February 2015 Climate Change Summary Report

“Keystone XL solution runs through Canada”

February 26, 2015: An op-ed by Michael Bloomberg in Bloomberg View states: “The Keystone XL pipeline has become a perfect symbol of Washington’s dysfunction. Democrats exaggerate its environmental impact while Republicans exaggerate its economic benefits. In the debate, each side talks past the other, because each cares more about gaining a political advantage than a policy achievement. Yet a path exists for President Barack Obama to transcend these differences and allow both sides to declare victory. I’m a strong believer in the need to take bold action on climate change, and I’ve devoted a great deal of time and energy to this work, in the public, private and philanthropic sectors. Ignoring carbon pollution is disastrous for public health, and ignoring the risks associated with climate change is environmentally and economically foolish. But contrary to conventional wisdom, the Keystone pipeline could open up a rare opportunity to achieve progress on climate change.”

“Global Warming: Follow the Money”

February 25, 2015: National Review reports: “It isn’t the fossil-fuel companies that are polluting climate science. …In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.”

“What do we have to show for government subsidies of wind power?”

February 24, 2015: An op-ed in The Hill states: “For the past 23 years, the federal government has subsidized wind power with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars through the Production Tax Credit (PTC). What do we have to show for it? Wind energy only supplied 1.6 percent of total U.S. energy in 2014. Now the Department of Energy wants to reach a ridiculous goal of 20 percent wind energy by 2030. The fledgling wind industry has no hope of reaching that goal on its own, and the government wants to stick the American taxpayer with the bill to sustain an industry that can’t sustain itself. The PTC was originally intended to give the wind industry the kick start it needed to be self-sufficient. But, despite wind energy’s 23-year reliance on fiscal training wheels, the Obama administration now wants to make the PTC permanent. Let that sink in a little bit. The government is considering the creation of an endless welfare system for big wind companies. If that isn’t crony capitalism, I don’t know what is.”

“Note to EPA: Ideological fervor is not an alternative source of energy”

February 23, 2015: A Washington Examiner editorial states: “At a Thursday conference of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, utility companies and state regulators urged officials to intervene and slow down the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory proposal is designed to achieve 30 percent cuts in carbon emissions from power plants below 2005 levels by 2030. As currently written, it demands most of the cuts be front-loaded, with a 2020 deadline that utility companies and state regulators say is unreasonable. They argued Thursday that the need for planning and state-level legislation would delay any efforts at compliance until mid-2017 at the very earliest. And the plan under consideration will not even be finalized until this summer. The EPA seems to be giving in to reality. Its administrator, Gina McCarthy, dropped this week what she called a ‘big hint’ that the short-term deadline will be scrapped. But the need for such a dramatic change at this late point in the process suggests that something has gone wrong.”

“Report links climate skeptic researcher to industry money”

February 23, 2015: The Hill reports: “A prominent, skeptical climate change scientist reportedly received more than $1 million from oil and coal interests for his work and did not properly disclose it. Willie Soon, who has testified before Congress and is often cited by members of Congress and conservative groups wishing to disprove the human-caused factors of climate change, has previously disclosed some industry funding, the New York Times reported Sunday. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate’s most outspoken climate skeptic, has hailed Soon’s work as what he says is part of a large body of research disproving the scientific consensus on climate change.”

“White House: oil price drop won’t derail climate push”

February 20, 2015: National Journal reports: “Don’t worry: The drop in oil prices is helping the U.S. economy without hamstringing the administration’s drive to cut carbon emissions. That’s one conclusion of a broad new Council of Economic Advisers report released Thursday morning that takes stock of the nation’s oil-and-gas boom and of policies aimed at driving up the use of green energy and reducing petroleum demand. Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, put it like this in an interview: ‘You look all in at the Clean Power Plan, the fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles, and the range of other steps that the administration has taken on climate change, and they massively outweigh any change in carbon emissions that would result from changes in prices.’”

“Scientists are pushed to leap the gulf between their findings and public opinion on climate change”

February 18, 2015: ClimateWire reports: “Most scientists are willing and ready to get involved in public policy debates, finds a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, even as communication experts warned scientists last week of the pitfalls of communicating about political hot potatoes such as climate change. These messages were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), where scientists packed a room to learn how to better communicate. Another poll earlier this month found that there is a big split between scientists and the public on controversial topics like climate change and genetically modified foods.”

“Study challenges benefits of U.S. low-carbon fuel”

February 17, 2015: ClimateWire reports: “A recent study on the carbon footprint of biofuels is adding a new wrinkle to the already corrugated landscape of alternative fuels policies. University of Michigan research professor John DeCicco wrote a study finding that the current method of calculating the carbon emissions associated with transportation fuels is essentially meaningless. The model, known as “life-cycle analysis,” attempts to incorporate all emissions associated with the production and use of fuels, including those derived from petroleum, natural gas, hydrogen, electricity and plants. It was used in the development of U.S. EPA’s renewable fuels standard and California’s low-carbon fuels standard, each of which seeks to encourage the production of next-generation biofuels from plants other than corn, including soybeans, sugar cane and grasses. But according to DeCicco, the model gives biofuels too much credit for taking emissions out of the atmosphere during the plant-growth stage.”

“Fossil fuel divestment movement struggles to build momentum on college campuses”

February 17, 2015: The Washington Times reports: “Climate change activists spent Valentine’s Day weekend wooing supporters for fossil fuel divestiture with their first-ever Global Divestment Day, but not everyone was feeling the love. While the hoopla elicited some victories — notably a statement in favor of curbing coal power generation from the leaders of Great Britain’s three main parties — other more sparsely attended events underscored the divestment drive’s uphill battle to build momentum and gain converts as opponents increasingly challenge the idea of selling off fossil fuel stocks as an effective way to fight global warming. At the University of Colorado Boulder, for example, only about three dozen students at the school of 30,000 showed up at Friday’s protest. Organizers clad in orange T-shirts gamely held a 10-minute rally with two student speakers and a few chants before dispersing for a march around the campus. The small turnout was striking given that the university is known for its environmental activism, the board of regents is scheduled to hear a proposal Friday from CU Divest, and it was 60 degrees and sunny. Elsewhere, bitterly cold temperatures put a chill on the global warming activism. At the New York state comptroller’s office in Albany, “about a dozen activists stood in frigid weather,” according to the Albany Times Union.”

“EPA’s McCarthy takes carbon rule pitch to state regulators”

February 17, 2015: Energy Guardian reports: “The Obama administration’s environmental chief on Tuesday plans to take her case for new carbon regulations before the national organization for state utility regulators. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy is poised to use the stage at the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners’ winter committee meetings in Washington, D.C., to discuss her agency’s proposed rules to slash carbon emissions at new and existing power plants and try to persuade those wary of the plan to get on board. NARUC includes representatives from all 50 states, meaning McCarthy will face a mix of supporters from Democratic states backing her agency’s efforts to push a low-carbon economy and Republicans skeptical about the proposals. The proposed rules would reduce carbon emission levels from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, compared to 2005. The rules for new and existing sources are scheduled to be finalized in summer.”

 

“A valentine for fossil fuels”

February 13, 2015: A column in The Boston Globe by Jacob Jacoby states: “Romantics may look forward to sharing their love this weekend, but as far as the organizers of Global Divestment Day are concerned, Valentine’s Day is for breaking up. Environmental activists have designated February 13 and 14 for collective action ‘to sever our ties with the fossil fuel industry whose plans will destroy the planet as we know it.’ …Here on Planet Earth, the booming use of petroleum, coal, and natural gas has fueled an almost inconceivable amount of good. All human technologies generate costs as well as benefits, but the gains from the use of fossil fuels have been extraordinary. The energy derived from fossil fuels, economist Robert Bradley Jr. wrote last spring in Forbes, has ‘liberated mankind from wretched poverty; fueled millions of high-productivity jobs in nearly every business sector; been a feedstock for medicines that have saved countless lives; and led to the development of fertilizers that have greatly increased crop yields to feed the hungry.’ Far from wrecking the planet, the harnessing of carbon-based energy makes it safer and more livable.”

“TransCanada Disputes EPA on Keystone XL’s Role in Climate Change”

February 12, 2015: Bloomberg reports: “TransCanada Corp. disputed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that developing the oil sands for the Keystone XL pipeline will significantly boost emissions of gases tied to climate change. Chief Executive Officer Russ Girling, in a letter to the State Department released Wednesday, said the EPA’s conclusion isn’t supported by the environmental review conducted for the proposed $8 billion project. ‘TransCanada disagrees with any suggestion that the Department of State has not fully and completely assessed the environmental impacts of Keystone XL,’ Girling said. ‘We also reject the EPA’s inference that at lower oil prices, Keystone XL will increase the rate of oil sands production and greenhouse gas emissions.’”

“EPA hints it may change carbon rule’s time frame”

February 12, 2015: ClimateWire reports: “Acting Assistant U.S. EPA Administrator Janet McCabe didn’t make any specific promises during her testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday morning. But between the lines of her answers, the agency’s top air quality official delivered a clear signal to the state officials charged with implementing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan: There’s a strong chance EPA will back away from the interim 2020 goals many states have decried as unreasonable, rushed and too expensive to comply with. ‘We are looking very, very closely’ at changing those requirements, McCabe told lawmakers at several points during the two-hour hearing.”

“New GOP Senate begins assault on Obama’s climate rules”

February 12, 2015: The Hill reports: “The new Republican-controlled Senate kicked off its first of likely many hearings on President Obama’s signature climate rules aimed at cutting carbon pollution on Wednesday. Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee attempted to poke holes in the administration’s carbon rules, calling the regulations ‘costly,’ ‘job killing,’ and ‘unnecessary.’ Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the committee, charged that the rules would ‘do nothing to save us from global warming’ and that they were ‘unconstitutional.’”

“Top 10 global warming lies that may shock you”

February 11, 2015: An op-ed in Forbes states: “Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers. EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook, yet each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make. Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmist playbook.”

“WH: Climate change directly affects more Americans than terrorism”

February 11, 2015: The Hill reports: “The White House stood by its decision on Tuesday to include climate change impacts in its national security strategy released last week. When asked if President Obama believed climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, White House spokesman Josh Earnest pushed back. “The point that the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the direct impact on their lives of climate change or on the spread of a disease than on terrorism,” Earnest said.

“Obama to private sector: $2b for clean energy”

February 11, 2015: Associated Press reports: “President Barack Obama is setting a goal of raising $2 billion from the private sector for investments in clean energy. The White House says it’s launching a Clean Energy Investment Initiative as part of the Obama administration’s effort to address climate change. The Energy Department will solicit investments from philanthropists and investors concerned about climate change. The aim is to spur development of technologies and energy sources that are low in carbon dioxide pollution, such as solar panels, wind power, fuel cells and advanced batteries.”

“Turning Carbon Dioxide Into Rock, and Burying It”

February 10, 2015: The New York Times reports: “In a cramped work trailer not far from Iceland’s largest geothermal power plant, a researcher pored over a box of core samples — cylinders of rock that a drilling rig had pulled from deep underground just a few minutes before. In a test that began in 2012, scientists had injected hundreds of tons of water and carbon dioxide gas 1,500 feet down into layers of porous basaltic rock, the product of ancient lava flows from the nearby Hengill volcano. Now the researcher, Sandra Snaebjornsdottir, a doctoral student at the University of Iceland, was looking for signs that the CO2 had combined with elements in the basalt and become calcite, a solid crystalline mineral. In short, she wanted to see if the gas had turned to stone.”

“GOP avoids showdown over EPA climate change rules”

February 9, 2015: Politico reports: “Republicans’ aggressive energy agenda has so far conspicuously sidestepped one of their biggest campaign-trail targets: the climate change rules from President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency. The House GOP plans to steer clear of a showdown over the greenhouse gas rules in a broad energy package that it will unveil this week, raising questions about whether Republicans are grasping for a workable plan to stop the carbon dioxide regulations that EPA will issue later this year.”

“Business leaders call for net-zero emissions goal”

February 5, 2015: The Hill reports: “An international group of business leaders headed by mogul Richard Branson is calling for a goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by 2050. Branson, founder of the Virgin Group, called for the ambitious goal in advance of next week’s meeting in Switzerland of international leaders trying to write a global agreement to fight climate change. He was joined by a small club he leads called the B Team, which includes business leaders like Arianna Huffington, retired Indian businessman Ratan Tata and Unilever chief Paul Polman. ‘The B Team Leaders believe that by committing to net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, governments will demonstrate they are unequivocally setting the world on a clear, low-carbon trajectory,’ the group wrote in a Thursday blog post.”

 

“The Obama administration is cutting funds for a major ‘clean coal’ project”

February 5, 2015: The Washington Post reports: “It was a glittering gem for “Clean Coal” proponents — a coal plant that, advocates said, would have “near-zero emissions” thanks to a plan to capture carbon dioxide and inject it deep beneath the ground. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club scoffed, calling it a “boondoggle” and proceeded to sue. And now, the Department of Energy, which had planned to fund the FutureGen 2.0 project to the tune of $1 billion in stimulus funds and expended just over $200 million since 2010, will pull the plug, thanks to delays that had made the project unable to hit deadlines before it ran out of federal funding. ”

“Four U.S. lawmakers begin second effort at biofuels reform bill”

February 4, 2015: Reuters reports: “A group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers will begin their second attempt on Wednesday to introduce a bill that would reform the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) program in the United States, targeting an end to ethanol fuel-blending mandates. The lawmakers said the bill would eliminate requirements for corn-based ethanol blending and cap blending levels for other biofuels at actual production levels. They hope the latest move will garner support now after months of disputes over how much biofuel should be blended with oil-based fuels and growing concerns that the program drives up agriculture and food costs. The RFS Reform Act is the latest bid in recent years by Republican Representatives Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Steve Womack of Arkansas and Democrats Peter Welch of Vermont and Jim Costa of California to change a government program that Welch described as a ‘well-intended flop’ in an interview this week.”

“EPA Says Low Oil Prices Should Be Weighed in Keystone Decision”

February 4, 2015: The Wall Street Journal reports: “The Environmental Protection Agency said the government should factor in the recent trend of lower oil prices as part of its decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The EPA, in a letter sent Monday to the State Department, said the months long drop in oil prices should compel the department to ‘revisit’ conclusions about U.S. oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions it made in an environmental assessment published in January 2014, which found the pipeline wouldn’t significantly add greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. The State Department oversees cross-border pipelines and is in the process of deciding whether the Keystone project should receive a permit.”

“The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism”

February 2, 2015: An op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by Bjorn Lomborg, author and director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, states: “It is an indisputable fact that carbon emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted. But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected. Facts like this are important because a one-sided focus on worst-case stories is a poor foundation for sound policies.”

“Exclusive: Obama 2016 budget urges U.S. states to cut emissions faster”

February 2, 2015: Reuters reports: “President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2016 budget proposes $7.4 billion to fund clean energy technologies and a $4 billion fund to encourage U.S. states to make faster and deeper cuts to emissions from power plants, officials told Reuters. Obama’s budget, which will be published later on Monday, also calls for the permanent extension of the Production Tax Credit, used by the wind industry, and the Investment Tax Credit, used by the solar industry, the officials said. Obama has made fighting climate change a top priority in his final two years in office. The White House sees it as critical to his legacy.”

“The Car of the Future May Run on Gasoline”

February 2, 2015: The Wall Street Journal reports: “When most of us picture the high-tech personal mobility of the future, we tend to imagine a sleek, dead-quiet electric car, packed with voice- or motion-directed gizmos and self-driving features. We see ourselves gliding around almost effortlessly, free to talk, work or text as we see fit.  What few of us conjure up is having this sort of experience in a gasoline-fueled car. But that may be changing in the face of recent design advances. The internal combustion engine—the workhorse of the industrial age—is proving to be much more than a stubborn technological incumbent.  More than a century after becoming the dominant way that people move around, gas-powered cars are challenging ostensibly more advanced electric vehicles. It has proved hard to beat engines in which fuel is ignited, drives pistons and propels a vehicle.”