March 2015 Climate Change Summary Report

“Obama admin to unveil climate pact contribution”

March 30, 2015: The Hill reports: “The United States plans to formally submit this week its plans to cut greenhouse gases as part of a United Nations climate pact. A White House official told Reuters that the Obama administration will submit its contributions to the agreement Monday or Tuesday.  That would make the United States only the fifth political division to submit a plan to the UN, following contributions from the 28-nation European Union, Switzerland, Norway and Mexico. Those countries emit about one third of the world’s greenhouse gases. But other major sources of carbon like China, India, Russia, Brazil, Canada and Australia are planning to wait until closer to the December meeting in Paris where the agreement will be finalized, Reuters reported. World leaders are under an informal Tuesday deadline to submit their plans, which would be put together to form the pact.”

“Dems break ranks on carbon tax amendment”

March 27, 2015: The Hill reports: “Four Senate Democrats broke ranks Thursday and voted to approve an amendment aimed at prohibiting a carbon tax. The Senate voted 58-42 on an amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would set up a deficit-neutral reserve fund to prohibit a federal tax or fee on carbon emissions from any entity that, directly or indirectly, is a source of the emissions. Red-state Democrats Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) voted with Republicans. Blunt, ahead of the vote, suggested that the amendment was necessary to help protect Americans from higher utility bills and ‘send a clear message’ to President Obama.”

“Feisty Ala. climate change critic claims Washington is trying to intimidate him”

March 26, 2015: Climate Wire (subscription required) reports: “An Alabama atmospheric scientist who has gained a global reputation as a repudiator of “mainstream climate science” strongly defended his research record at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), where he is a distinguished professor and director of the university’s Earth System Science Center. John Christy, who has been at UAH since 1987, said this week that all of his research funds are derived from state and federal agencies and that he has never accepted research money from business or industry groups that have challenged the scientific findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Research Council and other expert bodies. Nor has he accepted research funding from groups actively engaged in lobbying against U.S. climate change policies, he said.”

“Missing the mark on climate change skepticism”

March 25, 2015: An op-ed by University of Pennsylvania professor J. Scott Armstrong in The Washington Times states: “During the past few weeks, a series of articles in the press have implied that Willie Soon, a well-known global-warming skeptic, had violated ethical standards by failing to disclose information about research funding. Attacks on the integrity of global-warming skeptics are nothing new. As a co-author of two papers with Mr. Soon, I’ve been subjected to them myself. This time, however, the attacks have reached a feverish pitch. In addition, the government has gotten involved. Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona has requested information from seven universities about funding for research by global warming skeptics, while Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asked for similar information from 100 corporations. With respect to our papers, the press repeated innuendos that Mr. Soon received funds from Southern Co. He did not, which is a matter of public record. Other than salaries from our employers, Mr. Soon, co-author Kesten Green and I received no money for our two papers at issue. Interestingly, it is our impression that our employers believe in the ‘dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis.’

“GOP lawmaker targets Obama climate plan”

March 24, 2015: The Associated Press reports: “House Republicans on Monday targeted a key element of President Barack Obama’s strategy for fighting climate change, releasing a bill to delay the Obama administration’s plan to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants. Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky unveiled a draft bill that would allow governors to veto compliance with the federal rule if the governor determines it would cause significant rate hikes for electricity or harm reliability in the state. The bill also would delay the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate rule until all court challenges are completed.”

“Harvard Law professors fight over EPA’s climate rule”

March 23, 2015: The Hill reports: “A Harvard Law School professor who taught President Obama is debating with his colleagues on a school blog over the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants. Laurence Tribe, who also used to work in the Justice Department under Obama, is arguing on the blog, in congressional testimony and elsewhere that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon limits for power plants are unconstitutional and prohibited specifically by law. The arguments — and their source — have become a top talking point for Republicans and other opponents of the plan, who hold Tribe as a liberal figurehead who broke with the Democratic Party.”

“Obama drives ahead on climate with government emissions cuts”

March 20, 2015: The Associated Press reports: “President Barack Obama ordered the federal government on Thursday to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half over the next decade, driving his climate change agenda forward despite percolating challenges from Republican-led states. By curtailing pollution within the U.S. government, Obama sought to increase political pressure on other nations to deal seriously with climate change. The U.S. and other nations will soon announce how much they’re willing to cut their national emissions as part of a global climate treaty to be finalized in December; scientists warn that if those pledges are too lax, the treaty could be too weak to stop the worst effects of global warming. ‘We thought it was important for us to lead by example,’ Obama said at the Energy Department headquarters, where he toured a sprawling installation of solar panels on the building’s roof. ‘These are ambitious goals, but we know they’re achievable goals.’”

“McConnell to states: EPA climate rule is illegal”

March 20, 2015: The Hill reports: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is doubling down on his advice that states ignore the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants. McConnell sought to reassure governors in a letter Thursday that they would be on firm legal ground and not violating the law if they decline to formulate plans to implement the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon limits. ‘The fact is, it is the EPA that is failing to comply with the law here,’ McConnell wrote to the National Governors Association, adding that the EPA is going ‘far beyond its legal authority.’ The proposed rule would require states to use various measures, like improving the efficiency of power plants and reducing power demand, to meet individual emissions targets that the EPA calculated for each state. But McConnell said the EPA is ‘overreaching’ because it doesn’t have the authority under the Clean Air Act to force states to take most of those actions.”

“Republicans Push Climate Change Cuts at CIA, Defense Department”

March 18, 2015: National Journal reports: “Climate change is on the chopping block. If Republicans get their way, the CIA and the Defense Department could soon have a lot less cash for climate research. The House GOP budget unveiled on Tuesday calls for cuts to CIA and DOD programs devoted to the study of global warming, despite the fact that the military has identified climate change as a major national security threat and a key priority. ‘The Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, two of the most important agencies in our national security apparatus, currently spend part of their budget studying climate change,’ the budget states.

“The battle over ‘phantom fuels’”

March 16, 2015: The Washington Examiner reports: “A recent swell in the production of special low-carbon fuels as part of a federal biofuels mandate has the oil industry and renewable fuel proponents drawing battle lines over how much of the fuels refiners must blend to comply with the law. At the heart of the issue is the Environmental Protection Agency’s flagship biofuels program, the Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires the oil industry to buy, transport and blend the fuels officials deem less harmful to the climate. The refiners would rather not have to deal with higher and higher volumes of alternative fuels, arguing that the program is flawed and will harm consumers, while environmental advocates and biofuels advocates say the amount of the biofuels required to be purchased by the industry needs to be increased to spur a new low-carbon fuel industry.”

“EPA listens as states, utilities brainstorm interstate trading for carbon rule”

March 16, 2015: Climate Wire reports: “A platoon of U.S. EPA officials and three dozen stakeholders with skin in the game got together last week to figure out how an interstate trading market might aid compliance with the proposed Clean Power Plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions. ‘The majority of the conversation right now is around different tools that are being developed to look at how you might prepare an implementation plan,’ said Michelle Walker Owenby, assistant commissioner of policy for Tennessee’s Department of Environment and Conservation. ‘It’s more a discussion of different available options and tools that are being developed and being discussed as concepts rather than ‘here’s a clear path.’’ Stakeholders have moved from airing grievances about the proposal to broadly discussing ways to reduce emissions under the rule’s framework, Owenby said.”

“Climate change ‘denier’ scientist funding investigation countered by ‘warmist’ probe”

March 12, 2015: The Washington Times reports: “People who live in glass greenhouses shouldn’t throw stones. A Democrat-led congressional investigation into the funding sources of ‘denier’ scientists has triggered another scientific law — to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction — from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Rep. Raul M. Grijalva’s investigation into the funding sources of seven professors has triggered a round of Freedom of Information Act requests by two free market think tanks in an effort to learn more about the financial backings of climate professors aligned with the ‘consensus’ or ‘warmist’ school of thought.”

“Debate grows louder over states saying ‘no’ to Clean Power Plan”

March 11, 2015: Green Wire reports: “Foes of U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan are weighing the legal and political pros and cons of a ‘just say no’ approach to the draft rule aimed at curbing heat-trapping greenhouse gases from power plants. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week urged states to not prepare plans for implementing the rule. Cooperating with the Obama administration, he said, would undercut legal and legislative efforts to kill the rule and allow EPA to impose a rule that exceeds its legal authority. The Kentucky Republican’s call amplified an idea that had been circulating for months among industry representatives and policymakers, who say states have much to gain and little to lose by refusing to comply with the EPA rule.”

“What to watch for in U.S. climate plan for Paris”

March 11, 2015: Reuters reports: “Later this month, the Obama administration will unveil how it plans to reduce carbon emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels within a decade, the core of the negotiating position it will take to global climate talks Paris this December. While the broad outlines of the U.S. position are known, there is great interest in its intended nationally determined contribution (INDC), climate diplomats’ term for each country’s domestic program to achieve its Paris targets. So far only the EU and Switzerland have released plans. Most countries – including China and India – are not expected to do so until the summer. The Obama administration has suggested that showing its hand early could pressure other major emitters to be comprehensive in their own INDCs.”

“GOP’s ‘just say no’ climate strategy stirs doubts for EPA”

March 10, 2015: Politico Pro reports: “Supporters of President Barack Obama’s climate regulations are getting worried EPA may have few tools to use if states decide to follow conservatives’ advice and refuse to cooperate with the agency on climate change regulations. Questions abound about how the agency would impose its own climate plans on behalf of states or make sure the states that do submit plans actually stick to them. Also up in the air: whether the agency has the right to hit the violators with penalties that could even include the loss of federal highway dollars — one of the main fiscal weapons Washington has used to get states to toe the line on everything from motorcycle helmet laws to underage drinking.”

“Republicans criticize climate change cost accounting”

March 10, 2015: The Hill reports: “Senate Republicans are criticizing the Obama administration for using what they see as an opaque, secretive process to calculate the costs associated with climate change. Led by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), 11 senators wrote to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Monday to investigate the administration’s social cost of carbon. The administration uses social cost of carbon to calculate the societal benefits of regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are believed to cause climate change.”

“Silencing climate chaos skeptics”

March 9, 2015: An op-ed by Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow in Town Hall states: “Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), other senators and Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) recently sent letters to institutions that employ or support climate change researchers whose work questions claims that Earth and humanity face unprecedented manmade climate change catastrophes. The letters allege that the targeted researchers may have ‘conflicts of interest’ or may not have fully disclosed corporate funding sources. They say such researchers may have testified before congressional committees, written articles or spoken at conferences, emphasizing the role of natural forces in climate change, or questioning evidence and computer models that emphasize predominantly human causes. You would therefore expect that these members of Congress would send similar letters to researchers and institutions on the other side of this contentious climate controversy. But they did not, even though climate alarmism is embroiled in serious financial, scientific, ethical and conflict of interest disputes.”

“Low carbon fuel standard creates environmental concerns”

March 9, 2015: An op-ed in the Statesman Journal states: “After the Oregon House of Representatives spent five hours debating the merits of “clean fuels,” it became evident that two critical issues in the debate had never properly been discussed in the committee process. Oregonians believe in a balanced use of our natural resources. Senate Bill 324, a bill to lift the sunset on an untested program to create low carbon fuel standards, trades environmental impacts we can see for the ones we can’t. Fracking, pipelines and coal trains used in conventional fuel production have tangible (and sometimes negative) environmental impacts that are visible and immediately present. But “clean fuels” that rely on high-intensity farming can have equally tangible (and negative) environmental impacts. Since the impacts aren’t visible, it’s easier to accept them. Further, there are serious societal impacts associated with biofuels.”

“PJM analysis of EPA Clean Power Plan puts price on carbon”

March 6, 2015: Energy Wire reports: “A new analysis of the economic impacts of U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan by the nation’s largest grid operator places a price on carbon dioxide emissions and concludes that under nearly 40 compliance scenarios, a regional solution is less costly than a state-by-state approach. The model employed by the PJM Interconnection in its analysis also concludes that the retirement of fossil-fueled power plants “will occur gradually” through the 2030 deadline for compliance with the EPA plan.

“The political assault on climate skeptics”

March 5, 2015: An op-ed in The Wall Street Journal states: “Research in recent years has encouraged those who question the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming. Actually, the move from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ indicated the silliness of this issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom. Individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios have relentlessly attacked scientists and others who do not share their beliefs. The attacks have taken a threatening turn.”

“The EPA’s not-so-green emissions plan”

March 5, 2015: The Washington Post editorializes: “The Environmental Protection Agency is mandating cuts in the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. But dozens of environmental scientists from Princeton to Baton Rouge to Berkeley warned last month that the way the agency is writing the rules threatens to sharply increase forest clearing, undermining the EPA effort. The culprit is a familiar obstacle to good policymaking in Washington: bioenergy. The EPA program is supposed to force power generators to cut back on fossil fuel burning and increase electricity production from cleaner sources of energy. A crucial question, then, is how much credit to give to various alternative energy sources. Replacing coal with solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal and other low-emissions technologies eliminates practically all of coal’s massive carbon footprint, so energy companies that invest in those sources should get a lot of credit. But the EPA is still figuring out how to count electricity produced by burning wood and other forest products in power plant boilers, an energy source euphemistically called ‘biomass.’ “

“McConnell to states: Don’t comply with EPA climate rule”

March 5, 2015: The Hill reports: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is urging state officials not to comply with the Obama administration’s signature climate rule. McConnell, a stringent opponent of the regulation, said states should not submit a design plan for limiting carbon pollution from existing power plants. ‘The regulation is unfair. It’s probably illegal. And state officials can do something about it; in fact, many are already fighting back,’ McConnell said in an op-ed published in the Lexington Herald-Leader.”

 

“McCarthy confronts McConnell call for Clean Power Plan boycott”

March 5, 2015: Energy Guardian reports: “Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy on Wednesday pushed back against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s op-ed piece urging states not to file plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan, once it is finalized. She told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at a budget hearing that she hopes the states will submit plans to cut carbon emissions from power plants, but if they don’t, ‘there will be a federal system in place to allow us to move forward.’”

“Soon, at center of climate science funding dispute, defends research”

March 3, 2015: Energy Guardian reports: “Decrying what he called a ‘smear campaign’ against him, scientist Wei-Hock ‘Willie’ Soon has responded to the growing storm surrounding the funding for his climate research. He issued a statement Monday defending the integrity of his findings, which question how much human activity can be blamed for climate change. Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, came under scrutiny after the environmental group Greenpeace released a set of documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, revealing that some of his work was financed by fossil fuel interests.”

“Most Americans see combating climate change as moral duty”

March 2, 2015: Reuters reports: “A significant majority of Americans say combating climate change is a moral issue that obligates them – and world leaders – to reduce carbon emissions, a Reuters/IPSOS poll has found. The poll of 2,827 Americans was conducted in February to measure the impact of moral language, including interventions by Pope Francis, on the climate change debate. In recent months, the pope has warned about the moral consequences of failing to act on rising global temperatures, which are expected to disproportionately affect the lives of the world’s poor.”