By Joseph D’Aleo

The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.

The document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to the agency’s legal obligations in a timely manner.

Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR: Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions; How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants; Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and, scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.

EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR until November 28, 2008. See EPA ANPR for details and directions.

Earlier responses to the CCSP are supposed to be considered but it is a good idea to resubmit them to ANPR to play it safe. I have done so in two parts: Part I summarizing the 9 responses to the CCSP and a new one in Part II responding to these specific scientific questions the EPA is seeking input on:

(1). EPA seeks comment on the best available science for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

(2). EPA also invites comment on the extent to which it would be appropriate to use the most recent IPCC reports, including the chapters focusing on North America, and the U.S. government Climate Change Science Program synthesis reports as scientific assessments that could serve as an important source or as the primary basis for the Agency’s issuance of “air quality criteria.”

(3). EPA requests comments as well as the adequacy of the available scientific literature [synthesis reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and various reports of the US Climate Change Science Program]

(4). The Endangerment Technical Support Document provides evidence that the U.S. and the rest of the world are experiencing effects from climate change now.

The window will close on comments November 28, 2008 and decisions will be made that we may have to live with for a long time. We can only do our best to ensure we have a say and maybe some influence on those decisions. Though the responses I sent were relatively long, they need not be. Short pithy comments that address one or more of the questions with relevant documentation to papers and peer review or just data can be just as if not more effective. Thank you for whatever you do.

By Tom LoBianco and S.A. Miller, Washington Post

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is flirting with creating a White House “Climate Czar,” but climate change crusader Al Gore says he doesn’t want the job. The Obama team declined to comment on such a post, even as environmentalists and power industry executives say it’s being widely discussed inside the transition offices as a way to spur a clean energy industry, which Mr. Obama has promised will ween the U.S. from foreign oil and create millions of “green jobs.”

Obama transition chief John Podesta promoted a similar idea earlier in his role as president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.  Mr. Podesta authored a white paper calling for an Energy Security Council within the White House to oversee climate change and clean energy initiatives. The czar and the council would coordinate agencies, including the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The obvious choice to lead the council is Mr. Gore, whose campaign to address climate change earned him the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. But the former vice president is taking a pass. “Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government,” Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. “He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis.” Mr. Obama foreshadowed the new post on the campaign trail in April when he told a voter that Mr. Gore would be offered a special Cabinet post overseeing climate change. “Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem,” Mr. Obama said.

Al Gore appears on behalf of Barack Obama early Friday afternoon, Oct. 31, 2008, at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Fla.. Gore, former vice president and democratic presidential candidate in 2000, and his wife Tipper, returned to Palm Beach County, ground zero of the year 2000 election debacle. It was Gore’s first campaign event for the Obama/Biden ticket.

With Mr. Gore out of the running for an administration job, leading candidates for the post likely include former EPA chief Carol M. Browner, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Other names mentioned for czar or membership in the energy council include World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash, former Pennsylvania Environment Secretary Kathleen McGinty and California Air Resources Board chief Mary D. Nichols. Read more here

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit

Some RC commenters are bemoaning the criticism that GISS is currently weathering. For example, Tamino: “Although the error originated NOT with GISS but before numbers even got through their door, I’ve heard no cries for heads to roll at NOAA or NWS - just vicious attacks on GISS.
As so often, Tamino simply makes stories up out of whole cloth. While I do not accept NASA’s blaming of their supplier as an excuse, I’ve clearly stated my hope that the present controversy will spark a long overdue assessment of the many problems at GHCN, some of which have been covered at Climate Audit from time to time.”

In my most recent post, I observed:"Perhaps this may give a long overdue impetus for a proper examination of GHCN’s failure to properly update readily available station data. In my opinion, much of the criticism that GISS is presently receiving is because of Gavin Schmidt’s rancorous and ineffective public relations campaign at realclimate on behalf of Hansen, where he’s spent more time making baseless attacks of his own, than in simply chinning up, taking his medicine and properly acknowledging both Watts Up and Climate Audit. Pit bull tactics are seldom effective in circumstances like the present.

We’ve also been criticized for not being “constructive”. Well, eliminating errors is constructive in my opinion. I’d also like to report that over a year ago, I wrote to GHCN asking for a copy of their adjustment code: “I’m interested in experimenting with your Station History Adjustment algorithm and would like to ensure that I can replicate an actual case before thinking about the interesting statistical issues.  Methodological descriptions in academic articles are usually very time-consuming to try to replicate, if indeed they can be replicated at all. Usually it’s a lot faster to look at source code in order to clarify the many little decisions that need to be made in this sort of enterprise. In econometrics, it’s standard practice to archive code at the time of publication of an article – a practice that I’ve (by and large unsuccessfully) tried to encourage in climate science, but which may interest you. Would it be possible to send me the code for the existing and the forthcoming Station History adjustments. I’m interested in both USHCN and GHCN if possible.”

To which I received the following reply from a GHCN employee: “You make an interesting point about archiving code, and you might be encouraged to hear that Configuration Management is an increasingly high priority here. Regarding your request - I’m not in a position to distribute any of the code because I have not personally written any homogeneity adjustment software. I also don’t know if there are any “rules” about distributing code, simply because it’s never come up with me before.”

I never did receive any code from them. However an examination of GHCN code is clearly warranted and, if NOAA’s resources are as constrained as GISS’ are said to be, one would think that they would unreservedly facilitate third party examination of their code.
See post and comments here.