Trump To U.S And World Citizens: Drop Dead. Fossil Fuel Billionaires MUST Be Protected

EPA is dropping a 17-year old "endangerment finding"
that forms the basis of fossil fuel regulations in
the United States. Ultimately, it's a stupid and
dangerous move.

The Trump administration on Thursday got rid of a key Environmental Protection Agency rule that forms the basis for virtually all federal regulations related to climate change. 

The change won't just affect the Trump administration. His move will make it harder for future administrations to adopt climate rules and regs. I've seen getting rid of the so-called EPA "endangerment finding" described as removing a load bearing pillar of climate regulations.

Per the Washington Post:

"Nearly 17 years after the the Environment Protection Agency declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten the public's health and welfare, the agency on Thursday rescinded the landmark legal opinion underpinning a wave of federal policies aimed at climate change. 

The agency issued its 'endangerment finding' in 2009, concluding that the government had a sound legal basis to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In scrapping the policy this week, the EPA will seek to erase limits on emissions from cars power plants, and other industries that release the vast majority of the nations planet-warming pollution".

Trump has repeated declared change a hoax, most likely because it would help fossil fuel oligarchs, who in turn will feel obligated to help him.

"This is a big deal," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said Thursday, which is the only thing I would agree with him on in this saga. 

At first, the main effect today's actions will have is to get rid of greenhouse emission standards on trucks and cars. 

But if the end of the endangerment finding holds up in court, no future EPA will be able to regulate CO2 emissions,  noted the Washington Post article. 

Environmental groups are up in arms, as you might imagine. 

One of the more succinct explanations of the ultimate result of what happened today came from Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological and Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign: 

"American families will suffer long-term harms so that giant auto and oil companies can pocket short-term profits."

Alex Witt of Climate Power was even more blunt: "This decision makes it abundantly clear that Trump is willing to make our families sicker and less safe, all to benefit a few billionaire polluters"

 For his part, Zeldin, the EPA administrator sarcastically called the 17-year old rule he's trying to get rid of the "holy grail of the climate change religion.' 

This decision will cost lives as it will hinder the worldwide battle against climate change. But then, the Trump administration thinks little of lives of people like you and me. 

Trump's administration has cut back on the National Weather Service's ability to forecast and monitor the weather. This at a time when climate change is generally making dangerous weather more complex and harder to predict.  The NWS cutbacks would have been worse if not for rare bipartisan efforts to keep more meteorologists on the job

At the behest of Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi "ICE Barbie" Noem, who also controls the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is doggedly working to cut back on FEMA disaster aid. So when those storms -  often climate related - hit, you're on your own if your house washed or blew away. 

 We haven't heard the last of this issue, though. I guarantee lawsuits that would attempt to restore the endangerment finding. It will probably make its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. The court is staked with Trump stooges, though, so despite an expected long battle, I'm not super optimistic here.

"This is going to be an ongoing struggle between rule of law and a corrupt fossil fuel industry that wants to be unbridled," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D-RI). 

Fossil Fuel Infrastructure Could Endanger Health Of 47 Million Americans

A Boston University study says that the sprawling
U.S. fossil fuel industry presents health risks
 to nearly 47 million Americans.

Just the infrastructure that supports our massive diet of fossil fuels is endangering the health of 47 million Americans, a Boston University study has concluded. 

According to phys.org

"Between the initial extraction site and the final power-generating facility, oil and gas are also refined to remove impurities, held in storage facilities, and transported from place to place. These mid-supply chain steps occur in a sprawling fossil fuel infrastructure network that spans the United States and is often hidden from plain sight.

A new study by Boston University researchers offers a first-tine look at populations living with 1.6 km (roughly a mile) of fossil fuel infrastructure across all stages of the supply chain. Published in Environmental Research Letters, the study estimates that 46.6 million people in the contiguous U.S. live within about a mile of at least one piece of fossil fuel infrastructure. This represents 14.1% of the population."

If you break down and separate the villains, it goes like this: Nearly 21 million Americans live near end-use facilities like power plants. More than 20 million people live near extraction sites, like gas and oil wells. 

More than six million people live near storage facilities like underground gas storage facilities and petroleum product terminals. About 9 million people live near more than one of these categories of fossil fuel installations. 

As was well known already, mostly people of color are exposed to various parts of the fossil fuel supply chain. And, also seemingly obviously, urban dwellers more than rural people. 

Boston University says the study helps bring a greater understanding of the size and scope of fossil fuel infrastructure risks, and also provides clues as to which people are exposed to which hazards.

This will also help with planning where to put more infrastructure, or where to remove it if possible. For instance, storage is risker for more people than extraction. On average, about 2,900 people live within a mile of a single set of storage tanks and that sort of thing. By contrast, a single piece of an extraction setup, like an oil well or fracking operation, has only 17 nearby inhabitants.

The risks can come in many forms. There could be an oil or gas leak. Or pollution from a petrochemical plant. Or a railroad derailment. 

Obviously, pretty much every industry carries some risk to nearby residents. In every industry, there are good, honest players and others who cut corners for profit, no matter the risk to the public. I'm sure there are bad actors in the clean energy field, too. 

But this study is just yet another example of why we should find ways to wean ourselves away from fossil fuel as alternative methods are found. 

 

Trump Continues To Rage Against Wind And Solar Power With Lies

Donald Trump ramped up his hatred of wind turbines
and solar power this week, which is bad news both
for climate change and an increasingly
serious electricity shortfall. 

 So we had this bit of tedium recently from Donald Trump via his ironically named social media site Truth Social:  

"Any State that has built or relied on WINDMILLS and SOLAR for power are seeing RECORD BREAKING INCREASES IN ELECTRICITY AND ENEGY COSTS. THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY!  We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar. The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!! MAGA." 

As usual, I don't even know where to begin with this train wreck/word salad.  But he clearly keeps ranting about wind turbines and solar installations. When he fixates on something, he doesn't let go. Usually for irrational reasons. 

One theory is that the wind turbines  Scotland installed offshore of Trump's golf course are ugly, at least to him, so therefore, all windmills around the world must go.

Or something like that. 

This latest screed came after the Trump administration announced Wednesday that going forward, he will not approve solar and wind power projects. 

Additionally, Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins said Monday that his department would rescind "all programs building solar panels on our farmland." 

Also this week, the Trump administration launched a national security probe into imported wind turbines and their components. This seems to be a prelude to big tariffs on wind energy. 

The administration, in typical fashion, does not give us reasons or evidence behind the probe. But as The Hill tells us, they're looking at the role of foreign supply chains, the affects foreign government subsidies and predatory trade practices. That sounds like economics, not national security, but who knows?

The Trump people said they are also checking into whether there's an ability to weaponize foreign-built wind turbines.  I'm not sure what that is. Maybe they think China can launch nuclear warheads or some damn thing from turbines installed near Sioux City, Iowa or something?

Spoiler: They can't. But who knows whether there's some other security risk. Again, we haven't been given any evidence so far. don't have evidence of that. 

THE NEED

Solar and wind power are great for combating climate change as an alternative to fossil fuel. But there's also a more immediate need for these sources of electricity. 

Electricity demand is outpacing supply in some parts as the United States, as CNBC reports. 

Electricity costs have gone up for many American consumers, but experts are saying that's mostly because of growing demand from data centers and related industries.

Per USA Today:  

"'We need to build more power generation now, and that includes renewable energy. The U.S. will need roughly 118 gigawatts (the equivalent of 12 New York Cities) of new power generation in the next four years to prevent price spikes and potential shortages,' said Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy. Only a limited set of technologies - solar, wind, batteries and some natural gas - can be built at that scale in that frame."

Solar, wind and battery storage would ease the electricity shortage due to AI and expanded data centers the quickest, because you get them up and running pretty quickly. Solar and wind comprise most of the projects in line to connect to the grid. 

So, what Trump is doing is actually driving up the cost of we'll pay for electricity more. You know, supply and demand. Less supply, the price goes up. 

He's also creating a danger of electricity shortages, perhaps doing yet another thing to turn us into a third world country by causing blackouts to power the grid.  And if one part of the grid goes, it can cause an imbalance that can cause the whole thing to go dark. 

That's obviously a worse-case scenario, but since Trump is so cavalier about everything else, he also wouldn't care if all us serfs freeze in the dark.  

Fossil Fuel Giants Lose Bid To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Them

It's beginning to look like the fossil fuel industry is 
not have an easy time in courts and with lawsuits
as they had hoped. 

 The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month shut down an attempt by fossil fuel companies to avoid a climate change lawsuit against them. 

Per Courthouse News, the lawsuit is seeking "to hold companies liable over claims of deceptive marketing about the effect of greenhouse gases.

Companies such as Sunoco, Exxon Mobile, Chevron and BP said they are facing dozens of lawsuits, leaving a vital industry at risk of owing billions of dollars over accusations it causes climate change.

The justices denied the oil and gas companies' petition without further explanation in Monday's orders list."

Frankly, I was a little surprised the seriously right leaning Supreme Court would make a decision like this, but there you go. 

This all started in 2017, when Honolulu filed suit and against the oil giants. The claim was the companies misled consumers about fossil fuel impacts on climate change. This, said Honolulu's lawsuit, led to increased fossil fuel consumption and worsened the impacts of climate change in Hawaii. 

Honolulu cited state laws in its suit but the companies wanted it all transferred to federal court. Three courts denied that wish. 

Continues Courthouse News: 

"Once the case was kicked back to state court, the companies tried to get the lawsuit dismissed. Exxon and others argue that the state courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute because the case involves the impact of interstate and international climate change."

That Exxon failed with this argument might have an impact on Vermont's "climate superfund" law and a similar statute just recently signed into law in New York State.

In a lawsuit recently filed against Vermont and its "Climate Superfund" law, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and oil companies contend that the law violated domestic and foreign commerce clauses by discriminating "against the important interest of other states by targeting large energy companies outside of Vermont."

I don't know whether the Hawaii case will have an influence here given there's other aspects of the lawsuit  against Vermont. Those include the contention it violates the U.S. Constitution and is pre-empted by the federal Clean Air Act. 

Maybe I'm being a bit of a Pollyanna here, but it's beginning to look like it's at least possible that the fossil fuel industry won't get as much sympathy from the courts as they'd hoped. 

 

History Made: Vermont Now First State To Hold Fossil Fuel Companies Liable For Climate Change

Vermont just enacted a first in the nation climate superfund
law, which bills fossil fuel companies for climate
related disasters and costs, like last July's severe
flooding across the Green Mountain State. 

 The "Climate Superfund" idea in Vermont we've been watching is now a done deal, making us the first state to hold fossil fuel giants accountable for effects of climate change. 

Basically, what Vermont has now enacted is a make fossil fuel and other industries pay up for climate related disasters that have cost us big money. 

Republican Gov. Phil Scott had threatened to veto the measure, but instead last week, he just didn't sign it, meaning it went into law.

In Vermont, if a governor doesn't sign a bill instead of signing or vetoing it, that just signals the governor's relative displeasure or ambivalence about a proposal. 

As the Associated Press reports:

".....he is very concerned about the costs and outcome of the small state taking on 'Big Oil' alone in what will likely be a grueling legal fight. But he acknowledged that he understands something has to be done to address the toll of climate change.

'I understand the desire to seek funding to mitigate the effects of climate change that has hurt our state in so many ways,' Scott, a moderate Republican in the largely blue state of Vermont, wrote in a letter to lawmakers."

Still, give Scott credit.  He's probably one of the few Republicans anywhere who isn't have a screaming fit about annoying those poor little fossil fuel companies, most of whom have been making record profits later. 

That's one of the reasons the Vermont legislature went this route. They smelled blood. Of course the much bigger reason Montpelier took this step is because that city - and much of the rest of Vermont - was inundated last summer by some of the worst flooding in the state's history.   

Floods and other climate extremes have been becoming more common in Vermont with climate change. That, of course follows global trends as the world's climate continues to go off the rails.  

One piece of the legislation that appeased Scott a little was a provision in the law that the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources just report back to the Legislature on the feasibility of the effort, the AP reports. 

I'll be really interested to see how the state calculates the financial effects of climate change in Vermont and who is to blame. Here's a rundown of how that will work, as the AP describes it:

"Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer, in consultation with the Agency of Natural Resources, would provide a report by Jan, 15, 2026 ton the total coset to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995 to Dec. 31, 2024 

The assessment would look at the effects on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing and other areas. The state would use federal data to determine the amount of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company."

Sounds really complicated, but Vermont State Treasurer Mike Pieciak said he is up to the task.  A state treasurer ought to be good at math, but Pieciak better be a genius at it. 

I don't know all the mechanisms of this plan.  Like, how do you pick out which part of a disaster was "caused" by climate change and what part might have happened anyway?  After all, in general, climate change often is not causing weather extremes. It's just making them even more extreme than they otherwise would be. 

Litigation over this is inevitable.  Predictably, the fossil fuel industry is not amused by all this stuff going on with those crazy Vermonters. 

The American Petroleum Institute sniffed that the Vermont law "retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large, and is preempted by federal law."

Before you say the American Petroleum Institute has a slam dunk case, remember, selling cigarettes is and always was legal in the U.S. Yet, laws went after tobacco companies for the harm their products caused. 

I get it they're not exactly the same thing, but the model might just work. 

Anyway, the American Petroleum Institute also informs us that the Vermonters behind this proposal and law are un-American heathens bent on destroying the United States. "This punitive new fee represents yet another step in a coordinated campaign to undermine America's energy advantage and the economic and national security benefits it provides," said an API spokesman. 

Huh.

You can definitely accuse the Vermont Legislature of being liberal, and it's fair to disagree with some or even all that they do. But I haven't seen in the news any of our fine lawmakers saying the want to destroy America and our way of life.

Maybe I missed the fine print or something. 

There's going to be a lot of fighting and twists and turns over this, and some lawyers are probably going to make a lot of money either supporting or fighting this climate superfund idea.

They main thing to watch is whether Vermont started a whole movement much bigger than the taming of the cigarette companies over the decades. Or will this be a flash in the pan. I'm betting against the flash in the pan scenario, since other states are considering following Vermont's lead.

This is not just entertainment, folks.  This is a big deal, if only because climate change is the ultimate big deal. 

  

COP27 Climate Conference Ends In Weak, Iffy Financial Deal For Climate Victim Nations

Agreements reached at the recently ended UN COP27
climate change meeting in Egypt are vague and
don't seem likely to make much headway with climate change. 

 The just ended COP27 UN climate global conference resulted in some deals, some agreements, but things seem vague enough that I don't know what exactly will be put into action. 

I don't think these annual meetings are actually getting much done, but I guess you have to give people credit for trying. 

The COP meetings comes each year to encourage nations to cooperate in tempering the worst of climate change and dealing with its effects. This year's two-week long conference ended Sunday as nations hammered out at least some tentative paths forward.

This year's conference focused largely on the fact that poor countries, which never emitted much greenhouse gas, that are bearing the brunt of climate change. Meanwhile, richer countries, which have belched out those emissions for decades aren't compensating these poorer nations.

In negotiations that extended two days beyond what had been the scheduled close of the conference, richer countries agreed to establish a loss and damage fund to support those more impoverished regions.

I predict this will be a mess going forward. Sure, COP27 agreed to create this fund, but didn't work out the details. Countries involved have a year to cross all those t's and dot all those i's. 

The agreement struck Sunday also doesn't spell out which countries will be required to contribute to the fund. They also didn't specify when the bills to pay into this fund are due. 

Yikes. 

As NPR notes, past COP conferences have established various funds. Many nations, including the United States, haven't followed through on billions of dollars of promised cash. 

With so many nations and interests involved at the conference, there were a lot of moving parts, so striking a deal was complicated.

NPR gives this example: 

"The U.S. is the largest historical contributor to climate change by a large margin. Today, China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. But Chinese representatives at COP27 said, while the country is open to voluntarily contributing to loss and damage, it should only be an obligation for historically wealthier countries like the U.S. and European Union."

However, Europeans pushed back, saying a fund that didn't collect money from current big emitters of greenhouse gases, like China and India, was unacceptable.

As NPR explained, United States participates kind of kept their mouths shut, though the Biden administration had previous said it wanted to focus on using existing humanitarian aid channels and not create a new, separate fund. 

The goals coming out of this year's COP are ambitious to say the least. NPR again:

"'In all, the world needs to invest at least $4 trillion every year to create a low-carbon global economy,' the final agreement says. Raising that sort of money will require a 'transformation' of the entire financial system.'

Yeah, good luck with that. 

By 2030, damage from warming could cost the world from $290 billion to $580 billion a year by 2030, according to at least one estimate. 

COP27 clung to the goal of keeping total global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That's getting harder and harder to do, as we're getting closer and closer to that threshold. 

To get to that goal, many nations, including the European Union have pushed nations to reach peak emissions by 2025, followed by declining emissions. 

China and India want to allow emissions to rise through the end of the decade. 

COP27 didn't end with any firm deadlines for new emissions commitments. So that doesn't help. 

Estimates out there say that if we want to keep warming checked at 1.5 degrees Celsius, emissions would need to drop by 45 percent by 2030. That's just a little over seven years. Not much!  Current estimates are that emissions will only fall by 10 percent by 2030.

The annual COP conferences, though definitely well-intentioned, are awfully unwieldy and chaotic.  Too many cooks are spoiling the pot. There's all these conflicting interests, there's these sideshows of celebrities swooping in to tell us they are big climate saviors, activists do their thing, which seems to fall on deaf ears. 

I honestly don't have a solution to this mess. The world has managed to make the rate of increase in greenhouse emissions somewhat less, but the trend line is still up. Meanwhile, the world grows hotter and hotter. 

Money still talks louder than anything.  Horrible regimes like Russia and Saudi Arabia are still making money hand over fist from fossil fuels, so they're not going to give up on this cash cow.

In western democracies like the United States, oil interests are also slowing progress on finding alternatives to fossil fuel.

As long as oil remains big time profitable, no substantive agreements will be made, be it through big UN conferences or other means. 

Probably the only solution is to make alternatives like wind, solar or what have you more profitable than fossil fuels. Like I said, money talks.