory policy to achieve personal emotional satisfaction at the expense of others? We can't have a legitimate debate in this country about the worthiness of various initiatives, so long as they're being financed with Monopoly money. One would think that previously implausible deficits and debt would stop the endless "investments" that never seem to turn a profit, but it hasn't even slowed them down.
|
|
|
Comment from Steven Danielpour, (7/2/2012, 1:11 PM)
|
Ar these comments for real? Have you read the open admission by Exxon Corporation's CEO? Mr. Tillerson said, in part: "So I'm not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It'll have a warming impact. The -- how large it is is what is very hard for anyone to predict. And depending on how large it is, then projects how dire the consequences are." He continued to say "And as human beings, as a species, that's why we're all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around -- we'll adapt to that. It's an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions. And so I don't -- the fear factor that people want to throw out there to say, 'We just have to stop this,' I do not accept." You can read the report at:
http://news.yahoo.com/exxons-ceo-proposes-global-warming-well-adapt-182509901--finance.html
The reason we cannot have a scientific dialog about what has been happening on our planet, and therefore cannot address what we should be doing now and in the future to remedy the situation, is that large multi-national corporations who have alot of at stake in the discussions and the decisions reached.
|
|
|
Comment from NAVEEN BERRY, (7/3/2012, 10:26 AM)
|
Amen to continue becoming more energy efficient for architectural and mobile uses.
|
|
|
Comment from brad sleeper, (7/6/2012, 4:10 PM)
|
Joe,
You made a very cogent argument distinguishing climate change as in practical terms and separate from the politics that swirl around it. I wonder how those that deny the really of climate change are explaining the weather events of the summer so far. Civilization has developed in relation to advancements in technology. Its survival will depend on future advancements in technology. The EPA decision is a direction forward into a future created from more efficient technology, the benefits of which will be economic as well as sustainable.
|
|
|
Comment from jeff bailey, (7/9/2012, 12:27 PM)
|
I believe,like most every organization, they all start with great intentions, but through greed,power, and lawsuits then generally take a turn for the worst. In general i cant stand the EPA many because the power it has given to people with little to no commen sense. However, as Scott Miller pointed out, the push to get our planet greener is a no brainer and if the EPA did not start i dont believe very many will. We soon forget living in our (US bubble)that we are being blamed for the larger part of the pollution issue, however i have travelled half way around the world recenctly, and i would have to say it is horrible everyware throughout Europe were the rules on pollution are not really held accountable. Common sense and visual evidence, tell me people know we are destroying the atmosphere that keeps our planet safe, but most want to believe that everything is OK. For all of you who want to believe, i offer you to adapt to eating Mcdonalds 3 meals a day for a year and watch the movie WALLE.
|
|
|
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Facebook
