• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
Celebrating our 1,000th edition. The climate news you need
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
  FEATURED
Ex-Fossil Workers Convert Old Oilfields to Solar Farms After ‘Rapid Upskilling’ in Alberta June 29, 2022
London Becomes Biggest City to Sign Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty June 29, 2022
G7 Miss ‘Golden Opportunity’, Walk Back Pledge to Cut International Fossil Finance June 29, 2022
Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ For Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use June 26, 2022
BREAKING: UN Nature Summit, the ‘Paris Conference for Biodiversity’, Moves to Montreal in December June 19, 2022
Next
Prev
Home Climate & Society Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics

U.S. Appeal Court Demands Climate Assessment for Four Massive Coal Leases

September 24, 2017
Reading time: 3 minutes

tpsdave / Pixabay

tpsdave / Pixabay

 

Anti-coal campaigners in the United States scored a significant but still partial victory earlier this month, when an appeals court ordered a climate impact analysis for four massive coal leases the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had approved at mines owned by Arch Coal and Peabody Energy.

Under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the judges ruled, VLM “can’t assume the harmful effects away by claiming that dirty fuels left untouched in one location would automatically bubble up, greenhouse gas emissions and all, somewhere else,” InsideClimate News reports. That was BLM’s basic logic “when it approved the new leases in the Powder River Basin that stretches across Wyoming and Montana, expanding projects that hold some two billion tons of coal, big enough to supply at least a fifth of the nation’s needs.”

The court ruled the agency’s previous analysis was “irrational” and ordered a redo. But it didn’t overturn a lower court ruling upholding the analysis, a move that would have stopped mining operations on the spot. “Nor, in sending the case back for further review, did it instruct the lower court how to proceed, beyond telling it not ‘to rely on an economic assumption which contradicted basic economic principles,’” ICN notes.

Still, “this is a major win for climate progress, for our public lands, and for our clean energy future,” said WildEarth Guardians Climate and Energy Program Director Jeremy Nichols. “It also stands as a major reality check [to Donald Trump] and his attempts to use public lands and coal to prop up the dying coal industry at the expense of our climate.”

Vox describes the decision as something of a surprise, coming from a conservative appeals court whose jurisdiction covers Colorado, Kansas, Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. “The 10th Circuit is the highest court to rule on climate change accounting so far, and its opinion undercuts President Donald Trump’s efforts to resuscitate the dying US coal industry,” the online news outlet notes.

“It’s reaffirming what a lot of people already knew: Government has to take a hard look at what their environmental impacts are,” said University of Wyoming law professor Sam Kalen. “Cases like this are sending a signal that regardless of what the administration wants to do, the law says you have to take a look at these issues.”

ICN and Vox both note that the court took a dim view of BLM’s “perfect substitution” argument, which suggested that coal not mined in the Powder River Basin would just come from somewhere else, with equal climate impact.

“This long logical leap presumes that either the reduced supply will have no impact on price, or that any increase in price will not make other forms of energy more attractive and decrease coal’s share of the energy mix, even slightly,” wrote Judge Mary Beck Briscoe.

“That is to say,” Vox explains, “if millions of tons of cheap Powder River Basin coal are no longer on the U.S. market, it’s likely that power producers will switch to cleaner alternatives rather than dig up more expensive coal in other parts of the country.”

Citing WildEarth Guardians, Vox says the four leases would produce 3.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to emissions from 1,000 coal-fired power plants. Still, reporter Umair Irfan says the ruling came as a pleasant surprise to environmental groups fighting the case.

“I think it is a good surprise,” said Jayni Hein, policy director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. “We are more used to seeing decisions like this from the Ninth Circuit, which has been a leader on requiring accounting for climate change. It’s a sign that courts are recognizing the importance of this.”



in Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

David/flickr
United States

U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Gut Emission Controls as Climate Scientists Petition for Plan B

June 26, 2022
1.2k
Graco/Facebook
Food Security

Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ For Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use

June 27, 2022
212
willenhallwench / Pixabay
Clean Electricity Grid

PG&E Risks Greenwashing with Definition of ‘Scope 4’ Emissions

June 24, 2022
98

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

François GOGLINS/wikimedia commons

Corrosion Problem Shutters Half of France’s Nuclear Reactors

June 29, 2022
227
Keith Hirsche

Ex-Fossil Workers Convert Old Oilfields to Solar Farms After ‘Rapid Upskilling’ in Alberta

June 29, 2022
411
Danielle Scott/flickr

Advocate Urges Ottawa to Intervene Before Ontario Builds Highway 413

June 29, 2022
130
David/flickr

U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Gut Emission Controls as Climate Scientists Petition for Plan B

June 26, 2022
1.2k
Number 10/flickr

G7 Miss ‘Golden Opportunity’, Walk Back Pledge to Cut International Fossil Finance

June 29, 2022
146
London Eye UK England

London Becomes Biggest City to Sign Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty

June 29, 2022
131

Recent Posts

AJEL / Pixabay

Windfall Tax on Food, Fossil, Pharma Giants Would Raise $490B to Solve ‘Catastrophic’ Food Crisis: Oxfam

June 29, 2022
58
futureatlas.com/flickr

Ottawa Demands Deeper Fuel Emissions Cuts, Offers Fossils a Double-Dip on Tax Breaks

June 29, 2022
78
Province of B.C./flickr

Comox Joins Municipalities Seeking Ban on New Gas Stations

June 29, 2022
78
/Piqsels

Refocus Agriculture Spending to Cut Emissions, Boost Productivity, OECD Urges Governments

June 29, 2022
29
Jimmy Emerson, DVM/flickr

Public Vigilance Key to Protecting Greenbelts for Climate Resilience, Report Finds

June 29, 2022
36
Miguel V/Wikimedia Commons

Forests Fall Short of Full Carbon Storage Potential, Study Finds

June 29, 2022
64
Next Post
bhuman34/Pixabay

Ontario Signs On to Western Climate Initiative Cap-and-Trade Plan

The Energy Mix

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

Navigate Site

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

Follow Us

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}