The Hill: “Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wants oil and coal companies to reveal the extent to which they have funded research questioning the causes of climate change.”
“He said he will soon write to various companies, trade organizations and others involved in fossil fuels in an attempt to find whether they are paying for skeptical climate research.”
“Markey’s comments came after The New York Times reported that Willie Soon, a prolific scientist questioning the human role in climate change, received more than $1.2 million from the industry and did not consistently report that funding when publishing his research.”
Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that “Richard Berman, a one-time lobbyist turned industry strategist, has zeroed in on another target: Barack Obama’s new power plant rules.”
Nicknamed “Dr. Evil” by Washington insiders, Berman “has secretly routed funding for at least 16 studies and launched at least five front groups attacking Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting carbon dioxide from power plants, the Guardian has learned.”
“The Employment Policies Institute, a tax-exempt organisation headed by Berman and operating out of his office according to tax filings, funded a series of reports by an ultra-conservative thinktank, the Beacon Hill Institute.”
“The reports, claiming the power plant rules would lead to rolling blackouts, send electricity prices skyrocketing, and devastate local economies, are being published in 16 states by a network of pro-corporate and ultra-conservative thinktanks.”
“Those familiar with Berman say he is a prime example of a new industry strategy of bypassing traditional lobbying organisations, and using thinktanks, foundations, experts, and social media to shape the public conversation and – ultimately – legislation.”
Inside Climate News: The Environmental Protection Agency has been accused of everything from running this country to waging an economy-destroying war on coal. But it turns out the GOP’s prime target isn’t that big after all.
The agency’s budget represents an almost invisible slice of the federal pie—less than a quarter of a percent of Obama’s proposed $4 trillion budget for the 2016 fiscal year. If approved, the EPA’s budget next year would be 16.5 percent smaller than it was in 2010.
Yale Law School: “Deep public divisions over climate change are unrelated to differences in how well ordinary citizens understand scientific evidence on global warming, according to a new study published by Professor Dan Kahan.”
“In fact, members of the public who score the highest on a climate-science literacy test are the most politically polarized on whether human activity is causing global temperatures to rise.”
“These were the principal findings of a Yale-led study published recently in the journal Advances in Political Psychology.”
“Kahan said the results justify reassessing at least some popular common science-communication strategies. ‘One conclusion is that it’s misguided to fixate on what percentage of the respondents in an opinion survey say they ‘believe in’ climate change,’ said Kahan. ‘What people say they believe about global warming is not a measure of how much they know, or even how worried they are about it; it is an expression of their cultural identities.’”
“According to Kahan, the study also casts doubt on the value of social-marketing campaigns that feature the message that ‘97% of climate scientists’ accept human-caused climate change.”
“‘Republicans and Democrats alike already understand that climate scientists have shown we face huge risks from global warming,’ said Kahan. ‘Just telling people that over and over — something advocacy groups have been spending millions of dollars doing for over a decade — misses the point: Positions on climate change have become symbols of whose side you are on in a cultural conflict divorced from science.’”
The Washington Post Editorial Board believes all the attention focused on the construction of the Keystone pipeline is “misplaced.”
“It would have been better placed on the Capitol, where Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), without much fanfare, reintroduced a bill that would address the nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions in a serious way.”
“Environmentalists should have kept their sights higher, on creating a national carbon policy that would reduce demand for dirty fuels, cutting emissions by attacking the root problem.”
“Mr. Van Hollen’s market-based version is elegant and effective. It would put a slowly declining cap on the country’s carbon dioxide emissions, requiring an 80 percent cut by 2050, and rely on basic economics, not Environmental Protection Agency commands.”
“Firms putting coal, oil or natural gas into the U.S. market would have to buy permits that account for the carbon dioxide those fuels release when burned. That is, energy companies would finally have to pay the full cost of the products they sell. “
The Associated Press reports that “an activist group on Thursday backed off its earlier announcement that it would to try to get a statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing on the Colorado ballot and said it would instead try to persuade Gov. John Hickenlooper to halt the practice.”
“Karen Dike of Coloradans Against Fracking said the group has not ruled out a campaign to put a ban on the 2016 ballot if the governor doesn’t act.”
“‘He should do the right thing and protect Colorado citizens, but if he doesn’t, we’ll look at other ways to achieve our goal, and our goal is to ban fracking in the state of Colorado,’ she said.”
Bloomberg reports that “U.S. climate negotiators have told their Canadian counterparts that Canada’s plan to cut carbon emissions could be one of the factors that President Barack Obama weighs as he considers whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a U.S. official said.”
“The U.S. hasn’t suggested it might approve the $8 billion proposed project in exchange for climate commitments, the official said. Canada is developing a proposal as part of United Nations-sponsored talks aimed at cutting carbon emissions that governments were encouraged to submit by next month.”
“Obama has secured climate concessions from China and India as part of those UN talks. A similar deal with Canada could help offset the anticipated environmental damage from the TransCanada Corp. pipeline, responding to project opponents.”
President Barack Obama has vetoed the Keystone Pipeline bill as promised, using his veto pen for just the third time and the first since 2010, Roll Call reports.
Obama had repeatedly vowed to veto the bill, one of the first major legislative efforts by Republicans now in charge of both chambers of Congress, citing process. Obama has said the State Department’s years-long review of the project must finish first, and Press Secretary Josh Earnest has left open the possibility Obama could approve it then.
The veto came without public fanfare or a big ceremony.
The Senate received the veto message Tuesday afternoon. Immediately after that, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced on the floor that action in response to the veto would be considered no later than March 3.
Republicans note the project generally fares well in public opinion polls.
Slate: “While solar may just be gaining traction with corporate America, by some measures it already employs more workers than coal mining.”
Inside Climate News: “State legislatures in coal-dependent parts of the country are taking action to delay complying with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan.”
“Since the 2015 legislative session convened last month, at least a dozen states have introduced bills that effectively increase bureaucratic red tape and stall states from submitting compliance plans to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And, in some cases, the bills grant legislatures the power to veto their states’ carbon emission reduction plans.”
“The maneuvering has quickly spread well beyond the borders of coal-rich states. In Nebraska, Arizona and South Dakota, lawmakers are trying to require that their states’ environmental agencies prepare a preliminary report detailing the plans’ impact on the economy.”
“‘The overall strategy is to find ways to choke the state plan with red tape one way or the other,’ said Aliya Haq, a director in the climate-and-clear-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. ‘These bills are all misguided in that they ironically limit the state’s options,’ she said.”
“Industry groups are blasting the Obama administration’s plan to crack down offshore oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean, arguing that the proposal includes costly and unnecessary restrictions,” The Hill reports.
“The fight — the latest in a series of spats between regulators and drillers — centers on requirements that companies keep backup rigs on hand to dig relief wells in case of a spill.”
“The provision is the most expensive piece of the $1.2 billion rule proposed by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Friday.”
“U.S. industrial output is about to run out of energy. The same can’t be said for the U.S. economy,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
“The Federal Reserve on Wednesday will release January figures on industrial production—the combined output of U.S. manufacturing, utility and mining sectors—and economists expect a gain of 0.4% from a month earlier. A pickup in manufacturing employment and hours, as well as auto-industry production schedules, suggest factory activity increased. There was a warm-weather downdraft in utility production in December that probably at least partially reversed itself last month.”
“The problem area is mining. Although it conjures images of headlamps, pickaxes and coal-smeared faces, the sector is dominated by the oil-and-gas-extraction industries. Due to the shale boom, these have been major contributors to industrial output in recent years. In December, they accounted for 13.7% of total industrial production versus 7.8% a decade earlier.”
A. Gary Shilling: “At about $50 a barrel, crude oil prices are down by more than half from their June 2014 peak of $107. They may fall more, perhaps even as low as $10 to $20. Here’s why.”
“U.S. economic growth has averaged 2.3 percent a year since the recovery started in mid-2009. That’s about half the rate you might expect in a rebound from the deepest recession since the 1930s. Meanwhile, growth in China is slowing, is minimal in the euro zone and is negative in Japan. Throw in the large increase in U.S. vehicle gas mileage and other conservation measures and it’s clear why global oil demand is weak and might even decline.”
“At the same time, output is climbing, thanks in large part to increased U.S. production from hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling. U.S. output rose by 15 percent in the 12 months through November from a year earlier, based on the latest data, while imports declined 4 percent.”
BP CEO Bob Dudley “drew attention to the need to shift toward incorporating more climate change policies into the global energy outlook on Tuesday,” The Hill reports.
“Dudley called for a price on carbon in the company’s release of its “Energy Outlook 2035″ report to help get industrial sources on board in the fight against climate change. To stave off the 2 degree Celsius increase, and cut carbon emissions further, BP said, it will require ‘additional significant steps by policy makers beyond the steps already assumed.'”
Bloomberg: “Last year, about 198,000 workers were employed in oil and gas extraction, the most since 1987. Another 325,500 were working in the industry’s support services, the most since the Labor Department began tracking those figures in 1990.”
“That’s likely to change this year.”
“A report last week from global outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas showed 20,193, or 38 percent, of the 53,041 announced job cuts in January were in the energy industry. Oilfield service company Schlumberger last month said it will eliminate 9,000 jobs; Baker Hughes and Halliburton have said they expect to cut 7,000 and 1,000 positions, respectively.”
“The January job-cut announcements in the Challenger report are particularly stark when measured against data from the same month going back to 2004. Last month was more than seven times as bad as the next-worst January for energy industry layoffs, in 2009, when companies announced 2,590 job cuts.”