Arguments
Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate
Posted on 6 February 2017 by dana1981
House Republicans have introduced a bill to rewrite the Clean Air Act. The bill, which has 114 co-sponsors (all Republicans), would revise the Clean Air Act such that:
The term ‘air pollutant’ does not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride.
This change would kill the EPA regulation of carbon pollution that’s a key component of the Clean Power Plan.
The background story
The history behind these regulations is an interesting story. During the George W. Bush Administration, Americans were becoming increasingly concerned about the threats posed by human-caused global warming, and by the Administration’s actions to censor and silence climate scientists instead of taking action to address the problem.
So 12 states led by Massachusetts, in coordination with a number of cities, territories, and environmental and scientific groups, sued the Bush EPA. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court in 2007. The key was that Massachusetts had to demonstrate it had legal standing to sue, which meant proving that the state was being directly harmed by climate change and EPA’s refusal to address it.
The Massachusetts Attorney General made a smart argument. As a coastal state, Massachusetts is harmed by sea level rise encroaching on its valuable shoreline property. Sea level rise is indisputably caused by global warming via the melting of land ice and the expansion of warmer water. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor in a 5-4 decision split along partisan lines, with Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote on the side of science. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissented, basically arguing that the link between a lack of EPA carbon regulations and the state’s lost coastal property was too hypothetical, but they were outvoted.
The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had to determine if greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. If they do, then under the Clean Air Act, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as “air pollutants” and must be regulated as such. The Bush EPA dragged its feet until his term ended, and soon after President Obama took office, the EPA issued its Endangerment Finding that, based on the best available science, greenhouse gases do pose a threat to the public via climate change.
The 2007 Supreme Court Clean Air Act ruling and Endangerment Finding form the basis of the Clean Power Plan, a portion of which includes EPA regulation of carbon pollution from power plants. Generally speaking, Republicans hate government regulation, and the party is also in bed with the fossil fuel industry, so they’ve wanted to undercut the Clean Power Plan and Supreme Court decision ever since they were conceived. Now in control of all branches of government, they see their chance.
Republican bills put money and jobs over health and safety
Enter the “Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2017.” As noted above, the bill would simply revise the Clean Air Act to state that greenhouse gases aren’t air pollutants. The bill states that nothing in the Clean Air Act any other law “authorizes or requires the regulation of climate change or global warming.” It notes that the EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions standards would be voided. Finally, the bill includes this dangerous provision:
No regulation, rule, or policy described in subsection (a) shall take effect if the regulation, rule, or policy has a negative impact on employment in the United States unless the regulation, rule, or policy is approved by Congress and signed by the President.
In other words, if the EPA were to determine that any sort of pollution was endangering or killing people, but the proposed regulation of that pollutant would result in the loss of a few jobs, EPA would not be allowed issue that regulation. Republicans in Congress – and any members who vote for this bill – are explicitly stating that employment is more important than human and environmental health.
There’s a similar bill with 160 Republican co-sponsors: the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. It says that any regulation with compliance costs over $100 million per year would require approval by both the House and Senate. If either failed to pass the regulation within 70 days, it would be null and void. Again, if a regulatory agency with expert staffers were to decide that a regulation were necessary to protect public health and safety, but politicians in Congress declined to vote in support of the regulation, it wouldn’t be implemented.
Fortunately, these bills face long odds
So far the “Stopping EPA” bill has been assigned to four House committees, and at least three of those have no plans as of yet to take up the bill. Similarly, the REINS Act has been assigned to four House committees, but likely isn’t viewed as a high priority either.
I spoke to David Doniger, senior attorney for NRDC’s climate and clean air program about these bills.
Lachlan @ 45, I don't know those numbers, so you will have to use google. However my understanding is that 2 degrees is still considered the official target, and so locked in warming clearly doesn't get us to that point. My understanding is the the experts say we still have a window of opportunity, but need to get a move on. Of course the Trumpists are desperately trying to delay things, and close that window.
48, 49, 50
I'd say if the believers are against even minor renewable demonstration projects, then we'll have to wait for the private companies to figure out that renewables are cheaper than FFs. If they are, it will happen.
In the mean time, perhaps fusion will be perfected and we will not need renewables. With cheap fusion energy we could probably do whatever is needed to remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as is deemed necessary. I know there are ways of removing it, but don't know costs, etc.
Coal Miner @47, as far as showing it is possible to transition to a renewable economy - done.
53 - TC
Making residential and small businesses run on RE is fairly easy. I'd like to see it done to some long distance and heavy duty transportation projects in the US. Not just a short light rail or EVs operating inside a city. I'm talking cross country infrastructure, freight trains, airliners, etc. Most in the US have never seen it.
Coal Miner,
No-one is against demonstration projects. You need to withdraw your false claim. I find it amusing that you insist that renewable energy cannot be expanded until it proves (to your extremely high standard) that it is more economic. At the same time you insist that uneconomic demonstration projects be constructed all over the USA to show renewable energy will work. No-one is proposing that airplanes have to be replaced tomorrow. That solution will be worked out as we build out the WWS electricity supply system. The low hanging fruit of electricity, heat and short range travel will take 10 years to fill. Batteries in 10 years will be much better than today and will serve for some of the items you want to see.
GIve me one good reason that we should build a long range electric train demonstration project in the USA when they already exist in many locations around the globe? Are engineers in the USA too stupid to fly to China, Japan or Europe to see their trains? The Bolt car already has a long enough range for 99% of uses at a reasonable cost. Your insistance that you require proof that the last 0.05% of use can be met to your standard before we start is not reasonable, it is just being contrary. It is more likely that people will come up with a different transportation model for long range travel, like using trains to ship your car or renting a car when they get there (as I currently do).
Your arguments are devolving into just saying "I don't believe it". The detailed data you say you want to see is already available on the internet. All the quantum transitions for AGW were well known decades ago. Google is your friend. You just have to look for it instead of complaining about Al Gore.
CM @54... This is a rather silly game of repeatedly moving the goalposts. It seems to me you won't be convinced of anything until 100% renewables are 100% in place.
Moving away from fossil fuels and toward renewables is a process. It's a process that will take at least another 30-40 years. And ultimately it's going to be a mix of energy sources through the rest of this century, at least. The whole point is, because there's been so much delay, we have to reduce our use off carbon emitting energy sources very quickly. Renewables offer the best, fastest and cheapest pathway to do this.
Rob Honeycutt @56, exactly it's a game of shifting goal posts, and also setting the bar so high it is impossible.
And the denialists will demand all 5 demonstration projects are built, before they make a decision on anything.
Then when demostration projects are built, they will say they don't believe the data. And if the data is replicated, they will say CO2 is plant food.
The important thing is we already know all renewable problems can be solved eventually, at an affordable price, from numerous lines of evidence, so theres no reason not to start on building the easy ones now.
You want a demonstartion case on renewaable electricity? I live in New Zealand. We already get approximately 80% of our electricty from renewables, including hydro, geothermal and wind. Much of the rest is gas from local sources. More wind power is planned, but right now supply is a little ahead of demand.
The system works and electricty is moderately priced.
Of course we are lucky to have had geothermal power and I'm sure coal miner types of people will say we dont have a really large wind power grid as yet, but the bottom line is we are 80% renewables, and electricty wholesale electricity costs are moderate. Retail costs are hiked up at times, but this is due to features of the market and spot pricing, not the nature of the sources.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_New_Zealand
Coal Miner,
The fragility of the current global economy is due to previous generations failing to ensure that only lasting better ways of living were allowed to compete for popularity and profitability.
Helping improve the future for all of humanity has not been the objective. The result has been a steady stream of developments that are harmful to the future of humanity.
Alberta, in Canada, is an example of an overdeveloped delusional economic perception. The push to rapidly expand the rate of extraction of bitumen from the sands of Alberta to be burned around the globe has created "a fragile economic situation" (and allows Alberta to claim the extraction activity does not contribute significantly to the CO2 problem, because they do not count the CO2 created to ship the un-upgraded stuff, upgrade it to a refinable oil, refine the upgrade stuff into burnable product, ship it to be loaded for burning and the ultimate burning - and they also exclude the potential that the Petroleum Coke waste produced by upgrading the stuff by the likes of Koch Industry operations will also be sold to burn - and burning the Pet Coke is worse than burning low grade coal).
Many similar gambles on getting away with behaving less acceptably have developed. It is undeniably harmful to the future of humanity to claim that such developments need to be prolonged, or be allowed to recoup the investments gambled on them. Some particularly uncaring people even try to claim that the unacceptable activities must be allowed to expand, claiming that the problems they create can only be solved by wealthier people.
Of course, the wealthy people today do not have to pay a penny to solve the future problems. That is part of the fallacy of such claims. Fundamentally, it is unacceptable for any portion of humanity to benefit in ways that create problems for other portions of humanity. That includes any current generation of humanity creating problems that will be faced by future generations.
So, from the perspective of the golden rule of making things better than you found them, "how much of the current developed economic delusions of prosperity have to disappear to stop making problems for future generations" is not really relevant. No amount of such unjustified perceived value having to be given up by a portion of the current generation Trumps the need to stop making bigger problems that future generations will have to deal with. However, whatever real wealth is available to the current generation needs to used to ensure that the least fortunate live a decent basic life (something that the flawed economic games have failed to do even though measures of wealth have grown faster than population, including in regions like Africa).
The future of humanity requires the rapid transition to truly lasting ways of living, the quicker the better, no matter how the economics of such ways of living compare to less acceptable ways of living that may be able to have popular support easily Trumped up for.
OPOF says "The fragility of the current global economy is due to previous generations failing to ensure that only lasting better ways of living were allowed to compete for popularity and profitability.'
Correct. An example of an unsustainable market might be the American derivatives market, that is implicated as a causal factor in the 2008 financial crash. This market was irresponsibly structured, largely unregulated by government, and used flawed products. It was not a sustainable market, and its products were deliberately incomprehensible to get past clients and regulators. It was a market driven by extraordinary attempts to push the limits, and make financial gains that were little more than gambling or some sort of game.
After the housing market tanked out, the derivative market weaknesses were exposed and it collapsed, requiring government bail outs of some of the affected institutions. The collapse made the whole crash worse. The perpetrators escaped unscathed, and the tax payers paid the clean up costs, to a large extent.
The general banking system followed an almost identical pattern, with poor ethical practices and bonus systems that rewarded excessive risk taking, that lead to collapses and tax payer funded bail outs. This is well documented on the economist.com
I'm sceptical about carbon emissions trading schemes (Cap and Trade) as they could go the same way. These schemes are ok when in a text book, but run against difficulties in the real world, and are easy to manipulate in nefarious ways, by both devious governments and corporates. We have better options, like carbon taxes or systems that promote renewable electricity more directly and simply.
Coal Miner @60
"Bottom line is that when it is economically sound RE will replace FFs. It's happening slowly. Energy for buildings is easy. It will take a while to convert all of them, but it may happen. For now, FF are the way to go for the projects I mentioned - that's why I mentioned them."
No that is a little simplistic, with respect. Alternative energy is already economically sound, as it is very close to fossil fuel costs, and doesn't have to be identical. It is economically sound enough right now.
However markets will not, or may not, adopt renewables if they are even slightly more costly, given the nature of markets.
The wider adoption is an entirely political choice that requires economic incentives like subsidies, or regulatory directives, or carbon taxes etc. Personally given the small difference in costs it would not require much of a subsidy or other mechanism. That is the irony.
The thing in the way is not the technical means or affordable prices, but political will.
Energy for buildings is indeed a bit easier. Insulation, and low energy systems, bring quite good and immediate cost savings, as well as reduced CO2, so government incentives may not be needed so much
Coal Miner @54, diesel can be produced from electricity, water and CO2. So can jet fuel. Given that, solving the standing energy problem (as has been demonstrated by those cities) defacto solves the problem for transport. There may be some time to commercialization of those processes, but the transport problem (particularly air transport) is well recognized as the most intractable problem to solve. (That is part of the reason why we should be converting to renewable supplies of standing energy far more rapidly then we are currently doing.)
Interestingly, one of the problems with renewable energy is that you have to overbuild capacity so that the variable supply will be sufficient in periods of low wind/overcast conditions. The excess energy produced in the periods of oversupply is effectively free, and can readilly be harnessed to create fuels, desalinate water, or in other processes that are not time critical, and will be economic (or significantly more so) given the supply of very cheap energy (if variable).
(This will be my last reply to Coal Miner to avoid dogpiling.)
@ Coal Miner #60: Something for you to chew on:
The world could reach peak oil and coal in as little as three years—not because either is close to running out, but because of the falling cost of solar power and electric cars and stronger climate policy.
A new report from the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London and the Carbon Tracker Initiative analyzed how much demand for solar and EVs could impact demand for fossil fuels, and how quickly that could happen. Researchers modeled various levels of climate policy and energy demand, and the low and dropping costs of low-carbon technology.
"We've been aware through our research here at Imperial about the very dramatic cost reductions in solar photovoltaics and also lithium ion batteries…and about the potential for photovoltaics and electric vehicles to cause disruption in the energy market if their costs reach particular tipping points," says Ajay Ghambir, a research fellow at the Grantham Institute. "What we wanted to do was get underneath some of the hype and try and think about what some of the consequences would be of very fast take-up of these technologies, driven by their cost-competitiveness, on the energy system."
The World Could Reach Peak Coal and Oil in Three Years Thanks to Cheap Renewables by Adele Peters, Coexist, Feb 7, 2017
58 -
Should be pretty easy to switch to RE in a small country like NZ. 80% of electricity, mostly from Hydro; but only 40% overall energy from RE; but that is better than the 6% or so RE in the US.
64 -
We're slowly going to RE, mostly in electrical production. If EVs can reduce cost of gas, I'll be happy, but when that happens fewer people buy EVs. EVs are almost insignificant now - maybe 1% of sales, with the EIA projecting 6% of sales by 2040. Hybrids topped out at 3.2% of sales and are now about 2% of sales due to low gas prices. If you can use one and can afford it, great. I need a car that will cover longer distances than EVs. Hybrids are not a solution to carbon, and EVs are only if the source is not adding carbon.
I'm hoping a workable and economical solution will be found soon to start removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Here's a top of the head proposal: Build desalinazion plants (nuke powered perhaps) along the ocean coasts of dry areas with decent soil. Water the land and grow plants to absorb CO2 - perhaps trees.
You need a car that will cover more than 300 miles in a day?
Personally, I think the EIA figures for EV's are overly conservative. Once the price of batteries comes in line (as is happening) then EV's with range equal to a ICEV will be cost about the same. Then, why would anyone buy an ICEV?
Currently, a full charge on a Tesla is about $12, compared to filling your gas tank for $40-$50.
Projections, like the EIA does, have to be based on data. But markets often don't conform to what data will tell you. There are about 250 million cars in the United States and they're, on average, about 10 years old. About 16 million cars are sold annually right now. That means, at current rates, it takes about 15 years to replace the entire fleet.
Once the economics of EV's click into the right range, the change over will happen very fast.
My suggestion: Don't be that guy who buys a gas guzzling SUV right before the market shifts. The resale value on that vehicle will be $0.
Coal Miner @65, if small countries can easily change over to renewables, then so can single states in America, one would think.
Hydro "is" renewable energy. To summarise NZ is 80% renewable, with hydro, geothermal and wind. The other 20% is mostly gas.
At this stage wind power only makes up a small fraction, but that is because we have got hydro power, and had it for some time, and dams don't really wear out. Wind power is already fully competitive on costs.
Granted there are costs in replacing generators with renewables, but economists like the Stern Report have found these amount to 1% of gdp per year. That's very affordable. Plenty of this will just be replacing fossil fuels plants that need replacement anyway.
It's interersting watching the Trump Admistration in chaos in just two weeks. Never seen anything like that before.