On November 19, 2020 the government introduced Bill C-12, titled an Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.
Why is this now Canada’s legally required goal? It is not required by the Paris Accord of 2015, which set no national goals for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions. The federal government has previously set several GHG emission reduction goals without needing any new laws. Why legislate now?
The government will argue that C-12 adds an important element of transparency and accountability to the federal reporting requirements. But there is nothing to prevent the government from being more transparent and accountable without enacting this law. And, despite the “accountability and transparency” there is no requirement to disclose how costly it will be to reach the next milestone, who will bear the cost, or how the cost will be financed.
The Bill sets Canada’s national GHG emissions target for net-zero by 2050. It also requires the Minister to set national GHG emissions targets for each of several “milestone years”. The Minister must establish a plan for achieving the 2050 target and for each milestone year before then. If the target for a milestone year is not met, the Minister must explain what will be done to get back on track to meet the target.
An increasing number of cases are being brought before the courts in which environmental advocacy organizations argue that challenges to government climate policy are “justiciable”, and therefore, should be decided by judges. (“Justiciable” means capable of being determined by a court.) The lawsuits have sought to compel governments to carry out the advocated climate policies.
The environmental non-governmental advocacy organizations that developed the criteria for Bill C-12 probably wanted to enable themselves to sue the government for failure to do more to achieve the legislated target. Political defendants in lawsuits are not always unhappy to be sued; they may even be delighted. Bill C-12 is a potential source of such lawsuits, enabling the government to justify its target as moderate compared to the claims in the lawsuits.
The central purpose of C-12 is to bake the net-zero 2050 goal into the public consciousness and into the Canadian political agenda. Lawsuits won’t do the baking, just raise the temperature.
About the Author
ROBERT LYMAN is an economist with 27 years’ experience as an analyst, policy advisor and manager in the Canadian federal government, primarily in the areas of energy, transportation, and environmental policy. He was also a diplomat for 10 years. Subsequently he has worked as a private consultant conducting policy research and analysis on energy and transportation issues as a principal for Entrans Policy Research Group. He is a frequent contributor of articles and reports for Friends of Science, a Calgary-based independent organization concerned about climate change-related issues. He resides in Ottawa, Canada. Full bio.
Biden Hits ‘Pause’ On Oil And Gas Leasing On Public Lands And Waters January 27, 2021 NATHAN ROTT, SCOTT DETROW, ALANA WISE
In an effort to slow the nation’s contribution to climate change, President Biden has signed an executive order to begin halting oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters.
The much-anticipated move is one of several executive actions the president took on Wednesday to address the worsening climate crisis and the broader decline of the natural world, but it won’t come without pushback.
[…]
The oil and gas industry, hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic, is expected to challenge the move, as are fossil-fuel rich Western states whose economies are closely linked to extractive industry on public lands.
Anticipating the move, Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and gas companies in many Western states, said: “We’ll be in court shortly thereafter.”
Fossil fuel extraction on federal lands generates billions of dollars in royalties and revenues for local and state economies. But it’s also responsible for nearly a quarter of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions, and the Biden administration appears to be serious about cutting the country’s outsized contribution to global warming.
[…]
Biden’s halt on new oil and gas leasing also does nothing to affect activities on private or state lands, where roughly 90% of the country’s oil and gas development occurs.
“The industry has a lot of leases in production, a lot of leases that have been issued, so it won’t have an immediate impact. But it will give an immediate opportunity for the administration to think about how we move forward,” said Nada Culver, the vice president of public lands at the National Audubon Society.
[…]
“Ending permitting would be extremely difficult,” said Rebecca Watson, who served as assistant secretary for lands and minerals management at the Department of the Interior under President George W. Bush. “You have sold a property right, a lease, so you’ve paid for a lease and then you can’t develop it. I think there would be lawsuits and, rightly so, over a move like that.”
A permanent leasing ban would also be subject to lawsuits, she said. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, the government is required to hold quarterly lease sales. The Biden administration could make fewer or all lands unavailable for leasing, but Watson thinks a court might find that illegal.
Mark Squillace, a law professor at the University of Colorado who worked at Interior under the Clinton and Carter administrations, agrees that a permanent ban would run into more problems than a temporary pause. But he thinks the administration can make a big statement with its immediate actions.
Fossil fuel extraction on federal lands generates billions of dollars in royalties and revenues for local and state economies. But it’s also responsible for nearly a quarter of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions, and the Biden administration appears to be serious about cutting the country’s outsized contribution to global warming. generates billions of dollars in royalties and revenues for local and state economies. But it’s also responsible for nearly a quarter of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions, and the Biden administration appears to be serious about cutting the country’s outsized contribution to global warming.
Fossil fuel extraction on federal lands” is not “responsible for nearly a quarter of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions.” Only an idiot could claim it was. And only a total fracking moron would link to a USGS report that proves their idiocy:
For the emissions portion of this study, we estimated the greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, and N2O) resulting from the extraction and end-use combustion of fossil fuels derived from U.S. Federal lands, including offshore areas…
Almost all of the emissions come from the “end-use combustion of fossil fuels.” Neither a pause nor a permanent ending of mineral leasing on Federal lands and waters would affect the total volume of oil & gas being extracted globally, nor would it affect the total volume of emissions from the “end-use combustion of fossil fuels.” It will just shift more of the extraction to private & state leases… and to places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and Russia.
NPR: You win the Mother-of-All Ron White Awards.
NOIA Response to Biden’s Unlawful Action
Biden Oil & Gas Leasing “Pause” Regresses Emissions, Climate Progress For Immediate Release: Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Washington, D.C. – National Ocean Industries Association President Erik Milito issued the following statement in response to the Biden Administration’s Executive Order establishing a moratorium of new oil and gas leasing:
“This decision is contrary to law and puts America on a path toward increased imports from foreign nations that have been characterized as pollution havens. Any pause of American energy opportunities will do untold harm towards American economic, energy and environmental progress. Reducing American offshore oil and gas development means lost jobs, increased greenhouse gas emissions and less funding for outdoor parks and recreation activities for urban, underprivileged communities. There is no shortage of negative consequences from this leasing pause.
“The Gulf of Mexico is an American strategic asset, driving hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment across every U.S. state. Billions of dollars are generated for Federal, state and local governments. The Land & Water Conservation Fund, and the host of climate-mitigating and environmental justice programs it provides for, receives virtually its entire funding from offshore oil and gas revenues, including new lease bids. This decision could also hamper long-term energy affordability. As Americans continue to rely upon all sources of energy for maintaining a high standard of living, reduced supplies can put upward pressure on prices.
“While the executive order is framed as a step towards a climate solution, it pauses energy opportunities in a region that is already addressing climate and emissions goals. Gulf of Mexico production has a carbon intensity one half of other producing regions and the deepwater has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any source of oil and gas production. The innovators that define America’s offshore energy industry are already contributing to the continued advancement of climate change solutions.
“The Department of the Interior has a legal obligation to expeditiously develop America’s energy resources. Instead of fulfilling this obligation and capitalizing on an American environmental and emissions success story, this decision delivers an opportunity to China and Russia. As China and Russia seize jobs and investment, their energy, which is produced without the same level of regulations and standards as the U.S., could very well win permanent geopolitical importance to the detriment of the climate and the environment.”
Additional Content In May 2020, the National Ocean Industries Association released the report, The Economic Impacts of the Gulf of Mexico Oil & Natural Gas Industry Report. Prepared by Energy & Industrial Advisory Partners, the report examines the economic impact of Gulf of Mexico leasing or permitting bans. Below is the study and National and State Fact Sheets:
Well, I started the regimen last Thursday, and today (Wednesday) when I checked, my blood pressure had shot through the roof. (182 over 89).
I checked with my doctors and they theorized that this has to do with my body’s response to the hydoxychloroquine. However, it might have to do with the zinc instead. Or maybe both. (My body doesn’t always respond to chemicals in what is considered a ‘normal’ manner.)
The the doctors suggested that I go off both the hydoxychloroquine and the zinc for a week. Then add the hydoxychloroquine back into the mix and see what happens. If that seems to go okay, then add in just half of the recommended dose of zinc, and see what happens then. And then … well, that will be decided then.
So that’s what I have done. Will keep you updated.
___________
Here’s what I wrote earlier:
With so much disinformation out there about Covid-19, how does one know what is true? I’ve therefore decided to become a human guinea pig, and have begun taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure. I will keep you updated as to how it turns out.
____________
(* See disclaimer below.)
I’ve Just Started Taking Hydoxychloroquine Prophylactically
Robert Felix
The idea of allowing myself to be vaccinated with an experimental mRNA vaccine that has not yet completed the testing stage really concerns me. And when I see hospitals essentially having to bribe their medical personnel to take the vaccine, I realize that I am not alone in this regard.
Perhaps I could have accessed hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) on my own, but since I’m posting this online, I decided to do it in a responsible manner.
I therefore talked to, and corresponded with, many people whom I trust in this matter. This includes several primary care physicians, physician’s assistants and nurses. Some of them have already been vaccinated, while others (more than you might believe) have decided to wait for more test results.
Anyway, I scheduled an in-person appointment with one of those doctors. After talking to me and checking me out physically, he sent a prescription for a month’s supply of HCQ to my pharmacy.
A month’s supply may sound like a lot, but it is actually only eight pills; two pills per week.
Because I have had elevated liver enzyme levels in the past, the doctor insisted that I go in for blood tests to establish a base level, and then repeat the same tests in 30 days. At that point, we will compare the results and decide whether it appears safe for me to continue the regimen.
And a regimen it is. The doctors (yes, there’s an ‘s’ on the end of that word) because several doctors suggested that I take the following supplements daily:
50 mg of zinc (25 mg in the a.m., 25 mg in the p.m.)
4,000 i.e.u. of vitamin D3
At least 2,000 mg of vitamin C (I’m actually taking 4,000 mg/day)
Those supplements were no surprise, because I’d already been taking them anyway.
But this next one was a surprise.
The doctors (yes, again, several doctors) recommended that I add 250 mg per day of quercetin to the mix.
As I said earlier, I’ve already been taking the zinc, D3 and C for years, so the only addition was the quercetin.
I had never heard of quercetin before, and a couple of grocery stores I visited had never heard of it either. But I found it at a local pharmacy later that same day.
Quercetin is an herbal supplement, non-prescription, and once one knows what to look for, is easily found on the web.
What does quercetin do?
According to a National Institute of Health report that I just found, “quercetin (is) a flavonoid found in fruits and vegetables. (It) has unique biological properties that may improve mental/physical performance and reduce infection risk. These properties form the basis for potential benefits to overall health and disease resistance, including anti-carcinogenic, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antioxidant, and (other) activities.”
Anti-carcinogenic, anti-inflammatory, antiviral and antioxidant. Not a bad combination.
And it appears to be safe. According to a different N.I.H. paper, “adverse effects following supplemental quercetin intake (up to 1000 mg daily) have been rarely reported and any such effects were mild in nature.”
According to the doctors, the above four herbal supplements could give me up to 75 percent of the protection that I’ll be getting from the hydroxychloroquine.
For me, this has been a no-brainer.
And if it turns out that I’m not a suitable candidate for HCQ, I’ll most likely continue taking the above cocktail of herbal supplements.
By the way, as near as I can tell, taking HCQ prophylactically will not prevent me from catching Covid-19, but quite possibly could render its effects much less pronounced.
Stay tuned: I’ll keep you updated as to how this all turns out.
* Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, nor do I have a medical background. I am therefore not suggesting that you do, or do not, begin taking hydroxychloroquine. That’s between you and your doctor.
However, A.C. Osborn just sent this link describing 195 studies touting HCQ: https://c19study.com/
Mortality from extreme weather down 99% in last century Climate damage also declined over the past thirty years Adaptation is profitable, mitigation is harmful
The world should focus much more on climate adaptation and much less on mitigation. This is the conclusion of the global Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) following the international climate summit that took place in the Netherlands over the past two days.
Adaptation has already amply proven its value, while mitigation turns out to be inefficient and expensive. A ‘green recovery’ from the corona crisis with a strong emphasis on mitigation – which was constantly advocated during the climate summit – is therefore a misleading message.
The Netherlands hosted a global online conference on climate adaptation in the past two days. A great initiative! There is no better place in the world to host such a summit. Note that since 2018 the Netherlands also hosts the Global Center on Adaptation.
In the field of water protection, the Netherlands deserves the unofficial title of ‘world champion of adaptation’. We have been doing nothing else for centuries and our dikes have a flooding probability of 1 in 10,000 years while once every 100 years is common in the rest of the world. Delta science is big in The Netherlands. And Dutch experts also increasingly invest in adapting agricultural crops to changing climate conditions (drier, wetter, saltier etc.).
The CLINTEL Foundation has been a strong supporter of climate adaptation since its start in 2019. It is therefore pleased that the Netherlands has put this form of climate policy back on the international agenda. Too often and for too long, adaptation has been a neglected child.
As we stated in our founding document ‘Exploiting Climate Change’: “Many lifes have demonstrably been saved with adaptation, while the same cannot be said for mitigation (CO2 reduction) whatsoever.”
History shows the way
Now that the summit is over, CLINTEL finds it incomprehensible that all the good news that climate adaptation has brought over the past century has remained largely underexposed. Adaptation is presented as a ‘last resort’ that unfortunately has to be deployed because the Paris climate objectives (keeping the world below 2 degrees or preferably even below 1.5 degrees warming) will probably not be met. This is a great injustice to the role of adaptation. After all, adaptation has already ensured spectacular progress over the past century. Why is this not mentioned?
With two recently published graphs (see Appendix) we show how much has already been achieved, mainly thanks to prosperity and adaptation, and that there is absolutely no question of a climate crisis, as CLINTEL stated in its World Climate Declaration. The message of these graphs: ‘Mankind is increasingly able to cope with extremes. There is no reason to assume that this positive development will turn into a negative one tomorrow. Why sliding this evidence under the carpet?Appendix-press-release-CLINTEL-Download
Adaptation vs mitigation
In a 2019 report, the Global Commission on Adaptation already stated that one dollar invested in adaptation yields about four dollars in benefits. In other words: Adaptation yields prosperity. However, the Commission forgets to mention that mitigation scores much worse. Danish environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg estimates in a recent study that one dollar going to the Paris Climate Agreement (mitigation) yields only 11 cents in benefits. In other words: Mitigation yields poverty.
Conclusion
The message of the world leaders at the online adaptation top is misleading and wrong. CLINTEL’s message to the world is: ‘Increase investments in adaptation, stop pouring money in mitigation’. In other words: ‘Abandon as soon as possible the targets of the Paris Agreement’.
CLINTEL
The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) was founded in March 2019 by Emeritus Professor of Geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Since then, CLINTEL has rapidly grown into a global organization in 36 countries with 23 ambassadors.
CLINTEL wants to engage in a fundamental discussion with leading scientific organizations on climate and energy. To this end, it has issued a World Climate Declaration, a Scientific Manifesto with a message to all Academies of Science, a Magna Carta Universitatum with a message to all universities and its energy vision Energia Renovabilis with an energy message to all administrators and politicians.
For more information: guus.berkhout@clintelgroup.org
Also Azithromycin and Zinc. “Interesting timing on this – right after the election,” says reader Paul Doyle.
Here are some selected passages from the study. I highlighted what I consider the telling sentences in bold.
Antimalarials
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial/anti-inflammatory drug that impairs endosomal transfer of virions within human cells.
HCQ is also a zinc ionophore that conveys zinc intracellularly to block the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which is the core enzyme of the virus replication.21 The currently completed retrospective studies and randomized trials have generally shown these findings: 1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2)
When started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality.22, 23, 24, 25
In a retrospective inpatient study of 2541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, therapy associated with an adjusted reduction in mortality was HCQ alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.46, P <0.001) and HCQ with azithromycin (HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, P <0.001).23
HCQ was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm.25,26
Although asymptomatic QT prolongation is a well-recognized and infrequent (<1%) complication of HCQ, it is possible that in the setting of acute illness symptomatic arrhythmias could develop. Data safety and monitoring boards have not declared safety concerns in any clinical trial published to date. Rare patients with a personal or family history of prolonged QT syndrome and those on additional QT prolonging, contraindicated drugs (eg, dofetilide, sotalol) should be treated with caution and a plan to monitor the QTc in the ambulatory setting.
A typical HCQ regimen is 200 mg bid for 5 days and extended to 30 days for continued symptoms. A minimal sufficient dose of HCQ should be used, because in excessive doses the drug can interfere with early immune response to the virus.
Azithromycin
Azithromycin is a commonly used macrolide antibiotic that has antiviral properties mainly attributed to reduced endosomal transfer of virions as well as established anti-inflammatory effects.27
It has been commonly used in COVID-19 studies initially based on French reports demonstrating markedly reduced durations of viral shedding, fewer hospitalizations, and reduced mortality combination with HCQ as compared to those untreated.28,29
In the large inpatient study (n = 2451) discussed previously, those who received azithromycin alone had an adjusted HR for mortality of 1.05, 95% CI 0.68-1.62, and P = 0.83.23
The combination of HCQ and azithromycin has been used as standard of care in other contexts as a standard of care in more than 300,000 older adults with multiple comorbidities.30
This agent is well-tolerated and like HCQ can prolong the QTc in <1% of patients. The same safety precautions for HCQ listed previously could be extended to azithromycin with or without HCQ. Azithromycin provides additional coverage of bacterial upper respiratory pathogens that could potentially play a role in concurrent or secondary infection.
Thus, this agent can serve as a safety net for patients with COVID-19 against clinical failure of the bacterial component of community-acquired pneumonia.31,32
The same safety precautions for HCQ could be extended to azithromycin with or without HCQ. Because both HCQ and azithromycin have small but potentially additive risks of QTc prolongation, patients with known or suspected arrhythmias or taking contraindicated medications or should have more thorough workup (eg, review of baseline electrocardiogram, imaging studies, etc.) before receiving these 2 together. One of many dosing schemes is 250 mg po bid for 5 days and may extend to 30 days for persistent symptoms or evidence of bacterial superinfection.
There the story of the court’s decision, and the back story told by one judge dissenting from the other two on the panel. The overview comes from courthousenews DC Circuit Rejects Trump Rollback of Power Plant Emission Rules. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
Overview of Ruling on Affordable Clean Energy Rule
The federal appeals court’s 182-page opinion released Tuesday was unsigned, written by a mostly unanimous three-judge panel. U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee who joined the court just a month before the case was heard, penned only a partial dissent.
The panel found the outgoing president’s Affordable Clean Energy rule, adopted in 2019 as part of Trump’s effort to roll back what he considered anti-business regulations, is based on an “erroneous legal premise.” The ACE rule dropped all statewide emissions caps, giving state regulators greater autonomy and more time to reduce pollution.
The court held Tuesday that there is “no basis—grammatical, contextual, or otherwise—for the EPA’s assertion” about source-specific language in federal law that it claims limits its oversight of fossil fuel power sources.
While the ruling was welcomed by health and environmental groups, it only returns things to the status quo. Litigation tied up Obama’s Clean Power Plan shortly after it was passed and it never took effect thanks to a Supreme Court stay in 2016.
The Trump effort to roll it back started in 2017 before culminating with the ACE rule in 2019. Now the ACE rule too will be bound up in legal purgatory, if not scrapped entirely by the incoming Biden administration.
Walker was joined on the panel by U.S. Circuit Judges Cornelia Pillard and Patricia Millett, both Obama appointees. While the Trump appointee mostly concurred with his colleagues, Walker filed a partial dissent saying he took issue with both Obama and Trump’s regulatory efforts.
The Back Story–How We Got Here
Judge Walker wrote an interesting essay on the twists and turns with climate change, the EPA and CO2 emissions. His statement is at the end of the court document (here). Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
WALKER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part: This case concerns two rules related to climate change. The EPA promulgated both rules under § 111 of the Clean Air Act.1
A major milestone in climate regulation, the first rule set caps for carbon emissions. Those caps would have likely forced shifts in power generation from higher-polluting energy sources (such as coal-fired power plants) to lower-emitting sources (such as natural gas or renewable energy sources). 2 That policy is called generation shifting.
Hardly any party in this case makes a serious and sustained argument that § 111 includes a clear statement unambiguously authorizing the EPA to consider off-site solutions like generation shifting. And because the rule implicates “decisions of vast economic and political significance,” Congress’s failure to clearly authorize the rule means the EPA lacked the authority to promulgate it.
The second rule repealed the first and partially replaced it with different regulations of coal-fired power plants. Dozens of parties have challenged both the repeal and the provisions replacing it.
In my view, the EPA was required to repeal the first rule and wrong to replace it with provisions promulgated under § 111. That’s because coal-fired power plants are already regulated under § 112, and § 111 excludes from its scope any power plants regulated under § 112. Thus, the EPA has no authority to regulate coal-fired power plants under§ 111.
Background Concerning EPA and Carbon Dioxide
In its clearest provisions, the Clean Air Act evinces a political consensus. For example, according to Massachusetts v. EPA, carbon dioxide is clearly a pollutant, and the Act’s § 202 unambiguously directs the EPA to curb pollution from new cars.
But for every carbon question answered in that case, many more were not even presented. For example, does the Clean Air Act force the electric-power industry to shift from fossil fuels to renewable resources? If so, by how much? And who will pay for it? Even if Congress could delegate those decisions, Massachusetts v. EPA does not say where in the Clean Air Act Congress clearly did so.
In 2009, Congress tried to supply that clarity through new legislation.
The House succeeded. The President supported it. But that effort stalled in the Senate.
Since climate change is real, man-made, and important, Congress’s failure to act was, to many, a disappointment.But the process worked as it was designed. In general, Senators from small states blocked legislation they viewed as adverse to their voters. And because small states have outsized influence in the Senate, no bill arrived on the President’s desk.
Nor have dozens of other climate-related bills introduced since then. So President Obama ordered the EPA to do what Congress wouldn’t. In 2015, after “years of unprecedented outreach and public engagement” — including 4.3 million public comments (about 4.25 million more than in Massachusetts v.EPA) — the EPA promulgated a rule aimed at “leading global efforts to address climate change.”
Entitled the Clean Power Plan, the EPA’s rule used the Clean Air Act’s § 111 to set limits for carbon emissions that would likely be impossible to achieve at individual coal-fired power plants because of costs, unavailable technologies, or a need to severely reduce usage. In that sense, the limits required generation shifting: shifting production from coal-fired power plants to facilities that use natural gas or renewable resources.
To be clear, the 2015 Rule did not expressly say, “Power plants must adopt off-site solutions.” But it did set strict emission limits in part by considering off-site solutions. And those emission limits would likely have been unachievable or too costly to meet if off-site solutions were off the table.
A political faction opposed generation shifting. It challenged the 2015 Rule in this Court, arguing that § 111 does not allow the EPA to consider off-site solutions when determining the best system of emission reduction. The faction included about twenty-four states, represented by many Senators who opposed the 2009 legislation. Conversely, a political faction of about eighteen states defended the rule. Many of their Senators had supported the stymied legislation.
At that litigation’s outset, our Court refused to stay the rule’s implementation. But in an unprecedented intervention, the Supreme Court did what this Court would not. And through its stay, the Supreme Court implied that the challengers would likely succeed on the case’s merits.
Taking the Supreme Court’s not-so-subtle hint, in 2019 President Trump’s EPA repealed the 2015 Rule and issued the Affordable Clean Energy Rule.
Like the rule it replaced, the 2019 Rule relies on the Clean Air Act’s § 111 to reduce carbon emissions. But unlike its predecessor, the 2019 Rule did not include generation shifting in its final determination of the best system of emission reduction.
A new faction then challenged the 2019 Rule. It looked a lot like the faction that had defended the 2015 Rule. Arrayed against that faction were many states and groups that had opposed the old rule. And so once again, politically diverse states and politically adverse special interest groups brought their political brawl into a judiciary designed to be apolitical.
In this latest round, the briefing’s word count exceeded a quarter of a million words. The oral argument lasted roughly nine hours. The case’s caption alone runs beyond a dozen pages. And yet, in all that analysis, hardly any of the dozens of petitioners or intervenors defending the 2015 Rule make a serious and sustained argument that § 111 includes a clear statement unambiguously authorizing the EPA to consider a system of emission reduction that includes off-site solutionsor that § 111 otherwise satisfies the major-rules doctrine’s clear statement requirement. Neither does the EPA.
In light of that, I doubt § 111 authorizes the 2015 Rule — arguably one of the most consequential rules ever proposed by an administrative agency: • It required a “more aggressive transformation in the domestic energy industry,” marking for President Obama a “major milestone for his presidency.” • It aspired to reduce that industry’s carbon emissions by 32 percent — “equal to the annual emissions from more than 166 million cars.” • Leaders of the environmental movement considered the rule “groundbreaking,” called its announcement “historic,” and labeled it a “critically important catalyst.”
The potential costs and benefits of the 2015 Rule are almost unfathomable. Industry analysts expected wholesale electricity’s cost to rise by $214 billion. The cost to replace shuttered capacity? Another $64 billion. (“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”)
True, you can dismiss that research as industry-funded. But the EPA itself predicted its rule would cost billions of dollars and eliminate thousands of jobs.
On the benefits side of the ledger, the White House labeled the 2015 Rule a “Landmark,” and the President called it “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.” With that in mind, calculating the rule’s benefits requires a sober appraisal of that fight’s high stakes. According to the rule’s advocates, victory over climate change will:
lower ocean levels;
preserve glaciers;
reduce asthma;
make hearts healthier;
slow tropical diseases;
abate hurricanes;
temper wildfires;
reduce droughts;
stop many floods;
rescue whole ecosystems; and
save from extinction up to “half the species on earth.”
These are, to put it mildly, serious issues. Lives are at stake. And even though it’s hard to put a dollar figure on the net value on what many understandably consider invaluable, the EPA tried: $36 billion, it said, give or take about a $10- billion margin of error.
So say what you will about the cost-benefit analysis behind generation shifting, it’s hardly a minor question.
Minor questions do not forestall consequences comparable to “the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.” Minor questions are not analogous to “Thermopylae, Agincourt, Trafalgar, Lexington and Concord, Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, the Battle of the Bulge, Midway and Sept. 11.” Minor rules do not inspire “years of unprecedented outreach and public engagement.” Minor rules are not “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.” Minor rules do not put thousands of men and women out of work. And minor rules do not calculate $10 billion in net benefits as their margin of error.
Rather, the question of how to make this “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” — and who should pay for it — requires a “decision[] of vast economic and political significance.” That standard is not mine. It is the Supreme Court’s. And no cocktail of factors informing the major-rules doctrine can obscure its ultimate inquiry: Does the rule implicate a “decision[] of vast economic and political significance”?
Proponents of the 2015 Rule say it doesn’t. They have to. If it did, it’s invalid — because a clear statement is missing. And according to the Supreme Court, that is exactly what a major rule requires.
To be sure, if we frame a question broadly enough, Congress will have always answered it. Does the Clean Air Act direct the EPA to make our air cleaner? Clearly yes. Does it require at least some carbon reduction? According to Massachusetts v. EPA, again yes.
But how should the EPA reduce carbon emissions from power plants? And who should pay for it? To those major questions, the Clean Air Act’s answers are far from clear.
I admit the Supreme Court has proceeded with baby steps toward a standard for its major-rules doctrine. But “big things have small beginnings.” And even though its guidance has been neither sweeping nor precise, the Supreme Court has at least drawn this line in the sand: Either a statute clearly endorses a major rule, or there can be no major rule.
Moreover, if Congress merely allowed generation shifting (it didn’t), but did not clearly require it, I doubt doing so was constitutional. For example, imagine a Congress that says, “The EPA may choose to consider off-site solutions for its best system of emission reduction, but the EPA may choose not to consider off-site solutions.” In that instance, Congress has clearly delegated to the EPA its legislative power to determine whether generation shifting should be part of the best system of emission reduction — a “decision[] of vast economic and political significance.”
Such delegation might pass muster under a constitution amended by “moments” rather than the “reflection and choice” prescribed by Article V. But if ever there was an era when an agency’s good sense was alone enough to make its rules good law, that era is over.
Congress decides what major rules make good sense. The Constitution’s First Article begins, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” And every “law” must “pass[] the House of Representatives and the Senate” and “be presented to the President.” Thus, whatever multi-billion-dollar regulatory power the federal government might enjoy, it’s found on the open floor of an accountable Congress, not in the impenetrable halls of an administrative agency — even if that agency is an overflowing font of good sense.
Over time, the Supreme Court will further illuminate the nature of major questions and the limits of delegation. And under that case law, federal regulation will undoubtedly endure. So will federal regulators. Administrative agencies are constitutional, and they’re here to stay.
Beyond that, I leave it for others to predict what the Supreme Court’s emerging jurisprudence may imply for those agencies’ profiles. Here, regardless of deference and delegation doctrines, the regulation of coal-fired power plants under § 111 is invalid for a more mundane reason: A 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act forbids it.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 prohibit the EPA from subjecting power plants to regulation under § 111 if they are already regulated under § 112. The 2015 Rule and the 2019 Rule rely on § 111 for the authority to regulate coal-fired power plants. Because the EPA already regulates those coal-fired power plants under § 112, the rules are invalid.
This case touches on some of administrative law’s most consequential, unresolved issues. What is the reach of Massachusetts v. EPA? What is the meaning of a major question? What are the limits of congressional delegation?
My comment: I much appreciate Judge Walker’s reprise of the historical journey. After earning my degree in organic chemistry, I am still offended that a bunch of lawyers refer to CO2 as a “pollutant” as though it were an artificial chemical rather than the stuff of life. And it annoys me that the American Lung Association fronted this legal attack, as though CO2 was causing breathing problems in addition to a bit of warming during our present ice age. And that list of ailments solved by reducing CO2 emissions rivals any snake oil poster ever printed.
Observers noted that this ruling produces a kind of limbo: Obama’s Clean Power Plan is out of order, and now Trumps Affordable Clean Energy program is shot down. Likely Biden will try to return to CPP as though Trump never happened, but the same objections will still be raised. Clearly Judge Walker sees the issue headed for the Supreme Court as the stakes are too high for anyone else. After their lack of courage on the 2020 election scandal, who knows what the Supremes will do.
According to the United Nations, “the people’s voice is clear”. The UN believes the results of a survey distributed to gamers playing Angry Birds, Subway Surfers, Sudoku and Words With Friends is a strong mandate for climate action.
UN global climate poll: ‘The people’s voice is clear – they want action’
The biggest ever opinion poll on climate change has found two-thirds of people think it is a “global emergency”.
The survey shows people across the world support climate action and gives politicians a clear mandate to take the major action needed, according to the UN organisation that carried out the poll.
While younger people showed the greatest concern, with 69% of those aged 14-18 saying there is a climate emergency, 58% of those over 60 agreed, suggesting there is not a huge generational divide.
…
“The voice of the people is clear – they want action on climate change,” said Cassie Flynn, the UNDP’s strategic adviser on climate change.
…
The poll was distributed via advertisements in video games and puzzles, including Angry Birds, Subway Surfers, Sudoku and Words With Friends, and this particularly helped reach younger people.
The idea came to Flynn when she was on the subway in New York City: “I looked around and everyone was on their phones and most were playing games.”
I feel sorry that the United Nations appears to be having such difficulty getting people to engage with their climate emergency that they have to resort to such innovative methods.
Perhaps WUWT readers can help out with suggestions of what else the UN could do, to get people to answer their surveys.
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
