National Journal 'Experts' Mull Climate Policy, IPCC Snafus

In its Energy and Environment blog, National Journal published thoughts on the issue of Senate Democrats possibly pressuring EPA to delay GHG regulations to allow more time for Congress to act. Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, suggested Congress rewrite the Clean Air Act and establish a more workable policy for restricting GHGs. American Iron and Steel Institute President and CEO Thomas Gibson said EPA regulation would "exacerbate the competitiveness problems facing energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries by increasing their costs while their overseas competitors continue to avoid regulation. Only a comprehensive legislative approach to climate change can address the important international competitiveness and carbon-leakage issues."

Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, said EPA should act quickly because "federal agencies already possess the tools under the Clean Air Act and other statutes to begin addressing the problem. There is no reason to wait. If Congress wants to add some progressive mechanisms ... into the mix, then so be it. But the federal and state agencies with legal authority must make their move, transparently and objectively, without delay" because the atmosphere continues to warm.

Two blog entries differed significantly on admitted errors in reports by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Andrew Wheeler, senior VP of energy and climate-change practice at B&D Consulting, said the IPCC "has blurred the lines between science and advocacy to the point where it is unable to separate situational awareness from proposed remedies." Pew Center on Global Climate Change President Eileen Claussen said the IPCC needed to clean house, but "none of what we have recently heard or read changes the basic scientific consensus that human activities have increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

U.N. to Set Up Blue Ribbon Panel to Review IPCC Climate Findings

The United Nations has selected the InterAcademy Council to review the work of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine if the results were flawed, the Wall Street Journal reported today. The study, due to be unveiled in August, is a reality check on a report that led to a Nobel Peace Prize, but has most recently led to controversy when the analysis was deemed faulty.

Robbert H. Dijkgraaf, co-chair of the InterAcademy Council, told the Journal that a particularly delicate task will be to pick who participates in the review. Wrote the newspaper: "The council needs people who have knowledge of climate science but aren't too close to the IPCC." Dijkgraaf was quoted as saying: "Clearly you cannot be the reviewer and the reviewed at the same time." But people involved in previous IPCC reports could serve on the review committee, he said.

Yesterday, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., called for the resignation of IPPC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, on the basis of his role in overseeing the work. The Washington Post today reported that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said: "Let me be clear: The threat posed by climate change is real. Nothing that has been alleged or revealed in the media recently alters the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change, nor does it diminish the unique importance of the IPCC work." Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., said: "This is only half the battle. A legitimate inquiry must look back and examine the science in the assessment reports, and not just the mistakes that have been uncovered thus far."

The New York Times described Dijkgraaf as a Dutch physicist and mathematician. It said the study would be financed by the United Nations but will operate wholly independently. He was quoted by the Times as saying: "Our job is to ensure quality of IPCC reports in the future. We enter this process with no preconceived conclusions."