Top News

EPA Administrator Failed To Disclose Former Lobbying Client. According to The Hill, “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler left a former lobbying client off of his financial disclosure documents, according to a new letter from House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). Wheeler did not list Darling Ingredients, a company that supplies ingredients for products ranging from fertilizers to fuel to pet and livestock food, when he first came to the EPA in 2018. However, lobbying group Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting, Wheeler’s former employer, showed that Wheeler lobbied on behalf of Darling in 2015 and 2016. ‘These documents indicate that you may have improperly omitted Darling from your financial disclosure, and they raise concerns that you may have failed to identify other clients who paid for your services as a lobbyist during the period covered by your disclosure report,’ Cummings wrote in the letter, which was also signed by Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.). ‘We will again respond to the committee through the proper channels,’ said EPA spokesman Michael Abboud. Federal law requires officials to disclose any client over the past two years that paid them more than $5,000, and Wheeler’s compensation topped that amount by about $300 in 2015.” [The Hill, 4/23/19 (+)]

Millions More Americans Breathing Dirty Air As Planet Warms, Study Finds. According to The Guardian, “An increasing number of Americans live in places with unhealthy levels of smog or particulate air pollution – both of which are being made worse by climate change, according to a new report. Air quality in the US has been improving since the 1970s, but that progress may be backsliding and 43% of Americans are now living in places where they are breathing unsafe air, according to the American Lung Association report. As temperatures rise, wildfires are getting worse and spewing smoke across the west. And more smog, or ozone, is forming on warmer days. For the three hottest years on record, 2015 through 2017, about 141 million people lived in US counties that saw unhealthy levels of particle pollution, either in a single 24-hour period or over a year, or unhealthy levels of smog. That is 7 million more people than in the group’s last report. ‘We’re seeing in this year’s report the impacts of climate change on air quality in really stunning terms,’ said Paul Billings, a vice-president for the association.” [The Guardian, 4/24/19 (+)]

EPA Head Asked To Back Up Claim That Climate Change Is '50 To 75 Years Out'. According to The Hill, “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler is being asked to back up recent claims that climate change consequences are still ‘50 to 75 years out.’ In a freedom of information request filed by the Sierra Club late Monday, the conservation group requested the EPA turn over any documents that support Wheeler’s assertion. Wheeler’s comments came in an interview with CBS, when he told the network’s Major Garrett that he would be focused on pressing issues like access to clean water since ‘most of the threats from climate change are 50 to 75 years out.’ Climate scientists armed with government research, however, are finding that climate change is having a much more immediate impact. The Sierra Club argues the dangers from climate change are fast-approaching and that Wheeler’s remark to Garrett has no basis. ‘We are confident that EPA’s response to this request will reveal that Wheeler’s assertion was unsupported by science and is inconsistent with the research and conclusions of the U.S. government’s career scientists,’ Matthew Miller, a Sierra Club attorney, said in a release.” [The Hill, 4/23/19 (+)]

Why The US Bears The Most Responsibility For Climate Change, In One Chart. According to Vox, “Humans are pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate. But climate change is a cumulative problem, a function of the total amount of greenhouse gases that have accumulated in the sky. Some of the heat-trapping gases in the air right now date back to the Industrial Revolution. And since that time, some countries have pumped out vastly more carbon dioxide than others. The wonderful folks at Carbon Brief have put together a great visual of how different countries have contributed to climate change since 1750. The animation shows the cumulative carbon dioxide emissions of the top emitters and how they’ve changed over time. Take a look: What’s abundantly clear is that the United States of America is the all-time biggest, baddest greenhouse gas emitter on the planet. That’s true, despite recent gains in energy efficiency and cuts in emissions. These relatively small steps now cannot offset more than a century of reckless emissions that have built up in the atmosphere. Much more drastic steps are now needed to slow climate change. And as the top cumulative emitter, the US bears a greater imperative for curbing its carbon dioxide output and a greater moral responsibility for the impacts of global warming.” [Vox, 4/24/19 (+)]

Melting Permafrost In Arctic Will Have $70tn Climate Impact – Study. According to The Guardian, “The release of methane and carbon dioxide from thawing permafrost will accelerate global warming and add up to $70tn (£54tn) to the world’s climate bill, according to the most advanced study yet of the economic consequences of a melting Arctic. If countries fail to improve on their Paris agreement commitments, this feedback mechanism, combined with a loss of heat-deflecting white ice, will cause a near 5% amplification of global warming and its associated costs, says the paper, which was published on Tuesday in Nature Communications. The authors say their study is the first to calculate the economic impact of permafrost melt and reduced albedo – a measure of how much light that hits a surface is reflected without being absorbed – based on the most advanced computer models of what is likely to happen in the Arctic as temperatures rise. It shows how destabilised natural systems will worsen the problem caused by man-made emissions, making it more difficult and expensive to solve. They assessed known stocks of frozen organic matter in the ground up to 3 metres deep at multiple points across the Arctic. These were run through the world’s most advanced simulation software in the US and at the UK Met Office to predict how much gas will be released at different levels of warming.” [The Guardian, 4/23/19 (=)]

Chart Of The Day: Haters Hate The Green New Deal More Than Supporters Love It. According to Mother Jones, “According to the TV News Archive, the Green New Deal has been mentioned 3,403 times on cable news this year. Here’s a breakdown of the major cable news outlets: That’s 1,384 for Fox and Fox Business vs. 582 for MSNBC and CNN. The Fox empire has talked about the GND more than twice as much as the other two outlets combined. This is why 71 percent of Republicans say they’ve heard a lot about the GND while only 37 percent of Democrats say the same. David Roberts tells us what this means:We know what Republicans have been told about the GND — ‘It bans cows!’ — so it’s no surprise to find that differential level of exposure reflected in the support numbers: 80 percent of Republicans strongly oppose the GND, while just 46 percent of Dems strongly support it….For Fox viewers, the GND is a disaster (‘ridiculous!’ ‘stupid!’ ‘destroy!’ ‘costly!’) that gets rid of some things and bans other things….There is no parallel left-wing media machine to swing around in support of the person or policy. In fairness, it’s a lot easier to mobilize public opinion against something than for it, especially when it’s frankly unclear what being ‘for’ the Green New Deal even means.” [Mother Jones, 4/24/19 (+)]

A New Stanford Study Shows The Economic Cost Of Climate Change Is More Global Inequality. According to Quartz, “One of the major successes of the 21st century has been the reduction in global inequality. But the wealth gap between countries could have closed even further if not for climate change. Over the past few decades, global warming has led to ‘robust and substantial declines in economic output in hotter, poorer countries,’ according to in a study published yesterday in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and increases in cooler, wealthier countries compared to what would have happened in a world without human-caused climate change. ‘The global warming caused by fossil fuel use has likely exacerbated the economic inequality associated with historical disparities in energy consumption,’ write the authors, Noah Diffenbaugh and Marshall Burke, both of Stanford University. Building on previous research into the links between economic growth and temperature change, the researchers quantified the unequal economic impact of climate change over half a century. They show the extent to which global warming has made poor countries poorer and rich countries richer.” [Quartz, 4/24/19 (+)]

Protesters In London Block Traffic, Deploy Super Glue And Strip To Call For Climate Action. According to the Washington Post, “ The protesters have snarled traffic on bridges, glued themselves to trains and swung from hammocks in high trees to grab attention. On Tuesday, they descended on Parliament Square to demand that British lawmakers take action to stem climate change. They got an assist from Greta Thunberg, the teenage Swedish activist who has sparked a global youth movement and led school climate strikes in 100 countries last month. Thunberg said her generation has been betrayed. ‘We probably don’t even have a future anymore,’ she said in a speech to lawmakers at Westminster. ‘That future has been sold so that a small number of people can make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said, ‘The sky is the limit.’ ‘ Earlier in the day, when asked what she would say to President Trump, who announced that the United States will withdraw from the 2015 Paris agreement to limit carbon pollution, Thunberg replied, ‘There is nothing I could say.’ ‘Obviously, he must have scientists coming to talk to him all the time, so he is obviously not listening to the scientists,’ she said.” [Washington Post, 4/23/19 (+)]

EPA

Former EPA Chiefs Call For ‘Reconfiguring’ Agency After Trump Rollbacks. According to Inside EPA, “Former EPA administrators from the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations say the agency should be ‘reconfigured’ once President Donald Trump leaves office, potentially reversing staffing cuts and some Trump regulatory rollbacks but also overhauling EPA to address looming challenges such as climate change. ‘If you are in a position, then build the infrastructure of the agency again . . . Don’t jump to reinstate everything first,’ former Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy told an April 23 conference on ‘EPA and the Future of Environmental Protection,’ hosted by American University in Washington, D.C. McCarthy appeared on a panel on ‘Lessons of Leadership: Navigating EPA’s Future’ with past Clinton EPA chief Carol Browner and William Reilly, who was appointed by the first President Bush. All three panelists decried the Trump administration’s deregulatory environmental agenda and said they see a need for the next Democratic president to not only reverse those policies but also to restructure EPA’s operations to prepare it for addressing climate change and other high-profile subjects.” [Inside EPA, 4/23/19 (+)]

Ex-Chiefs Criticize Trump Rollbacks. According to E&E News, “Former EPA administrators gathered today to discuss the future of the agency and challenges ahead. Speaking at a conference centered on the agency held at the American University Washington College of Law, past EPA chiefs from Democratic and Republican administrations praised the agency that has weathered proposed budget cuts by President Trump and hundreds of staff members leaving in recent years. Both Carol Browner, who served as EPA administrator under President Clinton, and Gina McCarthy, who led the agency during President Obama’s second term, emphasized that the next election would be pivotal for EPA and its future. If a Democrat defeats Trump in 2020, they said, the next president should target various environmental rollbacks that have moved forward under the current administration. Browner said the next EPA administrator should turn back the agency’s ‘secret science’ proposal, which would require EPA to use only publicly available data to write its regulations. The Clinton-era EPA chief said that would undercut previous rules that used public health studies centered on confidential data. ‘It is fundamentally limiting the amount of science that EPA can rely on.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (+)]

EPA Rejects Petition To Update Oil, Gas Waste Rules, Sparking Criticism. According to Inside EPA, “Sparking strong criticism, EPA has rejected environmentalists’ petition seeking to revise federal waste rules for the disposal of oil and gas wastes, leaving in place generic standards that apply to all non-hazardous solid waste and deferring to existing state programs as better able to handle the management of such wastes. EPA in an April 23 letter told environmental groups that it has decided it is ‘not necessary at this time’ to revise Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D regulations for the management of wastes from the exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy. Subsequently, the agency also says it is not necessary for EPA to propose revisions to state plan guidelines for the management of oil and gas wastes, given it is not updating its Subtitle D regulations. The agency says it made these conclusions after conducting a thorough literature review of government, industry and academic sources to supplement data from previous agency actions. The review ‘evaluated factors such as waste characteristics, management practices, damage cases and the coverage of state programs,’ EPA says on its website.” [Inside EPA, 4/23/19 (=)]

Critics Charge EPA Lacks Legal Justification For CSAPR ‘Close-Out’ Rule. According to Inside EPA, “Several states and environmental groups seeking stricter EPA policies to curb interstate ozone air pollution are urging a federal appellate court to scrap the agency’s rule to ‘close-out’ its major cross-border air trading program without requiring additional ozone cuts from states, saying EPA lacks legal justification for the rule. In opening briefs filed April 19, the states and environmentalists claim the agency unlawfully ignored Clean Air Act compliance deadlines and overestimated expected future cuts in ozone pollution when it finalized the close-out of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). They want the court to vacate the rule and force EPA to craft a replacement rule mandating pollution cuts in time for the 2020 ozone season that runs April through September in New York. The suit, State of New York, et al. v. EPA, et al., pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenges EPA’s Dec. 21 rule closing out CSAPR, a cap-and-trade program that includes curbs on ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants in 22 states. The 2018 close-out says 20 states subject to CSAPR can avoid any further tightening of controls on their emissions sources that may currently contribute to problems attaining or maintaining national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in other states downwind.” [Inside EPA, 4/23/19 (=)]

EPA's Methylene Chloride Ban Draws Lawsuit Over Loophole. According to Politico, “The Labor Council for Latin American Advancement and Natural Resources Defense Council are suing EPA for not completely banning paint strippers containing methylene chloride. EPA’s final rule released in March banned retail sales of the paint strippers and said the agency will work on a federal training program and other steps for its commercial uses. And EPA said an outright ban on that use could be on the table in a future rulemaking. But the agency was wrong not to immediately ban all uses of methylene chloride paint strippers, the groups argue. Many of the known deaths attributed to the chemical happened to trained workers, according to the advocacy groups. Direct exposure can lead to death when workers are overcome by fumes and subsequently suffocate. Long term exposure to the chemical is linked to cancer and other ailments. ‘There is no law, science or policy behind the exclusion of workers from EPA’s methylene chloride rule. It is a craven and illegal giveaway to companies that want to continue to manufacture and sell deadly paint strippers,’ said Earthjustice attorney Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.” [Politico, 4/23/19 (=)]

Groups Sue Again Over Deadly Paint Stripper. According to E&E News, “Environmental, public health and labor advocates are going to court over the Trump administration’s continued allowance of commercial uses of a deadly chemical found in paint strippers. The Labor Council for Latin American Advancement and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit last week over EPA’s refusal to ban commercial uses of methylene chloride, which can cause heart failure and kill people exposed to it. The Vermont Public Interest Research Group; Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; and Lauren Atkins and Wendy Hartley — two mothers whose sons died while using the chemical — filed a similar lawsuit. They are represented by Bob Sussman, a high-ranking EPA official during the Obama and Clinton administrations. Both challenges are in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The groups and individuals had previously sued EPA for inaction on the chemical. In March, EPA agreed to ban consumer sales of the product but rejected a proposal to ban commercial uses. Critics say the approach creates a major loophole that benefits chemical companies but leaves workers vulnerable (E&E News PM, March 15).” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Wheeler

House Democrats Say Wheeler Left Biofuels Client Off Disclosure. According to Politico, “House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said on Tuesday he has documentation showing that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler failed to disclose a lobbying client in his financial reports, and he threatened to subpoena Wheeler if he does not address the omission soon. Cummings says Wheeler received payments from Darling Ingredients that exceeded the threshold reporting amount for lobbying in 2015 but the EPA chief did not include the company in his financial disclosure when first nominated to EPA in 2017. Darling Ingredients processes bio-nutrients into fuel feedstock and other products. Records show Wheeler lobbied Congress for Darling on Renewable Fuel Standard issues and biofuel tax credits. At least one report covering the second quarter of 2015 indicates Wheeler may have lobbied EPA directly for Darling. In a Tuesday letter to Wheeler, Cummings wrote that documents he obtained from Darling indicate it paid Wheeler between $5,327 and $7,270 from February to August of 2015.” [Politico, 4/23/19 (+)]

Wheeler Vows To Cooperate With Science Advisory Panel. According to E&E News, “EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is pledging closer cooperation with a key advisory panel following complaints last May the agency is slow and stingy in handing over information. ‘Moving forward, the EPA will ensure that there is early engagement between the EPA and the full Science Advisory Board, including more rapid and frequent briefings to the SAB on major proposed regulations shortly after their release,’ Wheeler wrote in a letter last week to Michael Honeycutt, the board’s chairman. That engagement will include stepped-up efforts to keep the 45-member panel up to speed on EPA’s tracking of peer review of ‘influential regulatory science,’ Wheeler wrote. He is also asking the agency’s program officers to work on ensuring that the process for seeking scientific advice, particularly when it involves specific regulations, factors in the activities of other EPA advisory panels. His letter, posted on the board’s website yesterday, comes almost 10 months after Honeycutt had stressed the need for ‘more complete and timely information’ to help the board make recommendations and decisions on the science underlying ‘planned actions.’ As part of the same request, Honeycutt had also sought more information on the peer review linked to the science used for specific activities.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Wheeler Didn't Disclose Former Client — Lawmakers. According to E&E News, “Congressional investigators this afternoon raised new questions about EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s compliance with federal ethics law, citing documents obtained from a former client. The invoices, provided to the House Oversight and Reform Committee by Darling Ingredients, show that Wheeler provided at least $7,270 in ‘professional services’ for the biodiesel producer through August 2015. Yet when Wheeler was nominated to join the Trump administration in October 2017, he didn’t list Darling as a source of compensation over $5,000 in the past two calendar years in a financial disclosure form. That step was required by the Ethics in Government Act, a law enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal. ‘These documents indicated that you may have improperly omitted Darling from your financial disclosure, and they raise concerns that you may have failed to identify other clients who paid for your services as a lobbyist during the period covered by your disclosure report,’ Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.), the head of the Subcommittee on Environment, wrote in a letter to Wheeler.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (+)]

After CASAC Fallout, Wheeler Agrees To Narrow SAB Review Of EPA Rules. According to Inside EPA, “Administrator Andrew Wheeler is asking EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) to review just one of six pending rules the board had sought to assess, a step that sources note is narrow but may still be intended to better control the review’s outcome and prevent fallout similar to what occurred recently when hand-picked clean air advisors said they lacked expertise to review their charge. One former EPA official says the agency was likely unable to reject SAB’s request to review the science underlying its controversial science data transparency rule, which generally seeks to require rules to be based on studies where the underlying data is publicly available. SAB also sought to review a half-dozen climate and other deregulatory measures. But officials may have been forced to allow the board to review just one narrow issue related to its science data rule to avoid a ‘disaster’ similar to what occurred recently when advisors selected by the Trump EPA for the agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) said they did not have the expertise needed to review their charge.” [Inside EPA, 4/23/19 (=)]

White House

Kudlow: US Sanctions On Iran Oil Had 'No Material Impact' On Markets. According to The Hill, “President Trump‘s top economic adviser said Tuesday that he does not think recently imposed sanctions on Iranian oil sales will drive up U.S. gas prices. Larry Kudlow said in remarks at the National Press Club that new U.S. penalties on purchasers of Iranian oil ‘had no material impact’ on global markets. His comments came a day after oil prices spiked to a six-month high on Monday. ‘The world is awash in oil,’ Kudlow said, in an attempt to tamp down fears that cutting off Iranian oil from the market could cause U.S. gasoline prices to rise. ‘The center of the world energy system is the United States. We’re the driver.’ Trump announced Monday that the U.S. would not renew waivers set to expire in May that had allowed certain nations to purchase oil from Iran without facing penalties under U.S. sanctions. Trump reimposed a slew of financial sanctions on Iran last year when he pulled the U.S. out of the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran. The 2015 agreement suspended sanctions targeting the country’s economy, including a ban on purchasing the country’s oil, in exchange to curbs to Tehran’s nuclear program.” [The Hill, 4/23/19 (=)]

National

These Grandparents Are Dropping Everything To Fight Climate Change. According to USA Today, “For Charlene Lange, the breaking point came on her bucket-list trip to see the Northern Lights in Canada’s far north. Her tour came by plane because melting tundra caused local train tracks to sink. Now, she lobbies governors to fight climate change. Gary Krellenstein was an investment banker who helped finance new power plants. Part of his job was examining the data on global warming so he could argue it wasn’t real. Until he found he no longer could. He spends his time today barraging his state senators with letters advocating for clean energy sources. Susan Dobra dealt with the consequences up close and personal – literally running down a road as a massive wildfire, partly blamed on climate change, consumed her car, her home and her entire town of Paradise, California, in November. This month, she spoke before the City Council of the town she’s taken refuge in to urge it to pass a climate emergency declaration. You might call them senior climate commandos. Each is over 60 – some well over – an age not generally thought of as being consumed by activism. And yet they, and a growing number of other older Americans, say climate change has created an all-hands-on-deck moment for humanity, a call they are compelled to answer.’ [USA Today, 4/23/19 (=)]

LCV Adds Clinton Campaign Veteran To Communications Staff. According to E&E News, “The League of Conservation Voters has hired a presidential campaign veteran as its national press secretary. Emily Samsel, who worked on Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns, most recently helped Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo (D) win reelection as her press secretary. ‘LCV is a big environmental group that does politics right,’ Samsel said in a phone interview. She added that the 2020 presidential election is the ‘most critical’ of her lifetime and she wants to help elect someone who will ‘reverse the emissions damage that has already been done and take bold action on their first day in office.’ In a statement, LCV President Gene Karpinski said Samsel’s ‘communications expertise and track record of winning elections will be invaluable as we continue to hold the Trump administration accountable, make clean energy progress in the states and gear up for elections in 2020.’” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

NYC Mayor Aims To Ban New Glass Skyscrapers To Cut Emissions. According to E&E News, “New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to introduce a bill banning new construction of glass skyscrapers as part of his efforts to reduce citywide greenhouse emissions by 30%. In announcing his Green New Deal yesterday, the Democratic mayor said all-glass facade skyscrapers are ‘incredibly inefficient’ because so much energy escapes through the glass. He said buildings are the No. 1 cause of greenhouse emissions in New York. De Blasio said the bill would require existing glass buildings to be retrofitted to meet new stricter carbon-emissions guidelines. ‘If a company wants to build a big skyscraper, they can use a lot of glass if they do all the other things needed to reduce the emissions,’ de Blasio said. ‘But putting up monuments to themselves that harm our Earth and threaten our future that will no longer be allowed in New York City.’” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Congress

Democrats Try To Change The Subject From Trump, The Ratings-Magnet President. According to the Washington Post, “Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota did not want to say whether President Trump had done something impeachable. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont described the whole question as a potential distraction. And South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg worried about what voters would think. ‘If we are only talking about him,’ he said of Trump, ‘the folks at home think we are not talking about them.’ If there was any question about how candidates running to challenge Trump would react to the recently released report by Robert S. Mueller III, the answer was delivered Monday night in a series of CNN town halls broadcast from Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. Five candidates in sequence demonstrated their desire to speak about everything they found more pressing for the country — climate change, infrastructure spending, criminal justice reform, more federal funding for health care and college. It is the defining irony of the Democratic primary this year: The singular obsession of the party’s voters since 2016 — a ratings-magnet president — is not the focus of the campaign to replace him. In the Democratic race, Trump is less a foil than an obstruction, a bystander in a country defined by problems that Democrats describe as existing before him and worsening under his direction. Rather than fight Trump head-on, the party has embarked on an effort to counterprogram him.” [Washington Post, 4/23/19 (=)]

Green New Deal

AFL-CIO Opposes Green New Deal. According to the Washington Examiner, “AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said Tuesday that he opposes the Green New Deal championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and promoted by liberal Democrats. Trumka said that the proposal didn’t represent the interests of labor members. Asked during a forum hosted by the nonprofit Economic Club of Washington, D.C. about the proposal, Trumka said that ‘as currently written’ the proposal was a bad idea that he could not support. ‘We weren’t part of the process [in drafting the proposal] so workers’ interests weren’t completely figured into it,’ he said. The labor movement, which usually allies with others on the left of the political spectrum, has to represent the people who work in the fossil fuel industry and the industries that depend on it. The Green New Deal proposes to eliminate the need for them, although it also calls for guaranteeing workers jobs through the federal government. In a speech last September at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, Trumka warned that while the labor movement backed a clean environment, it would oppose any proposal that did not address the concerns of workers in the energy industry and related sectors.” [Washington Examiner, 4/23/19 (-)]

U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin Denounces 'Green New Deal' As Socialism, Says Democrats Are 'OK With Deceiving The American People'. According to Tulsa World, “U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin spoke extensively against a Green New Deal on Tuesday, calling it ‘socialism’ and alleging that the proposal has nothing to do with climate change. Mullin, R-Okla., also questioned the motives behind it. ‘The Green New Deal, which is about climate change, right?’ Mullin said. ‘It has nothing to do with climate change. It has all to do with socialism.’ The proposed Green New Deal, House Resolution 109 and Senate Resolution 59, would establish a series of economic and environmental goals and projects through a 10-year national mobilization. The proposal’s name is a reference to a series of reforms and public works projects undertaken by President Franklin Roosevelt to put unemployed people to work building infrastructure during the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s program was known as the New Deal. The current proposal calls for goals and projects to build resilience to climate change-related disasters; repairs and upgrades to infrastructure; a national switch to zero-emission energy sources; the building or upgrading of energy-efficient power grids; the upgrading and construction of new buildings for maximum energy efficiency; working with farmers and ranchers to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector; reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; restoring and protecting various ecosystems; and making the United States the international leader in climate action.” [Tulsa world, 4/23/19 (-)]

Op-Ed: The Green New Deal Must Be All-Encompassing. According to an op-ed by Guido Girgenti and Aru Shiney-Ajay in The Nation, “The Green New Deal, introduced on February 7 by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey, is a long-awaited victory for the US climate movement. Finally, there’s a plan to transform the US economy at the speed and scale needed to avoid disastrous warming, while securing prosperity and justice for millions of Americans—especially those most vulnerable to climate change and most impacted by centuries of historic harm and marginalization. Weaving together climate policy with economic and racial justice prompted some liberals to fret that the resolution is ‘a needlessly long wish list.’ The New York Times editorial board agrees that ‘decarbonizing the economy is ambitious…and urgent,’ but insists ‘step-by-step measures’ like national electricity standards and ‘an infrastructure program’ will make for a better political approach. In other words: To stop climate change, go one reform at a time and focus on energy and infrastructure. Justice, equity—admirable goals, but not practical. Climate science itself has rebutted this gradualist argument again and again. We’re heading toward a catastrophic 3.3 degrees Celsius of warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is saying directly to policy-makers that the economic transformations needed to keep global average warming below a safe threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius will ‘require rapid and far-reaching transitions’ which are ‘unprecedented in terms of scale’ across major sectors.” [The Nation, 4/23/19 (=)]

Election 2020

Could Biden Build A New Climate Coalition? According to E&E News, “Joe Biden is betting a blue-collar campaign can win over a Democratic Party that’s grown more green than ever. The former vice president is expected to launch his White House bid this week backed by the major firefighters union. Last week, he hit the picket line with striking grocery workers in New England. And on Monday, a Pittsburgh union hall will host his first campaign event. That reliance on unions could preview how Biden balances a few of the 2020 race’s major dynamics. Many Democratic base voters — especially the young, liberal activists coolest toward Biden — want aggressive emissions reductions. Meanwhile, some unions — especially the building trades close to Biden — fear winding down fossil fuel projects could mean fewer jobs and lower pay. Even as climate policy grows more popular, those union concerns resonate in a party still reeling from labor-heavy states delivering President Trump the White House. Several polls have shown Democrats want electability more than anything else from their candidate. Democrats have heard the economic attacks before, and almost every candidate has pitched his or her climate plans as creating legions of new jobs. That’s won over some important unions in states like Nevada. But it’s been a harder sell in the industrial Midwest.” [E&E News, 4/24/19 (=)]

Sen. Cornyn Draws Challenge From Air Force Veteran. According to E&E News, “A Texas Democrat who narrowly lost a House race last fall today announced she will challenge veteran Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who has long looked out for the Lone Star State’s oil interests. MJ Hegar, 43, a former Air Force helicopter pilot who lost a race to GOP Rep. John Carter by 3 percentage points last year, entered what could quickly become a competitive and expensive race. She might first face a competitive Democratic primary against Rep. Joaquin Castro, who has also been eyeing a run. Cornyn, 67, will be seeking a fourth term and is a proven fundraiser who until recently served as the Senate GOP whip, the chamber’s No. 2 post. He is seen as a potential successor to current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. While independent analysts see Cornyn as the favorite, there is also a sense that Texas may be changing from a solidly Republican state to a battleground after former Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke nearly upset Republican Sen. Ted Cruz last year.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Inslee Doubles Down On Push For Climate Debate. According to E&E News, “Jay Inslee yesterday asked other Democratic presidential candidates to join his call for a primary debate entirely about climate change. So far, the Washington governor and outside environmental groups petitioning the Democratic National Committee for a climate-focused debate have had some limited success. Three other 2020 candidates — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro and Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) — have endorsed the idea. ‘During the 2016 presidential debates, just 5 minutes and 27 seconds were devoted to discussing climate change,’ Inslee wrote in an open letter to other 2020 candidates on Medium. ‘I’m sure you share my belief that we can not allow that to happen again in 2020.’ The letter ends with a call to sign Inslee’s petition to the DNC, which so far has not committed to a climate debate (Greenwire, April 17). However, the idea has gained some traction since Inslee launched his petition last week. A coalition of environmental groups, including the Sunrise Movement, 350 Action and Greenpeace USA, has launched its own push for a climate debate. And nearly 50,000 people have signed another petition from the U.S. Youth Climate Strike.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (+)]

Courts and Legal

Climate-Change Activists Worldwide Look To Courts As A Powerful New Ally. According to the Washington Post, “Alfredo Sendim was just 8 years old when his family was forced off its 1,100-acre farm in central Portugal amid a wave of nationalizations in the 1970s. The hard-left policies introduced during Portugal’s tumultuous path to democracy were later reversed, and the Sendim family has since returned to its land an hour’s drive from Lisbon. But in recent years, the now 52-year-old Sendim has grown increasingly worried he might have to leave again, perhaps for good. This time, it is not a government’s action he fears, but inaction — over climate change. Last May, Sendim and other plaintiffs from eight countries filed suit against European Union institutions, arguing that the bloc’s emissions cuts were inadequate and had exposed them to the ill effects of climate change. Evidence cited in the case includes devastating fires, record droughts and recurrent flooding. It is still unclear how far the lawsuit will proceed, but the likelihood of success has never been higher, according to expert and activists.” [Washington Post, 4/24/19 (+)]

D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA Rejection Of States’ Petition For OTC Expansion. According to Inside EPA, “A federal appeals court has upheld EPA’s rejection of a petition from East Coast states seeking an expanded Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) region where stricter ozone controls could be imposed to curb interstate air pollution, citing EPA’s discretion but noting states have other options for trying to force the agency to cut transported emissions. In a unanimous April 23 opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit says states failed to meet the high bar for overturning the agency’s denial of the OTC expansion petition. The bar for challenging a denial of the petition is the same as the Administrative Procedure Act standard for fighting an agency’s denial of a petition rulemaking, and is ‘highly deferential’ to EPA, the court says. Although states petitioned EPA under the Clean Air Act to broaden the OTC’s reach to more states, the court says the petitioners have other options under the air law to try forcing agency policies to curb cross-state pollution. And it notes that some states have already had tentative success in lawsuits using those other options. The ruling was not unexpected, after two of the judges hearing the case at Nov. 28 oral argument appeared to side with EPA’s claim that it has discretion for its decision to deny the petition.” [Inside EPA, 4/23/19 (-)]

Court Sides With EPA In Ozone Region Expansion Fight. According to Politico, “The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld EPA’s decision to deny a request to expand the Northeast Ozone Transport Region to include nine more states stretching from the mid-Atlantic to the Midwest. New York and other downwind states had petitioned EPA to expand the OTR, a move that would have required the upwind states to further reduce ozone-related pollution within their borders, even if they already meet national air quality standards. EPA ultimately rejected the states’ request, arguing that it can use other programs, including ‘good neighbor’ control requirements and so-called Section 126 petitions seeking controls on individual sources, to combat upwind pollution. ‘EPA’s denial of the States’ petition complied with the Clean Air Act and was a reasonable exercise of the agency’s discretion,’ wrote Judge Raymond Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee. He was joined in the opinion by Judges Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, and Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee. The panel concluded that the Clean Air Act gives EPA significant latitude to decide whether to expand the OTR. It also rejected the states’ complaints that the Trump EPA has often rejected ‘good neighbor’ and Section 126 petitions, noting that those decisions can be challenged on a case-by-case basis.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Watchdog Drops Challenge To Trump's Emergency Declaration. According to E&E News, “Public Citizen yesterday dropped its lawsuit challenging President Trump’s emergency declaration to speed construction of a U.S. border wall with Mexico, citing the administration’s vow not to use disputed funds for projects in the Rio Grande Valley area. The government watchdog group filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in February on behalf of three Texas landowners whose properties would be affected by a new wall and the Frontera Audubon Society (Greenwire, Feb. 18). Public Citizen had asked the federal court to find that Trump exceeded his authority under the Constitution and the National Emergencies Act when he directed the Defense Department to use previously appropriated funds for construction. But the Trump administration provided sworn declarations in the case that the federal government will not use those funds to build new barriers in the southern Texas region — and will instead rely only on money appropriated in the continuing resolution approved earlier this year — prompting Public Citizen to dismiss its complaint.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Court Rejects States' Bid To Expand Ozone Program. According to E&E News, “A group of Northeastern states cannot force EPA to add others to a regional program aimed at reducing ozone, a federal court ruled today. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a lawsuit from New York and seven other downwind neighbors pushing EPA to expand what’s known as the Ozone Transport Region, a collection of states required by EPA to enact tight restrictions on pollutants that contribute to ozone that drifts across state lines. The three-judge panel found EPA was acting within its discretion when it rejected the downwind states’ petition to add nine upwind states to the group. The Ozone Transport Region is one of several enforcement options for National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act. ‘The States have given us no reason to question EPA’s judgment that its current approach to regulating ‘the interstate transport of ozone is a proven, efficient, and cost-effective means of addressing downwind air quality concerns that the agency has employed and refined over nearly two decades,’’ Senior Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote for the court, quoting from EPA’s denial last year of the states’ petition.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Groundwater Policy Remains Muddled Until Supreme Court Rules. According to E&E News, “A new EPA policy addressing pollution that moves through groundwater was intended to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act but may serve to further complicate matters, at least in the near term. Trump appointees released the memo last week, declaring that any pollutants that travel through groundwater before reaching a surface waterway are beyond the purview of the bedrock environmental law. Clean Water Act permitting applies only to waterways under federal jurisdiction, which are almost always surface waters. Groundwater, meanwhile, generally falls to the states. Policymakers, courts and experts disagree on who’s in charge of regulating pollutants that enter groundwater and then migrate to federal surface water. EPA drew a hard line last week. If pollution is discharged to groundwater, it’s out of the agency’s hands under the Clean Water Act, no matter where it ends up (Greenwire, April 16). EPA officials say the firm position will help alleviate regulatory uncertainty on the issue, which has bounced through federal courts in recent years and is at play in the upcoming Supreme Court case County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Extreme Weather

Blamed For Wildfires, PG&E Seeks Higher Electricity Rates. According to the New York Times, “Pacific Gas & Electric has been blamed for starting some of California’s most devastating wildfires. Now it is asking state officials for permission to raise electricity rates to pay for safety improvements and to offset the financial risk of more wildfires. PG&E, working its way through its second bankruptcy in two decades, isn’t alone in its request. The state’s two other investor-owned utilities — Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric Company — are seeking similar rate increases, saying they need bigger profits to attract investment given their exposure to liability from fire-related damage claims. A California legal principle holds utilities responsible for damage from wildfires started by their equipment even when the companies were not negligent. In recent years, courts have ordered the state’s power companies to pay billions of dollars in damage to homeowners and businesses. PG&E, the state’s largest utility, estimates that it could be liable for an estimated $30 billion in damage for fires in 2017 and 2018.” [New York Times, 4/23/19 (=)]

'My Nightmare Has Already Happened'. According to E&E News, “A continental divide of geography, language, culture and tradition separates the Gullah/Geechee Nation of the south Atlantic coast and the U.S.-Mexico border city of Imperial Beach, Calif. But their elected leaders are bound by a common cause. They are trying to keep rising seas from destroying their ways of life. Speaking to a plenary audience of the National Adaptation Forum here yesterday, Queen Quet, chieftess of the Gullah/Geechee Nation, and Imperial Beach Mayor Serge Dedina implored the roughly 900 participants to act decisively to counter climate warming or risk losing irreplaceable pieces of America’s cultural fabric. ‘This is a lesson — get shit done, take risks, be innovative. And you know what? Never apologize ever for doing your job,’ said Dedina, who grew up in the middle-class community of 27,000 at the southernmost corner of California and still enjoys surfing in the nearby Pacific Ocean. Dedina made news in 2017 when he filed a lawsuit on behalf of Imperial Beach to force more than 30 fossil fuel companies to pay for damages caused to the community from sea-level rise (Climatewire, July 18, 2017).” [E&E News, 4/24/19 (=)]

Calif. May Toughen Rules For Homes At High Risk. According to E&E News, “Years of increasingly deadly California wildfires spurred lawmakers to consider regulations today that would toughen local governments’ requirements for approving housing developments in high-risk areas. A state Senate committee voted 8-3 yesterday to advance a measure requiring developers to increase fire protections, plan for evacuations, or prepare for residents who may need to ride out fires in safe areas. Local governments would also be required to try to make existing structures less likely to burn. ‘While this is not exactly the sexiest stuff in the world, it is critically important if we are going to be prepared for the next set of wildfires that run through our state, causing property damage and most importantly the loss of life,’ said Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara. A wildfire last fall in the Northern California town of Paradise was the deadliest U.S. wildfire in a century, killing 85 people and destroying nearly 14,000 homes. A year earlier, fire torched part of the San Francisco Bay Area city of Santa Rosa, killing 22 people and destroying more than 5,000 homes and other structures.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Will Flooding Stop If Trump Revives Vetoed Yazoo Pumps? According to E&E News, “EPA has used its veto power under the Clean Water Act only 13 times since 1972. None have been reversed. But Trump administration officials are giving a blocked flood-control project on Mississippi’s Yazoo River a second look. In 2008, the George W. Bush EPA vetoed the Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps Project that backers said could protect 1,000 homes, businesses and farms from flooding, because it would destroy between 67,000 and 200,000 acres of floodplain wetlands critical to migratory birds. Three years later, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, and opponents thought the Yazoo Pumps were gone for good. But devastating flooding in the Mississippi Delta this spring have put 500,000 acres under water. Pump supporters have urged the Trump administration to take another look at the project they say could have prevented the deluge. Project opponents long-concerned by the pumps’ environmental impacts and price tag say it’s more complicated. Yazoo Pumps, they argue, could actually worsen flooding in other areas of the Mississippi River Basin.” [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Research and Analysis

These Scientists Are Radically Changing How They Live To Cope With Climate Change. According to Buzzfeed News, “Kim Cobb traveled to the Kiritimati coral reefs in the spring of 2016 and found, to her horror, an underwater graveyard. A climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Cobb was alarmed to see this precious research site in the Pacific Ocean in such visible distress. The reefs were mostly dead after months of being in abnormally warm ocean waters. Then that fall Donald Trump was elected president, dashing Cobb’s hopes of the US implementing the environmental rules needed to prevent a warmer world. ‘It became clear after the election not only was that hope misplaced, but it was actually never going to be enough,’ Cobb told BuzzFeed News. And so, she underwent a ‘wholesale reorganization’ of her life, she said, including biking to work, rarely flying, going vegetarian, investing in expensive residential rooftop solar panels, and getting involved in her community’s new transportation plans. A growing number of scientists and activists are, like Cobb, taking dramatic personal steps to decrease their personal carbon footprint. But stopping the activities that make a real difference — flying, driving, eating meat, and having children — is for most people a big sacrifice, and even climate experts disagree about whether they have a moral imperative to do so.’” [Buzzfeed News, 4/23/19 (+)]

Climate 'Tipping Elements' Could Cost Trillions — Study. According to E&E News, “‘Tipping elements’ in the rapidly warming Arctic may add trillions of dollars to the long-term costs of climate change, a new study suggests. As temperatures rise, thawing permafrost may release large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, causing even more warming. At the same time, the disappearance of snow and ice cover — bright, reflective surfaces that help to beam sunlight away from the planet — will cause the Earth to absorb even more heat. The result is to worsen the progression of climate change even further. The problem is that these processes haven’t been adequately accounted for, if at all, in many of the models scientists use to make projections about the future. That means previous calculations may be underestimating the damages associated with long-term warming. The new study, published yesterday in the journal Nature Communications, suggests that the extra costs could amount to nearly $67 trillion over the next few hundred years under a trajectory consistent with the climate action that nations have promised so far under the Paris Agreement — that’s on top of the hundreds of trillions of dollars already predicted in baseline costs from climate change. Researchers estimate that the world would likely experience about 3 degrees Celsius of total warming under such a scenario.” [E&E News, 4/24/19 (=)]

NWF Poll: Voters Support Wildlife Protections. According to E&E News, ‘Voters in Colorado and New Mexico voiced ‘overwhelming’ support for efforts to safeguard wildlife migration corridors — ranging from curbing new oil and gas development to constructing more highway overpasses and underpasses — according to a new survey released yesterday. The National Wildlife Federation commissioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and RBI Strategies & Research to conduct the March 17-21 poll of 800 likely voters, split equally between the two states. Among those surveyed, 85 percent of Colorado voters and 84 percent of New Mexico voters said they would favor ‘increased efforts to protect the migration routes’ of elk, mule deer, pronghorn antelope and bighorn sheep. A majority of those polled, 56 percent in Colorado and 52 percent in New Mexico, offered the strongest support for new protections to the migration corridors. ‘Residents of New Mexico and Colorado clearly recognize the importance and pragmatism of keeping migration routes connected so that wildlife can thrive,’ said NWF Associate Vice President for Public Lands Tracy Stone-Manning in a statement. ‘Coloradans and New Mexicans cherish their lands and the wildlife that live on them. This poll confirms the enormous priority residents place on protecting them.’’ [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Industry and Business

Goldman Sachs Impact Report Shows Change Isn't Easy. According to E&E News, “Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is finding that it’s not easy being green. In its annual sustainability report, released Monday, the Wall Street firm reported that dedicated impact investing and environmental, social and governance assets under management rose to $17 billion at the end of 2018, from $11.3 billion a year earlier. Goldman also became the first bank to publish its report in line with Sustainability Accounting Standards Board metrics sought by investors to highlight material environmental issues in the business. But the report also showed that making progress is challenging. While Goldman has increased investment in green operations to $1.2 billion in 2018 from $701 million in 2017, it had more trouble gaining energy efficiency and managing carbon emissions. Employees seemed to leave their offices more often or go farther afield, with emissions from business travel rising 37% from two years earlier. With workers moving to new buildings in the U.K. and India, progress on Goldman’s energy-efficiency goal backslid to just a 10% reduction from 2015 levels, down from 12% in 2017. Water-reduction progress also went backward, and the firm disposed of more e-waste.” [E&E News, 4/24/19 (=)]

NextEra Dives Deeper Into Renewables, Batteries. According to E&E News, “NextEra Energy Inc. has added about 1 gigawatt of renewable energy projects to its portfolio while continuing to capitalize on the nation’s growing demand for storage. But executives during an earnings call yesterday remained quiet about other high-profile growth opportunities such as the future of Gulf Power Co. in the Florida Panhandle and its chances of buying the public power utility Santee Cooper from the state of South Carolina. Florida-based NextEra has been laser-focused on the storage market and earlier this year announced a deal with Portland General Electric Co. to build a combined wind-solar-battery unit that essentially will replicate a peaker plant. What’s more, the company’s large Florida electric utility said it will build the world’s largest solar power battery, allowing it to shutter two aging natural gas plants (Energywire, March 29). Electric companies nationwide are beginning to turn to battery storage as a cheaper and cleaner energy option. Batteries solve the intermittency problem of wind and solar and stand to dramatically change the energy industry, which is already moving away from large, centralized power plants.” [E&E News, 4/24/19 (=)]

Climate Protests

Support For Extinction Rebellion Soars After Easter Protests. According to The Guardian, “Support for Extinction Rebellion in the UK has quadrupled in the past nine days as public concern about the scale of the ecological crisis grows. Since the wave of protests began more than a week ago, 30,000 new backers or volunteers have offered their support to the environmental activist group. In the same period it has raised almost £200,000 – mostly in donations of between £10 and £50 – reaching a total of £365,000 since January. The group said the figures showed the public was waking up to the scale of the crisis, adding that pressure was growing on politicians to act. ‘What this shows is that Extinction Rebellion has spoken to people who have been wanting to act on this for such a long time but haven’t known how,’ said a spokesperson for the group. ‘The debate on this is over – ordinary people are now saying it is time for politicians to act with real urgency.’ The group said the number of people on the streets for the protests had dwindled from a high over the Easter bank holiday weekend but that the number of people who had signed up to support future demonstrations had risen from 10,000 before the protest to 40,000 by Wednesday morning.” [The Guardian, 4/24/19 (=)]

High-Profile Protests Spur State Bids To Tamp Down Unrest. According to E&E News, “Three years after demonstrations over an oil pipeline in Standing Rock, N.D., made national headlines, some states are moving to limit protests. At the urging of conservative activists and politicians, four states have adopted laws since the Standing Rock protests that seek to penalize both individual protesters and the organizers of those demonstrations. Many state proposals are based on a model promoted by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, and at least one is aimed at tamping down any protests that could arise during construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Fourteen other states have considered similar bills, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law’s ‘U.S. Protest Law Tracker.’ ALEC began pushing the idea after what it characterized as a spike in vandalism against pipelines and construction sites, including a 2017 incident in which someone used a torch to burn holes in a pipeline, said Grant Kidwell, who directs the ALEC Task Force on Energy, Environment and Agriculture (Greenwire, May 22, 2017). ‘When that happens, I don’t think people probably understand the risk they cause,’ Kidwell said.” [E&E News, 4/24/19 (=)]

Sea Walls Or Sand Dunes? Federal Agencies Don’t Agree. According to E&E News, ‘The Army Corps of Engineers is objecting to a plan to vastly expand a federal environmental protection zone along the East Coast, warning that it could ‘increase the threats to life, safety and property.’ The Army Corps issued its warning in a three-page letter last week to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is considering adding 141,000 acres to the coastal zone across five states. Development restrictions in the zone make it difficult for the Army Corps to build protective structures such as sea walls and levees and to replenish eroded beaches. The Army Corps’ objections reveal an unusual dispute between two federal agencies with a common goal — protecting coastal communities — but vastly different approaches. The Army Corps, an agency in the Defense Department, is the nation’s chief builder of ‘hard structures’ aimed at protecting against the effects of climate change. FWS, which is part of the Interior Department, is seeking to expand coastal conservation areas to help protect species and habitat and to let natural formations such as marshes and barrier islands absorb storm surges. A long list of environmental groups and state agencies have lined up in support of the FWS proposal, which they say will provide stronger protection against sea-level rise than structures built by the Army Corps.’ [E&E News, 4/24/19 (=)]

Other Agencies

Homeland Security

DHS Waives Environmental, Native American Protections To Replace Border Barriers. According to Politico, ‘The Department of Homeland Security today waived environmental, historic preservation and Native American religious laws to replace portions of the border wall in Arizona and New Mexico. Citing the department’s authority under Section 102(c) of the 1996 Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan waived enforcement of the various protections to build replacement barriers near Yuma, Arizona, and Columbus, New Mexico. In the areas near Yuma, DHS will replace vehicle and pedestrian fencing with ‘an eighteen to thirty foot barrier.’ In the areas near Columbus, DHS will replace vehicle barriers with a similar barrier and add roads and lighting. In both instances, McAleenan said, drug smugglers and migrants have crossed the border in large numbers.’ [Politico, 4/23/19 (-)]

Interior

Six Interior Officials Under Ethics Investigation. According to The Hill, “The Interior Department’s top watchdog is investigating six agency officials for potential ethics violations The Interior Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has launched a probe into the half-dozen high-ranking agency officials for continued close ties to former employers, including an energy company and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The investigation follows a February request from the Campaign Legal Center, a political action group, to investigate the various Interior staffers for failing to adhere to their government ethics pledge. Under the pledge, the employees agreed to refrain from matters involving former employers or clients. Full-time political appointees cannot participate for two years in matters linked to their former positions. The pledge is considered enforceable under the law. ‘Several political appointees at Interior appear to have violated these provisions, which are specifically designed to prevent public officials from using their positions to favor former employers or lobbying clients,’ the Campaign Legal Center wrote. ‘Taken together, the violations outlined below suggest a disturbing pattern of misconduct across the Department of the Interior that warrants your office’s immediate attention.’” [The Hill, 4/24/19 (=)]

IG Digs Into Complaints About Trump Appointees. According to E&E News, ‘The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General says an ‘investigation has been opened’ in response to complaints lodged against a half-dozen current or former senior political appointees. The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint Feb. 20, citing alleging improper meetings held by Senior Deputy Director for Intergovernmental and External Affairs Benjamin Cassidy, White House liaison Lori Mashburn, Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs Doug Domenech and Deputy Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs Timothy Williams, among others. In a letter dated April 18 and made public today, Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall advised the Campaign Legal Center that a ‘related’ investigation was initiated ‘after reviewing the information you provided, in addition to other information available to us’ (Greenwire, Feb. 20). The complaint letter and accompanying exhibits enumerated instances where the Trump administration appointees allegedly met or conferred with past employers such as the National Rifle Association or the conservative Heritage Foundation.’ [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Interior Launches Influence Investigation Into 6 Senior Employees. According to Politico, ‘The Interior Department inspector general has opened an investigation into whether six senior department officials used their positions to swing policy favors to former employers. The letter from outgoing Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall comes after the office launched a probe earlier this month into whether Interior Secretary David Bernhardt used his position to help clients of the lobbying firm he had worked at before joining the Trump administration. ‘After reviewing the information you provided, in addition to other information available to us, a related investigation has been opened,’ Kendall wrote in the April 18 letter to the Campaign Legal Center, the nonpartisan watchdog group that filed the complaint. The complaint, filed in February, cited several Interior officials who had met with former employers and appeared to influence Interior policy to help those organizations. In one example, Interior settled a lawsuit with the Texas Public Policy Foundation within months after the group met with Doug Domenech, an Interior assistant secretary who had previously worked for the conservative think tank.’ [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

White House Ceremony Marks Bernhardt’s Rise. According to E&E News, ‘Interior Secretary David Bernhardt caps his professional ascension today with a ceremonial swearing-in at the White House. The late afternoon event to be held in the Roosevelt Room will effectively polish a position that Bernhardt, technically, already holds. The 49-year-old Colorado native took over Interior’s top job several hours after the Senate confirmed him April 11. ‘To say it was humbling to meet with the president to discuss the department’s mission, and to then be entrusted with leading it, is a significant understatement,’ Bernhardt advised employees on April 15, adding that ‘it is a privilege to write to you in a new capacity.’ Bernhardt previously served as deputy secretary since August 2017, and during the George W. Bush administration he held a succession of increasingly important jobs culminating in his Senate-confirmed service as solicitor. As secretary, Bernhardt will be paid $196,700 a year, an 11% increase from his salary as deputy. Set for 3:45 p.m., today’s ceremonial swearing-in will be closed to the press but attended by Bernhardt’s wife, Gena, and children, William and Katherine, as well as several Interior employees. President Trump will officiate in the West Wing room adorned by a stylized portrait of Theodore Roosevelt on horseback from his Rough Rider days.’ [E&E News, 4/23/19 (=)]

Opinion Pieces

Op-Ed: John Stossel: The Green New Deal And The One Thing No One Ever Wants To Talk About. According to an op-ed by John Stossel in Fox News, “The Green New Deal’s goal is to move America to zero carbon emissions in 10 years. ‘That’s a goal you could only imagine possible if you have no idea how energy is produced,’ James Meigs, former editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, says in my latest video. ‘Renewable is so inconsistent,’ he adds. ‘You can’t just put in wind turbines and solar panels. You have to build all this infrastructure to connect them with energy consumers.’ Because wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, ‘renewable’ energy requires many more transmission lines and bigger batteries. Unfortunately, says Meigs: ‘You have to mine materials for batteries. Those mines are environmentally hazardous. Disposing of batteries is hazardous.’ ‘Batteries are a lousy way to store energy,’ adds physicist Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Also, the ingredients of green energy, like battery packs, are far from green. ‘You have to consume 100 barrels of oil in China to make that battery pack,’ he explains. ‘Dig up 1,000 pounds of stuff to process it. Digging is done with oil, by big machines, so we’re consuming energy to ‘save’ energy -- not a good path to go.’” [Fox News, 4/23/19 (-)]

Op-Ed: It's Time For Nations To Unite Around An International Green New Deal. According to an op-ed by Yanis Varoufakis and David Adler in The Guardian, “In times of crisis and catastrophe, children are often forced to grow up quickly. We are now witnessing this premature call to action on a planetary scale. As the adults in government accelerate their consumption of fossil fuels, children are leading the campaign against our species’ looming extinction. Our survival now depends on the prospects for a global movement to follow their lead and demand an International Green New Deal. Several countries have proposed their own versions of a Green New Deal. Here in Europe, DiEM25 and our European Spring coalition are campaigning under the banner of a detailed Green New Deal agenda. In the UK, a new campaign is pushing similar legislation with MPs such as Caroline Lucas and Clive Lewis. And in the US, dogged activists in the Sunrise Movement are working with representatives such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to push their proposal to the front of the political agenda. But these campaigns have largely remained siloed. Their advisers may exchange notes and ideas, but no strategy has emerged to coordinate these campaigns in a broader, global framework. Unfortunately, climate change knows no borders. The US may be the second-largest polluter in the world, but it makes up less than 15% of global greenhouse emissions. Leading by example is simply not enough.” [The Guardian, 4/24/19 (+)]

Op-Ed: Conserving Tiny Forage Fish, The Heroes Of Our Shared Ocean Ecosystem. According to an op-ed by Davide Yarnold and Glenn Hughes in The Hill, “Atlantic Puffins, those charismatic little seabirds with wildly colorful bills, are warning us of big trouble in the ocean. Puffins now must travel further and dive deeper to find the tiny fish their chicks need to survive. Even so, Puffin parents increasingly are coming up short and last year many chicks starved. Why should we care if Puffins can’t find the fish they need for their young pufflings? The tiny forage fish they live on — including sardines, anchovies, herring — are the heart of the entire marine food web. Dozens of species of sea birds, whales and other sea mammals can’t live without them. The multi-billion dollar recreational and commercial fishing industries that support millions of American jobs depend on them. The economy of every state in the country — whether it touches an ocean, or has waterways that feed into oceans — is impacted by the health of forage fish. Humans use forage fish as bait for bigger fish and lobsters. We grind them up for pet food, fertilizer and cosmetics and we pound them into fish oil. Commercial trawlers outfitted with nets the size of a football field snare millions of small fish at a time.” [The Hill, 4/23/19 (=)]

Op-Ed: What Can Fight Climate Change And Antibiotic Resistance? More Sustainable Meat. According to an op-ed by Jessica Almy in The Hill, “The United States government has addressed many threats and met many challenges in the past. From the New Deal’s response to the Great Depression to the Defense Department creating the precursor to the internet, our government has a long history of solving problems and creating entire fields. It makes sense that when facing overwhelming problems, we call for the next moonshot. At a time when we couldn’t even put a satellite in orbit, President Kennedy called for us to land someone on the moon and return them safely to Earth — and to do so not sometime in the future but before the close of that decade. Many people thought this was impossible, but with strong leadership and huge mobilization of resources and talent, we did walk on the moon just eight years after Kennedy’s speech. Today, climate change is drowning cities, generating killer heatwaves, burning forests, wiping out crops and spreading diseases — and getting worse every year. The scope and severity of this threat requires a new moonshot. Yet, according to a review by the UK government, global warming may not even be the greatest threat to humanity. We are staring down the barrel of antimicrobial-resistant superbugs. These superbugs already kill hundreds of thousands of people around the world every year and are projected to soon kill many millions.” [The Hill, 4/23/19 (=)]

Op-Ed: Time To Keep The Promises For Farmers To Compete In Energy. According to an op-ed by James Talent in The Hill, “Over the last few years, biofuel policy has become a major flashpoint of conflict between rural supporters of President Trump and oil lobbyists working in Washington. The last administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency handed out dozens of secret exemptions to big oil companies, allowing them to sidestep long standing renewable energy laws. It is an approach that cut billions of gallons of homegrown ethanol out of the market, destroying a key segment of the rural economy. As a result, ethanol consumption in the United States fell for the first time in 20 years. Farmers were hit the worst and now carry the highest debt income ratio since the farm bust of the 1980s. Calls to the Farm Aid crisis hotline have doubled. President Trump, who vowed that his administration is protecting ethanol, fired the former EPA chief and appointed Andrew Wheeler to take over, but the damage has yet to be repaired. In fact, it may be getting worse. Wheeler announced more oil industry handouts last month, bringing the total to 2.6 billion gallons over two years, which is enough to eliminate the market for nearly one billion bushels of grain. Rural Republicans who gave the new EPA administrator the benefit of the doubt are understandably livid.” [The Hill, 4/23/19 (=)]

States

California

Calif. Signals New Fight With Trump Admin. According to E&E News, ‘California has signaled a potential new legal fight with President Trump over his moves to deliver more water to the state’s farmers. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) administration on Friday said it will review the environmental impacts of water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the state’s water hub, under state law for the first time. Historically, the state has relied on federal assessments under the Endangered Species Act for the delta. But the Trump administration in February indicated it was reopening those biological opinions in an effort to fulfill a key campaign promise and ship more water to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources, said the decision to seek an environmental permit under state law is consistent with its management of the state’s water resources. ‘California’s commitment to environmental values is unsurpassed and we will continue to operate our water infrastructure in accordance with state law, policies and those values,’ she said in a statement.’ [E&E News, 4/23/19 (+)]

POLITICO California Pro: New Oil Wells Would Face Half-Mile Buffer From Homes Under State Bill. According to Politico California, ‘A bill that would impose a nearly half-mile buffer between new fossil fuel wells and homes, schools and hospitals has cleared its first committee, despite strong opposition from unionized oil and gas workers and their employers. CA AB345 (19R) by Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) would establish a 2,500-foot setback for all new oil and gas development that isn’t on federal land. Some cities and counties already have their own cushions, but A.B. 345 would be California’s first statewide standard. Muratsuchi is seeking the setback to protect residents from fossil fuel well emissions, especially people of color living in low-income areas who have been historically and disproportionately affected by local air pollution. Although he did not invoke the possibility of fires and explosions tied to oil and gas development, injuries and fatalities from those events in Colorado residential areas in recent years weighed on the minds of voters there last year when considering a 2,500-foot setback ballot initiative, which they ultimately rejected.’ [Politico California, 4/23/19 (=)]

Iowa

Grassley Supports Giving Pork Industry More Regulatory Authority. According to The Gazette, “Iowa’s senior U.S. senator says he supports the Trump administration’s plan to give the pork industry more authority to regulate itself, a plan that includes cutting federal meat inspectors at a time the United States is guarding against a swine virus now hitting China. ‘It’s similar to what Obama did with chickens and it’s working OK with chickens,’ Sen. Chuck Grassley said after a town hall meeting Tuesday in Independence. ‘I think you’re concluding that just because you have government inspection you don’t have any diseases that get out of control. Don’t always have faith in government inspection because we’ve had a lot of recalls of meat.’ During the Obama administration, while former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack was U.S. agriculture secretary, poultry plant owners were given more power over safety inspections, though that administration canceled plans to increase slaughter-line speeds. Starting as soon as next month, the Trump administration plans to reduce government inspectors at pork plants by about 40 percent — replacing them with plant employees — and impose no limits on line speeds, according to an article in the Washington Post.” [The Gazette, 4/23/19 (=)]

North Carolina

Talk Of Forming Grid Operator Erupts In Regulated Carolinas. According to E&E News, “South Carolina lawmakers have begun debating whether the state’s electric companies should form an organized energy market, piquing questions this week of North Carolina doing the same. Such a move would break up the current structure of regulated electric companies and cooperatives in South Carolina, which advocates argue would lead to cleaner energy options and lower costs for customers. It also would be the latest step in efforts to reform the Palmetto State’s energy climate since a collapse of a nuclear plant more than a year ago. In North Carolina, the desire to shift from a market dominated by regulated electric companies is being shaped by different forces. The discussion is coming at a time when Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corp. has proposed a multiyear rate plan to pay for major projects, including grid upgrades. Clean energy advocates also have accused the company of taking steps to control solar and cornering the market on storage. Discussions center around the potential creation of a regional transmission organization, a federally regulated operator that controls and monitors the electric grid across multiple states. But the Carolinas are far from united. Plans to study a regional transmission entity have partial legislative approval in South Carolina. In North Carolina, the talk is just that for now, but it’s starting to get louder.” [E&E News, 4/24/19 (=)]

Chad Ellwood

Research Associate

cellwood@cacampaign.com

202.448.2877 ext. 119