By H. Sterling Burnett
SUBSCRIBE to Climate Change Weekly
IN THIS PROBLEM:
- Some Advice on Climate and Environmental Policy for the New Sheriff in Town
- Climate Change Does Not Affect Tides or Storm Waves
- Dutch Court Overturns Climate Verdict Against Shell
Some Climate and Environmental Advice for the New Sheriff in Town
Donald Trump’s overwhelming presidential election victory and victory in the popular vote gave him the mandate to move forward with his agenda, not least the climate and energy deregulation agenda he promoted during the campaign.
In anticipation of Trump’s victory, a coalition of groups—including the Heartland Institute, the E&E Law Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Truth in Energy and Climate, and the American Energy Institute—put together a list of 10 climate and energy issues. Trump’s actions can begin to implement on the first day to bring healthy science and economics back to energy and climate policy.
Bloomberg News provided a cursory discussion and critique of these proposals in a story titled, “Climate Skeptics Urge Trump to Boost Coal, Gut Federal Science.” When the proposals will boost the coal, they will not be filled with science; rather, they will increase while taking America on the track of energy dominance in law. People must judge for themselves to determine the merits of a proposal; Thus, I now list below unfiltered.
1. Paris Climate Treaty and Endangerment Finding. Determine if the climate of Paris
the agreement is actually a treaty (rather than just an “executive agreement”) that requires Senate ratification. Send the treaty to the Senate for advice. This will legally release the United States from any and all obligations under the treaty until and unless the Senate formally ratifies it. Repeal the Obama/Biden EPA’s determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare (“hazard finding”).
2. EV mandate and California waiver. Repeal the Biden tailpipe rule/EV mandate and repeal California’s CO2 exemption that allows California to set tailpipe emissions and de facto national gas mileage standards. Request legislation clarifying that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 prohibits state regulations on fuel economy, including Clean Air Act exemptions, and clarifying that the Clean Air Act cannot be used to regulate CO2.
3. Green New Scam and Grid Security. Freeze all climate Inflation Reduction Act/delayed energy spending. Ask Congress to repeal all energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act through budget reconciliation. For national security and economic purposes, blocking the power grid relies on variable power generation sources such as wind and solar.
4. Oil and Gas. Restore active federal oil and gas leasing on federal and offshore lands, including the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. Lift the moratoria on offshore drilling in areas restricted by the previous president. Reverse Biden’s moratorium on federal leasing for coal mining. Streamline the permit process for energy production. End Biden’s moratorium on LNG export terminals.
5. Inauguration of the President. Officials at federal agencies like the EPA, Interior, DoE, FERC, and other key agencies promised to allow new oil and gas pipelines, LNG terminals, and other infrastructure needed to produce oil, gas, and coal. Streamline the permit process. Terminate all existing federal science advisory boards and recreate only those legally required. Choose qualified and pro-energy individuals on the board.
6. Offshore wind. Offshore wind developers, most of whom are foreign companies, threaten consumers, endangered species, and beautiful maritime communities whose prosperity depends on fishing. The industrialization of fisheries with offshore wind development must be ended by eliminating unleased wind energy areas, canceling the “30 × 30” pledge, adopting a cumulative effects approach to planning, and developing a balanced interagency process that is not dominated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (BOEM).
7. Coal. Remove all anti-coal regulatory actions from the Biden administration and promote coal as the preferred method of generating electricity. Initiate a review of related air quality regulations issued by the EPA.
8. Litigation. Withdraw from, in order to end, industrial litigation over the Biden administration’s regulatory actions. Re-staff the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division attorneys who will vigorously defend the administration’s priorities.
9. Regulatory Reform. End the use of linear non-threshold (LNT) models for radiation and chemical risk assessment. Restore EPA’s rule against the use of “secret science.” Ask for legislation so that federal courts no longer defer to regulatory agencies on scientific matters.
10. Regulatory Burden. Request the REINS Act to request congressional authorization for regulations that have a significant economic impact, including but not limited to those that have an economic impact of $100 million or more.
Of course, there are many other efforts, initiatives, policies, and laws that the signatories believe Trump, through executive orders, working through the agency’s regulatory process, and interacting with Congress, should do in the environment, climate, and energy fields. These efforts will promote personal freedom, economic progress, and environmental quality. However, the 10 actions above are a good start.
Source: Climate Realism; Waste Science; Bloomberg News
Climate Change Does Not Affect Tides or Storm Waves
Research published in the journal Nature by an international team of researchers that includes engineers and geoscientists from universities and research institutes in Australia and the Netherlands found that climate change does not produce measurable changes in wave height or storm surges that cause shoreline loss, although the model. projection.
Scholars examined multiple independent global and regional data sets of sand beach recession/shoreline progradation as well as satellite data derived from shoreline growth and subsidence. They then compared the data and the behavior of coastal models and wave action. Compare the changes in the two types of data over these three decades to determine whether trends in the former can be linked to changes in the latter. They report:
Despite many studies on the impact of anthropogenic climate change on global wind and wave trends, a clear link to the impact on sandy beaches, on a global scale, has not been shown. … Over the past 30+ years, we have shown that there are clear changes in waves and storm surges on a global scale. The data … show no unambiguous relationship between wave trends and storm surge climate and recession/progradation of sandy shorelines. We conclude that long-term changes in these oceanographic parameters are too small to have a measurable effect on shoreline recession/progradation and that major causes such as environmental imbalances in the coastal sediment budget may mask this relationship.
Instead of changes in wave height or increases in the number or severity of storm waves, increases and decreases in the coast are found to be more closely related to local short-term weather events, certain tropical cyclones or oceanic or geological (volcanic) changes, development and human activities, land reclamation, sedimentation from development, and land subsidence.
Source: Nature; No Zone Tricks
Dutch Court Overturns Climate Verdict Against Shell
In the case brought by Friends of the Earth (Netherlands), the court in the Netherlands found Shell Oil guilty of climate pollution in 2021. As a remedy, the court required Shell to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from operations, sales and purchases from third parties, and end users produce up to 45 percent below 2019 emissions by 2030.
This groundbreaking ruling is considered by many to be a precedent setting, as it is the first time a court has ruled that certain oil and gas companies are guilty of contributing to climate change and is required by the court to reduce emissions by a certain amount. Shell appealed the verdict, which was overturned on November 12.
Shell argued, as it and other major oil companies have maintained when facing similar lawsuits in the United States, that the courts are not the appropriate forum to demand emissions reductions. However, they claim, that requirement must come from the national legislature.
Although the appeals court found that Shell had a public obligation to reduce its direct greenhouse gas emissions, the court found that it had taken action and was on track to reduce its emissions by 30 percent. More specifically, the court found:
(A) An absolute order to reduce emissions from these products could have adverse effects worldwide, as it could cause customers to switch from using Shell gas to more polluting coal.
“In general, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is positive for mitigating climate change,” said Presiding Judge Carla Joustra. “But that doesn’t mean Shell’s reduction order has the same effect.”
(And the court wrote) it “cannot establish that the social standard of care entails Shell’s obligation to reduce CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage. Currently there is no consensus in climate science about the specific percentage of reduction that individual companies like Shell must comply with.
Expanding on the court’s decision, NPR reported:
The court then decided that “for Shell to reduce the CO2 emissions caused by the buyers of Shell products … by a certain percentage would be ineffective in this case. Shell can fulfill this obligation by ceasing to trade the fuel purchased from third parties. Other companies will take transfer the trade.
Shell and CitiBank analysts agree on one thing: the appeals court decision is good for Shell.
“We are pleased with the court’s decision, which we believe is right for the global energy transition, the Netherlands and our company,” said Wael Sawan, CEO of Shell, in a press release from the company.
Reuters quoted an analyst at Citi as saying, “(w)hile success with the appeals court may not be the end of the legal process, by signaling that the company’s strategy is now stronger in the hands of shareholders, we believe it will have a positive impact.”
Source: Reuters; GB News; NPR
Podcast from Sunday
Recommended sites
H. Sterling Burnett
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Reposted from the Heartland Institute
Related
