The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA. The ANPR record will set the stage for the debate on climate policy/science in the Obama Administration and in the new Congress.

EPA sought comment on the best available science for purposes of the “endangerment” discussion including the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and the most recent IPCC report (AR4).

Here are some of the many responses submitted during the first step after comments were requested on the first step, the CCSP Unified Synthesis Product in August here, here, here, here and here.

Here is a small sampling of some of the responses to the ANPR, the third and final phase of the EPA process of evaluation.

* Why the EPA should find against “Endangerment” by World Climate Report

* Major Issues with IPCC Report by John McLean

* Series of detailed responses catalogued at the Heartland Institute.

* Detailed Response from Dr. Pat Michaels

* NIPCC excerpts as a Rebuttal by Dr. Fred Singer

* Challenging Endangerment by Dr. Fred Singer

* Challenging the Appropriateness of the CCSP and Adequacy of the Scientific Literature used by Ross McKitrick

* Detailed Response by CEI

* The Economic Costs of the EPA’s ANPR Regulations by Heritage Foundation by David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Karen Campbell, Ph.D. Center for Data Analysis

* A geologist’s response by Dr. Don Easterbrook

* Global warming as a response to cloud changes due to the PDO by Dr. Roy Spencer

* In-depth analysis from Craig Idso

* Response by American Environmental Coalition

* Response reiterating CCSP responses

* Response on the failure of models to replicate observed changes and the neglecting of natural factors, most notably here Ocean Multidecadal cycles

* Response by American Environmental Coalition is here. 

By Joseph Romm, Climate Progress

I have argued that Obama won’t be able to ratify any global climate treaty that is likely to come out of Copenhagen next December. Since the only thing worse than no global climate treaty in 2009 is a treaty that the President can’t get ratified, Obama, I believe, should be lowering expectations rather than making promises he can’t keep.

Greenwire reports that Eileen Claussen, executive director of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and a former senior Clinton administration climate official, said something quite similar (though for slightly different reasons): “We do not want to repeat Kyoto, where you go and negotiate something
and then you can not deliver it.... That’s the worst of possible worlds, because nothing happens.”

Claussen’s Pew Center has been among the most vocal of the groups trying to lower expectations on the timing for a new international climate agreement given the state of play in Washington. Claussen said she does not think Obama and Congress can finish cap-and-trade legislation in 2009. And she wants the Copenhagen deadline pushed back to give the United States the time it needs to finish its climate law.

Claussen and her colleagues said European officials have told them privately that they are aware of the tight U.N. schedule. But they cannot say this publicly for fear it will disrupt momentum toward a final climate deal. While Claussen credits Obama for giving some important signals on his position, she would like to see him go a step further and tell international officials that the United States won’t be ready to negotiate and agree to a final climate pact by Copenhagen.

If expectations are not lowered before Copenhagen, Claussen said, she worries that the U.N. talks could collapse, generating a fresh round of antagonism toward the United States. “That,” she warned, “really doesn’t benefit anybody.” I have talked to a number of colleagues with congressional experience
who are skeptical that something as complicated as a national cap & trade bill could be completed in 2009, especially given everything else on Obama’s plate.

I believe the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process can’t survive in its current form. But even if you think it can, Obama should try to delay Copenhagen until after there is a U.S. climate bill. It would be crazy for him to commit to something in international talks in 2009 that he can’t get through his own Congress as a domestic bill in 2010.

And I would repeat that if a Copenhagen Protocol does not include a binding commitment by China to cap emissions by 2020 - with some restrictions on how fast emissions can grow between now and then - it has no chance whatsoever of getting 67 votes in the U.S. Senate at any time during Obama’s term(s) in office. I would go even further: Such a flawed global climate treaty in 2009 might actually undermine chances for a U.S. domestic bill in 2010. Read more here.

By Kelly Cryderman, Calgary Herald

In his first major speech since taking the post of federal environment minister, Jim Prentice signalled his government will not stir greater troubles in Canada’s economy with strident environmental policies. “We will not - and let me be clear on this - we will not aggravate an already weakening economy in the name of environmental progress,” Prentice said in a speech to business leaders at the Bennett Jones Lake Louise World Cup Business Forum Friday morning.

“If this means re-examining the way forward in the face of present-day economic realities, then so be it.” It is just days before the minister heads to Poznan, Poland, where Prentice will join other world leaders working to craft a new world climate change treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, He said the challenge now is to keep economic and environmental policy on equal footing. “These are amongst the most difficult and pressing issues of our time,” he said.

Opposition parties and environmentalists have criticized the Conservative’s climate change policy, saying the goal of reducing absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020 is not a strong enough action - and will not meet with international approval. But Prentice, who attended the same Lake Louise business forum in 2007 as industry minister, said he wants to work closely with United States President-Elect Barack Obama. The minister said Obama has spoken “with real clarity and real determination” about the need for North American leadership in environmental and energy policy. Read more here.