<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+2"><i><b>March 13, 2022</b></i></font><br>
</p>
<i>[ never challenge their power and influence ]<br>
</i><b>A growing force in the climate movement: Moms</b><br>
Activists are deploying the moral authority of mothers to push for
climate action. Their protests must steer clear of nap time.<br>
By Somini Sengupta - - March 11, 2022<br>
Many of you write to us and tell us about your feelings of
powerlessness in the face of a global climate catastrophe. That
sentiment is giving rise to a small but potentially potent force in
the climate movement: moms, who have been catapulted into action by
the hazards facing their children.<br>
<br>
In Brooklyn, moms are taking aim at the world’s biggest asset
manager, BlackRock.<br>
<br>
In Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Denver, moms are pushing lawmakers in
Congress for climate legislation.<br>
<br>
In London, Lahore and Delhi, moms are pushing their governments to
clean up the air from the very pollutants that warm the planet...<br>
- - <br>
On a crisp Sunday last October, after a morning of apple picking,
Bocci drove up with a half dozen other Brooklyn moms. They brought a
basket of apples, along with placards and toddlers. They had planned
to take pictures of their protest on Fink’s lawn and splash them on
social media.<br>
<br>
Except that Fink came out to talk. They urged him to move
BlackRock’s trillions of dollars from coal, oil and gas. Zasper
rolled down his yard, again and again. Some of the other toddlers
had straight-up meltdowns.<br>
<br>
The moms said they were dismayed to hear Fink tell them there were
limits to what BlackRock could do. “If he can’t make changes, I
don’t know who can!” said Marlena Fontes, one of the other moms who
was there.<br>
<br>
(BlackRock confirmed the meeting took place, though not what was
said. Fink has said in the past that, as a fiduciary organization in
charge of other people’s money, the firm can’t divest from fossil
fuel companies over climate issues. A company spokesman added that
the moms’ group was later invited to speak with two BlackRock
executives in charge of sustainability.)<br>
<br>
Sunrise Kids, part of a network called NYC Climate Families
Coalition, are mostly moms of toddlers. They work the playgrounds
and farmers markets. They meet online in the evening after their
kids are in bed. They plan protests on weekends, steering clear of
nap times.<br>
<br>
Several of the members of Sunrise Kids said they felt consumed by
the climate crisis once they became parents. They found individual
action, like composting, to be inadequate. They turned to each other
to take on what Fontes, mother of a 2-year-old and another due soon,
called “the levers of power.”<br>
<br>
“We are a mostly white, middle to upper class group based in
Brooklyn,” she said. “This is a constituency that has access to
power and resources and has a responsibility to take action.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/11/climate/climate-change-moms-mothers.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/11/climate/climate-change-moms-mothers.html</a><i><br>
</i>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i>[ GREAT, IMPORTANT talk with David Wallace-Welles video]</i><br>
<b>Who Takes The Blame For Climate Change? | The Problem With Jon
Stewart | Apple TV+</b><br>
The Problem With Jon Stewart<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIRedbcGYE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIRedbcGYE</a><br>
Watch now on Apple TV+:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theproblem.link/ClimateEpisode">https://theproblem.link/ClimateEpisode</a><br>
<br>
In this video exclusive conversation, Jon is joined by New York
Magazine editor and author David Wallace-Wells to break down how
the countries that feel the most damage from climate change are
often those least responsible, how America was built on the
industries that are killing the planet, and how realistic our
plans for net zero really are.<br>
<br>
The Problem With Jon Stewart is now streaming on Apple TV+
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theproblem.link/AppleTV">https://theproblem.link/AppleTV</a><br>
<br>
Listen to The Problem With Jon Stewart podcast on Apple Podcasts,
where available.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theproblem.link/ApplePodcast">https://theproblem.link/ApplePodcast</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIRedbcGYE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIRedbcGYE</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Electric cars should not be powered by coal ]</i><br>
<b>PNAS Study: Promise of EVs Depends Critically on Electricity
Generation Sources</b><br>
Shifting to electric vehicles in the future will reduce emissions
due to less burning of gasoline in internal combustion engines. But
a significant share of this benefit will continue to be offset
without complementary policies designed to lower emissions from the
sources of electricity that come online to meet additional demand.
That’s the finding of a new study co-authored by Yale School of the
Environment Economics Professor Matthew Kotchen.<br>
“We need to be careful not to let EVs be the lifeline for continued
existence of coal plants,’’<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/pnas-study-promise-evs-depends-critically-electricity-generation-sources">https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/pnas-study-promise-evs-depends-critically-electricity-generation-sources</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Economist </i><i>Research paper </i><i> ]</i><br>
<b>Why marginal CO2 emissions are not decreasing for US electricity:
Estimates and implications for climate policy</b><br>
Stephen P. Holland <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4543-9004">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4543-9004</a>, Matthew J.
Kotchen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:matthew.kotchen@yale.edu">matthew.kotchen@yale.edu</a>, Erin T. Mansur
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9730-2755">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9730-2755</a>, and Andrew J. Yates
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0517-685XAuthors">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0517-685XAuthors</a> Info & Affiliations<br>
February 14, 2022 <br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
Marginal emissions of CO2 from the electricity sector are critical
for evaluating climate policies that rely on shifts in electricity
demand or supply. This paper provides estimates of marginal CO2
emissions from US electricity generation using the most recently
available and comprehensive data. The estimates vary by region, hour
of the day, and year to year over the last decade. We identify an
important and somewhat counterintuitive finding: While average
emissions have decreased substantially over the last decade (28%
nationally), marginal emissions have increased (7% nationally). We
show that underlying these trends is primarily a shift toward
greater reliance on coal to satisfy marginal electricity use. We
apply our estimates to an analysis of the Biden administration’s
target of having electric vehicles (EVs) make up 50% of new vehicle
purchases by 2030. We find that, without significant and concurrent
changes to the electricity sector, the increase in electricity
emissions is likely to offset more than half of the emission
reductions from having fewer gasoline-powered vehicles on the road.
Moreover, using average rather than marginal emissions to predict
the impacts significantly overestimates the emission benefits.
Overall, we find that the promise of EVs for reducing emissions
depends, to a large degree, on complementary policies that
decarbonize both average and marginal emissions in the electricity
sector.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116632119">https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116632119</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ top new opinion ] </i><br>
<b>Nationalize All the Oil Companies</b><br>
BY MATT BRUENIG<br>
The price of oil and the myriad horrors of climate change that oil
exacerbates make it too important for us to leave in the free
market’s hands. The oil companies should be nationalized...<br>
as prices in the United States have increased a lot over the last
eighteen months and currently stand above $4 per gallon. If prices
continue to rise or stay at their current elevated levels, that
could cause financial hardship for many families and cause political
problems for Democrats ahead of the coming midterm elections.<br>
<br>
According to most reporting on the topic, gas prices have increased
because global demand for oil has increased faster than global
supply of oil. The supply of oil is being held back by the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which
refuses to significantly increase its production quotas, by the
Russian/Ukrainian war, which has led to sanctions and boycotts that
are stranding some of Russia’s oil production, and by American oil
companies, which refuse to expand domestic oil production.<br>
<br>
One of the reasons that American oil companies are not expanding
domestic production is that their owners and financiers generally do
not want them to do so. These investors fear that
production-expanding investments in the oil sector are extremely
risky and may not pay off. This fear appears to be justified by
recent experiences in the sector where massive investments in
fracking succeeded in producing a lot more oil while also delivering
giant financial losses to investors.<br>
<br>
More broadly, it seems reasonable for investors to be skeptical of
the future of the oil and gas industry in the face of large-scale
efforts to phase it out of existence in order to limit climate
change. Making a long-term investment in a (hopefully) declining
industry in order to take advantage of (hopefully) temporary high
prices is just not a smart thing to do, as advocates of the
“stranded assets” thesis have been saying for at least a decade.<br>
<br>
Policy advocates have been promoting a variety of clever ideas to
try to cut through this Gordian knot, but there has so far been only
very limited discussion of an obvious approach to this basic
problem: nationalize the oil industry.<br>
<br>
As discussed previously at People’s Policy Project (I, II), <b>an
industry that is absolutely essential to maintain in the short
term and absolutely essential to eliminate in the long term is an
industry that really should be managed publicly. Private owners
and investors are not in the business of temporarily propping up
dying industries, which means that they will either work to keep
the industry from dying, which is bad for the climate, or that
they will refuse to temporarily prop it up, which will cause
economic chaos. A public owner is best positioned to pursue
managed decline in a responsible way.</b><br>
<br>
Although the current oil problems are not primarily driven by the
climate calculus, the underlying dynamic is fairly similar. Private
investors are reluctant to pour money into a sector that they think
will not be able to generate profits in the medium and long term.
These investors don’t care about the overall economic or
geopolitical considerations that may justify temporary production
hikes despite longer term unprofitability. With the right kinds of
incentives, perhaps the government could make the deal sweet enough
to change the calculation of these investors. But why bother with
that when the government could just buy out the industry and manage
this process directly?..<br>
.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://jacobinmag.com/2022/03/nationalize-oil-companies-gas-prices-climate-change-investment-domestic-production">https://jacobinmag.com/2022/03/nationalize-oil-companies-gas-prices-climate-change-investment-domestic-production</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2022/03/10/nationalize-the-oil-companies/">https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2022/03/10/nationalize-the-oil-companies/</a><br>
-- - <br>
<i>[this is the paper that started it all ]</i><br>
<b>Out of Time</b><br>
“Due to inaction, we have four times the work to do to decarbonize<br>
the planet and dwindling time to do it in.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/OutofTime.pdf">https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/OutofTime.pdf</a><br>
- -<br>
[ back to 2020 ]<br>
<b>The Case for Nationalizing the Fossil Fuel Industry</b><br>
The environmental, political, and economic case for nationalizing
the fossil fuel industry.<br>
BY Mark Paul and Carla Santos Skandier and Rory Renzy<br>
<br>
The climate is in crisis. Scientists have repeatedly warned
policymakers that to have a reasonable chance at limiting global
warming to 1.5ºC, emissions need to be rapidly wound down. But the
power of the fossil fuel corporations, armed with hundreds and
hundreds of lobbyists on the Hill, won’t have any of it. They must
extract, extract, extract. Corporations are unwilling, and markets
are simply incapable of rapidly phasing out the industry that is
destroying our planet.<br>
<br>
There is another way. People’s Policy Project, in collaboration with
The Next System Project, has released its latest paper: “Out of
Time: The Case for Nationalizing the Fossil Fuel Industry.” The
paper was written by Mark Paul, Carla Santos Skandier, and Rory
Renzy.<br>
<br>
Much recent work has focused on building the green economy. That
work is of the utmost importance. But to fully transition the
economy away from fossil fuels policymakers have to dismantle the
existing dirty economy too. A managed transition requires planning.<br>
<br>
The paper outlines the environmental, political, and economic case
for nationalizing the fossil fuel industry. While each of these have
merits worth consideration, the strongest case for nationalization
is a one-time buyout of the political power of fossil fuel
interests. If we could neutralize the fossil fuel corporations,
shareholders, and lobbyists responsible for climate inaction, we
could finally see real action to address the climate crisis. The
most feasible path to nationalization runs through the Federal
Reserve. Through buying out the fossil fuel industry, we would give
the planet the best chance possible at containing the climate crisis
while putting people’s livelihoods before short-term profits.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/project/the-case-for-nationalizing-the-fossil-fuel-industry/">https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/project/the-case-for-nationalizing-the-fossil-fuel-industry/</a><i><br>
</i><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Classic science ] </i><br>
<b>Press Briefing: The Best Climate Science You've Never Heard Of</b><br>
Feb 17, 2022<br>
Covering Climate Now<br>
At this Press Briefing, we discussed the important,
paradigm-shifting climate science most people don't know is buried
in the last IPCC report. <br>
Panelists: <br>
Dr. Michael E. Mann is the professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and
the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. He is also director
of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. Mann has also
authored several books, his most recent work being The New Climate
War.<br>
<br>
Saleemul Huq is the director of the International Centre for Climate
Change and Development in Dhaka and a professor at the Independent
University Bangladesh. He also helped train diplomats from the
global South who inserted the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal in the Paris
Agreement.<br>
<br>
Mark Hertsgaard, CCNow's executive director and environment
correspondent at The Nation and Scientific American’s editor in
chief, Laura Helmuth, co-moderated. <br>
<br>
Follow CCNow on Twitter HERE: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://twitter.com/CoveringClimate">http://twitter.com/CoveringClimate</a><br>
Like CCNow on Facebook HERE:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://facebook.com/CoveringClimateNow">http://facebook.com/CoveringClimateNow</a><br>
<br>
Get Covering Climate Now's weekly newsletter delivered to your
inbox. Subscribe HERE: bit.ly/39viEZd<br>
<br>
Covering Climate Now is a global journalism initiative committed to
more and better coverage of the defining story of our time.
Organized by journalists, for journalists, CCNow was co-founded in
April 2019 by the Columbia Journalism Review, and The Nation, in
association with The Guardian. Our partners include more than 400
news outlets with a combined audience approaching 2 billion people,
and our innovative collaborations are driving stronger climate
coverage across the media. For more visit CoveringClimateNow.org<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vQxnt-bGOI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vQxnt-bGOI</a>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ another climate talk by Michael E. Mann ]</i><br>
<b>Michael E. Mann: The New Climate War</b><br>
Jan 13, 2022<br>
UH Speaker Series<br>
One of the world’s leading climate scientists and a tireless
advocate documents precisely the who, what, why and when of the
systemic and deliberate campaign to undermine public confidence in
climate science.<br>
<br>
Author:<br>
Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at
Penn State and director of the Earth System Science Center. A
specialist in combining theoretical models and observational data to
understand the Earth’s climate system, Mann has published more than
200 scholarly publications and five books, including The New Climate
War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet (2021). He is an IPCC lead
author and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.<br>
<br>
Moderator:<br>
Makena Coffman is the Director for the University of Hawaiʻi at
Mānoa Institute for Sustainability and Resilience. She is a
Professor of Urban and Regional Planning and Research Fellow with
the University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization, and Chair
of the City & County of Honolulu Climate Change Commission. Her
research interests include climate change, energy policy and
alternative transportation strategies.<br>
<br>
Produced by the UH Manoa Better Tomorrow Speaker Series for Hawai'i
Book and Music Festival 2021 <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://hawaiibookandmusicfestival.com">https://hawaiibookandmusicfestival.com</a><br>
<br>
Sponsored by: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Oceanit, Kamehameha
Publishing, HEI, Bess Press, Lili'uokalani Trust, Hawai'i Public
Radio, Honolulu Civil Beat, iHeartMedia, BDK Hawaii<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC7Q3mKguMc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC7Q3mKguMc</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[ one more great video lecture - two hour ]<br>
<b>Great Decisions: Climate Change</b><br>
Feb 16, 2022<br>
Fairfax County Public Library<br>
Professor Ron Bee discusses climate change. <br>
This program aired live on January 21, 2022.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9Rz657mPU0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9Rz657mPU0</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ The important issue presented in YouTube video ] </i><br>
<b>Tipping elements, irreversibility, and abrupt change in the Earth
system - Permafrost ( #3)</b><br>
Jan 19, 2022<br>
World Climate Research Programme<br>
This discussion series aims to advance the knowledge about tipping
elements, irreversibility, and abrupt changes in the Earth system. <br>
<br>
This event in the series focuses on permafrost, with two talks:. <br>
<br>
Permafrost and climate change – what are we observing ? – Hanne
Hvidtfeld Christiansen <br>
The Permafrost Carbon Feedback and potential tipping points -
Gustaf Hugelius <br>
<br>
More information: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://tipping-series-permafrost.con">https://tipping-series-permafrost.con</a>...<br>
This discussion series is a joint activity of the Analysis,
Integration, and Modeling of the Earth System (AIMES) global
research project of Future Earth, the Earth Commission Working Group
1 Earth and Human Systems Intercomparison Modelling Project (EHSMIP)
under the Global Commons Alliance and the Safe Landing Climates
Light House Activity of World Climate Research Program (WCRP).<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXu9QwSg8v4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXu9QwSg8v4</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back]</i><br>
<font size="5"><b>March 13, 2001</b></font><br>
The Bush administration announces that it will not regulate carbon
dioxide emissions from power plants, abandoning a campaign pledge
under pressure from the fossil fuel industry. <br>
Bush Reneges on Vow To Cut CO2 from Power Plants<br>
Bush Reverses Vow to Curb Gas Tied to Global Warming<br>
The New York Times, March 14, 2001<br>
Under strong pressure from conservative Republicans and industry
groups, President Bush reversed a campaign pledge today and said his
administration would not seek to regulate power plants' emissions of
carbon dioxide, a gas that many scientists say is a key contributor
to global warming.<br>
<br>
The decision left environmental groups and some Congressional
Democrats angered at what they called a major betrayal. But the
White House said a cabinet-level review had concluded that Mr.
Bush's original promise had been a mistake inconsistent with the
broader goal of increasing domestic energy production.<br>
<br>
The president outlined his new view in a letter to four Republican
senators, whose criticisms of Mr. Bush's initial plan had been among
a torrent of protests by conservatives and industry leaders who
warned that any effort to regulate carbon dioxide emissions could
deal a severe blow to the energy industry and to the American
economy.<br>
<br>
As recently as 10 days ago, Christie Whitman, the new administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, had described Mr. Bush's
campaign promise as if it were already policy.<br>
<br>
Administration officials would not say directly today whether Ms.
Whitman had supported the change in position but suggested that she
had not. They said the views of Vice President Dick Cheney and
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham had been most instrumental in the
final decision.<br>
<br>
A spokeswoman for Ms. Whitman, Tina Kreisher, said the E.P.A. chief
would "follow the president's lead."<br>
<br>
The burden of any plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions would
have fallen most heavily on coal-burning power plants, which still
account for more than 50 percent of the electricity generated in the
United States. Mr. Bush said today that a recent Energy Department
study had concluded that regulating carbon dioxide emissions would
have led to "significantly higher electricity prices."<br>
<br>
"This is important new information that warrants a re-evaluation,
especially at a time of rising energy prices and a serious energy
shortage," Mr. Bush said.<br>
<br>
"At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages,
and other Western states are worried about price and availability of
energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that
could harm consumers," Mr. Bush said in the letter. "This is
especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge
of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the
lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing
carbon dioxide."<br>
<br>
Mr. Bush said he remained committed to an energy policy that would
seek to improve air quality by reducing emissions of nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury, which are already regulated as
pollutants. But he said he no longer supported the position outlined
in a campaign statement of Sept. 29, which had also promised to set
"mandatory reduction targets" for carbon dioxide.<br>
<br>
Some moderate Republicans who had been preparing to introduce
legislation later this week supporting a power plant cleanup
including carbon dioxide also expressed frustration with the sudden
shift. They and some owners of coal-fired plants had supported the
idea of regulating all four emissions from power plants at once, to
avoid uncertainty and confusion in years to come.<br>
<br>
The pressure to make the decision came in part from lobbyists for
coal companies and utilities dependent on coal and from the
conservative wing of the Republican Party, which saw any move to
regulate carbon dioxide as an implicit endorsement of the goals of
the Kyoto Protocol.<br>
<br>
This treaty, negotiated and signed by the Clinton administration but
as yet unratified, would commit 38 industrialized countries to sharp
ongoing cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.<br>
<br>
Many senators, particularly Jesse Helms, Republican of North
Carolina, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, oppose it as a a
potential harm to the economy and because it would allow American
energy policy, in essence, to be governed by an international
treaty. The letter was sent to Mr. Helms, Mr. Hagel, Senator Pat
Roberts of Kansas and Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho.<br>
<br>
Mr. Bush's earlier embrace of the plan had won him praise from
environmental leaders, who described the approach as an indication
that the administration might be more sympathetic than they had
expected.<br>
<br>
The representatives of environmental organizations denounced Mr.
Bush's turnabout.<br>
<br>
"Bush is turning his back not only on his campaign pledge, but on
his administrator of the E.P.A. and the world's scientists, who warn
this problem is more serious than we previously thought," said
Daniel A. Lashof, a senior scientist for the Natural Resources
Defense Council.<br>
<br>
In the offices of industry lobbyists and conservative Republican
congressmen, on the other hand, there was a strong sense of triumph.<br>
<br>
Glenn Kelly, the executive director of the Global Climate Coalition,
which represents industry groups, said the White House had received
"a lot of communications" from those critical of any attempt to
regulate emissions that are viewed as contributing to global
warming. "Fortunately, the president responded quickly," Mr. Kelly
said.<br>
<br>
Mr. Bush's earlier position had been more far-reaching even than
that of his campaign opponent, former Vice President Al Gore, who
had called for strong incentives to encourage voluntary moves by
industry to reduce emissions.<br>
<br>
The letter from Mr. Bush came in response to a letter sent last week
by Senator Hagel, requesting that Mr. Bush clarify his stance.<br>
<br>
Mr. Hagel has repeatedly said in recent months that he believes
global warming is at least partly caused by emissions of gases from
human activities, but he has opposed both the Kyoto Protocol and
legislative moves to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Tonight, Mr.
Hagel said he welcomed Mr. Bush's response.<br>
<br>
A number of members of Congress, including Senators James M.
Jeffords, Republican of Vermont, and Joseph I. Lieberman, a
Connecticut Democrat, are preparing various power plant bills that
would have included carbon dioxide among regulated emissions.
Tonight staff for the bill sponsors said identical bills would still
be introduced in the Senate and House on Thursday, but they conceded
that there was little hope, at least for now, that such measures
could succeed.<br>
<br>
Many people involved on both sides of the fight said the decision by
Mr. Bush represented a sharp rebuke of Ms. Whitman, the former New
Jersey governor.<br>
<br>
Among others in the administration who had been seen as supporting
restrictions on carbon dioxide was the Treasury secretary, Paul H.
O'Neill, who in his previous post as chairman of Alcoa had said in a
1998 speech that the problem of global warming was on par with a
potential nuclear holocaust in terms of demanding government action.<br>
<br>
Ms. Kreisher, Ms. Whitman's spokeswoman, said: "The administrator
has said in the past that President Bush regards climate change very
seriously and supports a comprehensive, balanced energy policy that
is intended to improve air quality, and the administrator is
gratified that he supports that."<br>
<br>
A senior E.P.A. official who spoke on condition of anonymity,
however, left little doubt that the turnabout had left Ms. Whitman
exposed. "If you look at her past statements, she said she was
supporting what was in the president's campaign plan," the official
said. "It's his prerogative to decide if he wants to change that,
and she will follow his lead."<br>
<br>
A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Mr. Bush had made his
decision in consultation with his cabinet.<br>
<br>
"The president is following through on his commitment to a
multipollutant strategy that will significantly reduce pollutants,"
Mr. McClellan said. "CO2 should not have been included as a
pollutant during the campaign. It was a mistake."<br>
<br>
From Grist Magazine by Leonie Haimson (March 15, 2001)<br>
<br>
Wow! The last few weeks have given those of us trying to follow the
Bush administration's position on climate change a wild
roller-coaster ride. We began the month of February with nothing but
positive signs -- including indications that we had a Treasury
secretary, a U.S. EPA head,<br>
<br>
and a national security adviser intent on actually trying to do
something about global warming. (This is in stark contrast to the
previous administration, in which Treasury heads Robert Rubin and
Lawrence Summers were actively hostile to the idea of a U.S.
commitment to reduce carbon<br>
<br>
dioxide emissions, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was
apparently uninterested in the problem, and EPA Administrator Carol
Browner generally avoided the issue as much as possible, reportedly
because she regarded it as too politically risky.)<br>
<br>
New Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill laid down his marker
immediately. In President Bush's first Cabinet meeting, O'Neill
distributed copies of a speech he had given in 1998 in which he
argued that delaying action to stem global warming by only a few
years could pose a "real danger to civilization" (Houston Chronicle,
26 Feb 2001). (For more on this speech, and O'Neill's impressive
record on the issue, see the January column.) Many of those who have
met with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice say that she,
too, is interested in environmental issues and seems intent on
trying to devise a workable agreement with the Europeans. And
finally, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman has in recent weeks
made some very encouraging statements on global warming.<br>
<br>
During the campaign, Bush forwarded a little-publicized proposal to
phase in caps on power plant emissions for four different
pollutants: CO2, mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides (see
the November column).<br>
<br>
This proposal represented the first time either presidential
candidate had called for direct regulation of CO2 emissions. Rumors
swirled that Bush was planning to recommend the emissions caps in
his speech before Congress on 27 Feb., a notion that made the
conservative wing of the party apoplectic.<br>
<br>
On the eve of Bush's speech, Whitman appeared on CNN's "Crossfire"
and quite clearly reaffirmed the administration's intention to cap
CO2 emissions: "George Bush was very clear during the course of the
campaign that he believed in a multipollutant strategy, and that
includes CO2. ...<br>
<br>
[The president] has been very clear that the science is good on
global warming. It does exist. There are problems that we as a world
face from global warming and to the extent that introducing CO2 to
the discussion is going to have an impact on global warming, that's
an important step to take" (CNN.com, 26 Feb 2001).<br>
<br>
After appearing before a Senate committee the next day, Whitman
reiterated the conviction that the science was settled on the issue
of climate change: "There's no question but that global warming is a
real phenomenon, that it is occurring. ... And while scientists
can't predict<br>
<br>
where the droughts will occur, where the flooding will occur
precisely or when, we know those things will occur." She refused to
rule out the option of a cap on C02, and added that the Bush
administration was committed to trying to make the Kyoto treaty on
climate change work:<br>
<br>
"This president is very sensitive to the issue of global warming. We
expect the United States to be a partner" (AP Worldstream, 27 Feb
2001).<br>
<br>
Hasty alerts were sent from the Greening Earth Society, created and
largely funded by coal-based utilities, and the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, ground zero for opponents of action on climate
change. The message: People should immediately call and email the
White House, asking<br>
<br>
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to delete any reference to the
proposed multipollutant strategy from the president's speech.
Perhaps as a result, Bush did not mention the proposal in the
speech, though a "multipollutant approach" was still referred to in
his budget blueprint.<br>
<br>
Then, over the first weekend of March, environment ministers from
Russia and the world's top seven industrialized nations met in
Trieste, Italy, to discuss global warming. Whitman apparently
convinced the Europeans that the Bush administration was committed
to working constructively with them on the problem. "Ms. Whitman was
very positive about climate change being a global issue, about the
scientific evidence and that the Kyoto framework was something they
should work within," a senior British official said (Reuters, 04 Mar
2001). Together, the G8 ministers renewed<br>
<br>
their pledge to work towards an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. All the ministers, including Whitman, signed the final
document, which said, "We commit ourselves ... to strive to reach an
agreement on outstanding political issues and to ensure in a
cost-effective manner the environmental integrity of the Kyoto
Protocol" (AP, 04 Mar 2001).<br>
<br>
Right Wing Sees Red<br>
All this talk further infuriated the right-wing base of the
Republican Party, triggering outraged calls and emails to the White
House. Business representatives from the key coal and utility
interests went into action.<br>
<br>
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who had lately been sounding surprisingly
conciliatory on the Kyoto Protocol, and three other Senate
Republicans -- Larry Craig of Idaho, Pat Roberts of Kansas, and Mike
Enzi of Wyoming -- sent Bush a highly critical letter, asking him to
clarify his position and arguing that there was still scientific
uncertainty as to the cause of global warming. (In the letter, the
Senators even referred to the Hansen brouhaha of a few months past
-- for more, see the November column).<br>
<br>
Another message went out by email from Myron Ebell of CEI: "We have
learned from contacts at EPA and the White House that Cheney's
energy task force plans to announce (or decide?) something tomorrow
morning about regulating carbon dioxide. We ... must go all out once
again to share our concerns with every contact we've got. In
particular we need to get our friends on the Hill to intervene."
Finally, in a weekly policy meeting, Cheney told the senators
present that the campaign pledge to control CO2 was "a mistake," and
that the administration was preparing a letter that would say CO2
was not a pollutant (AP and Reuters, 13 Mar 2001).<br>
<br>
Sure enough, late on Tuesday, the letter went out. It was even worse
than expected -- a total slam against Whitman, the
environmentalists, and even those Republican moderates in Congress
who have been putting together their own bill on CO2 reductions from
power plants. (The full text of<br>
<br>
Bush's letter is conveniently posted on the website of the Global
Climate Coalition, the main industry lobby group opposing action on
climate change.)<br>
<br>
In the letter, Bush noted that his campaign proposal had been in
error, since CO2 is not a "pollutant" according to the Clean Air
Act. He also referred to a December study by the Department of
Energy, which, in his words, concluded that "caps on carbon dioxide
emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy would lead to an
even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power
generation and significantly higher electricity prices." These caps
were a concern, he wrote, particularly in the West: "At a time when
California has already experienced energy shortages, and other
Western states are worried about price and availability of energy
this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could
harm consumers." Yet, as Elizabeth Shogren of the Los Angeles Times
(14 Mar 2001) immediately pointed out, California is "much less
dependent on coal for power than most of the country," with only
about one-eighth of its power coming from coal-fired plants.<br>
<br>
The Bush letter was also vehement in its categorical opposition to
the Kyoto Protocol, calling it "an unfair and ineffective means of
addressing global climate change concerns" -- in essence,
contradicting the thrust of the G-8 document that Whitman had signed
onto just nine days before.<br>
<br>
Bush even backtracked on the science, arguing that the "state of
scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global
climate change" was "incomplete."<br>
<br>
Glenn Kelly, the executive director of the Global Climate Coalition,
said the White House had received "a lot of communications" from
opponents of efforts to control greenhouse gases. "Fortunately, the
president responded quickly" (New York Times, 14 Mar 2001). Whether
it was this<br>
<br>
sort of direct pressure that caused the president to cave so quickly
is as yet unknown. Some White House officials immediately floated
the explanation that the reversal was due to the efforts of senators
from the Midwest, who threatened to oppose Bush's huge tax cut if
their concerns on this issue weren't addressed.<br>
<br>
Ebell of CEI immediately sent around an email congratulating his
allies, but letting them know that their work was far from finished:
"President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made the right
decision on regulating CO2 with a little good advice from their
friends. We have won a famous victory, and everyone should
congratulate themselves on the work they did to achieve this end. I
encourage all of you to send out press statements congratulating
Bush. (This, after all, could be a turning point in the war to save
industrial civilization from itself.)"<br>
<br>
He also sent out a special thanks to former Rep. David McIntosh
(R-Ind.) and Marlo Lewis (chair emeritus of the Cooler Heads
Coalition and now with Reason Public Policy Institute) for helping
to initiate the Energy<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3657&method=full">http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3657&method=full</a><br>
<p>---------------------------------------</p>
<p>More information from daily summaries</p>
<p>---------------------------------------</p>
<p><b><font size="5">Climate Nexus </font> </b><b> </b><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/</a></p>
<p>Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News
summarizes the most important climate and energy news of the day,
delivering an unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting.
It also provides original reporting and commentary on climate
denial and pro-polluter activity that would otherwise remain
largely unexposed. 5 weekday <br>
</p>
<p>=================================<br>
</p>
<p><font size="5"><b>Carbon Brief Daily </b> </font>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a><b><br>
</b></p>
<p>Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon
Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to
thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest
of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change
and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in
the peer-reviewed journals.</p>
<p>more at<b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a></b><br>
</p>
<p>==================================<br>
</p>
<br>
<b><font size="5">The Daily Climate </font></b>Subscribe
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61</a><b><br>
</b>Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better
than coffee.<b><br>
</b><br>
<b> </b>Other newsletters too <br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a><br>
<br>
<p>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/</p>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"
moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can provide greater privacy to the
receiver and sender. This is a hobby production curated by Richard
Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for
commercial purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">contact@theclimate.vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote" moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://TheClimate.Vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>