• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022 January 31, 2023
Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB January 31, 2023
Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty January 31, 2023
Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds January 31, 2023
Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing January 23, 2023
Next
Prev

TrumpWrap: Executive Order is All Cost, No Benefit, EPA Cuts Take Shape, DoE Drops References to Climate Change, and Congressional Committee Targets Climate Science

April 2, 2017
Reading time: 5 minutes
Primary Author: compiled by Mitchell Beer @mitchellbeer

mccready/Flickr

mccready/Flickr

 

Donald Trump’s executive order on climate change and energy will cost U.S. taxpayers more than US$58 billion by 2030, an analysis by the Center for American Progress shows, underscoring that climate change is an economic problem as well as an environmental crisis.

“The largest cost to American taxpayers, according to the CAP analysis, would come from rolling back the Clean Power Plan,” ThinkProgress reported last week. A 2015 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found the CPP would deliver public health and climate benefits worth $54 billion per year by 2030, against $8.4 billion in implementation costs. A separate study by Harvard University pointed to annual savings of $38 billion.

  • Be among the first to read The Energy Mix Weekender
  • A brand new weekly digest containing exclusive and essential climate stories from around the world.
  • The Weekender:The climate news you need.
New!
Subscribe

Trump’s rollback relied on a coal-funded study by NERA Economic Consulting that projected double-digit power rate increases in many states as a result of CPP implementation, “though other studies have shown that electricity prices would actually have fallen,” ThinkProgress notes.

Other Trump policy changes, unravelling Obama-era initiatives on methane emissions and on coal leasing on federal lands, will cost taxpayers billions, as well.

Oxfam America climate policy manager Heather Coleman warned the executive order threatens local efforts to build resilience against intensifying natural disasters. “The president is playing politics with people’s lives,” Coleman told media. “These reversals are coming at a moment when the impacts of climate change are intensifying.”

“If you don’t want to call it climate change, that’s fine,” agreed Gretna, Louisiana Mayor Belinda Constant, co-chair of the Mississippi River Cities and Towns Initiative. “You can call it whatever you want, but the point is, we’re dealing with this new reality and we have to address it head on.”

Rocky Mountain Institute Chief Scientist Amory Lovins, meanwhile, was out with an analysis showing that everyone—including automakers—will lose from Trump’s effort to loosen vehicle emission standards.

“We are going to work on the CAFE standards so we can make cars in America again,” Trump said. “Actually, under CAFE standards evolving since 1978, the industry in 2016 sold an all-time record 17.55 million vehicles,” Lovins responded.

“But such continued success is not guaranteed. Twice before, weak foresight has nearly destroyed U.S. automaking: first when 1970s oil shocks favored higher-mpg Japanese products and Detroit avoided a rout only by responding to President Ford’s 1975 CAFE law, and in 2009 when two of the Big Three needed restructuring and an $80-billion bailout.” The new emissions rule is working, Lovins contended, and auto industry sales are surging. But “the White House, fed inflated claims of job loss, seems eager to use that review to gut the rules, replacing a well-working compact and its stable planning basis with uncertainty, acrimony, and conflict.”

Meanwhile, an EPA spending plan obtained by the Washington Post showed how the agency plans to implement Trump’s proposed 31% budget cut. A total of 56 programs would be scrapped, including pesticide safety, water runoff control, and NAFTA environmental cooperation, while fuel efficiency verification staffing would be cut by more than half.

At the same time, Bloomberg published a list of U.S. climate programs that appeared to have been left unscathed by the March 28 executive order. They included the ban on hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, methane limits on livestock waste and landfills, and aviation emissions. “The fact that Trump is willing to let these Obama-era measures stand—at least for now—indicates his White House may be taking a less dogmatic stance toward climate change than one would expect,” the news agency noted.

At the U.S. Department of Energy, meanwhile, a supervisor in the Office of International Climate and Clean Energy advised staff not to use the phrases “climate change”, “emissions reduction”, or “Paris Agreement” in memos, briefings, or other written communications, Politico reported last week.

“Another DOE source in a different office said that although there had been no formal instructions about climate-related language in their office, there was a general sense that it’s better to avoid certain hot-button terms in favor of words like ‘jobs’ and ‘infrastructure,’” Politico noted.

DOE spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler said no new directive had been issued, and “no words or phrases have been banned for this office or anyone in the department.” That assurance, “given the administration’s record of truthfulness, is practically a confirmation,” responded Washington Post columnist Dana Millbank.

“Thus would the Department of Jobs and Infrastructure, formerly the Department of Energy, be forced to change the name of its Office of International Climate and Clean Energy to the Office of Hot-Button Terms. Or perhaps it should be the Office of Puppies and Lollipops, so that people would come to see global warming as a good thing.”

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, the House Science Committee held an inquisition a hearing last Wednesday that pitted Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann against a lineup of three climate deniers. “Under the leadership of Texas Republican Lamar Smith, the committee has become known for harassing climate scientists and challenging government science agencies under the guise of oversight,” noted writer Bob Berwyn on the Pacific Standard.

“In some ways, the hearing was simply the continuation of a long-running bit of political theatre that might be funny if it weren’t a matter of life and death for millions of people around the world who are already feeling the effects of climate change.”

The three deniers advised Congress “to fund ‘red teams’ to investigate ‘natural’ causes of global warming and challenge the findings of the United Nations’ climate science panel,” the Washington Post reported. “A main mission of red teams would be to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change, including the work of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports are widely considered the authority on climate science.”

While “red teams” are a method used by some organizations to improve their performance by setting up an in-house devil’s advocate, applying that system to settled climate science is “a completely ridiculous proposition,” Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the Post.

“The scientific community, in its various forms and in professional journals, has a very well-established, time-tested, and by and large quite effective process for evaluating alternative hypotheses about any body of science—and that’s called independent peer review,” he added.

“The notion that we would need to create an entirely different new approach, in particular for the specific question around global warming, is unfounded and ridiculous, and simply intended to promote the notion of a lack of consensus about the core findings, which in fact is a false notion.



in Auto & Alternative Vehicles, Climate Denial & Greenwashing, Climate Impacts & Adaptation, Energy Politics, United States

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Mike Mozart/Flickr
Ending Emissions

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

January 31, 2023
324
CONFENIAE
Ending Emissions

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61
Ken Teegardin www.SeniorLiving.Org/flickr
Clean Electricity Grid

Virtual Power Plants Hit an ‘Inflection Point’

January 31, 2023
125

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

Mike Mozart/Flickr

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

January 31, 2023
324
Sam Balto/YouTube

Elementary School’s Bike Bus Brings ‘Sheer Joy’ to Portland Neighbourhood

October 16, 2022
259
Lucio Santos/flickr

Canadian Banks Increased Fossil Investment in 2021, Report Card Shows

November 27, 2022
115
EcoAnalytics

Albertans Want a Just Transition, Despite Premier’s Grumbling

January 23, 2023
324
United Nations

Salvage of $20B ‘Floating Time Bomb’ Delayed by Rising Cost of Oil Tankers

January 27, 2023
122
/Pikrepo

Four Decades of Research Show Gas Stoves as ‘Overlooked’ Risk to Indoor Air, Child Health

December 7, 2020
1k

Recent Posts

Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61
Ken Teegardin www.SeniorLiving.Org/flickr

Virtual Power Plants Hit an ‘Inflection Point’

January 31, 2023
125
/snappy goat

Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds

January 31, 2023
94
Victorgrigas/wikimedia commons

World Bank Climate Reforms Too ‘Timid and Slow,’ Critics Warn

January 31, 2023
42
Doc Searls/Twitter

Guilbeault Could Intervene on Ontario Greenbelt Development

January 31, 2023
132
Next Post
Rob Loftis/Wikipedia

China Invests Billions in New Coal Capacity in Pakistan

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}