A federal appeals court on Monday blocked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt from temporarily freezing an Obama-era regulation on methane gas emissions. The ruling represents the first legal setback Pruitt has faced during his months-long quest to dismantle the Obama Administration’s environmental rules.

The case highlighted the split between the EPA’s growing cadre of opponents, mostly made up of environmental groups, and its allies, mostly made up of industry groups. It specifically pitted Pruitt and the American Petroleum Institute against six environmental groups. The plaintiffs, which include the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, brought their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June.

The events that led to the court’s 2-1 decision began in June 2016, when the EPA announced a rule that would require oil and gas companies to, among other things, monitor and reduce methane gas emissions. The rule was set to take effect in August 2016; companies would be required to conduct an “initial monitoring survey” of their methane emissions by June 2017.

In April, soon after Pruitt was anointed head of the EPA, he announced a 90-day delay of the methane rule. And in June, Pruitt proposed an extension of the stay for two years. Monday’s ruling struck down Pruitt’s 90-day delay; a separate hearing will be held on the two year extension.

The EPA “lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to stay the rule, and we therefore grant petitioners’ motion to vacate the stay,” Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins wrote in the majority opinion. Pruitt’s 90-day stay, the judges said, “is essentially an order delaying the rule’s effective date, and this court has held that such orders are tantamount to amending or revoking a rule.”

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Pruitt defended his stay, saying that it did not necessarily portend a complete reversal of the rule. He argued: “Just because you provide a time for implementation or compliance that’s longer doesn’t mean that you’re going to necessarily reverse or redirect the rule.”

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Janice Rogers Brown largely echoed Pruitt’s point, saying, “The Court presumes a certain outcome from EPA’s reconsideration, one that a stay alone gives us no basis to presume.”

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is typically emitted during the fracking process for natural gas. According to a fact sheet released by the EPA last year, methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas in the U.S., behind carbon dioxide. About one-third of methane emissions come from natural gas, the fact sheet says, adding that the Obama Administration’s methane regulation would have reduced 510,000 tons of methane gas by 2025.

The court’s ruling was a victory for environmental groups, many of which have found themselves in staunch opposition to the governmental body that is supposed to share their goals. David Doniger, director of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s climate and clean air program, said in a statement:

“This ruling declares EPA’s action illegal — and slams the brakes on Trump Administration’s brazen efforts to put the interests of corporate polluters ahead of protecting the public and the environment.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Appeals Court Hands EPA Admin Scott Pruitt Legal Defeat appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, six environmental conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the agency suspended portions of an Obama-era legislation intended to limit leaks of methane and other harmful toxins during oil and gas production.  

The regulations surrounding these leaks were detailed in the 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) passed by the Obama Administration last June. They were meant to go into effect last weekend. The new rules would require oil and gas companies to invest in resources to regularly detect leaks in their well equipment and make repairs as needed.

The groups behind the lawsuit–which include the Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthworks–are now calling on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the EPA’s move and reverse it altogether. They claim that the 90-day stay of the rule, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, failed to give the public prior notice or the opportunity to comment on the action. This information, they say, is required by the Clean Air Act, one of the country’s first modern environmental laws.

“In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law,” said Meleah Geertsma, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Trump Administration does not have unlimited power to put people’s health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this.”

Scientists say methane is more dangerous than we think. The Energy Defense Fund estimates that methane is up to 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, making it more efficient at trapping heat. 

“By emitting just a little bit of methane, mankind is greatly accelerating the rate of climatic change,” said Energy Defense Fund chief scientist Steve Hamburg.

Pruitt wants to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to review these requirements, assess economic impacts, and report back to the agency, even though the original rule had already given companies a year to do so before it took effect. The EPA argues its right to issue the 90-day stay is also included in the Clean Air Act under section 307, which allows it to reconsider the law as long as “the reconsideration does not postpone the effectiveness of the rule.” But environmentalists argue any delays in implementation would indeed hinder its effectiveness. 

Industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute argue that many companies are already checking their equipment for leaks, making the methane rule redundant and unnecessarily costly.

This lawsuit is now one of many actions taken against the Trump climate change policies. Environmentalists sued the administration after the controversial Keystone XL pipeline was approved in March. Just last week, a number of school, companies and states have rallied around Michael Bloomberg to uphold the Paris Agreement on climate change, defying Trump after he announced on Friday that the U.S. would pull out of the deal.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservationists Sue EPA over Delay of Obama-era Methane Rule appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–2016 was just named the hottest year on record. This is the third year in a row that Earth set a new record high, with average surface temperatures 1.69 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20^th century average. Actually, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that last year was the hottest year globally on both land and ocean since record keeping began in 1880. In a separate report, NASA officials also announced that 2016 was the warmest year they have on record. And if that’s not enough to scare you–what climate science may look like moving forward might.

Leading up to the inauguration of a climate skeptic president and his team, the Guardian is doing a 24-hour live reporting roundup, highlighting different climate facts. According to their numbers, the president-elect’s vacation home, Mar-a-Lago in Florida, will soon be in danger from floods. By 2045, a weak Category 2 hurricane could bring the seawater up to the main building. Just an hour south, the pace of the sea-level rise in Miami has tripled in the past ten years.

Many Americans have already been displaced due to climate change as they live in places that are vulnerable to rising sea levels. In August, residents in Shishmaref, Alaska, voted to move their village to avoid having their homes flooded by the sea. They had already lost 2,500 to 3,000 feet of land to coastal erosion in the past 35 years. Five out of the ten international cities that are most vulnerable to rising sea levels are American: New York, Boston, New Orleans, Tampa, and Miami.

2016 was the hottest year on record. Children are the first to suffer from the effects of #climatechange. @nytimes https://t.co/SXqecIGlv8

— UNICEF (@UNICEF) January 19, 2017

What’s more? Crops in the U.S. are estimated to be cut almost in half because of the warmer temperatures. The U.S. saw 15 natural disasters caused by climate change last year, which cost the country 138 lives and over $1 billion to fix. California has had a drought for several years, and just saw some rain that may provide some relief. But experts warn that this won’t end the longtime pattern of droughts, which are now just part of California’s climate, and may worsen in the future. Increasing temperatures will make the ups and downs more dramatic. It also makes it difficult to replenish the snow in the mountains that supplies water during the dry periods.

The scientific community is virtually unanimous: Climate change is a global crisis requiring bold action. Rick Perry? He doesn’t agree.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 19, 2017

Trump has talked about pulling out of the Paris climate agreement; a deal that 194 countries have signed that aims to limit the global warming to a 2 degree Celsius increase from what the average temperature was pre-industrialization. If Trump were to follow through with his promise, he wouldn’t be able to pull out for three years. But many countries still worry that he could make that move. That’s a problem–the U.S. historically has been the largest CO2 emitter globally. And if we don’t set an example and limit our emissions, then why should other countries make the effort?

In the rest of the world there is significantly less discussion about whether climate change is “real”—the question usually tends to be “what do we do?” Even China, which was named the worst climate polluter in the world in 2006, emphasized the importance of sticking to the deal when President Xi Jinping became the first Chinese leader to speak at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week.

In a 2014 survey by market research group Ipsos Mori, America has a higher population of climate change deniers than any other country that participated in the survey. And another survey by Pew Research Center showed that the number of Americans who do not believe humans have contributed to climate change is about 50 percent. The results showed a big discrepancy between the opinions of the general public and those of scientists. Alan Leshner from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) collaborated on the survey. “It’s partly a function of the American educational system that does a terrible job… at educating young people in science, math and technology,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Global Climate Crisis: 2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record appeared first on Law Street.

The President-elect has been criticized because he claimed that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. The new proposed head of the EPA is a climate change denier. And the new proposed Secretary of State is an oil company CEO with close ties to Russia. So, it’s no wonder that environmentalists across the globe are worrying. Now, American climate scientists are copying as much of their research and climate data as possible onto independent computer servers, in an attempt to protect the information from any political interference.

“Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,” said Nick Santos to the Washington Post. He is an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis and spent last weekend copying climate data onto a non-governmental server that will be available to the public. Other efforts include “guerrilla archiving” in Toronto–meaning the copying of irreplaceable public data–discussions on how to download as much information as possible as quickly as possible, and the creation of a website for storing all this scientific information.

This isn’t something we should have to be worried about as researchers in the developed world. But here we are.https://t.co/m9nTzWgvF7

— Ari Belasen (@DrBelasen) December 13, 2016

On Friday, Trump’s transition team sent a questionnaire to the Department of Energy to find out the names of employees who attended domestic and international climate talks. It also asked about all publications written by employees at the department’s laboratories for the past three years. This could be a sign of coming retaliation against employees who simply were doing their jobs, and drew criticism from Democrats and environmentalists.

Yes Mr. Trump, climate change is a “hoax.” It was just a haphazard occurrence that that 13 of the 15 hottest years have occurred since 2000. pic.twitter.com/2kvVpjTNb5

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 12, 2016

On Tuesday, however, the Energy Department’s spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said it would not comply with Trump’s request. He said that the demand for individual names of employees left many people in the department feeling unsettled. He said:

We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department. We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.

For many people it is deeply worrying that several of Trump’s cabinet picks are skeptical about climate change, which is a fact the vast majority of scientists in the world agree upon. Michael Halpern from the Center for Science and Democracy said it’s not unreasonable to believe the new government would want to get rid of climate data that proves a fact that they dispute. “There is a fine line between being paranoid and being prepared, and scientists are doing their best to be prepared…” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scientists Rush to Back Up Climate Data Before Trump Takes Office appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump never included anything about his stance on climate change and global warming in his campaign platform. While Hillary Clinton featured the issue prominently on her website, Trump has previously said that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. Though he denied that odd stance in the first presidential debate, his tweet from 2012 was widely spread by the media.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

He has also promised to go back to larger domestic coal, oil, and gas industries. And Trump has tweeted a whole lot about what he thinks of global warming…primarily that it doesn’t exist. You can find a list of all his tweets on the matter here. One example:

President Obama was terrible on @60Minutes tonight. He said CLIMATE CHANGE is the most important thing, not all of the current disasters!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2015

During a speech in May, Trump said that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement if elected, and said that it is “bad for U.S. business” and allows “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use.” The U.S. has pledged to cut down greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. We are the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world after China, so it is a pretty big deal.

But on Friday, the Paris agreement was ratified into international law, after 96 countries signed the deal. This happened way faster than expected, which is a positive sign. And it means that Trump cannot technically renegotiate any parts of the deal until three years in, and after that one additional year must pass before he could officially withdraw from it.

However, he could technically get out of the deal by disassembling and undermining the ways in which America reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, and by simply not living up to the goals of the agreement. There is also a more aggressive way to get out of the deal, namely by withdrawing from a climate treaty from 1992, which would automatically pull us out from the Paris deal as well. Though this is legally possible, doing so would definitely undermine how trustworthy other countries perceive the U.S. to be and not favor our own interests in the long run. And according to environmental think tank Climate Interactive, this would have a significant impact on the climate. These are pretty alarming things going on.

The “lesser of two evils” argument was BULLSHIT– Trump will repeal Obamacare, pull out of Paris climate deal, stack SCOTUS #NotMyPresident

— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) November 9, 2016

Climate Interactive said that since the U.S. pledge is so large—the percentage translates to 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide—a withdrawal from the deal would directly impact the rest of the world. “Pulling out of the Paris agreement matters not just in leadership, but also in a direct impact on the climate,” said Andrew Jones, co-director of the group, to the Washington Post.

Also, if the U.S. chooses to not partake, other countries like India are less likely to do it too. Trump has also said he wants to reduce the EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by 70-80 percent. In September he picked Myron Ebell as head of environmental policy on his transition team—a climate skeptic who is a director of a conservative think tank and whose sponsors are some of the biggest polluters in the country.

Yet another depressing point is that the election on Tuesday resulted in a defeat of a Washington State initiative, Initiative 732, that would have been the country’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax. It would have imposed a $25-per-ton fee on carbon dioxide emitted in different sectors, money which then could be used to reduce the state sales tax. But looking at the bigger picture of what a Trump presidency will bring, this barely matters, according to Charles Komanoff, director of the Carbon Tax Center. “We’re in for many years of backsliding on climate at a time when we really had to ramp it up,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Trump Reject the Paris Climate Change Agreement? appeared first on Law Street.

Monday, President Obama announced what he has noted as the “biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken” in the fight against climate change. He introduced America’s Clean Power Plan, aimed toward a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s coal-burning power plants.

Obama said Monday from the White House:

Today after working with states and cities and power companies, the EPA is setting the first ever nationwide standards to end the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from power plants…Washington is starting to catch up with the vision of the rest of the country. 

Essentially, America’s Clean Power Plan is a set of environmental rules and regulations that will focus on pollution from the nation’s power plants, setting limits on power-plant carbon emissions for the first time. The goal of the revised Clean Power Plan is to cut greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power stations by nearly a third within 15 years. The measures will place significant emphasis on wind and solar power with other renewable energy sources, transforming America’s electricity industry. Obama said on Monday: “we’re the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.”

The most aggressive of the regulations require existing power plants to cut emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, an increase from the 30 percent target proposed in the draft regulation. The new rule also demands that power plants use more renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. Under the plan, the administration will require states to meet specific carbon emission reduction standards, based on their individual energy consumption. The plan also includes an incentive program for states to get a head start on meeting standards with early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency. Obama said in the video:

Power plants are the single biggest source of harmful carbon pollution that contributes to climate change. Until now, there have been no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution plants dump in the air.

President Obama also claims that the plans will lead to lower energy bills in the future for Americans, create jobs in the renewable energy sector, and ensure more reliable energy services.  Power plants account for roughly 40 percent of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide–the most common greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Regardless of these benefits, there are still many critics that are opposed to this new plan. 

Many Republican opponents dispute the existence of global warming, questioning whether or not humans are to blame for the issue. Critics also claim that the plan will bring an unwelcome increase in electricity prices. Opponents in the energy industry believe that president Obama has declared a “war on coal.” Power plants powered by coal provide more than one third of the U.S. electricity supply. Many states plan to fight the new regulations, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urging states not to comply with the plan in a letter to all fifty governors. Vice President of  Communications for the National Mining Association Luke Popovich stated: 

This plan is all pain and no gain. That’s why state leaders across the country are coming to the same conclusion — that we should not sacrifice our power system to an unworkable plan built on a faulty interpretation of the law.

However those that are arguing against the new plan appear to be overlooking the benefits it can bring. According to the World Health Organization, research in Italy suggests that 4.7 percent total of mortality, or 3,500 deaths annually in a population of 11 million, are caused through cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases attributed to air pollution. Many argue that reducing green house gas emissions doesn’t hurt the economy, but can in fact benefit the economy by saving businesses and consumers money, as well as improving public health.

It is unclear how this new plan will develop during President Obama’s remaining time in office, as well as the presence it may or may not have as campaigns begin to really take off. But, it’s certainly a big move in the right direction.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Makes Historic Move to Combat Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Standing in the middle of a crushing crowd of people can be quite stressful, but this time it was worth it. The United Nations General Assembly spent the final week of September in session and one of the primary items of concern on its agenda is climate change and the environment, addressed in the form of the Climate Summit on Tuesday, September 23. On September 21, an astounding 400,000 people marched through the streets of Manhattan to vocalize the necessity of addressing climatic and environmental concerns.

In the largest environmental rally in history, activists began lining up earlier than 9:00am at designated locations from 59th street as high as 86th street. They organized under a variety of banners, from environmental organizations, scientists, private citizens, and more. It was under this final group that I started the march. It contained sub groups as well; there were community organizations, college students, and others. I am proud to note that a group representing my alma mater Rutgers University was among the most vocal in the area.

The March, at the steps of the Museum of Natural History. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

Reminiscent of how a car at the back of a long lineup will probably not make the light when it turns green because everybody hits the gas one at a time, my section of the four-mile long rally did not start marching until 45 minutes after the event was set to begin. It was very exciting once we did begin to move, and a surge of energy rolled through the crowd. However the density of the crowd meant that we moved like an inchworm; the line would stretch and we moved forward a little, but then compacted again and we stood in place for a bit. Eventually the line spread out and the walk became more consistent.

It was still quite slow going though, so eventually I exited the group and walked alongside on the sidewalk. As I was moving faster than the line, I was able to advance through the march and see all the different sections. There was no repetitiveness to the line’s appearance. Each group had its own chants and jingles, instrumental support, and occasional matching t-shirts. A migrant women’s workers rights group even performed a series of dances as they made their way down the street.

A section of the line, dedicated to protecting wildlife. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

At 12:58pm the march stopped dead in its tracks for a moment of silence in honor of those who have been lost to climate crises. The huge crowd, moving and making noise for an hour and a half, was still and silent with hands to the sky. It was a powerful moment. I’m not sure from which direction it came, but the moment of silence was ended by a wave of shouts that rolled through the entire length of the line. The ultimate call to action had been sounded, and the march resumed with great vigor and enthusiasm.

The moment of silence. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

Despite the motion and noise, music and megaphones, others took part in the call to action in different ways. Among the most striking was the Earth Vigil, a group sitting silent and meditative at the edge of Central Park. There are many ways for people of diverse backgrounds to express concerns over shared fates.

The Earth Vigil. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

It is this detail that really struck me throughout the march. The health of the environment and fate of the planet are issues that span every economic class, race, orientation, and geography. The sheer variety of people merging voices over a common cause speaks to the urgency of the challenges we face and the importance of addressing them effectively. Environmental activism has tended to be viewed as an activity of the middle and upper classes who have the wealth and leisure to dedicate their energies to this more abstract set of problems. The Climate March proved otherwise. Every level of society is aware, concerned, and willing to act. Furthermore, every level of society is affected by environmental woes; its consequences are real and tangible, not an abstract, theoretical, “out there” set of problems.

The rally in New York City was the most notable, but other cities throughout the world held their own rallies on this day and throughout the week as well. Twenty-six hundred events in over 150 countries, in fact. This further indicates the global awareness and importance of climate and environment. Before the event began, I had an interesting conversation with a Climate March surveyor of Nigerian origin. He explained how China has been buying up land there for agricultural and mining purposes, inflicting horrific environmental damage in the process. The locals there tend not to understand the consequences, and further are often excited about the Chinese presence in hopes of generating revenue and raising the standard of living. However, as the surveyor detailed, these activities are channeled to benefit the Chinese economy and industry only; locals are left no better off from it. He feels that this and other rallies around the world will help raise awareness of this, among many problems. The key is not just making a loud statement to global leaders, but spreading knowledge to all people.

We should come away from this event with great optimism. It demonstrated that more and more people are aware of these problems, and are willing to act in order to solve them. The people are not willing to continue down this path; society has reached a turning point and a new era of knowledge and responsibility is beginning. Whether that be on an individual, communal, national, or global level, the power to make change is growing.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Climate Change Unites World Community Across All Spectrums appeared first on Law Street.