Climate 411

Americans save hard-earned money with Clean Car Standards that Trump may soon roll back

By Martha Roberts / Published: July 24, 2018

The latest rumblings indicate the Trump administration is poised to advance a proposal that would dramatically roll back America’s Clean Car Standards, one of our biggest climate success stories.

Thanks to the Clean Car Standards, we’ve made major strides in reducing climate pollution while at the same time spurring fuel efficiency gains that save Americans money at the gas pump. But the Trump administration’s proposal reportedly would recommend flatlining the standards at 2020 levels through 2026, and would also include an attack on states’ long-standing authority to enforce more protective clean car standards.

A new analysis shows that this proposal would cost Americans in every state. With the anticipated rollback, an average family will spend $200 more per year, and could spend as much as $500 more every year if gas prices continue to rise — with low-income and long-commuting Americans particularly hard hit.

Here’s what you need to know about this reckless attack:

Read More »

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Comments are closed

Hansen was right: Marking an anniversary by misleading the public

By Ilissa Ocko / Published: July 18, 2018

Dr. James Hansen testifying before Congress in 1988

With the thirtieth anniversary of former NASA scientist Jim Hansen’s landmark testimony to Congress on the urgent need to address climate change, numerous articles marked the occasion by demonstrating that his 1988 predictions have proven to be accurate.

Inevitably, some writers seized the opportunity to revive long-debunked arguments in an attempt to cast doubt and confusion on the threat.

Perhaps the most misleading – and certainly the highest profile – was a June 21st op-ed in the Wall Street Journal written by Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue. Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, a think tank financially linked to the fossil fuel industry. And Michaels has been found to have previously misled Congress by presenting a doctored graph of Hansen’s projections during public testimony before the House Small Business Committee.

Four decades of climate model projections have fared well

Their latest effort implies that U.S. climate policy is based on Hansen’s forecasts in 1988, and therefore we must “reconsider environmental policy” according to an evaluation of “how well his forecasts have done.”

In reality, climate policy is based on hundreds of years of collective research and an overwhelming amount of observational evidence gathered from all over the world.

Climate model development began as early as the 1950s, and projections from 1973 to 2013 (including Hansen’s 1988 paper) have been compared to observed temperatures by multiple institutions. All showed reasonably accurate surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016, Hansen’s 1988 study included.

Read More »

Also posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Science, Setting the Facts Straight / Comments are closed

Climate change and severe storms in Europe – new science shows we need a lower temperature target

By Monika Barcikowska / Published: June 19, 2018

Great Britain during the Big Freeze of 2010. Photo courtesy: NASA

As experts around the world consider ways to stabilize global temperatures at either 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, scientists are meticulously analyzing the risks of a world that warms by that additional half a degree.

A growing number of studies have found that a 2 degree Celsius world is far worse than a 1.5 degree Celsius world.

One of those new studies, published in Earth System Dynamics, shows how severe winter storms in Europe will become even more severe.

Read More »

Posted in News / Read 1 Response

Five things you need to know about the U.S. Clean Car Standards

By Alice Henderson / Published: April 30, 2018

Cars on a dealer lot, waiting to be sold. Photo: Every Car Listed

America’s Clean Car Standards are one of our biggest success stories, yet the Trump Administration is preparing to dramatically weaken them.

News reports say the Trump Administration is also taking aim at state leadership on clean cars, by preparing to challenge California’s and 12 other states’ authority to maintain more protective standards.

Here’s what you need to know:

Read More »

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy, Pruitt / Comments are closed

Pruitt admits lying, blames others, and leaves behind a cloud of questions: 3 takeaways from today’s hearings

By Elgie Holstein / Published: April 26, 2018

After a month of revelations and allegations about his tenure in EPA and in Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt finally had a chance to provide straight answers to Congress about his mounting ethics problems.  The results were not encouraging:

  1. Caught:

    The top story coming out of today’s hearings is that Scott Pruitt admitted that he lied.

    He told Members of Congress that he knew about his employee raises, despite having told Fox News on April 4 that “I found out this yesterday.”

    CNN reports:

    “Several senior EPA officials reacted in shock Thursday. One EPA official told CNN that a sense of ‘a collective “Oh sh**” came out of EPA HQ’ when Pruitt admitted he knew of the raises.

    Aides for weeks knew that Pruitt had lied in his Fox News interview, but were stunned that he contradicted himself so publicly on Thursday.”

    Added John Roberts from Fox News: “This may be the end of the line.”

  2. Says it not his fault:

    Asked about multiple accusations of ethical problems, Pruitt shifted blame to everyone else: Milan Hupp, Ryan Jackson, Kell Kelly, and anyone else carrying out his orders, and at one point, “the process.”

  3. Dodges the Questions:

     

    Many big questions were left unanswered, including:

    • $43,000 Phone Booth: Pruitt insisted that he asked for a “secure line” because of a single telephone call. What was so important about that incident? And Pruitt went on to admit that such calls are “rare”—if so, why can’t he go to one of EPA’s two other secure phones, as his predecessors did?
    • Illegal Use of Government staff: Pruitt said that he was “not aware” of Millan Hupp spending government time looking for his apartment. Unanswered: Did he ask Millan Hupp—or anyone else on his staff — to look for an apartment for him?
    • Demoting Staff: Did Pruitt tell his chief of staff not to come to travel planning meetings after he raised concerns about Pruitt’s travel?
    • Kell Kelly: Did Pruitt ever inquire why Kell Kelly was banned for life from banking by the FDIC when he hired him?
    • Condo: On the condo lease, why was Stephen Hart’s name originally typed in as “landlord,” but then scratched out and the name of his wife scribbled in?
    • Private Jet: Was it Pruitt who sought to have the EPA pay $100,000 per month to rent a private jet, as Trump campaign staffer and EPA employee Kevin Chmielewski claims?
    • Morocco Trip: Before traveling to Morocco, why was Pruitt’s only briefing before the trip conducted by political staff, not career staff in the agency’s international affairs office, which typically coordinates foreign trips?
    • Oklahoma Travel: As Oklahoma Attorney General, in January 2016 Pruitt traveled to Washington, D.C., costing taxpayers more than $1,000 to meet with the Federalist Society and Club for Growth. Did Pruitt reimburse taxpayers? Did he use taxpayer money for political or personal trips?
    • Enforcement: Why did Pruitt try to end EPA funding for Justice Department Superfund enforcement efforts, and cut EPA enforcement against criminal polluters?
    • Super-polluting trucks: EPA proposed a loophole for super-polluting glider trucks, citing an industry-funded study now being investigated for research misconduct. Will it withdraw the proposal?

There are many more unanswered questions .

Posted in News / Comments are closed

Proof that the Clean Power Plan’s strategy for cutting carbon pollution is the industry standard

By Charlie Jiang / Published: April 26, 2018

The public comment period is just about to close on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s reckless attempt to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and thousands of Americans — including mayors, CEOs, energy experts, and citizens concerned about the threats Pruitt’s actions pose to our children’s health and future — have already spoken out in vigorous opposition to the misguided repeal effort.

There is a lot at stake. The Clean Power Plan would prevent 4,500 early deaths and 90,000 childhood asthma attacks each year. It would cut carbon pollution by 32 percent from 2005 levels, and would substantially reduce other harmful air pollutants from power plants.

By slashing air pollution and helping mitigate the threats of climate change, the Clean Power Plan would secure significant benefits to public health while growing the clean energy economy.

Yet, as Pruitt continues his misguided effort to turn back the clock on lifesaving climate protections, momentum is growing in states and the power sector to slash carbon pollution and usher in a clean energy future.

States and companies are moving away from carbon-intensive sources of electricity generation, and are increasing their use of cleaner technologies — deploying the same cost-effective strategies to cut carbon pollution that EPA relied upon when establishing emission reduction targets under the Clean Power Plan. Pruitt’s attempt to repeal the Clean Power Plan is putting this flexible approach to ambitious and low-cost emission reductions under attack.

Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, Economics, Energy, EPA litgation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy, Pruitt / Comments are closed