<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>September 30, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[it matters greatly]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kavanaugh-confirmation-fight-has-consequences-for-climate-law/">Kavanaugh
Confirmation Fight Has Consequences for Climate Law</a></b><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kavanaugh-confirmation-fight-has-consequences-for-climate-law/"><br>
</a>The Supreme Court could hear cases related to the EPA's climate
obligations and other environmental issues<br>
By Mark K. Matthews, E&E News on September 27, 2018<br>
If Senate Republicans plow ahead and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the
Supreme Court, the longtime jurist could have near-term impact on a
slew of environmental cases.<br>
Among the disputes the high court has agreed to hear this fall: a
case that pits villagers from India against the World Bank in a
fight over a coal plant. If the villagers prevail, it could have
worldwide economic and political repercussions.<br>
Several other climate-related issues have a decent shot, too, of
getting a future date with the Supreme Court, including one closely
watched fight--the "kids' climate case"--that makes the far-reaching
argument that the government must take action on global warming so
as not to imperil future generations.<br>
- - - -<br>
Kavanaugh--currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit--would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy,
who retired in July after three decades of service and dozens of
landmark decisions...<br>
- - - -<br>
There's a lot at stake for domestic and international efforts to
address climate change. Here are five brewing legal fights in which
the future justice could play a role.<br>
- - - - -<br>
<b>KIDS WANT ACTION ON CLIMATE</b><br>
<blockquote>When they filed their lawsuit in 2015, the plaintiffs
behind what has become known as the "kids' climate case" picked
the biggest target available: the U.S. government.<br>
<br>
Three years later, their case--Juliana v. United States--appears
bound, tractor-beam-like, for the Supreme Court.<br>
<br>
The 21 plaintiffs, all children and young adults, argue that the
federal government has chipped away for years at their
constitutional right to live in a safe environment.<br>
<br>
From one administration to the next, the government allowed
decades' worth of planet-warming emissions to accumulate, even
though top researchers at national laboratories and around
Washington knew of man-made climate change and its perils, they
say.<br>
<br>
Through their case, the plaintiffs want a court to declare that
their rights as U.S. citizens have been violated and to force the
government to draft a plan to phase out fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
No matter the outcome of the case, which is slated for trial
beginning in late October in a federal Oregon court, it will
likely wind its way back to the Supreme Court.<br>
<br>
Justices in July rejected the Trump administration's attempt to
halt the trial, though they hinted at concerns at the case's scope
(E&E News PM, July 30).<br>
<br>
Julia Olson, counsel for the plaintiffs, said then, "This decision
should give young people courage and hope that their third branch
of government, all the way up to the Supreme Court, has given them
the green light to go to trial in this critical case about their
unalienable rights."<br>
<br>
A Justice Department spokesperson called the case "deeply
misguided" and noted that the Obama administration had opposed the
suit, too.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>VILLAGERS TAKE ON THE WORLD BANK</b><br>
<blockquote>In January, a group of villagers from western India
petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case against the World
Bank, and at Oct. 31 oral arguments, the justices will listen.<br>
<br>
At issue is the liability of the International Finance Corp., the
lending arm of the World Bank, which financed a coal plant in
Gujarat, on India's western coast, home to the plaintiffs.<br>
<br>
The plaintiffs sued the IFC in 2015, accusing it of violating its
own environmental policies when it extended $450 million in loans
for the project to Tata Power Ltd., an energy conglomerate in the
country.<br>
<br>
"Without the IFC's funding, the Tata Mundra Project could not have
gone forward," they said (Climatewire, July 26, 2017).<br>
<br>
The plant spews coal dust, ash and other toxic debris, according
to the plaintiffs, who say its existence has killed and scared off
fish, which they rely on for income. But the D.C. Circuit ruled
against the plaintiffs, who want a court to declare that the IFC
is not immune to lawsuits like theirs.<br>
<br>
The IFC defends its actions, and in court papers, its lawyers
argue that allowing this case to proceed would expose
multinational entities such as the World Bank or the International
Monetary Fund to a rash of similar suits from foreign nationals.<br>
<br>
In a brief filed Sept. 10, Donald Verrilli Jr., former solicitor
general under President Obama, who is representing the IFC, stuck
to the slippery-slope stance.<br>
<br>
A ruling against the IFC, the brief says, "would open U.S. courts
to a flood of foreign-focused lawsuits that would require U.S.
courts to second-guess international organizations' core policy
judgments, and that have only the most tenuous connection to the
United States."<br>
</blockquote>
<b>KAVANAUGH QUESTIONS EPA'S REACH</b><br>
<blockquote>One big question before the high court is one that
Kavanaugh already has dealt with--how far can EPA go to regulate
hydrofluorocarbons, a class of potent greenhouse gases?<br>
<br>
Under Obama, EPA in 2015 barred the use of HFCs in four major
economic sectors: aerosols, air conditioning for new cars, retail
food refrigeration and foam blowing.<br>
<br>
Two foreign manufacturers sued in response to the rule with the
claim that EPA had overstepped its authority under the Clean Air
Act.<br>
<br>
Kavanaugh agreed, and in a 2017 majority opinion for the D.C.
Circuit, he asserted that EPA had "tried to jam a square peg ...
into a round hole."<br>
<br>
"The Supreme Court cases that have dealt with EPA's efforts to
address climate change have taught us two lessons that are worth
repeating here," he added.<br>
<br>
"First, EPA's well-intentioned policy objectives with respect to
climate change do not on their own authorize the agency to
regulate," Kavanaugh continued. And second, he wrote, "Congress'
failure to enact general climate change legislation does not
authorize EPA to act."<br>
<br>
The issue is now on the radar of the high court, which soon could
decide whether it wants to weigh in. Justices are scheduled to
consider petitions challenging the ruling at their Oct. 5
conference.<br>
<br>
If Kavanaugh is ultimately confirmed, his biggest impact likely
could be his previous opinion, as it's typical for justices to
recuse themselves from cases in which they already have played a
part.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>WHAT HAPPENS TO TRUMP'S REPLACEMENT OF THE CLEAN POWER PLAN?</b><br>
<blockquote>Even if justices reject the HFC case, EPA's authority to
regulate greenhouse gases may still wind its way back up to the
high court in the form of challenges to the Affordable Clean
Energy rule, the Trump administration's proposed replacement for
the Clean Power Plan.<br>
<br>
The ACE rule is aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from
power plants. If finalized, it's certain to face strong legal
challenges from opponents who say the rule does not do enough to
cut CO2 or protect public health.<br>
<br>
Because EPA is still developing the rule, it would likely take
until 2020, barring any major delays along the way, before the
case could even get in front of justices, according to Joanne
Spalding, deputy director of the Sierra Club's Environmental Law
Program.<br>
<br>
EPA would first have to finalize the rule, and initial challenges
would have to go through the D.C. Circuit.<br>
<br>
A faster way to the high court would be if the D.C. Circuit agreed
with a recent request by states and environmental groups to decide
on litigation on the Clean Power Plan. The case has been on hold
as the agency has been drafting the ACE rule.<br>
<br>
If the court does decide the case--and Spalding suggested the D.C.
Circuit could respond when the latest extended stay of litigation
expires--parties would then be open to appeal to the Supreme
Court.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>CLEAN CARS FIGHT RAISES 'INTERESTING' LEGAL ISSUES</b><br>
<blockquote>The high court in years ahead could also look at the
Trump administration's bid to roll back motor vehicle mileage and
pollution rules.<br>
<br>
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are
examining whether to freeze the standard at 30 mpg from 2020
through 2026. The Obama administration wanted 36 mpg by 2026.<br>
<br>
The Trump agencies also proposed peeling back California's
authority to set more stringent standards. That could kill the
Golden State's programs aimed at getting more clean cars on the
road.<br>
<br>
If a final rule revoked California's waiver, the state would
likely sue. But California and other states could also separately
sue over a final rule that froze mileage and emissions at 2020
levels. That case potentially would question EPA's ability to
allow more tailpipe pollution, given the Supreme Court's decision
in Massachusetts v. EPA.<br>
<br>
Ann Carlson, co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change
and the Environment at the University of California, Los Angeles,
said the Supreme Court likely would be interested, especially in
the California waiver question, because it's "novel."<br>
<br>
"It would raise questions that the justices would find
interesting," she said. "They've never weighed in on the power of
California under the waiver."<br>
<br>
In terms of a case looking at vehicle mileage and pollution
levels, Carlson said, the court has "tended to take up these big,
meaty environmental issues," like regulations on mercury pollution
and greenhouse gases.<br>
<br>
"It just seems like they have shown interest in weighing in on EPA
authority and interpreting the Clean Air Act in particular," she
said.<br>
<br>
If he's confirmed, Kavanaugh might urge his colleagues to look at
a case dealing with EPA authority. "He's interested in questions
of agency power and statutory power that these cases raise,"
Carlson said.<br>
</blockquote>
Reporters Benjamin Hulac, Niina Heikkinen and Anne C. Mulkern
contributed.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kavanaugh-confirmation-fight-has-consequences-for-climate-law/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kavanaugh-confirmation-fight-has-consequences-for-climate-law/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Financial Times report]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ft.com/content/ce1d8ece-c19c-11e8-95b1-d36dfef1b89a">BoE
finds banks unprepared for climate change risks</a></b><br>
Only 10 per cent of lenders take long-term view of impact, survey
shows<br>
The Bank of England is preparing new guidelines for how banks
and insurers should manage climate change after it conducted a probe
that found only 10 per cent of banks take a long-term view of such
risks.<br>
The BoE's Prudential Regulation Authority undertook its survey after
Mark Carney, the central bank governor, warned of the "catastrophic
impacts" of climate change and the possible destabilising impact it
could have on the financial system. <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.ft.com/content/ce1d8ece-c19c-11e8-95b1-d36dfef1b89a">https://www.ft.com/content/ce1d8ece-c19c-11e8-95b1-d36dfef1b89a</a></font><br>
- - - --<br>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/transition-in-thinking-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-uk-banking-sector.pdf">read
it in the original PDF report</a>]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2018/transition-in-thinking-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-uk-banking-sector">Transition
in thinking: The impact of climate change on the UK banking
sector</a></b><br>
This PRA report examines the financial risks from climate change
that impact UK banks, building societies and PRA-designated
investment firms, assesses how banks are responding to these, and
clarifies the PRA's supervisory approach<br>
PDF paper:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/transition-in-thinking-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-uk-banking-sector.pdf">https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/transition-in-thinking-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-uk-banking-sector.pdf</a><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2018/transition-in-thinking-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-uk-banking-sector">https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2018/transition-in-thinking-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-uk-banking-sector</a></font><br>
- - - - <br>
[IPCC report]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/transition-in-thinking-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-uk-banking-sector.pdf">Referenced
- Findings from the IPCC</a></b><br>
The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) provides a view of the
state of scientific knowledge<br>
relevant to climate change in 2014.10 A number of the conclusions
from the Synthesis Report of AR5,<br>
relevant to the PRA's review are below:<br>
<blockquote>(i) 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and
since the 1950s, many of the observed<br>
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The
atmosphere and ocean have<br>
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level
has risen.'<br>
(ii) 'Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since
the pre-industrial era, driven<br>
largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than
ever. This has led to<br>
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide that are<br>
unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects,
together with those of other<br>
anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate
system and are extremely<br>
likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming
since the mid-20th century.'<br>
(iii) 'Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further
warming and long-lasting changes in<br>
all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of
severe, pervasive and<br>
irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate
change would require<br>
substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.<br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/transition-in-thinking-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-uk-banking-sector.pdf">https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/transition-in-thinking-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-uk-banking-sector.pdf</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Paul Beckwith video]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/O8qmaAMK4cM">Will
Tornado Alley Shift Northward Into Canada?</a></b><br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
Published on Sep 28, 2018<br>
Supercells are huge collections of stormclouds bunched together,
with rotation. They often generate tornadoes, as happened recently
in Ottawa, and a few days later, in Detroit. As rapid climate change
proceeds, and the speed, waviness, location, and nature of jet
streams changes, it is possible that "Tornado Alley" in the US will
shift northward, and impact northern states and Canada greatly. <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/O8qmaAMK4cM">https://youtu.be/O8qmaAMK4cM</a></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><br>
</font> [worth repeating: deplorable in its nihilism]<br>
<b><a
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/trump-administration-expects-catastrophic-warming-by-2100.html">The
Trump Administration Anticipates Catastrophic Global Warming by
2100</a></b><br>
By Eric Levitz<br>
Last month, the Trump administration released a report that
predicted global temperatures will be four degrees higher by the end
of this century, assuming current trends persist. World leaders have
pledged to keep global temperatures from rising even two degrees
(Celsius) above pre-industrial levels, with the understanding that
warming beyond that could prove catastrophic...<br>
...and a variety of extreme weather events will dramatically
increase in frequency.<br>
And the White House believes that this fact is an argument for
loosening restrictions on carbon emissions...<br>
- - - -<br>
As the Washington Post revealed Friday, the administration uses its
four-degree warming estimate to argue that eliminating 8 billion
tons worth of emissions won't be enough to change the climate
outlook, by itself, so the federal government shouldn't bother.<br>
After all, the entire world would need to make enormous cuts in
emissions to avert catastrophic warming -- and that "would require
substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared
to today's levels and would require the economy and the vehicle
fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not
currently technologically feasible or economically feasible."<br>
<br>
This argument is deplorable in its nihilism. But its core assumption
is also patently absurd...<br>
- - - -<br>
That said, if one assumes that the entire leadership of the
Republican Party has concluded that human civilization will not
survive Barron Trump, then their governing agenda starts to make a
lot more sense. Exacerbating inequality and subordinating the
commons to short-term profit maximization isn't in the enlightened
medium-term interests of the GOP donor class -- but in the
medium-term, we'll all (apparently) be dead!<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/trump-administration-expects-catastrophic-warming-by-2100.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/trump-administration-expects-catastrophic-warming-by-2100.html</a></font><br>
- - - - -<br>
[difficult to corroborate in this draft report]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld_cafe_my2021-26_deis_0.pdf">The
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model
Year 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks</a></b><br>
Draft Environmental Impact Statement<br>
July 2018 - Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0069<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld_cafe_my2021-26_deis_0.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld_cafe_my2021-26_deis_0.pdf</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FullS">This Day in
Climate History - September 30, 2004</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
September 30, 2004: In his first debate with President Bush,
Democratic challenger and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry incurs
the wrath of the right wing by declaring:<br>
<blockquote>"The president always has the right, and always has had
the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine
throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we
argued about with respect to arms control. No president, though
all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the
right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States
of America. <br>
<br>
"But if and when you do it, Jim [Lehrer], you have to do it in a
way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your
countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what
you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for
legitimate reasons. Here we have our own secretary of state who
has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to
the United Nations.<br>
<br>
"I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban
missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with
DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about
the missiles in Cuba, he said, 'Here, let me show you the photos.'
And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of
the president of the United States is good enough for me."<br>
<br>
"How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a
result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is
the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead
the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and
North Korea are now more dangerous.<br>
<br>
"Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't
know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my
eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire
time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the
Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from
some of the treaties that were on the table.<br>
<br>
"You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away
from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse
to deal at length with the United Nations.<br>
<br>
"You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of
earning back to do." <br>
</blockquote>
(59:20--61:22) <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FullS">http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FullS</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><i>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html">Archive
of Daily Global Warming News</a> </i></font><i><br>
</i><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a></span><font
size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i><br>
</i></font></i></font><font size="+1"><i> <br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i>To receive daily
mailings - <a
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request">click
to Subscribe</a> </i></font>to news digest. </i></font>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><small> </small><small><b>** Privacy and Security: </b>
This is a text-only mailing that carries no images which may
originate from remote servers. </small><small> Text-only
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
</small><small> </small><br>
<small> By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used
for democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes. </small><br>
<small>To subscribe, email: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
with subject: subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject:
unsubscribe</small><br>
<small> Also you</small><font size="-1"> may
subscribe/unsubscribe at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a></font><small>
</small><br>
<small> </small><small>Links and headlines assembled and
curated by Richard Pauli</small><small> for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels.</small><small> L</small><small>ist
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list. <br>
</small></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>