EPA staffer bravely quits job in defiance of Trump… sort of
BY JAZZ SHAW
Remember those surveys which showed that up to one third of federal workers were thinking of quitting their jobs as soon as Donald Trump was sworn in as the nation’s 45th president? More than a few of them were obviously workers at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where the media mournfully reported that workers were “coming to work in tears” over what was to become of their beloved agency. But for all of the angst and bluster showing up in the press we weren’t actually seeing many (if any) people making good on their promise. That is… until now. We’ve finally found that long sought after worker who took a stand, flipped the bird to Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump, fired off a take this job and shove it letter and walked off the job. And his name is Mike Cox. (Washington Post)
When Mike Cox quit, he did so with gusto.
After 25 years, he retired last week from the Environmental Protection Agency with a tough message for the boss, Administrator Scott Pruitt.
“I, along with many EPA staff, are becoming increasing alarmed about the direction of EPA under your leadership … ” Cox said in a letter to Pruitt. “The policies this Administration is advancing are contrary to what the majority of the American people, who pay our salaries, want EPA to accomplish, which are to ensure the air their children breath is safe; the land they live, play, and hunt on to be free of toxic chemicals; and the water they drink, the lakes they swim in, and the rivers they fish in to be clean.”
Oh, my! How principled. How bold. And I love the way the Washington Post chooses to describe Cox’s actions. The headline informs us that he “leaves with a bang.” The opening paragraph lets us know that he “quit” and that “he did so with gusto.” But did he really?
Not really. In fact, he didn’t quit at all. He retired with 25 years of service… something he could have done at least five years earlier if he didn’t want to hang around and run out the clock to maximize his benefits. And speaking of which, Mike is in for a pretty sweet deal. If you calculate his Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) payout he’s looking at anywhere from …
New York, other states challenge Trump over climate change regulation
A coalition of 17 U.S. states filed a legal challenge on Wednesday against efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to roll back climate change regulations, deepening a political rift over his emerging energy policies.
Led by New York state, the coalition said the administration has a legal duty to regulate emissions of the gases scientists believe cause global climate change.
“The law is clear: the EPA must limit carbon pollution from power plants,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement announcing the challenge.
Trump signed an executive order last week targeting climate change regulations ushered in by former President Barack Obama, saying they hinder U.S. energy production and jobs without providing meaningful environmental benefits.
The order’s main target was Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a law that would require states to slash carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, but which was never implemented because it was challenged in court by 26 Republican-led states.
Trump’s order directed the Environmental Protection Agency to review the regulation to decide whether to “suspend, rescind, or revise it.” Shortly after, EPA filed a legal motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay ongoing court proceedings on the regulation to allow for the review.…
Enviros Freak Over Trump’s EPA Climate Order, But The Earth Will Not Notice
Take a look at the Clean Power Plan — Obama’s most ambitious climate change effort. Despite the costs of this regulatory monstrosity, the Clean Power Plan would have no discernible impact in global carbon dioxide emissions over the next three decades.
That’s not the conclusion of climate change “deniers.” That’s what the Obama administration’s own Department of Energy said in a report issued in May 2016.
As part of its International Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration provided long-term forecasts of energy-related CO2 emissions, comparing global emissions with the Clean Power Plan, and without it.
What it shows is that with the Clean Power Plan, global carbon emissions would still climb 32% in 2012 and 2040, only slightly below what the increase will be without it. (See nearby chart.)
This growth in global emissions, by the way, comes despite continued improvements in decarbonizing economies in both the developed and developing world.
As we noted in this space recently, without any government mandates, energy-related CO2 emissions in the U.S. fell 12.4% from 2007 to 2015. Overall carbon intensity — a measure of how much CO2 it takes to produce a dollar of GDP — declined an average 1.5% a year since 2005.
These gains are due both to the fracking breakthrough, which unleashed massive supplies of lower-carbon natural gas, and the unending pressure the free market puts on businesses to be more efficient.
This same market-driven decarbonizing trend has been happening around the world.
Between 1990 and 2012, the carbon intensity of developed nations dropped by 33%, and by 25% in developing countries. By 2040, the carbon intensity of developed nations will be cut in half, the report projects, and will drop by almost 40% in developed countries, the Energy Department report shows.
Yet overall energy-related CO2 emissions will still climb by 51% in developing countries, and 8% among industrialized nations, from 2012 to 2040 — even with the Paris agreement.
Why? “Increases in output per capita coupled with population growth overwhelm improvements in energy intensity and carbon intensity,” the report explains.
In other words, barring some miracle scientific breakthrough, the only reliable way to cut global carbon emissions would be to depopulate the planet or kill economic growth.…
Delingpole: EPA’s Scott Pruitt Gets Eaten Alive by Fox
I just watched Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, get eaten alive by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace.
Not only was it an ugly and painful sight but it was also a very dispiriting one.
Here is the guy who was carefully selected to be in the vanguard of President Trump’s war on the Green Blob which, for decades, has been doing untold damage to liberty, the scientific method, and the economy.
And he can’t even answer a few basic and obvious questions about why the job he is doing is necessary, important, and right.
Wallace asked him about the UN’s view that it was 95 percent likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activity.
Pruitt sweated, stuttered, and floundered.
Wallace asked him about NOAA’s claim that 2015 and 2016 are the hottest years on record.
Pruitt had no convincing comeback.
Wallace asked him the age-old question beloved by climate alarmists: “What if you’re wrong? What if CO2 is causing dramatic climate change and we as humans are responsible?”
Pruitt just didn’t know how to respond.
Trump’s EPA Chief Calls Paris Agreement Raw Deal For US Citizens
BY CHRIS WHITE
President Donald Trump should continue international discussions on environmental issues even if the Paris climate agreement is a “bad deal,” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt said Sunday.
The Oklahoma Republican did not tip his hat as to the future of the much-talked about climate deal, which was signed by former President Barack Obama and requires the U.S. to dramatically reduce greenhouse gasses. Trump’s Democratic predecessor signed the deal last year without the Senate’s consent.
“To demonstrate the leadership that we have shown on this issue with China and India and other nations is very important and discussions should ensue,” Pruitt said during an interview on Fox News, “but what Paris represents is a bad deal for this country.”…
Chris Wallace goes full warmist: Touts UN ‘guesswork’ as hard science & ‘carbon pollution’ in interview with EPA chief
Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace uncritically cited “guesswork” by UN scientists as some sort of hard science during an interview with EPA chief Scott Pruitt on April 2. Wallace also hyped discredited “hottest year” claims and referred to carbon dioxide, a trace essential gas humans exhale as “carbon pollution.” Wallace also praised China’s emission efforts and implied that EPA regulations and UN agreements would impact climate change. (Full transcript & video here)
Wallace asked Pruitt about his recent statement noting that carbon dioxide was not the control knob of the climate. See: EPA chief says CO2 not primary contributor to ‘global warming’ – Calls UN Climate Treaty ‘a bad deal’ (Note: Pruitt’s statement was scientifically sound and climatologists defended his comments. See: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on EPA chief Pruitt’s CO2 comments: ‘I think these two statements made by Pruitt are absolutely correct’ – Curry: ‘I do not find anything to disagree with in what Pruitt said’)
Wallace claimed: “Mr. Pruitt, there are all kinds of studies that contradict you.” He then cited the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 claim that there it a “95% likely” that “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
Wallace even featured this onscreen graphic to make his question look official:
Apparently absent in Wallace’s show preparation was the fact that the UN IPCC’s “95%” claim is nothing more than guesswork and has no statistical basis whatsoever.
Even Reuters news service recognized this in a 2013 article. Reuters explained that the UN IPCC’s 95% confidence of human causation of global warming was “based on a discussion among the authors,” not a scientifically sound statistic.
Reuters essentially exposed that the fact that UN scientists (who are hand-picked by governments to support the IPCC’s political mandate that it seeks to further the human climate change narrative) talked their way to the 95% claim!
“Scientists use a mixture of data and ‘expert judgment’ to decide how likely it is that climate change is man-made and rule out other factors, such as changes in the sun’s output,” Reuters wrote. [Note: Many UN scientists have turned against the organization. See UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report]
‘No more scientific a process than a show of hands’
Lord Christopher Monckton, a former …
How dare he!? EPA scientific integrity office reviewing Pruitt’s comments that CO2 is not climate control knob
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific integrity watchdog is reviewing whether EPA chief Scott Pruitt violated the agency’s policies when he said in a television interview he does not believe carbon dioxide is driving global climate change, according to an email seen by Reuters on Friday.
Lawyers for environmental group the Sierra Club had asked the EPA’s Office of Inspector General to check whether Pruitt violated policy when he told a CNBC interviewer on March 9, “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”
The EPA Inspector General’s office responded to the Sierra Club on Thursday in an email, saying it had referred the matter to the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Officer, Francesca Grifo, for review.
“If after the SIO review, she concludes there is some aspect of the letter itself, or her findings or conclusions that she believes are appropriate for further consideration by the OIG, she will so notify the OIG,” the email stated.
A spokeswoman for the EPA defended Pruitt’s comments.
“Administrator Pruitt makes no apologies for having a candid dialogue about climate science and commonsense regulations that will protect our environment, without creating unnecessary regulatory burdens that kill jobs,” said Liz Bowman in an emailed statement.
“Differing views and opinions on scientific and technical matters is a legitimate and necessary part of EPA’s decision-making process, which is consistent with EPA’s scientific integrity policy that was in place even during the Obama administration,” she added.
The EPA website says its scientific integrity policy requires EPA officials and staff to ensure the agency’s work respects the findings of the broader scientific community.…
Listen Now: Morano on Trump’s eliminating EPA climate regs: ‘Heads are exploding’ in DC
…Mag: ‘The UN Paris Agreement Is Burning’ – Trump’s EPA climate reversal ‘will basically render UN agreement null’
New Republic – BY EMILY ATKIN
[Trump’s EPA executive order] will basically render the Paris agreement null. Leading climate scientists and climate policy experts told me the order—paired with Trump’s recent indication that he wants to undo car fuel efficiency standards—will leave the U.S. unable to meet its commitments under the international accord. And if the country that has historically emitted the most carbon over the course of its lifetime doesn’t meet its commitments, it’s unlikely other nations will, either.
WSJ: ‘Trump is notching early victories is unleashing American energy, which has been held hostage to progressive climate obsessions’
The order directs the Environmental Protection Agency to review the Clean Power Plan, which the Supreme Court stayed last year in an extraordinary rebuke. The plan essentially forces states to retire coal plants early, and the tab could top $1 trillion in lost output and 125,000 jobs, according to the American Action Forum. Also expected are double-digit increases in the price of electricity—and a less reliable power grid. All for nothing: A year of U.S. reductions in 2025 would be offset by Chinese emissions in three weeks, says Rice University’s Charles McConnell.
The rule also fulfills a campaign promise to end Barack Obama’s war on coal. It’s true that market forces are reducing coal’s share of U.S. electric power—to some 30% from about 50% a decade ago—thanks mainly to fracking for natural gas. Yet Mr. Obama still deployed brute government force to bankrupt the coal industry. Mr. Trump is right to end that punishment and let the market, not federal dictates, sort out the right energy mix for the future.
The story is similar on a methane rule that the executive order will begin to roll back. Total U.S. methane emissions have dropped 15% since 1990, as Bernard Weinstein of Southern Methodist University told the House last fall, even though domestic oil-and-gas production has doubled over the past decade. One reason is that energy companies have a financial incentive to capture the stuff and sell it. Still, EPA promulgated expensive new emissions targets, equipment rules and more.
The order also dumps the “social cost of carbon,” which is a tool the Obama Administration employed to junk mandatory cost-benefit analyses for regulations. For example: An EPA power plant rule predicted net benefits from $26 billion to $46 billion, but as much as 65% of that derived from guesswork about the positives of reducing carbon, as Bracewell & Giuliani’sScott Segal explained to Congress at a 2015 hearing. The Obama Administration rolled out these new calculations with no public comment, and the models surely wouldn’t survive a rigorous peer review.…