August 2014 Clime Change Summary Report

“White House downplays climate deal ‘end-run’”

August 29, 2014: Energy Guardian reports: “The Obama White House on Wednesday tried to distance itself from a report that it will pursue a global climate agreement next year without seeking approval by the Senate, but would not discount it entirely. The administration found itself scrambling to respond to the report in The New York Times that it favors a non-binding ‘name and shame’ deal at the United Nations that would not need Senate ratification, in recognition of opposition in the chamber to any formal treaty.”

“Democrats: Climate Change Is as Frightening as ISIS”

August 29, 2014: National Journal reports: “Republicans and Democrats don’t entirely see eye-to-eye on threats posed by Islamic militants, Iran’s nuclear program, and other dangers. But those differences pale compared with Americans’ massive partisan divide over how they view the threat from climate change, new polling shows. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats see climate change as a ‘major threat’ to the U.S., compared with just 25 percent of Republicans, according to Pew Research Center data released Thursday. That 43-point spread is the largest division in views over any threat that Pew asked about in the poll, which was conducted earlier this month.’”

“Six Threats Bigger Than Climate Change”

August 29, 2014: The Wall Street Journal reports: “Secretary of State John Kerry said during his January 2013 confirmation hearings that he would be a “passionate advocate” on climate-change issues, and he’s living up to that promise. In a speech this month in Hawaii, Mr. Kerry called climate change “the biggest challenge of all that we face right now.” Not 10, 20 or 100 years from now—right now. If only Mr. Kerry were right. Unfortunately, America faces much bigger immediate challenges and threats than climate change.”

“Obama looks to skip Senate on new UN climate change deal”

August 28, 2014: The Hill reports: “President Obama is working to create a new international climate change accord that would get other nations to reduce their carbon emissions, but in a way that would not require the deal to be ratified by the Senate. Obama’s climate team is putting together a ‘politically binding’ deal to ‘name and shame’ nations to cut their emissions, according to The New York Times. The administration’s hope is to get the deal signed by a United Nations summit next year in Paris. Because the Senate would be unlikely to ratify a treaty on global warming, the administration is seeking to mix fresh voluntary pledges with legally binding 1992 treaty conditions.”

“GAO: Social cost of carbon comments still pending”

August 27, 2014: Energy Guardian reports: “The Obama administration has yet to decide how to respond to public comments submitted on its big increase in the government’s estimate of the social cost of carbon emissions, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office. In the report to Republicans in Congress on the administration’s 50 percent increase last year in the costs to society from carbon output, to $32 a ton, GAO said that about 100 unique comments were submitted during a later public comment period, along with thousands of form-letter comments. Those likely won’t affect the estimate, however. The administration will most likely use the comments to inform its next update to the cost, GAO said, planned for 2015. The new, higher cost is being used by agencies in cost-benefit impact projections of new rules, including proposed carbon reductions from power plants.”

“Climate change cools off”

August 26, 2014: An editorial in The Washington Times states: “Al Gore goofed. Instead of talking up “climate extremes,” he should have spoken about the dangers of an increasingly mild climate. Washington is likely to wrap up the month (and the summer) with the mercury having topped 90 degrees only once or twice. This has been shown to lead to increased lounging in the backyard and heightened consumption of grilled hot dogs. The error was apparent last month when Mr. Gore tried to give away ice cream from his “I’m too hot” truck at An Environmental Protection Agency field hearing in Denver. It was a clever idea for a July event, but at 58 degrees he had no takers. Gong-show liberals have ramped up alarmism, apparent over the past few days. The left-wing magazine Mother Jones blames global warming for ‘ruining your breakfast.’ Mankind’s penchant for exhaling carbon dioxide is supposed to be responsible for the rise in the price of cornflakes, a bacon shortage, bland coffee and a 2009 flood that reduced waffle production. No mention was made of ethanol mandates cutting into corn production, which could cause a shortage of cornbread, nor of the Food and Drug Administration’s shutting down the Georgia factory where Eggo waffles are made for a session of ‘enhanced cleaning.’”

“Peer Reviewers At Odds On EPA Methane Papers But Seek Better GHG Data”

August 21, 2014: Inside EPA reports: “Peer reviewers charged with commenting on EPA white papers examining sources of methane emissions from energy production are largely split on any policy outcomes and a host of other issues but they agree that the agency needs to improve its data, including by making greater use of data from its greenhouse gas reporting (GHG) program. EPA recently released the peer review comments on its ‘White Papers on Methane and VOC Emissions,’ which it is issuing to assess what if any regulatory authorities, including setting standards under Clean Air Act section 111 or issuing Control Techniques Guidelines under section 182 of the air law, would be appropriate for reducing emissions of one of the largest sources of GHGs. The agency floated the white papers at the direction of President Obama’s interagency methane strategy, a component of the White House climate change adaptation plan, and anticipates a determination this fall on any further policy action, with any final rules due in 2016.”

“EPA, Refiners Seek To Dismiss 2013 RFS Cellulosic Suit”

August 19, 2014: Inside EPA reports: “EPA and refining companies are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to dismiss litigation over the agency’s 2013 renewable fuel standard (RFS) cellulosic biofuel blending requirements, after EPA granted refiners’ request to reconsider and significantly reduce the mandate for cellulosic production. In an Aug. 14 filing both EPA and the companies say that the agency’s recent rule revising the cellulosic biofuel targets from the standard’s original 6 million gallon requirement for refiners to blend into petroleum-based fuels down to 810,000 gallons has “fully resolved” the issues in the pending appellate case. The refiners pursuing the suit, Monroe Energy, LLC, et. al. v. EPA, had argued that the agency set the initial 6 million gallon target without consideration of actual production volumes that are much lower. The companies said this conflicted with prior D.C. Circuit rulings saying the target must be based on actual production.”

“The disappointing reality of biofuels”

August 18, 2014: The Tyler Morning (TX) Telegraph editorial states: “We’re spoiled by technology — we’re used to it exceeding our expectations and wowing us with its new wonders. So it’s a disappointment when an overhyped technology fails to live up to its promises. But that’s what we’re seeing with biodiesel. When President George W. Bush signed the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) into law in 2005, the goal was to lessen the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. We hadn’t yet heard the word ‘fracking’ and we had no idea that the U.S. would soon be out-producing even Saudi Arabia. Just as the RFS and the biodiesel it mandates no longer make sense in regards to foreign oil dependence, they also no longer make sense in regards to their other promises — benefits to the environment and no harm to diesel engines.”

“House Republican to EPA: Double-check numbers on climate rule cost”

August 14, 2014: The Hill reports: “Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to double-check its figures on the cost of the administration’s climate rule after a recent report faulted the agency on its analyses of regulations. Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee, slammed the agency over the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, which he says highlights the EPA’s ‘shoddy’ analysis on the potential costs of its carbon emissions standards. ‘For too long the EPA has hidden the truth from the American people,’ he said in a letter to EPA chief Gina McCarthy on Wednesday. ‘In order to regain public trust, the agency should rely on robust, objective and well-grounded technical analysis of its climate regulations. Flaws in recent EPA analyses amplify concerns about the real impacts of these regulations,’ he added.”

“Study: Keystone carbon pollution more than figured”

August 11, 2014: Associated Press reports: “The much-debated Keystone XL pipeline could produce four times more global warming pollution than the State Department calculated earlier this year, a new study concludes. The U.S. estimates didn’t take into account that the added oil from the pipeline would drop prices by about $3 a barrel, spurring consumption that would create more pollution, the researchers said. Outside experts not connected to the study gave it mixed reviews. The American Petroleum Institute found the study to be irrelevant because regardless of the pipeline, the tar sands will be developed and oil will be shipped by railroad if not by pipeline, spokeswoman Sabrina Fang said. The researchers estimate that the proposed pipeline, which would carry oil from tar sands in western Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, would increase world greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 121 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.”

“Texas may ignore EPA climate rule”

August 11, 2014: The Hill reports: “The top environmental regulator in Texas said the state may choose not to follow the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rules limiting carbon pollution from power plants. At a policy event Thursday, Bryan Shaw said he is concerned the rules “are only the camel’s nose under the tent,” according to the Texas Tribune. The rules were proposed in June and have not been finalized. Shaw and others at the event agreed that Texas should sue the EPA to stop the rules, which seek to reduce power plants’ carbon by 30 percent by 2030. Texas is not participating in a lawsuit brought by 13 states against the rule. If Texas ignores the rules and refuses to write a plan to implement them, the EPA would have to step in and write a plan for the state. Texas also ignored a 2010 federal rule requiring new industrial plants to obtain greenhouse gas permits. The EPA took over, leading to years-long delays for permits, which caused industrial interests to blame the state for its decision.”

“New lawsuits unlikely to touch EPA’s carbon rule, at least in the near term”

August 7, 2014: ClimateWire reports: “U.S. EPA’s proposed rule for power plant carbon has seen an early salvo of legal attacks, with one lawsuit launched by Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp. in June and a second, led by West Virginia and backed by 11 others states, last week. But with the rule still unformed, do these opponents have a target to aim at? Probably not, according to legal experts contacted by ClimateWire. At least not yet. ‘I’d characterize the Murray case as coming too soon, and the West Virginia case as coming too late,’ said Patrick Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School.”

“LNG exports could undercut climate goals, CAP warns”

August 6, 2014: Energy Guardian reports: “The Center for American Progress on Tuesday raised concerns about the long-term climate impact of U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas, which it said could add to global methane emissions and displace lower-carbon energy alternatives. The center, which has close ties to the Obama White House, challenged the administration in a new report that concluded LNG exports are ‘defensible’ on climate grounds only if certain conditions are met to control releases of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Those conditions, the authors said, would be difficult, though not impossible, to achieve, and even then LNG exports should be viewed as a short-term step toward the adoption of cleaner energy generation.”

“With eyes on Paris, African leaders push for climate funding”

August 6, 2014: ClimateWire reports: “There will be no climate change agreement in 2015 unless wealthy nations fill the ‘empty vault’ of the Green Climate Fund, a top African diplomat said yesterday. Speaking alongside climate change negotiators from Ethiopia, Ghana and Tanzania, Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, the lead negotiator for the Democratic Republic of the Congo — as well as the African group of diplomats in the U.N. talks — said money to support poor countries will be a critical element of any new deal. The fund, designed to facilitate the mobilization of billions of dollars in annual aid, is technically up and running. But only one country — Germany — has pledged money to it. ‘If there is not capitalization, which is substantial, unfortunately many of us will not move forward for the new agreement next year,’ Mpanu-Mpanu said.”

“Coal Country sues EPA over climate rule”

August 5, 2014: The Hill reports: “A dozen states representing America’s coal country are suing the Environmental Protection Agency to block forthcoming regulations imposing new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The lawsuit, filed late last week in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, accuses the agency of overstepping its authority under the Clean Air Act […] At issue is the EPA’s move to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants via new standards to be imposed under the Clean Air Act. The regulation, a centerpiece of President Obama’s climate initiative, aims to cut carbon pollution from plants by 30 percent by 2030. The states contend that the Clean Air Act prohibits the EPA from regulating emissions from existing sources. The EPA offered the regulation under Section 111(d) of the statute.”

“Blagg: Switch from gasoline to ethanol linked to higher ozone levels  “

August 4, 2014: The Greenfield (MA) Recorder reports: “We’re all familiar with the fact that when we fill up our cars with gasoline these days, what flows into the tank is really not all gas. Ten percent of that very expensive liquid with which we fuel our automobiles is really alcohol. It’s a government edict, done for our own good… or is it? The original idea was that using ethanol — a form of alcohol — as an additive, was that it would help move the country from its dependence on foreign oil to more domestic supplies, and also that it would help improve our air quality. A side benefit, it was thought, was that it would provide a built-in subsidy for American’s farmers, since their corn would be used to produce the ethanol. Well, it hasn’t worked out as planned. For one thing, a large-scale analysis of using ethanol, done in Brazil, showed clearly that it actually INCREASED the levels of ground-level ozone, or smog.”

“GOP rep. sounds alarm on new climate rules”

August 4, 2014: The Hill reports: “Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) used his Fancy Farm speech on Saturday night to warn voters about President Obama’s ‘war on coal.’ Speaking at the rowdy annual political picnic, the western Kentucky congressman told Bluegrass State voters that the Obama administration’s new climate rules could mean fewer coal mining jobs in the state and deliver a devastating blow to the local economy. ‘His EPA is finalizing a rule that will make America one of the only countries in the world where you cannot build a new coal power plant,’ Whitfield said during a campaign speech in on Saturday. ‘And he’s not satisfied with that. He’s now coming out with a regulation on existing coal power plants.’”

“Pushing Back Against Obama’s War on Coal”

August 4, 2014: An op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by Mike Kelly, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, states: “A dozen states filed suit on Friday to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from enacting its ‘Clean Power Plan,’ new rules that will put many coal-fired power plants out of business. The filing came the same week the EPA held nation-wide public hearings about the plan—including in Pittsburgh, where thousands of coal workers turned out to register their unhappiness with the Obama administration’s intentions. Coal workers are upset because the White House-ordered regulatory scheme will badly damage the coal industry and cost Americans in higher electricity costs and lost jobs while doing little to fight climate change. It was good to see coal finally get a public hearing. The bad news is that President Obama and the EPA have already issued their guilty verdict and handed down the sentence.”

“A Dozen States File Suit Against New Coal Rules”

August 4, 2014: The New York Times reports: “Twelve states filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration on Friday seeking to block an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to regulate coal-fired power plants in an effort to stem climate change. The plaintiffs are led by West Virginia and include states that are home to some of the largest producers of coal and consumers of coal-fired electricity.  Republicans have attacked the E.P.A. proposal as a ‘war on coal,’ saying that it will shut down plants and eliminate jobs in states that depend on mining. But the rule is also opposed by the Democratic governors of West Virginia and Kentucky.”