Three fossil fuel industry groups dropped their attempt to intervene in a court case over climate change this week after failing to reach an agreement on a unified legal position on climate science, court filings show.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), prominent trade groups in the oil and gas industry, along with the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), intervened in a federal case in which a group of teenagers sued the U.S. government for violating their constitutional rights by causing climate change.
The three groups were arguing that a judgment requiring the government to tighten environmental regulations would harm their business interests. But discord arose among them after a judge ordered them to submit a joint filing stating their views on climate science.
A lawyer representing the three groups said in a court hearing on May 18 that they were unable to agree on the causes and effects of human activity and greenhouse gas emissions on the climate, transcripts of the proceedings show.
Read more at U.S. Fossil Fuel Groups Pull Out of Climate Change Court Case
The Trump administration’s deepest impact on domestic climate policy might have little to do with its efforts to dismantle the Clean Power Plan or its decision on the Paris accord.
Instead, the coming battle over the future of the Energy Department could prove far more significant for the United States’ long-term efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Among energy experts, there is broad agreement that the world still needs major technological advances to halt global warming, like better batteries to integrate larger shares of solar and wind power into the grid, or carbon capture to curb pollution from cement plants.
Historically, the Energy Department has nurtured these kinds of innovations, conducting basic research in its network of 17 national laboratories and aiding private firms struggling to bring risky technologies to market. But those efforts would be drastically scaled back under President Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget proposal, released on Tuesday, which proposes to cut the agency’s energy programs by $3.1 billion, or 18 percent below last year’s levels.
The agency’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which has helped nudge down the cost of solar power, faces a 69 percent cut. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, a program that funds research into long-shot energy technologies, like algae biofuels or advanced batteries, would face elimination. And, despite Mr. Trump’s stated desire to promote “clean coal,” the Office of Fossil Energy, which invests in techniques to scrub carbon dioxide from coal plants and bury it underground, faces an 85 percent cut to its carbon-capture efforts.
Even if members of Congress, who have indicated they will resist many of these changes, shield the agency from cuts, observers worry about the broader effects of an administration skeptical of federal energy research. Political appointees can still thwart approval of new programs internally — and already appear to be doing so. Uncertainty over funding could disrupt plans for research at the national labs. Many career staff members are now contemplating leaving, raising fears of a talent drain.
Read more at Looking for Trump’s Climate Policy? Try the Energy Department
'I think we’re going to see a huge backlash,' said former Bush EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman.
Decimating. Outrageous. Inexplicable. Mind-boggling.
Those were just a few of the terms that former federal agency leaders used to describe President Donald Trump's 2018 budget proposal and the potential cuts to climate change programs.
"When you look across the federal agencies, it knits up to a narrative," said former Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan, who served under President Barack Obama.
In a call with reporters Thursday, former leaders of agencies with climate change programs in their purview made their cases against Trump's budget proposal. Released Tuesday, the budget calls for cuts across the agencies, from more than 30 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency—the hardest hit of all—to 12 percent at the Department of Interior.
The story, the agency leaders said, was clear: The Trump administration, driven by ideology, is attempting to take a whack at climate-related programs, even those central to driving jobs and innovation.
"You cannot have a thriving economy if you don't have a healthy environment," said Christine Todd Whitman, who led the EPA under George W. Bush. "I'm terribly worried about what I see in this budget. The cuts to science ... I think we're going to see a huge backlash, and I think Congress is going to step up and put this money back in."
Read more at Trump Budget Cuts 'Totally Inexplicable,' Former Agency Heads Say
Capturing carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants and storing them permanently underground may be among the most important ways countries can prevent climate change from spiraling out of control.
But, as with many other federal climate-related programs, President Trump’s proposed 2018 budget nearly snuffs out funding for carbon capture and storage, or CCS, research and development, possibly dramatically slowing the advancements in that technology.
The budget calls for the U.S. Department of Energy’s CCS programs to receive a 75 percent funding cut. The budget for the National Energy Technology Laboratory’s research program, which administers the CCS research along with the DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy, is slated to be zeroed out altogether. The DOE’s fossil energy research and development budget is being cut by more than half.
In raw numbers, the Trump administration is proposing to cut the Office of Fossil Energy’s carbon capture program to $16 million in 2018 from $66 million in 2016. The White House wants to cut the carbon storage program to $15 million from $67 million, and cut the NETL’s $53 million research budget down to zero. All told, DOE’s fossil energy program would see its budget cut to $280 million from $618 million.
Read more at Budget Guts U.S. Carbon Capture, Storage Research
As G7 leaders meet in Italy, can they reaffirm their commitment to action on climate change without driving the US out of the Paris accord?
The leaders of the G7 countries face a dilemma at a summit beginning on Friday in Sicily: how hard they can push Donald Trump without pushing him right out of the Paris climate deal?
Trump has threatened to withdraw from the agreement, but is still making up his mind. Two weeks ago, the White House said he was deferring his decision until after meeting with G7 leaders.
In recent years, the G7 has produced strong proclamations on climate change and decarbonisation, including a 2015 pledge to end all fossil fuel use by the end of the century.
But with the threat of a US withdrawal from the Paris agreement hanging over discussions in Taormina, leaders of the other major advanced economies may hesitate to insist on the strong affirmations of climate action the body has issued in the past.
“It’s quite clear that governments are not going to go to war with Trump,” said Tom Burke, chairman of E3G. “You really wouldn’t want to run the risk of forcing him out of Paris… You wouldn’t want to put him in a situation where he could go back [to the US] saying you’re all ganging up on me, I’m leaving.”
Read more at G7 Leaders Walk Fine Line Between Trump and Paris Deal
The transformation of India’s electricity market continues to deliver, as shown this month by the cancellation of 13.7 gigawatts of proposed coal-fired power plants, an admission that 8.6 gigawatts of operating coal is already non-viable, and the parallel move of ever-decreasing solar costs helped along by the country’s record low solar tariffs.
Keeping an eye on the goings-on in India has been an interesting experience over the last few years, given that the country has not only set itself increasingly lofty expectations and targets, but seems for all intents and purposes as if it is actively going to reach its aims. The country has definitely appeared to be stuck at a crossroads — not knowing whether to commit wholly to renewable energy, or to keep a foot in the fossil fuel camp as well. Late last year India had plans to build more than 300 gigawatts (GW) of new coal capacity by 2030 — a move which was found to be almost entirely unnecessary and wasteful, considering that 94% of the planned new coal capacity would probably lay idle in and past 2022. Conversely, the country has been working hard to decrease its coal imports, and in January this year coal imports declined by 21.7%.
Read more at India Cancels Nearly 14 Gigawatts of Proposed Coal Plants
