Parameters: "How widespread within NASA is the conviction that human activity is responsible for climate change?"

Source: The Weekly Standard

Climate change is a hot topic issue.  Different people fall onto different ends of the spectrum on the 'causes' of climate change.  Climate skeptics have held onto the notion that a component attributable to the daily operations of humans on Earth does not figure prominently into the overall equation which represents 'cause.'   Whereas, people who believe in the component of climate change attributable to 'man made' are on the other end.  In between lie people with varying percentages of the two dispositions.



To address the question listed in the title of the article, Astrophysicist Dr. Michelle Thaller, who works for NASA was interviewed by Big Think produced a video interview titled "Does NASA have any climate change skeptics?" gave the following answer:

Michelle Thaller: Hi Jay. So your question is how widespread is it within NASA that scientists are convinced that human activity is responsible for climate change? And this is something that is important to say very, very clearly. I have known and worked with hundreds of earth scientists at many different locations in NASA, all of them, all of them believe that human activity is responsible for the current climate change that we see going so fast it's almost unprecedented. I want you to think about that.

One thing that I take really seriously and I'm very proud of is that NASA is not a political organization. We are scientists that work for the American people. We're funded by taxpayer's money. And what we do is we make measurements. We have many, many different satellites that are orbiting the earth right now they're looking at things like ice on the oceans and at the poles, they're looking for things like vegetation growth and the change of that, ocean level, is the ocean level rising? Yeah it turns out that it is. So we have many scientists all over the planet studying all of the different ramifications of climate change. We understand the causes. There actually is no scientific controversy about that. Humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this is warming our planet.

Now what scientists are researching currently, and they don't all agree about, is what are the most important components of driving climate change. Is it carbon dioxide? Could it be something else like methane? When methane gets released that's an even more powerful greenhouse gas. We don't agree on how quickly things like the ocean level will rise. People have different estimates for how quickly that will happen. So there still is scientific controversy about what the most important aspects of climate change are and how quickly it will go in the future, but there is no scientific disagreement within NASA that humans are causing climate change.

Now I started this off by saying that one of the things I'm very proud of is that NASA is not political. And what that means for me is that I cannot advocate for any specific solution to climate change. That's not my job. That's up to policymakers. People might suggest things like having more solar energy or cutting carbon emissions or things like that, but at NASA we really understand that's not us, that's up to the American people, our leaders and leaders around the world. What we do is provide the facts to everybody on the planet. All of our data is actually free to any government, any person, any scientist all over the world that wants to use it. So we all know what's causing climate change, we can't tell you what to do about it but we can say it's time to do something about it.

I particularly like the ending where Dr. Thaller states that her job is not to convince people of the human component (or any other for that matter) which contributes to climate change.  What is her job is to present the scientific data and let the chips fall where they may -- on the policy (and human) side.  Data speaks for itself.  The data shows an upward trend to the overall effects of global warming over the period.  That is what the data shows.



Regardless of where you lie on the spectrum, science should not be taken for granted.  Each of us should aspire to learn at the very least how science plays into our daily lives.  Further, we should be concerned when scientific data points in one direction while policy points in the other.  That is when the data should be presented again -- or we should revisit the data to remind ourselves of the future.  At the end of the day, each of us will show up to the poll or make our minds up regarding 'cause' and 'solutions' to grand issues facing life on Earth.  The best we can do is gather as much data on which to base our future decisions on.  Happy New Year!



Related Blog Posts:


Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?


What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!


Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks Public To Get Involved In The Public Process At Any Level


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?

A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?

Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?

Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?

Source: Discover Magazine

Would you say that breathing healthy air is important?  Further would you be happy to learn that the Environmental Protection Agency is considering 'data' which would result in 'relaxed' standards for the current "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards"?  Which translates to emitters being able to pollute the environment in which you breath your air with mercury and other toxic chemicals.  Do I have your attention now?  Luckily, the attention of Senator Tom Carper was not only received, but he followed up and took action with an inquiry.  This action was important since recently (as in last Friday), the EPA released the initial report which will be open to public comment.  First, enjoy the background and concern of altering dangerous levels of pollution in the air.



Below is the inquiry (in letter form) in text from the original letter which can be found here.  The letter is worth reading for several reasons.  The least of which is the historical precedence provided by Senator Carper on the evolution toward enacting the standard called "Mercury and Air Toxics Standard" (or MATS):

Dear Administrator Rao:

I write with great concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed reconsideration of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Supplemental Finding (81 FR 24420, April 25, 2016).  Your office received this reconsideration proposal for review on October 4, 2018.  According to press reports, EPA intends to propose to reverse its decision that it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate mercury and toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants.  These reports indicate that, in arriving at that conclusion, the EPA is attempting to ignore or dismiss many of the MATS rule's public health benefits.  If this is the case, this proposal should be rejected.  It would contravene Congressional intent and endanger the health of all Americans.

  

Mercury and other air toxics (such as lead, arsenic, benzene, and acid gases) harm the public while airborne, and when they settle on the soil and in the waterways we depend on for the water we drink and fish we eat.  These toxic substances, which are emitted by power plants, then build up in  our bodies, causing cancer, respiratory illness, mental impairment, and death.  Mercury pollution is especially dangerous for unborn children, who can suffer long-lasting neurological damage if exposed during development.  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, there is no safe level of mercury exposure for children--none.

After a long delay, in 2012 EPA issued the MATS rule to reduce emissions from power plants, our nation's largest sources of mercury and air toxics.  The MATS rule to reduce emissions from power plants, our nation's largest sources of mercury and air toxics.  The MATS rule was expected to reduce utility mercury emissions by 90% and other ait toxic emissions by 50%.  In the agency's 2011 cost-benefit analysis for the MATS rule, EPA estimated that the quantifiable benefits to public health (including 11,000 fewer deaths each year) of the MATS rule far outweighed the estimated costs of compliance for the utility industry.

The substance of the MATS rule survived court challenges, and remains on the books today.  However, in the 2015 Michigan vs. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that EPA should have considered costs when deciding whether it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate hazardous air emissions from power plants.  Instead of vacating the MATS rule, the Court allowed the rule to stay in place while EPA addressed the Court's concerns.  In Justice Scalia's majority opinion, he wrote: "We need not and do not hold that the law unambiguously required the Agency, when making this preliminary estimate, to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value.  It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost."

In April 2016, in response to Michigan vs. EPA, EPA issued the MATS "Supplemental Finding."  That finding reconfirms that it is "appropriate and necessary) to regulate hazardous emissions from power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.  EPA reiterated its conclusion after considering "the full range of factors relevant to the appropriate and necessary finding."  In coming to this conclusion, EPA reviewed the industry's compliance costs (e.g., revenue, consumer costs, capital expenditures, operation costs, etc.) based on data provided for the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).  EPA also reviewed all the health and environmental benefits, including those that "are impossible, to quantify or monetize, but are no less real than any other advantage of regulation."

Despite the MATS rule's overwhelming public health benefits, former-administrator Scott Pruitt announced in 2017 that EPA would reconsider the April 2016 MATS Supplemental Finding.  OMB's Regulatory Review Dashboard shows that your office is currently reviewing EPA's proposal to recosider those determinations.  Based on public comments made by EPA Assistant Administrator Wehrum--both when he was a private citizen representing clients that opposed the MATS rule and supported a reconsideration of the MATS Supplemental Finding, and now in his official capacity at EPA--I believe the agency has decided to make a legal finding that it is no longer appropriate and necessary to regulate power plant air toxic emissions.  Further, Mr. Wehrum's comments suggest that EPA is making such a finding based on a limited view of the benefits from the MATS rule. It is my understanding that EPA has determined that it will only consider quantifiable costs and benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants, not all the actual benefits.  If ture, this blatant attempt to undermine the MATS rule would contradict longstanding EPA practice, OMB requirements, Congressional intent, and common sense.

EPA should not turn a blind eye to the societal benefits of the MATS rule that cannot easily be reduced to dollars and cents.  Economic tools for projecting and estimating costs and benefits are always evolving and they work better in some situations than others.  For example, EPA has good health, exposure, and mortality data that can translate to monetized health benefits for criteria air pollutants like ozone and particulate matter.  Yet, EPA has struggled for over four decades to precisely monetize the health benefits of controlling air toxics such as mercury.  EPA explains that difficulties in monetizing the health benefits of controlling mercury arise because: "the adverse health effects of toxics are often irreversible, not mitigated or eliminated by reduction in ongoing exposure, and involve particularly painful and/or protracted disease.  Therefore these effects are not readily studied and quantified in human clinical studies, in contrast to, for example, ambient ozone."

Congress, EPA, and OMB have long recognized that if EPA cannot quantify the benefits that does not mean those benefits do not exist.  When Congress wrote and passed the 1990 Clean Air Amendments--including Section 112(n)--there were few, if any, quantifiable data available on cancer risks of air toxics and no quantifiable data whatsoever available for non-cancer risks, like birth and neurological defects.  Despite the lack of quantifiable benefits, Congress still found it necessary to require EPA to pursue robust regulations to address major sources of air toxics emissions.  At the same time, Congress indicated that it was well aware of the limitations of relying exclusively on cost-benefit analyses when assessing air toxics, stating: "[T]he public health consequences of substances which express their toxic potential only after long periods of chronic exposure will not be given sufficient weight in the regulatory process when they must be balanced against present day costs of pollution control and its other economic consequences."  Based on this legislative history, it is clear Congress did not intend for EPA to ignore public health benefits that could not be quantified into dollars when determining if it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate power plant air toxic emissions.  Congress also did not intend for EPA to ignore co-benefits that can be monetized.

The scientific information critical to determining the monetized value of reducing air toxic pollution is still limited.  This has resulted in some of the most important benefits (including reduced incidents of birth defects and cancer) not being able to be quantified in EPA's cost-benefit analyses for air toxic rules.  In 2003, then EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Jeff Holmstead testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the difficulty of quantifying the benefits of reducing air toxic emissions from power plants, saying: These estimates [for clear skies] do not include the many additional benefits that cannot currently be monetized but are likely to be significant, such as human health benefits from reduced risk of mercury emissions, and ecological benefits from improvements in the health of our forests, lakes, and coastal waters."

EPA has tried to bridge the air toxic data gaps through various stakeholder workshops over the years.  The latest workshop in 2009 concluded that monetizing all air toxic benefits is still not possible, making a cost-benefit analysis "difficult" to do for any action involving hazardous air pollutants: "[F]of many chemical son the [Clean Air Act hazardous pollutant] list, the information on potential health effects is so limited that quantitative benefits analysis is not feasible...This lack of information is in contrast to the criteria air pollutants for which there is extensive human exposure or epidemiological data on the health effects at ambient-exposure levels...characterizing the health effects of air toxics at ambient levels can be subject to a very high level of uncertainty; thus, using these health effects in economic benefits assessment is difficult."

Fortunately, OMB has long recognized the constraints of using cost-benefit analysis when evaluating a rule, especially when it is difficult to quantify benefits.  That is why OMB's 2003 Circular A-4 requires EPA and other agencies to conduct a complete regulatory analysis that "includes a discussion of non-quantified as well as quantified benefits and costs.  When there are important nonmonetary values at stake, you should also identify them in your analysis so policymakers can compare them with the monetary benefits and costs."  In addition, OMB clarifies in Circular A-4 that all ancillary benefits should be counted in any rule analysis, directing agencies to "look beyond the direct benefits and direct costs of your rulemaking and consider any important ancillary benefits and countervailing risks.  An ancillary benefit is a favorable impact of the rule that is typically unrelated or secondary to the statutory purpose of the rulemaking."   OMB also states that when agency personnel "can estimate the monetary value of some but not all of the ancillary benefits of a regulation, but cannot assign a monetary value to the primary measure of effectiveness, you should subtract the monetary estimate of the ancillary benefits from the gross cost estimate to yield an estimated net cost."

For decades, and in multiple Administrations, EPA has followed OMB's direction by providing a robust record of all the quantifiable and qualitative data for ai toxic rules.  The Congressional Research Service has found that, since January 1, 200, EPA has issued at least thirty-two Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) for rules that involve regulating air toxics under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, including the MATS rule.  None of thes thirty -two RIAs fully quantified the direct benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants, yet the rues discuss benefits that cannot be quantified as important justifications for reducing the toxic emissions--particularly those regarding critical health benefits.  For the MATS rule specifically, EPA concluded "there are some costs and important benefits that EPA could not monetize, such as other mercury reduction benefits and those for the [hazardous air pollutants] other than mercury being reduced by this final rule.  Upon considering these limitations and uncertainties, it remains clear that the benefits of the MATS are substantial and far outweigh the costs." 

In these thirty-two RIAs, EPA also provided monetized ancillary benefits, sometimes referred to as "co-benefits."  The co-benefits included the dollar value of lives saved and other health benefits from the reduction of sulfur dioxide and ozone pollution that occurs along with--and often as a result of--the reduction of ai toxics.  EPA found that the quantified ancillary benefits for MATS are significant, up to $90 billion in the benefits per year.

Based on all the health and scientific data, Congressional intent, and historical justification and precedent, it just does not make sense for EPA to change course regarding the consideration of non-quantifiable benefits in its Supplemental Finding for MATS.  No judicial or legislative directive requires this willful blindness to the public health consequences of EPA's proposal.  This decision is especially peculiar given that MATS is resulting in faster and significantly more cost-effective public health benefits than EPA initially predicted in 2011.  On July 10, 2018, every major electrical utility trade organization representing coal-fired and other utilities joined with labor organizations in a letter to EPA that confirmed our power plants have already "reduced mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent over the past decade."  These reductions are in large part due to the investments that were made to comply with MATS--investments that turned out to be about one-quarter the costs EPA conservatively predicted.  The utilities and labor organizations explained that industry compliance with the MATS rule was easier than first estimated, stating that today "all covered plants have implemented the regulation [MATS] and that pollution controls--were needed--are installed and operating."  The letter went on to cite the important of regulatory certainty given all the investments made to meet the MATS rule and asked EPA to "leave the underlying MATS rule in place and effective."

My hope is that OMB will ensure that EPA follows Congressional intent under the Clean Air Act when it comes to determining if it is "appropriate and necessary" to regulate air toxic emissions from power plants.  If EPA looks at all the actual benefits and updated costs of this rule instead of persisting in its tortured effort to re-define its own legal authority and responsibility, there is no reasonable conclusion other than that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate these dangerous power plant emissions under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.  I echo the call of health and environmental groups, states and the business community: Keep the entirety of the MATS rule in place. 

I thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.  If you or your stff have questions about this letter, your staff is encouraged to contact Laura Gillam of my Environmental and Public Works Committee staff at laura_gillan@epw.senate.gov. 

With best personal regards, I am, 

Sincerely yours,

Tom Carper,

Ranking Member

Senator Tom Carper lays out a convincing argument based on history for the continuation of reducing Mercury and other toxic air pollutants rather than relaxing regulations.  Of course, the Trump Administration is trying desperately to 'roll back' regulations to save coal power plant operators money at the expense of your health along with others (including mine).  Which is terrible.



Just last Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report (temporarily, yet to be finalized until after public comment) which runs counter to the suggestions above by Senator Tom Carper.  Which is completely disappointing to say the least.  In an article from the Associated Press titled "Trump EPA orders rollback of Obama mercury regulations" the "next steps" in the process of finalization are the following:

The proposal Friday from the Environmental Protection Agency challenges the basis for the Obama regulation. It calculates that the crackdown on mercury and other toxins from coal plants produced only a few million dollars a year in measurable health benefits and was not “appropriate and necessary” — a legal benchmark under the country’s landmark Clean Air Act.

The proposal, which now goes up for public comment before any final administration approval, would leave the current mercury regulation in place.

However, the EPA said it will seek comment during a 60-day public-review period on whether “we would be obligated to rescind” the Obama-era rule if the agency adopts Friday’s finding that the regulation was not appropriate and necessary. Any such change would trigger new rounds in what have already been years of court battles over regulating mercury pollution from coal plants.

The report generated by the EPA is a result of the calculations which state that the health benefits to the public does not outweigh the costs to the coal power plant industry.  According to a number of environmental groups these calculations are flawed and can result in polluted air which will have adverse (negative) health affects on the surrounding communities.  This result is disappointing as I have already mentioned.



Conclusion....



Upon release of the report by the EPA, the American Academy of Pediatrics has responded with an official statement which can be read by clicking here.  Regardless of which side you come down on the argument, the world needs 'cleaner air' -- which is inarguable. As long as the pollution does not end up in the lungs of the coal fired power plants or other law makers, then the right to pollute is fine.  When pollution affects everyone equally (negatively), then action will be taken to improve the quality of air around us.  Fortunately, leaders like Senator Tom Carper are fighting for our 'right' to have clean, breathable air for years to come.  Thank you Senator Carper.  Keep fighting the fight.



As soon as the comment period opens, I will post a link for the public to comment.  Until then, have a Happy New Year Celebration!



Related Blog Posts:



What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!


Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks Public To Get Involved In The Public Process At Any Level


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?

A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?

Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?

Thoughts: Pause before reacting to news regarding 'Proposed Changes' to EPA and other Federal Agencies

Source: EPA (Twitter)

One model of the popular news is based on 'fear' -- propagating/inciting fear -- to get the most 'eyeballs' on a given story.  The thought is to produce news which is extremely controversial in nature and install fear into the story, while receiving the most 'eyeballs' from a given audience.  Don't forget to run ads on the sides of the articles to generate revenue.  Each of us react differently to news.  Take for instance the headline shown below of a recent news article from USA Today shown below:

Source: USA Today

Regardless of the degree of reaction (negative/positive), each of us would be well served to take a pause and consider the degree of threat each story poses to our daily life/safety or to our environment.   In the blog post below, I offer a video in which a former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency offers an opinion on the degree of truth behind news bites regarding 'Proposed' changes by either a federal agency (EPA, FDA, USDA, CDC, etc.) or a presidential administration (such as President Trump's administration currently).

Repeal or Not Repeal?

The news is good at producing eye-catching headlines like the one displayed above.  Further, at first sight the headline implies that the 'proposal' to 'repeal' or 'make changes' is absolute and without question.  In previous blog posts on this site, this is not the case at the outset.  More complications come into play when changing or repealing a law which has been enacted.  I came to the understanding of this reality last year while listening to a series of online webinars from the American Association of the Advancement of Science(AAAS).  The Facebook page for the AAAS has a series of webinars which can be viewed on demand.



Dr. Rush Holt, the current CEO of AAAS engaged in a discussion in which he described the reality of repealing or changing a current law enacted by a federal agency or congress -- which was extremely informative.  But why should we be listening to Dr. Rush Holt -- the CEO of AAAS?  The reason is that prior to a career spent in research at Princeton University, Dr. Rush Holt (who is a physicist) served as a U.S Representative for New Jersey's 12th congressional District from 1999 to 2015.  During his tenure in congress, Dr. Holt learned a tremendous amount regarding the processes which turn the wheels moving the country forward on a day to day basis.  Therefore, when Dr. Holt says that laws are in place which can only be replaced by laws which are "better" for the environment -- then I tend to believe him.



Although, what if people (readers) choose not to believe him.  Fair enough.  You may choose to believe the next source I have to provide.  Below is a video of a recent interview between veteran reporter Stephanie Ruhle and former EPA Administrator Christine

Wow.



In the video above, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out the overall complications with the previous EPA Administrator - Scott Pruitt.  Namely, that on a day to day basis, Administrator Pruitt would announce publicly that he was going to 'repeal back an Obama administration regulation'.  Although, as pointed out by former congressman Rush Holt above, that statement is usually followed by legal action -- especially, if the new guidelines put the nation at greater risk of environmental damage.



Remember, to repeal or replace a regulation, the new proposed regulation cannot due more damage to the environment than the previous (or replaced) regulation did.



Additionally, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out that the overall approach to changing (repealing or modifying) an existing regulation has to be done by the following approach: "This is why we think that the existing regulation is bad for the environment and here is the study to back up this assertion" -- along that avenue of reasoning.  Otherwise, the regulation will not be changed at all.

Example-Court Rules against Electric Companies?

Yes, the headline is written correctly.  For all of the news of 'roll-backs' or 'repeals' happening in the Trump Administration, the reality is the opposite.  An example is a lawsuit just ruled against by a panel of judges in Massachusetts.  Here is the news brief from 'Politico Energy' sent yesterday morning via e-mail to subscribers:

COURT SAYS MASSACHUSETTS CARBON CAP APPLIES TO UTILITIES: Massachusetts' top court on Tuesday ruled that electric utilities are indeed subject to the state's major climate change law, including a shrinking cap on carbon emissions imposed last year following an order from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. The New England Power Generators Association and GenOn argued that the cap cannot apply to the electric sector because it is already regulated under another part of the state law. But the seven-member Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the two parts of the law "complement each other," adding: "Given that the electric sector is one of the largest in-state greenhouse gas emission sources, it would make little to no sense for the Legislature to have excluded it from the critical emission reduction requirements."

The case did not meet the criteria for a reversal or repeal on the ban.  Why would it?  As former EPA Administrator points out correctly, a large percentage of large (huge) corporations are actually falling in line with new environmental regulations (even those set in place by the Obama Administration).   Only the 'outliers' who are in jeopardy from not keeping up with the changing (sustainable) measures are crying out and lobbying the Trump Administration.  Which is attempting to 'roll back' or 'repeal' to protect these dying companies.



In fact, a critical statement made in the video above is that the 'route' or 'method' taken by the Trump Administration is not correct and often fails in courts (i.e. a legal battle) - which is not surprising. I have been saying all along over the past two years that the greatest threat to the Trump Administration is the lack toward attention to detail.  Which specific departments like the State Department and other federal agencies can greatly assist in creating legislation which will actually challenge existing regulations.  Although, the change has to be grounded in 'sound science'.



Speaking of regulations and emissions, in the same e-mail sent yesterday by Politico Energy, a short poll was taken on emission standards and pollution linked to higher adverse health incidences.  Here is the excerpt as reported by the journalist shown below:

HOW ACE IS PLAYING OUT: EPA's own estimates on its proposed Affordable Clean Energy plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is turning off voters, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found. When asked whether EPA "estimates that the proposal could, in some scenarios, increase annual premature deaths from certain particulate emissions by up to 1,400 by 2030" would make voters more or less likely to support the plan, 30 percent of respondents said it would make them "much more likely to oppose" the plan. Fifteen percent said it would make them "somewhat more likely" to oppose the ACE plan, while 9 percent and 13 percent said it would make them "much more likely to support" or "somewhat more likely to support" the plan, respectively.

Asked a similar question about agency estimates that the proposal could reduce 2030 carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 1.5 percent from projected levels without the existing Clean Power Plan, 15 percent of voters said that knowledge would make them either "somewhat more" or "much more" likely to oppose the plan, while 45 percent said the opposite. The poll was conducted Aug. 28-31, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. It surveyed 1,964 registered voters.

Not surprising to say the least.

Conclusion...

The overall approach by the Trump Administration has met considerable opposition in courts.  Which is not surprising given the lack of evidence to support such repeals.  If the science was questionable, then a reasonable argument could be made.  But as I mentioned above and in previous blog posts which can be found here, the efforts have been largely unsuccessful -- especially since large corporations are already moving toward investing in sustainable energy technology.  Shell announced earlier this year such efforts.  Still, the Trump Administration chooses to argue with congress over science which is settled.



The world is composed of many parts moving at varying speeds.  Different nations move at different speeds with regard toward implementing more sustainable policies at various levels within their respective government.  The United States is one nation moving forward -- not necessarily leading the sustainability future.  Although, over the past few years, investments into a more sustainable world have been made and are continuing to be realized.  We should be investing in a green future.  With that being said, the next time that news is aired which is counter toward forward progress, take pause and think about the probability of the adverse impact actually becoming a reality.  There are certain steps in place in congress to ensure that forward progress is inevitable. That is where we should spend our focus and energy on.



Related Blog Posts:


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations

Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards

Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

Source: PBS

Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are a contentious subject in the debate on climate change.  Whenever calculations or models are created regarding the atmosphere and effects due to pollutants, different results appear depending on the parameters taken into account in the model itself.  Recently, a report discussed in an article from the journal 'Nature' titled "Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates" states the issue as follows:

Methane leaks from the US oil and gas industry are 60% greater than official estimates, according to an analysis of previously reported data and new airborne measurements.

Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, scientists say that the unaccounted-for emissions could have significant impacts on the climate and the country’s economy. The lost gas alone is worth an estimated US$2 billion a year, scientists say.

The analysis1, published on 21 June in Science, is one of the most comprehensive looks yet at methane output from US oil and gas production, and reinforces previous studies that suggested emissions outpaced government estimates. That research prompted the US government to develop regulations that would restrict methane emissions from oil and gas production — rules that US President Donald Trump is now attempting to roll back.

The latest study shows that the US oil and gas supply chain emits about 13 million metric tons of methane, the main component of natural gas, every year. That's much higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) estimate of about 8 million metric tons.

This discrepancy probably stems from the fact that the EPA’s emissions surveys miss potential sources of methane leaks, such as faulty equipment at oil and gas facilities, says study leader Ramón Alvarez, an atmospheric chemist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit group in Austin, Texas.

The author of the article goes onto state the obvious dangers of methane as a greenhouse gas compared to other offenders such as CO2 - carbon dioxide.  Methane has roughly 80 times more warming power on the planet compared to carbon dioxide.  How did two different studies conclude such a large difference in methane emissions?  According to the article above, the scientist took into account information from oil and gas industry (local municipal data) which was absent in the EPA report.  This naturally leads a person to wonder why the information was left out.  The answer is uncovered below.

How was 60% of a methane estimate left out of a report?

The news journal 'Politico' sent out the following e-mail with news of the report's major difference as shown below:

DEMOCRATS: BRING BACK THE ICR: Democrats are rallying around a return of an EPA information collection request in the aftermath of reports last week that oil and gas methane emissions are much greater than previously thought. A group of Democrats sent a letter to Pruitt on Wednesday calling on him to reinstate a formal ICR — which would require companies to report detailed technical information about methane emissions from their operations — after he withdrew the Final Methane ICR in March 2017. "With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters," the Democrats wrote.

As a result of the disparity in results from the Environmental Protection Agency's study, democratic congressional leaders sent EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt the follow letter of inquiry into the matter shown below:

Dear Administrator Pruitt: 

On March 2, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA announced that it was withdrawing Information Collection Request (ICR) 2548.01, which would have required oil and gas companies to provide information on methane emissions from their operations.  On March 8, 2017, two of us sent a letter asking that you reinstate the ICR given the urgent need to collect accurate data on methane emissions in order to set and enforce appropriate and cost-effective standards to reduce such emissions.  In the extremely short response we received from the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation on May 23, 2017, we were informed that the rationale for withdrawing the ICR was to, "allow the Administrator time to assess the need for the requested information." 

Since the date of our original letter, a number of events have occurred that highlight the urgent need to reissue the ICR and collect accurate methane emission data.  First, the U.S. Senate rejected the Congressional Review Act effort to repeal the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) methane waste rule, the only such effort to fail in a vote, which demonstrated strong bipartisan support for reducing methane emissions.  Second, both BLM and the EPA have moved to undo, weaken, or avoid promulgating methane regulations, policies that should be informed with the best available science, not vague notions of industry "burdens" and incomplete knowledge of the public benefit of cutting emissions.  Third, the most recent release of EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks showed that methane emissions from oil and gas production operations increased 34% from 1990 to 2016, and the growth of methane emissions from natural gas production operations outpaced the growth of natural gas productions, 58% to 52%. 

Even more concerning, a new report in the journal Science from 24 authors representing 12 universities, two government labs, and more, reported that methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain were roughly 60 percent higher than EPA inventory estimates, and that emissions from production operations were more than double the EPA estimates.  According to a story in The New York Times about the study, the 13 million metric tons of methane lost by the oil and gas industry each year is worth approximately $2 billion and would be enough to fuel roughly 10 million homes. 

Methane emissions exacerbate the worst impacts of climate change, result in significant air pollution through the concurrent release of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds, waste a valuable resource, and, when occurring on public lands, deprive American taxpayers and states of a valuable source of royalty payments.  With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters.  We believe that EPA needs to reissue the ICR as soon as possible, or provide a comprehensive explanation why it will not.  Therefore, we ask that by July 31, 2018, you provide us with the results of your assessment of the need to require methane emission data, as mentioned in the May 23, 2017, response, including a full explanation of how those results were arrived at.  If that assessment is not done, please confirm when you expect to complete it.//Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter. 

Had EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt requested the information on potential leaks and measurements around the facilities of the oil and gas industry, there would be no issue at hand -- presumably.  Now, in the 'reactive state' or 'reactive mindset' Americans find themselves in, again, scientific data shows large differences in greenhouse gases which negatively impact our environment.  The news regarding the large difference is extremely disappointing to say the least.

Conclusion...

I have stated the obvious point of disappointment from day 1 of the Trump administration.  Why does President Trump believe that there is no reason to have a 'Science Adviser' in the White House?  According to answers he gave in a campaign questionnaire on science issues, he suggested that science would be able to weigh in on each matter of relevance toward making policy.  Here is a campaign questionnaire given to President Trump on science issues in 2015.



Furthermore, instead of 'draining the swamp,' President Trump has appeared to over fill the swamp further with even more corrupt minded politicians and administrators.  See recent post with video here.  The time has come to admit that the current administration does not have our best interest (the public's best interest) or safety in mind when making policy.  Sadly enough, suppressing science (which I will touch on in an upcoming post) along with leaving science out of policy making seems to be high on the priority list of policy making.  Which runs counter intuitive to consumer/public safety.



The EPA is a watchdog, not a barrier to protect corrupt business practices to fill the pockets of wealthy business stakeholders.  We deserve to have en EPA which looks out for public safety by regulating the oil and gas industry to limit the pollutants which arrive in our neighborhoods and in the skies above us.



Related Blog Posts:



French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations

Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards

Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!