May 2014 Climate Change Summary Report

“Cutting Back on Carbon”

May 30, 2014: An op-ed in The New York Timesby columnist Paul Krugman, states: “Next week the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce new rules designed to limit global warming. Although we don’t know the details yet, anti-environmental groups are already predicting vast costs and economic doom. Don’t believe them. Everything we know suggests that we can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy. Just ask the United States Chamber of Commerce. O.K., that’s not the message the Chamber of Commerce was trying to deliver in the report it put out Wednesday. It clearly meant to convey the impression that the E.P.A.’s new rules would wreak havoc. But if you focus on the report’s content rather than its rhetoric, you discover that despite the chamber’s best efforts to spin things — the report almost surely overstates the real cost of climate protection — the numbers are remarkably small.”

 

“EPA’s Approach on Carbon Limits to Spark Court Challenges”

May 30, 2014: The Wall Street Journalreports: “The expected legal battle over the Obama administration’s coming limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants could provide a rarity for environmental litigation: a case for which there is scant court precedent. The Environmental Protection Agency is turning to a little-used provision of the Clean Air Act for its new rules, because carbon dioxide isn’t regulated under major Clean Air Act programs that address air pollutants. The EPA says it has only used the section, called 111(d), to regulate five sources of pollutants since the provision was enacted in 1970—and none on the scale of CO2, a major greenhouse gas. Because the provision has been invoked so rarely, courts have had little opportunity to weigh in on it, creating the unusual circumstance in which potential challengers to the carbon rules would be litigating largely on a blank slate against the EPA. The Clean Air Act provision gives the agency authority to regulate pollutants emitted by facilities already in operation, but the expected lawsuits from states and industry could test how far a president can go in using the long-standing air-pollution law to try to address climate change.”

 

“White House boasts energy agenda ahead of climate rule”

May 29, 2014: The Hillreports: “Days before President Obama is expected to unveil the first carbon emissions restrictions for existing power plants, the White House is drawing attention to the economic success of its energy policy. The White House released a 42-page report Thursday, in which the administration argues the U.S. is in a strong position to move forward with its climate change and economic goals. The reason: domestic production of natural gas is on the rise, and oil consumption has decreased. While the overall report offers little new conclusions, it includes a thorough analysis on the shocks and price volatility of dependency on petroleum imports. The report concludes that continued reduction in net oil imports is reducing the nation’s risk, and reduction is spurred by an increased use of biofuels, electric vehicles, natural gas, and other substitutes.” Associated Press also reports.

 

“Chamber says climate rules will cost a fortune”

May 29, 2014: Politico Pro (subscription required) reports: “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a preemptive strike Wednesday against the Obama administration’s upcoming climate change regulations. In a new report issued just days before the administration unveils its carbon emissions rules for existing power plants, the business group says the proposal, when paired with a separate measure limiting greenhouse gas emissions from future plants, would be a disaster for the economy…The two regulations would lower U.S. gross domestic product by $51 billion and lead to a loss of 224,000 U.S. jobs on average every year through 2030. And they would also increase electricity costs by $289 billion through 2030 and lower households’ disposable income by $586 billion through that same time period, the Chamber contends. The report also says the regulations would have ‘a very small impact’ on global greenhouse gas emissions. It estimates that the rules will cause U.S. power sector emissions to decrease by 750 million metric tons from 2014-2030 compared to current conditions.”

 

“Energy solution must be an ‘all of the above’ strategy”

May 28, 2014: An editorial in The Hill states: “The two cornerstones of our global society that are fundamental to our lives today and for our future are 1) the affordability and security of our energy and 2) environmental responsibility…There are currently 1.3 billion people on Earth living in energy poverty. No electricity, no transportation — a nearly medieval existence. As the world’s demand for energy doubles in the next 40 years, 90 percent of the new demand will be from developing nations. These nations will meet these demands with their most affordable and secure fuels, which are coal, oil and natural gas. This is a practical fact, not a political or policy choice in these countries. The question is, what policies and actions will the U.S. provide as global leadership to enable relevant, transformative and globally impactful marketplace and technology impacts? Our country has progressed dramatically over the past 150 years as our energy demands have increased several times over. We have taken on the challenges of our environmental footprint and created remarkable success through the development of the world’s cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plants, safest and most productive petrochemical facilities, and through transformative oil and gas exploration, bringing domestic oil and gas production in the U.S. to world-leading status.”

 

“The EPA’s Carbon Capture Flip-Flop”

May 23, 2014: An editorial in The Wall Street Journalstates: “With great fanfare, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule last fall that would require all newly built coal-fired power plants in the U.S. to install an expensive new technology called carbon capture and storage, or CCS. Although the technology has never been installed on a large-scale power plant anywhere in the world, it theoretically will separate the primary greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide—from the plant’s exhaust and pump it to underground reservoirs for storage.  The proposal instantly set off controversy. Many technical experts (including Burton Richter, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at Stanford) believe that CCS isn’t ready for prime time. EPA’s proposal claims it is adequately demonst

 

“Energy jobs extend beyond oil field, Congress told”

May 22, 2014: Fuel Fixreports: “Surging oil and gas production is creating jobs that extend well beyond the oil patch to manufacturing shops and chemical plants across the country, executives and industry advocates told a congressional panel on Tuesday. But some lawmakers and a Dow Chemical Co. representative warned that the domestic manufacturing renaissance spurred by cheap, abundant natural gas could be jeopardized if the U.S. exports large amounts of the fossil fuel. Widespread gas exports would ‘benefit a few companies in the short term’ but would ‘needlessly burden’ manufacturers, said Carol Williams, a special adviser to Midland, Mich.-based Dow. ‘We must approach exports thoughtfully and carefully, (considering) the benefits that stable prices will bring to manufacturers and the U.S. economy.’”

 

“US crude imports drop to 17-year low as production climbs”

May 22, 2014: Reutersreports: “U.S. crude imports dropped to a 17- year low last week as the shale boom bolstered output, moving the nation closer to energy independence. Arrivals slid 658,000 barrels a day to 6.47 million, the least since January 1997, the Energy Information Administration said today. Output rose 6,000 barrels a day to 8.43 million in the seven days ended May 16, the most since October 1986. The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has unlocked supplies from shale formations in the central U.S., including the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas. ‘We’re producing more than we import, which was last the case in the 1990s,’ said Stephen Schork, president of the Schork Group Inc. in Villanova, Pennsylvania. ‘As long as we continue to see production increase, the need for imports will decrease. A trend is in place.’”

 

“As Emissions Fall, Greens Increasingly Embrace Shale Gas”

May 16, 2014: NorthcentralPA.comreports: “For many years, environmental activists have pushed for bans, moratoria, or other restrictions on hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), alleging the process is a threat to public health and the environment. But in recent months, increasing numbers of environmentalists have distanced themselves from the ‘ban fracking’ agenda. Many have even embraced shale gas on environmental grounds, revealing how extreme and marginalized the campaign to restrict hydraulic fracturing has become. ‘Environmentalists who oppose the development of shale gas and fracking are making a tragic mistake,’ wrote Richard Muller last year. Muller, a physicist and climate expert at the University of California-Berkeley, was viciously attacked by activist groups like Greenpeace, but Muller’s position may actually be more in line with a growing public understanding of the environmental benefits of shale gas.”

 

“Developing sound refinery energy policy”

May 14, 2014: An op-ed in The Hillby Reps. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and Cedric Richmond (D-La.), states: “When an average American walks into a room and flips a switch, they expect the lights to turn on. When temperatures drop below freezing or climb above 90 degrees, they expect to be able to adjust their thermostat accordingly. In the event of an emergency, they expect that they can drive the family car or book a flight to get to where they need to be quickly and efficiently. Americans are blessed with the ability to take energy for granted. This is perhaps no more true than with transportation fuels. Few people could identify a refinery on sight, and few policymakers understand the processes by which they operate.  Nevertheless, they stand as the central hub in a nationwide network that spun out 845 million barrels of gasoline in 2013 alone. These refineries also produce the diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, and asphalt that literally move this nation. Their products shape the lives of Americans at home and our allies abroad.”

“Rubio clarifies climate change comments”

May 14, 2014: The Hillreports: “Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) acknowledged that the Earth’s climate is changing but asserted that legislative policy proposals can’t defuse the impacts of climate change during a Tuesday appearance at the National Press Club. ‘The issue is not whether the climate is changing — as always, it is changing. The issue is whether there are legislative proposals before us that can do anything about it. And what I have said, and what I disagree with, is the notion that if we pass Cap and Trade, for example, it will stop this from happening,’ he said. Rubio’s faced criticism over comments he made this weekend on ABC News that he doesn’t believe ‘that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.’ Then, and again on Tuesday, Rubio said he believes climate change is real. But during his NPC question and answer session, he notably didn’t repeat his assertion that climate change is not caused by human activities.”

“Convincing Americans It’s Time to Drill on Federal Lands”

May 12, 2014: An op-ed in Real Clear Energyby Jared Meyer, policy analyst at Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, states: “New government statistics show that economic growth in the United States has stalled and the employment outlook is bleak. America’s oil and gas renaissance offers a solution to these troubling trends. But, for increased energy exploration on federal lands to be politically viable, Americans have to see its direct benefits. Rather than continuing to allocate most of federal oil and gas royalties to the Treasury’s general fund, the United States could follow the example of Norway, the country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with the soundest fiscal condition, and create something similar to an oil and gas-funded sovereign wealth fund. Norway’s fund, established in 1990, is worth $838 billion. Since then, the fund has generated an average gross annual return of 5.7 percent.”

 

“HUMPHRIES: Liberal Bullies of Week: Climate con artists”

May 12, 2014: An op-ed in The Washington Timesby Rusty Humphries, a nationally syndicated talk show host, states: “The White House released a new fear-filled National Climate Assessment this week, offering the usual horrifying speculation instead of actual data. Heck, if the worst-case scenarios in the climate computer models that have been consistently wrong for the past 30 years pan out, John F. Kennedy and LaGuardia airports could be under water. There could be more hurricanes. Our food will be less nutritious. And it’s all your fault, you evil, air conditioner-using, carbon-spewing, capitalism-loving Americans. Don’t look at the rest of the world and ask why their emissions don’t seem to count. Don’t try looking at Beijing for the source of global warming. (Seriously, don’t try looking at Beijing — you can’t even see it through the rolling clouds of smog on bad days.) Stop asking why there hasn’t been any actual climate change for 17 years and counting, a pause predicted by absolutely none of the doom-mongers.”

 

“Other voices: Climate change and politics”

An op-ed in TwinCities.com states: “John Paul Holdren, senior adviser to President Obama on science and technology, took a star turn Tuesday when he released the administration’s third U.S. National Climate Assessment. The document is ‘the most comprehensive and authoritative ever about how climate has been changing in the United States,’ said Holdren. It ‘confirms that climate change is not a distant threat,’ he added. ‘It is affecting the American people already.’ But wait, said the White House science czar. President Obama is ready to roll out his climate action plan, which he originally outlined last June. It will spare the American people, Holdren suggested, from ‘the impacts of changes in climate that can longer be avoided.’ The central goal of the president’s plan is ostensibly to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal, oil and gas.”

“The Latest Storm of Climate Alarmism”

May 9, 2014: An op-ed in The Wall Street Journalby Steven F. Hayward, visiting scholar at the University of Coloado at Boulder, states: “The third National Climate Assessment, released Tuesday by the White House, may not do anything to protect Americans from the effects of climate change, but it has done its primary job—generating alarming headlines in the media and setting the stage for a renewed push by the Obama administration for its climate-policy agenda. Coming barely six weeks after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent alarmist report—also duly trumpeted in the media—we have now reached the junkie’s-craving phase of the climate-change story, where bigger and more frequent fixes are necessary to keep alive the euphoria of saving the world. Confronted with polls and surveys finding that the public is tuning out climate change as a matter of vital concern, the climate campaign seemingly persists in thinking that one more report will turn the tide in its favor.”

 

“KNAPPENBERGER: National Climate Assessment report raises false alarm”

May 9, 2014: An op-ed in The Washington Timesby Paul C. Knappenberger, assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, states: “The Obama Administration’s just-released National Climate Assessment report leaves the impression that if we don’t quickly launch into action to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily by shifting away from using fossil fuels), we will be inundated by an endless flow of misfortune unleashed by the ensuing climate change. The flood has already begun. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, the assessment report frequently confuses climate with climate change. The natural climate of the United States is constantly overflowing with extreme weather hazards of all sorts — hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, blizzards, heat waves, hard freezes and on and on. It’s the norm. The assessment would have you think that every time one of these types of events happens, now or in the future, it is because we are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Such a conclusion is a stretch and has never been proven. A thorough review of climate science would demonstrate that the impact of human-caused climate change on the behavior of most types of extreme weather is poorly understood. Instead, the vagaries of climate dominate our experiences.”

 

“Obama’s Climate Bomb”

May 9, 2014: An editorial in The Wall Street Journalreports: “Supervising the Earth’s climate—or at least believing humanity can achieve such miracles—may be the only political project grandiose enough for President Obama. So it shouldn’t surprise that after reforming health care and raising taxes, the White House is now getting the global-warming band back together, though it is still merely playing the old classics of unscientific panic. On Wednesday the White House released the quadrennial National Climate Assessment, an 829-page report. The theme is that ‘this is not some distant problem of the future. This is a problem that is affecting Americans right now,’ as Mr. Obama told lovable weather personality Al Roker.”

“Fed Climate Report Called ‘Tremendous Undertaking’”

May 7, 2014: Associated Pressreports: “A new federal report is the most exhaustive and perhaps even easiest-to-read look at what global warming will to do the United States, say experts who strongly support it. The report, required by federal law, is ‘the most comprehensive assessment ever done on how climate is affecting the United States,’ said University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles, a study author. White House counselor John Podesta called it authoritative and ‘a tremendous undertaking.’ … Others indicate ‘This is more a political document than it is a scientific document.’

“Report: Climate Change Already Affecting U.S.”

May 7, 2014: Associated Pressreports: “When it came time to deliver a new federal report detailing what global warming is doing to America and the dire forecast for the future, President Barack Obama turned to the pros who regularly deliver the bad news about wild weather: TV meteorologists. ‘We want to emphasize to the public, this is not some distant problem of the future. This is a problem that is affecting Americans right now,’ Obama told ‘Today’ show weathercaster Al Roker. ‘Whether it means increased flooding, greater vulnerability to drought, more severe wildfires – all these things are having an impact on Americans as we speak.’ … ‘Whether you agree or disagree with the report, the question is: What are you going to do about it?

“Inhofe: Climate study tied to ‘fear tactics and money’”

May 7, 2014: Politico Pro (subscription required) reports: “Sen. Jim Inhofe dismissed today’s new climate report as more ‘fear tactics’ from the Obama administration, while trying to connect it to Tom Steyer’s campaign spending and this week’s potential Senate vote on the Keystone XL pipeline. ‘This climate assessment seems conveniently timed the week the Senate could be debating the need to approve the Keystone XL as well as expediting the export of liquefied natural gas,’ the Republican climate skeptic said in a statement this morning. ‘Now that another climate change billionaire, Tom Steyer, has entered the scene and put at least $100 million on the campaign table, the president and my colleagues are jumping at opportunities to side line critical domestic energy opportunities for the United States and instead discuss global warming alarmism. ‘Fear tactics and money are powerful tools in politics,’ he added.”

“Climate Change Is Harming Economy, Report Says”

May 6, 2014: The Wall Street Journalreports: “Climate change is having a present-day, negative impact on Americans’ everyday lives and damaging the U.S. economy as extreme weather brings flooding, droughts and other disasters to every region in the country, a federal advisory committee has concluded. The congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, produced by more than 300 experts overseen by a panel of 60 scientists, concludes that the nation has already suffered billions of dollars in damages from severe weather-related disruptions, which it says will continue to get worse. The document, considered the most comprehensive analysis of the effects of climate change on the U.S., is to be released by the climate advisory panel after a final vote Tuesday morning. President Barack Obama is planning to promote it in a series of events this week calling for action to combat the trend, and using the report to bring public attention to climate change-related problems.”

“White House: We back fracking, U.S. energy boom”

May 6, 2014: The Washington Timesreports: “Republican critics and some in the energy industry have often cast President Obama as hostile to fossil fuels, but the White House on Monday issued a strong endorsement of the domestic oil and gas boom and the controversial drilling technique that has made it possible. During a press briefing at the White House, top Obama adviser John Podesta said massive increases in U.S. oil and gas extraction — made possible by fracking — are helping to reduce carbon emissions and have had clear economic benefits. Fracking and natural-gas production is a ‘bridge, if you will, from a world in which there are still needs for fossil fuels to power our economy to a world in which we can get more from zero-carbon sources of energy,’ Mr. Podesta said. ‘We think it’s a practical and viable way to reduce emissions in the short run.’”

“For Obama, a renewed focus on climate”

May 5, 2014: The Washington Postreports: “The satellite images viewed by President Obama before a meeting with eight Western governors were stark, showing how snowpack in California’s mountains had shrunk by 86 percent in a single year. ‘It was a ‘Houston, we have a problem’ moment,’ recalled White House counselor John D. Podesta, one of two aides who briefed the president that February day. Obama mentioned the images several times as he warned the governors that political leaders had no choice but to cope with global warming’s impact. …Coal and gas industry officials say they are increasingly alarmed by Obama’s focus on climate change, saying administration policies are unrealistic and do not recognize how hydraulic fracturing has transformed the ability to extract oil and gas from the ground. ‘They want a complete transformation from the hydrocarbon molecule to the electron, and their refusal to accept reality continues to frustrate me,’ said the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. ‘So the question is, why are we doing this? Is it because he promised to do it when he came into office? Is it because he’s got a large donor out there dangling a lot of money? Is it because he really believes it and is passionate about doing it? Or is it all of the above?’”

“The bad side of the biofuel boom”

May 2, 2014: USA Todayreports: “There’s biofuel in them thar prairies! You’ve got it, Yosemite Sam. A biofuel rush has officially swept the U.S., with farmers planting corn, soy, sugarcane and other plants for use in fuel. Their crops help meet the EPA requirement that almost all gasoline sold in the U.S. contain at least 10 percent corn ethanol, the most common biofuel. As early as the 1970s, scientists touted biofuels as a clean, renewable energy source. And since a cornfield can’t burst and pollute surrounding habitats like an underwater oil well might, some conservationists endorsed them as environmentally friendly. But recent data have put this onetime green energy panacea under scrutiny. Demand for corn ethanol helped triple the price of corn from 2005 to 2011. And studies have shown that corn, canola and other biofuel crops with high nitrogen requirements produce a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.”

“‘Recalcitrant’ States Ready Work On EPA Climate NSPS”

May 1, 2014: Inside EPAreports: “States considered likely to challenge EPA’s pending climate new source performance standards (NSPS) for utilities are nevertheless starting discussions on how to craft compliance plans for the rule, a key state energy official says, signaling that the ‘recalcitrant’ states aim to have backup plans in place if their legal challenges fail. Doug Scott, chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission and a member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said on an April 30 press call that his state is working with nearby states, including Indiana and Ohio, on potential compliance options for the NSPS for existing utilities, due for proposal in June. Coal states are seen as more likely to file suit over the agency’s pending climate regulation, which critics have said is part of what they call EPA’s ‘war on coal’ as it could cause some existing plants to shutter.”