Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[crazy canuck]

Before the US Supreme Court changed the Chevron test, I would have said this decision would certainly have been quashed by the court.  But now I am not so sure. 

[The Brain]

Weird to have scientific findings as political decisions.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Before the US Supreme Court changed the Chevron test, I would have said this decision would certainly have been quashed by the court.  But now I am not so sure. 

I don't understand.  My understanding of Chevron is that the decision, and resulting "Chevron deference", defended a similar action by the EPA against a challenge by an environmental group.  I would assume reversing that deference would make it easier to challenge this (though I think it won't matter either way with this court).

[crazy canuck]

Under the new test the judge gets to decide whether the decision is reasonable - the Chevron test required the judge to determine whether the reasons for making the decision were reasonable.  The reasons for making this decision would not have withstood scrutiny.

[mongers]

Interesting:

Rainfall in the UK between October-March has increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution

From this bbc item here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cgrz24y2wvno

And also from that article, more locally to me:



I'm sometime to be found walking along that raised town parth in the foreground, though obviously not for a while.

[Norgy]

This has been the case for Norway as well. When it rains, it pours. Our infrastructure has been found wanting and we are woefully ill prepared for the weather changing. As some probably know, Norway is sort of... hilly and with mountains. Large quantities of water from above tend to release whatever light stones and soil in huge mudslides. This is bad. As people live below hills. And mudslides are bad for houses. And that resale value.

[mongers]

It was a normal Spring day here.


so I'm calling it the arrival of said season.   

[crazy canuck]

Brilliant piece of messaging - extinction is bad, says the dinosaur



https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVMaMMYDRVG/?igsh=cTd4Ym44NjU2a3Q5

[The Minsky Moment]

Under the new test the judge gets to decide whether the decision is reasonable - the Chevron test required the judge to determine whether the reasons for making the decision were reasonable.  The reasons for making this decision would not have withstood scrutiny.

Chevron required the courts to defer to the agency's reading of the statute as long as the interpretation was "permissible" - i.e. a plausible reading of the text.  In its original usage (Chevron) it was used to uphold the legality of Anne Gorsuch's attempt to gut the Clean Air Act by a highly restrictive interpretation of its source rules.

Loper Bright, in which Gorsuch's son joined the majority to overrule the case that she won - eliminated that deference so the court can interpret the statute as it wishes without giving any deference to the agency's interpretation.

The Endangerment Finding itself was put at risk by Loper Bright, because the Finding relied on an agency interpretation of "air pollution".  Withdrawing the finding could be impacted as well because the withdrawal notice does advance an interpretation of the statute that would no longer be protected by Chevron.  But it's all academic because this Court won't disagree with Seldin's EPA.

[Sheilbh]

To be honest I don't entirely disagree with the court's take on Chevron. As with everything in the US though - it does kind of require a functioning legislature and that doesn't exist.

Also I wonder if they'll apply the same logic and lack of deference to the administrative state when it comes to, say, ICE.

[crazy canuck]

Chevron required the courts to defer to the agency's reading of the statute as long as the interpretation was "permissible" - i.e. a plausible reading of the text.  In its original usage (Chevron) it was used to uphold the legality of Anne Gorsuch's attempt to gut the Clean Air Act by a highly restrictive interpretation of its source rules.

Sorry, I slipped into Canadian law verbiage - our concept of reasonable is very similar to your concept of permissible.

Loper Bright, in which Gorsuch's son joined the majority to overrule the case that she won - eliminated that deference so the court can interpret the statute as it wishes without giving any deference to the agency's interpretation.

For us the concept of deference has become less important as our courts have recognized that deference is built into the reasonableness (permissible) analysis.

[viper37]

Sea level much higher than assumed in most coastal hazard assessments

The impacts of sea-level rise and other hazards on the coasts of the world are determined by coastal sea-level height and land elevation¹. Correct integration of both aspects is fundamental for reliable sea-level rise and coastal hazard impact assessments^2,3, but is often not carefully considered or properly performed. Here we show that more than 99% of the evaluated impact assessments handled sea-level and land elevation data inadequately, thereby misjudging sea level relative to coastal elevation. Based on our literature evaluation, 90% of the hazard assessments assume coastal sea levels based on geoid models, rather than using actual sea-level measurements. Our meta-analyses on global scale show that measured coastal sea level is higher than assumed in most hazard assessments (mean offsets [standard deviation] of 0.27 m [0.76 m] and 0.24 m [0.52 m] for two commonly-used geoids). Regionally, predominantly in the Global South, measured mean sea level can be more than 1 m above global geoids, with the largest differences in the Indo-Pacific. Compared with geoid-based assumptions of coastal sea level, the measured values suggest that with a hypothetical 1 m of relative sea-level rise, 31–37% more land and 48–68% more people (increasing estimates to 77–132 million) would fall below sea level. Our results highlight the need for re-evaluation of existing coastal impact assessments and improvement of research community standards, with possible implications for policymakers, climate finance and coastal adaptation.

Bad measurements used, a fact known for about 20 years, but recently rediscovered because most researchers tend to work within their fields instead of forming multi-disciplinary units.

[crazy canuck]

It's an interesting case study on the impact of how siloed so much of what we do has become.

In part, I suppose it's a necessity because of the complexity that has developed in many areas of knowledge and the require requirement to focus on particular aspects of one area.


For example, any lawyers now focus on a particular area within a more general area of practice. There are very few lawyers left who have a general practice covering multiple practice areas.

What gets lost is seeing how each area impacts the other.  In other words, we are quickly losing the ability to see the big picture.

[mongers]

Sea level much higher than assumed in most coastal hazard assessments

The impacts of sea-level rise and other hazards on the coasts of the world are determined by coastal sea-level height and land elevation¹. Correct integration of both aspects is fundamental for reliable sea-level rise and coastal hazard impact assessments^2,3, but is often not carefully considered or properly performed. Here we show that more than 99% of the evaluated impact assessments handled sea-level and land elevation data inadequately, thereby misjudging sea level relative to coastal elevation. Based on our literature evaluation, 90% of the hazard assessments assume coastal sea levels based on geoid models, rather than using actual sea-level measurements. Our meta-analyses on global scale show that measured coastal sea level is higher than assumed in most hazard assessments (mean offsets [standard deviation] of 0.27 m [0.76 m] and 0.24 m [0.52 m] for two commonly-used geoids). Regionally, predominantly in the Global South, measured mean sea level can be more than 1 m above global geoids, with the largest differences in the Indo-Pacific. Compared with geoid-based assumptions of coastal sea level, the measured values suggest that with a hypothetical 1 m of relative sea-level rise, 31–37% more land and 48–68% more people (increasing estimates to 77–132 million) would fall below sea level. Our results highlight the need for re-evaluation of existing coastal impact assessments and improvement of research community standards, with possible implications for policymakers, climate finance and coastal adaptation.

Bad measurements used, a fact known for about 20 years, but recently rediscovered because most researchers tend to work within their fields instead of forming multi-disciplinary units.

Thanks Viper, that's both interest and depressing.