TOP PRUITT HEADLINES

 

Pruitt Focuses On 'Process,' Not Science, Of Climate Finding.

 

EPA Again Bars Reporters From Water Pollution Event.

 

Flint Congressman’s Staff Reportedly Barred From EPA Event On Water Contamination.

 

Poll: Nearly Half Of Americans Aren’t Familiar With Pruitt Controversies.

 

New Documents Show Why Scott Pruitt Wanted A “Campaign-Style” Media Operation.

 

 

OTHER TOP HEADLINES

 

In An Internal Memo, The White House Considered Whether To Simply ‘Ignore’ Federal Climate Research.

 

Oil Giants To Tell Judge Everyone Adds To Warming.

 

Strict Curbs On Global Warming Would Buoy World Economy: Study.

 

 

 

White House and Diplomacy

 

In An Internal Memo, The White House Considered Whether To Simply ‘Ignore’ Federal Climate Research. According to The Washington Post, “White House officials last year weighed whether to simply ‘ignore’ climate studies produced by government scientists or to instead develop ‘a coherent, fact-based message about climate science,’ according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post. The document, drafted Sept. 18 by Michael Catanzaro, President Trump’s special assistant for domestic energy and environmental policy at the time, highlights the dilemma the administration has faced over climate change since Trump took office. Even as Trump’s deputies have worked methodically to uproot policies aimed at curbing the nation’s carbon output, the administration’s agencies continue to produce reports showing that climate change is happening, is human-driven and is a threat to the United States. Catanzaro, who prepared the memo for a meeting of senior White House and agency officials that took place a couple of days later, asked whether the Trump administration should ‘consider having a firm position on and a coherent, fact-based message about climate science — specifically, whether, and to what extent, anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting the climate system, and what level of concern that warrants.’ The memo presented three options without endorsing any of them: conducting a ‘red team/blue team’ exercise to ‘highlight uncertainties in climate science’; more formally reviewing the science under the Administrative Procedure Act; or deciding to just ‘ignore, and not seek to characterize or question, the science being conducted by Federal agencies and outside entities.’” [The Washington Post, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Trump Officials Discussed Whether To 'Ignore' Climate Data: Report. According to The Hill, “White House officials discussed the possibility of ignoring federal climate data, according to an internal memo that highlights the Trump administration’s struggles with established climate change science. The Washington Post reports that a memo, drafted in September by Michael Catanzaro, the then-White House special assistant for domestic energy and environmental policy, discussed three options for dealing with federal scientists’ data about the effects of man-made climate change. The options included highlighting uncertainties in the data, reviewing the scientific studies under the Administrative Procedure Act, or simply ignoring them altogether, the Post reports. None of the options suggested by Catanzaro involved publicly espousing the dangers of climate change highlighted in the data. White House officials have not taken a formal stance on man-made climate change, and the Trump administration has faced criticism in the past for removing references to climate change from official websites.” [The Hill, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Related Doc. According to Politico, “Trump has staffed his administration with oil and auto industry insiders, according to a new report from ethics watchdog group Public Citizen. The report breaks down industry influence by the numbers and finds 52 administration staff members have oil and gas ties, 15 with auto industry ties and 10 who have ties to both. Those industry ties are most concentrated at EPA, Interior and the White House.” [Politico, 5/24/18 (=)]

 

Sinkhole On Lawn Inspires Swamp Jokes, Science Lesson. According to E&E News, “After reporters discovered a sinkhole on the North Lawn of the White House, Twitter had its fun with ‘drain the swamp’ jokes, but geologists saw an educational opportunity. National Park Service spokeswoman Jenny Anzelmo-Sarles confirmed yesterday that the sinkhole was located near the entrance to the press briefing room. Twitter users were quick to poke fun, riffing on President Trump’s promise to ‘drain the swamp’ and eliminate corruption in Washington. But geologists say there’s some accuracy to the phrase. There is a ‘legitimate swamp’ around the White House, said Jess Phoenix, a volcanologist, geologist and Democrat running for a congressional seat in California. It’s more common for sinkholes to form in states with precarious bedrock such as limestone, Phoenix said, citing Texas and Florida as two examples. But the geology in the nation’s capital is still susceptible, especially after the significant rainfall this month, she said. ‘It’s all river deposits,’ Phoenix said. ‘It’s sort of fluids interacting with solids, and gravity taking effect, not the gates of hell opening.’” [E&E News, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Federal Agencies

 

EPA

 

AP | Top Aide Cancels Plans To Leave Pruitt’s EPA. According to The Washington Post, “A top aide to Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt has called off plans to leave. Lincoln Ferguson, a senior adviser at the agency, said Wednesday that John Konkus had decided to remain in his job as deputy associate administrator for public affairs. Konkus had been among four senior Pruitt aides whose departures were abruptly announced this spring. Pruitt has been dealing with ongoing federal probes into his spending and other ethics matters. Pruitt has told lawmakers that subordinates were to blame in any wrongdoing. Konkus previously worked as a Republican political consultant and helped on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. The EPA had said earlier in May that Konkus was leaving for the Small Business Administration. Ferguson gave no details on the decision to stay.” [The Washington Post, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Deregulatory Proponents Urge Lawmakers To Codify Trump's 2-1 Order. According to Inside EPA, “Supporters of the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda are urging lawmakers to codify President Donald Trump’s executive order (EO) forcing OSHA, EPA and other agencies to repeal two existing rules for every new measure, though their call is drawing strong pushback from Democrats who say it will undermine protections by limiting rules’ estimated benefits and devalue human lives. Republican lawmakers held a May 23 hearing before the House Workforce Protections subcommittee to seek testimony on ways to build on the economic successes that they say stem from the administration’s deregulatory efforts and their tax reform legislation. ‘Despite the significant improvements to the economy thanks to regulatory reform and Republican-led tax reform efforts, more work is needed to build on this success. We still have 6.3 million Americans out of work, and we cannot afford to stop looking for ways to improve economic conditions and support American workers,’ said subcommittee Chairman Bradley Byrne (R-AL) in his opening statement. While witnesses representing small business and free-market groups touted the rollback of several Obama-era rules, some urged lawmakers to seek greater oversight over agency’s ability to implement new regulations by codifying EO 13771.” [Inside EPA, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Chemicals Summit

 

Flint Congressman’s Staff Reportedly Barred From EPA Event On Water Contamination. According to Think Progress, “Wednesday did not prove any better for the agency’s image. In a tweet, Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI) said the EPA barred his staff from attending a summit on water contamination. What’s especially concerning about this move is that Kildee represents Flint, Michigan, the site of an ongoing toxic water crisis. It shouldn’t have been a surprise to EPA officials that Flint’s congressional representative would find it necessary to attend an event concerning the very issue plaguing his constituents. The state government recently stopped providing bottled water to the town, arguing that Flint’s water is now safe. This move did not sit well with residents. On Tuesday, Gov. Rick Snyder’s (R) office was stormed by 100 protesters who demanded the state begin providing bottled water once again. And as Mother Jones has reported, residents aren’t buying local officials’ claims and scientists are hesitant to agree with the government that the water is safe to drink. Kildee wasn’t the only member of Congress with something to say about the controversy. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) questioned who the EPA was really serving with this event, saying on Twitter that the agency was ‘more concerned with protecting the EPA chemical summit from the public than it is with protecting the public from harmful chemicals.’” [Think Progress, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Media

 

SEJ Slams Pruitt Over Closed Meeting. According to E&E News, “The largest professional organization for environmental journalists slammed EPA this afternoon for its mishandling of reporters at a summit on toxic nonstick substances and the agency’s role in suppressing a health report on the chemicals. ‘The Society of Environmental Journalists strenuously objects to the Environmental Protection Agency’s selective barring of news reporters from your ‘National Leadership Summit’ on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water, and to the EPA physically forcing an Associated Press reporter from the premises,’ SEJ President Bobby Magill said in a letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt. EPA initially only invited 10 news outlets to agency headquarters to cover the first hour of the two-day meeting of state, national and private-sector leaders. Yesterday, E&E News and CNN were turned away at the door, along with the AP reporter. After uproar in the press and on Capitol Hill, EPA opened the afternoon session to all reporters. But journalists from E&E News and other outlets were again blocked from attending today’s events, which were limited to state and federal regulators. ‘While informing the public via news media is just good policy, holding the meeting open to the public is also legally required,’ Magill said, citing the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act. ‘There is no justification for secrecy here.’ SEJ’s president went on to urge Pruitt to ‘repudiate this hostile approach’ to the press, consistently give reporters access to important events, ‘never discriminate’ against outlets based on their coverage, and accommodate and answer questions from journalists.” [E&E News, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

This EPA Forum Should Have Been About Water Pollution. Instead, It Sparked Another Controversy. According to The Washington Post, “For the Environmental Protection Agency, a gathering of state and tribal officials at agency headquarters Tuesday was supposed to be about stopping a dangerous class of industrial chemicals from making their way into waterways. Instead, it became about stopping reporters. On Tuesday, officials at the EPA barred reporters from three news organizations from covering in person a speech delivered by Administrator Scott Pruitt. One reporter even said EPA guards took a reporter by the shoulders to forcibly remove her from the building. The exclusion of journalists from CNN, the Associated Press and E&E News is the latest example of a lack of transparency from the EPA, according to critics from both the environmentalism and journalism worlds. A day the EPA meant to highlight the ‘critical national leadership’ it is providing on containing the toxic chemicals instead turned the spotlight on the Trump administration’s efforts to contain coverage of the agency as Pruitt faces several spending and management controversies. … The access issues weren’t just about journalists. Even before the EPA opened its doors to about 200 representatives of local governments and industry groups, the agency came under criticism for excluding some members from communities contaminated by PFASs.” [The Washington Post, 5/23/18 (+)]

 

EPA Again Bars Reporters From Water Pollution Event. According to The Hill, “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is barring reporters from attending the second day of an event on drinking water pollution. Journalists from The Associated Press, Politico and other outlets said EPA staff at the agency’s Washington, D.C., headquarters blocked them from entering the National Leadership Summit on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on Wednesday. EPA communications staff had told news outlets in advance that the sessions would be closed to journalists. The decision to ban reporters follows a high-profile incident Tuesday in which an AP reporter, Ellen Knickmeyer, was allegedly shoved by an EPA guard when she tried to enter the event. Knickmeyer and journalists for E&E and CNN were not invited to opening remarks at the event on Tuesday morning even as invitations were extended to reporters from other news outlets, including from The Hill. Those journalists then went to the EPA headquarters to demand entry. The EPA later apologized to Knickmeyer and allowed journalists to enter for the afternoon session Tuesday. EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox defended the decision to bar reporters entirely from Wednesday’s session, saying it isn’t a meeting covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) or otherwise appropriate for media attendance.” [The Hill, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

EPA Bars Reporters From Toxic Chemicals Summit Again. According to Politico, “EPA staff Wednesday morning barred POLITICO and reporters from at least two other publications from entering a national summit on toxic chemicals. … Wednesday, it is limited to the agencies that handle chemical oversight and state regulators, according to an EPA statement. But the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that ‘any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup’ used by an agency to provide recommendations to the federal government should be open to the public. Reporters from E&E News and Crown Publishing earlier Wednesday morning waited outside the meeting and were not permitted to enter. ‘The National Leadership Summit on PFAS scheduled is not a federal advisory committee event,’ EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox argued in an emailed statement. ‘The purpose of this event is for EPA’s state, tribal, and federal government partners and national organizations to share a range of individual perspectives on the Agency’s actions to date and path forward on [the chemicals]. The Agency looks forward to hearing from all stakeholders on these crucial issues.’” [Politico, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Secret Science

 

Comment Period Extended. According to Politico, “EPA extended the comment period for its controversial ‘secret science’ proposal that was set to end on May 30. The public will now have until Aug 16 to make their voices heard on the proposal to ban the use of studies that don’t publicly disclose all data. EPA also said it would hold a public hearing July 17 in Washington on the proposal rule, heeding public requests to do so.” [Politico, 5/24/18 (=)]

 

Scott Pruitt

 

Pruitt Focuses On 'Process,' Not Science, Of Climate Finding. According to E&E News, “EPA’s air chief says Scott Pruitt is concerned that individuals with ‘alternative views’ on climate change didn’t get a chance to weigh in on whether a warming planet is hurting humanity. Bill Wehrum told the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week that Pruitt is unsatisfied with the way the agency reached its conclusions that climate change is harmful to human health. The administrator is not currently planning to reopen that determination, called an endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, Wehrum said. The comments come as conservative groups close to Pruitt are pressuring him to weaken the endangerment finding, a key determination that gives the agency its authority to regulate greenhouse gases in sectors across the economy. Critics of the administration suggest that Wehrum is discrediting the process by which the finding was established, rather than the climate science that underlies it, because it’s a softer target. California Rep. Scott Peters (D), who pressed Wehrum on Pruitt’s climate views last week, described his comments as a diversionary tactic. ‘When you don’t want to talk about product, you talk about process. It’s all bunk. Everyone at that agency knows there is health impacts of climate change,’ Peters told E&E News. ‘I just think that the whole notion of the Environmental Protection Agency expressing this ignorance about climate change is pretty damn Orwellian,’ Peters added.” [E&E News, 5/24/18 (=)]

 

Poll: Nearly Half Of Americans Aren’t Familiar With Pruitt Controversies. According to The Hill, “Nearly half of all Americans aren’t familiar with the spending and ethics scandals surrounding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt. In a poll commissioned by Axios and conducted by HarrisX, 48 percent of respondents said they weren’t familiar with the scandals. Only 12 percent said they were ‘very’ familiar, and 36 percent were ‘somewhat’ familiar. But four in five respondents said that if the EPA’s inspector general finds Pruitt ‘misused his position,’ he should be fired, even if President Trump approves of him. The survey results suggest that, so far, Pruitt may be safe in the minds of many Americans simply because they don’t even know about the charges leveled against him, despite efforts by Democrats and environmentalists to highlight the controversies nationwide. But if Pruitt is found to have done something wrong, the public would be strongly in favor of kicking him out of office. A poll commissioned by a left-wing group last month found that only 29 percent of Americans approve of Pruitt’s job performance.” [The Hill, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

New Documents Show Why Scott Pruitt Wanted A “Campaign-Style” Media Operation. According to Mother Jones, “Internal records from the Environmental Protection Agency reveal the agency had hired a Republican firm last December to ‘directly support’ Administrator Scott Pruitt and senior EPA officials with ‘an aggressive style of campaign-style’ media monitoring. The EPA wanted the firm to focus on national outlets, a number of right-wing outlets, and media coverage in Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma. In December, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt approved a $120,000 no-bid contract with the Republican opposition research firm Definers Corp., which is part of an overtly partisan America Rising network founded by longtime Republican operatives Matt Rhoades and Joe Pounder. The contract was short-lived. It was mutually canceled by the EPA and Definers a few days after Mother Jones first exposed its existence and more details emerged about the firm’s efforts on researching EPA career employees who spoke out against their boss, Pruitt. … According to the arrangement with Definers, the news clippings service would at a minimum have included real-time monitoring of a set list of publications that included the Tulsa and Oklahoma City papers, as well as conservative outlets like the Daily Caller, Breitbart Media, the conservative blog Hot Air, the Trump-friendly Independent Journal Review, and the website PJ Media. It also included the NTK Network, a conservative website that runs un-bylined content and shares overlapping staff and offices with Definers Corp. and America Rising. Pruitt’s EPA has been particularly responsive to the press coverage from these kinds of outlets. The agency has amplified any positive Pruitt coverage from the EPA accounts and has granted exclusive interviews to Breitbart and radio host Hugh Hewitt (whose son works in the EPA’s public affairs office).” [Mother Jones, 5/23/18 (+)]

 

DOE

 

Senators Press FERC On Integrating Renewables. According to E&E News, “Sixteen Democratic senators led by Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island are urging federal regulators to act quickly on advising electric grid operators on how to integrate distributed energy resources (DERs) such as renewables into their day-to-day operations. ‘DER adoption and renewable energy aggregation continue to grow in the United States, driven by state and federal policies as well as consumers choosing cost-competitive innovative technologies such as smart thermostats, electric vehicles, and customer-sited energy generation and storage,’ the lawmakers wrote yesterday to Kevin McIntyre, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The senators told McIntyre that DERs can help improve grid reliability and resilience, echoing a popular theme in today’s discussion of electricity policy. The consideration of what to do about DERs was part of a proposed rule encouraging energy storage technologies. But FERC in February finalized the energy storage portion of the rule and carried over its consideration of DERs for further public comment and study.” [E&E News, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Other Agencies

 

NASA Head Jim Bridenstine, Once Doubtful, Confirms He Believes Humans Are The Leading Cause Of Climate Change. According to The Washington Post, “NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, who previously questioned whether humans are primarily responsible for climate change, left no doubt Wednesday that his position has changed. Signifying a striking conversion, he confirmed that he now accepts that humans are, in fact, the leading cause. During testimony before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice, science and related agencies, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) asked Bridenstine whether he believes greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate change. Bridenstine quickly replied in the affirmative. ‘The National Climate Assessment, that includes NASA, and it includes the Department of Energy, and it includes NOAA, has clearly stated it is extremely likely, [that] is the language they use, that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, and I have no reason to doubt the science that comes from that,’ Bridenstine said. Schatz followed up by asking, ‘Is it fair to call this an evolution of your views?’ Bridenstine replied: ‘Yes.’ On further questioning from Schatz, Bridenstine also committed to defending the independence and integrity of climate science at NASA.” [The Washington Post, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Judiciary And Legal

 

Oil Giants To Tell Judge Everyone Adds To Warming. According to E&E News, “Lawsuits that blame oil companies for damaging cities in California by sharpening climate change should be tossed out to avoid a cascade of similar cases, according to legal arguments being made by an oil company today. Lawyers for Chevron Corp. plan to make that assertion at a hearing that could determine whether the cases filed by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland go forward. Judge William Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco will decide whether to dismiss the lawsuits against the world’s five biggest oil companies: Chevron, BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. The cities argue that the oil giants make products that create a public nuisance by triggering sea-level rise and other impacts when they’re burned in cars. They claim the companies knew about the damaging effects of climate change decades ago but hid it to protect their profits. Josh Lipshutz, a lawyer for the companies, told reporters yesterday that the cities’ claims could spark runaway court cases and heap massive amounts of liability on anyone who releases greenhouse gases. ‘Plaintiffs’ claims, if accepted, would create an unprecedented global warming tort that could be asserted against any company, government or individual whose activity has contributed to global warming — essentially anyone on Earth,’ Lipshutz said. ‘That is contrary to federal and state law, as well as common sense.’” [E&E News, 5/24/18 (=)]

 

DOJ, California Cities Spar Over Climate Nuisance Suits Before Key Hearing. According to Inside EPA, “Trump administration lawyers and two major California cities are squaring off over the cities’ novel climate nuisance suit against fossil fuel producers, as a federal district court is scheduled to consider an industry motion to dismiss the case based on the claim it is displaced by federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The legal wrangling comes ahead of a May 24 hearing on the producers’ motion to dismiss People of the State of California v. BP, et al., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. … ‘If the case proceeds, it will be a new legal frontier for climate liability,’ writes Georgetown Law professor Lisa Heinzerling in a May 22 op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News. Judge William Alsup earlier agreed with industry’s request to move the case to federal court after the cities originally filed their claim in state court. However, a different federal district judge in California agreed to move a similar climate nuisance claim brought by Marin and San Mateo counties and the city of Imperial Beach back to state court. The venue disputes are important because experts believe industry would have stronger defenses in federal court than in state court.” [Inside EPA, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

D.C. Circuit To Stream All Oral Arguments. According to E&E News, “Want to skip the security line at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit? Starting next term, the court will stream audio of all its oral arguments. Chief Judge Merrick Garland today announced the new policy, which will go into effect later this year when the court returns from its annual summer recess. ‘This is an important additional step in bringing transparency to our proceedings,’ Garland said in a statement. Today’s move comes after the D.C. Circuit, which often hears consequential environmental law cases, in December announced that it would stream oral arguments in cases upon request. Since then, the court has gotten a handful of requests for live audio, including in a case challenging EPA’s decision to delay Obama-era safety and emergency response standards for chemical plants. The D.C. Circuit has been posting audio recordings of oral arguments online since September 2013. The court will continue posting recordings in the afternoons following arguments. The new policy includes an exception for arguments in which ‘classified or sealed matters must be discussed.’ … Court transparency advocates have pushed for the Supreme Court to stream its arguments, but so far the high court has resisted the calls.” [E&E News, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Whitehouse Presses Pruitt Friend, Judicial Nom, On Fossil Ties. According to E&E News, “The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday held a hearing for Britt Grant to serve on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Patrick Wyrick to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and Allen Cothrel Winsor to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Despite the quick hearing, environmental and energy issues came up — particularly concerning Wyrick and Grant and their past work. … ‘You shopped out the seal of Oklahoma to a special interest lobbyist,’ Whitehouse said. But Wyrick told Whitehouse that he didn’t recall he was part of the email exchanges at issue ‘until it was brought to my attention a couple days ago.’ ‘I would have passed it on to the appropriate person in that office who would have reviewed it,’ he said. Wyrick pledged that he would cast aside his prior advocacy if confirmed to the district court, noting that he has ruled against the state already as a justice on the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The nominee added that he has divested himself of shares in individual companies. The issue of shares came up because Wyrick noted in a financial disclosure sheet sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he has held shares in Devon and Chesapeake Energy Corp.” [E&E News, 5/24/18 (=)]

 

 

Opposition Groups

 

On Honesty And 'Honest Brokers' In Government Science. According to Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Today’s E&E News has an interesting article about Richard Yamada, a Ph.D. mathematician who is the key official helping Administrator Scott Pruitt reshape science policy at the Environmental Protection Agency. The article quotes Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who have harsh words for Yamada and his boss. ‘Democratic Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island sent a document to the Government Accountability Office detailing Yamada’s connection to the initiative.’ ‘Political appointees at EPA under Administrator Pruitt are disregarding normal procedures and advice from career staff,’ the lawmakers wrote, referring to Yamada. ‘By doing so, they are avoiding the procedures put in place by the agency to ensure compliance with federal law and risk undermining the integrity and impartiality of these boards.’ I would be tempted to dismiss their criticism as unselfconscious irony if deliberate misdirection were not the more likely explanation. Every combatant in the nation’s major regulatory battles either is or has a dog in the fight. In such controversies, there are no honest brokers—i.e., persons who have no interest or stake in the outcome. EPA career staff are stakeholders. So are lawmakers like Carper and Whitehouse.” [Competitive Enterprise Institute, 5/23/18 (-)]

 

Oren Cass’s Testimony Of Climate Change Damage, Part 1 Of 3. According to Institute for Energy Research, “In this opening blog post, I have laid out the framework of Oren Cass’s recent congressional testimony on adaptation and the costs of climate change. Cass is not challenging the actual science, but instead is showing how dubious are the projections that extrapolate from objective data into speculative warnings about the distant future. For example, Cass showed that a recent EPA estimate of the costs of climate change via traditional air pollution was likely grossly overblown, because it ignored the stellar improvements in just 15 years. And this is no small item: The EPA’s estimate of excess mortality from smog and particulate matter (PM) worked out to a whopping $930 billion by 2100, out of total reported climate change damages of $1,391 billion. In other words, for those readers who understood the problems depicted in Figure 2, you must now consider that that calculation comprised about two-thirds of the EPA’s total estimate impact of unchecked climate change damage. To challenge the alarmist case for aggressive government action in the name of climate change isn’t to deny science. As the work of Oren Cass demonstrates, one can often raise serious objections to ‘official’ projections merely by reading the reports and seeing where their numbers come from.” [Institute for Energy Research, 5/23/18 (-)]

 

Opinion Pieces

 

Op-Ed: Why Cities Are Putting Big Oil On Trial For Climate Change. According to an op-ed by Lisa Heinzerling in San Jose Mercury News, “In California, the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach and the counties of San Mateo, Marin and Santa Cruz have filed lawsuits against major fossil fuel corporations. In the case involving San Francisco and Oakland, a federal judge will hear arguments Thursday about whether to dismiss the two cities’ claims against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips and BP from federal court. If the case proceeds, it will be a new legal frontier for climate liability. That oil giants knew about the dangers of their products, yet failed to warn the public about them, is evident in the companies’ own internal papers. Royal Dutch Shell even tracked its own emissions, which prompted the company in 1988 to privately caution that ‘by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation.’ Despite having this foreknowledge, rather than warn the public and take part in a meaningful discussion about how to shift to cleaner sources of energy, fossil fuel companies — like Big Tobacco before them — misled the public about the dangers of their products and obstructed action intended to mitigate the impacts.” [San Jose Mercury News, 5/23/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Natural Disasters Cost $306 Billion Last Year — Congress Can No Longer Ignore Flood Insurance. According to an op-ed by Joshua Saks and Eli Lehrer in The Hill, “Even amidst what seems like never-ending gridlock in Congress, one bill remains a must-pass every time: the National Defense Authorization Act, which funds our military. Congress’ willingness to limit bickering for the sake of the national defense makes sense because people can’t be free without physical safety and, in a dangerous world, a robust armed forces assure that. While Congress moves forward each year to put aside differences and pass defense bills, however, it can’t seem to do the same thing when it comes to an incredibly important program — the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) — designed to keep us safe from natural disasters. The NFIP needs both a long-term re-authorization and significant improvement. Members of the House have already passed a version that does both of these things. Now, members of the Senate need to put aside partisan differences to send a bill to President Trump’s desk. A quick review of the facts shows just how important NFIP is to Americans’ physical safety. Last year, the tab for all natural disasters came in at a record $306 billion while 4.7 million Americans — more than the combined populations of Philadelphia, San Diego, Boston and Austin —applied for disaster aid. Most of the worst disasters involved flooding.” [The Hill, 5/23/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Young Conservatives Like Me Care About Climate Change. The GOP Needs To Take Notice. According to an op-ed by Danielle Butcher in Vox, “As a young conservative woman in my early 20s, I’m often met with surprise when people learn that environmentalism is a top political concern for me. Conservatives have been slow to address environmental challenges, even though many environmental solutions fit well within a belief in free market solutions. The economic and national security benefits of prioritizing climate change are issues that the GOP can and should embrace; they’re consistent with their ideology. While the left and right may have different reasons behind prioritizing eco-friendly reforms, such reforms are in our collective best interest. I am not alone in this thinking. It’s no secret that young voters, including young conservative voters, are increasingly concerned about environmental issues. A new poll from Pew Research confirms it, finding that along with holding opinions on climate change that differ from previous generations’, upward of 80 percent of millennial voters favor increasing alternative forms of energy like wind and solar. The same study found that just 44 percent of millennial Republicans favor an increase in offshore drilling, vastly fewer than the 75 percent of baby boomers and older generations who support it.” [Vox, 5/23/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Americans Must Know If They Are Exposed To Chemicals — Reporters Need Access To EPA. According to an op-ed by Sarah Vogel in The Hill, “Tuesday, selected reporters were blocked and an Associated Press reporter was forcibly removed when they tried to cover the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Leadership Summit on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances(PFAS) — a critical drinking water issue. This comes a week after reports that EPA leadership worked with the White House to suppress a draft toxicological assessment of four of these chemicals by the Centers for Disease Control. The coverage has rightly focused on this disgraceful treatment of reporters trying to inform the American public — and apparent attempts by EPA leadership to hide an important study. But less attention has been paid to the public health threat underlying these stories. As with many Pruitt scandals, there are real world consequences for American families. From Hoosick Falls, New York; to the Cape Fear region of North Carolina; to Kent County, Michigan; to Meridian, Mississippi; to Bucks County, Pennsylvania, local communities and states are struggling with how to handle drinking water contaminated with PFAS — a class of chemicals for which they have insufficient information and guidance from the federal government.” [The Hill, 5/23/18 (+)]

 

Research And Analysis

 

The Places In The U.S. Where Disaster Strikes Again And Again. According to The New York Times, “In the last 16 years, parts of Louisiana have been struck by six hurricanes. Areas near San Diego were devastated by three particularly vicious wildfire seasons. And a town in eastern Kentucky has been pummeled by at least nine storms severe enough to warrant federal assistance. These places are part of a small fraction of the United States that has sustained most of the damage from major natural disasters, forming a pattern of destruction concentrated in particular areas. About 90 percent of the total losses across the United States occurred in ZIP codes that contain less than 20 percent of the population, according to an analysis of data from the Small Business Administration. The federal government, through disaster relief programs and flood insurance, subsidizes the cost of rebuilding in areas hit repeatedly by storms, floods and fires. Critics say that encourages too much development in those regions, wasting tens of billions of dollars in tax money and endangering lives. Christina DeConcini, the director of government affairs at the World Resources Institute, said that federal programs do not adequately emphasize adapting to the risks posed by climate change. She said that instead of just being responsive, the government should stress building for resilience against disasters.” [The New York Times, 5/24/18 (=)]

 

Strict Curbs On Global Warming Would Buoy World Economy: Study. According to Reuters, “Stringent limits on global warming would bolster the world economy by averting tens of trillions of dollars in damage this century from heat waves, droughts and floods, a U.S. study said on Wednesday. The report, among the first to assess the economics of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, said the toughest temperature curbs would benefit 90 percent of the world’s population, especially in poor nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The world’s biggest economies - the United States, China and Japan - would also gain if the world achieves the toughest targets, according to the study led by researchers at Stanford University and published in the journal Nature. Russia, Canada and Nordic countries, where rising temperatures could boost farm output and limit deaths from winter cold, would be among a few nations to suffer economically from tough curbs on global warming, the study said. … ‘The results should be interpreted with caution,’ Bob Ward, of the London School of Economics and Political Science, told Reuters. He said it was unlikely that ‘the impacts of future global warming can be simply extrapolated’. The authors acknowledged many uncertainties about the future economy. Wider use of air conditioning in the tropics, for instance, might lift worker productivity and GDP as it has already done in nations such as Singapore, Burke said.” [Reuters, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Black Lung Disease Surging In Appalachia — Studies. According to E&E News, “Black lung disease is on the rise among coal miners in Appalachia, according to a new group of studies. More miners in the region have suffered from the advanced stages of the deadly disease than previous government research has found, and more miners now are in the early stages, according to the studies, some of which were released yesterday and discussed at an American Thoracic Society conference. ‘It does really underscore that this is a real phenomenon,’ said Kirsten Almberg, an occupational health researcher at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and a co-author of one of the studies. Almberg and a colleague pored over black lung benefit claims filed with the government since 1970. They were able to identify over 4,600 cases of severe black lung, the majority of which occurred in the last 16 years. In addition, they found dramatic upticks in the disease from year to year in several states, including 30 percent in West Virginia. ‘It’s not that we’re discovering a new disease. We’re seeing a resurgence of a disease that should have been eradicated,’ said the colleague, Robert Cohen. ‘We’re seeing thousands of cases still in the 21st century,’ Cohen added. ‘So it is certainly not a blip. It’s not just a small spike. It’s kind of a relentless and increasing progression of disease.’” [E&E News, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Sports Stadiums Help Lead The Way Toward Greener Architecture. According to The New York Times, “Sports arenas and stadiums have a far smaller carbon footprint than many factories, shopping malls and office buildings. While they host thousands of people on game days and for big events like concerts, in general they are used intermittently and for short bursts. But in recent years, they have become showcases for green design, even as critics say leagues are wrapping themselves in eco-friendly banners to help market their sports. Still, team owners and building operators have learned that environmentally friendly arenas and stadiums are cheaper to operate, and nothing talks louder than money. Their physical and cultural prominence also means that green stadiums are shining a light on the complex and critical issue of climate change. Fans disinclined to care about the issue are exposed to things like highly efficient LED lighting or low-flush toilets, and can see that going green is not a hardship, but a choice. ‘Any single sporting event doesn’t really have a giant ecological footprint, whether it’s a football game or even a season for a team,’ said Allen Hershkowitz, the founder of Sport and Sustainability International, which promotes low-carbon strategies for sports teams, leagues and associations. ‘But the cultural and social platform of sports is almost unparalleled in terms of its ability to reach people.’” [The New York Times, 5/24/18 (+)]

 

 

Colorado

 

What’s Happening In Colorado? According to Politico, “The Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry and the National Association of Manufacturers will host an event today with former Interior Secretary and Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton, focusing on the Boulder, Colo., climate lawsuit against energy manufacturers over their role in contributing to climate change. Ahead of the event, Independent Petroleum Association of America’s Energy in Depth is launching a digital ad buy in the state on the opposition against the lawsuit.” [Politico, 5/24/18 (=)]

 

Michigan

 

Bill To Give Industry A Say In Enviro Rules Passes House. According to E&E News, “The Michigan House yesterday passed a controversial proposal that would allow oil and gas and other industry officials to review state environmental rules. The Republican-backed bill would create an Environmental Rules Review Committee, made up in part of six voting members from various industries, including solid waste, utilities, manufacturing, and oil and gas. The panel would oversee rulemaking at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and could reject rules that don’t ‘achieve their purposes in proportion to the burdens they place on individuals and businesses.’ The panel would be largely advisory, and an addition in the state House would add six seats for environmental groups, local governments and the public. But Democrats and environmentalists have panned it as the ‘fox guarding the henhouse.’ It passed the House 57-51 and will be handed back to the state Senate after revisions. It previously passed the upper chamber 26-11. ‘Corporations are people, too,’ said state Rep. Tommy Brann (R). ‘They live in the same state we do. They care about the environment. They have kids that live in Michigan.’” [E&E News, 5/23/18 (=)]

 

Minnesota

 

Minnesota May Ease Transition To New Community Solar Rates. According to Midwest Energy News, “As rates of return are expected to fall for subscribers to Minnesota community solar projects, state regulators are considering an incentive payment to ease the transition. The ‘adder’ would temporarily increase payments that future subscribers would receive when selling electricity to Xcel Energy, which operates the program. Customers who signed up for community solar before 2017 receive an ‘applied retail rate’ of 12 to around 15.5 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for electricity they sell back to the utility. After 2017, the program switched to a ‘value of solar’ rate that is currently around 10 cents per kWh. While the rate is calculated every year, it does not change for subscribers once they enter a contract. The state Department of Commerce suggests to adding 2.5 cents per kWh for residential subscriptions to value-of-solar-rated gardens for one year. In subsequent years the adder would decline to 1.5 cents and 0.5 cents before ending. The adder ‘is, I think, really essential,’ said John Farrell, director of the Energy Democracy Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. ‘To continue to deliver on that promise — that community solar enhances access to solar — we have to set a price that is appropriate.’” [Midwest Energy News, 5/24/18 (=)]

 

Nevada

 

Op-Ed: Nevada Must Not Be Outshined In Renewable Energy Development. According to an op-ed by Chris Brooks in Las Vegas Sun, “There is an old political trope in Nevada: We are at the top of every bad list and the bottom of every good one. That should not be the case, especially when it comes to renewable energy. But sadly, we are lagging behind states that are not even in our league when it comes to renewable resources. That is why it is time for us to increase our Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a policy that ensures a percentage of electricity consumed in the state comes from clean, renewable energy sources like solar, geothermal and wind. Nevada was once a national leader in RPS requirements. Now we don’t even rank in the top 10. That’s why I am supporting a ballot initiative spearheaded by Nevadans for a Clean Energy Future to increase the RPS to 50 percent by 2030. Doing so will allow us to cut our carbon emissions by 3 million tons annually and generate at least $5 billion in new wages. Right now, the state’s RPS is on track to hit 25 percent renewables by 2025. That low threshold shortchanges our abundance of untapped resources and the nation’s best workforce.” [Las Vegas Sun, 5/24/18 (+)]