Two developments today in the effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions and begin to combat the effects of climate change. First, legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate today.

The United States today took a big step towards enacting legislation to combat global climate change.

U.S. Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California, both Democrats, introduced the Kerry-Boxer bill, formally known as the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act to limit greenhouse gas emissons while putting Americans back to work.

The bill targets a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels, stating that this is “the minimum scientists judge necessary to avert a climate disaster.”

Remember that legislation has already passed the House of Representatives. The Senate bill may be a little stricter than the House version, but it’s pretty comparable and is already attracting criticism from opponents, some arguing it goes too far, some not far enough.

Meanwhile, while Congress deliberates, the EPA keeps moving ahead on its own.

The Obama administration is not waiting for legislation governing greenhouse gas emissions to be approved by Congress, but is proceeding to regulate these gases under the Clean Air Act.

Large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year will have to obtain Clean Air Act construction and operating permits covering these emissions, under a proposal announced today by U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

A similiar rule requires the use of best available control technologies when industrial facilities add generating capacity under the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act.

One thing to keep in mind here is that CO2 emissions are measured not in ounces or pounds or even hundreds of pounds. The standards involved are instead thousands of tons per power plant. That’s a lot of pollution, and while on one hand it points out the immensity of the problem, on the other it shows how much room there is for improvement.

Another thing to keep in mind is the irony that while climate change deniers like Senator James Inhofe do everything they can to block legislation, they open the door for the EPA to proceed with regulation.

They may not have decided to halt construction, but in the case of burning coal, every little delay helps.

The Georgia Court of Appeals today issued an order that will result in further delay of the Longleaf coal-fired power plant proposed for Early County, Georgia.

Although the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling invalidating the plant’s air quality permit on several issues, it upheld the lower court decision on other issues. At this point, the draft air quality permit granted by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division in May 2007 remains invalid.

The plant would be a 1200 megawatt coal-burning power plant along the Chattahoochee River, south of Columbus near the Georgia-Alabama state line. If built, it would be the first new coal-fired power plant in Georgia in over 20 years, but today’s decision is the second legal defeat for the proposed plant in just 13 months.

The problem for opponents of coal plants is that the Georgia court’s decision was not based on a finding of harm from the emission of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, but instead on mis-behavior by Administrative Law Judge Stephanie Howells, who failed to make an independent analysis of the original Georgia Environmental Protection Division’s permit to build the plant. Issues of pollution regulation are still alive on appeal, though, and, for now at least, until those appeals are decided, there will be one less coal burning plant along the banks of the Chattahoochee River.

After spending much of their time over-ruling and undoing the damaging policies of the Bush Administration, it’s good to see the EPA is starting to find time to do their main job, reducing and regulating the pollution that industry and technology pours in to our air, water, and land.

U.S. flagged ocean-going vessels will have to meet stricter diesel engine and fuel standards that will yield air quality improvements across the country under a rule proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA’s proposal requires tighter emission standards for new large marine diesel engines and the use of diesel fuel with a lower sulfur content on container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships.

By 2030, the domestic and international strategy is expected to reduce annual emissions of nitrogen oxides, NOx, from large marine diesel engines by about 1.2 million tons and particulate matter emissions by about 143,000 tons.

When fully implemented, the coordinated effort would reduce NOx emissions by 80 percent and particle emissions by 85 percent compared to current emission levels.

Those 80 to 85 percent numbers tell us two things. The EPA’s new standards are a serious attempt to reduce pollution from large ocean-going vessels, and the amount of pollution currently caused by those ships is way too high.

We may eventually get regulation of greenhouse gases, but it won’t be because of polar bears.

Saying the Endangered Species Act is not the right tool to control global warming, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced today that he will leave in place a special rule created by the Bush administration that limits protections for the polar bear under the Act.

The polar bear was listed as threatened under the Act on May 14, 2008 because climate change is melting the species’ sea ice habitat, leaving bears unable to hunt. The Bush administration imposed rule 4(d) to ensure the listing would not require new efforts to tackle global warming or put new restrictions on oil and gas development in polar bear habitat.

Today, after review of the rule, Secretary Salazar agreed with his predecessor, Dirk Kempthorne, that the Endangered Species Act was never intended to regulate global climate change.

The problem, of course, is that in the case of the polar bear, the argument is that climate change is why the polar bear is endangered, greenhouse gases cause climate change, so greenhouse gases should be regulated to protect polar bears.

Which could theoretically give the Interior Department regulatory authority over everything from tailpipes to coal plants. That’s more than they were ever intended to handle, so from a practical political viewpoint Salazar’s decision is probably the right one. But the odds are that won’t save the polar bear.

That’s not necessarily the end of it, though. The EPA faces the same sort of issue, in their case it would be the Clean Air Act that would trigger regulation, and the argument there would be stronger in their favor. Greenhouse gases do pollute the air, and the EPA is set-up to protect the environment in general, not just specific aspects of it, their authority already does extend over a wide range of activities.

And the Interior Department shouldn’t give up all hope, the rules for polar bears may be settled, but there’s still the pika.

Big Bend is one of the national parks I haven’t been to yet. I’d like to think that if I ever do get there, I’ll be able to see it.

The thick brown haze that hovers over the massive national park on warm days has been a problem for at least two decades, according to those who live in the area. And federal and state environmental officials agree that the cloud of pollution caused by factories and power plants hundreds or thousands of miles away in the U.S. and Mexico is a problem that needs to be cleaned up.

What may be even sadder is that some people don’t seem to feel that it needs to be cleaned up any time soon.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has asked states to clean up areas they’ve dubbed “Regional Class I Areas,” a group of sites that include national parks and other federal lands, by 2064.

But officials at the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality have decided it will likely take until 2155 to clear the air over the park.

Now there’s always room for maneuver in things like pollution clean-up target dates. But Texas’ number isn’t just a maneuver, it’s a whopping 91 years later than the EPA’s schedule. That’s not a compromise, it’s a refusal to face the problem.

The Bush Administration may be gone, but lawsuits based on their policies will be making their way through the courts for years to come.

A federal appeals court is pressing the Environmental Protection Agency for a better explanation of how the Bush administration’s limit on the amount of soot and dust allowed in the air protects public health.

The court on Tuesday returned the standard to the EPA, arguing that the agency’s explanation was inadequate. The decision in the long-standing controversy found soot limits by the Bush administration unjustified, and leaves it up to the Obama administration to set a new one.

The New York Times is reporting that on Monday President Obama will make a policy statement on greenhouse gas regulations and fuel standards for cars and trucks. The centerpiece of the statement will be a Presidential directive to the EPA and other agencies to grant California’s request for a waiver that would allow the state to impose stricter standards on emissions than are required by federal law. Thirteen other states are expected to follow California’s lead.

This is a major break from the previous administration’s policies, and a direct statement to the auto companies that the time has come to stop spending their efforts on blocking regulations and instead get their buts moving on cars and trucks with better gas mileage and less pollution causing emissions. For those who are hopeful about the direction of Obama’s energy and environmental policies, it could hardly be better news.

besides the feats of great athletes like Michael Phelps, one of the lingering memories of last Summer’s Olympic games was the efforts by China and the city of Beijing to lessen the oppressive air pollution that too often plagues that fine city. The imposition of driving restrictions and the shutting down of some of the worst polluting factories actually helped, and saved the games from the potential embarrassment of the world watching athletes who were unable to breathe enough to pursue their sport.

Many people at the time wondered if Beijing, having experienced the pleasure of breathing cleaner air, would do something to try and turn its temporary solution into a more permanent one. Not many people, though, would have guessed at what they’ve come up with.

Beijing is so desperate to get high-polluting cars off the roads, the city has devised a scheme that will pay citizens as much as $3600 to give up heavily polluting vehicles — and even give drivers more money to purchase cleaner cars.

The scheme by the environmental protection bureau is only one part of a massive plan to get Beijing’s more than 350,000 high-polluting vehicles out of the city during 2009. China’s capital has already banned cars from the roads on one of five weekdays based on their license plate number as part of a six-month trial that follows broader anti-traffic restrictions during the 2008 Olympic Games.

The initiative would take about 10 percent of the city’s 3.5-million registered cars off the roads — an amount that is estimated to account for 50 percent of the city’s notorious vehicle pollution.

To the average commuter, a ten percent reduction in traffic in any of the world’s major cities would undoubtedly be a welcome change. Think of the time saved by the lessening of traffic jams alone.

Paying people to not drive, however, is probably a solution that will remain unique to China. It’s hard to imagine any American city doing anything like this. With the economy leaving most local governments strapped for cash and Americans traditional love of the automobile, there probably isn’t enough cash out there to get that many Americans out of there cars. And as a political proposal, the idea would undoubtedly stir up a lot of opposition.

Still, cities everywhere are faced with the problem of too much traffic and the air pollution that goes with it. Solutions to the problem generally center around subsidies for mass transit, one thing the Chinese solution does is to at least raise the possibility of a more direct approach.

Doesn’t hurt to have some good news at Christmas time.

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday reinstated a Bush administration rule to reduce air pollution from power plants and help states downwind from the facilities meet federal clean air standards.

A top broker in emissions allowances said trading in some pollutants soared on the news. One environmental advocate called the ruling a “holiday gift to breathers.”

Tuesday’s ruling reversed a decision the same court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, made in July to reject the so-called Clean Air Interstate Rule, known as CAIR.

The court found on July 11 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency went beyond its authority to create a trading scheme among utilities to cut emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides at power plants in the East and Midwest.

But the current ruling vacates that earlier decision and leaves the interstate rule in place while the Environmental Protection Agency fixes flaws in the plan.

The court is showing some common sense here by leaving the rules in place in order to insure the intent of the law until some technicalities in the regulation are fixed. It’s one of those rulings that benefit everyone, yet could have come out differently if the court had gone for a stricter interpretation of the law. For that, some of us in the East and Midwest will breathe a little easier.

Old power plants seeking to increase their output will have to be a little cleaner, and visitors to national parks can breathe a little easier. The EPA has changed its mind.

The Bush administration has dropped plans to adopt two Clean Air Act rules that would have allowed power plants and other polluters to increase smog and soot pollution.

The first rule concerned the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program. It would have allowed coal-fired power plants to increase their power output by installing new equipment without adopting pollution controls.

The second abandoned rule would have weakened special air quality protections that Congress adopted for national parks and wilderness areas. If the rule had been adopted, it would have been easier to build a coal-fired power plant, refinery or factory near a national park.

There was lots of public and political opposition to both the proposed rule changes, and no doubt that helped influence the decision to not proceed.

But it’s hard to not suspect that one other factor was involved. The deadline for finalizing and publishing the rule changes in time to take effect before Obama became president was November 30. It may be that the fabled incompetence of Bush appointees actually worked in the environment’s favor here; they simply didn’t get it done in time.

it makes more sense than to think they might actually have decided to do the right thing.